This Issue:

ATHEIST CONVENTION

HIGHLIGHTS

NEW TRICKS FOR OLD DOGMA

ERICAN
lHEISf

ROOTS OF ATHEISM
REVIEW: THE FINAL CONCLAVE

$1.25

A Journal Of
Atheist News
And Thought

Vol. 20, No.6

June, 1978

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
"Aims and Purposes"
1. To stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices.

religious

2. To collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and
promote a more thorough understanding of them, their origins and histories.
3. To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways, the complete and absolute
separation of state and church; and the establishment and maintenance of a
thoroughly secular system of education available to all.
4. 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, individually, in relation to society.
5. To develop and propagate a social philosophy in which man is the central figure who
alone must be the source of strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and
happiness of humanity.
6. To promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the
maintenance, perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life.
7. 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.

"Definitions"
1. Atheism is the life philosophy (Weltanschauung) of persons who are free from
theism. It is predicated on the ancient Greek philosophy of Materialism.
2. American Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly
accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a system of philosophy
and ethics verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of
authority or creeds.
3. The Materialist philosophy declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable and impersonal
law; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man-finding
his
resources within himself-can and must create his own destiny; and that his potential for good and higher development is for all practical purposes unlimited.

June, 1978

Vol. 20, No.6

......

ON THE COVER

Summer
EDITORIAL
,
READER COMMENT
NEWS
Baird Wins Crucial Abortion Suit
Chaplin "Wasn't Religious"
Genesis Back On Campus
Atheist Museum Opens
FEATURE ARTICLES
Atheist Convention Highlights
Roots Of Atheism: Charles Bradlaugh
A Look At The Hairy Tushnas
Marxism: Dogma For Modern Man
Lower-Case Deities
Film Review: Equus
AMERICAN
ATHEIST RADIO SERIES
Myth Building
ATHEIST BOOK REVIEW
The Final Conclave

2
3
5
6
7
8
12
18
24
25
33
33

35

The American Atheist magazine is published monthly by American Atheists, 2210 Hancock
Drive, Austin, Texas 78756, a non-profit, non-political, tax-exempt, educational organization.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2117, Austin, TX, 78768; copyright 1978 by Society of Separationists, Inc.; Subscription rates: $15.00 per year; $25.00 for two years. Manuscripts submitted
must be typed, double-spaced and accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The
editors assume no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts.

ATHEIST

MAGAZINE

Post Office Box 2117

Austin, Texas 78768
Enter my subscription for one year at $15.00 (two years at $25.00).
NEW

Total Enclosed $,

RENEWAL

Name
Address
City, State, & Zip
Austin, Texas

With summer solstice passing now

How thoughtless - not to praise
The very source of every life
Its warming, golden rays
So soon forgotten Winter's cold
The darkness of its call
So soon will come the waning days
As we return - to Fall

30

Editor-In-Chief: Madalyn Murray O'Hair Managing Editor: Jon Garth Murray

Editor/Layout: Frank Duffy Circulation: John Mays Production: Ralph Shirley
Non-Residential Staff: Ignatz Sahula-Dycke, G. Richard Bozarth, James Erickson,
Voltaire E. Heywood.

THE AMERICAN

The lazy warmth of Summer's sun

Beams down for all to see
Creating every living thing
Through all eternity

June, 1978

And Nature once again must sleep

From Winter's cold to brace
Till summertime returns again
All living things to grace
gerald tholen

Atheists, like the hardy cactus on

our cover this month, are sturdy folk
who thrive in hostile environments.
They are quite skillful at adapting to
realities and are able to provide and
store their own intellectual sustenance
when they find themselves living in
locale made arid by the mental stagnancy on which all religions thrive.
Atheists are not to be denied their
rights to life, liberty or happiness and
those who would dare are subject to a
painful encounter with a spiny foe.
One such rugged Atheist who blossomed a century ago was Englishman
Charles Bradlaugh, our subject for the
"Roots of Atheism" series which begins
with this June summer solstice issue.
Bradlaugh found himself born into
"a time of idols" when the overwhelming majority of his peers were incapable
or unwilling to overcome and discard
the religious conditioning forced upon
them all since birth. Yet the very severity of those times produced freethinkers of such high caliber that we are obligated to begin our "Roots" series
with this Atheist who would not be
deterred by violence or menace.
As is with the cacti every Year in the
early summer's sun, he blossomed forth
and was twice the man for the harsh
conditions out of which he had grown.
Page 1

caBIWIil.::.o-~

----'J

SUIDIDerSolstiee
In nature there are neither rewards
nor punishments
quences.

there are conseRobert Ingersoll

from Some Reasons Why [1896}

Taken literally, the word "solstice" means that the

sun stands still. We know from verifiable scientific
fact that the sun doesn't stand still at all, that's just
an illusion.
It appears to stop in the sky because in the six
months which have elapsed since the winter solstice
in December, the dark nights have been gradually
shortening while our minutes of daylight have been
growing in abundance along with our crops which,
like us, thrive in the warming sunlight.
At the moment of the summer solstice - in 1978 it
will occur on June 21 at 18: 10 Greenwich Mean Time
(13: 10 EST) - the longest day(light) of the year is at
hand when days and nights are most uriequal with the
days favored. From June 21 onward the daylight begins its creeping abbreviation once again until the sun
reaches its southernmost
zenith over our tropic of
Capricorn, and the eons-old cycle repeats itself as
22 December 1978 will be the shortest day(light)
of the year.
If the earth's axis were perpendicular to the plane
of the earth's orbital path around the sun, there would
be no change of seasons. Days and nights would be almost of constant length and there would be unvarying
temperature conditions.
But, inevitably, the universe is not to be ordered
according to the dictates or pleadings of some of its
inhabitants. Hence the earth's axis is tilted 23 degrees
27' away from a perpendicular to the orbit and only
in March and September (at the vernal arid autumnal
equinoxes) is the axis at right angles to the sun, resulting in days and nights of most nearly equal length.
Thus, on June 21 in the Northern Hemisphere, the
sun reaches its greatest yearly height above the southern horizon. This noonday height changes very little
for several days - hence the word solstice, derived
from the Latin words for "sun" and "to stop."
To our ancient ancestors, who had neither the
benefits of science nor freedom from religious superstition, the solstices must have had awesome impact.
Especially so must have been the summer solstice in
June, when their bright ally the sun commenced its

Page 2

June,

~I

1978

dwindling phase as a poignant reminder of winter's

inevitable arrival. They too, perhaps more so than
some "moderns," must have returned to their earthly
tasks of providing for the here and the now after
noting the celestial time on their sun watch.
Thanks to the development of humanity's rational
resources through science, we know the precise day
and hour and minute when such celestial events will
occur. We no longer have to plead with a sun god for
mercy and divine intervention to alter natural phenomena as the ancients did. We no longer need bend
our knee or ground our forehead in elaborate rites to
nonexistent gods who are but illusions which feed on
our own ignorance and fear.
No need to prayerfully persuade the sun to return
from its six-month swing northward. We know, prayer
or no prayer, that the sun will climb the sky again
and that to stop time - to make the sun stand still is an illusion of dreamers. A human being must grow
and ripen with other life forms and our life cycle is
no less subject to termination and extinction than is a
flower, or the sun itself.
Change is the only constant. To irrationally desire
to linger in one phase of human development is to deprive oneself of experiencing the complete cycle and
can only hinder the flowering of that capacity which
is the blossom of Homo sapiens' life cycle - his
ability to reason. It is as futile and archaic as trying to
pray the sun's yearly cycle to a halt.
With this summer solstice issue we would remind
you that these four great natural holidays - the summer and winter solstices and the vernal and autumnal
equinoxes - surpass and pre-date any ideas of race,
patriotism or religious neurosis.
We must see to it that they are made international
holidays. A good beginning would be for American
Atheists to celebrate these natural feast days within
your own cycle of events as an example to those who
are still trying to reorder the universe with prayers
rather than with deeds.
Happy Summer Solstice Day!!!

American

Atheist

COeMeMENT
.

Atheist Emblem Criticized

[Dear Editor,
I just received my first issue of The American Atheist and was quite dismayed to
'discover that the symbol of the Society is an atomic energy symbol.
At
no time during the 30-odd years that atomic energy has been in use, both for
"peaceful" purposes and for military purposes, has it ever benefited mankind. to
lany great extent. The splitting of the atom to create energy for power production
or for bombs are both a hazard to life on Earth, because of the massive amounts of
radioactive waste produced in the process.
, Actually, the use of nuclear reactors to boil water is one of the worst technologies devised by man. With the proliferation of the so-called "peaceful" atom, we
will see small nations beginning to stock-pile nuclear weapons which they have been
able to produce from the uranium and plutonium manufactured during the "peaceful" power plant operations.
What I am saying, aside from protesting the American Atheist Society's use. of
the atomic energy emblem, is that, as Atheists, we should have a reverence for hfe.
Most if not all of us do since we don't believe in some fairy-tale heaven after we
drop 'dead. We ~ant toli~e for as long as possible in as good a state of physical and
psychological health as possible. Atomic energy can only shorten our lives thr~ugh
cancer, leukemia and degenerative diseases, and make the lives of future generations
miserable as they are born with radiation-induced birth defects.
Therefore, I would like to request that the atomic energy portion of the Atheist
Emblem be removed and some other design substituted.
I hope you and the rest of the membership will give serious consideration to my
suggestion.
Jean Levine, R.N., M.A.
San Antonio, Texas
Jean,
From time to time we receive a letter such as yours and we are as shocked by
that as you are by the symbol, but more appropriately so.
One does not condemn the telephone since it is also used for communications by
those who wreck havoc with the human community. One does not condemn the
printing press because advocates of hate use that medium of expression.
The entire idea of Atheism is to intellectually sort out the radical (root) problems in our culture and remedy them by the application of reason.
Our atomic symbol represents the basic atoms of which our earth is composed:
only this and nothing more. You are carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. So is
any minister. We would not attack the human form because monsters of religion
live in many of them.
The use to which atomic power has been put is not the fault of the concept of
atomic power. If you work and we work, together, to put into positions of power
rational human beings, we need not fear any new development of science.
The attack on "atomic energy" is an attack on the scientific method. It should
be an attack on the irrational manipulators of mankind, nature and science. Sort it
out: our symbol is a proud one. It is only through the use of reason and the scientific method as an approach to mankind's problems that we can ever arrive at cultures which will be in balance with nature.
The Editor

R
N
E

Can't Compare O'Hair & Ray

Dear Editor,
I have just finished reading the Letters to the Editor section of your magazine [March 1978] and disagree completely that there is any resemblance between Pres. o 'Hair and Dixie Lee Ray.
Ms. Ray, now governor of the atomic waste disposal state of Washington,
and former cover-up expert for the
Atomic Energy Commission, has evil,
corrupt eyes and looks like Broderick
Crawford in drag.
Pres. O'Hair has caring, intelligent
eyes and a kind face. In addition, Pres.
O'Hair is working for the good of our
country and for all people.

Austin, Texas

Gov. Ray has always been on the

side of the greedy, money-crazed nuclear industry and has no concern for the
health and well-being of people. The
only similarity between the two may
be that they are both female, although
Ms. Ray's gender is still in doubt in my
mind.
I hope in the future, if you must
compare Pres. O'Hair to someone it
will be to Margaret Mead and, in spi~it,
to Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand
Russell.
Lee Ann Evans
San Antonio, Tx.

June, 1978

Bull's-Eye!
Dear Editor:
Your reply (October, 1977 issue) to
Agnostic Feme H. Norris, was right on
target.
Agnosticism is not, in any meaningful sense whatsoever,
a "middle
ground" between Theism and Atheism.
It is, in fact, not a "position" at all; it
is simply an evident evasion.
In my opinion, there is no such
thing as believing that it is equally
possible there is or is not a god. We
cannot believe that the possibility of
anything is exactly equal to its being
an impossibility. This is nothing but
a massive contradiction.
Mr. Norris' contention that Atheism, like Theism, requires an act of
"faith," is surely one of the most
comical things I have ever encountered.
Yes, the Atheist does believe there is
no god, but he can give you dozens of
rational reasons why he believes so!
Theistic "Faith," on the other hand,
was expressly created for the purpose
of maintaining belief in that which,
from an intellectual viewpoint, is totally unbelievable and unreasonable.
Were it otherwise -- were there logical
reasons for believing the so-called
"truths" of religion -- the whole concept of "faith" would never have
been necessary.
Atheism alone, unlike Agnosticism
and Theism, requires -- indeed, demands -- the full use of our mental
capacities. Agnosticism is a deliberately maintained state of suspended
ignorance,
while Theism
clearly
calls for a complete turning off of
our mental faculties.
Mr. Norris exhibits one of the
ever-present
characteristics
of the
Theist: imprecise use of language.
There is simply no way that Atheism
could ever possibly be defined as a
"faith. "
David J. Goode
Amston, Conn.

Page 3

Terminal Unitarianitis
Dear Editor:
I am planning to write an article which I feel you should seriously consider for
your magazine. I intend to give. my humorous experiences with the Unitari~n
Church (?), which I feel is just a jewelry store with tax benefits. I'm sure the antics
of this liberal organization will greatly interest your readers.
I bet you're asking yourself, "Why would he want to bother me with it?" I
developed my interest after being evicted from my home and began living in a dark
alley. My wife and kids ran off and joined the circus, leaving me with nothing but a
dream: to write an article. After visiting the free clinic, I was diagnosed as having
not one, but several rare (and of course fatal) illnesses. I decided it was time to
become religious. It was then I stumbled upon the Unitarians.
"What do you people believe in?" I asked.
"Anything you want!" one answered.
"I don't know what to believe, you see, I'm dying!" I answered.
"Well then, maybe you'd like to buy some jewelry," they replied.
Right away I knew this was my chance to write an article and make a few dollars
to pay for my kidney dialysis. Please consider, and write me of your verdict.
Not so sincerely
(but with good intentions),
Harold Cook
Albuquerque, N.M.
P.S. I'm not even going to mention the polaroids I have of you and your secretary at the office Christmas party.
Mr. Cook,
You have done it now. You have revealed yourself. There is no escape. A dying
man has no place to run. By now that innocent little Unitarian church will have you
on the combined mailing lists of Billy(goat) Graham, Anita (Orange Juice) Bryant,
Billy (boys or girls) J. Hargus and all the rest. Your mail box had better be a big
one. You are now a class I-A draftee in the forces of god's money gougers, second
only to the army of the IRS.
Nothing is safe, but all is sacred: like your house, land, car, children, life; all are
fodder for the great savings and loan association in the sky. They will get to you
while you can still sign on the dotted line, have no fear. The Unitarians love them
all.
The eternal fence-sitters will stand by like the proverbial buzzard and eat up any
benefits the army of god's bank leave after their feast of the tax boys.
So, bring on your best story Harold, you may not have much time. I understand
typewriters bring good money in estates these days. Oh, and don't forget to tread
carefully around that church on your way to god's bank, if you move them to one
side or the other and they pick up a splinter off the fence you'll think you stepped
into a hornet's nest.
The Editor
Energy Waste

An Unfortunate

[Editor's Note: The following letter

by American Atheist Lloyd Thoren on
how to save energy was sent to his local
newspaper but was never published.
The American Atheist seeks to right
that oversight by offering Mr. Thoren's
economical suggestion for reader comment.]

Dear American Atheists,

I have written to you people about
sending mail from the American Atheists. Please do not send any more mail
to me. I am the only person in the
building that gets your mail and, as I
told you, all the other ones are Catholics. So do not send any more. I am
sure you can send it to all the ones that
will be glad to receive it.
Mrs. D. Payne
Chicago
Mrs. Payne,
We are sorry to have to lose contact
with you because your neighbors
choose to exercise control over your
personal interests. Unfortunately for
the freethought movement, we receive
too many letters such as yours in this
nation which constitutionally guarantees those rights which you would
abandon in the face of your neighbors'
persecution.
The Editor

Dear Editor:
It occurs to me that there are a large
number of buildings in Indiana which
if winterized and left unheated would
make a good contribution to energy
saving. They are empty most of the
time with thermostats kept low except
on Sundays when their huge vaulted
air spaces are filled with hot air. You
guessed it, the churches. Wouldn't it
be better to give the parishioners a few
Sundays off than to take the kids out
of schools?
Lloyd Thoren
Petersburg, In.

Page 4

June, 1978

~J

More
Reader
COlDlDent
What A Convention!
Dear Editor,
The recent convention of American
Atheists in San Francisco [April 7-8-9]
was a highlight. The chance to meet
friends of like mind is in itself a boon;
the chance to talk with Madalyn - who
in my mind is a heroine second only to
Margaret Sanger - such a privilege!
I write to most urgently request a
follow-through and an endorsement
of [S.O.S. Board Member] Mary Holder's fine and thoughtful
speech
["Genetic Screening & Counseling"]
on the appalling prospect of the March
of Dimes and other charities suspending
their genetic research in the area of
eliminating the birth of mentally and
physically deformed babies, work that
has been condemned and brought to a
halt by certain religions. To me, this is
just plain criminal, strictly aside from
its obvious unconstitutional aspect of
interfering with a woman's right to
abort a malformed fetus.
I strongly endorse a firm amendment or addition to our Atheist Manifesto:
Resolved that women should always
have a right to their own body, which
includes freedom from all religious persecution regarding contraception, abortion and priestly dictates concerning
subjugation to husbands, etc.
(In some cases, the control of women by churches belongs to the Dark
Ages, doesn't it?)
Elaine Stansfield
Los Angeles

Proud Atheist
Dear Editor,
I enjoy the magazine immensely.
The photographer does a super job on
the covers. The articles are timely and
there is something for everyone in
each issue. They seem to be coming
through the mails okay.
It took me a long time to realize
that I am an Atheist. Now I admit it
and am proud of it as a result of reading your magazine. The world is so slow
to learn.
Owen B. Williams
Sheridan, Wy.

American

Atheist

l\llr-......-:

_N_EW_S ---,,1'litllr,I,II'lfllllll(,\I\,,1\111111111111

Baird Wins
Crucial Suit
On Abortion
On Wednesday, 3 May, Abortion
Freedom League founder Bill Baird
won an important decision in a Massachusetts court which ruled unconstitutional a 1974 state law which prohibited women under the age of 18 from
obtaining legal abortions without the
consent of both parents or a judge.
Baird termed the decision "a tremendous victory" not only for women
but for the young people of America
who, in effect, have been told by the
court's decision that they have rights
which are equal to those of adults and
that laws cannot discriminate against a
female who is old enough to vote, to
defend her country by joining the military, to marry and be physically able
to become pregnant, yet denied access
to safe and economical abortion services because of the religious prejudices of some Americans.
Baird, director of abortion clinics
in Boston and Hempstead, N.Y_, said
he fully expects the Massachusetts state
attorney general to appeal the decision
by the U.S. Federal District Court of
Boston to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The four-year battle to date has cost
Baird $50,000 and he expressed doubts
as to whether he could wage a successful case before the Supreme Court
without the continued backing of
Americans around the nation who support a woman's right to be free of the
religious persecutions of those who

would deny her access to safe contraception and abortion services.

Despite his having been in the forefront of this issue for the past 15 years,
Baird characterized the resistance put
up by the predominantly
Roman
Catholic proponents of this law as
"incredible." In an earlier confrontation he had charged that the recent
wave of violence against abortion clinics (see "Abortion Foes Bomb Clinics"
in The American Atheist, May 1978
issue) was part of a national campaign
of violent opposition to abortion services encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church.
As a result of the Boston court's decision, Baird has issued a national appeal to parents to accept the realities
of their youngsters' ability to have sexual relations and to discuss with their
children and deal with those realities
rather than follow the irrational dictates of religious dogma long since rendered anti-human and harmful by the

realities of 20th century life. He urged

American public school systems to
initiate a "crash program" for schoolage youth nationwide to make available
quality courses in sex education, contraceptive methods and abortion services.
To assist in educating local school
and civic groups in establishing such
programs and as a means of raising
funds for legal fees in the Supreme
Court battle ahead, Baird restated his
willingness to accept speaking dates
around the nation and urged sympathetic citizens and groups to organize
such affairs as a way of educating
Americans about the urgent need to
halt the Roman Catholic Church's
illegal lobbying for stricter abortion
laws.
After the Boston court announced
its decision in favor of Baird's position
on 3 May, TV stations in the Boston
area sent video crews to another abortion clinic seeking comment and film
footage on the matter, yet none
bothered to show Baird's own clinic
nor interview the man who filed and
won the suit. Likewise the TV reports
did not mention the name of the case
(Baird us Bellotti) in what Baird calls
an obvious attempt to deter persons
sympathetic with his case from supporting it financially.
Those wishing to contribute
to
Baird's battle to have the U.S. Supreme
Court uphold the lower court's decision on this matter can send tax-deductible donations to the following nonprofit, tax-exempt organization
Bill Baird Defense Fund
673 Boylston St.
Boylston, Mass.
02116

Court Bloeks Friday Mourning

CONCORD, N.H. - Gov. Meldrim Thomson's plans to fly
state and American flags in New Hampshire at half-staff to
commemorate Good Friday were dashed by the U.S. Supreme Court on 24 March.
By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that Thomson's plans must be
delayed until the justices can study whether memorializing the
death of Jesus Christ violates the Constitution's requirement
that government not promote any religion.
The court may never be asked to study the legal issue because Thomson issued a new, "secular" order on 24 March
paying tribute to Jesus Christ. In any event, a full review could
take weeks or even months.
Thomson personally lowered some of the flags at New Hamp-

shire's Statehouse that morning but ordered them raised again

when Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ordered him to wait until
the full Supreme Court had studied the controversy.
A divided court then ruled against Thomson.
Brennan was joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, John
Paul Stevens, Byron R. White and Harry A. Blackmun to form
a majority in favor of the delay.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Potter Stewart,
Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William H. Rehnquist voted to let Thomson lower the flags.
Governor Thomson was not legally challenged in 1976 and:
1977 when he ordered flags at state buildings lowered on
Good Fridays.

'The news which fills one half of the magazine is chosen to demonstrate, month after month, the dead reactionary hand of religion. It dictates
good habits, sexual conduct, family size, it censures cinema, theater, television, even education. It dictates life values and lifestyle. Religion is
politics and, always, the most authoritarian and reactionary politics. We editorialize our news to emphasize this thesis. Unlike any other maga~ine or newspaper in the United States, we are honest enough to admit it.
~

Austin, Texas

June, 1978

Page 5

Chaplin Body-Snatching:

Religious Bias Behind Deed

Apparently even the dead aren't safe from the antics of reigious nuts.
In a copyrighted story for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
James Bacon quotes "impeccable" sources as saying that Charlie Chaplin's corpse was stolen from a Swiss village graveyard I
because he was a Jew buried in a non-Jewish cemetery.
The source in Switzerland said Sir Charles' wife Oona was
told within 24 hours of the ghoulish deed where the body of
the man who made millions laugh could be found.
Bacon quotes his source as saying:
"The theft of Charlie's body from his grave is strictly a matter of religion and nothing else. No ransom was demanded and
Lady Chaplin was told immediately where she could find the
body.
"Chaplin was Jewish and he was buried originally in a nonJewish cemetery. The families of people buried in that cemetery objected and dug him up," the source said.
Chaplin died on December 25 in his 38-acre estate overlooking Lake Geneva at Corsier-Sur-Vevey. He was 88. Oona,
daughter of American playwright Eugene O'Neill, said her
husband died peacefully.
Chaplin was born a Jew and was always considered to be
Jewish during his film-making days in Hollywood, yet he never
practiced any religion even though he did support the Church
of England - though not a member.
His body was removed from its gravesite on the night or
early morning of March 1-2 and reports of the horrendous violation of the beloved "Little Tramp's" tomb made frontpage news around the world as many suspected his corpse had
been taken by kidnappers who would later demand a huge ransom from the surviving family. The fact that no ransom demand was ever received by the family only added to the
mystery of the whole bizarre incident.
A police official in Switzerland denied as "absolutely untrue" the report that Oona Chaplin was informed by the kid-

nappers weeks ago where the body was hidden.

A source close to the family was reluctant to discuss the
matter at all, but did deny that they had received any "contacts. "

Charlie
Chaplin
"Wasn't.

Religious"

Although Charles Chaplin was

not a religious man, according to actress-daughter Geraldine Chaplin, he
insisted on sending her to a Roman
Catholic convent school.
In the March 1978 issue of
McCall's she writes:
"When we moved to Switzerland, the young ladies' finishing
schools were where all the rich girls
went, so Daddy said no to that. He
wanted to know which was the
strictest school, and Mummy told
him the convent school."
Chaplin said that she had found
the religious rituals and teachings
there impressive. "I used to talk to
him a lot about it," she said.
" 'Daddy, don't you know that when
you die you're going to hell?' He'd
say: 'Well, you know, I think it's
wonderful that you believe all that.
But I can't. I would love to believe,
but I can't.' "

Bishops Shaft Catholic WOlDen

If there yet exists any doubt in the minds of Catholic women that the self-appointed male administrators of their religious faith are unalterably opposed to acknowledging women as
equals, then a recent decision by a major committee of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops should enlighten.
The 48 males of the Administrative Committee, which sets
policy for the entire 345-member group of U.S. Roman
Catholic bishops, rejected a proposal from six of their members
to back the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, opining that
Page 6

June, 1978

~J

its passage could hurt their own anti-abortion movement.

Archbishop John R. Roach of St. Paul, the vice president
of the bishops' group, said that the bishops' lawyers had
advised them not to favor the amendment. He said that the
church was lobbying for a constitutional amendment that
would limit abortions. He added, "To an extent, the E.R.A.
could pave the way" to more abortions. Roach said that the
-action by the Administrative Committee should be seen as a
"neutral" statement on the E.R.A., not as a negative one.
American

Atheist

Old 'Dogma
Learning
New Triells
While extremely reluctant to alter even one outlandish
claim of their dusty dogmas over the years, religionists are not
slow in recognizing a better way of imposing their malarky on
an unwilling public.
Hence it is that a Bible association has filed suit in a U.S.
District Court seeking to bar the federally funded Smithsonian Institution from promoting "evolutionism" as a scientifically proven fact. In the suit filed on April 12 in Washington,
D.C., litigant Dale Crowley Jr. is seeking to bar the Smithsonian from promoting evolution and, failing that, the suit asked
that an equal amount be spent to portray the biblical account
of creation.
"I know they think we are a bunch of crazies trying to
resurrect the Scopes trial, but if we can get our case heard by a
fair and honest judge we can win," Crowley said.
"Through this litigation evolutionism is going to be called
into question," he said.
Crowley said the Smithsonian, in presenting evolution "as

the only credible theory" for the origin of life fails, "in any
manner whatsoever" to present the creation, or design, theory,
which a number of scientists believe is as plausible as evolution.
Even more ironic (coming from a religionist) is Crowley's
charge that by presenting evolution as the only credible theory,
the Smithsonian is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution. "The Smithsonian," he said, is "establishing a religion of secular humanism to the complete and utter violation of
the government's role of neutrality in religious matters."
Dale Crowley Sr., a Washington radio evangelist since
1941, also a party in the suit, said, "Let them pay for presenting evolution if they feel they must, but let them pay for
it with their own money. I don't want them sticking their
slimy hands into my pocket to pay for it." The Crowleys are
fundamentalist Baptists.
Dale Crowley Jr. contends that the Smithsonian, through
the Museum of Natural History and a large display in the Air
and Space Museum, promotes evolution theory through exhibits, placards, captions, radio-transmitted narrations and literature. The pamphlet "The Emergence of Man" was scored as
particularly objectionable. Each visitor to the Museum of
Natural History receives a copy.
Having lost a continuous succession of state-church separation cases since WW II, some religious leaders are attempting
to reverse the the slow erosion of religion's power over the human psyche. It has been religion's relentless violations of the
First Amendment's prohibitions against establishment of any
religion which has been most used against those who would
enslave. Now, it seems, the worst foes of the First Amendment's guarantees of a citizen's right to be free of religious intrusion are seeking to undermine that very amendment by
using it against those whom it was meant to protect.

Genesis Cult Back On Campus

Waving the flag of academic freedom before any who would dare challenge them, supernaturalists are pushing hard to get god accredited on the
nation's college campuses again.
"We're asking for the supernaturalist alternative to be presented on
campus. We try to assure them we
won't abuse our presence there. We
don't try to convert anyone," claims
James Williams, president of Probe
Ministries of Dallas, Texas.
Williams' group recently completed
a three-day seminar on the origin of life
at the University of Michigan. Students
at Michigan State University can now
take a "science" course for credit that
not only explains evolution but offers
the creationist view as a rational alternative.
This infiltration of the nation's campuses by Christian supernaturalists is
not limited to the Michigan area only.
Noncredit seminars, like those taught
by Probe, presenting both sides of the
origin of life under the guise of a
science course, have been held at the
University of Vermont, Oklahoma
State University, and at San Diego
State College. Similar sessions have
been held on the campuses of Northwestern University, Fresno State College, the University of Texas, and Iowa
State University by other groups.
Supernaturalist associations such as
Probe have published seven science

Austin, Texas

readers intended for public school use,

a newsletter "to reach the scientific
world with the creationist view," and
are working with students at the
University of Santa Barbara to form
a group called Students for Origin Research.
The research center also publishes
supplementary classroom materials on
creation and works with citizen groups
and local school boards to get them
into classrooms.
A strong proponent of supernaturalism being taught under the guise of
science is John N. Moore, a Michigan
State natural science professor and creationist who has been teaching science
at MSU since 1946 and believed in

evolution until 1954. Moore says he

still teaches the evolutionist view but
doesn't hesitate to tell his students,
"This is not science."
When the subject of first origin
comes up, he contrasts the evolutionary theory that the universe happened
by accident with the creationist view
that it is part of an orderly plan by a
creator. He doesn't ask his students to
believe what he teaches.
Moore has faced little opposition
from colleagues at MSU. The former
president of MSU, Clifton R. Wharton,
appointed recently as chancellor of the
State University of New York, publicly has defended the offering of
Moore's credit course.

Atheist Confronts Dragon

One Atheist who is not about to allow the dragon of religion to lie peacefully on
its hoarded treasure of influence in public schools is J. Michael Straczynski of San
Diego [see "A Good Knight for Atheism," in this journal's May issue].
On April 5, Straczynski went before the Chula Vista (Calif.) school board and
stated his case for having the Bible banned from local public schools for being
too pornographic for children. He said the the Old Testament "contains rape,
incest, murder, vivisection and other heinous, even sexual, crimes.
"There are portions of the Bible that I would be embarrassed to read to you,
said Straczynski, who holds a degree in psychology and is a graduate student in
Mass Communications at San Diego State University as well as a regular columnist
for that university's student newspaper, the Daily Aztec.
The trustees voted unanimously to turn the issue of curbing the Bible over to a
committee.

June,

1978

Page 7

God Ousted
From Arabs'
Underwear

Omnipresence is apparently one

divine attribute which some Arabs
don't claim for Allah.
One location they don't want their
god to be is in the underwear of his
faithful male followers.
Moslem leaders in Kuwait are hopping mad at London's Marks and Spencer chain stores for placing the label
"There is no god but Allah" in Arabic
on men's underwear, according to Kuwaiti newspapers.
Some Moslem leaders were quoted
as saying the store's affront "had degraded the most respectable phrase in
Islam" by sticking it on underwear.
Oil-rich Kuwait will request that all
Islamic nations condemn "this affront"
and curtail the flow of wealthy Arab
tourists to London, the papers said.

Kamal Abul Magd, dean of the Kuwait University Faculty of Law was
quoted in one paper as saying that the
store is "known for its Zionist leanings ...
and this flagrant affront to
Islam shows it."
Another paper quoted Minister of
Religious Endowments Youssef Yassem
al-Hajji as saying the government instructed its embassy in London to protest Marks and Spencer's "defamatory
move" and "outrageous desecration of
the Moslem faith."
Wealthy, free-spending Arabs are
importan t to London's tourist trade,
and there was speculation the slogan
was designed to boost sales to Arab
visitors. Marks and Spencer spokesmen
were not immediately available for
comment.

Argentine Junta, Chureh One

The military government in heavily
Roman Catholic Argentina has decreed
that all religions except Roman Catholicism must register with the state or be
banned in that country.
The decree says registration can be
refused, providing effectively for more
religious bannings by the two-year-old
government of this 90 percent Catholic
country, which already has outlawed
three sects.
In 1977, President Jorge Videla's
military regime, which seized power in
a 1976 coup, banned the Jehovah's
Witnesses and two Indian-oriented
sects, the Divine Light Mission and the
Hare Krishna group.
The law will take effect in a month's

time when it is published in the government's official bulletin, local newspapers have reported. Religious organizations will then have 90 days to register on an official list to be run by the
foreign ministry, the decree said.
The Catholic Church, the official
religion in the South American nation
of 25 million persons, was not affected,
the decree stated.
Argentina signed an accord with the
Vatican in 1966 reaffirming the
church's right to function in Argentina. Argentine newspapers published
the new law without comment, their
usual practice when handling any potentially
controversial
government
measure.

Atheist Museum
Opens In Indiana
The American Atheist Museum will
open this year, and all Atheists are cordially invited to visit. We are located at
the entrance of Pride's Creek Park,
which is very near to Petersburg, Indiana.
Pride's Creek Park has facilities for
camping trailers (air, sewage and electricity), many primitive camping sites,
an 80-acre lake complete with fish and
bathing beach with lifeguards, public
toilets, and camping tables with grills.
A t our museum we have two rustic
cabins which will accomodate six people, with a bathroom and kitchen facilities included.
We are open for Atheists seven days
a week from the day after our national
convention in April until Labor Day.
Christians and those of other religions
may enjoy a guided tour only on Sun-

Page 8

days from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. during

the summer.
Visitors may view our 54-foot wall
mural done on an evolutionary theme,
primitive and modern religious artifacts of the world's religions, the Indiana Chapter's office, and hopefully'
lots more.
It's a lot of work building a museum, but then we have the rest of our
lives to improve it.
Pam and Lloyd Thoren will be delighted to see you.
For your protection as well as our
own, those of you who are Atheists
will be required to show your Atheist
membership card or some other such
identification so that the museum's attendants may distinguish interested
Atheists from those who are of a religious persuasion.

June, 1978

~/

The Argentine Foreign Ministry has

kept a list of religions since 1950, but
the law said faiths already registered
must register again. It said the move
was to establish "effective control" by
the authorities over non-Catholic religions.

NEWS: The Best For Last. . __ ..

Even among religious scholars these
days there's talk of a deepening "secularism" descending over the U.S.
The trend is toward what some call
a "pagan society" detached from "any
system of clear moral purpose," writes
sociologist Brendan Furnish of Westmont College in California.
Rutgers University sociologist Peter
Berger writes in his new book, Facing
Up to Modernity, that the major agencies which "officially" define realityuniversities, the public school system,
the medical system, the communications media, the courts, etc. - have
been narrowed to a so-called "scientific
worldview. "
So pervasive has the sidelining of religion become that some court decisions have held that legislation based on
"religious motivation" is unconstitutional, says Rev. Virgil C. Blum, a Marquette University political scientist.
Among the most influential and
controversial zones purged of religious
teaching or observance in modern times
are the public schools, whose curricula
generally shuns it, implying to the
young that religion is not part of
useful knowledge.
***We'll drink to that!!***

American

Atheist

ONOUK WAY
Ignatz sahula-dyeke
The Unfamiliar

Resists Acceptance

Anyone who implies, intimates, suggests, or simply and

rudely says that he speaks for a deity, a god, a ghost, or any
other kind of a specter is little more than a fanatic, a fool, liar,
pretender, or a schemer whose intention is to benefit from the
thoughtlessness of his audience. Too, his behavior betrays that
he is remorseless, if only because he hasn't examined the sundry telltales plainly inscribed in the workings of nature as her
immutable laws. Were such a person to examine closely those
laws, he would discover that his activities contribute very little
to life's advancement, but perchance a great deal to life's retardation and injury.
Everything living, though produced of nature, becomes an
active part of nature as soon as born to life. In maintaining itself, it doesn't (as some view it) carry on as an entity that from
the outside views, feeds on, and controls nature, but has become an inferior but functioning part of her totality - one
among the many other parts similarly absorbed, all of whom
by borning and dying maintain nature in a state of constantly
renewing vitality and (most important) in a ferme'nt of vastly
unpredictable consequences. No scientist can with any authority say that this, now, is nature, nor any priest change nature's
ways through preachments to her human particles.
Nature is supreme; she needs no interpreter; she speaks for
herself in unmistakable terms which, regrettably, the human
understands only to the extent to which he, as but one small
part of her, contributes to her entirety. Being of limited perceptiveness, we can only hope our perceptive faculties will
grow, and that way reveal more and more to us of everything
that in nature now only has us guessing.
Seems to me I've heard it clinically confirmed that everything living is subliminally, if not consciously, aware of being
indebted to nature for the life nature gave it; and that all organisms partly or wholly repay nature by observing her laws, and
by carrying on in the state of life thus received for as long as
systemically enabled to do so.

A Debt ToN ature

It is known that some organisms commit suicide - man as
well as others - but actions of this kind only prove the rule,
no less than prove that nature has sundry ways of removing
from life all those who are unable to withstand its rigors - permitting only the fittest to survive it. For this and similar reasons it isn't overly difficult to understand that any organism or
creature that through willful actions ignores or transgresses
nature's dictum that only the fittest should survive, is by it
shown unworthy of life - having injured the life intrusted to
its keeping.
Yes, it's true, to some extent, that our life is our own, but
glaringly false to assume that this gives us license to insult the
very force which privileged us to know that we live. First
things first, so let's not forget the long journey made by life
which preceded our appearance in it - the one that somehow
began in the ooze of pre-Cambrian times and developed into
our most amazing existence that we lightly describe as civilized, taking it more or less for granted. I say "more or less"
for the reason that most of those of us who don't take it for
granted make up the majority that was brought up religiously
to believe that life was given to us by an imagined something
that their religion arbitrarily calls "god."
Once anyone's consciousness is lambasted to believe that
religion's word about life's origin is trustworthy, he or she accepts it as a fact, and no longer hears anything said to the con-

Austin, Texas

trary no matter how valid - this amounting to a wall that

shuts out common sense. Kill common sense, and life loses the
zest that gives it meaning.
Whatever life might mean can only be determined by communication. This isn't overly difficult except when each of the
palavering parties already favors something with which the
other will disagree. This turns out to be a very difficult problem for any agnostic, humanist, Atheist or realist who desires
or feels that he needs to convince an audience of believers that
he doesn't desire to despoil them of their beliefs, but only desires that they'd consider whether or not they are observing
something far more important than any "revealed" religion namely, preserving a distinct separation between religion and
the state.
The point which the Atheist and others of his kind hope to
make is that most believers overlook their religion's primary
interest: the money it collects - and that this interest in
money makes religion not the "spiritual" activity it pretends
to being, but a business with an eye to profits like any other.
All non-believers are perturbed over the existing indifference which our federal authorities (all of whom are sworn to
uphold the Constitution) display toward the glaringly favored
status accorded to religion. As mentioned, the non-believer
sees all religions as enterprises devoted to amassing capital an activity for whose exercise the worship of a deity is only a
pretext.
Briefly, in religion, money outranks theism. Under sundry
pretexts most of today's religious sects invest the surplus funds
they collect, and because the religions are untaxed, they undeservingly enjoy a privileged status putting them beyond the
pale of the controls exercised by the state over all other business enterprises. The state resorts to controls for the protection of its citizens and their nation's overall weal.
Now, since the state finds it advisable to tax and otherwise
control businesses and corporations, why should the business
of religion be an exception to the rule, and not pay its share of
the costs of the government which protects its activities - its
privilege of doing business? What, indeed, except the superstitious beliefs which religion has imposed on the citizenry and
its elected authorities - deluding them into thinking that the
tax-free status of religion is a kind of propitiation they're all
rendering to the deity existing nowhere but in their sanitybereft imaginations?
Religion is the largest and most prosperous single business
in our entire country. The power wielded by its tax-free holdings and investments is slowly but surely eroding the citizenry's
awareness of the basic fact that their nation, no matter how
rich and powerful, will moulder and die if directed and governed by anyone or any means except through the consent of
the governed - the governed all mindful of the provision that
the state and their religion must be kept distinctly separate.
But now with every passing day religion is becoming more and
more an active part of the state, and this due to its tax-exempt
status.
Through its stockholdings today religion exerts undue pressures on the business conduct of sundry corporations almost at
will, and thus indirectly on the daily lives of their directors and
employees. This alone would be serious enough, but only a few
years ago the various religions began to take an active part in
the strictly political duties and missions of the state: through
legal elections (by religiously prejudiced citizens) of ordained
clergymen to posts of executive and legislative trust, not to
mention the usual lobbying now stepped up to portentously

June,1978

Page 9

unprecedented levels.
Any student of history will recognize in this behavior a repetition of religion's onslaught upon the freedoms of the common man which deprived him of self-respect and kept him in
serfdom, helpless and ragged, until the beginning of the 19th
century. Don't take my word for this; dig into history and it's
all there, detailed in black on white; religion's boys never stop
trying. It also testifies that despite all the noise they make
about a god who (they say) is all that life is worth living for,
they privately want considerably more for themselves than
only that god.
Should religion's long-standing evasion of justly proportionate taxation be permitted to go on, the time can't be very far
off before the U.S. citizen will be governed not by his will and
his vote but by the desires and whims of the religious cartel
that eve~ speculates and schemes how best to disenfranchise
him.
Can anyone believe that the leopard has changed his spots?
Or that he's only a pretty pussycat that's out for nothing but
catching tasty little mice? Who, do you suppose, put up that
sign that Joey Adams says hangs at every entrance to the Pentagon: "Worship daily according to your faith"? No sane god
would ever stoop that low. Only remember that signs of that
kind indicate it can happen here - and that it's later than you
think.

An Age-Old Rip-Off
I happen to be somewhat more aware of organized religion's
tampering with peoples' lives because I became incensed by it
early in my childhood, in Bohemia in Austria where I was born.
In those days Catholicism was the Austrian Empire's official
religion and instruction in it was compulsory from kindergarten
on through the elementary grades; not at all inspiring but, like
it or not, repeated over and over till school let out.
This particular portion of my early youth would be a relief
to forget; the flavor of its outrage lasts. The brassy hypocrisy
of the religious teachers; their saying one thing and my seeing
them doing the opposite is what really stayed with me - and,
not long after this phase of my revulsion, my study of history
continued to reveal religion's revolting past: behavior never
mentioned in these religious lessons, all sweetness and light,
that we all had to endure in class.
Cruelties that above all others incensed me were those which
dealt with punishments the church visited upon men and women of science, and upon all the others who prized freedom of
mind and conscience. Had I, in all that reading, found anything
commending religion's comportment? Of course I had, but not
enough to balance the evil; the good usually appearing in connection with actions launched in furtherance of the religion for the edification, emolument, or increased power of its nabobs.
Commendation of religion is far from my purpose here but
I don't deny that during the past millenium religion - through
an onset of repentance, I suppose - actually did something for
the human instead of to him. But in most instances religion
took pains to keep the common people in the dark about their
serving as the soil in which religion sows and grows both sweet
and bitter fantasies - both kinds almost invariably camouflaging ecclesiastic cupidity.
Despite all this obloquy on my part, optimism still buoys
my thoughts even though now for almost threescore years I've
been witnessing the various sects - in this "enlightened" century - sowing the virus of freedom-kill into the minds of the
people of our country. A great and good people, but of minds
about whose emancipation the religions show no solicitude.
Has any religion ever asked the people to look up at the
stars? Rarely, and then only from the shadow of her altar. Or
at their country, the land of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? My parents chose it over all others as the special one
whose government of the people they thought would never
permit to happen here what in old Europe ecclesiastic greed
and arrogant contempt for human dignity brought to term beyond all repair.
I admit that religion's current goings-on cause me anxiety.
Page 10

June, 1978

~/

Religion's reported troubles don't allay it. I'm past any warming up toward anything that ever played both ends against the
middle, with one eye on self-promotion and the other one on
gain. I like people, continue trusting them, and hope they'll
find their way to the path from which religion led them astray.
I see no obstacles except religion that could keep them from
coming to their senses and re-embracing the free-thinking
Americanism provided them by our founding fathers. So much
for my hopes.
Anything as monotonous as the doctrine and behavior of
organized religion and its votaries is bound to bore any free
mind. Were it not for the Bible's literary style and its narration
of adventures that tested the mettle of Semitic tribesmen,
their wives and progeny, I'd rate it the same way.
What engrosses me about Christianity's tragic failure as
teacher (which for the first three centuries of her life she was),
is that she didn't disappear with the Dark Ages. She still shows
signs of life. Though little more now than a debauched, rouged
and garrulous harridan, she continues pluckily to tramp the
streets and byways, for a price offering herself as a purveyor of
euphoria to thoughtless takers who, frequenting her pallet,
grow progressively weaker in mind and body, victims of her
ancient malady of fear - and all of them in need of returning
to common sense, which alone defies the dissolution that's
symbolized in Christian rituals.
These believers of religion subliminally feel that something
about their faith is awry, or they wouldn't derive comfort from
the company of others who by church-going show they're in
the same fix. The believer for this reason should know that the
place to which his religion's doctrine has taken him is far from
the place he'd like to call home.
This shouldn't surprise anyone; Christianity isn't a bit better than the preceding religions she is a copy of - all of whom
failed for the selfsame reason. The answer to all this rests in
education: in educating the people to feel fulfilled and happy
when self-reliant and mentally free. But how is this to be accomplished when so very many people have committed themselves to bend their knees to a doctrine born of defeat?
Obviously, any remedial education will be gained not in the
schools (where religiously cultivated prejudice now makes it
suspect) but through the slow process of word-of-mouth. I
don't anticipate any explosive return to common sense everything seems to promise the very opposite, But - who
knows? Things even more strange have happened. The word
has often got itself around in spite of hell and high water even made bosom friends out of mortal enemies. Basically
though, the needed solution will come through communication.
When I consider what a tremendous step forward humanity
would take were religion to devote its widespread organization,
personnel, and capital resources to the awakening and nurturing of the human's perception of reality - instead of inducing
him to plod on in religion's dream-world of "reborning," "crusading for Jesus," spreading "the great good news," etc. - it
almost boggles the mind. The current era is offering to religion
its last chance to depart from its inane moronity-breeding doctrine, and initiate a new era leading its supine believers to sane
and trenchant thinking about ways of making the best of the
time allotted to us in this really grand world in which we live.
Were religion to make such a move, it would turn out to be the
grandest and most electrifying event in the world's known history.
The chances of religion doing anything of that kind are
somewhere neat one in a million, because religion has only
rarely done anything for the world's people but drive them
into the adoration of fantasies. The god business has all but
completely paralyzed within the human race. the unique qualities that distinguish the race from all the other creature species
on earth.
Religion's inexcusably stupid evangelizing has made its victims into stereotypes, nothing more than that. This, today, is
how it is. And though the day is gone when all that a friar or a
dominie had to do to prostrate his listeners was to bow his
head and prayerfully clasp his hands, the present is much more
fraught with dangers assailing the mental emancipation of our
refractory human breed.
American

Atheist

Point for Point

By Allen B. Carlson

"What are you doing, Father?" The little Spanish boy asked
as he removed the sucker from his mouth and promptly replaced it ravenously.
"I'm checking the point list."
"What's the point list, Father?"
"You're too young to understand - and so are some of us
older ones."
As the boy delighted himself with some paper and crayons
that Father Mariano had provided, the priest continued to scan
the point list 23. Each letter of transfer .. 5pts.
24. Each convert .. 10pts.
25. Each revival sermon .. 2pts.
26. Each Mass without Communion .. 5pts.
27. Each Mass with Communion .. lOpts.
So the list continued for some 568 items 361. Each poor people's demonstration .. 25pts.
362. Every time picture appears in the news .. 25pts.
363. Every mention of name in the news .. 10pts.
364. Every mention of name in the news with the name of
the diocese .. 30pts.
365. Each mention of name in the news with the name of
the bishop .. 30pts.
366. Hurt in action during demonstration (not requiring
hospitalization) .. 35pts.
So the point list ended in the inevitable 568. Killed in the act of spreading the teaching of the
Teacher .. Number of points determined by the point
need for the week.
"Mariano, are you busy?"
Lifting his face from his hands he saw Father Angelo from
across-town. They had .graduated from the seminary together,
numbers one and two out of a class of 282.
"I see you are worrying about the point list. You know, I
gave up worrying about that list months ago. Since when does
Bishop Cliles know more than either you or I? If the pope

heard about this the feathers would fly and Cliles would be
out."
"But suppose Cliles is right. Suppose we need these points."
"Then god would have given them to the pope, and not to
some hick bishop."
The room suddenly became unbearably hot. The sun
streamed through the semi-tinted window to fallon the worn
carpet on the floor of the rectory. The clock on the blistered
wall had stopped again, and to avoid Father Angelo's stare,
Father Mariano went to strike the clock. Again it sludged on.
"To show you how ridiculous the whole thing is, do you
know what would happen if the press got a hold of this book?
They would literally tear the religion apart. And heaven knows
that we are already in enough trouble because of birth control
and all that."
"But suppose Cliles is right, just for a minute."
"Okay, if Cliles is right then you are doing the right thing
and I am doing the wrong. You and your congregation will go
to heaven. Me and mine will go to hell. But if you want to'
know, I think Cliles is pushing for a promotion. Archbishop
Landen has been sick in bed for the past year and they say he
will die anytime now. Who is a likely successor? Cliles of
course. "
"Then why don't you do something?"
"I don't know. It might be because of the religion. Then
again it might be because I'm also due for a promotion. I don't
really know. I've got an appointment with Cliles in about 30
minutes so I've got to go. But think about it."
The door creaked and caught. Father Mariano sat awhile
caught up in thought. Shifting in his chair he grabbed the telephone book. On page 384 he found what he wanted, The
News-Herald, Yorkshire 26-4568.
That afternoon the story broke about Cliles and his point
list. Immediately upon seeing the story Cliles left to see Father
Mariano. Two blocks away from Father Mariano's parish a red
sports car, with a bumper sticker reading GOD IS DEAD, ran a
red light and smashed into Cliles' car. Fifteen minutes later,
following last rites by Father Mariano, Bishop Cliles was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident.
Cliles still needed two points that week and subsequently
went to hell.
Courtesy Penthouse magazine.

"Separate checks."

Austin, Texas

June, 1978

Page 11

By Jon Garth Murray

Convention Highlights

Conventions are usually odd events because their function

is to gather together those of similar type or interest. It is always quite interesting to see the large variety of personalities
and physiognomies associated with a common philosophy, education, political stance or any number of other issues. The
Eighth Annual American Atheists National Convention held in
San Francisco on April 7-8-9 was no exception. Some 300
Atheists from all over the United States and Canada came together to share laughs, swap stories and break bread together;
but most of all to broaden their view of American Atheism.
Although the bulk of the conventioneers were "ordinary"
Atheists, there were the celebrities too. Outspoken Atheist leader Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was there along with Butterfly
McQueen (who won fame as "Prissy" in the epic film "Gone
With The Wind"), as was Lou Alt, an Atheist veteran of countless organizations dedicated to freethought principles. Chapter
directors of American Atheists came from 11 states and Canada, including California [Sacramento, San Francisco, Los
Angeles], Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas
[Dallas, Houston, Galveston, Austin], Wisconsin and New
Mexico. The directors of Missouri, Florida, Colorado, North
Carolina and South Carolina could not attend, but sent their
greetings and encouragement.
- The convention is held each year on the weekend closest to
the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. "T.J." was born on April
13, the same birthdate as the founder and president of American Atheists, Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

Recapturing

National Symbols

We feel it important to win back some of our nation's symbols from the Christian community which has subverted them
in praise of their mythical deity. Therefore, Atheists resecure them as we can in the form of persons or events. The
birthday of "T.J." is an opportunity to honor that great statesman without whose effort the wall of separation of state and
church in America would never have been.
The convention is officially opened each year by Dr. O'Hair,
and the conventioneers are urged to mingle and get to know
one another. Everyone is seated in round-table setting so that
they are forced to meet one another. After the initial getacquainted session, the board of directors of American Atheists
is introduced and scheduled activities of the first day which
are open to the general public begin. This year they included:
A) A presentation by Board Member Mary Holder entitled "The Ever-Moving Cycle of Atheist Activism." In her
presentation, Ms. Holder outlined the various areas in which
our organization is involved in its thrust to secure civil rights
for Atheists and constitutionally required separation of state
and church.
B) A video tour of the American Atheist Center in Austin was presented via a slide show. The Center is a lasting symbol of our determination to win freedom of the mind for all
Americans. It is an important symbol whose brightness of the
mind is a solitary deterrant to the encroaching shadow of
mindless religion.
C) Alan Eckerd, a chapter member from Dallas and a
numismatist, exhibited a variety of rare coins from his impressive collection. The coins illustrated likenesses of various emperors and kings who were considered to be "heathens"

Page 12

June, 1978

in their day due to some form of opposition they gave to the

growth of organized Christianity.
D) Two attorneys from the law firm now employed by
American Atheists for its many legal efforts to enforce the
doctrine of separation of state and church were present to give
a briefing on the cases in progress and to answer questions
from the audience. David Horton and Debbie Gardner, along
with Ralph Shirley (our in-house legal advisor) and Dr. O'Hair
reported on the list of cases which includes the following:
1) Suits to remove the offensive motto "In God We Trust"
from U.S. coins and currency, to restore our previous national motto of "E Pluribus Unum", discarding "One Nation
Under God", and to remove "under God" from the U.S.
Pledge of Allegiance.
2) A suit to stop the opening of public governmental functions with prayers.
3) Suits to stop the display of religious paraphernalia (such
as nativity scenes) on public property.
4) A suit to challenge the right of any state to be a functioning theocracy due to portions of its constitution or laws being inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The state of Texas, for example, prohibits anyone from
holding public office unless (s)he has a belief in a "supreme
being."
5) A suit to prohibit churches from running illegal gambling
operations in the form of bingo games.
E) Awards were presented by a grateful American Atheist
community to two Pioneer Atheists: to Lou Alt and to Walter
Kennon for their efforts in the early years of the freethought
movement in the United States. These men have seen many
organizations come and go and their experience is a valuable
addition to our organization. From this, the services of Lou
Alt and Merrill Holste have been added to our effort as they
will be serving as official historians of our American Atheist
Historical Association.
F) Michael Dean Hagen, a Navy corpsman from the state of
Washington, was named "American Atheist of the Year"
(1978). In a protest to the Department of the Navy, he had demanded that his religious preference be listed as "American
Atheist" rather than "no preference." His demand was met,
thus opening the door for persons in all other branches of the
military to make the same demand of their superiors. Hagen
has not stopped there, however, for he is now pressing the
Navy on the use of religious tests and oaths for certain offices
and to have invocations at boot camp commencement stopped.
In addition to the events above, a large selection of Atheist,
agnostic and freethought literature was available for sale to
the public. As a fitting end to the activities of each day, all interested people were invited to a soiree in the suite of the
Murray-O'Hairs. These huge parties took place on all three
nights of the convention. Atheists enjoy socializing with other
Atheists at this once-a-year chance to meet so many others of
like mind.
The second day of the convention is generally confined to
members of American Atheists only and the day is taken up
by a long business meeting and reports dealing with S.O.S.
progress. Also, at this time the board of directors of American
Atheists holds its annual meeting.
The membership present votes on nominations for sites for

American

Atheist

"Atheist of the Year" (1978) Michael Dean Hagen was

presented that distinguished award by Dr. 0 'Hair at a gala
formal dinner on Saturday evening honoring the birthdays
of Thomas Jefferson and Madalyn 0 'Hair.

S.O.S. attorneys David Horton (at podium) and Debbie

Gardner (seated to Horton's left) are shown detailing the Society's 13 active legal cases to an attentive audience of American A theists who had a flurry of questions and much advice.

American Atheist columnist G. Richard Bozarth shown

delivering his up-tempo address entitled "A Joyous Atheist"
during Sunday afternoon's meetings. By popular request,
Bozarth's address is published in his column on page 15.

S.O.S. founder and president Dr. Madalyn Murray 0 'Hair

shown listening to her membership in one of many informal
but most informative discussions with attending American
Atheists.

Two of the six tables covered with Atheist books, pamphlets, posters, bumper stickers, medallions, etc., are temporarily quiet as conventioneers attentively follow the legal
briefing on Saturday afternoon.

Four national office staffers stop for a breather after crossing Donner Pass in the Sierras in a snowstorm on their way to
San Francisco in the Society's motorhome and book-laden van
to attend the convention.

****

:tc .

"

"

***

future conventions. These must be ratified by the membership

at large and the unconfirmed selections for 1979 and 1980 are
Dallas, Texas, and Detroit, Michigan, respectively.
Some additional awards are given out during the business
sessions, the luncheons and the dinners, to those chapter members and leaders who have been most outstanding in their work
for the organization in the past year. Outstanding chapter
leadership award this year went to Don Latimer, director of
the Los Angeles Chapter of American Atheists. The outstanding chapter member award went ot Paul Marsa for his work as
a litigant in the issue of challenging prayer openings of city
council meetings in his hometown in New Jersey. A special
award was presented to Samuel Miller, an off-and-on staff
member of the American Atheist Center who resides mostly in
South and Central America. Miller is involved in longevity research among South America's native peoples. His award was
for particular heroism in that he rescued Dr. O'Hair from an
angry group of Christians at a church bingo game at which she
was voicing a protest over illegal gambling.
Another award went to Mary Kelly Housman for her work
with senior citizens who determined to have a Florida Christian retirement center pay ad valorem taxes.
As a finale to our convention following the business session,
an announcement is made of the "Religious Hypocrite of the
Year" award given each year according to the popular vote of
the membership. This year the recipient was none other than
James Earl Carter, president of the United States. He was
nominated and elected for his stand on human rights for other
nations - yet he ignores those of his own countrymen in
contradiction of his Baptist teachings. hi short,be was cited
"for being a politician rather than a statesman."
The conventions are special events for Atheists each year
since those who attend them come to "charge their batteries"
with the determination to persevere in their freethinking despite heavy social pressures and harassment from the religious
community. Every year in the halls of each hotel and in the
corners of banquet rooms Atheists can be found talking about
their experiences with the religious psychoneurotics of their
community. Another common topic of conversation is the
loneliness felt by some Atheists. A businessman once remarked
that another Atheist on the Society's mailing list lived in the

Religions

same apartment complex as he did but he never knew it until

they met at convention time.
It is unfortunate that in this nation to be an Atheist is to be
outcast and lonely. Atheism is a proud stance that places each
and every one of us above the crowd. We are the finest citizens of the United States and can walk with a great deal more
pride than someone who has abandoned their reason for religion. Our conventions each year are designed to allow the
Atheists in a certain area of the country to meet and reinforce
their courage to continue their proud stance.

A Costly Affair
The conventions are, however, a financial loss year in and
year out for the Society. Hotels demand room and meal guarantees out in advance, thus binding the contracted group to
pay for the guaranteed number of rooms or meals regardless
of attendance. Local news medium often refuse to give the
pre-publicity needed to draw more people. The media is always enthusiastic after the fact or during the convention itself.
This year's convention and post-convention media coverage
is the only economic factor that makes each convention
worthwhile. The amount of publicity received could not be
purchased commercially for even twice the cost of the convention.
American Atheists shall continue, despite the financial
setback, to sponsor conventions each year in a continued
effort to allow Atheists to meet one another and go back
home "recharged." We are, after all, engaged as Atheists in a
survival struggle, a struggle which we must win since it means
much more than just personal comfort. The success of the
Atheist philosophy will make possible a new age of human intelligence being applied to solve human problems. It means
denying the world another Dark Age.
The conventions each year should be a growing symbol of
our strength and ability to walk behind reason on the way to
a better America. In that spirit I ask that you make a point of
attending the convention when it comes to your area. Stand
up and be counted for common sense. Every silent Atheist
voice is a vote for a religious America.

Hypocrite

Of The Year

1978
James Earl Carter
For
Being A Politician
Rather Than
A Statesman

Page 14

June, 1978

~I

American

Atheist

A JOYOUS ATHEIST
g. riehard bozarth
The Joy Of Atheism
On 9 April 1978 I had the great privilege and marvelous
pleasure of addressing the Eighth Annual American
Atheist Convention
in San Francisco,
California.
To be honest,
I had all
along intended
to put the text in this
column, but if I had had any doubts,
the requests to publish it I received
would have dispelled them. Here, then,
is the text of that speech:

I want to say first that it's great

being here. This is fantastic! This is the
first time I've been in a crowd where I
could say, "There ain't no god!" and
not be turned upon. Before this, I was
lonely!
I've only been a member of the
American Atheists for little over a
year, which is about as long as I've
known the organization exists. That
speaks well for the national news media. It seems every belch by the pope
is news-worthy, but almost nothing
Atheists do is news-worthy. Well, despite this, I was lucky. I managed to discover the American Atheists through a
writers' digest of publishing markets
which included our magazine. It has
been the best thing to happen to me
since my discharge from the Marine
Corps.
From the first issue I received of
our magazine, I wanted to write for
it. After eight months, I finally produced something I felt worthy of the
magazine. I sent it in, and Madalyn
wrote back that it was "great, send
more. " I have been sending more ever
since. I only hope the readers get half
as much pleasure reading my articles
as I get writing them.
When I was asked to suggest a title
for the column, almost immediately I
wanted "A Happy Atheist, " but that

QUESTION NO.7

Austin,

Texas

was a little too close to The Happy

Hooker
for philosophical dignity. I
settled for ''A Joyous Atheist. "
Why? Does that mean I am an irrational optimist like Voltaire's Pangloss? No. This is not the best of all
possible worlds.

Joyful, But. - .
I find no joy in Anita Bryant's holy
crusade against homosexuals in particular, and anything else she can find
condemned in the Bible.
I find no joy in the corruption and
tax burden that is the product of taxexempt church wealth.
I find no joy in the multiple assaults, sueli as the Packwood-Moynihan
Bill, on the separation of state and
church, on our First Amendment.
I find no joy in the dirty religious
attacks on our center in Austin.
I find no joy in the far too many labors to make our public schools use
textbooks to teach the Genesis gibberish as a scientific theory.
I find no joy in a lot of things. So,
why the title "A Joyous Atheist"? I
picked it because I am a joyous Atheist. I didn't become an Atheist because
I was worried about tax-exempt church
wealth. I didn't become an Atheist because I was worried about the First
Amendment. I didn't know about those
things as a teen-ager. I became an
Atheist because what it does for me as
an individual fills me with joy.
One reason is that Atheism frees me
from unearned guilt! Unearned guilt is
the guilt we humans are supposed to
inherit at birth! You all know the
story of Adam and Eve and the "original sin." You all know the theory of
it, how this first sin damns every hu-

man to sin.
If you read theologians, or listen to
streetcorner Billy Grahams, you will
be shocked at the adjectives used to
describe human beings. Wretched, corrupt, depraved, debased, vile, malicious, evil, so on and so on. You begin
to wonder if these god-pushers are
talking about human beings -- the
average, everyday human who mostly
is a fairly decent person. You wonder
if they are describing the demons of
their hell, for the terms they use to
describe human nature are fit only for
the demons of their warped imaginations.
Religion thrives on guilt! Only by
making humans feel hopelessly degenerate can they chain the human mind
to the sickly seducements of salvation.
Consider the burden of guilt the crucifixion heaps upon those who believe!
This is the guilt that enables Christianity to survive by keeping the poor
dumb bastards who believe on their
groveling knees.
Put yourself in their place, or recall
yourselves if like me you once were silly
enough to believe. How dare anyone
lift their head with self-esteem when,
but for the blood of god, slaughtered
to purchase forgiveness from god, we
would be in hopeless slavery to sin?
Imagine how naturally evil we humans
must be if god has to kill part of himself before even he will save us?
This is the real meaning of Jesus'
death. It lays upon the weak and meek
and humble, those most susceptible
to a sense of sin, a burden they will
never be able to rise up from, it is so
heavy. And does Christianity play upon
this sense of miserable worthlessness
that it has labored so hard to pervert
humans with? You bet it does!

GIVE AN ExAMPLE OF A
CONrRADICTIOt-.\ OF 1E.RMS !

June,

1978

Page 15

I've read a lot of theological writings, and I've sparred with Christians
in the Letters Section of my hometown newspaper. Never yet has human
sinfulness not been stressed. I read this
nonsense, and if humans were really as
they describe us, we'd be wild, screaming ghouls running about stealing, murdering, raping - it's incredible.
I confess I couldn't handle the guilt
when I was a Christian. I can recall
nights when I'd be so certain Satan
had full possession of my soul that I
would spend hours in weeping prayer
begging god to save me. Perhaps some
of you find that hard to believe, particularly if you never had to fight your
way out of religion to the cleanness of
Atheism.
Even I find it hard to believe. These
ugly memories seem like they should
belong to someone else. But they don't.
They are mine. I was the idiot begging
a myth to be saved from guilt I had
never earned.
I was only 14 years old! How sinful
could I have been? I didn't come from
New York. I never killed anyone. I
never beat up anyone. I didn't drink. I
didn't smoke. I didn't even know what
dope was. I obeyed my parents. I
earned good grades, and my teachers
liked me. I was just a typical American
kid - how could I be so rotten as Christianity made me feel?
I couldn't be! And this was the path
that let me escape from Christianity. I
was really suffering, and, believe me, I
don't like to suffer. I finally began asking if I was really guilty of anything to
deserve this suffering. And here I looked at it rationally - if I was to suffer, I
wanted some real, honest, proven sin
I should be guilty about. I found I was
guilty of only a mystical corruption
that existed only in my mind and in
the minds of my fellow Christians.
I began to feel foolish. I refused to
suffer for no reason. I refused to be
guilty when all reality pointed to my
innocence. I began by questioning the
doctrine of guilt and sin, and went on
to question all other doctrines, insisting they be intellectually rational if
they were to have my belief. Naturally,
the inevitable result was my triumphant
attainment of Atheism.
I am free of unearned guilt! That is
reason enough to be joyous if ever
there was one.
Atheists are only guilty when they
do wrong! Think on it. I need only not
do wrong to not suffer guilt. Isn't that
easy? Probably not one of you in here
does anything so wrong to be worth
real guilt-suffering. I've only done one
thing so wrong, and in eight years I
still regret the thing I did, for I was terribly cruel to a girl who loved me.
But I've forgiven myself. I was immature and insecure and only 21. Does
that damn me forever? No. Atheism
not only frees me from unearned guilt,
but it clears my mind, and lets me un-

Page 16

derstand why I did wrong. It is only

by understanding the cause of our
wrongdoing that we are able to correct
ourselves, improve ourselves, and not
repeat our wrong.
Atheism also allows me to forgive
myself. I don't need the blood of a
deranged Jew executed as a pest to the
state 2,000 years ago to wash me of
my wrongs. What nonsense! I've never
done anything unforgiveable, but Christians would have us believe that simply being human makes us so vile we
are nearly unforgiveable, and must live
in doubt if we are ever forgiven.
Atheism frees me from this. That
makes me joyous.
Atheism frees me from intellectual
corruption.
The world has become embarrassingly scientific - meaning rational for religion. How much better for faith
when lightning was visible proof of an
angry and vengeful god warning the
sheep he had his eye on them and
would tolerate no straying from the
flock. Now, alas for the priests who
have to keep god alive to keep themselves employed, lightning is just an
easily understood effect of electricity.
What do the priests use to avoid explaining why their so-called divine
truths fail again and again to agree
with scientific truths? They rely on
mystery. Mystery is a very convenient
explanation to cover any contradiction. A mystery is anything beyond rational
comprehension.
Indeed,
a

mystery is often that which directly

contradicts what our senses report as
real. The priests tell us to delight in
mysteries - they are proof of god's
presence and power - we should have
faith, believe in the dogmatic explanation of the mystery, scorn science,
and be a fool for god.
Out of mystery comes intellectual
corruption.
Religion requires that all sorts of
nonsense be believed. Was the world
created in six days? Millions still think
so - religion requires they do. But this
contradicts a mountain of hard, verifiable, scientific evidence! It's a mystery, but it was done. Don't trust science, or you'll go to hell! In fear, the
believer believes the world was created
in six days, and has to corrupt his intellect so it becomes blind to rational
evidence.
God becomes a cracker regularly
for the Catholics. Of course, the
cracker looks like a cracker, feels like
a cracker, tastes like a cracker, smells
like a cracker, and after eaten, becomes feces like any other cracker. Ah,
but the believer must believe it's really the blood and flesh of a human being 2,000 years dead. How, when all
the evidence points to the cracker being only a cracker? It's a mystery rejoice god operates so that one must
turn one's brain into muck to earn
heaven.
In his book, Angels, Billy Graham
assures his readers that the atmo-

MAY I

June,

1978

HAVE

YOUR

8 RIffS)

LORD?

American

Atheist

sphere is full- of demons. Right now,

zooming about us, is a legion of demons. And if Billy was here, he'd
probably say a few are sitting down.
We can't feel them, see them, hear
them. It doesn't hurt to take a lungful of demons, does it? How does
Billy-boy know the air is full of demons? The Bible tells him so. If the
Bible says it, it must be true. If these
flying demons are beyond our sensory
perception, behold a mystery, a truth
that requires faith to be believed, and
faith requires intellectual corruption!
Mysteries are an evil. To believe in
mysteries is to be irrational. And, as
too many of us know, to be irrational
is to be dangerous.
To believe in mysteries is to believe
in magic. The parting of the Red Sea,
the virgin birth, the resurrection; what
are these except magic? Magic is an
effect achieved by a cause that violates
the laws of nature; a mysterious happening.
What are prayers? They are magical
incantations to induce god to violate
the laws of nature for one's own sake.
For instance, when Larry Flynt converted, he had a vision in which he saw
Lenny Bruce in hell. So, he and Ruth
Stapleton got on their knees in his airplane, and Larry Flynt prayed to Jesus
to save Lenny Bruce. He saw Jesus
swoop down to hell and carry Lenny
Bruce up to heaven.
Do prayers work? The believers tell
us so. How? we ask. It's a mystery.
Where there is mystery, there is ignorance. Where there is mystery, there
you can find god offered as an explanation - as an illumination of ignorance, no less!
What is mystery's most mortal ene-

my? Science! Every time science clears

up a mystery, explains the heretofore
unexplainable, a little of religion's pasturage is taken from it. Each time science pushes the boundaries of our ignorance back a little, god has less territory to roam in. Religion mightily
resents this.
Why? Without mystery, where would
religion be? Do you think that religion
could ever exist by being rational; that
is, calling real and true only that which
is actually real and true? Not hardly!
The primal mystery is god; a being
whose existence can in no way be
proved, yet who must be believed to
be real - not only real, but obeyed
and worshipped!

Covering God's Ass

To save god - the priests must
make their flocks believe in mysteries.
To save mysteries - the priests must
convince their flocks to distrust their
senses. And once the senses are distrusted, the intellect has been corrupted, for reality has been twisted out of
shape.so that crackers can become god
and demons fill the air and Larry
Flynt can pray souls out of hell.
The tragic result of this intellectual
corruption is a distrust of science, a
lack of confidence in the power of human rationality to solve our problems.
People who rely on the magic of prayers to solve their problems cannot be
expected to be able to cope with the
20th century.
Science has its dangers as well as it's
great benefits. Science has given us nuclear arms. Science has enabled us to
dangerously pollute the environment.

Science is neither good nor evil.

Only its use is good or evil. How do we
insure good use and resist evil use? We
must first, before anything else, trust
and appreciate science. That means,
we have to trust and believe in human
rationality. If we do not believe in the
rationality from which our science
comes, then in no way can we combat
evil uses of science simply because we
can't really perceive the good uses of
science.
People who are so intellectually
corrupted that they believe in mysteries have been rendered unfit to cope
with science. People who have faith in
magic can only distrust science, which
denies magic by ever demanding tangible proof. Much of the 20th century's
problems have their source in the distrust religionists have in science, and
the distress they feel from science's assault on their precious mysteries. They
don't want to cope with science, they
want to subdue it! They want to corrupt it to save their mysteries!
Only Atheism is fit to serve as a
philosophical companion to science.
Atheism grows stronger with every
mystery buried beneath scientific evidence. A theism rejoices in the growth
of true knowledge, scientific knowledge! Our power increases as our ignorance decreases! Every new scientific
fact makes Atheism mightier.
Atheism demands not intellectual
corruption, but intellectual enlightenment! Atheism has freed my mind!
Atheism has made me fit to be a 20th
century human being! Atheism has
made me joyous!
NOTE: With July's
issue Mr.
Bozarth will begin his topical "The
Atheist Letters" series. Watch for it!

Before you go any further,

stop and consider

the following.

Hopefully, you have noticed some improvements

in recent issues of The American Atheist magazine and have developed an
appreciation
of it to such a degree that you look forward to receivin'g it each month.
With this June issue we have added four pages (now 36 pages)
to our journal to accomodate
the increasing flow of worthy manuscripts we have been receiving from throughout
the U.S. and
from abroad. Commencing
with last month's
issue, we are producing America's only journal of Atheist news and thought on a
heavier, "slick" paper stock which improves type readability, and
which makes our magazine more presentable
for newsstand display, To complement
the wealth of Atheist news and feature
articles we bring to you monthly, we are now including at least
one work of fiction with each issue ..
Such technical improvements
are costly, but we feel they are
worthwhile
in that our subscribers
should be proud enough of
The American Atheist magazine to make a gift subscription
of
it to their local libraries, to open-minded
friends and relatives,
and to their local and national governmental
representatives
who
need to know that as Atheists we are concerned about and active
in influencing matters which affect the intellectual freedoms and
qualities of mind which are ours by constitutional
right.

Austin, Texas

June,

1978

Page 17

Roots of Atheism
EDITOR'S NOTE: With this Summer Solstice issue the editors of The American Atheist magazine inaugurate the "Roots
of Atheism" series by which we hope to familiarize American
Atheists with the lives, struggles and writings of their intellectual "ancestors."
Drawing upon the ever-growing resources of the Charles E.
Stevens Atheist Library and Archives, The American Atheist
will each month publish photographs, a short biography, and
examples of the written word of individual Atheists to whom
we all are indebted for those freedoms of the mind that we
sometimes take for granted in this day and age. Much of this
historical information has long since been censored and deleted
from source material readily accessible to the public due to the
paranoic control of same by Christian administrators and religious pressure groups who would have contemporary Atheists believe that they are isolated and historically stranded.
Such is far from the historical facts which this series will
detail as we demonstrate to late-20th-century Atheists that
they are not alone, that none of us ever has been. Isolated
one from the other - yes, but throughout history, many men
and women, independently and alone, have come to the same
ideas that you have. We have added four more pages to the
magazine in order to accomodate this educational endeavor.
We have chosen to inaugurate this series and continue for
the next two issues with the life and times of Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891), English freethinker and politician of the
last century who found himself born into a time of idols.
Bradlaugh was known as a man of powerful physique and
intellect who would not be cowered by the forces of religious
ignorance and superstition which characterized his day. Yet
these were times from which emerged so many champions of
freethought to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.
George Bernard Shaw had this to say of Bradlaugh: "He
was a hero, a giant who dwarfed everything around him, a terrific personality ....
Bradlaugh chose for himself the name of
'Iconoclast: which meant destroyer of idols .... and the idols
were everywhere. He was neither imposed upon nor frightened
by them, for he was a man of extraordinary personality ....
Instead of choosing the line of least resistance - by which Darwin had taught them the order of the whole world had been
produced - he chose the line of greatest resistance. When he
met one of these idols, instead of taking off his hat and filling
his pockets - which was the sensible, rationalistic thing to
do - he hit the idol as hard as he could, and very often knocked
it down."

*
on 26 Sep-

Charles Bradlaugh was born in Hoxton, London,

tember 1833. His father was a poor solicitor's clerk, who also
had a small business as a law stationer, and his mother had been
a nursemaid. At 12, Charles became office-boy to his father's
employer, and at 14 wharf-clerk and cashier to a coal merchant in London.
He had been baptized and brought up in the Church of England, and so, still perfectly loyal to his inherited creed, he began to spend his Sunday afternoons in the then open ground
at Bonner's Field, one of the sites of that world of open-air
Sunday declamation and discussion which strikes foreigners as

Page 18

June, 1978

~J

Charles Bradlaugh at the bar of the British

House of Commons.
X

so remarkable a feature about large English towns.

There he began bravely to debate, boy as he was, in defense
of the faith in which he had been bred, so far as he still felt he
could defend it. The end, for his at once acute and candid intelligence, came soon. In 1849 he engaged in a public discussion
with a freethinker on the "Inspiration of the Bible," and, finding himself worsted, took the singular course of owning that
freethought which had bested his own defense of an inaccuracy.
His employment brought him into contact with a group of
freethinkers who were disciples of Richard Carlile. The young

American Atheist

Charles Bradlaugh/English

Atheist

* * * *

Charles Bradlaugh/English

Atheist

* * * *

Charles Bradlaugh/English

Atheist!

Charles Bradlaugh/English

Atheist

* *

.X-

.X-

Charles Bradlaugh/English

Bradlaugh was hastily labeled an "Atheist," and lost his job because of his beliefs. Thus driven into the arms of the secularists, he managed to earn a living by odd jobs, and became further immersed in the study of freethought.
From a friend of the Carliles he learned French, and even
at this early age he began to study Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic.
He had the constitution of the scholar: great patience over textual studies and comparison, tireless industry, an excellent
memory, and an innate love of exactitude. Above all he had an
immense energy of mind and body which was to serve him
well throughout his life. A main part of Bradlaugh's preparation for his later career in Parliament was the training in
open-air and indoor lecturing and debating he voluntarily received during his very young years.
But lecturing was not yet to bring him a living. "I got very
poor," he admits in his autobiography, "and at that time was
also very proud. A subscription offered me by a few freethinkers shocked me, and awakened me to a sense of my poverty;
so, telling no one where I was going, I went away, and on the
17th of December 1850, was after some difficulty enlisted in
the 7th Dragoon Guards." He had been in debt to the extent
of four pounds, 15 shillings, and a bonus of six pounds 10 shillings was being offered to recruits for the East India Service,
which sufficed to clear off all he owed. This, too, was typical.
All through his life he had to shape his course to the paying
off of debts, toil as he would.
In 1853 he was bought out of his enlistment term with money provided by his mother, which' he later repaid. He then
found employment as a lawyer's clerk, and gradually became
known as a freethought lecturer, under the nom de guerre of
"Iconoclast." Bradlaugh became notorious as a leading "infidel," and was supported by the sympathy of those who were
enthusiasts at that time for liberty of speech and thought. He
was a constant figure in the law courts; and his competence to
take the oath was continually being called into question, while
his Atheism and republican opinions were adduced as reasons
why no jury should give damages for attacks on his character.

'Miles To Go Yet ... '

Bradlaugh was a demon for hard work. All through his public life he is to be found doing the work of three energetic men.
One who knew him in his prime, and for years worked with
him, has testified: "In private he was a most genial and entertaining friend - the only drawback was his incessant devotion to work. He was always writing or studying, even at
meals ...
He studied and knew something of almost everything, and his memory seemed never to fail him."
To be a freethinker in the England of a hundred years
ago meant more than hard work: it meant ferocious and
often riotous opposition from religious neurotics who felt
extremely threatened by the doctrine of freethought. Thus
the young "Iconoclast" was often mobbed; windows of the
halls where he lectured were broken from both inside and out,
and local clergymen were frequently at the head of the mobs
which would have the infidel burned for his blasphemy. The
mobs of a century ago were prepared to stone the Atheist before they heard a word of what he had to say.
But this was not a man to be deterred by violence or menace. Wherever he went, he made freethinkers; and Burnley,
a town where in 1861 he was swept from the platform by a
mob of Christians, was after his death the first town to make a
systematic contribution towards the paying off of the debts of
his Freethought Publishing Company, which remained as a

Austin, Texas

x .X-

* *

Charles Bradlaugh,
Dragoons. Aged 20.

Charles Bradlaugh/English

private,

7th

Inniskilling

charge on his estate.

During the year of 1874 he met Annie Besant (1847-1933),
who afterwards became famous for her gifts as a lecturer on
socialism and theosophy. Besant began by writing for the
National Reformer publication
and soon became co-editor
with Bradlaugh. In 1876 they defended the publication of
a work endorsing population control called, Fruits of Philosophy, and were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a
heavy fine and imprisonment. Later the sentence was stayed
and the indictment ultimately quashed on a technicality.
Bradiaugh's close alliance with Besant eventually terminated
in 1886, when she drifted from secularism, first into socialism and labor agitation and then into theosophy as a pupil of
Mme BJavatsky.
Bradlaugh himself began to take up politics with increasing
fervor. He had been unsuccessful in standing for Parliament in
Northampton in 1868, but in 1880 he was elected by that
constituency to Parliament as a Liberal-Radical. A long and
sensational parliamentary struggle now began.
On the day of the assembling of the Parliament of 1880,
Bradlaugh claimed the right to be allowed to make affirmation
of his allegiance instead of taking the oath [to god] as was
the custom. It was six long and stormy years of protracted
scenes in the House before Bradlaugh won his point and was
allowed to represent his constituents without mouthing an
oath to a non-existent deity. During that long struggle the public and fellow parliamentarians had gradually got used to Bradlaugh, and his transparent honesty and courageous contempt
for mere popularity gained him increasing respect.
His daughter and biographer
Hypatia quotes how,

June, 1978

~J

Atheist

Page 19

Atheist


The long-denied right of serving his country in Parliament was turned to prolific and productive account by the
junior member for Northampton, from 1886 onwards. At once
his enormous energy - enormous still, after all his battles gave him importance in the House's work; and, what was even
more surprising to those who had not known the man, his
abundant geniality soon made him popular, especially among
the Conservatives, who had not the uneasiness that still
weighed upon so many Liberals, of having the indomitable
or.

Atheist for a colleague."

Hard, arrogant and unswervingly Atheist in his outlook,
Charles Bradlaugh had a powerful physique and a real gift for
popular oratory. He was a natural leader in causes which had
society against them, but his sincerity was as unquestionable as
his combativeness. Having once arrived at the atheistic position, having submitted it again and again to examination and
discussion, he never found reason to abandon or modify the
conclusions at which he had arrived.

*
By

A Plea For Atheism *****

[In the late '70s of the of the last century, Charles Bradlaugh
wrote A Plea for Atheism, a brief but careful examination of
what Atheism really is and what it is not. He wrote this, he
said, in the hope of removing some of the many irrational biases against Atheists. He attempts to rectify the misapprehension and deliberate misrepresentation of Atheism which have
been constant, and indeed are still with us today. We reproduce that eloquent defense here for the benefit of American
Atheists who would know more of the foundational roots of
their life philosophy.]

This essay is issued in the hope that it may succeed in removing some of the many prejudices prevalent, not only
against the actual holders of atheistic opinions, but also against
those wrongfully suspected of Atheism. Men who have been
famous for depth of thought, for excellent wit, or great genius,
have been recklessly assailed as Atheists by those who lack the
high qualifications against which the malice of the calumnators
was directed. Thus, not only have Voltaire and Paine been,
without ground, accused of Atheism, but Bacon, Locke, and
Bishop Berkeley himself, have, amongst others, been denounced by thoughtless or unscrupulous pietists as inclining to
Atheism, the ground for the accusation being that they manifested an inclination to push human thought a little in advance
of the age in which they lived.
It is too often the fashion with persons of pious reputation
to speak in unmeasured language of Atheism as favoring immorality, and of Atheists as men whose conduct is necessarily
vicious, and who have adopted atheistic views as a desperate
defiance against a deity justly offended by the badness of their
lives. Such persons urge that amongst the proximate causes of
Atheism are vicious training, immoral and profligate companions, licentious living, and the like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his
Instructions on Christian Theology, goes so far as to declare
that "nearly all the Atheists upon record have been men of
extremely debauched and vile conduct." Such language from
the Christian advocate is not surprising, but there are others
who, while professing great desire for the spread of freethought
and having pretensions to rank amongst acute and liberal thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, and its teachings cold,
barren, and negative. Excepting to each of the above allegations, I maintain that thoughtful Atheism affords greater possibility for human happiness than any system yet based on, or
possible to be founded on theism, and that the lives of true
Atheists must be more virtuous - because more human -than
those of the believers in deity, the humanity of the devout believer often finding itself neutralized by a faith with which
that humanity is necessarily in constant collision. The devotee
piling the faggots at the auto da fe of a heretic, and that heretic his son, might notwithstanding be a good father in every
other respect (see Deuteronomy xiii. 6-10). Heresy, in the

)age 20

June, 1978

Charles
Bradlaugh

eyes of the believer, is highest criminality, and outweighs all

claims of family or affection.

Positive Aspects of Atheism

Atheism, properly understood, is no mere disbelief; is in no
wise a cold, barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty,
fruitful affirmation of all truth, and involves the positive assertion of action of highest humanity.
Let Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned its defense unheard - on the ex parte slanders of some of
of the professional preachers of fashionable orthodoxy, whose
courage is bold enough while the pulpit protects the sermon,
but whose valor becomes tempered with discretion when a free
platform is afforded and discussion claimed; nor misjudged because-it has been the custom to regard Atheism as so unpopular as to render its advocacy impolitic. The best policy against
all prejudice is to firmly advocate the truth. The Atheist does
not say "There is no god," but he says: "I know not what you
mean by god; I am without idea of god; the word 'god' is to
me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not
deny god, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If, however, 'god'
is defined to mean an existence other than the existence of
which I am a mode, then I deny 'god,' and affirm that it is impossible such 'god' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and
deny that there can be more than one." The pantheist also affirms one existence, and denies that there can be more than
one; but the distinction between the pantheist and the Atheist
is, that the pantheist affirms infinite attributes for existence,
while the Atheist maintains that attributes are the characteristics of mode - i.e., the diversities enabling the conditioning
in thought.
When the theist affirms that his god is an existence other
than, and separate from, the so-called material universe, and
when he invests this separate, hypothetical existence with the
several attributes of personality, omniscience, omnipresence,
omnipotence, eternity, infinity, immutability, and perfect
goodness, then the Atheist in reply says: "I deny the existence
of such a being"; and he is entitled to say this because this theistic definition is self-contradictory, as well as contradictory of
every-day experience.

The Government

of the Universe

If you leave the question of creation, and deal with the government of the universe, the difficulties of theism are by no
means lessened. The existence of evil is then a terrible sturn-

American Atheist

"BRADLAUGH

From the cartoon

AND THE

by Bernasconi,

bling-block to the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of deity as all-good, allwise, and all-powerful. A recent writer in the Spectator admits
that there is what it regards "as the most painful, as it is often
the most incurable, form of Atheism - the Atheism arising
from a sort of horror of the idea of an omnipotent being permitting such a proportion of misery among the majority of his
creatures." Evil is either caused by god, or exists independently; but it cannot be caused by god, as in that case he would
not be all-good; nor can it exist hostilely, as in that case he
would not be all-powerful. If all-good he- would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either god's desire, or god's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a
beginning or it must have been eternal: but, according to the
theist, it cannot be eternal, because god alone is eternal. Nor
can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have
originated in god, or outside god; but, according to the theist,
it cannot have originated in god, for he is all-good, and out of.
all-goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated
outside god, for, according to the theist, god is infinite, and it
is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity.
. To the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely different aspect. He declares that each evil is a result, but not a
result from god nor devil. He affirms that conduct founded on
knowledge of the laws of existence may ameliorate each present form of evil, and, as our knowledge increases, prevent its
future recurrence.
Some declare that the belief in god is necessary as a check
to crime. They allege that the Atheist may commit murder, lie,
or steal without fear of any consequences. To try the actual
value of this argument, it is not unfair to ask: Do theists ever
steal? If yes, then in each such theft the belief in god and his
power to punish has been insufficient as a preventitive of the
crime. Do theists ever lie or murder? If yes, the same remark
has again force - theism failing against the lesser as against
the greater crime. Those who use such an argument overlook
that all men seek happiness, though in very diverse fashions.
Ignorant and miseducated men often mistake the true path to
happiness, and commit crime in endeavor to obtain it. Atheists
hold that by teaching mankind the real road to human happi-

Austin, Texas

BIGOTS."

published

at Birmingham.

ness it is possible to keep them from the by-ways of criminality and error. Atheists would teach men to be moral now, not
because god offers as an inducement reward by and by, but
because in the virtuous act itself immediate good is insured
to the doer and the circle surrounding him. Atheism would
preserve man from lying, stealing, murdering, not from fear
of an eternal agony after death, but because these crimes make
this life itself a course of misery.
While theism, asserting god as the creator and governor of
the universe, hinders and checks man's efforts by declaring
god's will to be the sole directing and controlling power, Atheism, by declaring all events to be in accordance with natural
laws - that is, happening in certain ascertainable sequences stimulates man to discover the best conditions of life, and offers him the most powerful inducements to morality. While
the theist provides future happiness for a scoundrel repentant
on his death-bed, Atheism affirms present and certain happiness for the man who does his best to live here so well as to
have little cause for repenting hereafter.
Theism declares that god dispenses health and inflicts disease, and sickness and illness are regarded by the theists as visitations from an angered deity, to be borne with meekness and
content. Atheism declares that physiological knowledge may
preserve us from disease by preventing us from infringing the
law of health, and that sickness results not as the ordinance of
offended deity, but from ill-ventilated dwellings and workshops, bad and insufficient food, excessive toil, mental suffering, exposure to inclement weather, and the like - all these
finding root in poverty, the chief source of crime and disease;
that prayers and piety afford no protection against fever, and
that if the human being be kept without food he will starve as
quickly whether he be theist or Atheist, theology being no
substitute for bread.

With the July issue of The American Atheist we shall continue with the life and career of English Atheist Charles Bradlaugh. In that edition will be covered Bradlaugh 's Parliamentary struggle to be allowed to make affirmation of allegiance
rather than having to take an oath to a god not of his own
choosing.

June, 1978

Page 21

How===

To Pray

Efficiently:
==Don't

As an accomplished efficiency expert, I have, during the

course of my professional experience, developed a rather pronounced intolerance of inefficiency of any kind. And so, when I
became aware of the haphazard and therefore essentially ineffective- fashion in which most theists pray to their god, I decided to investigate the matter, with the hope of eventually being
able to devise and subsequently publicize the most efficient
method(s) of prayer possible.
Now, I should point out from the start that, for various reasons, I do not pray myself. Possessing the insatiable appetite
for efficiency that I do, however, I believed that if other theists insisted on praying, they might as well do it in the most efficient manner possible. Unanswered prayers are, after all,
nothing more than a waste of time and energy. Needless to say,
I cannot stand to see time and energy wasted.
My goal, then, was to discover, by means of empirical research, the most efficient method(s) of praying and subsequently publish the results of my research, so that the great
masses of theists in our world might learn to get the most out
of every praying minute. What follows is a chronicle of my
research.
From the very outset, it was clear that the prevalent methodology in current prayer techniques was extremely haphazard.
There was, in fact, very little methodology to it. Theists most
allover the world seemed simply to pray for whatever they
considered to be their most pressing need at the time and hope
for the best. Obviously, quite a bit of prayer reform would be
called for.
I initiated my program by formulating a hypothesis concerning the basic principle of efficient prayer. I decided to
start with the hypothesis which instinctively appeared to be
the most logical. The hypothesis was: Those things which are
prayed for by the greatest number of people over the greatest
span of time and with the greatest degree of fervor are the
most likely to be granted.
This hypothesis was easy to test. All I had to do was find
out which areas of the world were most frequently plagued by
certain natural disasters and diseases, and which areas were
most exempt from those same disasters. Then I would survey
the theistic inhabitants of these areas to discover their praying
habits. Assuming that the hypothesis was correct, I expected
to find, for example, that people who live on earthquake faults
spend v.ery little time beseeching god to spare their cities and
towns from earthquakes, whereas people who live in areas
which are never hit by major earthquakes would be expected
to devote a great deal of time asking god to restrict his distribution of earthquakes to other areas.

Veerrry Interesting ...

As quickly as possible, then, I surveyed the inhabitants of
all the earthquake-stricken areas of the world, as well as the
residents of the towns and cities which were most rarely struck
by this brand of disaster. The results of this survey were most
surprising. It seems that the peoples who are most plagued by
earthquakes are the very ones who devote the largest percentage of their total prayer time to anti-earthquake supplications.
Conversely, those people who have never been bothered by
earthquakes and don't ever expect to be, seldom, if ever bother
to encourage god to keep up the good work.
Obviously, the results of this survey seemed to contradict
the original hypothesis. Still, I could hardly conclude that the
hypothesis was invalid on the basis of only one disproof. Further evidence was necessary. Accordingly, I conducted prayer
surveys of all the areas of the world which were most heavily
plagued by each natural disaster and disease, and of all the areas
which were most exempt from those same calamities.
The result's of each and everyone of these surveys were similar to the results-of my first survey. That is to say, in every case
the people who prayed most to be spared from a particular disaster were the very ones who were victimized by it most frequently, and the people who rarely, if ever, prayed to be spared
from the same disaster, rarely, if ever, found themselves hit by

By Tom Unger
Page 22

June,

1978

American

Atheist

it.
The same was true for diseases, climates, finances, etc. For
example, I found that the inhabitants of the temperate and arctic regions of North America and Eurasia often prayed to god
to grant them a little relief from the severe winter cold once in
a while, and that the intensity of their prayers tends to increase
as the temperature decreases. Yet the winters in these regions
continue to be as severe as they have been for several millenia.
On the other hand, the aboriginal inhabitants of tropical
jungles and deserts never bother to ask god for relief from the
severe cold, with the result that they get it, all year round,
year after year.
In regard to finances, it is almost superfluous to mention
that the poorest people of the world are the ones who pray
most diligently for more money, or at least the opportunity to
earn it, with the predictable result that most of them remain
poor for the rest of their lives. The average filthy rich man, on
the other hand, only half-heartedly prays for more money, if
he ever gets around to praying for it at all, and is rewarded, in
either case, with more money.
The evidence was now overwhelmingly against the original
hypothesis, and so I discarded it as untenable. A new hypothesis, which was diametrically opposed to the original, suggested
itself. It was: Those things which are prayed for by the greatest number of people over the greatest span of time and with
the greatest degree of fervor are the least likely to be granted.
(A corollary of this new hypothesis was: Those things which
are prayed for by the fewest number of people over the shortest span of time and with the least degree of fervor are the
most likely to be granted.)
After having formulated these new hypotheses, there was
no need to gather any further evidence to support or refute
them, for the very same evidence which irrevocably disproved
the original hypothesis could be used to support the new ones.
I used it for just that purpose.
And so it seemed that the most efficient means by which to
protect oneself and one's neighbors from the threat of disease,
disaster, financial ruin, or any other similar calamity, would be
to pray desperately for its immediate onslaught and persistence. Thus I informed the Eskimos that it might be to their
advantage to follow the example of the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, who insure themselves of uninterrupted heat

throughout the year by praying very persistently for a drop in

the temperature.
The Eskimos were hesitant to follow my advice, as it seemed
to them rather absurd to pray for a drop in temperature, when
they were, in fact, freezing the vital parts of their bodies off.
When I presented them with the evidence which backed up my
hypotheses concerning the effects of prayer, however, they
agreed to try it.
And so I made the rounds, informing the peoples of the
world to stop praying for the things they needed most and to
which they had hitherto devoted a substantial portion of their
prayers, and to offer up whatever prayers they wished to say
for the continuance of whatever they wanted to be rid of.
Then I sat back and waited for the troubles of the world to
disappear. That was 5 years ago.

No Changes
As you may have noticed, however, the troubles of the
world have not even begun to disappear. The same areas which
have always been ravaged by tornadoes continue to be ravaged
by tornadoes; the same areas in which malaria has always been
nearly epidemic continue to be plagued by malaria (except
where the physical efforts of man have wrought some relief).
Climatic tendencies have not changed much. Very few people who were born poor ever achieve wealth, and very few who
were born wealthy ever achieve poverty. Floods continue to
flood the same places they've always flooded, and droughts
parch the same areas they've always parched. Whether or not
the victims and potential victims of these and other disasters
pray for or against their continued existence seems, according
to the empirical evidence I presented above, to have no bearing
either on their frequency of occurrence or their geographic distribution.
Obviously, this evidence not only suggests, but indeed serves
as overwhelming proof of a theory concerning the effectiveness
of prayer. I hesitate to state this theory, however, because I
think it would come as a severe disappointment to theists. I
swear if I had known that my research would lead me to this, I
never would have started it in the first place.

Understanding
I think the best definition of understanding
is when you're walking with someone
and you say "look at that"
and they don't even have to look where you're pointing.

The God Who Never Was

Now many say that Jesus died
And still remains quite dead.
But these who speak have surely lied.
The real truth is, instead,
That Jesus Christ whose blood was shed
Is no corpse - I insist!
For how can someone now be dead
Who never did exist?

Seeing
You tell me you don't wan t to hear it
when I tell you I see
the cruelty,
the pain,
the loss of dreams.

-DAVID MILLS
BAAA!
The shepherd he stands at the pulpit;
The flock is led in by the nose.
They come all dressed in their Sunday bestTheir Sunday-go-to-bleating clothes.

I will respect that

I have only one last question how can I stop me from hearing it?

-S.H. CRANE

Austin, Texas

-DAVID DAWSON

June, 1978

Page 23

Holy
Air
Spray!
A Look At The Hairy Tushnas
By David Batterson
It was a motley, suspicious herd of people about a block
away on Hollywood Boulevard, and it was heading my way.
As they approached, I could see the Sears Avocado Green
No-Iron Fitted Bedsheets they had fashioned into wearing apparel. Practically all of them had a full head of hair - or so it
looked - except for an occasional one who WaSbald.
The faint sound of what sounded like doorbells grew louder
as they moved closer. Chanting in unison, the words of the
green-clad group rang out, "Hairy Tushna, Hairy Tushna,
Hairy Hairy, Hairy Tushna."
"Oh my god," I said to myself. ''These are the Pubic Disciples of the Hairy Tushna Sect. Can't they leave us alone?"
They were about three steps away now, and I instantly had
to decide. Do I run the other way, stick out my foot to trip
one, drop my pants and do a "moon shot" or listen to their
spiel? Oh well, what the hell? Besides, they were quite generous sometimes, passing out free Large Macs and cans of room
air freshener, in scents of Pine, Redwood, Dandelion, Garlic
and Ragweed.
"Greetings, friend," one of the Tushnas said with a smile.
"Have a Large Mac?" Since it was 14 days until my food
stamps would arrive and two days prior to unemployment
check, I was a bit hungry. "Sure," I said with no amount of
humility. "They don't have any natural ingredients in them,
do they?"
"No," he said with a trace of scorn. "What do you think we
are?" I stifled the desire to answer him. Meanwhile, the group
continued to dance around, ringing their battery-powered
doorbells - "bing bong, bing bong" - and sounding like sidewalk Avon ladies. They walked up to other people on the busy
street, offering their spray cans. As one turned his back to me,
I saw a curious thing. On the upper back of his head, there was
a small bald spot, about the size of a silver dollar - or more
correctly, a nickel-copper dollar - in an otherwise full head of
bushy hair. This, I was later to learn, was another part of their
"costume. "

rqe 24

June, 1978

Surprisingly, I heard no requests for donations as the

"greenies" passed out more Large Macs and air freshener.
Even more curious, some of the recipients were asking the
Tushnas for money, which they promptly gave. Quarters, halfdollars and green bills passed from the hands of the Tushnas to
the Hollywood Boulevard tourists and "regulars." The Tushnas
thanked them as they accepted the money.
I pulled one Tushna aside. "Excuse me," I said, "but why
are you giving away money?"
He looked at me as if I were stupid or naive. "To put it simply," he admonished me, "we make so much money from our
tax-free Tushna Air Freshener Company that, in good conscience, we must give some of the money back to the people
who need it." A most revolutionary idea, I thought to myself.
These people are looking for trouble.
Just then, one of L.A. 's finest sauntered over, giving one of
the Tushnas a dirty look. "Do you have a permit to solicit
funds in a public place?"
At that point, what was probably the leader of the group
walked over to answer the charge. "We are not soliciting
money ... we give it away."
The officer recoiled, scratched his head, rubbed his mouth
and nose, and replied, "Hmmmm, I'll have to call in."
The Tushnas went back to their business while Badge
No. 306 pulled out his walkie-talkie and called headquarters.
"Don't wander away too far till I run a check on this," he told
the Head Tushna, who gave his name as Rumma Toid Arthur
Itis Chiropractus Humongus.
My curiosity was getting the better of me now. What was
going on here?
I suddenly came to my senses, or so I thought. "Of course.
This is some Hollywood publicity stunt for a new movie," I
said to a passerby who had stopped to get his free Large Mac.
He looked at me, then back to the Tushna who had handed
him the Large Mac.
"Don't you have any Eucalyptus Air Freshener?," he asked.

American

Atheist

"No, I'm sorry," the red-faced Tushna replied, "We discontinued that fragrance. Will five dollars be enough this time?"
"Yeah, I suppose so," the man replied, grabbing the fiver
and stuffing it down his boot. He must be a regular, I thought.
Badge No, 306 came back over. "I guess you guys can go
ahead. The captain says you aren't breaking any laws. But
don't block the pedestrian traffic or I'll have to run you in."
"Yes sir," Rumma Toid answered. 'We're pretty careful about
that. "
I now knew they were legitimate after all. They didn't seem
particularly crazy either, nor were they overbearing in giving
away their products and money.
"Hey, Rumma Toid," I said, after the officer had walked
on, and was now busting an old lady ragpicker for pushing a
grocery cart on the sidewalk without a license. "What do you
people believe in? And what's the catch?"
He looked me up and down a couple of times, and then
looked me directly in the eyes. "We believe in earth, wind and
fire," he answered seriously.
"Oh, I like their music too," I said.
"No, you dumb ass, we believe in the Earth Momma, Wind
to blow away the smog, and Fire to light our joints."
Thinking this was a snide put-down, I continued. "Aren't
you going to try and convert me to the Tushna cause ... invite
me to your rituals and feasts?"
"First of all," he replied, "we don't believe in conversion,
only inversion. (Oh no, they're sexual deviates, I thought.)
And our 'feasts' as you call them are held at McDougall's. After
all, you are what you shit. That's why the personalities of so
many people stink. Rituals? The closest we ever get to a ritual
is coitus interruptus. We like to keep our numbers limited so
we don't become too large a religion."
"So you are a religion?" I asked.
"Legally speaking we are. It's the only way these days you
can do what you want without the state interfering." Shades
of Stranger In A Strange Land, I mused.
"And apparently you don't frown upon sexual activity
among your devotees?" I queried.
"Frown upon it? The only thing we frown upon is sexual
abstinence. Anyone caught not putting out is asked to leave,
after one warning. The way we see it, the hole is holy."
"Anything goes between consenting adults then?"
"Yes, between consenting adults, consenting children, consenting ducks, consenting knotholes, hands, earlobes and furry
bedspreads. "
"One more auestion and then I'll leave you alone," I said.
"Do you mind?"
"Certainly not. As we say, forewarned is foreskinned."
"Does your Head Tushna live in luxury?"
"No, as a matter of fact, he lives in West Covina. In a trailer
court. Right next to the national secretary of the John Birch
Society ... hell of a nice chap, too."
"I see," I said, not sure of what I was seeing.
"He pays his own expenses and rent," Rumma Toid continued, "although the P.D.H.T.S. does pay for his callboys
twice a month. Any more than that he must pay for himself.
Besides that, our 'Head Tushna' whom we affectionately call
Hae U, serves on a rotating basis, changing every three months.
Oh, I forgot. He is allowed a five dollar allowance while serving
as Hae U to buy K-Y lotion, Pringles Potato Chips, spot remover and other essentials."
"Well," I said with a deep voice, "everything seems to be in
order with you people."
"Oh shit, I hope not," Rumma Toid replied.
"It's been most enlightening, but I'm late for an appointment with my shrink," I said. "Can you give me any parting
words?"
"Yes," he said. "The Red Sea."
"Legal Fund"
American A theists
P.O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768
Austin, Texas

Marxfsm: Dogma
For Modern Man
By James Erickson
And it came to pass that the Ism-God Marx, after much research and meditation, produced a manuscript. This manuscript brought forth light into the darkness. He named His
mighty work, "Capital." It was formed into type and reproduced in a multitude of copies.
The Ism-God Marx proclaimed that the exploitation of man
by man was a cardinal sin and that the world must be delivered
from it. In His teaching He pointed out that in the beginning
there was primitive communism and it was without sin. However, social classes arose and sin came into the world. A conflict now ensued between the forces of good, who were the exploited, and the forces of evil, who were the exploiters. This
conflict will be resolved only by the forces of good gaining ascendency. In our day the forces of good are the workers and
the forces of evil are the capitalists. And it is in the interests of
the workers for its apostles to spread this revelation and act in
accordance with it. Only then will a new world of joy and justice come into being.
And as Czarist Russia was oppressed by the forces of evil,
the Prophet Lenin arose. This prophet preached that only by
the formation of the anointed ones into a new kind of party
could the vision of the cooperative commonwealth be attained.
He acquired a following who shared His glorious dream. And it
came to pass that this prophet was much persecuted in His
own land. He was forced into exile for the truths which He uttered and wrote. His disciples also suffered much for propagating the noble cause of the Marxist faith.
As war and turmoil weakened the rule of the evil forces in
His homeland, the Prophet Lenin returned in a railway car
through a hosti Ie land. He appealed to the multitude and
promised it deliverance from oppression and war. And this
helped to create a messianic fervor which swept the Prophet
Lenin and His disciples into power. In accordance with the
teachings of the Ism-God Marx the forces of evil were dispossessed and a new society was proclaimed. A crimson star
replaced the star of the east and the cross became the hammer
and sickle.
Thus began a new era in the history of humankind.
And when the Prophet Lenin died His disciples took over
and carried forth His message and work. And the new state religion was Marxism-Leninism and believers were found in all
parts of the world.
But the forces of evil were not asleep. The fallen angel,
Trotsky, was said to have caused disharmony before the forces
of good triumphed in a new holy inquisition.
And the brown plague tried to replace the hammer and
sickle with the symbol of the Aryan cross. After a long and
bloody conflagration the forces of good once more emerged
victorious.
And even to this day the body of the great Messiah, Lenin,
is preserved in a mausoleum for the faithful to view. And in
May and November of each year millions of converts parade
past the mausoleum with records of great deeds and icons of
political saints held aloft.

June, 1978

Page 25

United

World

Atheism
In
Britain
Enough To Make You Swear
[EDITOR'S NOTE: In this continuing series, introducing to
American Atheists the activities of like-minded freethinkers
around the world, The American Atheist this month presents
an account by British Atheist Barbara Smoker, President of
the National Secular Society, dealing with her attempts at seeing that religious tests are not applied in the administration of
justice.
The traditional system of administering religious oaths in
legal proceedings has been a target of the British free-thought
movement for well over a century, the most notable victory in
the struggle being Charles Bradlaugh's (see "Roots of Atheism"
series, page 18) Oaths Act of 1888, which made a "solemn
affirmation" generally available to anyone on the grounds
"either that he has no religious belief, or that the taking of an
oath is contrary to his religious belief. " But Bradlaugh, who
wanted to abolish the oath altogether, was forced to accept
the interrogation of witnesses about their religious belief or
lack of it - something which has disfigured the system ever
since.
Ms. Smoker relates her experiences with "this swearing-in
business" as she was recently called for jury duty, but challenged due to her preference to be free of theistic nonsense.
This article is reprinted courtesy of the British weekly freethought journal, Freethinker, December, 1977 issue.]
Being called for jury service at the Old Bailey in October of
1977 gave me personal experience of this swearing-in business,
and I have to report that the recent theoretical reform of the
law regarding secular affirmation has made little practical difference so far.
A two-page explanatory leaflet about jury service is sent to
prospective jurors when they are first notified of their summons - which may be many weeks before their actual attendance at the court - and the mention of affirmation in that
leaflet, amounting only to the three words "or to affirm" put
in brackets after "to take an oath," is probably the only attempt that will be made to bring the right of affirmation to
their attention.
The first time that my name was called in the courtroom
ballot, I made my way to the jury bench, where I found there
was a printed card, with the wording of the oath for each juror.
I turned my card over, thinking that the form of affirmation
would be on the other side, but it was not. "Take the Bible in
your right hand!" I was commanded, a small, black-bound

Page 26

June, 1978

Atheists

book being thrust in front of me.

Firmly ignoring the proffered testament, I turned to the
judge and said "I wish to affirm." Before the affirmation card
was located, the defending counsel called out "Challenge!"
and I was told to stand down. Afterwards, a number of my fellow jury-panelists asked me what I had said and what it meant.
None of them seemed to have any idea that one did not have
to take a religious oath.
Of the dozens of juries that I saw sworn-in that week, almost every juror took hold of the closed book - which is surely
a "closed book" indeed to most of them - and either gabbled
or stumbled over the printed wording of the oath in a way that
indicated it meant no more to them than an archaic ritual and
they found it almost incomprehensible. Only two jurors apart
from myself took a personal stand with regard to the oath - a
Jew, who asked for, and was provided with, an Old Testament,
and a Muslim, who said he did not wish to take a Christian
oath, and was at first told he could affirm but-was then challenged and asked to stand down.
Perhaps I should explain here the right of peremptory challenge. Both the defense and the prosecution are allowed to demand the replacement of up to seven of the jurors who are
picked by ballot, without stating any reason. The accused or
his counsel exercise this right with the word "Challenge!" and
the prosecuting counsel with the pretentious phrase "Stand by
for the Crown." In both cases, the challenge has to be made as
the prospective juror is taking his or her place on the jury
bench, and before the juror is sworn.
Since there is normally nothing to go by but the appearance
of the juror, it is obviously a gamble. But defending counsel
seem to operate a rule-of-thumb by which they accept all
young people, nearly all black and brown people, and most
men, but challenge some middle-aged white men who also look
middle class, and almost all middle-aged white women unless
dressed in unconventional style.
Deducing this during the first day of my service on the Old
Bailey jury panel, and being very reluctant to sit in judgment
on anyone, I took care to keep my hair tidy, wear my most
conformist clothes, and put on a severe facial expression every
time I was picked in the ballot for a case. And, sure enough, it
worked: I was immediately challenged by the counsel for the
defense - every time except twice, and even in those two cases
I was belatedly challenged.
One of those two occasions I have already mentioned: as
soon as I said I wished to affirm, the challenge was made. This
I found (and find) rather puzzling, for I would have thought
that opting for affirmation suggested, primarily, an independent mind, and that independent minds are more likely to be
favorable to the defense. However, the barrister in question
apparently did not think so.
On the other occasion, I got even further before being challenged. Indeed, I had given up all hope this time of a reprieve,
for the statutory period allowed for the peremptory challenge
had expired by a long chalk, and in other cases I had seen
judges disallow any slightly belated challenge.
. What happened, however, was this. I asked, as before, to affirm. Then the judge, to my astonishment, questioned me as to
whether affirmation would be binding upon my conscience.
Needless to say, he had asked no such question of the ten
jurors who had already been sworn-in for the case, nor did he
ask it of the two who followed me. His obvious assumption,
therefore, was that no one, or almost no one, would dare defy
religious superstition by breaking a Bible oath, whereas secular
affirmation - though, for the past two centuries, just as binding in law as the oath - might well be a trick to escape divine
wrath! That an educated man of high standing could, in the
last quarter of the 20th century, have such medieval ideas is
amazing; but then the whole legal profession is weighed down

American

Atheist

with just such amazing anachronistic concepts.

In questioning me in this way, not only was the judge letting the medieval straws in his wig show; not only was he in
clear contravention of the law by failing to put affirmation on
the same footing as the oath; he actually went beyond what he
would have been empowered to do even before the new Act,
for the only questions he was allowed to ask then (but no
longer) in relation to affirmation were to ascertain whether it
was religious belief or unbelief that made one unwilling to take
the usual oath. He was never permitted to ask whether affirmation would be binding on one's conscience.
Ever since the right of affirmation as an alternative to the
oath in courts of law was first introduced in 1749 (mainly for
Quakers) and extended to Atheists (largely as a result of one
of the National Secular Society's first big campaigns) under
the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870, affirmation
has had the same legal force as an oath, and to break the affirmation has constituted the crime of perjury, just as much as
breaking the oath. Besides, to ask jurors or witnesses whether,
virtually, they intend to commit perjury is as foolish as it is offensive - since anyone who has this intention would hardly jib
at the far less serious falsehood of denying it!
Had the judge thought it out beforehand, he could hardly
have failed to see the absurdity of his question. So it seems
likely that it was a spontaneous reaction to the sudden realization that under the new law he was no longer permitted to ask
a question about religious beliefs, as he was accustomed to do,
whilst feeling that he ought to ask something to justify allowing me to affirm instead of meekly taking the oath, like everyone else.
I, too, however, was caught on the hop. I had thought of
the possibility of a judge being ignorant or forgetful of the
new law, and, had he asked me about my religious beliefs, I
was ready with my answer, referring him to the Act. But it had
not occurred to me that I would be asked something else. So
taken aback was I by the unexpected question that I merely
answered "Yes!" - though the degree of astonished indignation in my face and tone of voice almost amounted to contempt of court. Only afterwards, unfortunately (or perhaps
fortunately, since I would not have wanted to spend several
days in the cells), did I think of the reply "Do you wish to put
me under affirmation before I answer that question?"!

Challenge Allowed
After my con tem ptuous "Yes!", the affirmation card was
found and handed to me, and I began to read from it - slowly,
and with meaningful emphasis, in contrast to the meaningless
way in which the other jurors had mumbled the oath. I was
about three-quarters way through the form of words when the
sound of "Challenge!" from the body of the court pulled me
up short. I looked inquiringly at the judge, and he looked indecisively at the defending counsel. "That challenge was rather
late," he said sternly; "the juror had already begun to affirm."
The barrister said he had called "Challenge!" before, but had
not been heard the first time. (A likely story!) The judge
looked at me, and perhaps was thinking that I might prove a
liability on the jury. Or perhaps he felt uneasy about my reaction to his erroneous question. Anyway, for whatever reason,
he suddenly decided to allow the challenge, and asked me, poitely, to stand down.
Trying not to show my delight, I walked up the courtroom
with all the dignity I could contrive, until past the sight-lines
of all the lawyers and officials, and then winked at the remainder of the jury panel awaiting the next name to be called.
Knowing, of course, that my aim was to get on no jury if I
could avoid it, they all grinned back at me.

Austin, Texas

The following week, my challenge record still intact, I left

the Old Bailey, a free woman - exempt from jury service for
the next two years.
That near miss happened on a Friday afternoon, when most
of the panelists were the rejects from one case after another
throughout the week. We were nearly all white-skinned,
middle-aged, and middle-class. The youngsters, the West Indians, the Asians, the brash, the down-trodden, who had been
with us early in the week, were now sworn jurors, listening (or
trying to look as though they were listening) to evidence that
most of them probably found quite incomprehensible.
If the basis on which defending lawyers reject prospective
jurors has any statistical validity, then it is obvious that they
should try to get their cases adjourned to start early in the
week. Perhaps they do. But some, of course, must lose out on
this - or, rather, their clients must. And people still refer to
the administration of law as "justice!"
However, I find it difficult to understand why defending
counsel should be so wary of anyone on the jury showing independence of mind by choosing to affirm, for this, I would have
thought, betokened libertarian rather than authoritarian attitudes. Moreover, the criteria for a sympathetic jury surely vary
much more than they are apparently assumed to vary for different kinds of cases.
For instance, in the Gay News blasphemy trial, in July, the
defense presumably wanted to eliminate jurors with either
strong prejudices against homosexuality or strong religious
feelings, or both. In my experience, people of West Indian origin take, generally speaking, a much stronger stand on both
these counts than the average English man or woman, although
the West Indians are generally more permissive with regard to
most other social issues. Yet the way in which the defending
barristers in that case exercised the right of peremptory challenge seemed to be based on the notion that West Indians
would be likely to be less, not more, horrified than English
people by the use of homosexual imagery in relation to the
crucified savior.
After the trial, I was left with the feeling that the verdict
might well have gone the opposite way if only the defense had
used its jury challenges with discriminatory forethought rather
than the same old rule-of-thumb.
But to get back to the long haul for the statutory right of
affirmation. In 1861, Charles Bradlaugh, against whom a civil
action had been brought, was not allowed to give evidence in
his own defense because as a known Atheist he was not allowed
to take the oath - and the judge in the case therefore gave
judgment for the plaintiff, on the ground that the case was undefended! That was no doubt the spur to Bradlaugh's campaign for extending to Atheists the right of affirmation - at
the time, permitted to those whose religious belief forbade
the taking of oaths, but not to those without any religious belief.
When he founded the National Secular Society five years
later, he promulgated through it the argument that, as long as
the evidence of Atheist witnesses was inadmissible in courts of
law, the truth would be less likely to emerge in cases (including
those felony) where key witnesses were thus unable to give evidence. The commonsense of this argument prevailed among
jurists and the Parliament of the day, and the law was changed
so as to allow secular affirmation by Athesits in courts of law
and give it the same legal status as the religious oath.
Thereafter, until this year, a declaration in court that he or
she had no religious belief entitled a witness to substitute secular affirmation for the religious oath. In 1888, Bradlaugh succeeded in getting through Parliament his bill extending this
right beyond the courts - in particular, to Parliament itself,
which for five years had used the oath of allegiance required of

June, 1978

Page 27

MPs to prevent Bradlaugh from taking the seat to which he

had been elected.
Under the latest Act, of this year, it is no longer necessary
to state the reason for wishing to affirm. This is certainly a
step forward, for there is little doubt that some judges (and
some juries) do not have the same respect for Atheists as they
do for Quakers (the main religious group that has traditionally affirmed). My own recent experience, however, shows that
we cannot be content with this minor reform. We must continue to press for a complete reversal of the present system in
which the oath is still the norm and affirmation is something

peculiar.
In the present climate of religious skepticism there is no
reason at all why secular affirmation should not be the form
of wording automatically provided for jurors and witnesses,
though the old religious oath could remain permissible for
those who specifically requested it. Like religious worship in
schools, the oath ought to be opted into, not opted out of.
Until that has become the law and the practice in our
courts, secularists must not give up campaigning for it. And it
is worth noting that this long-standing campaign now has the
support of the progressive lawyers' association, Justice.

GADFLY
frankduffy
Heathen
Conventions are new to me.
The Catholic grammar school fate
assigned me to for eight years would
regularly herd the inmates together for
an involuntary trip to the confessional
booth where pop-eyed priests would
whisper the hoary agonies of a fiery
hell awaiting us wee sinners. Once they
marched us out to a horse-racing track
in the dead of winter so that we could
trudge through the dust and dung in
celebration of the beatification of a
long-dead bird by the name of Cardinal
Neumann.
But no conventions.
Another time they marched us -bobbing two abreast in our uniforms
like benumbed penguins -- to the local
cinema for a force-fed showing of a
looney tune entitled, "The Miracle of
Our Lady of Fatima," starring Gilbert
Roland. The only truth I learned from
that flick was to never lean my head
against a movie seat which had previously been the headrest of a kid blessed
with ringworm of the scalp. Six months
later (after X-ray radiation of my still
sinless scalp) I was the only totally bald
third-grader this side of a Nepalese
monastery.
But still no conventions.
Elevation to Catholic high school
brought assemblies of the flock for Friday afternoon football pep rallies,
prayer assemblies and indoctrination
sessions at the flippers of the Head
Penguin, Sister Dorothea. At that time
my fear of the rages these chaste nuns
would often display was considerable.
I eventually came to realize that the
Sisters of St. Francis were good training for a later introduction I was to
have with Marine Corps drill instructors.
Marines are convened for chow,
head calls, paychecks, liberty passes,

Affair

V.D. checks and discharge papers -- usually in that order. Although I suppose
career marines ("lifers" to non-career
marines) get together after retirement
for reunion conventions and VFW
dinners, single-term ex-G.I.s usually
aren't invited or wouldn't attend
anyway.
Later university training and a hitch
working for a newspaper in Japan likewise brought no invitations to conventions, except, of course, those inviting
me to the annual American Atheist gettogethers held each year in April. I
couldn't afford the plane fare from
Tokyo, so my introduction to what,
goes on at a convention had to await
the termination of my Oriental exile.
It was worth the wait.
The
Eighth
Annual
American
Atheist Convention was held in San
Francisco on April 7-8-9 and it was an

"The pastor is convinced these doors will

bring in more people on Sunday."

affair to remember. The events for

Atheists
from
Friday
afternoon
through the wee hours of Monday
morning were so tightly scheduled that
the hotel staff had to literally force
the conventioneers to vacate one assembly hall and move to another for
meals.
There was no single highlight as the
entire three days' activities were studded with poignant and proud moments.
Local Atheists from many states gathered as testimony to the slow exposure of religion as a needless vestige
from barbarous days and as witnesses
to the gradual explosion of Atheism.
The continuity
of solid Atheist
leadership was affirmed as we witnessed pioneer Atheist Lou Alt honored for a lifetime of service to the
freethough t
community,
followed
later that day by a presentation of the
Atheist of the Year Award to 21-yearold Seaman Michael Dean Hagen for
his efforts in forcing the U.S. Navy to
officially recognize "American Atheist" as such in their service record
books.
A three-hour legal briefing by the
national center's four attorneys had
the well-read and opinionated Atheist
membership busy asking questions and
assisting in the formation of future legal strategy. The nightly soiree from
nine to midnight allowed geographically separated freethinkers ample time
to establish foundational ties which,
can only assist in future efforts toward
organizng American Atheists for coordinated action in assuring constitutionally guaranteed rights to be free
from religious intrusions.
It was a long time coming, but it appears that Atheists are vacating their
closets in numbers which should make
next year's affair a milestone.

All Things Considered

Jon
Inurray
Atheist

Pseudonyms

On a recent trip to our beautiful state of Hawaii, I had occasion to meet with a group of persons who had been or were
at that time members of our national American Atheist organization. Those attending could all be classed as business or professional persons. All were fairly well educated and by that I
mean each had achieved some level of university education.
Dr. O'Hair and I met in an intimate hotel room setting with
this small yet representative group of persons. I say representative for I feel that they typified the mainstream of middleclass America, the same sort of person one would find in any
city the size of Honolulu anywhere in the United States.
What I had expected to be a rather ordinary conversation
among individuals who admired Dr. O'Hair for her accomplishments and who seemed generally open-minded turned out
to be most unexpected and enlightening. All of those assembled
classified themselves by one of the less definitive titles which
Atheists allover the United States, unfortunately, use to shield
themselves from the social pressures of outright identification
with their true feelings. Terms such as Humanist, Agnostic,
Ethical Culturist, Deist, Freethinker, Rationalist, Secularist,
Realist, and Objectivist all serve a purpose for their users but
often are not a true expression of their thoughts.
The use of such terms is common and the initial argument
we had over the question of "Why lie to yourself and others
by not coming out and saying what you really are?" went as
expected. When we began to probe the subject a little deeper;
however, a position statement on the part of those gathered
began to emerge. This position has deep implications affecting
the struggle for civil rights for Atheists and indeed the freedoms that we all attempt to secure for our own enjoyment.
Perhaps that is the key word --"enjoyment" -- for these
typical representatives of our nation expressed a desire to
enjoy their freedoms without going quite so far as to covet
them. The personal ramifications of the Constitution as it applied to them directly was their primary concern. "What can
I get out of the Bill of Rights as far as personal leeway for me
to conduct my everyday life?" That was their question.

Every Man For Himself

My reply was, "What can you do to ensure that not alone
you retain those freedoms but that they are retained and strengthened for future generations?" Their reply was, "Why
bother?" Why should they have any obligation to look out for
anything but their own backside? "We must protect ourselves
and not rock the boat," they said in summary.
Their feeling was that the proper concern of an individual
should be for himself first. Any objection raised in favor of
additional rights or for initial rights for others was unthinkable, since it would entale generating waves in their social
pool. Their position must be protected at all costs, even to the
detriment of the continuance of those freedoms for posterity.
The question then immediately comes to mind, "Don't we
owe anything to those who withstood the storm of social ostracism and even sacrificed their very lives for the benefit of
the whole?" Is it not incumbent upon everyone benefiting
from what the handful have laid on the line to continue to
nurture those benefits, and indeed even expand upon them?
Their answer was a resounding "NO! We have no obligation
to uphold those measures defended by the few for the many.
We need only maintain our own tranquility at all costs."
I find such a position staggering_ in this day and age. Edu-

ustin, Texas

cated individuals, products of our social and educational system, "cannot find it within themselves to realize that all "future
freedoms rely on the maintenance of those won in the past
and the building of new ones on that well-laid structure. Sad
as this may seem it is a continuing phenomenon I find all across
the country in the numerous public gatherings in which I am
involved.
The 40-hour week which was long in the coming and was
won even by the blood of workers is now taken for granted.
Guaranteed freedom of the press, a landmark in world affairs
which our forefathers were willing to die for, is now being
used as a weapon against those who dare to speak out against
the erosion of such rights. After all, under journalistic freedom
should not the press be obligated to sell advertising to Atheists who can meet all lawful requirements? Shouldn't they be
required to report our victories as well as lauding our defeats?
The supreme tragedy is that the United States, as the first
nation in the history of the world to include separation of state
and church in its founding documents, now turns its back on
that principle. The very thing that separated our nation from
all others which had gone before, a desire to separate the forces
of religion from those of government, has now been allowed
to lapse. They ask, "What do I get out of it if I stand up for
such a separation? It's not worth my time. I may lose my job
or my mother-in-law may get upset."
Because no one cared enough to resist, we now have a growing religious symbolism suffocating our nation in a kind of
civil religion which gives god and Uncle Sam blood-brother
status. Patriotism is god and god is patriotism. Slogans on our
money, slogans in our pledge, indeed even the national motto
has fallen because no one cared enough to speak up.
We cannot in less time repair what took generations to build
and which was allowed to fall. Therefore it is essential that we
stand up now for the preservation of those freedoms that we
already enjoy and strive for their expansion into other areas.
As an American Atheist I accept this as a primary task and ask
that others who consider themselves to be Atheists take a similar stand.
Each and every precious bit of progress gained by man must
be maintained so that we do not lapse into a continual cycle
of having to redo that which has been done, at great cost, before. Let us move on to other areas of human development
which are never tended to because we remain stuck in the treadmill of having to resecure basic human rights. Once the first
winning is recognized it must only be acknowledged by each
succeeding generation. Therein lies the problem.
Instead of striving to duplicate rights already guaranteed to
all, we should acknowledge the freedoms we now hold and
make them stronger. The Equal Rights Amendment is a good
example. Though endowed by the Constitution with the basic
freedoms laid down for all, we are of necessity now striving for
a redefinition of those same rights to include women -- hence
we must forsake the needed fight for many other freedoms
yet to be won but once. Those basic freedoms are even endangered by that redefinition process. Let the women of America
stand up and speak out for themselves and they will have the
rights they are willing to demand.
The essential point remains that any person or group has
only as many freedoms as they are willing to fight for. Silence
only buys repression. I agree with my fellow columnist,
G. Richard Bozarth, when he asks us to stand up and proclaim
our Atheism joyously.

June, 1978

Page 29

Ihe Amtrican Athtist Radio Strits

Myth Building
Program 362
KLBJ

4 Oct. 75
Austin, Texas

Hello there,
This is Madalyn Mays o 'Hair, American Atheist back to
talk with you again.
Back at the turn of the century there was a writer by the
name of Keighley Snowden who produced freethought criticism for the Rationalist Press Association of London, England.
One of his major areas of concern was Myth and Legend in The
Bible. I have thought that I might just take this month' to go
over some of the Bible myths and to review what the more illustrious Atheist writers have had to say about myths.
In times prior to our own the preface written by the author
to his works was often more important than the works themselves, for in that preface he would posit the theoretics of his
writing. The preface to Keighley Snowden's work is important.
Let me read it to you.
"The growth of that ancient body of literature out of
which the Bible was to be gradually formed makes a story so
romantic and significant, and has had such consequences for
humanity, that unexampled interest attaches to it.
"At the outset of any study of this literature, however simple, it is necessary to cast back one's mind among a primitive
society, and to realize the limited conceptions of another race
than our own. This race was emerging from savagery in an age
when religion had no such meaning as it has today. It is therefore not enough to remember that men were ignorant of much
that explorers and scholars have since found out with reference
to their origins and actual history; that there was little scholarship, and this extremely narrow and simple; or that men were,
of course, unable to think and write outside the field of their
own development and experience. Imagination is required. It is
important to enter into the minds of men for whom the dawn
of religious ideas was still clouded by the more ancient belief
in magic, by the concurrent dawn of a barbarous patriotism,
and by a dark and curious past of Oriental civilizations. No
man to whom all this is strange can make at once the due allowance and readjustments. He can only apply them as he
reads.
"It is comparatively easy to imagine the manner in which
the Jews began to have a literature; for this was not very different from that of our own literature's beginnings.
"Some 200 years after the reign of Solomon they had
pieced together old stories told among them and a priestly
code of laws. But the writings of such stories, and of occasional songs that celebrated great events, began soon after
Solomon's time. The wish to compile some account of the national origins then was natural, because in the reign of Solo-

::mE;J(E'5 50ME1HING ABOUT OOR

<3:)MPUTER PIJ,.lING BINGO 'THAT
. " Id~ liTTLE IJN5ETTl/NG!

mon the Jews had come to feel that they were a people of real
importance in the small world they knew. Before that (time)
of David they had been only groups of Semitic tribes, or clans;
and they had settled so gradually in Canaan, after a series of
interrupted campaigns and repulses, as to be very like the
English peoples before the time of Alfred, or rather of Knute.
But David had united them, as Knute united all England; and
Solomon had enriched the capital city of Jerusalem - little
larger than some English villages of today - with a certain eastern luxury, though with no such luxury as legend imputed to
him later.
. "There is a first surprise, no doubt, in finding that we have
to reckon mainly with later writings. So many have been
ascribed to him and David. But the fact must be grasped at
once that this literature, like every other, broadened out from
slender sources, and that there is no trace of these prior to the
post-Solomonic epoch. The little, newly-formed nation did not
at once become self-conscious, or sufficiently quiet for literary
labors. And these were at first naive. They could not be inspired by anything like a modem conception of history. They
dealt with legend, myth, or poetry, comparable to the earlier
tales of King Arthur's Court; and we have to be prepared for
the mistakes and fancies of that kind of lore.
"The surprise, indeed, is due only to the preconceptions
formed in ignorance of the circumstances.
"It was David, and not Joshua, whose wars established the
settlers, after a century of incessant turmoil. U' is true that
some of the tribes appear to have gained a precarious footing
as far back as 200 years before his time; for (one) professor ...
found at Karnak an inscription stating that a little before
1200 B.C. - i.e., before the famous Exodus - an Egyptian
army had harried "Israel" in Canaan itself. But nothing else is
known of that primal occupation of the country, then mainly
Phoenician; and Canaan did not become definitely Jewish until
a much later date. It had still to be conquered from the south
and east, and a century may have been required for all the
tribes to come in and settle, and for the resistance made by
older civilizations on all sides to tire.
"Briefly, the history of Jewish literature as its remains are
found in the Old Testament may be stated as follows:
"The earliest chroniclers were priests. Probably no other
class of men could write Hebrew. Solomon had built a new
temple for them - compiling records that should preserve to
future generations what was currently told of the stormy times
during which the progeny of Jacob had come to recognize a
national deity.
"(the following is as written - not full sentences) Not only
was their religion strictly patriotic - that is to say, not personal.
"Not only had thekingdom been again divided in spite of

FIRST COMPUTER!:> HELPED

mAN WI1}.\ H 15 WORK "THEN
1HECr>LEARNED HOW 10 PLAl' .
I

ODD

Page 30

June, 1978

American

Atheist

that. The temple priests at Jerusalem on the one hand, and at

Samaria on the other, were established in a land devoted
largely to the worship of other gods; and they were by no
means agreed between themselves. The two kingdoms had different legends, different usages, and a different image of the
god; who was not the creator of the world, not even the stern
all-righteous deity conceived as time went by, much less the
god of Hosea or of modern Christianity; but a hill deity associated with the fortunes of the tribes just as household gods had
been with those of families and clans.
"The national story was diversely and casually begun. It
was not until the fall of Samaria, three centuries later, that
anything more was attempted than a fortuitous assemblage of
legends; and the Babylonian Exile had to follow, with all the
change it made in men's ideas, before five or six early books
were produced by a deliberate act of authorship, combining
the legends with much that had been vaguely recollected in
captivity.
"New books were compiled or adopted by the priests from
this time almost to the Christian era as events gave new impulses and modified ideas. Generally they were adopted. There
was a most creative faculty outside the priestly body - among
the people, and particularly the verse-writing followers of
prophets.
"Now, the order in which books appear in our Bible is not
that of their production. It is misleading and confusing. Moreover, almost everyone of them was frequently re-edited and
supplemented. While the bulk of this literature belongs to a
period within 400 or 500 years of Christianity, it seems and
was undoubtedly supposed, to be older. For the names put to
the books, when proper names entitled them, were never those
of their authors, who can rarely be rescued from the obscurity
of an age when authors were not vain and the books were
never dated. It is also to be realized that re-editing was undertaken from time to time, not with a view to make this literature more accurate as history - the attempt to write true history is very modern; but for teaching purposes, to keep pace
with the growth of religious ideas. Its critical examination
must obviously be an affair of the highest skill. Moreover, the
oldest existing manuscript containing any part of it dates only
from the second century after Christ; and the manuscript from
which our Old Testament is copied was made three centuries
later.
"These facts are no longer disputed. The critical labors of
many scholars - German, French, English, and American have patiently established them. Similar facts about the New
Testament have been established also. They wholly change, of
course, old conceptions of the Bible.

A Convincing Discovery
"The truth about this ancient literature is full of fascination.
It lights up a wonderful past. The way in which scholars have
worked upon it resembles the excavations made at Nineveh
and Knossos, where one stratum was found beneath another
until the very oldest civilization lay revealed. But the work was
much more delicate, much finer. Minutest touches of successive editors have been recognized in the composite books parcelled out, every part and modification traced to its motive
and its own period nearly, the true order found, the growth of
ideas distinguished. A convincing story emerges, dream figures
come to life. They are not what they seemed to be; men are
such stuff as dreams are made of, but are not what they dream;
and this literature, the most passionate and superstitious the
world knows, and hitherto the most perplexing, proves to be
touchingly naive. But the gain for modern minds is incalculable.
"The tribes which came together to form the Jewish people
had long been partly civilized by Babylonia, on which their
land bordered. King Sargon the First reigned over Babylonia
(then called Chaldea) about 5,000 years ago. Now this means
that the nation of Babylonia-Chaldea had been in existence for
2,600 years before Palestine was even dreamed of - it seems
that a period of 2,600 years is no great span of human history,

Austin, Texas

but to the Babylonians, their origin as a race appeared to be

near the beginning of time. They could imagine little earlieronly gods, and the creation of the world.
"But 2,600 years is long enough for the spread of ideas over
a wide region, among peoples of the same blood. It has been
found, accordingly, that the Jews shared certain lore current
then throughout the empire - religious myths, legends, and
beliefs - as well as the practices that went with them. This
lore was afterwards embodied in their sacred books, and so
came down to our own day.
"It is through an inspection of the Babylonian religions that
we can find the roots of the Jewish religion. Likewise, Egypt
bounded this territory on the west and south. Although Egypt
had only in the recent years of the beginning of Jewish history
been involved with the Jews militarily - still the influence of
that nation had also reached into the Sinai peninsula. It is
through an inspection of Egyption religions also that we will
find the roots of the Jewish and the Christian religion.
"In respect to the Babylonian religion, priests controlled it.
They not only represented the gods and interceded with them
for a highly credulous people, but gave oracles to the kings
themselves. They were the civil administration so far as justice
was concerned. They were the only learned class.
"The gods were numerous. Every city and town had one of
its own, and so had every household.
"Legends, ever forming, filled the place of history. Tradition, as it varies, and imagination as it plays upon tradition, are
always shaping the beliefs of primitive people. So it was with
the primitive Jews. The respect for facts and the love of facts
are modern, and not at all general even now. It is important to
keep this in mind. Conversely, beliefs shape the legends. So do
race pride, race hostility, and many sincere unbalanced motives. Such legends grow about the names and memories of famous men, about big events, about natural phenomena that
are at all unusual; and their character is determined by the fact
that minds are not used to test and verify things, as ours are
more or less, the people of those times believed what was miraculous, not what was true. Imagination also works unchecked;
each man may add a little to the story; and so, none knowing
how, the legend is built up magnificently, a fabric the novelist
could scarce devise. It is then imposing. Who, men may ask,
could have thought of such a story if it were not true? It is so
imposing that, by people who have no storybooks to entertain
them, it cannot be forgotten.
"And, finally it becomes an accepted tale, a religious tale,
and beyond criticism. It becomes sacred."
In the next few weeks we will be looking at some of the
myths from Babylonia and from Egypt which became a part of
the religion we know in just this way.
Again, this is from the writing of Keighley Snowden, of
England, at the beginning of this century.
This informational broadcast is brought to you as a public
service by the Society of Separationists, Inc., a non-profit,
non-political, tax exempt, educational organization dedicated
to the complete separation of state and church. This series of
American Atheist Radio programs is continued through listener generosity. The Society of Separationists, Inc. predicates
its philosophy on American Atheism. For more information,
or for a free copy of the script of this program, write to P.O.
Box 2117, Austin, Texas. That zip is 78768.

~********************************.
The Lord's Dummy
In Gorleston, England, Charlie, a ventriloquist's dummy, speaks for the Lord while the
Reverend Colin Cooper honors his promise to his
congregation to keep his mouth shut. This publicity stunt doubled the size of the Rev. Cooper's
congregation which perhaps tells us something
about church-goers.

June, 1978

~J

Page 31

POLEMIC SYNOPSIS
ralph b. shirley
Theological
Have you ever wondered how a mythologist (also known as
a preacher or witch doctor) can make sermons and write books
about an ancient, ignorant book that contains myths, scientific
errors, absurdities, impossibilities and contradictions, and yet
make it sound as though the book not only is entirely correct
in every respect, but even contains greater wisdom than mankind can equal today? Easy. They lie a lot.
I refer to preachers, rabbis and priests as mythologists because, although they may be known generally as theologians,
that term is not accurate in the strict sense of the word. If a
theologian is defined as one who is a specialist on the relation
of "god" to man, and religion in general which is the worship
of "god," then they study nothing because there is no god.
Even dictionaries are faulty for giving such definitions for
"theologian" or "religion." There are no specialists in the
study of the relationship between "god" and man, nor can
there be. No one studies "god" or his actions. What they really
do is study a BOOK containing stories about a god or gods.
Likewise, "religion" does not pertain to the worship of "god."
It concerns the worship of an imaginary god or gods. No one
has ever studied a god for the obvious reason that there are
none.
These witch doctors are actually studying books which in
turn contain myths, so it would be more accurate to refer to
them as mythologists rather than theologians. The word "pastor," however, does appeal to me as it relates to the feeding
and raising of livestock, and the Bible does compare believers
to a herd of sheep. A surprisingly truthful statement coming
from the Bible (see Psalms 95:7).
At every turn, when mythologists are confronted by obvious errors and contradictions in the King James Bible and other books containing substantially the same writings, they
shamelessly concoct a cover-up explanation.
After science proved that the six-day creation myth of Genesis was false and impossible beyond the shadow of a doubt,
the mythologists tried to save it by claiming that the six days
were actually six separate periods, each covering millions of
years.
The Bible mentions "the four corners of the earth" and
"the circle of the earth" (meaning flat like a coin which is in
the form of a circle). Mythologists, of course, would never
mention these statements, but if pressed for a comment would
make up an excuse for the Bible by saying the first statement
refers to directions of north, south, east and west, and the second "proves" that the writer knew that the earth was round
because they used the word "circle." They expect one to believe this even though it is obvious from the words and actions
of those living at the time that the priests as well as everyone
else believed that the earth was flat.
The age of the earth was also unknown to the "inspired"
writers of the various books of the Bible. With each new
discovery of science, the witch doctor/preachers must make up
new lies to explain why the writers of the Bible did not know
as much as uninspired ordinary men of today. They provide a
new "interpretation"
of biblical passages to prove that these
ignorant men knew everything that modem scientists have just
discovered.
The fact that thousands of other priests and assorted mythologists read the same books of the Bible for thousands of
years and none of them ever made such interpretations does
not faze them. When it comes to doctoring their previous state-

'age 32

June, 1978

Mythomania
ments and claims about the Bible, as well as the Bible itself,
their shamelessness knows no bounds.
How can the preachers, priests, rabbis and other assorted
witch doctors give any sensible, logical explanation for the utterly stupid and impossible tale about Noah building an ark
and then rounding up two of each animal on earth, loading them
on the ark, and then feeding them and keeping them on the ark
(which had only one window) for about one year? Of course,
he could only do it with "god's" help. But Noah was the one
who was supposed to be helping the god who apparently was
unable to even build a wooden ark.

By The Sweat Of Others

The statement in Genesis that all men are cursed and must
earn their bread by the sweat of their brow is another example
of a false and erroneous utterance purportedly made by "god."
There are millions of men who do not need to earn their bread
by the sweat of their brow: preachers and other witch doctors
are a good example of this. Heirs to fortunes and other persons
who have become wealthy do not need to work hard to earn
their bread. Even wealthy men who choose to work are not
doing it for the purpose of earning their bread - because that
is already assured.
Such statements supposedly of "god" simply belie the Bible
as the word of a god as dictated to "inspired" men. They were
inspired only to deceive and defraud their fellow man in order
to earn an easy living as priests.
What kind of lie do the mythologists give to explain how it
was possible for Cain to go to the land of Nod and find a wife
when there were only three people on the earth - his parents
and himself? "Well you see folks, it was, uh, like this, uh ... "
Do you think that these witch doctors would be too embarrassed to make up a lie to answer that? Not at all. They will lie
at the drop of a hat ...
before the hat hits the ground. Of
course, this is assuming that they can think of a lie that they
imagine somebody (meaning those most stupid) will believe.
They try to avoid this Cain question at all costs, not because they have any scruples about lying, but simply because
they cannot think of even a passable lie. Some of their answers
are "God provided for that." Or, "Cain must have had a sister
that the Bible fails to mention; there was quite a lot of interbreeding in those days." Of course, the Bible is supposed to be
the perfect inspired word of "god," not a tome of errors and
blunders that must be corrected, apologized for and explained
by ordinary men.
What about the statement in Genesis 6 that god "regretted"
that he had made man? Is this the same omniscient biblical
god who is touted by men of the cloth all the time? This perfect being makes errors that he regrets? This Bi ble is really too
much! It is so childish and has so many ridiculous statements
and errors that it is hopeless.
So please, mythologists, give up and get an honest job.
There is no possible way to explain away the many thousands
of contradictions, errors and absurdities in the Bible to anyone
of intelligence who knows how to think.
Again, I beseech you, let your congregations of unthinking
sheep go free and earn your bread by the sweat of your brow
as the biblical writer thought you would. You can at least
show that you are trying to make a small part of the book appear to be true as far as you are concerned.

American

Atheist

Equus
The film "Equus" has been touted as being of such intense
psychological interest as to be thought-provoking in the best tradition. I found it, on the contrary, to be something of a cheat
from a literary standpoint. The performances by Richard
Burton and Peter Firth were excellent, and both of them can
be credited with reading their lines for maximum credibility,
but nevertheless, I didn't feel the basic premise stood up, i.e.,
that the psychiatrist was, in "curing" the boy, taking from him
the one thing that made him exceptional: his religion.
Burton is made to state his most passionate belief that the
boy's passion will henceforth be absent from his character,
while he, Burton, envies such passion. Well, it would seem that
while we are bandying about the word passion, there is a bit
too much of it in this film. Let's consider the elements of
which it is composed.
The boy's passion is the fanatic, frenzied insanity of sublimation after the pragmatic father finally refuses to tolerate his
wife's bombarding the boy nightly with tales and pictures of
Christ's crucifixion (bloody and screaming), of sin, redemption
and hell. Whereas the substitution of an interest in horses seems
rational, the boy's basic problem would appear to be that he is
a tactile rather than a thinking person (things mean little to
him unless he can touch them) and all the religious language is
then translated to the great, powerful god/horse enslaved by
man into unnatural submission, wherein man is the corruptor,
and hence doomed for his evil. It is he who should wear the bit
in his mouth, not the horse.
When the boy believes the horses (all-knowing, all-seeing)
saw him turn to a different graven image (the girl) I think it
isn't so much the fact that he failed sexually with her as that
he felt he had to beg the horses' forgiveness for his betrayal
which makes him strike out and blind the horses. The twisting
perversion of traditional religion into the nightmare midnight
ritual rides the nude boy takes every three weeks (Why three?
Isn't the answer obvious?) is even complete with the nettles he
suffers on his bare feet in the fields, as the horse is fitted with
soft fur socks.

The psychiatrist, on the other hand, has completely lost

track of his own passions. Believing he lives a life devoid of
passion, he crucifies himself in his own nightmares by cutting
out the hearts, in a different ritual ceremony, of all the children he has treated. In fact, the only voice of sanity is that of
his coworker, a woman doctor who has asked Burton to take
on the boy's therapy.
Burton (while the boy literally flagellates himself with coat
hangers and riding whips) punishes himself with words, sometimes to himself as he criticizes his love for ancient Greek culture (why?); sometimes to the audience as he hollers at the
camera about the value of the boy's strange passions; and sometimes at the woman doctor as he berates himself for his own
inadequacies.
She replies quite logically that the value of his special ability is to bring an end to his patients'pain. He refuses to see and
pokes fun at the "ordinary" life some of his patients will thenceforth have, and insists that even the boy will "forget this passion and come to place a Sunday bet on the nags."
Burton at one point mentions the death of the gods. The
boy says, "Gods don't die." Burton replies, "Yes they do they all do."
The script also cheats at the end. Having been warned ahead
to leave the theater in time to avoid seeing a graphic (and quite
unnecessary) scene of the boy blinding the horses, I returned to
find that the story was being wrapped up in incredibly swift
time, so that the "cure" was never detailed. Presumably the
confession was the cure. A nice Catholic ideology but not substantiated by psychiatric fact. In fact, none of the complex
reasons why the boy was a fixated fanatic are ever explained
to the boy, a script flaw I find totally inexcusable. Apparently,
then, the blinding was the cinematic equivalent of the obligatory chase scene which climaxes most suspense films.
And yet, it was worth seeing for three fine performances,
and a splendid plethora of words by a writer who should have
been able to do better. Perhaps he, too, needs therapy, and
freedom from religious hangups?
By Elaine Stansfield

lower-ease
deities

Who am I?
I am, of course, gentle. I do not injure my fellow man, but
rather, allow my fellow man to injure me whenever it is convenient for him. I feel that, if my hands are tied behind my
back, someone will feed me. I feel that, if someone sticks a
knife into my body, the ambulance will come to my house and
carry me gently to the hospital, to be tenderly cared for until I
die. Through it all, I preach love for my fellow man, not taking
up arms against him. If you take up arms, you are liable to accomplish something, and accomplishing something is against
my philosophy.
Who am I?
I am a historian. I do not make decisions, but I make reference to historical precedents. I am good at arguing, and I
have spent a lot of time studying history, so that I can justify
my reasoning by citing the proper precedents. Who dares to
stand up to history, even in the hands of one so gentle as I?
Who am I?
I am an actor. I do not have personality, because that
would cost me my omnipotence. Instead, I play many roles victim, hero, defender, healer, soothsayer, saint. However, I do
have a preference for starring roles. You will seldom see me
playing parts such as fool, clown, second footman, wandering
minstrel - unless they are built up into starring roles.
Who am I?
Ah, you simpleton, don't you know yet who I am? Have I
not given you all the clues? I am Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
I am Confucius and Buddha. I am all the prophets who have
ever walked the earth.

By Arthur

Maier

Who am I?
I have brothers and sisters, but I am my parents' favorite. I
am brighter than the rest of them, and I am the most devoted.
I do what my parents want me to, always. They want me to be
everything great in the world - doctor, lawyer, Indian chiefand I am willing to be all these things. I am all these things, yet
I am none of them.
What I really am is a thinker, a dreamer, a teacher, a talker
- not a doer. I do not do because doing involves making a
choice, and I want to be all things. If you do not make a
choice, if you simply dream and talk about your dreams,
then you do not have to do.
Who am I?
I have never married or had children, for the reasons cited
above, because doing these things involves making a choice,
picking one woman from among all women and loving one
child above all children. Since I have not made a choice, now
all women, all children can love me. I have charisma; I am
loved; I am cute.

Austin, Texas

June, 1978

Page 33

Does the Catholic Church's best

chance for survival depend on
making a deal with the Communist leaders of Eastern Europe?
Some Cardinals think so.

Is it worth it to the Church to sell

out Western 'Europe even at the
cost of individual liberty? Some
Cardinals think so.

Is the Church moving vast sums

of money and huge investments
out of the European danger zone'?
The work has already begun.

What is the next important step

in the Church's facing the East?
The election of a new pope.

Has the electioneering begun? Yes.

Ha ve the ground rules for the
tho ice of a new pope changed? Yes.
Is it true that there are :-Iarxist
and non-Xlarxist Cardinals? Yes.
Do most of the non-Marxist Cardinals know what the Communist
game plan is? No.
Who is using whom? Is the Church
using the Communists? Some Cardinals think so. Are the Communists using the Church? Some
Cardinals think so.

Can there be Cardinals who have

already accepted a Communist
world as inevitable? Yes.
Can anything be done about this?
Yes.
In The Final Conclave, Malachi Martin creates what may long be thought of as one of the great tours de force of literature, the
scenario of Conclave 82 to elect the next pope. The reader will know more about the process from having experienced it in this
dramatic book than many a Cardinal-Elector, including how illegal secret communications with the outside world are maintained.
When Luther pinned his message to the door, the result was an unstoppable revolution. With this book, Dr. Martin, a former
Jesuit whose laicization was granted by Pope Paul, may be said to have pinned his message to the door of St. Peter's. The Final
Conclave is a book in a grand tradition, a speculation based on direct knowledge of the innermost secrets of the Church that
involves the future lives of nations, including our own,

Page 34

June,

1978

American

Atheist

The Final Conclave

By Malachi
The Final Conclave is a hardback book, 6%" x 9%", 354
pages, printed by an off-brand publisher, Stein & Day, of
Briarcliffe Manor, N.Y., and is the last of eight books on
the geopolitics of religion, with specific reference to the
Roman Catholic Church. The author is a Jesuit who has been
laicized by the Pope.
The first 111 pages consist of an analysis of recent papal
history intersperesed with hysterical, visionary religious referrants. Once past this, casting to the side the irrelevant religious intrusion, one finds that the author is well educated in
his field: analyzing the currents of the Roman Catholic
Church.
That church is, of course, anything but the monolith that
it presents to naive Americans. There are, the author sees, four
major factions aspiring for dominance but within these, and
between them, there are from nuances to shocking differences
of both substance and degree, a spectacular array of thought
and opinions as to both methodology of functioning of the
church and emphasis upon theological interpretations of the
role of Peter's rock: the Roman Catholic Church - in the
modern world.
Martin is incisive in description of the major factions, carefully slicing the dogmatism of each and putting all to microscopic inspection:
the Progresssivist faction,
the Christian Marxists,
the "new theologians,"
the Charismatics,
the Traditionalist faction,
the Conservative faction,
the Radical faction.
But, within each of these is an array of personalities which
need also be recognized as being impactful upon the realization of any associated goals.
It is in the second part of the book, pages 115 to 351, that
the author, from his saturated knowledge of personalities and
positions, extrapolates freely, fictionally, as to the final confrontation that these factions may have when the Cardinal
Electors meet in the Nervi to elect a new pope upon the death
of Paul VI.
The sweep of his imagination is scandalous and shocking because so many elements of truth are interwoven into the projection. His ultimate conclusion is that the church will self
destruct in its "final conclave." In the logical development of
this scene the basic insanity of Catholicism is compellingly
clear.
But the gut blows are in a special section of the book which
can be described as an insider's recent historical overview. Here
we see the financial debaucle of the mid-1960s brought about
by misplaced trust and personal monetary ineptness, the
bizarre inabilities to understand or be able to relate to new
sweeping forces in world politics or shifts of power blocs, the

Austin, Texas

pathetic herculean efforts of Lefabvre to save the historic

expressions of traditional ceremonies no longer related to
the modern world, the expanding shock of realization in the
church as Marxism stabilized and spread, first in Asia [including Russia therein], then in Africa, in Europe, and in
South America, the attacks on priestly celibacy and rigid
authority.
Do the decisions of Paul VI reflect a policy of "planned
revolution" and, if so, is Martin's analysis an uncovering of
the theoretic roots and outreach of this revolution wrought
by one? The geopolitical overview is mind boggling. Suddenly the reader has a stark realization that he is indeed a grain
of sand caught in the tidal currents caused by the moon, a
remote body, and that he is totally unable to control his own
destiny. In a frightening way one can relate on a mundane
level: fish is no longer served in institutions on Friday not by
our individual choice but because the pope has acted out of
the impact of a theological intepretation.
He is our moon!
The book puts into a perspective of helplessness the battle of
ideas which is carried on in the mind of a semi-senile, irrational, fanatical, but enormously powerful man who can implement changes in total society because he wills it.
Yet, religion in the West is banished to the realm of personal belief and family life. It has no regulative functions, no societal identity, no political legitimacy. The once all powerful
Christian world is dead - and even gone theoretically. We deal
now only with the residuals. The writhings in which it finds
itself embattled are its death throes.
Through its political apparatus, the Roman Catholic
Church, in its intelligence gathering, has come to the conclusion that the future governments of the world will be Marxist. As a survival institution, which has cohabitated with
feudalism, facism, capitalism, mercantilism, it is revelaed now
to be in the preparatory position of cohabitating with communism. Cardinal Mindzenty is summarily handled, the mass
is changed to the vernacular, the Maryknoll Marxists are accepted, "dialogue" is established with the Kremlin.
The religious world is in collapse, partly due to its own
decision-making. Whether it will, impelled by its own inherent
irrationality, phase itself out of existence is the total subject
matter of this book.
The denouement is shocking, but logically consistent. The
undoing of the church is brought about by persons indoctrinated into contradictory and self-devouring philosophical systems by the church itself.
This is one of the most powerful books of our times. The
perceptiveness of the author is unusual. The root cords he
clangs to bring the reader to awareness are starkly compelling.
This is an "intellectual's book"; a feast for the geopolitician.
If you purchase only one book this year - this should be that
one.
[Review by Madalyn Murray O'Hair]

June, 1978

Martin

Page 35

The
Magazine
Collector
Keep all information-packed
issues of .The American Atheist and other important
magazines, at your fingertips. Rugged scuff-resistant
finish (with a rich leatherlike feel) is actually vinyl over heavy board. Decorated with handsome gold leaf
design around label holder. Available in Red, Black, Blue, Green, Yellow, and
new colors. The Magazine Collector
features a slash design on the sides for
easy removal and has a big 4-inch-wide
backbone. Now available to our readers in sets of two for $5.95; four for $10.95; or six for $14.95 postpaid worldwide. Fill out coupon below and send with check or money order to

The Magazine Collector

II

I
I
I
I

Here is my check or money order for $

Please send me

o red

o blue

sets in

0 black

0 yellow
0 green

The
American
Atheist

The Magazine Collector

P. O. Box 29
Vincent, Alabama 35178

Name

I
I

Address

I___________________________________
City. State
Zip

Page 36

June, 1978

JI

American Atheist

AMERICAN ATHEIST
POST CARDS
5 for $1.00

ATHEIST CASSETTE TAPES

Why I Am An Atheist
$14.95
The subject matter deals with the total effort to remove prayer from public schools
in the U.S. as well as Dr. O'Hair's personal philosophy of Atheism.
2 Hours
American Atheist
~3
436
437
438
439. . . . . .
Set 4
440. . . . . .
441 . . . . . .
442
443

Radio Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00

l&m
'.'
Joseph Lewis on Robert G. Ingersoll
Ingersoll on The Holy Bible, Part I
Ingersoll on The Holy Bible, Part II
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Ingersoll on The Holy Bible, Part III
1 Hour
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ingersoll on The Holy Bible, Part IV
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ingersoll on The Holy Bible, Part V
Ingersoll on The Holy Bible, Part VI
Robert G. Ingersoll on Superstition

Abortion is a Blessing
Anne Gaylor
$4.95
From her extensive counseling and
referral experience, Ms. Gaylor has
taken poignant
case histories of
women seeking abortions, and combined them with letters, anecdotes,
and even cartoons to buttress her
forthright statement - Abortion is a
Blessing.

An Atheist Epic - Bill Murray,

The Bible, and the Baltimore
Board of Education
$3.00
The complete unexpurgated story
of how Bible and prayers were removed from the public schools of the
United States.
The Letters of Robert G. Ingersoll
Eva Wakefield Ingersoll
$20.00
Eva Wakefield, 'the grand-daughter
of the famous Robert G. Ingersoll,
the most widely renown Agnostic in
the history of the U. S., has edited
this enormous volume. For the first
time the rich and many-faceted
personality of Ingersoll is revealed.

A beautiful 4" x 5Y," picture post

card of the Atheist Center in Austin.
Send it to your favorite minister.
A Few Reasons for Doubting
The Inspiration of the Bible
Robert G. Ingersoll
$2.00
Robert Ingersoll is the single best
known Atheist writer and orator, of
all time. In this he presents 61 compelling arguments as to the absurdity
of the Bible having come from god.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

You have another freedom - freedom from religion. American Atheists,
Inc. is a non-political, non-profit, educational, tax-exempt organization
dedicated to the complete separation of state and church. Membership dues
are $15.00 per person per year, and contributions to American Atheists, Inc.
are tax deductible for you. Members of the organization receive a monthly
copy of "Americn Atheists Insider Newsletter." Membership in the national
organization automatically gives you entrance to your local chapter.
You don't want to miss this road into tomorrow. You will want to be a
part of the decision making, now, for a decent life today as well as in the
future.
What On Earth Is An Atheistl
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
$4.95

Why I Am An Atheist
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
$2.00
One of a series of lectures delivered
to universities and colleges across the
nation.

For the first time in print, the complete texts of fifty two radio programs
presenting the Atheist Point of View.

Freedom Under Siege, The Impact of Organized Religion

On Your Liberty and Your Pocketbook
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
$8.95
Mrs. O'Hair deals with politics, not religion; with separation of state and
church, and not Atheism. This report shows how your treasured liberties are
slowly being eroded as the churches increase their power over every aspect of
American life, limiting your freedom of choice and even your access to in-

",DCI

io,mat;on "g"d;ng !hme ,hokes.

For more information contact:

American Atheists, Inc.

P. O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768

/.

~
~~

f...-... ~

r"
f....-.)