American Atheists Inc.

is a nonprofit,nonpolitical, educational organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of state
and church, accepting the explanation
of Thomas Jefferson that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States was meant to create a
"wallof separation" between state and
church.
American Atheists is organized
to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas,
tenets, rituals, and practices;
to collectand disseminate information, data, and literature on all
religions and promote a more thorough understanding ofthem, their origins, and their histories;
to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete
and absolute separation of state and
church;
to act as a "watch dog"to challenge any attempted breach of the
wall of separatrion between state and
church;
to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular system of education available to all;

outlook verifiable by experience and

the scientific method, independent of
all arbitrary assumptions of authority
and creeds.An Atheist is free of belief
in supernatural entities of all kinds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious
purpose;that it is governed by its own
inherent, immutable, and impersonal
laws; that there is no supernatural
interference in human life; that
humankind - finding their resources
within themselves - can and must create their own destiny. Materialism
restores dignity and intellectual
integrity to humanity. It teaches that
we must prize our life on earth and
strive always to improve it. It holds
that humans are capable of creating a
socialsystem based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own
efforts.This is a commitment which is
in its very essence life-asserting. It
considers the struggle for progress as
a moral obligation that is impossible
without noble ideas that inspire us to
bold, creative works. Materialism
holds that our potential for good and
more fulfilling cultural development
is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

to encourage the development

and public acceptance of a humane
ethical system stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;
to develop and propagate a
socialphilosophyin which humankind
is central and must itself be the
source of strength, progress, and
ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts
and sciences and of all problems
affecting the maintenance, perpetuation, and enrichment of human (and
other) life; and
to engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as
will be useful and beneficial to members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism is the Wrltanschauung
(comprehensive conception of the
world) of persons who are free from
theism - i.e., free from religion. It is
predicated
on
ancient
Greek
Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the
supremacy of reason and aims at
establishing a life-style and ethical

American Atheists Inc., Membership Categories

Wallbuilder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Couple*lFamily - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Individual
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Distinguished Citizen** - - - - - - - -...::...
- - - Student** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Life Membership -----------------------------$1500
*Include partner's name
**Include photocopy of ID

-$150/year
-$60/year,
-$35/year,
-$25/year,
-$25/year,

International
International
International
International

$70/year
$45/year
$35/year
$35/year

All membership categories receive our monthly American Atheist Newsletter, membership cardis), and additional
organizational mailings such as new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.
American Atheists Inc. P.O. Box 5733 Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733
Telephone: (908) 276-7300 FAX:(908) 276-7402 E-mail: info@atheists.org Website: http://www.atheists.org
American Atheist on-line edition: www.americanatheist.org

American
A Journal

of Atheist

Spring 2004

Atheist

News and Thought

EDITOR'S DESK
Frank R. Zindler
The Passion of Mel Gibson
Frank R. Zindler

Atheism in History
37
Compiled by Ellen Johnson
Excerpts from The Hornet.

Life Of Indian Atheist In

Danger!
6
An urgent appeal on behalf of
rationalist leader Sreeni
Pattathanam.
Old Presidents and New
Theocrats
11
Gary Sloan
The religious beliefs of our first
presidents were not at all what the
writers of revisionist Christian history would have you believe - and
are not the issue anyway!
Cover art: Smoky Mountain
Falling Rivulet In Spring.
Photograph by Frank R. Zindler.

Jesus Never Was

14
Don Havis
Seven arguments against the
historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Is 'Sane Godworshipper' an
Oxymoron?
22
William Harwood
Except for those who believe out
of ignorance, believers are insane in
the legal sense of not being able to
distinguish right from wrong.
What Does It Mean To Be
Scientific?
24
Frank R. Zindler
It is much easier to be scientific
than it is to define scientific.

Volume 42, No.2

Parsippany, New Jersey

Nationalism: An Antiquated
Cult
31
Narisetti Innaiah
An Indian Humanist leader
shows that nationalism is as irrational as religion and the two are
as intimately related as conjoined
twins.
Spring 2004

The Draft European

Constitution and Its
Antisecular Article 51
39
Nicola Giovannini
A statement released at the
"Ash Wednesday Supper" opening
the Freiburg (Germany) convention
of world Atheists and freethinkers.
MYTURN!
43
Attacking the Soul Hypothesis
Jay Werbinox Taylor
Tony Pasquarello's "Atheism
and Natheism Part II"
44
Response from George
Ricker
45

Panning the Passion

Edwin Kagin
LETTERS
Passion Problems
Jim Senyszyn

47

Questions to
Athiests [sic]
47
Anonymous, with reply by
Frank Zindler.
Re-Revival of the
"Talking Back" Department

48

Page)

American

Membership Application for

American Atheists Inc.

Atheist
Volume 42 Number

EDITOR / MANAGING EDITOR

Frank R. Zindler
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Ann E. Zindler
CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
Conrad F. Goeringer
BUSINESS MANAGER
Ellen Johnson
The American Atheist is published by
American Atheist Press four times a
year, in December, March, June, and
September.
Printed in the USA, 2004 by American
Atheist Press. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without
written permission is prohibited.
ISSN: 0516-9623.
Mailing address: PO. Box 5733
Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733.
Voice:908-276-7300
FAX: 908-276-7402.
E-mail: editor@atheists.org
For information on electronic access to
American Atheist Press publications, consult: http://www.atheists.org
ftp.atheists.org/pub/
The World-Wide-Web edition of
American Atheist can be accessed at:
http://www.americanatheist.org
American Atheist is indexed in Alternative
Press Index.
Manuscripts submitted must be typed,
double-spaced, and accompanied by a
stamped, self-addressed envelope. Documents may be submitted on computer disk
also, but print copies should be included
with disks. A copy of American Atheist
Writers' Guidelines is available upon
request. The editor assumes no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts.
American Atheist Press publishes a
variety
of Atheist, Agnostic, and
Freethought
material. A catalog is
available for $1.00.

Lastname:

Firstname:

Address:

__________________________________

E.-mail

City/State/Zip:

This is to certify that I am in agreement with the aims, purposes, and the definitions given by American Atheists inside the front cover. I consider myself to be an
A-theist ti.e., non-theist), and I have, therefore, a particular interest in the separation
of state and church and the efforts of American Atheists Inc. on behalf of that principle.
Signature

Date:

Signature

Date:

Both dues and contributions are to a tax-exempt organization and may be

deducted on income tax returns, subject to applicable laws. (This application must be
dated and signed by the applicant to be accepted.) Memberships are non-refundable.
Membership in American Atheists Inc. includes a free subscription to the
American Atheist Newsletter and all the other rights and privileges of membership.
Please indicate your choice of membership dues:

o
o

Individual, $35/year, $70/2years, $45/year International.

CouplelFamily, $60/year, $70/year Internat. (Please give all names below).

o
o
o
o

Distinguished Citizen (Age 65 or over), $25/year, $35/year International

(Photocopy of ID required).
Student, $25/year, $35/year International. (Photocopy of ID required).
Wall Builder, $150/year.
Life Membership, $1,500.

Upon your acceptance into membership, you will receive a handsome

membership card and your initial copy of the American Atheist Newsletter. You
will be notified of all national and regional meetings and activities, and you will
receive the special members' codes with which to benefit from discounts offered
from businesses participating as American Atheists Savings Partners.
The American Atheist, a quarterly journal, is available separately
$20.00 per year, $25.00 International.
Sign me up for a one-year subscription to the American Atheist.

for

o
Subscriptions to the American Atheist
magazine are $20 for four issues ($25
outside the U.S.).Gift subscriptions are
$16 for four issues ($21 outside the
U.S.).The library and institutional discount is 50 percent. Sustaining subscriptions are $50 for 4 issues
Page 2

American Atheists Inc., P.O. Box 5733

Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733
Telephone: (908) 276-7300 FAX: (908) 276-7402
E-mail: editor@atheists.org
Spring

2004

American

Atheist

Editor's Desk
I

cloth from which the risen Christ

even find acknowledgment of "The
ven by his own account, Mel
Jesuits" in general, and one Father
had just emerged. Like a Luna Moth
Gibson is a troubled man.
William Fulco, Ph.D., in particular.
perched beside its collapsed cocoon,
Alcohol, drugs, and the dark
Jesus (or is it an angel?) is seen
Fulco is the Jesuit scholar who
demons of depression all torment
translated the script into Aramaic,
sitting beside the deflated burial
him still even in his life as a Roman
cloths - which obviously have been
Hebrew, and Latin, and then transCatholic Christian. In a TV interfolded in the abnormal
view with Diane Sawyer, he
fashion Roman Catholic
exhibited
behaviors
I
Although the film is about 'sindonologists' require in
haven't seen in thirty years
to account for the
- since I was researching
redemption, the film itself order
positions of the images on
the biochemical basis of
schizophrenia at a mental
has no redeeming features. the Shroud of Turin.
The sympathetic attihospital in Upstate New
tude
of Pilate and the proYork. Hyperactive,
with
Jesus
behavior
of his wife are clearly
lated
everything
back
again
into
the
maniacal movements of the hands
reflections of the apocryphal Acts of
and eyes, casting darting yet pene- . English subtitles for the film.
Pilate and other early Catholic for(Incongruously, he has Jesus speak
trating glances all about, pulling his
geries that developed the legend
to Pilate in Latin instead of Greek
ears and speaking with a fanatical
that Pilate's wife was a Christian
(the administrative language of the
intensity worthy of the Ayatollah
and that Pilate himself became a
Eastern Empire), and he makes
Khomeini, he gave the appearance
follower of the mythical Galilean.
Pilate sometimes speak in Aramaic
of a man who shouldn't be allowed
(Pilate became a saint in the Coptic
when Greek would have been more
to run loose without a shock collar. If
Church, but not in the Roman
believable.
I didn't know he was under the
Church.) This is, indeed, a Catholic
All fourteen stations of the cross
influence of reactionary Latinate
are clearly delineated in the film,
version of the passion story.
Catholics, I would assume he was
Although the film is about
and the stage is set for justification
just another Hollywood personality
redemption, the film itself has no
and validation of several important
under
the
control
of
the
redeeming features. It begins surCatholic holy relics and art treasScientologists.
realistically, with swirling fog and
ures. Among the most notorious forMel Gibson's Passion is Mel
shapes of trees emerging in the
geries of Catholic tradition are
Gibson's passion. That is, although
Garden of Gethsemane. At the exact
Veronica's Veil and the Shroud of
on the surface it is a Roman
moment that I allowed myself to be
Turin. During the progress along
Catholic version of the New
favorably impressed by the artistic
the Via Dolorosa, a woman named
Testament passion myth, undertouches, my eyes descried the emerVeronica gives her scarf to the
neath it seethes with the paranoid
gent shape of Jesus talking in
bloodied Jesus to wipe his face.
religiosity that has sundered an
Aramaic - to a tree. Satan (a
Being careful not to smear his
erstwhile integrated personality
woman) puts in leering appearances
makeup, Jesus gently presses the
into jagged mental fragments that
throughout the film, giving it the
cloth to his face and gives it back to
no longer can be held together.
Veronica. Only a flash of the cloth is
realism of a Punch and Judy perThe Passion of the Christ is, as
seen in the film, but the image of
formance or the Passionspiel
of
already noted, a Catholic version of
Jesus is clearly visible on what
Oberammergau. After the appearthe story of the supposed suffering
ance of a python belonging to a
Catholics later will venerate as
and atoning death of Jesus of
'Veronica's
Veil.'
The
movie
is
less
species not found in the Near East, I
Nazareth. In the credits, one can
blatant in setting things up for the
realized that neither art nor science
was likely to be seen in the hours
manufacture of the Shroud of Turin.
Frank R. Zindler
that loomed ahead.
I could see no image on the burial

Parsippany, New Jersey

Spring 2004

Page 3

by reason
mental
incapacity,
ask "How can a god die?" if the film
Actually, I was partly wrong
Yahweh judged them to be guilty of
about the absence of art. The art (or
has done its job.
a heinous crime and punished them
is it a science?) of makeup was
In either case, viewers who
by making them as mortal as the
brilliantly displayed throughout the
experience intense guilt or gratitude
animals with which Adam declined
can be counted on to give more
film. There must have been at least
money to the churches of their
to mate.
five hundred places where
(3) Not only were our
filming of the action had had
innocent
ancestors
punto be stopped so Jesus could
Only in alien-invasion
ished, all their descendants
get another bruise, welt, tear,
gouge, wound, or special disfilms can one see makeup down to us were to be punished for a sin they never
figurement applied to his
artistry
of
the
quality
committed
- the so-called
skin by the makeup artist.
original
sin.
Only in alien-invasion films
seen in The passion.
(4) Sometime
during
can one see makeup artistry
the transmission
of this
of the quality seen in The
unjustifiable guilt through generapassion,
choice. I think this explains the
tion after generation, the supposed
Without exception, all who have
intense involvement of Fundamenmoral authority of the universe
talist churches in the rolling out of
reviewed this film have lamented
the excessive - indeed gratuitous decided that further generations
Gibson's movie. They know that
violence of Gibson's melodrama. The
could be absolved of their unearned
they will be raking in heaps of
guilt - they could be 'saved' - if a
viewer's eyes and ears are assaulted
shekels from the lobotomized unforhuman sacrifice were to be pertunates who have survived this
for hours by sights and sounds of
ordeal.
hitting, slapping, slugging, whipformed.
ping, and torturing. The violence is
(5) Not just any human sacriThe film begins with the quotaunrelenting and either numbing or
fice would do, however. Execution,
tion from Isaiah 53:5, "He was
say, of a mass murderer would not
wounded for our transgressions, he
nauseating.
be ethically efficacious. No, an
What is the reason for all the
was bruised for our iniquities; the
absolutely perfect and innocent man
violence? Is it just a natural consechastisement of our peace was upon
would have to be put to death.
him; and with his stripes we are
quence of the fact that Gibson is
(6) Since there has never been
known for violent films? It is and it
healed" - with the attached date of
such a thing as a perfect man,
isn't. While Gibson has become
700 Be. Of course, almost no viewers
Yahweh had to impregnate a young
skilled at portraying violence for
will know that Isaiah 53 is part of
Jewish girl who would give birth to
what scholars refer to as "Second
purely entertaining
purposes, I
what appeared to be a male child Isaiah," and was written during the
think his skill has been exercised
a child who even had to be circumBabylonian Captivity (586-538 BCE,
here for different reasons - reasons
cised - but was actually the god
probably during the 540s). 700 BCE?
of which he himself may not be
aware. It seems to me that the
Yahweh himself in disguise.
I don't think so!
(7) The killing of this perfectly
unending assault on the viewer's
Iffew will be aware ofthe dating
innocent
man
somehow
has
problem with this verse - supposedly
sensorium is aimed at shutting
absolved us and saved us all from
down the critical cerebrocortical
a prophecy of Jesus of Nazareth the punishment we should receive
still fewer will have opportunity to
functions of the audience and grabbecause
our remotest ancestors had
bing it by the brainstem. Without
reflect on the morally and ethically
been judged guilty of what we today
obnoxious implications of this corbeing able to reflect on the ethical
would consider a non-crime.
enormity of the Christian scheme of
nerstone
component
of
the
(8) Of course, despite this supsalvation embodied in the passion
Christian salvation scheme. It will
posed 'salvation,' we still have to be
be recalled that Christian salvation
story, functionally
decorticated
baptized and believe a variable list
viewers are made to feel either
depends upon the following morally
intensified pangs of guilt - as
of propositions before we can really
outrageous premises:
though they themselves (along with
be saved.
(1) Adam and Eve committed a
(9) Since the perfectly innothe Jews, of course) are responsible
sin when they ate the forbidden
cent man who "was wounded for our
for the ghastly events portrayed - or
fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
equally irrational upheavals of grattransgressions" in reality was not a
and evil - despite the fact that
itude for the 'salvation' that they
man at all but rather an immortal
before they had the 'benefit' of that
god, it is clear that there was no
fruit they had no comprehension of
somehow have received because
human sacrifice here at all. There
Jesus had the stamina to endure to
what the 'sin of disobedience' was.
(2) Although any civilized perthe death. No one should be able to
was no suffering. There was no 'passion' whatsoever.
son would consider them innocent
Page 4

Spring 2004

American Atheist

(10) Nevertheless, we should

rejoice and be glad that this morally
repugnant
chain ,of events has
occurred, and we should feel guilty
for somehow taking part in all those
things that happened before we
were born.
(11) Logically, the whole salvation story boils down to this. A
whimsical god decided to punish his
innocent and helpless creatures.
Then he pretended to be one of his
own creatures and deceived them
into thinking he was enduring torture and death. As a result, we shall
all go to heaven - but only if we obey
his earthly representatives,
the
priests and preachers.
After all the gallons of ketchup
have been spilled on the torture
block and the causeway to Calvary, a
chastely loin-clothed Jesus is nailed
to a cross of the kind you see in crucifixes, but not upon the simple Tshaped pole-plus-patibulum
actually used by the ancient Romans.
There is darkness at noon, and
earthquakes
shake the Roman

world. But no graves open up and no

'saints' are captured by the camera
as they clamber out of the earth and
Totentanz into town as the infallible
scriptures [Matt. 27:52-53] assure
us was the case.
Not portraying all the skeletons
coming to life is perhaps Gibson's
greatest shortcoming in this flick.
Christians cannot help but feel it is
lacking in verisimilitude as a consequence.
The ending of the film is not
entirely devoid of realistic touches,
however. We all know that when J.C.
was already dead, a soldier pierced
his side with a spear and that blood
and water issued from the wound.
Even a child knows that. In Gibson's
Passion, blood and water spray out
under high pressure for what seems
to be minutes - long enough and
sufficiently voluminous to put out a
tenement fire. Very realistic.
Somehow Mary, the Perpetual
Virgin Mother of God, and a disciple
take Jesus down from the cross.
Neither of them could have had a

claw hammer big enough to pull out

the railroad spikes with which the
body of Jesus earlier had been fixed
to the cross, and it seems this must
be a miracle unrecorded by previous
evangelists. The Passion ends with a
posed recreation of Michaelangelo's
Pieta, with Mary looking studiedly
sorrowful whle holding the limp and
lifeless body of her son.
Gibson's Passionspiel
will be
reviewed for years to come and will
become part of the standard paraphernalia used by Christian missionaries to snag their emotionally
vulnerable prey. Even so, it is not
the magic bullet for "slaying [proselytes] in the spirit" that evangelists
might have hoped for. Not counting
those who have actually died while
watching the film, a substantial
number of people have been seen to
walk out of the film before it is over
- an index I suspect of normally
functioning nervous systems.
Will the film gross a billion dollars over time? Gibson's production
seems gross enough to do it.

Newly Reprinted By American Atheist Press

Thomas Paine

Thomas
lIg~ Paine
Tb~

of
Part three
Examination

Reason
of the Prophecies

Edited ""dAnllCUiti' by h","k R.Zind[t.,

The Age of Reason

Part Three
Examination of the
Prophecies

Edited and Annotated by

Frank R. Zindler
The "filthy little atheist" whose memory Theodore
Roosevelt reviled was no less than the man who first
uttered and printed the name The United States of
America. He was the man who helped found the first
society for the abolition of slavery in America. The object
of Roosevelt's scorn was Citizen Thomas Paine - born
an Englishman at Thetford, on January 29,1737, died an
American on June 8, 1809. Continuing the fight for freeParsippany, New Jersey

dom that was begun in his pamphlet Common Sense,

which brought tinder to sparking flint and ignited the
American Revolution, Paine's The Age of Reason had the
purpose of liberating the human mind from the bonds of
servitude in which priestcraft had held it since the dawn
of civilization. Parts One and Two are well known and
have been reprinted many times. Part Three, however,
was privately printed just two years before Paine's death
and remained essentially unknown until reprinted by
American Atheist Press in 1993.
Paine's last book examines the Old Testament
prophecies claimed by the New Testament authors to be
ancient predictions of Jesus of Nazareth. With great wit
and penetrating logic, Paine showed that not one of the
Old Testament passages cited had anything to do with
the Christian's would-be Messiah. Paine appears to have
been the first writer in English to suggest that Jesus
was not an historical figure.
Published By
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
Cranford, New Jersey
ISBN 0-910309-70-1

Spring 2004

$15.00
Page 5

Life Of Indian Atheist

In Danger!
A

s this magazine was about to

go to press, it was learned
that renowned Indian skeptic Sreeni Pattathanam is in grave
danger. Famous for his debunking of
the miracles of various 'godmen' and
other fakirs given to fakery, it seems
he went a bit too far when he
exposed the frauds of a popular godwoman, Matha ('Mother') Amritanandamayi. When his expose was
published in the Malayalam language, it might have been supposed
that the authorities of the Indian
state of Kerala would have opened
an inquest into the evidence supporting his claims. Instead, the
Chief minister of Kerala, A.K.
Antony, initiated moves to prosecute
Mr. Pattathanam for making "objectionable references" to the spiritual
leader, and for "hurting the religious
sentiments of her devotees." He was
able to do this because of Section
295-A of the criminal code which
criminalizes "insulting or attempting to insult the religion or religious
beliefs of any class of citizens with
an intention of outraging its religious feelings." Contrary to popular
perception, there is no freedom of
speech in India. The case should be
a warning to any Americans who are
yet uncertain of where we too shall
end up if we pass all the laws proposed to ban 'hate speech.'
The situation
is this: Mr.
Pattathanam could be arrested and
even tortured. Custodial deaths are
not uncommon in Kerala, and the
resurgence of Hindu fundamentalism has seen the development of a
virtual war against India's rationalPage 6

ist community. America's Atheists,

Humanists, and other freethinkers
must do everything they can to help
their eminent Indian colleague.
So that our readers can understand the complex situation well
enough to write letters that will be
perceived as credible by Kerala officials, we are reprinting almost in
toto a long appeal we have just
received via e-mail from the Kerala
State Committee of the Peoples
Union For Civil Liberties. We ask
everyone to comply with the appeal
below for letters in support of Mr.
Pattathanam.
His very life may
depend upon them.

*****
Urgent Action
Move Earth and
Heaven to Protect the
Life of
Sreeni Pattathanam
Dear Friend,
Urgent action is needed to protect
the life of Malayalam writer and
eminent rationalist
leader Mr.
Sreeni Pattathanam in the Indian
state of Kerala!
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL
LIBERTIES
KERALA STATE COMMITTEE
GANDHI BHAVAN, KACHERIPADY, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI
682018, KERALA
http://www.pucl.org
Spring 2004

PRESIDENT: Adv: P.A. Pauran

GENERAL SECRETARY: Vilayody
Venugopal
TREASURER: Jacob V. Lazer
A National Defense Committee
(NDC) was formed by the Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL),
Kerala, to further actions against
the Kerala Government's inhuman
order against the Malayalam writer
and eminent rationalist leader Mr.
Sreeni Pattathanam. Following the
NDC, the PUCL State Committee
has passed a resolution to support
the writer Mr. Pattathanam.
It
appeals to every human rights
activist and like-minded people to
help this cause in whatever way
they can. What follows is a short
account of the controversial issue,
which led the author
Sreeni
Pattathanam to become the prey of
religious fanatics.
About the Author
Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam
is a
Malayalam writer who has ten
books and many investigative
reports to his credit. He was born in
Kollam, Kerala State. He began his
career in the Police Department,
which helped him to find the unjustifiable alliances between the State
and Religion. Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam was instrumental several
years ago in exposing the 'miracle' of
the divine Makarajyoti light which
appears on a remote hill during the
annual Ayyappa pilgrimage
in
Kerala. Having resigned from the
Police service, Mr. Pattathanam
American Atheist

became a teacher in a government

school.
The investigative mind of a
police officer and the analytical
mind of a school teacher made Mr.
Pattathanam a charming presenter
of his topic. These qualities were
reflected in his writings as well. He
traveled a lot in the nooks and corners of Kerala.
He had been the Editor of
Ranarekha, a rationalist monthly
published in Malayalam. He was
also the State General Secretary of
the Indian Rationalist Association
(IRA) of which Mr. Sanal Edamaruku is its National General
Secretary. Currently he is the Chief
Editor of Yukthirajyam, a Malayalam rationalist monthly, and the
General Secretary of the Bharatiya
Rationalist Association.
About the Controversial Book
Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam
has
written a book in the Malayalam
language entitled Matha Amritanandamayi:
Divya
Kathakalum
Yatharthyavum
('Matha Amritanandamayi: Sacred Stories and
Realities,'
Mass
Publications,
Kollam, Kerala, revised ed.). This is
the book that has stirred up controversy. It was first published in 1985,
when' this godwoman was not as
famous as she is today. Back then,
there was no demand from the
Matha's organization to prosecute
the author. But later, when the lady
became an incarnation of the Lord
Krishna himself, they were able to
persuade the government to move
against the author.
Mr.
Sreeni
Pattathanam's
efforts to bring facts to light are pioneering. His main contentions are:
the Matha's claims to miracles are
bogus, and there have been many
suspicious deaths in and around her
ashram which need police investigation. The research work contains
elaborate
references
to court
records, newspaper reports, and
quotations from well-known literary
figures, including statements from
the Matha's close relatives, as well
Parsippany, New Jersey

as an interview
with
Amritanandamayi herself.

Matha

About Matha
Amritanandamayi Devi
Matha Amritanandamayi Devi
(Sudhamani, born in 1953 in the
Kollam district, Kerala State, India)
is known to the world as the 'hugging mother.' She was also the subject of a television documentary in
the 'Weird Weekends' series on BBC
TV,presented by Louis Theroux. She
hugs people and passes on to them
'energy.' Reportedly she has hugged
and healed some 20 million people
all over the world as part of her mission. On Fridays she acts as the goddess Kali, and on many occasions
she has claimed to be Lord Krishna
himself.
Like the godman Satya Sai
Baba, she too has many devotees:
BJP leaders like Prime Minister of
India A.B. Vajpayee, Home Minister
of India L.K. Advani, and also
Congress Party Chief Minister (of
Kerala) A.K. Antony are amongst
them.
Home Ministry records of the
Government of India show that the
Matha Amritanandamayi Mission is
the second largest recipient in India
of foreign funds - in 1998-99 alone
Rs. 51.55 crores were received
(about 515 million Indian Rupees or
about 11.5 million US Dollars).
Educational institutions established
by this primary school drop out
enjoy Deemed University status;
Penguin
India
published
her
authorized biography (Amma, a
Living Saint by Judith Cornell)
where her miracles and her boundless love are highlighted, and the
train Amrita Express (Palghat Town
- Thiruvananthapuram)
is named
after her. Her devotees celebrated
Matha Amritanandamayi's
50th
birth anniversary at Kochi. The fiveday-long 2003 ceremony was in fact
a festival in which all the pompousness and luxurious attitude of the
ashram was reflected. It is said that
191 delegates from UN member
countries
participated
in the
Spring 2004

anniversary festival. The President

of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam himself inaugurated this!
The whole of Eastern Religion
and Philosophy especially Vedanta
declares that there is no birth and
death and man is an immortal
being. Matha Amritanandamayi is
claimed to follow the Vedanta philosophy. But instead of showing
reluctance to accept the concepts of
birth and death she has celebrated
her 50th birthday! What is the point
in a particular number? Has the
number 50 got any divine significance? In fact the hidden truth is
that the devotees have made use of
Amma's birthday for popularizing
the ashram and its multifaceted
business ideals. The PUCL State
Committee strongly believes that in
and around the ashram many corporate brains are being worked and
the ashram itself is a multinational
corporate company.
Origin of the complaint
Let us now come to the complaint made by Adv.T.K.Ajan, secretary, Amrita Apartments Residence
Association of the ashram, Kollam,
Kerala, for a permission to prosecute Mr Sreeni Pattathanam, the
author of the book as well as the
publisher and printer, under section
295-A of IPC, 292 of IPC, 196 of Cr
PC with section 34 of IPC. The first
petition
was filed before the
Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government
of
Kerala.
The Government's Position
Instead of investigating the allegations and examining the evidence
produced in the book, the state government - headed by the Matha's
ardent devotee the Chief minister
A.K. Antony - initiated moves to
prosecute Mr. Pattathanam for making 'objectionable references' to the
spiritual leader and for 'hurting the
religious sentiments of her devotees.' With great alacrity, the state
government moved swiftly, and the
Page 7

police inspector of Karunagappally

recorded statements from Sreeni
Pattathanam as well as the publisher and printer. The relevant law
going to be applied would be Section
295-A, which criminalizes "insulting
or attempting to insult the religion
or religious beliefs of any class of citizens with an intention of outraging
its religious feelings."
Rising to the occasion, a group of
writers and social activists headed
by eminent Malayalam author Paul
Zacharia and Human Rights activist
Mr. Mukundan C. Menon issued a
statement condemning the vindictive nature of the government's
moves. "Since certain ruling politicians, both at the federal and state
governments, are known devotees of
the Matha, we have reasons to suspect that there is a sinister and
malicious conspiracy behind the
move to prosecute Mr. Sreeni
Pattathanam." Because of the ensuing international attention, the government relented and halted its
steps to facilitate the prosecution of
the author. However, the Matha's
devotees launched a relentless
Internet-based campaign against
those
who came
to
Sreeni
Pattathanam's defense.
High Court's Intervention
Mr. T.K.Ajan then filed another
petition before the High Court of
Kerala. Thus the government
reopened the issue and the State
Home Secretary summoned Mr.
Sreeni Pattathanam to present himself before him on 18 March 2003 for
a hearing. After this questioning,
the government of Kerala sanctioned Adv. T.K. Ajan to prosecute
Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam, the author
of the book Matha Amritanandamayi:
Diuya
Kathakalum
Yatharthyauum as well as the publisher and printer. (The government
Order is attached herewith).

Page 8

The Question of Human Rights

and the Writer's Freedom
of Expression
It was pointed out by the
Supreme Court of India in L.I.e. of
India u Prof Manubhai D. Shah
(AIR 1993 SC 171: 1992 (3) SCC
637: 1992(4) JT (sc) 181), that freedom of speech and expression is a
natural right which a human being
acquires at birth and, therefore, it is
a basic human right. This human
right has been admired as the
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948). UN Declarations of
Human Rights have to be respected
by all the signatory States, including India.
In the
Preamble
of the
Constitution of India, the people of
India declared their solemn resolve
to secure to all its citizens liberty of
thought
and expression.
This
resolve is reflected in Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression to
all citizens.
The Indian Constitution affirms
the right of freedom of expression,
which includes:
Right to voice one's opinion.
Right to seek information and
ideas.
Right to receive information.
Right to impart information.
An Indian State is under an
obligation to create conditions in
which all the citizens can effectively
and efficiently enjoy the aforesaid
rights. What Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam has done is that he only made
use of the Constitutional rights enumerated above. Mr. Pattathanam
says: "I believe that I worked in
accordance
with
the
Indian
Constitution - they are trying to
deny my constitutional rights."
In Romesh Thappar u State of
Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950
SCR 594:1950 SCJ 418: 1950 Cri LJ
1514), the Supreme Court of India
held that freedom of speech and
expression includes freedom of propSpring 2004

agation of ideas and this freedom

entails the freedom of circulation.
Taking into consideration the
above cases, the PUCL State
Committee has passed a resolution
in which it has criticized the government order against the writer and
reiterated the fact that by issuing
this order the government has violated the above two orders of the
Supreme Court of India.
India's first blasphemy protection took place in 1933 when Dr.
D'Avoine, the President
of the
Rationalist Association of India
(RAI) from 1938 to 1944, published
an article entitled, "Religion and
Morality" in the September 1933
issue of Reason, the official journal
of RAI at that period. The Bombay
Police confiscated all the copies of
Reason and later arrested
Dr.
D'Avoine and charged him under
IPC295A. On 5 March 1934 Sir H.P.
Dastur,
the
Chief Presidency
Magistrate of Bombay, dismissed
the case by saying that "The accused
may be wrong - But the article
merely represents the writer's view."
Religion or Charitable Trust?
In the complaint of Adv. T.K. Ajan,
dated 23/05/2002, it is emphatically
stated that Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam
should be punished because of his
"deliberate and malicious intention
to outrage the religion and religious
feelings of the devotees of Amma"
(Complaints nos. 5&7). He also says
that Matha Amritanandamayi Math
Amritapuri is a place of worship of
the devotees of Amma who is their
religious Guru (Complaint no. 3).
But there is no mention in the complaint about the nature and content
of this 'religion.' There are many
religions
in
the
world
like
Christianity,
Judaism,
Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and
Zoroastrianism.
Barring Hinduism, each religion
has its own founder. However, all
religions have their own particular
rituals, ceremonials, principles, and
sacred books. Hinduism is a group
of religious sects each of which
American Atheist

commonly accepts the Upanishads

and the Bhagavad Gita as scriptures. Since all these are the known
facts, the plaintiff should have stated in his complaint the name,
nature, and content of his religion.
He has not pointed out any 'ism' in
connection with 'Amma's' name. If it
is a religion what is its religious
book or books? What are their
religious principles?
If he says that it is Hinduism
that is 'Amma's' religion he should
not forget the truth that Hinduism
is as old as the Rig Vedic period.
Besides this, each Hindu religious
sect has its own religious ideals,
which may contradict with other
sects of the same religion. All these
show that criticism is not foreign to
Hinduism. The Hindu religious
philosophers like Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva had developed
criticism among them. But they did
not prosecute their opponents nor
did they demand prosecution from
the political authority. Instead, they
allowed a discussion among themselves. But Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam
is being crucified by the demands of
this so-called religion and its followers.
The certificate
issued
by
Collectorate, Kollam, certified that
"the organization/institution namely 'Mata Amritanandamayi Math'
(Register No. IV.9/1988(KLlKPY),
Amritapuri (P.O.) Kollam District),
Kerala - 690525 is a charitable and
non-profit making organization in
India working in the field of
Health/Social
welfare/Education/
Rural development as a non-sectarian basis." In the complaint the
plaintiff himself has given a list of
charitable activities managed by the
Math.
Nowhere in the certificate is it
mentioned that the Math is a religious institution or a religion. It is
not a religion but an "organization
in India working in the field of
Health/Social
welfare/Education/
Rural development."

Parsippany, New Jersey

The Government of India Has

Never Accepted
Matha Amritanandamayi
Math
As a Religion.
The aforesaid reasons point to
the fact that the allegation of the
plaintiff in the complaint that Mr.
Sreeni Pattathanam's book is written with "deliberate and malicious
intention to outrage the religious
feelings of the devotees of Amma" is
obviously inconsistent, illogical, and
hence illegitimate. Since the Math is
not a religion, Sreeni Pattathanam
has not committed any offense that
comes under sections 295-A and 292
of IPC. Rather, by demanding
authority for the prosecution of the
author the plaintiff Adv. T.K. Ajan
has insulted the sincerity and investigative mind of an author, because,
in the complaint (no. 6) it is said
that "Through the selling ofthe book
the said Sreeni Pattathanam gains
money illegally and also gains publicity illegally." But publishing and
selling books is not considered illegal in India or anywhere in the
world. Neither is it illegal to gain
publicity thereby. Hence the contentions and the arguments of the
plaintiff are weak and not legitimate.
The PUCL State Committee
expresses its grief in the growing
intolerance of the fanatics. It affirms
that we can expect tolerance, love,
and compassion only from a civilized
people.

rise of Hindu fundamentalism, the

danger for them was still not over,
and that efforts to prosecute would
be restarted. Mr. Pattathanam
could be arrested and even tortured.
Custodial deaths are not uncommon in Kerala, they reminded the
free thinkers. Mr. Pattathanam
says, "This inhuman and cruel move
against a writer by Hindu Fascists
should be stopped." He told a newspaper, "If the charges contained in
my book are baseless, the devotees
could have published a rejoinder.
They have published malicious
reports against rationalists in their
publications."
IHEU calls upon the Kerala
State government to uphold the
principles
of secularism
and
Humanism incorporated in Article
51 A (h) of the Indian Constitution,
which enjoins every Indian citizen
to develop scientific temper and
Humanism.
IHEU also calls upon its member
organizations,
associates,
human rights activists and defenders of democratic principles to send
letters of protest to the Chief
Minister of Kerala as well as the
Home Secretary of Kerala state.
IHEU is bringing the urgent matter
to the attention also of Amnesty
International,
Human
Rights
Watch, Reporters Sans Frontieres,
The International Committee for
the Protection of Journalists and the
UN Special Rapporteur of Freedom
of Religion or Belief. www.iheu.org

International
Humanist and
Ethical Union's Intervention

Need of the Hour

The International
Humanist
and Ethical Union became aware of
the prosecution proceedings from
the very beginning. Mr. Sreeni
Pattathanam as well as Mr. C.I.
Oommen, the President of Bharatiya Rationalist Association, met
with IHEU leaders in January 2003
and in a video taped interview with
IHEU Executive Director Babu
Gogineni they told about their fears
that, in view of the prevailing campaign against rationalists and the

Mr. Sreeni Pattathanam's case

is not a new one in human history.
He follows in the tradition of the
great minds of yore that showed an
extraordinary courage to criticize
the established religion and the
state. Socrates had to drink the
hemlock. Hypatia, a courageous
woman who criticized the Church,
was murdered by Christians. These
are some examples we have from
the pages of ancient history. In modern times too, writers like Salman

Spring 2004

Page 9

Rushdie and Tasleema Nazarene

are being subjected to the intolerance
of religious
fanaticism.
Recently in Pakistan Dr. Younus
Shaikh had been jailed for blasphemy. But as a result of the worldwide demand for the release of Dr.
Younus, the Pakistani government
had to release him from his death
cell. So if human rights activists,
secularists, free thinkers, and rationalists take this matter seriously
and act urgently to persuade the
government to quit from the execution of the order, that will be a boon
to all those who think freely. Above
all, if we act in this very moment we
could perhaps prevent similar incidents in future.
What we must do now is to
organize a worldwide campaign and
do everything in favor of this writer.
Hence, the Kerala State Committee
of PUCL requests the cooperation of
all like-minded people and organizations in this regard.
http://www.petitiononline.com/sreen
idc/petition.html

I am aware of your own personal

devotion to Matha Amri tan andamayi; however, I am alarmed that
as Chief Minister as well as home
minister in charge of police and
security, instead of examining the
evidence produced in the book and
launching an inquiry into the
ashram's activities, you have chosen
to initiate moves to prosecute Mr.
Sreeni Pattathanam on the grounds
that his book has hurt the religious
sentiments of people, following a
complaint by one Mr. Ajan. The
Matha's organization is registered
as a social organization and not as a
religious organization. How can criticism of a social organization and
the doings of those associated with
it cause hurt to religious sentiments? In any case, religious leaders cannot be immune from the
attentions of the criminal justice
system.
I call on you to uphold the principles of secular democracy, to
uphold the rule oflaw, and to protect

Page 10

A copy of your suggestions and comments may be forwarded to:

sreenidcpucl@yahoo.co.in
jacobkaloor@yahoo.co.uk

What On Earth Is An Atheist!

By Madalyn Murray O'Hair
The year is 1968. The city is Austin, Texas. The building is
the studios of KTBC radio. On the fateful day of June 3,
one woman picks up the mike and makes history.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was already well known for her
legal fight to stop compulsory prayer and Bible reading in
her son's high school. But producing the world's first regular Atheist radio show catapulted her into a whole new
arena. Every week she was on the airwaves, not one

A Sample Letter
Mr. AK.

I am writing to protest against

the recent government order to
sanction the prosecution of an
author and rationalist leader Mr.
Sreeni Pattathanam in your state,
because of his book Matha Amruthandamayi - Divya Kadhakalum
Yatharthiavum (Matha Amritanandamayi:
Sacred
Stories
and
Realities, Mass Publications, revised
edition) exposing the alleged wrong
doings of Matha Amritanandamayi.

Adv. P.A Pauran, President, PUCL,

Kerala.
V. Venugopal, General Secretary,
PUCL, Kerala.
Jacob V. Lazer, Treasurer, PUCL,
Kerala. Tel: 98472
97466

A New Edition Of An Atheist Classic

Mr. AK. Antony

The Chief Minister of Kerala State
Government Secretariat
Thiruvananthapuram 695 001
Kerala, India
Fax:+91-0471-2333489
Email: cmkerala@vsnl.net and
chiefminister@kerala.gov.in

Minister

Yours sincerely,
Expecting your urgent intervention
in this matter.
Sd/-

JUST OUT!

PLEASE SEND LETTERS TO

Dear Chief
Antony:

Mr. Pattathanam's
freedom of
expression and belief and its lawful
exercise.
In these troubled times in India
where intolerance is on the rise, the
international community is watching you and looking to you to uphold
democratic principles.

..w.l'CNH_m~

,.o.IOXSTU~NI~

Atheist among many hiding their ideas, but proudly announcing her convictions. You have
here the complete record of this groundbreaking
radio program's first broadcasts. Join
Madalyn as she expounds upon an avalanche of theological and political topics: government
giveaways of property to churches; the real religious foundations of the United States; the
philosophical and historical foundations of Atheism;Atheist
thinkers and writers of various
epochs; the dozens, not legions, of Christian martyrs put to death in antiquity; errors and
absurdities of the Bible; and more.
Madalyn
Murray
O'Hair
continues to be America's best-known Atheist. In the
radio broadcast transcripts
that comprise this book - her first - we are witness to a
master thinker finding her voice.
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
Cranford,
New Jersey
ISBN 1-57884-918-7

Spring 2004

$18.00

American Atheist

Old Presidents and

Detn Tbecenats
Gary Sloan

n the editorial pages of U.S.

newspapers and at sundry
Web sites, proponents of an
impregnable wall between church
and state intermittently clash with
modern theocrats (aka Christian
fundamentalists) who would delve
beneath the wall and, as Hamlet
might say, "blow it at the moon."
Whether the immediate provocation
be placement of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and statehouses, Bible classes in public
schools, school prayer, school vouchers, public display of the creche, tax
exemptions for churches, federal
funds for faith-based initiatives, or
judicial interdiction against the
phrase "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance, the new theocrats seek
to undermine the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. A
favorite ploy is to attribute Christianish remarks to the first U.S.
presidents. Modified or wrenched
from context, when not altogether
spurious, the remarks are supposed
to demonstrate
that the most
eminent founders of the nation

Gary Sloan,
a retired
English professor in
Ruston,
Louisiana, is
a frequent
contributor to
American
Atheist.
Parsippany, New Jersey

sanctioned state furtherance

of
religion.
Hence, in his farewell address to
the fledgling nation, George Washington, the theocrats often point out,
warned that when the body politic is
devoid of religious sentiment, the
nation must suffer: "Whatever may
be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds, reason
and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can
prevail in exclusion of religious
principle." On a similar count, John
Adams is customarily cited: "Our
Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other." A local letter
writer theocratized Washington in a
most brazen way. "The mission of
America and the church is one and
the same: to further the cause of
Christ," the father of our country
supposedly pontificated.
The early presidents, it seems,
were all devotees of Scripture who
deemed the Bible a desideratum for
both governor and governed. Did not
Washington postulate that "it is
impossible to rightly govern without
God and the Bible"? Did not Adams
eulogize the Book: "I have examined
all religions, as well as my narrow
sphere, my straitened means, and
my busy life, would allow; and the
result is that the Bible is the best
Book in the world"? In the theocratic
eye view of American history, James
Madison,
the
father
of the
Spring 2004

Constitution, was an ideological forbear of Judge Roy Moore. After all, it

is frequently alleged (falsely, it
turns out), Madison remarked: "We
have staked the future of our political institutions upon the capacity
of mankind for self-government,
upon the capacity of each and all of
us to govern ourselves, to sustain
ourselves according to the Ten
Commandments of God."
Even were all these presidential
puffs for religion authentic, they
would scarcely validate a liaison
between church and state. Even
could it be shown that the "religious
principle" heightens civic morality
and nourishes polity, it doesn't
follow that the state should conspire
with the church to inculcate the
principle. The state has no expertise
in soul making; that is the bailiwick
of the church. If the church falters, it
shouldn't expect the state to bail it
out.
Notwithstanding
the above
quotations, the first presidents
weren't exactly gung ho for institutionalized religion, including Christianity, supported or unsupported by
the state. In an 1831 sermon
delivered in Albany, New York, the
Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an
Episcopal minister and historian,
lamented that "the founders of our
nation were nearly all Infidels."
Certainly, the first five or six presidents, all deists, fill the bill.
In their private correspondence,
they inveighed against "superstitious"
Page 11

or "dogmatic" Christianity. In an
1816 letter to F.A. Van der Kamp,
John Adams mused: "How has it
happened that millions of fables,
tales, legends, have been blended
with both Jewish and Christian
revelation that have made them the
most bloody religion that ever
existed?" In a kindred vein, Thomas

known in the United States." The

Treaty of Tripoli, carried unanimously by the Senate and signed
into law by John Adams in 1797,
specifically disavowed any proprietary influence of Christianity on
shaping the guiding principles of
the new government: "As the
Government of the United States of

(he had it from Asa Green [chaplain

to Congress during Washington's
administration}) that when the clergy
addressed General Washington, on
his departure from the government,
it was observed in their consultation
that he had never, on any occasion,
said a word to the public which
showed a belief in the Christian reli-

~~ DUlting almost titteen eentunies bas tbe I~gal establishment

of Cbnistianitv been on tnial. UJbat baoe been its fltuits?

mOIt~

Olt less in all places. pr-ide and indolence in tbe CI~ltgy~ igno-

ranee and senollitv in the laitv, in beth, superstition. bigotlty

and pensecuticn. tt

Jefferson wrote Adams: "I have

recently been examining all the
known superstitions of the world,
and do not find in our particular
superstition
[Christianity]
one
redeeming feature. They are all
alike founded upon fables and
mythologies." Jefferson concocted
his own version of the Gospels,
expurgating the miraculous.j.legendary, and dogmatic elements.
Vetoing a bill granting public lands
to a church, Madison observed:
"During almost fifteen centuries has
the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have
been its fruits? More or less in all
places, pride and indolence in the
Clergy, ignorance and servility in
the laity, in both, superstition,
bigotry and persecution." James
Monroe was a loyal friend of Thomas
Paine, author of the incendiary Age
of Reason, which skewered the Bible
and national religions.
Although George Washington
maintained a politic silence on his
religious beliefs, Thomas Jefferson
quoted a revelatory contemporary
witness to Washington's disrelish
for Christianity: "Dr. Rush told me
Page 12

-Jam~s madison
gion, and they thought they should
so pen their address as to force him
at length to disclose publiclyv->
whether he was a Christian or not.
However, he observed, the old fox
was too cunning for them. He
answered every article of their
address particularly, except that,
which he passed over without
notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv,
572). At the Episcopal church he
attended while president, Washington was invariably
absent on
Communion days.
Given their distaste for clericalism, it isn't surprising that the
presidents wanted to quarantine the
national government from sectarian
contamination. Washington reminded
members of the New Church in
Baltimore that the nation had no
religious bias: "In this Land the
light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry
and superstition. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal
liberty it is our boast, that a man's
religious tenets will not forfeit the
protection of the Laws, nor deprive
him of the right of attaining and
holding the highest Offices that are
Spring 2004

America is not in any sense founded

on the Christian religion, it has in
itself no character of enmity against
the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
Musselmen [Muslims]."
The first presidents left ample
evidence that they favored a broad
interpretation of the Establishment
Clause. The testimony of James
Madison, since he was the prime
architect of both the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights, is especially
enlightening. In an 1803 letter
objecting to the use of government
land for churches, Madison wrote:
"The bill in reserving a certain
parcel of land in the United States
for the use of said Baptist Church
comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds
of the United States for the use and
support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress
shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'" As president,
Madison vetoed an 1811 bill giving a
charter to an Episcopal church to
dispense charity and education in
the District of Columbia. He said
the bill would blur "the essential
American Atheist

distinction between civil and religious functions." In an 1822 letter to

Edward Livingston, Madison noted
that strict separation of church and
state benefits both: "Every new &
successful example therefore of a
perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that
every new example will succeed, as
every past one has done, in showing
that religion & Government will
both exist in greater purity, the less
they are mixed together."
Despite the demurrals of wistful
theocrats, separation of church and
state is an even better idea today
than it was in 1791, when the First
Amendment was duly ratified. The
nation is far more pluralistic now
than it was in its formative years.
Once, an intrusion of Christian baggage into the affairs of state was
prejudicial to few since nearly all
citizens were at least nominally

Christian. Now that the nation

includes twenty to thirty million
(estimates vary) agnostics, atheists,
skeptics, freethinkers, and secular
humanists, state aggrandizement of
theism, even when stripped of
sectarianism, is inevitably discriminatory.
In his most recent State of the
Union address, George W. Bush
plumped for legislation allowing
religious organizations to receive
federal funds for faith-based initiatives - presumably even when, as
some funded church organizations
now do, they pursue religious agendas and engage in discriminatory
hiring practices. Bush groused that
"government has often denied social
service grants and contracts to [religious institutions] just because they
have a cross or Star of David or crescent on the walL" Bush touted his
crusade to correct the putative
injustice: "By Executive Order, I

have opened billions of dollars in

grant money to competition that
includes
faith-based
charities.
Tonight I ask you [Congress] to codify"this into law, so people of faith
can know that the law will never
discriminate against them again."
In a January speech in New
Orleans, Bush characterized the
Bible as the ideal handbook for carrying out child-care services at a
local church. In the same speech, he
enunciated the grandiose intent of
his administration's
faith-based
initiatives:
"We want to fund
programs that save Americans one
soul at a time."
Instead of agitating for an
amendment to ban homosexual
marriages, the new theocrats should
reexamine an amendment cherished
by old presidents and trampled by
the latest avatar to High Office.
2004 by Gary Sloan

-.

.I
;

!<

~;..

~.

jj~:"
I

pl"
j

" ...AND 5CHOOL5 ARE LERNrN' OUR YOUNG'UN5 'BOUf fHE

FAL5EfHERI' OF E-VO-LU-5HUN."
Parsippany, New Jersey

Spring 2004

Page 13

Jesus Never

as

By Don Havis

he purpose of this article is to

outline what I consider to be
the major arguments in support of a 'pure-myth' viewpoint or
position concerning the question of
the historicity of the biblical figure
we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus
Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of
Nazareth. A second purpose is to
provide the reader with a selected
bibliography of books, generally
written by highly qualified biblical
scholars, which the author has
either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from
in the preparation of this article.
The author himself makes no pretense of being a 'biblical scholar,'
only an avid reader of their works.
Before I attempt to present at
least summaries of arguments in
support of the pure-myth point of
view, (hereafter referred to as a
'position') I think it would be helpful
to make clear the various positions
which have traditionally been listed
as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John
Remsburg's four different options.

The positions listed below are from

Remsburg's 1909 book, The Christ,
page 327, with slight additions of
mine for clarification.
1. "Orthodox Christians believe
that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine; and that the
New Testament narratives, which
purport to give a record of his life
and teachings, contain nothing but
infallible truth." (This is generally
known as the "literalist position.")
2. Conservative Rationalists, like
Renan and the Unitarians, believe
that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural
elements, which they regard as
myths, give a fairly authentic
account of his life." (This is usually
referred to as the "historical myth"
position.)
3. Many radical
Freethinkers
believe that Christ is a myth, of
which Jesus of Nazareth is the

Don Havis is a retired public school

teacher and administrator
in Special
Education,
living
in
San
Mateo,
California.
During
its day, he was
President of the Humanist Community
of the Peninsula. He is now very active
with the San Francisco
Chapter
of
American Atheists, but spends part of
his energies as a very active Green Party
and Peace Action activist.

Page 14

Spring 2004

basis, but that these narratives are

so legendary and contradictory as to
be almost if not wholly, unworthy of
credit." In other words, there was
most likely a historical Jesus, but
virtually all of the stories about him
are mythical. (This is known as the
"philosophical myth" position.) My
added comment would be that in the
intervening years between 1909 and
now,this position would no longer be
considered at all "radical," and the
Unitarians referred to in position 2,
above, have shifted almost entirely
to this third perspective.
4. "Other ['more radical' is implied
here] Freethinkers
believe that
Jesus Christ is a pure myth - that
he never had an [historic] existence;
except as a Messianic idea, or an
imaginary solar deity." I would add
here that a natural concomitant of
this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John) are entirely fictional made up stories, no parts of which
have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the "pure-myth" position.)
The Seven Major Arguments
I admit that there may very well
be more than "seven major arguments" for the pure-myth position
and that in some instances the
arguments presented here partially
overlap. Also, many of the same
arguments can be used to support
position three. However I have,
perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the
American Atheist

following seven arguments for the

reader's consideration: (1) No one
seemed to have noticed Jesus in his
time. (2) The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. (3) The gospels
are entirely fictional, pure myths.
(4) What we now call "Christianity"
existed long before Jesus' time. It
was derived from earlier "scripture"
and more ancient myths. (5) Paul,
writing earlier than the gospels,
clearly spoke of a "spiritual" Christ.
He knew nothing of a real, live
human Jesus. (6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative
historical Jesus' looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness,
or even his central message. (7) The
"you-can't-have-it-both -ways' argument.
Again, the combination of all the
arguments and opinions outlined in
support of the above points will not
absolutely "prove" that there was no
historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it
is impossible to absolutely prove a
universal negative. It might be possible that there was a "real" William
Tell who served as the inspiration
for, and may have even engaged in
some of the activities ascribed to the
legendary Swiss folk hero. However,
the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues
very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four,
described above, is an exact parallel
to the pure myth claim for William
Tell. The same claim might also be
made about any of the long list of
crucified saviors that have "visited"
earth long before the beginning of
the first century of this era. My
claim is, in other words, that applying 'Ockham's razor' (i.e. the simplest, most logical explanation that
comports with all the known facts)
and considering the tremendous
dearth of evidence to the contrary,
the most rational conclusion is that
there never was an historical Jesus.
Further, I contend that he and consequently all that is said about him
are entirely fictional.
Now that I've made that exceedingly clear, let's get on with the
arguments, one by one.
Parsippany, New Jersey

No one noticed Jesus in his day.

As most of the readers of this
article know, Christian apologists,
world-wide, have "pointed with
pride" to a handful of early extrabiblical writings which directly
mention Jesus, John the Baptist,
and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James
the Brother of the Lord as real firstcentury historical persons. "Ah ha,"
they say. "Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four gospels
are works of fiction, how can you
account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote
about or referred to Jesus at or very
near the time when he was alive?"
The difficulty of defending the
gospels has been a well-recognized
problem for the church since they
first were noticed by anyone, apparently around the middle of the second century. The one 'main gun' that
Christian apologists have been firing at us skeptics for the past 1,800
years is the famous "Testimonium
Flavianum."
This Latin phrase
refers to a single paragraph of about
twelve sentences which appears to
most critics to have been inserted
awkwardly between two paragraphs
which make perfectly good sense
without the insertion. The reference
is in a book by the well-known first
century Jewish historian Flavius
Josephus [37-c95 CE], The Antiquities of the Jews. This book is appropriately enough - a book about
the early history of the Jews in the
area where Jesus is supposed to
have preached and in the time when
he was supposedly alive.
As Frank R. Zindler says,
"Although Flavius Josephus was
born too late to be an eyewitness of
the lives of Jesus or John the
Baptist nevertheless he was a contemporary of the evangelists [assuming they existed] who wrote of
these characters. He should have
heard of Paul [if he existed, whom
he never mentions]. Furthermore,
from
his
priest-caste
father,
Matthias [b 6 CE] he should have
known about the religious ferment
supposedly stirred up by the doings
Spring 2004

of Jesus." (Zindler, Frank R., The

Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 35).
Yet this well-respected historian
mentions none of this with the
single exception of the paragraph
referred to above. In that paragraph
only, he names a man called Jesus.
"He was the Christ," Josephus is
made to say. He was a "doer of wonderful works" and "Pilate condemned him to the cross." The paragraph concludes that "The tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are
not extinct at this day." "This day"
would be about the year 90 CE,
approximately
when
Josephus
wrote his history book. This phrase,
at the very least, is an obvious later
interpolation as there was no "tribe
of Christians" during Josephus's
time. Christianity did not get off the
ground until the second century.
It is also interesting that the
mention of this particular Jesus,
"Jesus the Christ," is divulged by
Josephus with no more emphasis
than he gives to the other twenty
Jesuses he speaks of in his writings.
(See Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, 19-20).
The single paragraph referred
to above has been one of the most
thoroughly researched and debated
topics in all of biblical criticism.
Those that want a more detailed
analysis can refer to Zindler's entire
chapter on it in the above cited book,
("Faking Flavius," 31-73.) Additionally, Earl Doherty's book supporting
the mythical Christ theory, The
Jesus Puzzle, discusses this and
other early likely Christian interpolations in chapter 21, "Flavius
Josephus" (205-222). Referring to
another oft-quoted reference to
Jesus in the writings of the Roman
historian Tacitus [c55 CE-c120 CE],
Doherty says, "If the silence on
Jesus in the earlier works of both
Tacitus and Josephus casts doubt on
the authenticity of their later references, then we truly have lost every
clear non-Christian
reference to
Jesus as a human being [emphasis
added] before the latter half of the
second century" (222).
Page 15

Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G.

A. Wells summarizes in his
1988 book, The Historical
Evidence
for Jesus, "The
gospels are usually
put
between 70 and 110, with
Mark at about 70, Matthew
and Luke a little later, and
John, the latest, at about 100.
Acts (written as we shall see,
by the author of Luke) and
some of the pseudo-Pauline
epistles are assigned to the
turn of the century. I find all
this
convincing
enough,
except in the case of Mark, which I
date at about 90 rather than 70. If
this is correct, then all four gospels
were written soon after 90 and drew
some of their material from earlier
documents which have not survived
and from oral tradition, much of
which must have been available
from about 80, although it would
have taken time for them to have
become generally disseminated"
(Wells, 10-11).
There is near unanimous agreement that the very first mention of
the existence of what we now call
the gospels was by Justin Martyr in
the 150s. Doherty says, however,
that he may only have known of
Matthew and Luke. "Even at that,
he does not refer to them by name,
calling the documents he is quoting
from 'memoirs of the Apostles.'
Moreover, his quotations for the
most part do not agree with our
present texts" (The Jesus Puzzle,
259). So, it seems that the "eyewitness testimony" of the so-called
"apostles" was still being sort of
'worked out' a century and a half
after J.C.'s supposed birth.

hristian apologists will offer long lists of

citations about Jesus from early writings.
However, most of these citations refer either
to awkwardly done interpolations or writings
by authors who lived anywhere from a century
and a half up to several centuries past the time
when Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Think about that sentence for a

minute.
Dozens of books of
Christian apologists will offer long
lists of citations about Jesus from
early writings. However, most of
these citations refer either to awkwardly done interpolations or writings by authors who lived anywhere
from a century and a half up to several centuries past the time when
Jesus was supposed to have lived.
These quotations referring to Jesus
and other gospel characters simply
repeat stories that the writer has
heard from other Jesus cult enthusiasts. As such, they are of no value
whatsoever.
In addition to the above-noted
refutation of the most important references to a supposed historical
Jesus written near Jesus' time, I
should also mention at least two
"deafening silences" by highly
regarded writers of the same time
period. I am referring to the writings of Philo, an eminent Jewish
philosopher and historian who lived
during the early first century, and
Justus of Tiberias, a native of
Galilee who wrote a history covering
the period in which Jesus is said to
have lived. Neither one of them ever
mentioned a "Jesus." The works of
Justus have all perished now.
However, we have the writings of a
ninth-century Christian Bishop and
scholar of Constantinople, Photius,
who says that he had read Justus'
works. He reports, in utter amazement one might imagine, that "He
(Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of
Page 16

what things happened to him, or of

the wonderful works he did"
(Jackson, J. G., Pagan Origins of the
Jesus Myth, 8.). Personally, I find
that quote absolutely jaw-dropping.
The Gospels were not written
by eyewitnesses
Whether one believes that the
canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark,
Luke & John) are partly fictional
elaborations of some core of truth, or
whether you believe they are entirely
fictional is not the issue at this
point. (What I see as a separate
issue of their fictional or non-fictional
status will be taken up in the next
point.) The question here is simply,
were the gospels written by human
witnesses to the life and times of the
putative Jesus? This point can be
handled quite briefly. The answer is
a resounding "No!"There is virtual
unanimity of opinion by all unbrainwashed, rational biblical scholars - even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron) - that
the gospels were written by nowunknown writers anytime between
forty years after Jesus' time up to
about 185 years after his supposed
death, depending on what scholar
one consults. Most scholars place
Mark, the generally recognized first
written gospel, at about the year 70
CE, just after the destruction of the
Jewish temple of Yahweh. However,
Earl Doherty has advanced some
closely reasoned arguments that
support a time "around the years 85
to 90 CE" (The Jesus Puzzle, 3).
Spring 2004

The gospels are entirely

fictional, pure myths
Many large tomes have been
entirely devoted to supporting the
point that great sections, if not all, of
the New Testament, as well as the
Old Testament,
are simply a
retelling of fabulous tales based on
older Jewish,
Roman,
Greek,
Persian, and even more ancient
American Atheist

Egyptian stories. Substantiating

this point does not advance this
paper's major thesis, except as it
applies to the only supposed biblical
'evidence' in support of a historic
Jesus - that is, that testimony provided by the four gospels. For those
readers who might be interested in
the spurious origins of not only the
gospels, but also the entire Bible,
the names of several entire books
devoted to this subject can be found
in my bibliography.
It is interesting to me that a
great many freethinkers and rationalists - people who might be reading this article - are very quick to
agree that pretty much the entire
Bible is chock full of misinformation, forgeries, bad history and just
plain lies. Not only that, but most
rationalists
are quite willing to
accept the proposition that this
mish-mash of prevarication was not
simply a naive passing along of old
legends, but was written for the
express purpose of convincing (i.e.
"converting") the gullible reader
into subscribing to the particular
fanciful dogma the ancient writers
were trying to peddle. However, for
some reason or another that entirely
escapes me - perhaps just early
brainwashing imbedded as deeply
as potty training - these same rationalists are reluctant to imagine that
the four gospels are completely fictional. Surely, they say, there must
have been some sort of demythologized, even perhaps anonymous
nobody who was arrested, tried by
Roman authorities, then crucified.
We can't be sure of any more details
than that, they say.
I simply ask, why must this be
so? What more tangible evidence
can anyone present that the whole
story is not simply what it appears
to be - a retelling of one or more of
the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of
ancient sun-god or sky-god traditions involving descending-thenascending gods? Such myths generally consist of elements such as a
tribulation (a trial), a conviction, an
execution, and finally a resurrection? One could go on for several
Parsippany, New Jersey

paragraphs pointing out the many

details of the 'passion story' that
have parallels not only in more
ancient myths, but also in earlier
Jewish writings including the Old
Testament.
(See, for example,
Zechariah 9:9, which foreshadows
Jesus' triumphal
entrance
into
Jerusalem on an ass; actually "on an
ass and the foal of an ass" - a neat
trick, eh? - and the foreshadowing
of the whole passion story in Psalms
22, the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14,
and his birth in Bethlehem in Micah
5:2.) All of this has been well noted
for centuries. Why in the world
would any rational person imagine
that any of these fables were in any
sense true?
It is interesting to speculate on
the source material for the first
written gospel, the Gospel according
to Mark. Perhaps Mark - probably a
well educated Greek-speaking member of the Jewish Diaspora - had
read the works of "Philo Judaeus,
the Jewish philosopher-theologian
of Alexandria in Egypt." (A speculation of Alvar Ellegard, Jesus One
Hundred Years Before Christ, 5) Or,
perhaps he had heard the stories of
the so-called "Teacher of Righteousness" of the Essenes who may have
lived (mythological or real - who
knows?) sometime in the first century BCE (Ellegard, 258). Maybe Mark
wrote in the second century as
scholar Ellegard holds, and had read
Flavius Philo stratus's Life of Apollonius, whose life almost exactly
paralleled the life of the mythical
Jesus and who reportedly died in 98
CEo (See Randel Helms, Gospel
Fictions, 9) Surely, he had read of
the so-called "Suffering Servant of
the Lord" described in Isaiah
52:13-53:12. (See Doherty's The
Jesus Puzzle, 80). Certainly Mark
and, later, the other gospel writers
had no shortage of inspiration. What
they didn't have is anyone who was
in any sense real.
It is important
to remain
focused on the primary reason why
these
gospels
were
written.
(Perhaps compiled would be a better
word.) They were written for the
Spring 2004

express purpose of convincing the

uneducated and gullible masses
that they no longer needed to
believe in a sort of mystical, unseen,
spiritual Christ - a somewhat difficult concept for the unsophisticated
to grasp even though it was familiar
to them as I will discuss later. Here,
in the gospels, the new Jesus cult
offers a 'real,' flesh-and-blood incarnation of god to believe in. (In truth,
there was a terrific argument early
on between the Gnostic Christians
and the main line, later to become
the Catholic Christians, as to this
flesh-and-blood issue.) This savior
figure spoke real words (i.e. the
Sermon on the Mount, etc.), ate food,
performed miracles, visited real
places, and spoke to "multitudes."
He was truly crucified, not allegorically crucified in a heavenly realm.
Remember doubting Thomas? He
wanted to stick his fingers into
Jesus' wounds, just to be sure (John
20: 26-27). I thought that was a nice
touch for the last gospel fiction
writer to add, don't you? For those of
you that might still be unconvinced
of the absolute untrustworthiness of
the gospels in particular, I offer just
one more powerful quotation for
your consideration:
"Nearly every thing written
concerning the gospels to the year
325, and all the copies of the gospels
themselves to the same period, are
lost or destroyed. The truth is that
very few early Christian texts exist
because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the
Council of Nicea and the 'retouching' of 506 CE under Emperor
Anastasius, which included 'revision' of the Church fathers' works catastrophic acts that would be
inconceivable if these 'documents'
were truly the precious testaments
of the very Apostles themselves
regarding the 'Lord and Savior,'
whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound
fanaticism
and endless
wars.
Repeating what would seem to be
utter blasphemy, in the 11th and
12th centuries the 'infallible Word of
God' was 'corrected' again by a variety of church officials. In addition to
Page 17

these major 'revisions' have been

many others, including copying and
translation mistakes and deliberate
mutilation and obfuscation of meaning." (Acharya S, The Christ
Conspiracy, 26).

Still think the gospels are about

real events? If so, I have a bridge in
Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you
about.
What we now call Christianity
existed long before Jesus' time.
As with point two above, there is
little or no debate among serious
scholars that what we now call
Christianity has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and
risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of
them. Of course, first of all there is
simply Judaism, which had long
talked about and predicted a soonto-arrive "Christ." Ironically, according to them, he still hasn't come. The
documentation of this claim is the
subject of literally hundreds of
books. Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a wellrecognized scholar of the early twentieth century. "The Pagans had their
holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas,
Easter, Rogation Days, etc.i, their
monks, nuns, religious processions
carrying images of idols, incense,
holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns,
liturgies, confessions of sins to
priests, revelations by gods to
priests, prophecies, sacred writings
of 'holy bibles,' Pontiffs, Holy
Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All
these sacrosanct things of Christian
'Revealed Religion,' were age-old
pre-Christian
Pagan myths and
superstitions"
(Forgery
in
Christianity, by Joseph Wheless,
17-18). All of this is not even "controversial" among knowledgeable
secular biblical scholars.
I will quote one more source, a
small pamphlet published by The
Freedom From Religion Foundation
which zeroes in on the mythical
antecedents of the Jesus Christ
Page 18

figure. The pamphlet - really, a tract

- is entitled "Cookie Cutter Christs."
The sun-god Mithra, who was very
popular in the Roman Empire
around 2000 years ago was "born of
a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought
gifts to his birth. His first worshipers were shepherds and he was
followed in his travels by twelve
companions. Mithra was slain upon
a cross in Persia to make atonement
for humankind and take away the
sins of the world. His ascension to
heaven was celebrated at the spring
equinox (Easter)." Additionally, the
pamphlet continues, "Mithra celebrated a 'Last Supper' with his 12
disciples. The Mithraists observed
weekly sabbath days and celebrated
the Eucharist by eating wafers
marked with a cross." Does any of
this sound familiar?
The same pamphlet notes that
"Attis was born of a virgin mother
named Nana, in Phrygia sometime
before 200 BC. He was hanged on a

\tJE..LcorJ\EYOU

'WOt-!'T

tree, died, rose again, and was called

'Father God'." "Horus was born of
the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550
BC. Horus as an infant received gifts
from three kings, and was crucified
on a cross. There are about 200 close
parallels of the careers of Horus and
Jesus Christ." "Adonis (Tammuz)
was born of a virgin mother called
Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the
Virgin Mary with her divine child in
her arms. Adonis was regarded as
both the son and husband of his
mother Ishtar, as God the Father
and God the Son." We could go on
and on. Any of the above-named
books will give the interested reader
much more information
about
ancient gods along this same line.
The mythology doesn't change
much, just the name of the current
sun-god de jour.
Indeed, the parallels in the cult
of Mithraism - perhaps Christianity's major contemporary and
most competitive religion of the first
century CE - most especially, are so

,0

C\-\\lRCt-t

BE.

N E.D \ NO

-rH\S oI

Spring 2004

American Atheist

striking that I have often reflected

that had Emperor Constantine I not
mandated that Christianity be the
Empire's only religion in 325 CE, and
had that decree not been brutally
enforced by the "firebrand and the
sword" for the next 1,700 years by
the Catholic Church, then we might
see
steepled
little
Mithraic
Churches dotting the landscape
throughout Europe and the United
States especially. As part of this
same fantasy, I have often wondered
if there would now be heated
debates as to whether or not the
'now recognized as mythic Mithra
was somehow based on a historic,
real flesh-and-blood, human being
named Mithra. If the Catholic
Mithraist myth enforcers had been
equally as successful as have been
the Catholic Jesus myth enforcers, I
suppose the answer of the masses and even of some Atheists throughout most of the world would
clearly be, "Yes, most likely there
was a historic Mithra." Incredible!
What a brainwashing we have all
been subjected to!
Most well informed Christian
apologists - even back to the early
"Church Fathers" - admit that the
above parallels are true. Their standard response is that just because
there are all of these parallels does
not necessarily prove that Jesus
wasn't a real human figure who may
have been just doing his best to "fulfill" all the ancient prophesies, and
to "fit in" to the familiar legends
about him. This counter-point can't
be denied. I only ask the reader
which of the two possible explanations seems the more likely?
Paul clearly spoke only of a
spiritual Christ,
not a human one.
It is well recognized by all but
the most fanatical fundamentalist
bible scholars that Paul, writing
between approximately 54 CE and
65 CE, was not a "witness to Jesus."
By his own admission, he saw Jesus
"in a vision" while on the road to
Damascus. This Jesus was a purely
Parsippany, New Jersey

mythical, "spiritual Christ," not in

any sense a human being Christ.
Paul "received" this Jesus through a
kind of divine revelation. I believe
that Doherty explains this sort of
"Jesus" best when he says that the
message Paul received,
... was about a heavenly Son of God
who was both an intermediary
between God and the world, and a
Savior figure. He was variously
called Jesus, or Yeshua (meaning
'Yahweh Saves' in Hebrew), the
Christ (Greek for the Hebrew
"Mashiach," or Messiah, meaning
'Anointed One'), and the Son. Some
looked upon this new Son of God as
a Revealer who bestowed saving
knowledge of God, others as one who
had undergone a sacrificial death
and a resurrection. [In another
heavenly realm] All manner of apostles like Paul were going about
preaching this divine being and
often not agreeing among themselves about him; indeed, they could
be at each others' throats, as certain
passages in Paul's letters revealed.
This Son and Savior was not
identified with a recent human man
or placed in an earthly setting, much
less given a ministry of teaching and
miracle-working in Galilee. [Paul
knew no details of the yet to be written, gospel 'historical'
Jesus.]
Instead, he was a heavenly deity
who had done his redeeming work in
the supernatural dimension (The
Jesus Puzzle,S.).

This kind of thinking is very difficult for the modern

mind.
Remember that since every reader
of this paper was born he or she has
been constantly bombarded - well,
except when you were in your
church, synagogue, or mosque with cause and effect, logical, scientific thinking. For the residents of
Galilee two thousand years ago,
however, nothing could have been
more natural. The whole culture
and the entire 'civilized world' was
saturated with this type of thinking.
It was, as Doherty explains,
The view shared by a whole range of
pagan salvation cults, each of which
had its own savior god who had perSpring 2004

formed deeds in the mythical world.

Like Paul's Christ, savior gods such
as Attis and Osiris had been killed;
like Paul's Christ, Osiris had been
buried (after being dismembered);
like Christ on the third day, Adonis
and Dionysos had been resurrected
from death. All these things were
not regarded as historical; they had
taken place in the world of myth
and higher reality (Doherty, 16.).

In summary, all of the parts of

the New Testament attributed to a
probably historical Paul are of no
help at all in establishing an historical Jesus, since they never speak of
such a person.
There is no agreement on any
information about this
supposedly historical Jesus.
By way of amplifying this point,
I would point out that normally a
very well-known historical person even one existing as long as two
thousand years ago - would certainly
be much better known to historians
than is Jesus. For example, we know
much more about Alexander the
Great, who lived three-hundred
years before the Jesus character is
said to have lived.
Let's examine just a few points
of reference that one might reasonably be expected to know about a
person whose influence was so great
that it literally changed the course
of history over the next two millennia. (1) Looks? No one in the entire
Bible gives any physical description
of Jesus whatsoever. He is depicted
in artistic works, ranging from the
ninth century up to modern times,
as everything from being rather
short with a "male pattern baldness
problem" to the tall, handsome
Nordic Jesus with the neatly
trimmed beard we all met in Sunday
School. Secular scholar Dr. William
Harwood, an advocate of a "historical nobody" who served as a basis of
the mythical Jesus, believes that
Jesus was "an odd looking man,
balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows, and approximately 4 ft 6 in
tall" (Mythology's Last Gods, 63).
Page 19

Enough said. (2) Birth date? Biblical

scholars of all stripes disagree as to
the date of the mythical Jesus' birth.
Dates range from about 4 BCE (the
one most often quoted) to about 7
CEo (3) Birthplace? The Bible says
Bethlehem. However, Jesus is constantly referred to as "Jesus of
Nazareth." Scholars now understand that this was probably a linguistic confusion and perhaps an
early mistranslation. Jesus was a
"Nazarene," the title of a sect, not a
name having geographical associations. Thus, as G.A. Wells explains,
'''Jesus the Nazarene' is equivalent
to, say, 'Henry the Quaker' or
'George the Methodist" (Wells, Did
Jesus Exist, 147.). Furthermore,
modern archeology has established
that there was no such city as
Nazareth in the first century. Dr.
Harwood, mentioned above, argues
strongly for the city of Capernaum
as a probable birth city. (4) Personal
character and/or moral worthiness?
Although we heard all about the loving, compassionate Jesus in church,
and how we ought to "turn the other
cheek," we were not given the quotations that urged his followers to
bring those that would not have me
for their leader and "slay them
before me" (Luke 19:27). We were
told not to lie. However, we read
about how Jesus lied when it suited
him. (See Mattill, A.J., Sweet Jesus,
103) We remember the part about
not stealing, but we heard nothing
about Jesus' habit of stealing pigs,
wheat, donkeys, cash, cows, olive oil,
and figs. (31-33.)
Perhaps more critical than all of
the above inconsistencies
and
silences is the confusion about what,
exactly, was J.C.'s central message?
The problem of discerning a "central
message" is confounded not because
there isn't one, but because there
are too many. If one asks the average Christian what was Jesus'
essential message to us, they look at
you as if you must be the stupidest
person they have ever met. Then,
they explain patiently that "God so
loved the world that he sent his only
begotten son to die for us so as to
Page 20

atone for our sins, and that if you

would simply believe in him, you
could have a sort of second life, everlasting, in a place called heaven."
Now, at first you must try to ignore
the sheer imbecility of what you just
heard, and ask a few follow-up questions. You may ask something like,
"Well, how can I 'believe on him' as
the Bible phrases it, when I am not
clear about his full message and his
teachings?" The Christian has a
ready answer. "You can read the
Bible and there you will learn all
about his wonderful message to us."
"I already did that," you might say, "
but then I became even more confused." As mentioned above, there
seems to be hundreds of messages,
often with conflicting ideas and pronouncements. You might also add
that you were a bit confused as to
whether you should pay more attention to Peter's Jewish 'works-based'
Christianity, or to Paul's Gentile
'faith-based' Christianity. You confess further confusion when you
read about the early Gnostic Christian's 'knowledge' (Gnosisj-based
Christianity. Despite all your reading, you say, you are still "unclear on
the concept." At this point the
Christian will generally say something like, "Jesus loves you anyway"
and walk away.
_The summary point here is that
because of the great amount of hopelessly conflicting information and
the lack of any definitive information on everything about Jesus - his
looks, lineage, biography, nature
(three in one; one in three?), character, moral worthiness, message, etc.
- it is clear, at least to this writer,
that there is simply no one underneath this great pile of b.s. to see.
You can't have it both ways
This last point can be briefly
explained. Despite its simplicity, I
think it is a very powerful argument
for a completely fictional Jesus. It
has been said "many times in many
ways," as the song lyric goes, but
Frank Zindler recently stated it
quite succinctly. He notes that many
Spring 2004

liberal Christian apologists will

readily agree that "While the
gospels cannot be taken literally,
they are at least evidence of somebody [emphasis in original] extraordinary. But these same apologists
miss the irony of Jesus being so
obscure that no secular record of
him survives. (It is ironic also that
despite being a well-known public
figure and rabble-rouser, Jesus nevertheless is so colorless and forgettable that the authorities have to
bribe Judas to point him out!)" (The
Jesus The Jews Never Knew, 5). This
last point Zindler puts in parenthesis because it assumes that the
reader might think that at least
some part of the gospel fables might
be true. I believe, as does Zindler,
that this is extraordinarily unlikely,
to the point of a vanishing possibility.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe that in
this article I have at least hit the
highlights of the arguments for a
purely fictional Jesus with his purely
fictional gospel.
Clarence Darrow may have
summarized the pure-myth position
most succinctly when he said, "I
don't believe in Jesus because I don't
believe in Mother Goose." No,
Virginia, I'm afraid that it is time
now to grow up. There really isn't
any Santa Claus. And even though
there may have been a Christian
bishop, born in 270 CE, who was
rumored to have secretly shared his
inherited wealth with the poor, this
has nothing whatsoever to do with
the myth of the fat guy in a red suit
who, on December 25th, drops down
the chimneys of every world-wide
Christian family who has one or
more children to deliver presents,
with the aide of a sleigh pulled by
flying reindeer. Additionally, there is
also no Tooth Fairy, no Mother
Goose, and Jesus never was!

American Atheist

Bibliography
Note: Some of the books listed here
support a historical myth, or a
philosophical myth position (positions 2 or 3, described earlier).
Some, like Burton Mack, Robert
Price and others seem to adopt an
agnostic stance on the historicity
matter, although they have often
done some of the best research
which has led to a nearly complete
destruction of any chance for such a
historical Jesus. All the books in this
bibliography are highly recommended. For those readers who wish to
zero in on the pure myth (position 4)
supporters, I have indicated these
books with an asterisk.

Jackson, John G. Christianity Before

Christ,
Austin,
TX, American
Atheist Press, 1985.

Price, Robert M. Deconstructing Jesus,

Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books,
2000.

-.

Smith, Homer W. Man And His Gods,

Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1956.

"Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth,"

(a pamphlet), Austin, TX, American
Atheist Press, no date given.

Leidner, Harold. The Fabrication of the

Christ Myth, Tampa, FL, Survey
Books, 1999.
Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote The New
Testament? San Francisco, CA,
HarperSanFrancisco, 1995.

*Wells, G. A. Did Jesus Exist? London,

Elek Books, Ltd., 1975.

*-. The

Historical Evidence for Jesus,

Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books,
1988.

Mattill Jr., A. J. Sweet Jesus, Gordo, AL,

The Flatwoods Free Press, 2002.

Wheless,
Joseph.
Forgery
in
Christianity: A Documented Record
of the Foundations of The Christian
Religion, New York, Knopf, 1930.

McCabe, Joseph. The Forgery of the Old

Testament and other essays, Buffalo,
NY, Prometheus Books, 1993.

*Zindler, Frank R.. The Jesus The Jews

Never
Knew,
Cranford,
NJ,
American Atheist Press, 2003.

*Acharya S. The Christ Conspiracy: The

Greatest Conspiracy Ever Sold,
Klempton,
IL,
Adventures
Unlimited, 1999.
Anonymous. "Cookie Cutter Christs,
nontract
# 8", Madison,
WI,
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. No date.
*Barker, Dan. Losing Faith in Faith,
(See Chapter 51, "Jesus: History or
Myth"), Madison, WI, Freedom
From Religion Foundation, Inc.,
1992.
*Doherty, Earl. Challenging the Verdict,
Ottawa Canada, Age of Reason
Publications, 2001.
*-.

The Jesus Puzzle, Ottawa Canada,

Canadian Humanist Publications,
1999.

Ellegard, Alvar. Jesus One Hundred

Years Before Christ, Woodstock, NY,
The Overlook Press, 1999.
*Freke, Timothy, and Peter Gandy. The
Jesus Mysteries, NY, Harmony
Books, 2000.
Harwood, William. Mythology's Last
Gods, Amherst, NY, Prometheus
Books, 1992.
Helms,
Randel,
Gospel
Fictions,
Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books,
1988.

Parsippany, New Jersey

"HONEY, DOES 'GOD FEARING'

COUNT AS A PHOBIA?"

Spring 2004

Page 21

Is
an Oxymoron?
William Harwood, Ph.D.

eligion was not definitively

disproved until the eighteenth century, when scholars began subjecting the JudaeoChristian bible to critical analysis.
With the discovery that the Bible
endorsed a flat earth, solid crystal
skies, and a multiplicity of gods and
goddesses, Jewish and non-Jewish,
and that the earliest biblical
authors had no belief in human
'souls' that outlived the death of the
body, religion was as permanently
discredited as an immobile earth at
the center of the universe. Prior to
that time, some of humankind's
greatest scientists had been godworshippers. Newton and Galileo come
to mind. But with the discovery that
religion did not have to be merely
disbelieved, but had actually been
disproved, it became impossible for
any sane, intelligent, educated person on this planet to be a godworshipper. That situation continues in
effect.
William Harwood is the editortranslator of The Juseo-Christian.
Bible Fully Translated, a contributing
editor of American
Rationalist, a member ofthe editorial board of Free Inquiry, and the
author of 22 books.
Page 22

Anyone can be a godworshipper

out of simple ignorance. The author
and most nontheists with whom he
is familiar only abandoned religion
as a consequence of education. Is it
possible for a sane student to learn
the origins of modern religion, and
continue to believe that fifty virginborn resurrected saviors who preceded Jesus were all fairy tales, but
the final copy of a copy of a copy was
a fact of history? Certainly not for
anyone who has the capacity for logical reasoning that is commonly
termed intelligence.
It is no coincidence that the four
most acclaimed educators in modern
times were nontheists. Charles
Darwin wrote, "I cannot persuade
myself that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have decidedly
created parasitic wasps with the
express intention of feeding within
the living bodies of caterpillars."
Albert Einstein wrote, "I cannot
imagine a God who rewards and
punishes the objects of his creation,
whose purposes are modeled after
our own - a God, in short, who is but
a reflection of human frailty.
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of the
body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or
ridiculous egotisms." Carl Sagan
Spring 2004

wrote, "The fundamental processes

of life now seem fully understandable in terms of physics and chemistry. No life force, no spirit, no soul
seems to be involved.... My own
view is that it is far better to understand the Universe as it really is
than to pretend to a Universe as we
might wish it to be." And Isaac
Asimov wrote, "The Bible textbook,
then, says that the sky is a thin
sheet of something or other that can
be rolled up, and that the stars are
little dots of light that can be shaken offthe scroll and allowed to fall to
earth." Other educators of the masses whose rejection of religion can be
interpreted as the inevitable consequence of their studies include
Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay
Gould, Richard
Dawkins, and
Arthur C. Clarke.
Religion has been the cause of
ninety percent of all manmade evil
for at least three thousand years.
That is an observable fact of history.
Why is it so? Were people like Adolf
Hitler, who set out to exterminate
an opposition religion, and Tomas de
Torquemada, who did likewise, consciously dedicated to evil, worshipping a "prince of darkness"? Or were
they incapable of distinguishing
right from wrong, and therefore
incapable of avoiding evil? In most
American Atheist

of the world, that is the legal definition of insanity.

Perhaps religious fundamentalists are merely stupid. But can stupidity explain this gem of wisdom
from Saudi Arabia's supreme religious authority: "The earth is flat,
and anyone who disputes this claim
is an atheist who deserves to be
punished"? Or is insanity, autoreinforced mind death, the only
explanation? Similarly, can even a
lack of sufficient intelligence to
obtain an education degree explain
a Canadian politician and sometime
Leader of the Opposition's unshakable dogma that humans and
dinosaurs coexisted? Or is insanity
the only explanation here also?
Fundamentalist preacher Oral
Roberts tried to con his marks that,
unless they paid a ten million dollar
ransom, his god was going to terminate him. To suggest that Roberts
was so insane as to believe such a
preposterous claim would be unrealistic. What motivated him was the
conviction that the congregation on
which he preyed was capable of
believing it. It is a cliche that no one
ever went broke underestimating
the intelligence of the American
people. But could any sane person
underestimate it to that degree? A
fundamentalist preacher from Kansas picketed a gay funeral, waving
signs that read, "Hell has him now,"
and "God hates fags." Could a sane
person accuse his god of such unreasoned hatred, while simultaneously
proclaiming it the embodiment of
divine love?
Hate cultist Jerry
Falwell
preached that the World Trade
Center atrocity was his god's punishment on America for granting
equal rights to homosexuals and liberals, while insisting that the same
god was a nice guy. The entire
Christian Right believe that their
god condemns taboo-breakers to billions of years of sadistic torture for
the slightest affront to its extravagant ego - but is nonetheless a nice
guy. Could any sane person believe
that? Admittedly Hillbilly Graham,
who preaches the doctrine of eternal
Parsippany, New Jersey

damnation, has the excuse of an

unevolved intellect. But is low intelligence a complete explanation? Is it
not more reasonable to conclude
that, just because someone is stupid,
that does not mean that he is not
insane?
Can even curable believers, persons who have not yet encountered
the falsifying evidence, be truly
sane? Can a sane person believe in a
higher life form, by definition more
morally evolved than humans, who
executes every human who will ever
live in "punishment" for an alleged
offense by their distant ancestors?
Can a sane person sit on a toilet
seat, or watch a TV ad for tampons,
and not recognize that he is seeing a
reality that could not exist if
humans had been intelligently
designed?
The four most observably evil
men on earth are a Jew, a Catholic,
a Methodist and a Muslim. Is that a
coincidence? Or is it their religious
beliefs that are the cause of their
pathological hatred of the human
race? Would Israel's Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon and several predecessors have felt justified in emulating
Adolf Hitler, by seizing and annexing other people's land, if their
allegedly sacred writings had not
decreed that such behavior is only
evil when they do it, not when we do
it? Can such thinking be attributed
to lack of education? Or lack or
intelligence? Or is the default explanation insanity and only insanity?
Pope Karol Wojtyla overrode a
predecessor's plan to legitimize
birth control by arguing, "If the
church sent all of those souls to hell,
it must keep maintaining that that
is where they are" (Papal Sin, p. 94).
The evil of maintaining a recognizably indefensible taboo simply to
avoid acknowledging that the taboo
was a mistake is self-evident. And
Wojtyla's intelligence falls somewhere between Steinbeck's Lenny
Small and Simple Simon. But can
the belief that morality can be determined by the fallible opinions of an
individual be categorized as anything but insane?
Spring 2004

George W. Bush is quoted in the

Israeli newspaper Ha-Aretz
as
telling
the Palestinian
Prime
Minister, "God told me to strike at al
Qaeda and I struck them, and then
He instructed
me to strike at
Saddam, which I did." To quote
Thomas Szasz, "If you talk to God,
you are praying. If God talks to you,
you have schizophrenia." It might be
less polite, but would it be less accurate to say, "If God talks to you, you
are insane"?
Osama bin Laden professes a
belief in a god named Allah, whom
he subtitles "the merciful, the compassionate." Yet he believes that
such a god, colloquially described as
a nice guy, approves the premeditated murder
of four thousand
American and visiting men, women
and children, some of them belonging to bin Laden's own creed. Since
the whole world recognizes that bin
Laden is criminally insane, the only
question is: Is his evil a function of
an insanity unrelated to religion, or
is it specifically a function of the
insanity of religion?
Insanity is defined as the inability to tell right from wrong. A person
who believes that mass murder was
evil when Hitler did it with gas
chambers but is not evil when his
god does it with disease, famine,
religious wars, natural disasters,
transportation
accidents and old
age, is unable to tell right from
wrong. Can anyone who believes
that 'When God does it, it's not evil'
be considered sane? And godworshippers are required to believe
exactly that. So can a godworshipper be sane, or is 'sane godworshipper' an oxymoron?
As self-evident as the answers
to all of those questions are, the ability to shut out reality and pretend
that evil is not an inevitable consequence of religion is why religion
still exists.
Take heed of an ox before,
of a horse behind,
of a monk on all sides.
-Ronnie

Johanson
Page 23

What Does
;Jt mean
to Be
Sci entif c'?
By Frank R. Zindler
or twenty years I taught science in one form or another, at
levels ranging from high
school to graduate school. My high
school assignments included physical science, biology, and chemistry.
At the undergraduate level I taught
everything
from anatomy and
botany to zoology, from geology to
genetics, from molecular biology and
chemistry for nurses to psychobiology.There was even a course in pseudoscience - a laboratory course
designed to help students investigate popular claims of the paranormal. Astrology,creationism, pyramid
power, ancient astronauts, UFOs,
and parapsychology all came under
the careful scrutiny of my class. At
the graduate level, I taught a course

Benjamin iranklin

in human ecology for teachers and a

seminar in human neuroanatomy
for neurophysiologists. Throughout
those twenty years, at whatever the
level, I tried to make my students
grapple with the question, "What
does it mean to be scientific?"
While
my students
were
wrestling with this question, I too
was struggling with it. What always
seemed so intuitive and obvious to
me in my own personal and professional life proved astonishingly elusive and tantalizing when I tried to
define or explain it to others. I never
succeeded in coming up with a onesentence or even a one-paragraph
definition of what constitutes the
scientific attitude or outlook. The
best I could do was to formulate a
list of component attitudes and
practices that, taken all together,

Formerly a professor of biology and geology in

the State University of New York system, for
many years Frank R. Zindler has worked as
a linguist and analyst of chemical literature for
a scientific society in Ohio. Since the 1995
murder of Robin Murray-O'Hair, he has served
as editor of American Atheist Press. Franklin
illustration by permission of the Independence
Hall Association. http://www.ushistory.org
Page 24

Spring 2004

might qualify a person to be called

"scientific."
In these parlous times of creation 'science' and Intelligent
Design 'theory,' alternative medicine, Post-Modernism, Christian
Science, therapeutic
touch, and
near-death experiences it seems
desirable to extract some of my lecture notes from the mothballs in
which they have slumbered for more
than twenty years so that anyone
desiring to discern and discriminate
genuine science from pseudoscience
might get a little help from my experience. What follows are some characteristics that I associate with scientists and the scientific enterprise.
Curiosity
Before all else, to be scientific is
to be curious about the world
around us. Why does the thunderclap always follow the lightningflash? What is living under that
dead and rotting log? Why are all
the bird species on this island so
closely related? Why are most
American Catholic cardinals and
bishops of Irish descent, and what
does that have to do with a parasitic
fungus? Why do some people with
American Atheist

college degrees think the

world is only six thousand years old? Curiosity
is the prime mover of science and
scientists.
Without it, there would
be no forward movement
in science, no motive for
discovery, no thrust to
propel us from the world
of the known into the realm of the
unknown. It is curiosity that sends
us as hunters into the dark forest of
ignorance to discover and capture
new facts and understandings that
can be brought back as trophies to
exhibit in the great heritage halls of
the human intellect.

about the world rather

than wanting to prove a
preconceived notion of
dogma - is that one 'wins'
no matter how an experiment or test turns out.
Being free of incorrect
ideas and delusions is as
useful a reward as discovering a 'truth' that you
can stake your life on.

that
Many people forget
there is a big difference
between a mind that is open
and a mind that is gaping.

Intellectualism
To be scientific is to be intellectual - that is, to derive pleasure
from employing one's intellect, to
enjoy contemplating ideas, to feel
that ideas in themselves are pleasures apart from any physical or
monetary rewards that may accompany them. Conversely, anti-intellectuals often are distrustful of science and hostile to its practitioners.
Teachers of science must do all that
is possible to help their students
share in the thrill of discovery of
new ideas or of novel consequences
of old ones. Could any student not
feel at least a tingle of delight upon
learning that there would be no
Episcopalians had it not been for
syphilis?

ference between a mind that is open

and a mind that is gaping.
Bias - a mental leaning or inclination - is much harder to avoid.
Fortunately, in the course of scientific
progress, one person's bias is likely
to be counterbalanced by the contrary bias of another researcher, and
any contradictory results achieved
alert the entire scientific community
that there may be a bias problem. In
the experimental sciences, doubleblind experiments are designed to
eliminate the bias of the experimenter. In such experiments, often
carried out when testing drugs on
human subjects, neither the subjects nor the experimenters know
who is getting the actual drug and
who is getting the placebo because
the stuff being administered has
been secretly coded by someone not
directly involved in the conduct of
the experiment. Later, after all the
observations of results have been
recorded, the code is disclosed and it
is possible to compare the experimental group with the placebo
group without bias.
Doubt

Open-Mindedness
To be scientific is to be openminded and fair, and to eschew bias
and prejudice. Prejudice is to have
your conclusions before you have
your facts. This is the method of'scientific creationism,' and it is a major
reason for concluding that creationism is not scientific. Open-minded
means no more than that one is willing to consider new evidence and
arguments and weigh them fairly. It
does not mean that one is in any
way obliged to accept them. Many
people forget that there is a big difParsippany, New Jersey

To be scientific is to be a
doubter. Demand proof for everything. "Test all things, hold fast that
which is good" [1 Thess 5:21]. As
Peter Abelard [1079-1142] said,
"Through doubt we are led to
inquiry; and through inquiry we are
led to truth." Doubt your own best
hypotheses and try to disprove
them. No matter what happens, you
will have a stronger hypothesis as a
result - an hypothesis more worthy
of being accepted as true. The beauty
of being truly scientific - that is,
really wanting to know what is true
Spring 2004

Ockham's Razor
A scientific person always tries
to apply Ockham's Razor, a principle
first formulated in Latin by the
medieval philosopher William of
Ockham [c. 1285- c.1349]. "Entia
non sunt multiplicanda
prseter
necessitatem" - basic assumptions
should not be multiplied beyond
necessity. According to this principle, when there are competing
explanations for a fact or phenomenon, the simplest adequate explanation should be chosen, the explanation that requires the fewest basic
assumptions or postulates. In the
words of the American philosopher
of science Charles Sanders Pierce
[1839-1914], "more elements must
not be introduced into a hypothesis
until it is absolutely proved that
fewer are not sufficient" (Essays in
the Philosophy
of Science, ed.
Vincent Tomas, New York: The
Liberal Arts Press, 1957,251).
To Benjamin Franklin, this
principle was just common sense.
He explained lightning in terms of
electricity - period. It probably
never occurred to him to include a
wrathful Jehovah as a causal factor.
This principle was applied most
famously by the mathematician
Pierre Simon de Laplace [17491827] in his answer to Napoleon
Bonaparte [1769-1821]. The emperor had asked him why he made no
mention of "the Good Lord" in his
treatise on celestial mechanics.
"Sire," said Laplace, "I have had no
need of that hypothesis." In the
same way, evolutionary biologists,
when trying to dissuade boards of
education from following the siren
Page 25

song of Intelligent Design lobbyists

have to show that the hypothesis of
supernatural design is not needed in
order to account for the adaptations
of plants and animals. They have to
get the boards to see that the Ideers
aren't shaving with Ockham's
Razor.
Explainabili ty
To be scientific is to feel that all
things and events are explainable in
principle, that everything happens
for a reason, and that only natural
explanations can be valid. If one
thought that certain properly
framed questions were unanswerable, the driving force of
curiosity would be thwarted
and no advances in knowledge
would ensue.
Supernatural explanations
are ruled out not because scientists are prejudiced against
them, but rather due to the practical
reason that they exemplify the fallacy known to old-time logicians as
ignotum per ignotius - the attempt
to explain the unknown in terms of
the more unknown.
Eschewing this fallacy, science
always tries to explain the unknown
in terms of the known. When
Benjamin Franklin explained the
mysteries of lightning in terms of
the well-studied properties of electricity, he was acting as the paragon
of scientists. Best of all, his purely
theoretical discoveries led almost
immediately to the invention of the
lightning rod, a device that has
saved countless lives over the centuries and preserved all of the
world's architectural treasures that
still stand today. This includes all
the world's cathedrals and most of
its churches. One might argue with
justice that the priests and preachers whose church steeples sport
lightning rods atop their highest
crosses do not really have faith in
their god. Rather, in Ben Franklin
they trust!
Franklin's theological opponents
to the contrary, however, were not

scientific.They committed the fallacy

of ignotum per ignotius - explaining
the unknown in terms of the less
Ijknown. They 'explained' the lightning bolts as the wrath of a righteous Jehovah - thus raising greater,
more profound, and more unapproachable questions than the one
they thought they were explaining.
Why was Jehovah so peeved at the
steeples of his worshippers' churches? Why didn't he zap Franklin's
wicked workshop? Exactly what was
the
mechanism
of Jehovah's
destruction? If not electricity, just
exactly what were lightning bolts

Divine intelligence is the last refuge

of all who have despaired of doing
real science and envy those who are
brighter of vision. By obscuring the
view and blocking the way into the
woods of discovery, these benighted
folks seek to preserve the fragile
security of a faith that is no longer
useful to the modern mind.
Reductionism
Because science tries to explain
the unknown in terms of the known
- or at least, the better known - it is
reductionist in its broad trajectory.
Because physical systems are
generally simpler than biological ones, inquiries
into
physics and its subdiscipline
astronomy were the first to
yield fruits of knowledge.
Although chemistry's history
goes back almost as far as
that of physics, it was slower
in yielding reliable knowledge. Only
after the triumph of the atomic theory in physics was the stage set for
extraordinary progress in chemistry.
Chemistry has advanced in direct
proportion to its success in reducing
its phenomena to the terms of
physics. Where would our understanding of chemical bonds be if we
knew nothing of electrons and protons?
With the growth in chemical
comprehension, understanding
of
biological systems has progressed at
an astonishing pace. But already a
hundred years earlier, before chemistry could make its contribution to
our understanding of life on Earth,
physics had given biology a boost
when Charles Darwin [1809-1882]
formulated his theory of evolution
by means of natural selection.
Although his theory in final form
resulted from his direct examination of living things, all his observations were viewed against the background of the 'deep time' provided
by his geological studies. At its most
basic level, geology also can be
viewed as a subdiscipline of physics,
and so this foundational theory of

They have to get the

boards to see that the
Ideers aren't shaving
with Ockham's Razor.

Page 26

made of? How does Jehovah throw

them? Why does he often miss what
some might suppose to be the most
appropriate targets? And what is it
exactly that motivates this Jehovah
anyway? Is there a theopsychologist
in the house? How does one psychoanalyze a god? What can one do to
investigate these questions?
Finally, we must reject supernatural explanations for the practical and simple reason that they
make an end of science instead of
advancing it. When IntelligentDesign creationists say that the
motor proteins of the bacterial flagellum are the products of a supernatural designing intelligence, they
have not just given a non-answer to
the question "How did these molecular engines come about?" They have
ended the quest for knowledge and
understanding
altogether. Divine
intelligence is unknowable and
incomprehensible. It is the last
refuge not only of some scoundrels
but, more pathetically, it is the last
refuge of all whose intellects are too
feeble or too frightened to discern
the paths through the darkling
forests where discoveries are made.
Spring 2004

American Atheist

biology can be seen as being firmly

rooted in physics.
As a general consequence of
reductionism, we try to comprehend
sociologyby reducing it to terms of
psychology.Psychology is reduced to
terms of biology (physiology and
evolutionary studies of behavior),
and biology is reduced to chemistry.
Chemistry, as we have already
noted, is reducible to physics, and
the ultimate of reductionism is
achieved by the transformation of
physics into mathematics.
(Of
course, mathematics is used as an
explanatory tool at all levels of the
scientific hierarchy, from sociology
down to physics.)

label of 'The Scientific Method.' It is

asserted that most scientists do not
actually work that way. Before we
can decide if it should be part of our
definition of 'scientific,' it may be
advisable to review the textbook
prescription. Back when I was in
high school, the scientific method
was taught as a five-step procedure:
(1) Define and delimit a problem.
(2) Gather facts and information
related to the problem.
(3) Form an hypothesis which
offers a solution.
(4) Subject your hypothesis to
relevant, controlled experiments,
tests, or observations.
(5) Draw conclusions.

Science and Superstition

To be scientific is not to be
superstitious. In reality, this is harder
than it sounds. Superstition is more
than just being phobic about black
cats or walking under ladders or
avoiding the thirteenth floors of tall
buildings. Superstition is the false
association of causes and effects.
Without doubt, someone, somewhere, at some time must have had
a disastrous experience after walking under a ladder and falsely connected his action with the disaster.
In its extreme form, superstition can
involve the association of effects
with imaginary causes. Thus, malaria long was associated with 'bad
air' or evil spirits rather than mosquitoes. 'Bad air' is unknown to science, and evil spirits are as imaginary as good ones. It is completely
understandable that in the early
days, much of what passed for science is now seen to have been superstition. It has taken time for science
to work out its many contradictions
and, by the process of elimination,
figure out which causal associations
were genuine and which were spurious.

Provided one does not insist on

too inflexible an adherence to this
prescription, this still seems to be a
reasonable generalization of the scientific enterprise. It is true that few
scientists actually start by defining
and delimiting a problem. Usually
the problem just falls upon them or
is assigned to them. Frequently,

they first encounter facts and information relating to a broad problem

and then they delimit the problem
on the basis of how much farther
they think it is likely they can
expand their database. Then too,
many scientists never get to the
hypothesis-forming stage. Often so
little is known in some fields that
entire lifetimes are consumed simply in the making of observations
and trying to discern regularities.
This was the case in biology prior to
1859, when Charles Darwin published his grand unifying theory of
evolution by means of natural selection. Before Darwin, biology was
limited to cataloging, classifying,
and describing the world's living
things and trying to understand
their anatomy and - to some extent
- physiology.
Despite the fuzziness of the
methodology actually employed by
working scientists, it seems to me
the five-step method I learned in
school can still serve as an ideal to
which scientific people may aspire.

Sna shots atjasonlove.com

The Scientific Method

It has become fashionable in
recent years to discount the procedure taught in schools under the
Parsippany, New Jersey

"I've been picking up a lot of dirty habits around here ... "

Spring 2004

Page 27

Probability and Testability

To be scientific, one probably
must accept the idea that all knowledge resolves itself into probability.
That is, we probably cannot know
anything beyond a shadow of a
doubt. Even so, 'faith' in some ideas
may be a 'better bet' than faith in
some others. Acceptance of an
hypothesis that has successfully
passed many tests (experiments or
critical observations) is a better bet
than acceptance of an hypothesis
that has passed few or no tests, or
perhaps cannot be tested at all. The
faith that is so highly prized in religion is of the latter, untestable sort
and is thus utterly different from
the confidence or tentative acceptance that scientists accord to tested
propositions.
The notion that knowledge is
probabilistic has found strong support in the growth of quantum
physics and disciplines such as statistical mechanics, where old-fashioned Newtonian concepts of cause
and effect not only are not used but
not needed. In the astonishing world
where Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle reigns supreme and where
we can accurately predict how many
atoms in a lump of uranium will
decay within the next five hours even though we can't know exactly
which atoms are going to be
involved - we are forced to be more
modest in our ambitions for understanding the world.
Meaningful Testing
To be scientific one must work
with hypotheses and propositions
that are meaningful in the sense
that they can be tested at least in
principle. This notion has been
attacked by some philosophers in
recent decades, but here again I
think it is not only justifiable but
the very bedrock of scientific philosophy.
Consider the following sentences:
(1) The moon is made of green
Page 28

... to express awe, surprise, or

perplexity because of natural laws
is nothing more than being astonished by the fact that like causes
regularly produce like effects.
cheese.
(2) Undetectable gremlins inhabit the rings of Saturn.
I submit, only one of these sentences is false.
In the case of the moon's composition, even before we actually flew
to the moon and our astronauts discovered that moon dust is unsuitable for salad dressing, it was possible to test Proposition (1). Astronomers
could pass moonlight
through spectroscopes to infer the
chemical composition of the moon by
comparing the moon's spectrum
with that of known substances here
on earth. Before the existence of telescopes and spectroscopes, one could
at least imagine being on the moon
and carrying out simple tests for the
presence of green cheese. The moon
sentence thus is meaningful by
virtue of its being testable at least in
principle. It is meaningful but false,
as it turns out.
But now let us consider the
gremlin sentence, Proposition (2).
When America's space probes
passed the rings of Saturn, they
detected no undetectable gremlins
whatsoever. Nor could they do so in
principle. Even if they had had the
finest gremlinometers that NASA's
many creation scientists could provide, any undetectable gremlins
residing in the region would forever
remain undetected. Even if endowed
with the unfettered imagination of a
six-day creationist, no one exists
who could conceive of a way to test
Proposition (2). Being untestable
even in principle, we must conclude
that the undetectable gremlin sentence is scientifically meaningless that is, it can't even be false. Truth
and falseness are attributes only for
Spring 2004

testable propositions. Propositions

that are not testable are meaningless.*
It turns out that many of the
'great questions' of science prove to
be scientifically meaningless by
virtue
of their
untestability.
Assertions such as 'The universe is
finite' or 'The universe is eternal'
cannot be tested even in the imagination. Even though many scientists have applied much thought to
such pseudopropositions and have
spilled much argumental ink over
them, such problems lie outside the
province of science. They are metaphysical musings that are without
scientific meaning.
Scientific Laws and Theories
Scientists look for regularities
in the phenomena
of nature.
Principles such as 'Electromagnetic
repulsion varies inversely with the
square of the distance' and 'Fossils
change through time' are referred to
as laws if it appears that they are
likely to be universal. Unlike human
laws which imply the existence of a
lawgiver, natural laws are simply
sophisticated ways of saying "That's
the way it goes." In no way does
their existence imply a lawgiver.
The confusion of natural laws with
human laws is a characteristic error
committed by Intelligent Design
"It should be noted that ethical and aesthetic propositions such as 'Death is bad'
or 'Life is beautiful' are also untestable.
Although they may have emotional
'meaning,' from a scientific point of view
they are meaningless. For this reason,
ethics and aesthetics lie beyond the
purview of science, even though as
human beings scientists may be deeply
concerned about both.
American Atheist

enthusiasts. When you think about

it, to express awe, surprise, or perplexity because of natural laws is
nothing more than being astonished
by the fact that like causes regularly
produce like effects.
Scientists construct hypotheses
to explain the regularities detected
in their observations. Thus, Benjamin Franklin noted that lightning
in some cases behaved the way electricity did in his laboratory experiments. He hypothesized that lightning behaved that way because it
was just a bunch of electricity. With
a bit of testing, it appeared that all
the peculiarities
of lightning's
behavior could be explained by the
lightning-as-electricity hypothesis.
After many further tests of increasing rigor and sophistication, the
hypothesis that lightning was electricity became the electrical theory
of lightning.
Similarly, when Charles Darwin
visited the Galapagos Islands, he
noted a riotous profusion of finch
species that faintly resembled a
species of finch found on the adjacent South American mainland. He
later hypothesized that wayward
finches from the continent had populated the islands long ago and had
changed through time and had
evolved into the genera and species
of the present. With the addition of
many more observational regularities involving change in other organisms in other places, this explanatory
hypothesis became transformed into
what some have called his 'General
Theory of Evolution' - the theory
that organisms change through time
by a process of descent with modification.
Inasmuch
as theories
are
hypotheses that have been tested
repeatedly and that have survived
despite repeated attempts to disprove them, it can be seen that
theories are the highest form of scientific knowledge. This does not
mean that they can be supposed to
be True with a capital T; it simply
means they are the best explanations we have, given the present
state of knowledge and evidence.
Parsippany, New Jersey

Self-Correction
To be scientific, a system must
be self-testing. To quote the great
paleontologist
George
Gaylord
Simpson, "The most wide-spread
and conclusive process of self-testing in science is testing by multiplication of relevant observations ... A
key word in the expression 'multiplication of relevant observations' is
relevant. The simplest definition is
that relevant observations are those
that could disprove the hypothesis,
for disproof is often possible even
though absolute proof is not. The
more observations fail to disprove a
hypothesis, the greater the confidence in it" [This View of Life, 172-3].
Creationism, in both its biblical
forms and its latter-day incarnation
as 'Intelligent Design (ID) Theory,'
can be seen to be unscientific for a
number of reasons; but fundamentally it must be rejected because it is
not self-testing and cannot be
improved. The attempts of ID advocates to explain the living world are
no different in essence than those of
Darwin's theological opponents in
the nineteenth century. Although
old and new forms of creationism
appear rather different on the surface, in fact the new forms do no better than did the old ones when it
comes to explaining the world. Like
the old creationism, ID explains
nothing at all.
Real science, when it operates
long enough, exposes its own errors
and misunderstandings. If truth can
be conceived as a point in space, science can be imagined to proceed as a
tightening,
inward
spiral
approaching the point of truth as an
asymptote, ever coming closer and
closer to it without ever actually
reaching it.
The Logic Of Scientific
Discovery
It is often said that science is
characterized by its employment of
inductive logic; that is, it reasons
from the specific to the general
Spring 2004

rather than from the general to the

specific as is the case with deductive
logic. To contrast induction and
deduction by means of a familiar
example, we may consider the
famous syllogism about the mortality
of Socrates:
Major premise: All men are
mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a
man.
Deduction: Socrates is mortal.
If the two premises are true, the
conclusion is true of necessity, even
though it provides no new knowledge beyond that inherent in the
premises.
One almost automatically is
prompted to ask, however, how do
we know the premises are true?
Premises such as 'All men are mortal' are usually arrived at by induction, although very similar premises
(e.g., 'All men are sinners') may be
the gratuitous givens of theology or
other nonscientific disciplines.
We may suppose that over the
years, observations by many people
showed that sooner or later every
human being known died. From a
multitude of specific examples, a
general principle emerged. From the
observation of thousands of crows
came the general principle 'All crows
are black.' This is an example of the
use of inductive logic.
From the discovery of albino or
piebald crows, however, came the
realization that induction cannot be
relied on to produce absolute truth,
even if quite often the 'truth' of
induction may be solid enough to
stake your life on - or at least a
large number of poker chips.
While the use of inductive logic
may be characteristic of science, scientists are not restricted to induction by any means. Deductive logic
figures prominently in the testing of
scientific hypotheses. Thus, when
Franklin noted a number of specific
instances where lightning behaved
like electricity, we may suppose he
formed the induction 'Lightning is
like electricity.'
Page 29

Consciously or not, he made this

a major premise in a deductive syllogism:
Major premise: Lightning is
like electricity.
Minor premise: Electricity can
pass through metal wires &
objects.
Deduction: Lightning should
pass through wires and metal
objects.
We may imagine that such a
deduction led to his famous kiteflying experiment. It would appear
that science proceeds by producing
general principles by induction,
drawing from those principles certain deductions, and then testing
those deductions by observation or
experiment to see if they are in fact
true. By repeated cycles of induction, deduction, and testing, general
principles of ever greater degrees of
confidence come into being.
Some philosophers have argued,
however, that there is a third type of
logic involved in science - especially
when a scientist first forms an
hypothesis to explain a striking fact
or phenomenon. Charles Pierce,
whom we have already cited on the
subject of Ockham's Razor, called
this type of reasoning abduction.
Abduction was employed by scientists whenever they first encountered a peculiar fact and asked
themselves, "How can this be
explained?"
By a hypothesis, I mean, not
merely a supposition about an
observed object, as when I suppose
that a man is a Catholic priest
because that would explain his
dress, expression of countenance,
and bearing, but also any other supposed truth from which would
result such facts as have been
observed. ... The first starting of a
hypothesis and the entertaining of
it, whether as a simple interrogation or with any degree of confidence, is an inferential step which I
propose to call abduction (ibid, 236).

It

is easy

Page 30

to imagine

Ben

Franklin practicing abduction when

he first witnessed a spark discharge
from the Leyden jars in which he
had stored large electric charges.
"Wow! This looks like a miniature
lightning bolt! It burns too! I'll bet
it's made of the same thing as lightning! If electricity and lightning are
the same thing, I can explain why
lightning behaves the way it does."
Burton S. Guttman ("The Real
Method of Scientific Discovery,"
Skeptical Inquirer, Jan.-Feb. 2004,
45-47) has likened the process of
abduction to the mystery-solving
procedure of detectives:
Scientists do not use induction as
classically described. They do not sit
around in their labs trying to establish generalizations about the color
of crows or that the sun will rise
tomorrow ... A little independent
observation of scientists will show
that, in fact, scientists engage in
mystery-solving, essentially like
that of detective work. The principal
difference between science and
detection is that the former deals
with rather general mysteries, such
as why carbon and silicon tend to
form tetrahedral molecules, and the
latter with particular mysteries,
such as who killed Lord Chumley in
his locked study while everyone in
the mansion was apparently sipping cocktails in the drawing room.

Guttman explains abduction

with a sort of general syllogism:
Some surprising phenomenon P
is observed.
P would be explicable as a matter of course if H were true.
Hence there is reason to think
that H is true.
Rephrasing this in the framework of Franklin's research on lightning, we may imagine one of many
abductions he must have made.
"How odd! Lightning
often
strikes the tips of church steeples!
How can this be? This might be
expected if lighting is actually a big
bunch of electricity, which I have
observed to discharge from metal
points on my laboratory equipment.
Spring 2004

"It seems likely that lightning is

just electricity and will behave like
it in other ways also."
After a brilliant stroke of abduction such as this, could the invention
of the lightning rod have been long
in coming?
Conclusion
As I indicated at the beginning
of this essay, to be scientific is to
exhibit many characteristic qualities and behaviors - all of which
should seem admirable to any fairminded observer. Indeed, to be scientific is to partake in the most
noble activity in which human
beings can engage: the creation of
knowledge. Knowledge is power, and
power is what is needed to preserve
and sustain our fellow travelers as
they hurtle through the void on this
spaceship we call Earth. Knowledge
is what is needed to help us understand each other and to devise winwin strategies with which we can all
hang together so that we don't all
hang separately.
Knowledge is what we need to
pursue the second-most important
activity in which our kind can
engage - the creation of beauty.
With beauty illuminating
and
warming our lives, our journey
through the cosmic dark is less cold
and threatening.
As scientific
knowledge helps us to eliminate the
ugliness and superstition that for so
long have weighted down our forebears and made a misery of their
lives, the lives of scientific men and
women become themselves things of
beauty. For those who live the life of
science as I have described it, life
can be exciting, thrilling, satisfying,
and ineffably beautiful. Life can be
meaningful. Life can be worth
living.

American Atheist

Nationalism:
An Antiquated Cult
Narisetti Innaiah

Nationalism
n1938, on the eve of the Second
World War, the Humanist revolutionary and philosopher M.N.
Roy (1887-1955) called Nationalism
an antiquated cult. A person who is
born by accident in a country is
taught that his birthplace is pious
and holy, and that the person must
be prepared to sacrifice his or her
life for the motherland. In the cult of
Nationalism, geography is given
religious sanctity. 'Right or wrong,
my country first' becomes the slogan. When national hysteria is
whipped up, only demagogues profit, and many will seek to justify
their actions in the name of patriotism. Politicians and rulers use
Nationalism for perpetuating their
own ends. People are fooled with all
sorts of national slogans. No wonder
then that Samuel Johnson (Lexicographer in England) cautioned that
patriotism was the last refuge of a
scoundrel!

Extreme Nationalism as seen in

Nazism in Germany and Fascism in
Italy were the bloodiest and most
crudely capitalist phases in recent
European history. They were also
reactionary. While extreme nationalism led to fascism, the cult of
Superman itself grew out of Fascist
and Nazi philosophies. There were
philosophers like Schopenhauer and
Nietzsche who provided the philosophy for the cult. There were literary
people like Carlyle, the British
writer who justified the cult of
heroes and Superman. Spiritualism
added the necessary pep to the cult
of the nation. Thus the cultural
groundwork was laid for the triumph of these authoritarian, collectivist, irrational ideologies. Fascism
and Nazism swore by nationalism,
sought the people's support and
exploited their weaknesses by pandering to their prejudices. In the
case of Hitler, who committed suicide in 1945, the National Socialists
came to power through a democratic

Dr. Narisetti Innaiah has been a university professor in India and has worked actively in the
Humanist movement. He is chairman of a committee of the Indian Humanist and Ethical Union
investigating religious abuse of children. He is the
author of works on Humanism in both English and
Telugu. His Web-site is at -chttpv/innaiahn.tripod.com.

Parsippany, New Jersey

Spring 2004

means of voting, showing that an

entire people can be manipulated
into supporting a self-destructive
ideological and cultural dictatorship.
Setting aside extreme forms of
Nationalism, I believe that even
moderate Nationalism is not compatible with Internationalism. As
long as nation states continue, it
will not be possible to create a world
government, something desired by
many Humanists. This is because
nation states defend and promote
their own interests in arming themselves or guarding their own economic interests or imposing trade
barriers.
Often, their acts are
against the interests
of other
nations and peoples, and at times
against the interests of their own
citizens. The international order is
negatively affected by nations singularly pursuing their own interests. As we see all too often, this is
happening in the modern world.
During wars, national frenzy is rampant everywhere. People die for the
sake of their country. One's own
country is placed above all else.
Even children are dragged into war
and abused by making them accept
this ideal of sacrifice for the nation.
If the history of nations is
traced, it is easy to understand that
national boundaries often change
and then automatically the loyalties
of the people have to change as well!

Page 31

After each war, the boundaries of

countries are redrawn - specially if
the war is on an issue of territoriality. What happens to the previous
nation's piously held geography?
The history of the once-super
powers which divided the world is
instructive in helping us to see that
national boundaries are temporary
and constantly evolving.
The Soviet Union
After the communists established their mighty kingdom in
Moscow in 1917, they redrew the
map of many nations forcibly.Many
neighboring nations were amalgamated into the Soviet Union under
one red flag. Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia,
Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Ukraine, and Belarus came into the
Soviet fold. Again after
glasnost and perestroika
with Gorbachev, the communist world underwent a
rearrangement
and nations redrew their boundaries (1991). Chechnya
wanted to be an independent nation, but Russia is
still resisting.

tenegro have remained as the

Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia,
Slovenia, and Macedonia declared
independence. Czechoslovakia broke
into the Czech Republic and the
Slovak Republic in 1993. Prior to
these events, the Great Berlin Wall
crumbled and the two Germanys
reunited (1990) as soon as the Soviet
communist domination collapsed in
East Germany. The two Vietnams
have become one country (1976).
Most national identities have been
shaped by history and many kept in
place by force. The reality is that
everywhere, national boundaries
are redrawn and are not permanent
features, and then anthems and
maps change as also national
virtues! This exposes the myth of
eternal nations, which is a pure
creation of rulers.

achievement of cosmopolitanism.
The only defect in the United
Nations is that it keeps the Vatican
as an observer, albeit without voting
power. The Vatican represents the
Catholic (Christian) religion. Logic
and reason fail to understand why a
particular denomination is given so
much importance. In fact, the
Vatican is the stumbling bloc for cosmopolitanism and progressive scientific legislation, human values, and
equal rights of men and women.
Muslims and Buddhists also can
claim representation if population is
the basis to have observer status in
the United Nations. Let us hope
that saner elements will prevail and
will delete the observer status of the
Vatican in the near future.
Religion often claims to transcend nationalism. But in practice,
-; it is not doing so. Religion
uses nationalism to sustain itself. Take the
example of Islam. It
claims universality. What
is happening? Saddam
Hussein invaded Kuwait.
He also fought with
neighboring Iran for a
decade. He tortured the
Kurds for claiming separate identity. Where is the role of
Islam in all these wars and aggressions? Pakistan and BangIa Desh
fought and separated. Both are
Muslim. Yet each did not accept the
other. Nationalism is very much in
vogue in all Islamic countries.

The Vatican is the stumbling

bloc for cosmopolitanism and
progressive scientific legislation,
human values, and equal rights
of men and women.

The United States of

America
Today's America is different
from what existed when the Pilgrim
Fathers
from Europe entered
America in the sixteenth century.
The conquerors of America started
with thirteen union states. Much
later, the United States of America
emerged with fifty states. It developed a national anthem, a national
flag, and of course several slogans
which are inscribed on coins and
notes. The USA put the nation above
the individual and demanded sacrifice of the sovereign individual at
the 'altar of nationalism.'
Other Rearrangements
Marshal Titos Yugoslavia has
totally changed since the communist
ruler's death. Serbia and MonPage 32

The United Nations

There are 191 member nations
in the United Nations organization.
Each nation has its own flag,
anthem, and geographical boundaries. Every nation claims greatness
on many accounts, though many
nations cooperate more internationally than they used to before the
advent of the international institutions. East Timor became independent from Indonesia and joined the
United Nations in 2002.
In the General Assembly of the
United Nations, each nation is entitled to one vote. There is no greater
nation or lesser nation. Population
is not the basis of vote. There are
sparsely populated nations and
enormously populated nations like
China and India. Yet all nations are
treated equally. That itself is a great
Spring 2004

Religion and Nationalism

It is true that the sanctity given
to a nation or a land may play some
role in consolidating some forces in
society, and even yield some positive
results - as happened in the twentieth century when many nations
rebelled and revolted against colonialism, imperialism, and foreign
dominance
and
exploitation.
However, soon after bringing political independence to the people,
nationalism develops into a myth
and a cult.
American Atheist

A typical example
would
be
India:
Historical India is quite
different from the present day geographical
and political entity that
India
is.
Conquest
brought vast areas of
land under the rule of
emperors. Under colonial British rule, India
changed its geographical boundaries
radically after a period of consolidation. At the time of the First World
War there was no Pakistan, no Sri
Lanka, no Myanmar: the whole land
was India and all nationalists
offered their loyalty to India. But by
the time the British left India in
1947 after the Second world War,
the above three nations had been
carved out of India. Still later,
Bangladesh
emerged
out
of
Pakistan, and all these countries
now have their own nationalist rhetoric, and citizens swear loyalty to
the new political entities.
Tibet is now under the 'protection' of China since 1959. India recognized the suzerainty of China. The
Dalai Lama, the Buddhist religious
leader, had to flee the country.
As in India or as in Pakistan,
Nationalism uses religion as a tool
and an instrument to consolidate its
position. Humanists recognize that
both Nationalism and religion have
the same appeal. They are based on
collective identities and marginalize
the individual. They treat the individuals as of no consequence. They
seek to mediate with a mythical
entity on behalf of the people for a
supposed better future for the
people. While political parties are
the instruments
of nationalism,
priests are the instruments of religion; and together they make a
potent and lethal combination. As
radical Humanists often point out,
the freedom and sovereignty of
humans was robbed by religions in
earlier days and political parties in
modern days. Religions did it in the
name of God. Political parties are
robbing in the name of delegation of
power. While religion theoretically

secular Muslim, turned

into a fundamentalist
and demanded a separate nation.
Subhas
Chandra
Bose during the Second
World
War
played
aggressive national politics. In his antagonism
to British imperialism,
Bose sought the help of
Fascist, Nazi, and Japanese imperialism. He adopted the slogan "my
enemy's enemy is my friend" and
directly approached Hitler and
Japan for help to throw out the
British from India. At that juncture
M.N. Roy advised Subhas Bose not
to play into the hands of Nazi and
Fascist hands, which were much
more dangerous than those of the
British. Roy's advice was not heeded
and Bose became very emotional in
his national frenzy. In the end M.N.
Roy said that after the Second World
War the British were bound to leave
India, since they became weak and
could no longer sustain the colonies.
He was right. But Bose had no
patience. He jumped into the war
fray to die in Taiwan. The Japanese
used Bose but did not give any freehand in the freedom fight.
Even the Communists turned a
blind eye towards Nazi and Fascist
dangers at the beginning. Stalin
made a pact with Hitler. M.N. Roy
warned of the impending danger of
Hitler's aggressive intentions. But
the communists called names and
turned away from M.N. Roy.In India
the communists blindly supported
the Hitler-Stalin pact and hailed the
Soviet Union as Father of communism. Very soon they had to suffer at
the hands of Hitler. International
communism in the Soviet Union
changed its colors and suddenly
started chanting national songs. The
communists abandoned the international anthem after the failure of
the Stalin-Hitler pact. That was
nationalism.
People migrate to other nations
to better their lives, to earn, and to
progress. Take the example of
Telugu people migrating to the

As radical Humanists often point

out, the freedom and sovereignty of
humans was robbed by religions in
earlier days and political parties in
modern days.

Parsippany, New Jersey

can go beyond nationalism, in practice nationalism and religion are

hand in glove, because religion
adapts itself to suit national needs.
After independence, extreme
Hindu nationalism in India - which
existed for a long time - started
gaining strength and took the name
and shape of Hindutva. Because
Pakistan was created on the basis of
Islam, many Indian extremists
would like to see India as a Hindu
homeland. In their minds Indian
culture is equated with Hinduism. A
leading ideologue and political
leader from the extreme right calls
for cultural nationalism, where
Christians and Muslims in India are
asked to adopt Hindu culture to
prove their identity and national
spirit. The advocates of Hindutva
claim that they are democratic and
that their ideas have popular support. Hindutva had its roots in preindependence days. Vivekananda
(originally Narendranath Dutt from
Bengal) preached spiritual nationalism. He wanted to expand aggressive Hinduism throughout
the
world, which amounts to Hindu
imperialism. That slogan of Vivekananda inspired some Congress
Party leaders during early twentieth century.
Bal Gangadhar
Tilak from
Maharastra brought religion into
politics by introducing the Ganesh
festival into public demonstration.
Anne Besant, the British citizen
became the president
of the
Congress Party and brought theology into politics. Mohan Das
Karamchand Gandhi popularized
religion through his prayer meetings. He activated religious politics,
which antagonized the Muslim community. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the
Spring 2004

Page 33

United States of America. When the

Indians become citizens of the USA,
they take an oath on the constitution. That means the migrant
Indians should be loyal to the flag
and the nation during war and
peace times. If there is conflict
between India and USA, naturally
the migrant Indians who settled and
took an oath in America should opt
for the adopted country and support
it against their original country, i.e.,
India. That is nationalism! If the
Indians in America support their
original country India during war or
conflict, they will be treated as traitors and their act is punishable. The
same situation exists in every
nation. Citizens cannot treat the
issues on the basis of merit and
according to the UN charter. Only
cosmopolitanism can help for such
situation.
Religions
Religions treat humans as sinners or as unworthy of any dignity
other than that which is given them
by a god. The morals, values, and
principles of religions are oriented
towards service to their god(s). The
intermediary institution of priesthood was created to negotiate and
interpret
allegedly divine commands to humans. All religions are
stumbling blocks to implementation
of human rights, children's rights,
and human values and morals. It is
an uphill task to break the religious
chains around humans and make
them free. The minds of humans are
polluted with religious superstitions, blind beliefs from childhood.
That is why even scientists are
sometimes unable to overcome the
indoctrination of their childhood,
and are caught in these religious
cobwebs. This is antithetical to the
concept of a modern society,but religion intimately identified with the
identity of a nation makes reform
very difficult.

Page 34

Political Parties
A scourge of Nation states is the
system of political parties. Political
parties are created to capture
power, claiming to represent the
best interests of the people. They
appeal in the name of the nation,
attract voters with manifestos and
promises of a bright future. Elections are held periodically to get the
consent of people and elect the representatives. In this process the sovereignty of the people is delegated to
the representatives. Political parties
vie with each other to lure the voters with all sorts of slogans. People
cannot go and sit in parliaments or
senates to monitor their day-to-day
affairs. Hence they prefer the representatives to act on their behalf In
this process the elected representatives become powerful and in due
course act as though they are the
masters.
Ultimately
a leader
emerges as a very powerful charis-,
matic person with enormous powers. That process leads to corruption. To remain in power and to win
elections continuously the persons
in power compete in raising more
attractive slogans and give false
promises. Visions of Great Nations
and Great History are propagated.
Political parties enter into every
walk of life. In due course they also
enter religion. Political parties forget the secular principles of separating religion from state. Religion in
turn demands promises from political parties during elections. Thus
religion enters politics indirectly.
Religion wants the political parties
to respect beliefs, holy books, and
superstitious commands. Religion
obstructs the laws of free choice of
birth and opposes birth control.
Religion
opposes
euthanasia.
Religion opposes teaching of evolution in schools. Religion demands
prayers in primary schools. There is
no end of religious demands from
political parties. To get votes, the
parties promise whatever the religions demand.

Spring 2004

The collective notions and irrationality that power either a nation

state or a religion are detrimental to
human freedom. These myths
should end so that Humanism can
help create world citizens and a cosmopolitan atmosphere.
After two wars, the nations had
bitter lessons. They came together to
create the United Nations. Human
rights emerged. The world is traveling
towards
cosmopolitanism.
Doctors without boarders are at
work. An international court is functioning. UN soldiers are accepted as
peacekeeping forces. The Euro has
given Europe a single currency.
All nations signed the Charter
of Human Rights. That is a great
achievement. But nations are still
powerful. Science and technology
are cutting across the boarders of
nations. The benefits of science are
universal - the scientific method
has no national boundaries. This
method has to be inculcated from
the primary level to all children so
that they overcome the narrow concepts of nationalism and progress
towards cosmopolitanism. Then,
human values and human dignity
will gain the upper hand. We have a
long way to go, but that is a desirable and prosperous way indeed.
Select References
1.

Ray, Sib Narayan (ed.). Selected

works of M.N. Roy, Oxford Books, 4
vols. (2000).
2. Innaiah, Narisetti (ed.). M.N. Roy:
Radical Humanism,
Prometheus
Books, (2004).
3. Zakaria, Fareed. Future of Freedom,
Viking Penguin Books, (2003).
4. Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted
World, Ballantine Books, (1996).
5. Kurtz, Paul. Embracing the Power
of Humanism, Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield publishers, (2000).
6. Roberts, J.M. The penguin history of
the world, Penguin, (1997).
7. Diamond, Larry, and Mark F. Plattner.
Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and
Democracy,
John
Hopkins
University Press (1994).

American Atheist

\ \I

Parsippany, New Jersey

Spring 2004

Page 35

New Title Available In June!

NATURAL ATHEISM
By David Eller
"I was born an Atheist. All
humans are born Atheists.
No baby born into the
world arrives with specific
religious beliefs or knowledge. Such beliefs and
knowledge
must
be
acquired, which means
that they must first exist
before and apart from the
new life and that they
must be presented to and
impressed on the new suggestible mind - one that
has no critical apparatus
and no alternative views
of its own. Human infants
are like sponges, soaking up (not completely uncritically,
but eagerly and effectively) whatever is there to be
soaked up from their social environment. Small children
in particular instinctively imitate the models that they
observe in their childhood, but 1 was not compelled to
attend or practice any particular religion, and as 1 grew
I never saw any reason to 'convert' to any particular religion. I have thus been an Atheist all my life. 1 am a natural Atheist.
"Some people doubt whether one can be a natural
Atheist. They claim that Atheism requires an active
rejection of religious belief, which cannot occur without
prior exposure or even commitment to religion. So, a
newborn is not yet an 'Atheist' but something other than
Atheist or Theist, they maintain - a 'pre-theist' maybe.
Atheism must be a choice. 1 see this argument as spurious and actually negatively motivated. Theists do not
want to admit that they were once Atheists too and that
they gave it up not by any choice they made but by the
forces imposed on them by a religious world."
-From the Introduction
Everything is here to help those who already are
Atheists better understand the logic of their lives and
see Atheism's social and political implications. Those
who are not yet Atheists will be helped by this scientist's
common-sense analysis of the so-called 'proofs of God' to
see the irrationality - indeed, the meaninglessness - of
god-beliefs.What is belief? What is knowledge? As Pilate
is alleged to have asked, "What is truth?"
Understandable and clear answers to all these questions
Page 36

are given by a seasoned anthropologist who has been

able to see around the blinders imposed by -IudeeoChristian cultures.
Dr. Eller leads readers through "a short course on
reason" into an intelligible discussion of the nature of
proof, unreason, religion, and relativism. An account of
how discoveries in anthropology resulted in a loss of certainty concerning human nature and destiny leads to an
analysis of the concepts and issues of importance to
Atheists: knowing us. believing; Agnosticism us. what
has been called positive or negative Atheism; science us.
religion; toleration and truth. Reasons for separating
religion from government are provided and the dangers
of fundamentalisms of all kinds are exposed. Eller
explains why Atheists should band together to spread
their 'good news,' defend their common interests - interests which prove to be those of civilization itself - and
help their fellow citizens adjust to living in a disenchanted world.
David Eller was born an Atheist and has never
found any reason to think otherwise. He holds a Ph.D. in
Cultural Anthropology and has conducted fieldwork
among Australian Aboriginals. He has studied all of the
major world religions and dozens of other traditional
and tribal religions. He has concluded that an Atheist is
not someone who knows too little about religion but
someone who knows too much. His From Culture to
Ethnicity to Conflict deals with the problem of international ethnic conflict. Other books by Eller include
Culture and the Real World and Violence and Culture.
He is a regular contributor to major freethought as well
as scientific journals. He teaches Cultural Anthropology
in Denver, Colorado, where he lives with his wife and
three cats.

Published By
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
Cranford, New Jersey
ISBN 1-57884-920-9

$18.00

He that in a neat house will

dwell,
Must priest and pigeon thence
expel.

Spring 2004

-Ronnie

Johanson

666 Ordak Mot Presteskapet

American Atheist

Atheism In History
Courtesy of the Charles E. Stevens
American Atheist Library & Archives
Compiled by Ellen Johnson

THE HORNET
Fork, North Carolina
January 1952
THE HORNET newspaper was founded in 1902 by W.Henry Davis. A one year subscription cost $1.00.
It proclaimed on its masthead that it was "The Hottest Paper For Free-Thinkers In America." The left
side of the masthead contained the following: "THE HORNET'S FAITH: Ultimate Victory for all TRUTH
is certain; Final Defeat of all Falsehood is Inevitable." The right side of the masthead proclaimed: "OUR
GOLDEN TEXT for Time and Eternity: IF IT'S TRUE, IT WILL STAND:IF FALSE, IT WILL FALL."

HORNET STINGERS
Belief and knowledge are no wise akin.
Funny, how the simple take to falsehoods.
A "doubting Thomas" is usually a sensible man.
Belief adds nothing to a Christian's knowledge.
"Blasphemy" is the last word of a cornered preacher.
Knowledge is truth Obtain the truth -

and both together are "salvation."

and "the truth will make you free."

Sanity is a "sin" - in the sight of the superstitious.

It takes very little of the Pope's dope to yank the yokels.
Thinking is hard work. Believing the old superstitions is easy.
Religion can't keep many of its addicts from lying and stealing.
Stop the flow of cash and see how long the pulpit remains standing.
There is no way to avoid labor pains when giving birth to new truths.
In fooling himself, a fundamentalist

must "become as a little child."

One thing about Balaam's ass, he did not mount a pulpit to do his braying.
Honesty is one - not fifteen hundred divisions, as the religions of the world are.
Some Christians are mad all the time, and they and the rest of us do not know what "at."
All Protestant denominations will eventually unite. They are seeing the necessity of it now.
The mean things that the Catholics and Protestants used to say about each other are still true.
Parsippany, New Jersey

Spring 2004

Page 37

It is the folks who don't think for themselves who believe everything a bunch of priests tell them.
A camel goes 8 days without a drink, which is about seven days more than a Bible belt Pharisee can.
The meanest, lowest down and most unprincipled people we ever knew were awful religious and powerfully "churchy."
Our opinion - ignorance is the hell - and a priest who wants to keep the people in abject ignorance is the only Devil.
Regarding the Samson technique, many people who attend church on Sunday are mentally slain with the jaw bones
of pulpit asses.
Truly "the love of money is the root of all evil," and priestcraft is one willow that has emanated from that root.
These days the Catholics and Protestants are getting their creeds mixed with their greeds, and great is the
entanglement thereof.
If the orthodox and fundamentalists tell us that we'll "be damned if we don't accept their view,"we'll tell 'em right
now, we'll be damned if we do.
There are many Christians trying to reach "mansions in the sky" who are charging poor devils too much for a hovel
on the earth.
One missionary said he converted ten thousand native Africans by blowing a trombone at them. The Africans are
peculiarly helpless against the weapons of modern religion.
Why does it take a preacher six days to prepare to tell his Sunday audience how to stay in the road that is "so plain
that any fool may not err therein?"
FREETHOUGHT'S

FUTURE

The hope of freethought lies with the young men and women who are asking questions. They are not swallowing
in toto the old flapdoodle in the way that the preachers want them to do. Many young men write The Hornet and now
and then we hear from a young woman. They are interested and always make us feel optimistic. Quit complaining
about the "young people," especially the youths in their latter teens. Let us suggest that you pick out a few sensible
ones and provide them with some good freethought literature. They show you that they are not afraid of an intellectual meat diet.
FUNNY IDEAS
At one period it was a serious question with doctors of divinity as to whether Adam had a navel or not. Some of
the reverends held that as Adam was created full grown, he did not need a navel and therefore had none. Others held
that he had a navel, even though he had no use for one. The question was never definitely settled. It was simply
pigeon-holed by these doctors of divinity.
The question as to whether or not unbaptized babies go to hell still looms up in good Presbyterian circles.
Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather said that hell was full of damned babies, and these gentlemen advocated that
the Quakers, who did not believe this doctrine, be hung. They were.
Then there is the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, or foreordinated damnation. Synods of Presbyterian preachers have argued for years over the blessed (or cussed) gospel of God, having selected, before their birth, a chosen few
for eternal bliss, and having damned to endless torment the vast majority of the human race. These matters are still
open for final settlement. Like the question relative to Adam's navel, they ought to be settled.
It seems strange, but human beings do things in this world, and believe doctrines, that would appear foolish to
other animals. You could not frighten a monkey about going to hell when he dies, or make him believe that his young,
if not baptized, would go to hell too. A monkey has more sense than that.

Page 38

Spring 2004

American Atheist

Statement Released by Nicola Giovannini at

La Cena de le Ceneri
'The Ash Wednesday Dinner'
A European Freethought Convention Convened at Freiburg, Germany
February 25, 2004
The Draft European Constitution And Its Antisecular Article 51
Nicola Giovannini Adviser of the Radical Deputies in the
European Parliament Assistant at the Political Sciences Faculty,
Scientific Collaborator of the Political Theory Centre
ULB (Univer'site Libre de Bruxelles)

you know, during the

European
Convention's
works, the debate on the reference of "Christian roots" in the
preamble
of the
EU
Draft
Constitutional Treaty has focused
the political and public media's
attention. One of the reasons of this
focusing were the strong and insistent pressures from Catholic and
Protestant
ecclesiastical
hierarchies. The Vatican through the voice
of the Pope, the COMECE (Commission of the Bishops' Conferences
of the European Community) and
the CEC (Conference of European
Churches) have been very pressing
on the issue. Furthermore, some EU
Member States that have privileged
relationships
with the Vatican
because of concordats, as Italy,
Spain, and Portugal, and some EU
Candidate States with a strong
Catholic tradition, as Poland, have
played the role of political relay.
What can we say about this
claim? Firstly, the scope of a constitution is not to be a synthesis of the
historical and cultural backgrounds
of a political entity. The initial reason of the European Constitution
was to establish institutional rules
and norms able to clarify and simplify the division of competencies
between EU Institutions
and
Member States and to strengthen
the democratic character of the
Parsippany, New Jersey

decision-making process at EU
level. Secondly, to ask for an explicit
reference to Christian legacy as an
exemplary and fundamental source
of the European identity reflects a
selective memory. If we have to recognize the "religious legacy" in the
history of Europe, intellectual honesty requires to recognize its complexity or its ambiguity, its obscurantist sides. Should we forget that
our continent has been devastated
by confessional wars? The religious
legacy of Europe is also made of the
autos da fe and the stakes under the
Inquisition, the Bref Quod Aliquantum by which the Pope Pius VI condemned human rights, the Syllabus
by which Pius IX expressed his
opposition to freedom, Democracy,
and, to a free and responsible religious practice.
Finally, we cannot admit to
founding Europe on a particular
faith, religious or not. To mention a
specific religion in the European
Constitution will be discriminatory
for the other religions and for the
nonbelievers and the philosophical
groups that do not refer to a transcendence.
The European Union is an economic and political entity. In the
Treaties, there are no religious references. So in the constitution of a
political entity that gathers citizens
of different religions or beliefs, what
Spring 2004

matters is not to recognize a particular religion or to mention God as a

"guarantee of human dignity" but to
guarantee freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as Article 10 of
the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union does.
But I don't want to focus on this
aspect. To me, it appears clear that
the highlighting made on the spiritual claims of Protestant
and
Catholic churches has served to
occult, to overshadow the offensive
that these latter also conducted in
favor of a recognition of an institutional function in the EU and juridical guarantees
preserving their
privileged status under national law
in EU Member States.
In fact, the second type of claim,
more political and material than
spiritual has been plainly granted
with Article 51 of the Draft
European
Constitution
on the
Status of churches and non-confessional organizations, elaborated by
the European Convention.
As you may know, the text of
Article 51, its terminology and its
structure, is nearly word by word
identical to the contribution sent by
the COMECE (Commission of the
Bishops'
Conferences
of the
European Community) to the members of the European Convention.
If you read this article, you can
observe that the Draft European
Page 39

Constitution contradicts the secular

principle of separation between public institutions and religious institutions which is a fundamental and
structural principle of democracy. In
other words, even without an explicit reference to God or Christian
roots,
the
Draft
European
Constitution already appears as the
sign of a confessional Europe.
Why? Let's take a look at this
article.
The first paragraph quotes: The
Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law, of
churches and religious associations
or communities
in the Member
States. What does it mean exactly?
It means that it guarantees the
perpetuation of privileges acquired
at national level by religious institutions, preventing the scrutiny of
their compatibility with the fundamental rights and freedoms of
European citizens as with EU policies and Law.
But what are these privileges?
We are speaking of direct or
indirect financial and administrative advantages from which the
Catholic Church, in particular, benefits thanks to the concordats (international treaties) signed with some
states. We are also speaking of the
concordats
that
were
signed
between the Catholic Church and
Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy,
Salazar in Portugal, and Hitler in
Germany.
Let me give some examples.
In Germany, even if the
Constitution expressly forbids that
anyone should be disadvantaged in
any way for not belonging to a religious community,
considerable
amounts of money are being collected as church tax from unemployed
non-church members, who are thus
being forced to financially support
an organization they do not belong
to. So this enforced imposition of
church tax on unemployed nonchurch members violates several
provisions of the German constitution as the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, the principle of equal treatment and the
Page 40

state's obligation to neutrality and

the principle of separation of church
and state.
Other countries, other
examples
In Spain and Portugal, by virtue
of International Agreements with
the Holy See, the Catholic Church
enjoys tax benefits and exemptions
that are not enjoyed by any other
religious faith in these countries,
which constitutes religious discrimination against the other religious
faiths registered in that country.
Moreover, this tax exemption is not
compatible with Article 13 of the
VAT European Directive that does
not foresee such an exemption in
favor of religious institutions.
The European Commission is
aware of these facts. In the past, it
has even taken them into consideration and assessed them by raising
an infringement procedure to EU
law against Portugal and Spain.
At the beginning, it has asked
these Member States to take all
appropriate steps to remove these
incompatibilities
with the EU
Directive. But finally, after having
received
further
information
requested from the two Member
States in question" it decided to
close the infringement procedure on
the base that the exemptions concerned, even if not respectful of
Community Law, did not imply serious financial consequences for the
Community Budget.
Finally, do you know that by
virtue of a Monetary Convention
between Italy, on behalf of the EEC,
and the Holy See, the Vatican City
State is authorized to issue euros
through its central Bank, the
Istituto Opere di Religione (lOR)?
The problem is that the lOR does
not belong to any international
monitoring body. In fact, the lOR
takes part indirectly in the payment
systems of the euro zone - with
dual access via two major banks, one
of them German, the other Italian,
which are themselves linked to the
system - thereby evading surveilSpring 2004

lance by the banking authorities to

which only direct participants are
subjected. Moreover, the Vatican
City State has no legislation to combat money-laundering, and it has
not accepted the exchange of information on the basis of the 2002
OECD parameters, which define
criminal and civil offenses in the
areas of taxation and fraud. This
means that the Vatican City State is
a potential money laundering center
within Europe. Actually not so
potential given the fact that it has
on several occasions been involved
in financial transactions with serious implications, which have never
been the subject of legal proceedings
because of the concordat with the
Italian Republic guaranteeing the
Catholic hierarchy absolute impunity.
Secondly, Article 51 of the
European
Draft
Constitutional
Treaty is also dangerously antisecular considering another aspect. In
its third paragraph, it admits the
specific contribution of churches and
religious associations and communities and obliges EU to a regular dialogue with churches and religious
associations and communities. This
means that under the guise of a dialogue, Article 51 institutionalizes a
right of interference granted to the
churches
in the
exercise
of
European public powers, in matters
under the competence of EU
Institutions.
In violation of the principle of
separation between public institutions and religious institutions, it
will allow churches to create within
EU a status with similar effects to
that the Vatican enjoys in the UN.
Whereas all the other religious
institutions are indirectly represented at the UN through nongovernmental
organizations,
the
Roman Catholic Church, under the
auspices of the Holy See, enjoys the
status of "Permanent Observer as a
non-member State" at the United
Nations, which allows it to have the
right to speak and to vote in the
world conferences and to take part
in the discussions of the General
Assembly.
American Atheist

It uses the power of interference

conferred by this status to influence
or hinder, in the name of its theological priorities, the adoption of international policies on family planning
and safe abortion, and on the promotion of the right to sexual and
reproductive health, thus contributing to the dramatic spread of
HIVIAIDS and unwanted pregnancies among young people. The
Vatican also obstructs progress on
issues concerning sexual orientation
and divorce, as well as it has often
sought to place religious convictions
above women's rights.
The fact that the Holy See
enjoys such a privileged status constitutes a violation of the principle
of neutrality in terms of religion to
which the UN is bound as a public
forum of international politics.
Do the European citizens want
the same? Do we want the institutionalization of the capacity of interference of churches at EU level? Do
we want, as in Italy, a political class
that kneels down before Vatican
claims? We all know that the great
majority of citizens do not follow the
positions promoted by the Vatican
and wish to make free and informed
choices regarding their lifestyle.
But the Vatican does not grant
people and representatives sovereignty when their choices do not
suit its moral values and theological
positions. Democracy and civil law
must be subjected to the 'Moral
Law.' On several occasions, the
statements of the Supreme Pontiff
are undue interferences with the
aim of subverting the principle of
the impartiality of civil law and to
make the respect of specific religious prescriptions prevail over the
respect of acquired civil rights.
Just an example. On 28 January
2002, on the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year of the
Vatican City State, the Supreme
Pontiff called for a modification of
civil and democratic legal systems to
introduce the indissolubility of marriage, opposition to the introduction
of measures in favor of divorce or
measures that give de facto unions,
Parsippany, New Jersey

especially homosexual unions, the

same status as matrimony, as well
as the promotion of "true matrimony." He then called on persons who
work in the field of civil law, such as
magistrates and lawyers, to refuse
to co-operate with divorce proceedings, because they are "contrary to
justice."
This is clearly a breach in the
principle
of secularism
which
implies the full independence of
public institutions and of their field
of competence from clerical or confessional influences and organizations.
But even in regard to specific
criminal offenses, such as clerical
pedophilia, the Roman Catholic
Church does not recognize the validity of human law, of civil justice. On
6th August 2003, the American CBS
network revealed a document of the
"Supreme Sacred Congregation of
the Holy Office" which had been
kept secret since 1962. This document, "Instruction 'Crimen Sollicitationis,'
addressed
to all the
Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops,
and Ordinaries of other sees 'including those of the Oriental Rite': ways
of proceeding in solicitation lawsuits" is dated 16th March 1962. It
gives the clergy strict instructions
regarding the conduct to adopt in
cases of sex crimes. The document
shows that the Holy See has prescribed, adopted, and caused to be
adopted, proposed and imposed
upon the ecclesiastical authorities
conduct aimed at preventing sex
abuse by members of the clergy from
coming to public knowledge and to
the knowledge of the law, upon
penalty of excommunication. Further,
it is clear from the Apostolic Letter
"Motu
Proprio
Datae
Quibus
Normae De Gravioribus Delictis"
signed by John Paul II on 30th April
2001 and from the epistle "De
Delictis Gravioribus" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
signed by Cardinal Ratzinger on
18th May 2001 that, at least on
these recent occasions, the "Crimen
Sollicitationis"
has been reconfirmed and attention again drawn to
Spring 2004

it in the light of the continual

spread throughout these decades of
this true scourge of the Catholic
ecclesiastical world and of the scandals resulting from it.
So for years Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchies have covered up and
hidden the crimes of sexual abuse
against minors committed by members of their clergy.
Obviously, the instructions contained in these documents are in
contrast with the policy ofthe Union
and of its member states on human
rights and fundamental liberties
and in the fight against sexual
abuse, especially that against children and women.
To go back to Article 51 of the
Draft European Constitution Treaty,
what has been done and what can be
done?
In the framework of the European Convention, representatives of
some EU Member States have tried
to suppress Article 51 from the document. These States were Belgium,
France, Luxembourg, and Sweden.
On Behalf of Luxembourg, the former President of the European
Commission and current ChristianDemocrat Member of the European
Parliament Jacques Santer opposes
this article because its terminology
is inappropriate for a Constitution
and it is likely to give rise to many
juridical controversies.
According
to the
Belgian
Foreign Affairs Minister Louis
Michel, Article 51 may not be justified in the name of the respect of
religious associations and communities' freedom of organization and
freedom of action that are already
guaranteed by Article 10 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights. In
regard to the possibility of a dialogue, it is also covered by the general formulation of Article 46 of the
Draft Constitutional Treaty related
to representative
associations of
civil society.
On the eve of the opening of the
Intergovernmental Conference (lCG)
negotiations, we have asked the
highest authorities of these countries to be coherent with the
Page 41

positions adopted by their representatives during the Convention's

works and to use their veto against
Article 51. Belgium was the only
country, through the voice of its
Foreign Affairs Minister, to expressively commit itself to raise the
question during the IGC negotiations.
In regard to France, the answer
we received from its highest representatives leads us to consider that
for these latter the notion of secularism is more virtual than practical. The position of the French
President Jacques Chirac contrary
to the idea of a religious reference in
the European Constitution is well
known. But not a single word on
Article 51! As to Prime Minister

Raffarin, his answer (dated 27

October 2003) was the following one:
"the writing of this article
is the
result oflong debates that were held
in the Convention and it seems not
possible to discuss again this matter."
On the initiative
of the
President of the Radical Members in
the European
Parliament
Mr.
Maurizio Turco, a motion for a resolution asking for the respect of the
principles of a lay state and religious freedom in the European Constitution has been signed by 257
MEP and sustained by 320 parliamentarians from the 15 ED Member
States. Furthermore, as regards to
Article 51, Mr. Turco succeeded in
collecting in the week before the

Tr:L E-VANGEL
Page 42

c...)

1ST
Spring 2004

opening of the IGC more than 100

signatures of his colleagues on a resolution asking for the withdrawal of
this
article
from the
Draft
Constitutional Treaty.
I think we should continue and
strengthen this campaign for the
repealing of Article 51 collecting
more and more signatures from
European parliamentarians, associations, citizens, explaining the signification of this article to public opinion and organizing a big demonstration when the works of the IGC will
open again, in order to put the pressure on European decision-makers.
We citizens have to raise our voice to
say that we want a secular Europe,
a Europe without any privilege for
religious hierarchies.

N\GHTMAREAmerican Atheist

MY TURN!

Attacking the
Soul Hypothesis

eligious and mystical belief

systems stand or fall with the
concept of the soul, a supposedly
essential form of energy within us
that never dies, and can exist, retain
memories, generate thoughts, and
even experience sense impressions
- all without any physical reality
whatsoever. When one asks how this
can be, no answer is forthcoming.
When one inquires how exactly-such
an 'existence' that lacks existence
works, no reply is received. There is
a very good reason for this: no
answer is possible. It is all HocusPocus.
Death has an awesome character because it is a complete and total
end; as such it is the great liberator.
The idea of possessing eternal life as
an immortal soul attempts to rob
death of its totality, and therefore of
its sanctity. Any rewards and joys
one has in life must be experienced
in life; any punishments
one
receives can only last so long, and
then everything ends. This state of
affairs simply will not do for those
who want to manipulate and control
human beings with great promises
and great fears. The concept of eternal life as a soul extends the reward
and punishment scheme into an
afterlife that never ends. To do 'bad'
now means that one may suffer forever. With this concept the priests
have set out to scare the daylights
out of people they would not otherwise be able to control. Heaven, of
course, is the carrot offered against
the stick.
The pain that one feels at the
loss of a loved one is often too much
for the mind to bear. The idea of
eternal life comes like a tonic and

Parsippany, New Jersey

calms the 'soul' with assurances

that one will see the loved one again
in some distant afterworld where we
will all be together again. This is
undoubtedly the source of the soul
concept's continuing existence and
what drives its 'refusal to die' if you
will. I understand this completely. It
can be the only thought capable of
consoling the grief-stricken at their
time of greatest need. But putting
the power of emotional longing
aside, there simply is no rational
reason to believe that such a thing is
possible. The entire concept smacks
of childhood fantasy that shrinks
from the sharp edges of reality and
flees back into an imaginary world.
To think about it clearly is to render
it ridiculous.
How will we recognize each other
in the afterlife, when recognition is
a function of a physical brain? Even
if we could perceive without organs
of perception, how would we appear?
Will we look like our bodies in life?
Why, and how, is this so? Is it
because we lack imagination? Will
we be blobs of light? How will you
recognize your loved ones as blobs of
light, as against every other blob of
light? And on and on. There is no
need to stop there, I am sure you can
think of some more. The point is
that the entire concept, although
appealing to extreme emotional
needs, is entirely untenable.
Most people believe in a soul
because they fear death. With the
concept of the soul, an entity that is
supposed to live on for eternity,
death is seemingly cheated of its
sting of finality. Not only that, existence as a soul is supposed to be
even better than life here on earth,
because a soul is free of all the
messy little traps of existence such
as hunger, lust, defecation, aging,
sweat, and toil, etc. In other words it
lives not at all.
How all of the stimulations,
challenges, and physical facts by
which we know of life in any form
can be done away with entirely, leaving nothing but a kind of steady

Spring 2004

state of perpetual joy and jubilation,

is never explained, nor can it be, for
it is the height of psychological
naivete to believe that happiness
can exist without its opposite, that
fulfillment can be achieved without
something to struggle against, and
joy can exist as a perpetual, unwavering state that never changes, and
still remain joy.
The thought of total death is terrifying to most people, even though
it is essentially a return to that
state of non-existence that one
'experienced' before birth. We do not
fear the fact that most of the life of
the universe has taken place without our presence, so we should not
fear the fact that the majority of it
will continue to do so after we are
gone. The soul hypothesis is supposed to remove this fear, giving us
an eternal life in one form or another.
In contrarian fashion I find the
soul hypotheses, as it relates to
Christianity,
to be particularly
frightening, if not the source of fear
itself. The soul, your very essence
and truth and eternity, does not
even belong to you. You yourself do
not belong to - yourself1 Your soul is
nothing more than a piece of property waiting to be claimed by one of
two gods, one of which is prone to
bursts of rage, wants to be endlessly
praised, insists that you live for his
glory alone (not your own) and has a
history of extremely intemperate
behavior and reverse psychology
experiments. The other god is a pure
sadist who will torture you forever.
Either way you are property. In the
afterlife you will not be your own
boss, and freedom is certainly out of
the question. Spending eternity as
the property of a jealous or sadistic
god is more frightening a proposition to me than any permanent
death and end could ever be.
Compared to this scenario, let me be
dust in the wind any day.
Jay Werbinox Taylor
Murrayville, Georgia

Page 43

Tony Pasquarello's
"Atheism and Natheism Part II"
A response from George Ricker

the absence of the claim that there

ince I joined this discussion with
is one.
Tony Pasquarello, I feel some
obligation to respond to his last
That's the crux of the issue. I
offering. I'll be brief
have no problem saying "Gods don't
exist" or "Gods aren't real." I base
The real dispute seems to be
those observations on a host of facbetween those who view Atheism as
an "ism," i.e. a doctrine or theory,
tors. I never answer the question
"Do you believe in God?"by saying "I
and those who maintain, as I do,
that the "ism" in Atheism really
lack belief in that concept." My
belongs to "theism" and Atheism is ~ answer is usually either a simple
"No."or "No, I'm an Atheist." But my
the condition of being without that
thoughts and ideas about the status
"ism." Put more succinctly, theism is
god-belief, and Atheism is its
of the existence of a cosmic super
critter are neither defined nor limitabsence.
ed by Atheism. Atheism is the startFar from being "politically correct" or "circuitous," I think the
ing point for those considerations.
They begin without god-belief.
description of Atheism as "the
absence of god-belief" is the most
Everything else follows from that.
This is important because while
accurate definition of the word in
many of us who are now Atheists
question and avoids any confusion
began as theists and necessarily
about its real nature. As I menrejected the existence of the particutioned in my last offering, I do not
lar deity worshipped by our particuview agnosticism as a halfway house
lar religion, that certainly is not
between Atheism and theism. In my
true of all Atheists. Those who were
view, anyone who is not a theist is
never indoctrinated into a religion
an Atheist, regardless of how they
come at the issue from a different
choose to label themselves. It's really
perspective. One who has never
that simple. One either believes that
believed in a deity of any description
one or more gods exist or one does
may see absolutely no value to be
not. There's no convenient middlegained from denying the existence of
ground to occupy. So Atheism is not
the claim that there is no 'God,' but
something that never had any reality to begin with. If Atheists are
without god-belief, then it's necesGeorge A. Ricker is an awardsarily true no Atheist believes a god
winning jounalist .and weekly
exists.
However, that is, in my view,
newspaper editor, now retired. A
a
different
position than the explicit
1963 graduate of the University of
claim that 'God' does not exist.
Miami with a degree in secondary
While many of us may be willing to
education, he has worked at a varimake such a claim, I do not think it
ety of occupations, including one
an indispensable
ingredient
of
year spent as associate pastor of a
Atheism. The Atheist who is indifMethodist church while he was
ferent to the god idea is not less of
attending a theological seminary.
an Atheist than the one who says
He lives in Palm Bay, Florida, and
"God does not exist."
is a member of American Atheists.
Page 44

Spring 2004

Moreover, I think the definition

of Atheism as being without gods (or
without god-belief) is a more powerful description than the definition of
Atheism as the doctrine that 'God'
does not. exist. The former is a
firmer foundation for the construction of a philosophy, a world-view or
a moral code than the latter. I take
this position for several reasons.
First, if one asserts Atheism is
the claim that 'God' does not exist,
one also must define what is meant
by the word 'God,' and must be prepared for the inevitable theist
response to that definition, "Oh, but
that's not what I mean by 'God'."The
difficulty here is that the word 'God'
lapses into incoherent gibberish
once one begins to examine it.
Pasquarello insists that practically
everyone knows what is meant by
God. I submit there is much variation in the concept - from the mythic
Sky-Daddy of Judaeo-Christian theology to the ineffable essence of an
otherwise inexpressible reality that
seems to be at the core of many New
Age ruminations on the subject. It is
virtually impossible to know what is
meant by the term when it is used
by a theist until one has engaged in
a discussion about it. With such a
diversity of opinions about the godidea, the requirement
for an
emphatic denial of nonsense seems
a weaker basis from which to start
than the position of one who simply
proceeds without reference to gods
at all.
Second, while it may be true
that
most Atheists
arrive at
Atheism after first rejecting the god
hypothesis, it's clear not all do. No
doubt, the overwhelming majority of
American Atheist

us encounter the idea and react to it

in various ways at some point in our
lives, but those reactions may occur
after one's Atheism already is established. This seems especially true of
individuals raised in more progressive societies in Europe or Asia.
There are Atheists who simply
regard the god-idea as a nonstarter
and choose not to dignify it beyond
that. Atheism defined as being without god-belief includes both those
who claim to know 'God' does not
exist and those who choose not to
make knowledge claims, either pro
or con, about something that plays
no part in their world-view.

Finally, if Atheism requires the

claim that 'God' does not exist, then
we have made it a doctrine of denial,
rather than a platform from which
one may consider all valid propositions. Although I am confident no
gods exist, it's a position I regard as
provisional. I always have maintained that I will consider any concept of a deity that meets the
requirements of completeness, consistency and congruence and is supported by evidence that meets the
same standards required of all other
propositions. No one has presented
me with such a concept to date, and
I'm doubtful anyone ever will.

However, as one who is 'without

gods' rather than one who proclaims
flatly "No 'God' exists," I am free to
consider such ideas without prejudice.
I'm sure this debate will rage
on, as it has for years now, but this
will be my last word on the subject
- at least in this venue. In my view
Atheism includes all who don't
believe in gods, regardless of the
route they took to arrive at that
happy destination. Godlessness is
not about denying the existence of
nonsensical beings but is the starting point for living life without
them.

Panning The Passion

by Edwin Kagin.
passion n. the sufferings of Jesus,
beginning with his agony in the
garden of Gethsemane and continuing to his death on the Cross
b) any of the Gospel narratives of
Jesus' Passion and of accompanying events c) an artistic
work, as an oratorio or a play,
based on these narratives.
-Webster's New World Dictionary

fter the movie The Passion of

the Christ opened on Ash Wednesday (that's the Roman Catholic
thing where ashes are smeared on a
believer's forehead as a public sign
of penance, despite the command of
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount
Edwin Kagin is the American
Atheists director for the state of
Kentucky. He is a writer, lawyer,
and debater, as well as the founder
of Camp Quest, a summer camp
for the young people of the Atheist
and Freethought community. He
can be reached at:
edwin@edwinkagin.com
Parsippany, New Jersey

not to do public penance), I was contacted by several media people

(well, two). They wanted comments
on the Passion. So my Helen and I
went to see it. (I don't like to comment on things I have not seen or
read as do certain of the Christian
persuasion.)
The Passion of the Christ is one
of the worst movies I have ever seen
- sort of- a mixture of B-horror
movie, B-Italian Gladiator movie,
and slapstick comedy. Terrible acting, if the cartoon-like performances
can be called acting. If you didn't
know the story, you might think this
movie was some kind of satire. It is
in two different languages that are
not English, with English subtitles.
Yet it was praised by Christian
Fundangelicals who, among other
things, have little patience for anything not in English. The only reason to see this movie is to be able to
help defend reason when The
Passion of the Christ is discussed, as
it is being discussed almost everywhere just now.
Spring 2004

This movie is a bloody revelry in

gore, splattering a story that is
improbable
even for religious
drama. It is about beating and crucifying Jesus and, like the lurid
reports of anti-pornographers, seems
fascinated with that which it condemns. It appears to have proceeded
from a diseased mind, and offers
nothing of those things in Christianity, or in the stories of the teachings of Jesus, that may arguably be
of some merit. In the style of
Cafeteria Christians, the director
selects those passages of the bible
he likes and ignores those that are
different from, or contradictory to,
his selections or interpretations sort of like those Ash Wednesday
celebrants, or like people praying in
public, who have no problem ignoring the biblical report that the Son
of God said not to engage in public
penance or public prayer.
Fundamentalist Christians have
praised the movie for telling the
truth. But, as Pontius Pilate, the
Roman procurator of Judea, supposedly asked, "Quid est veritas?" Well,
Page 45

one truth is that no human (none

known to me anyway) could have
lifted the cross depicted in the movie
(obviously the movie prop was much
lighter-like movie chairs that fly to
pieces when one is hit in the head
with them in old Westerns) which
appeared to be made of oak beams
the size of railroad ties. Ever try to
lift a railroad tie? Try it sometime,
and then think about the same stuff
in a cross with an upright beam of
well more than twelve feet long
(after it was fixed in the rock, the
actor's feet were in the air at the
proper height to be kissed by his
movie mother) and a cross beam of
over eight feet long (for stretched
out arms plus some extra room to
hook ropes onto to lift it up). Now
one can cheat and claim Jesus was a
god and all, but then that doesn't fit
with the idea of his 'Passion,' and
one really can't have it both ways.
Further, in the 'truth department,' the Romans crucified people
naked to add to their humiliation.
The movie Christ wears a most
ample wrap on his loins that is
somehow spared and left clean and
intact after seemingly every inch of
his body not so covered is beaten
and bleeding. Thus doth modesty
impact truth. We also note that in
this absurdity of a movie, the title
victim is crucified with a nail
through each palm, and only one
nail which goes through both feet.
Now it is well known, both from
remains of victims of crucifixion and
from cadaver experiments,
that
people were not crucified with nails
through the palms. The body would
pull the hand through, and off of, the
nail. In real life crucifixions, the nail
was placed between the radius and
ulna bones of the forearm, with a
plate of wood set between the head
of the nail and the flesh to secure it
further. If there be any doubt on this
point, please check the photos of the
Shroud of Turin, believed by
Fundangelicals to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. You will note
that the hand wounds are on the
forearms, not on the palms of the
hands. So, the movie is wrong, and
Page 46

the fourteenth century forgery of the

shroud got that one right. This must
be a real problem for those who
think both the Shroud of Turin and
the movie are historically correct.
The one nail securing both feet
is interesting, recalling an old and
quite bad school boy Easter joke. If
you don't know it, ask someone. This
method of nailing Jesus has been
identified as a heresy called "triclavianism." For a splendid discussion
on this point, see: -chttpv/objective.
jesussave. us/pastorscorner. html.
My compliments to the author.
More time has already been
devoted to this sick travesty than is
merited but, as a final observation,
it should be noted that no human
being could have lived through the
beatings depicted, much less thereafter walked and carried, for a while
at least, a cross made of at least
twenty running board feet of railroad ties. The movie Jesus was beaten, inter alia, with chains and by
several burly cartoon character
Roman soldiers who each used an
implement known as a cat-of-ninetails (nine lengths of leather, with
metal tips on each, set into one handle). These artifacts break bones, rip
muscles and tendons loose from
their attachments,
and destroy
internal organs.
The work has also been criticized by many for the implication
that Jews had something to do with
the death of Jesus. Well, if he existed and was executed, Jews may well
have had something to do with it.
He was, after all, Jewish, as were
most other persons, followers or critics involved in the story, who were
not Romans. But so what? Shall we
also condemn Romans (or their
descents who are now known as
Italians) for what they did to Jesus?
And for what the Romans, now the
Italians,
did to Germans, and
English, and French, and Egyptians,
etc.? And shall we condemn the
English for what they did to the
American and other colonies? And
Spain for what they did to the
inhabitants
of Central America?
And all Europeans who did violence
Spring 2004

to the indigenous peoples of North

America and elsewhere? And all
Germans for what they did to Jews?
And all Japanese for what they did
to Americans? And all people whose
ancestors owned someone else's
ancestors? And, for that matter,
Christians for the estimated twenty
million human beings they murdered as heretics during their inquisitions? Of course these behaviors
should all be condemned by all civilized people - but only the behavior
of those individuals who did the
things condemned. The sins of the
fathers are not to be visited upon
the children, no matter what the
Bible
says.
Check
our
U.S.
Constitution.
Combine all of this with the
probability that no such person as
the Jesus of the bible ever really
lived, and in this sorry movie we
have a myth presented not as well
as more interesting Greek myths
have been portrayed
in better
movies.
The Passion of the Christ is
probably destined to become a
BDSM classic. The book is much better than the movie.

frier, a liar.

Do as the priest says, but

not as the priest does.
Observant friars spare their
own and eat that which is
other mens.
We'd better keep this a
secret, said the monk to the
nun.

-Ronnie

Johanson

666 Ordtak Mot

Presteskapet

American Atheist

LETTERS

Jim Senyszyn
Peoria,IL
e-mail: jnsenyszyn@insightbb.com

Passion Problems

he Passion movie reveals Christianity's underlying sadomasochism glorifying and romanticizing

misery and suffering. Worse yet,
until the fifteenth century it was
thought that only Jesus as a unique
son of God could bear such torture,
but German monk Thomas a
Kempis in 1418 wrote a book
Imitation of Christ putting forth the
thesis that everyone should suffer
like Jesus and that suffering is good
for you.
Just because there is a movie
about something does not make it
true. The chronology of the passion
story
is
highly
implausible.
Knowing how slowly court systems
work, it is highly unlikely that
someone should get arrested late
Thursday night and be executed at
nine o'clock the next morning on
Friday. Furthermore, Jesus would
have to go through not just one but
two legal systems - both the
Jewish courts and the Roman
courts. Also, the Jewish Sanhedrin
court was not allowed to meet during Passover and furthermore had
to wait 24 hours before rendering a
verdict in a case. Jesus' death after
only three hours on the cross is also
highly suspect since victims of crucifixion did not usually die for two
days or even longer. Thus the local
Jewish population rejected the passion story as bogus and only faraway Gentiles unfamiliar
with
Jewish customs and practices
accepted the story.
There is the further problem of
Matthew 12:40 saying Jesus would
lie dead for three days and three
nights but Matthew 28:1 saying he
rose from the dead only two days
and two nights later on Sunday.
There are also many other inconsistencies in the various versions of
the passion story in the Bible.
Parsippany, New Jersey

E-MAIL RECEIVED
To: editor@atheists.org
Subject: QUESTION TO ATHIESTS

I CAN UNDERSTAND PEOPLE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH

ORGANIZED RELIGION, BUT, IS
IT POSSIBLE TO NOT RECOGNIZE SOME POWER, SOME
FORCE THAT ANIMATES AND
ORGANIZES ALL THAT EXISTS,
CELLS, GALIXIES.
DID WE CREATE OURSELF?
THE "UNIFIED FIELD THEORY" TOUCHES ON THIS MATTER.
IS IT ALSO REALISTIC TO
THINK THAT THE PRODUCT
(MAN) CAN COMPRHEND THE
CREATOR, THE POWER, THE
ENERGY, WHATEVER NAME
YOU CHOOSE?

thing as an animating force, nor is

there room for such a thing in this
age of genetic engineering and
cloning.
But your question reflects an
even more primitive view of things
than does the Book of Genesis. You
suppose that even galaxies (please
note the correct spelling) are animated. Very primitive religions view
even rocks and wind as alive.
You ask, "did we create ourself?"
To which I reply with a further
question, Did the gods create themselves? Of course they didn't human beings every day are creating gods in their own images.
You ask "is it also realistic to
think that the product (man) can
comprehend the creator?" This is
begging the question. First you have
to prove there is a creator. Only
after succeeding in proving the
impossible can you ask your question.
Don't forget that genetically you
are 98.5% the same as a chimpanzee. If you think you are going to
go to heaven some day, why won't
chimpanzees be there too?
Frank R. Zindler, editor
American Atheist Press

Frank Zindler replies:

Dear Nameless Critic:
Thank you for writing to
American Atheists. Please note,
however, that the correct spelling is
'Atheists.' The meaning of the word
is 'without god-beliefs.'
Your point about "some force
that animates and organizes all
that exists ..." reflects a pre-scientific view of life in an extremely primitive form. Before the development
of modern materialistic
biology,
many people supposed there was a
'vital force' that 'animated' ('gave
breath to') living things to make
them alive.
There is no such thing, of
course, as biology has now been
reduced to matters of chemistry and
physics - period. There is no such
Spring 2004

Power corrupts;
Absolute power
corrupts
absolutellJj
God is allpowerful.
Draw lJour own
conclusions.
Page 47

Re-Revival of the
"Talking Back" Department
nce again, we would like to revive the "Talking Back"
department that was so popular during the days when
Robin Murray-O'Hair was the editor of this journal. Some
readers may remember that the department was revived
briefly several years ago and then disappeared from these
pages. Actually, there was rather good participation on the part
of readers. Unfortunately, the computer equivalent of an 'Act of
God' wiped out over half of the accumulated files in our editorial office,and no opportunity until now has presented itself to
let us solicit readers' participation yet one more time.
"Talking Back" contained the replies of both ordinary and
extraordinary Atheists to what nowadays are called FAQs
(Frequently Asked Questions). Some replies could be sardonic
one-liners: Q. Why are you an Atheist? A. I've read all the
Bible. Other replies might take several carefully reasoned
paragraphs to answer. We hope to be able to publish the
responses of several different people to given questions at the
same time, and so we need to expand our database of publishable replies. We append a partial list of popular questions
below and ask readers to take a crack at one or more of them.
If you have already sent us answers that were never published,
please send them again, as they might be lost in Cyberhell
along with all the other files that disappeared in the digital
Reverse Rapture we experienced last year.
E-mail responses may be sent to: editor@atheists.org
Snail-mail responses may be sent to:
Talking Back
American Atheist Press
PO. Box 5733
Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733

Talking Back Challenges

1.
What is Atheism?
2.
Prove there isn't a god.
3.
How did you get here?
4.
How did life originate?
5.
What started the universe?
6.
If evolution is real, how come monkeys aren't evolving
into human beings?
7.
Atheism is a religion.
8.
You have faith and beliefs just like religious people: you
have faith in Darwin.
9.
How does it hurt you to have "In God We Trust" on your
money?
10. How does it hurt you to have prayers in the schools? You
can just not pray when everyone else is praying.
11. Why are you always insulting religious people and complaining about religion?
Page 48

12. Atheism is a negative position.

13. Show me where the Atheist hospitals and orphanages are.
15. If you would accept Jesus Christ into your heart, your
whole life would be fine.
17. Where will you go when you die?
18. What happens to your soul when you die?
19. Why don't you go back to Russia?
20. America is a Christian nation.
21. There's no "separation of state and church" in the First
Amendment.
22. If you're right about god, when we both die we both just
die. But if I'm right, then when I die I go to heaven and you go
to hell. So why not believe in god, just in case?
23. The universe must have a cause and that cause is god.
26. How can you have any ethics if you don't believe in god?
27. If people didn't have religion, they would rape, murder,
and steal at every opportunity.
32. Jesus died for you.
33. What do you think about reincarnation?
34. If you don't believe in god, why are you fighting against
him?
36. What is the purpose of our existence, if there is no god?
37. The founding fathers believed in god and founded this
nation on Christianity.
38. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the legal
system of this country.
42. Isn't it only fair to teach both theories of the origin of life
in the public schools: Intelligent Design and evolution theory?
43. Well, I'm an agnostic because you can't prove there is no
god.
44. Atheism is a dogmatic position; agnosticism is not.
45. If you reject god, do you worship the devil?
46. Separation of state and church doesn't mean separation
of religion and government.
47. Where did you come from?
48. What would you put in religion's place?
49. Why are you an Atheist?
50. There are no Atheists in foxholes.
51. What about near-death experiences? Aren't they evidence
of an after-life?
52. What's the difference between an Atheist and an
Agnostic?
53. What's stopping you from killing someone?
54. Why don't you find a real battle to fight?
55. If the Bible is so faulty, how do you explain the Hebrew
Bible code?

Spring 2004

American Atheist

Jcsus and j'1oscs

Wcrc In\')cntcd

Jesus And Moses

Were Invented
by Christopher

ISBN 1-57884-912-8

Stock #5592

Living In The Light

Freeing Your Child From The
Dark Ages
by Anne R. Stone

M. Drew

A late American Atheist scholar

shows that Jesus and Moses
never existed as historical
figures.

124 pp. Paperback.

LIVING
IN THE. LICHT

Rearing children as Atheists isn't easy,

but this manual will be invaluable for
parents who want their children to grow
up with reality-testing skills intact and
L1=========::::::::.JJ strong immunity to the wiles of supernaturalism.
157 pages, paperback
Stock #5588

ISBN 1-57884-908-X
$12.00

$8.00
THE ATHEIST'S

an ATHEIST
PRIMER

to Modern Materialism

An Atheist Primer
by Madalyn O'Hair.
This children's book explains what
religion and what Atheism are all
about. It is a great introduction to
Atheism for readers of any age.
Grades 2-4. Illustrated.
30 pp.
Stapled.
ISBN 0-911826-10-9
$6.00

HANDBOOK

by Philip A. Stahl
Materialism is minimalist by definition. Focusing on manifestations of
matter, fields, and energy, it excludes
distracting and unverified entities
such as spirits and souls.
Professional Press. xxiv + 250 pp.
Paperback.
ISBN 1-57087-539-1
Stock #7001

$15.00

CD-ROM from "Bank of

Wisdom"
FREETHOUGHT AND
THE BIBLE
25 volumes on a single CD!
With Adobe Acrobats' PDF
format, it works on both IBM
& Macintosh computers.
Includes: The Bible
Comically Illustrated (2 vols.), The Bible, by John
Remsburg, The Jefferson Bible, Bible Myths and their
Parallels in Other Religions, by T. W. Doane, and
much more!
Stock #4504

$30.00

To order, please include check (payable to American

Atheists) or credit card payment for the price of the
books plus shipping and handling ($2.50 for the first
title plus $1.00 for each additional title.
Send order to:
American Atheist Press
P.O. Box 5733
Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733
Credit card orders may be faxed to:
(908) 276-7402

The Altar Boy Chronicles

by Tony Pasquarello
The hilarious romp of a logical mind trying to grow up Catholic
Little Italy during
World War II.

in Philadelphia's

214 pp. Paperback

Stock #5583

$16.00

The Great Infidels

By Robert G. Ingersoll, with foreword by Jon G. Murray
Newly reprinted and reformatted,
Ingersoll's sketches of the lives of
great Freethinkers is one of his most
inspiring works. Includes his amusing
discussion of the fallacy of informal
logic known as the "appeal to the
cemetery."
76 pages, paperback
Stock #5197

ISBN 0-910309-08-6
$7.00

The Jesus Puzzle

WHY lAM NOT

A MUSLIM

Did Christianity Begin With A

Mythical Christ?
by Earl Doherty

By Ibn Warraq

Challenging the existence

of an historical Jesus

ChtlJnglng
ofllll~""'"

A courageous crticicism of the

dark side of Islam

"This is the most compelling argument

ever published in support ofthe theory
that Jesus never existed as an historical person. This is a superb book- one
that every Atheist should read and
master."
- Frank R. Zindler

"._

, Stock #5599

"The present work attempts to

sow a drop of doubt in an ocean of
dogmatic certainty by taking an
uncompromising and critical look
at almost all the fundamental
tenets of Islam."

$14.50 USA, $18.50 Canada

Prometheus Books. 402 pp. Hard cover. ISBN: 0-87975-984-4

THE BIBLE
HANDBOOK

Stock #7011

$25.00

Revised Edition
By W. P. Ball, G. W. Foote, John
Bowden,
Richard M. Smith, & others.
Introduction by Jon G. Murray
Foreword by Madalyn O'Hair

CHRISTIANITI:"

BEFORE

by John G. Jackson, with

foreword by Frank R. Zindler

CH~
IT!

The ultimate defense against

the missionaries on our
doorstep!
xv + 372 pages. Paperback
Stock # 5008

it

ISBN 0-910309-26-4
$17.00

The Jesus the

Jews Never Knew
Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the
Quest of the Historical Jesus in
Jewish Sources

By Frank R. Zindler
If Jesus of Nazareth was real, why
didn't the ancient Jews know of
him? Search of all ancient Jewish
literature yields no evidence of any
historical Jesus.

Illustrations.

Stock #5200

SIXIY-FlVE
PRFSS
INTERVIEWS WITH
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

NEW
2 VHS Tape Set
of the talks at the

GAMOW
Nov. 2, 2002
Stock # 5999

$35.00

Index. 237 pp.

$14.00
SIXTY-FIVEPRESS
INTERVIEWS WITH
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
What the Great Agnostic Told
Numerous Newspaper Reporters
During a Quarter-Century of
Public Appearances as a Freethinker and Enemy of Superstition.
Introduction by MadalynMurray
O'Hair

$20.00

Stock # 7026

A historical survey of the components of Christianity, showing that

they existed before that religion
was invented. An excellent starter
book on the historicity of Jesus
Christ. Prof Jackson was a pioneer
in the field of African and AfroAmerican studies.

Paperback.
ISBN 0-910309-20-5

ISBN 1-5' 884-916-0

544 pages. Paperback

Christianity
Before Christ

Collected from over two dozen newspapers, Ingersoll comments on freethought, the Bible, heaven and hell, miracles,
church creeds, missionaries, Sunday blue laws, prohibition,
anarchism, aging, and even theater, music, literature, and
summer vacations.
xvi + 262 pages. Paperback
ISBN 1-57884-910-1

Stock # 5589

$15.00