THE

$2.50

AMERICAN ATHEIST

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

(VoI.24, No. 11) November, 1982

*.************************************************************
AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment" to the
, Constitution of the United States was meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of them, their origins and histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each
individual in relation to society;
to develop and propagate a culture 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;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,
perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to
members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method,
independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own
inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life;that man finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his.
dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our lifeon earth and strive always to improve
it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very
essence lifeasserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble
ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an
outreach to more fulfillingcultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

**************************.*****************.***************.*****
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

P.O.BOX 2117

AUSTIN, TX 78768-2117

Send $40 for one year's membership. You will receive our "Insider's Newsletter" monthly.
your membership certificate and card. and a one year subscription to this magazine.

Banco Ambrosiano - Nectar of the Gods

State/Church
Separation and Abortion (Congressional
- Sen. Lowell P. Weicker

Record)
13

Why Humanism Is A Religion - Archie J. Baum

God in the Declaration of Independence
Statement

14

16
27

Sherman Wakefield

of Fred G. Lurie -

Fred Lurie

EXCERPTS FROM BOOKS

The Christian

Credibility Gap (excerpted

- Hiram Elfenbein

ON THE COVER

by Frank Zindler)

22

REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial: "The Few, The Proud, The Elite"
- Jon Garth Murray
Sheep In Sheep's Clothing - Richard Smith
American
Anecdotes

Atheist Radio Series:

"Legalizing the Symbolism
from An Early History
- Merrill Holste

The Means to the Beginning -

Editor-in-Chief
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Poetry
Robin Murray O'Hair
Angeline Bennett
Gerald Tholen
Production Staff
Art Brenner
Bill Kight
Richard Smith
Gerald Tholen
Gloria Tholen
Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
Fred Woodworth

Austin, Texas

of Religion"

of Jehovah
11

G. Stanley Brown

18

The American Atheist magazine is published monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and 1982 by Society of
Separationists, Inc., a non-profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to
the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. Mailing address: P.O. Box
2117/Austin, TX 78768-2117. A free subscription is provided as an incident of membership in the American Atheists organization. Subscriptions are available at $25. for
one year terms only. Manuscripts submitted
must be typed, double-spaced and accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The editors assume no responsibility
for unsolicited manuscripts.
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in

Monthly Periodical Index

ISSN' 03124310
On the back cover: Richard Viguerie's
first allegiance is to fundamentalist
christianity.

November, 1982

The original inspiration for "GOD

WILL PROVIDE" came nearly 17 years
ago, when I spent a summer as a
Headstart volunteer. I was aware that
the hot lunch we gave these 4 and 5
year old children was often the only
true meal they had all day. At that
time, the Uptown area of Chicago that
our program served was predominantly catholic. It was not unusual for me
to see a 30 year old woman (looking
90) who had more than 7 children to
take care of. I heard the same story
from many of them - they did not
want more children, but when they
went to the priest witti their stories of
agony, the response was always "god
will provide." Many, in despair, had
given up having sexual relations with
their husbands. The priests were unbending in their attitudes. Birth control meant a ticket straight to hell. And
yet, it was difficult to ignore that these
"holy men" never showed any signs of
deprivation. Hunger was not something they even related to. So the
image was in my head many years
ago. I think the catalyst for drawing it
was pope john pauill's visit to America. He was shown blessing a family
with 7 or 8 children, and then went on
to say that it was better to have more
brothers and sisters than to have material things. Like food. The image was
there once more. The picture I drew is
directed at all religious figures who
condemn birth control and/or abortion, yet have never themselves
missed a meal in their lives. Besides
their arrogance, the suffering of the
children is the real sin.
Nomi
About the Artist: Nomi is a former college
teacher, but her art is self-taught. Anyone
interested in her other works should contact the Tucson Chapter of American Atheists/ P.O. Box 361921 Tucson, AZ. 85740.

Page 1

EDITORIAL

JON GARTH MURRA Y

THE FEW, THE PROUD, THE ELITE

As Director of the American Atheist Center one of my
many duties is to oversee the admission of new members
into the organization, American Atheists. The organization
has a standard type membership application which interested persons are asked to complete and submit with the
appropriate fee. On that application are a number of terms
that one may apply to one's lifephilosophy. A wide choice is
given ranging from Atheist to Objectivist to "I evade any
reply to a query" to "my own appelation as given:".
Over the past period of about six months it has come to
my attention that persons applying for membership in
American Atheists (this journal being an incident thereof)
are in increasing numbers choosing any other lifestyle
designation of the choices given than "Atheist." I believe
there to be a reason for this that is justifiable in the minds of
those who choose to label themselves as other than Atheist.
That reason is very simple in that it, and the labels
themselves, can be denoted in one word. That word is fear.
Fear is one of, if not the, mainstay of established religion
in America. You may think when I say fear that I am
speaking of the traditional fear of burning in hell prornulgated by the fire-and-brimstone, tent-hopping variety of
minister. That is only partly true. A greater fear is the fear of
being out of place, of not being accepted as a part of the
whole - the whole family, the whole school, the whole job,
the whole town, the whole community. Everyone must
belong to something or somebody, or so we have been
enculturated to believe.
In the lasting words of John Donne the lesson has been
taught and learned well by generation after generation:
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; Every man is a peece of the
Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the
Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as ifa Promontorie were, as well as
if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any man's death
diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls
for thee."

Donne was no Atheist. In fact, he was one of the

outstanding religious fanatics of his day. But he does make a
valid point about our culture. The problem with Atheists or
near- or pseudo-Atheists is that they yearn to become a part
of the wrong whole. They are fearful of establishing their
own order, free from dogma, to have whatever comforting
loyalties and solidarities they wish just as well as those they
hold hypocritically within the prevailing establishment.
At this point in our nation's history we are at a new high of
christian resurgence. Resurgence for what? To reestablish
the fear of nonconformity to minimize the losses suffered by
attrition in more lenient times. The pope is probably the
best example of this in his return to medievalism. In that
push for return to "basic" or "fundamental" doctrines of the
church he is not asking of the catholics any more than
Falwell is asking of the protestants. Returning to basics
means returning to conformity. Fundamentalism cannot be

Page 2

November, 1982

only piecemeal with any given congregation. The nature of

religion demands full participation in it by all concerned.
Fear has even spread into our economic system. All
commercial advertising is based in whole or in part on fear:
fear of having your natural body cooling processes stain the
clothing under your arms. (Oh, what if someone saw me
sweat? The indignity of it alll); fear of not having the latest
model car; fear of "body odor" or "Am I using the right
soap?"; fear of "grey underwear" or a "dull" kitchen floor.
So you see I do understand why many newcomers to an
Atheist organization prefer another appelation than Atheist. They prefer those other laels for entirely the wrong
reason. They don't prefer humanist over Atheist because it
better describes them, but because it is innoxious. If,on the
other hand, all whom the label "Atheist" fit came forward
and used it with pride there would be a new "whole", a new
"body" of which to be part, with which to belong, that would
not disturb their encultured security.
Atheism is a label under which you can and should
maintain your individual autonomy but at the same time be
reinforced by the ideas and achievements of others freely
instead of in a rhythmic dogmatic way as in the church. You
can still be a part of a group - just a different kind of group.
Eclecticism does not necessarily rule our collectivism of
thought. Many individuals can all come to the same
conclusion about the same thing with input from widely
various sources and being from quite distinct backgrounds.
Atheism is a very fine example of that. Persons from many
different social, political, educational, monetary and religious backgrounds have all, for the most part independently
and eclectically, come to the same conclusions about
religion - leading them to the rejection of its principles. If
that isn't a strong basis for unity, I don't know what is. What
better or stronger feeling of "belonging" could you have
than to belong to a group of people who achieved the same
result from the widest possible number of standpoints.
It's a very special group and I have a very special sense of
solidarity to it that I don't have to most. of the mainline
culture around me anymore. There is nothing the matter
with that. The black community is slowly coming around to
being proud to be black. They have formed a solidarity
around being black. As Dick Gregory said, "Let them call
me Mr. Nigger!" Let them call me Mr. Atheist.
You may feel that you are downgrading yourself by giving
up a larger "identity" or a smaller one when you come out as
an open Atheist, but that identity will not always be the
smaller. Christianity was the smaller at one time, too.
Whenever I see those Marine advertisements urging
young men to join "The few, the proud, the Marines," Ithink
to myself "The few, the proud, the Atheists." That is one of
the main purposes of this journal. The information in each
and every issue I view as a shot of cortisone for the spines of
Atheists to help you on the road from weak arthritic
Atheism and residual fear to bold and forthright pride.

The American Atheist

Banco Ambrosiano
NECTAR OF THE GODS
Back in the mid 1800's, Italy seized land which the pope
claimed to be his own property from the religious land wars
that the papacy had conducted in Italy for hundreds of
years. From 1848 to 1870, especially under Garibaldi, Italy
had fought for unification of the boot. In 1867 land held in
mortmain (literally" dead hand") by the church was nationalized; that is, it became by state fiat a part of the land of the
nation of Italy. The impotent papacy's only choice was to
sulk and to refuse to recognize a unified Italy or the loss of
its lands. Out of the turmoil of those years had come the
famous 'syllabus of errors," issued in 1864 by pope pius IX
condemning every major principle of advancing civilization
and liberalism, then spreading throughout the nations of the
world. That syllabus has never been repudiated by the
roman catholic church and stands as a monument of
ignorance, intolerance, stupidity and reaction. The papacy
fought the advance of civilization in every country but
especially in Italy wherein it was based until 1929. In that
year, Benito Mussolini, an avowed Atheist but also a fascist,
bribed the vatican into recognition of the Italian government
and a blessing for his troops which were poised to invade
Ethiopia.
The ostrich reaction to all modernizing ideas of government has been the classic of burying one's head in a hole in
the ground to pretend that nothing is amiss in the international community. This has been made into a high art by
the United States as well as the vatican, for our nation
refused to recognize that the USSR existed after the
revolution in that country unseated the czar. The US never
extended diplomatic recognition and the USSR was said to
, exist de facto (i.e. in reality) but not de jure (i.e. by legal
recognition.) The US later exercised this same right(?) of
pretense with China, North Korea, South Vietnam and then
Cuba. However, it was quick to give de jure recognition to
both Taiwan, which posed as China for many years, and to
Israel, in the face of objections from the Palestinians. The
US learns well its lessons of intolerance from its mentor, the
vatican, in this as well as other areas, such as those covered
in the Syllabus of Errors.
Nonetheless in 1929, Benito Mussolini gave a gift of $2
billion (1982 currency rate) to the vatican as compensation
for its loss of papal estates under the Italian 1867 confiscation, which had occurred 62 years prior to his reign. Benito
sweetened the deal with $2 million of is own; recognized the
vatican as a soverign state, granted it custom immunity, tax
immunity and innumerable special privileges. The vatican
took the $2 billion, $2 million and used the money to
purchase interests in Italian firms of credit and banking,
electric power, gas, steel, cement, textiles, pasta, agricultural implements and communications. And, in return for
his favors the vatican assisted Benito and the fascist
countries to move money between the diverse warring
nations from 1939to 1945. It thus soon became obvious that
the vatican needed its own bank. Of course, priests move

Austin, Texas

throughout the world on vatican passports. They need not,

and quite frequently do not, take out citizenship in any
country. They are agents of the vatican and need report to
none other. The ability to be monetary couriers is imrnediatelyapparent. Nonetheless in 1942, in the the middle of the
Second World War, the vatican set up an instrumentality
which it was constrained to designate the "Institute for
Religious Works." This has come to be called the "I.0.R." In
actuality was then an international bank. Your editor has
visited often in Rome and, while there, the vatican. One
goes into the lOR to exchange currency, to cash travelers'
checques. It has teller's windows, vaults, all the paraphernalia of an ordinary working bank.
But, during this entire period from 1929 to the end of the
Second World War, the vatican moved into the Italian
economy and gained either controlling or strong interest in
thousands of that nation's business companies.
Again, your editor's personal interest was aroused when
Nino LoBello, a newsman living and working in Italy
contacted her, even making a trip to The American Atheist
Center in Austin. He was aghast to find out, in the mid
1960's that every bit of living in which he was involved was
touched by the vatican. It owned the water company, the
gas company, the telephone company and the building in
which he lived - as well as the entire block of houses on
both sides of the street. He asked if anyone was aware that
the home fuel of citizens of Milan, Rome, Turin, Venice, had
to be purchased from the vatican at exorbitant rates. As he
checked further he found that the vatican owned government bonds in protestant Britain. It bought gold from the
US Treasury Departments and ingots still on deposit with
the US Federal Reserve Bank are set aside and held for the
vatican. It had purchased the largest textile company in Italy
(SNIA-Viscosa), the largest construction company (Societa
Generale Immobiliare). As an interesting aside this is the
company which built the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., the Montreal Stock Exchange in Canada and the
Pan-American Building in Paris, France. He explained to
your editor the magnitude of the building then in Italy,
pointing out that in 1966 alone, this construction firm had in
Rome built 3 apartment houses, 7 garden villages, 12 luxury
homes, 2 office buildings each with 174 office units and 12
villagarden developments; in Milan 3 housing projects with
62 family dwellings, 18 offices, 17 stores, an 80 car garage, 7
other housing projects of 196 apartments and a shopping
center; in Genoa a 150 apartment development, 92 plush
apartments and a motel near the vatican owned Hotel Eden.
He could hardly believe that the vatican also owned the
Manifattura Ceramic a Pozzi which made the sinks, wash
basins, toilet bowls, bidet and bathroom fixtures put in not
alone in these units but used in almost every home in Italy. It
also then owned, controlled, or influenced by its substantial
holdings all of the following companies: Societa Mineraria
del Trasimeno (mining), L'Instituto Farmacologico Serona

November, 1982

Page 3

(pharmaceuticals),
La Societa Dinamite (dynamite and
ammunition, La Torcitura di Vittorio Veneto (yarn), FisacFabbriche Italiane Seterie Affini Como (silk), Concerie
Italiane Riunite de Torino (furs), Cartiere Burgo (paper
products), Industria Libraria Tipografica Editrice de Torino
(publishing) and Sansoni de Firenze (also publishing),
Societa Santa Barbara (mining), Caffaro Societa per l'Industria ed Elettronica (chemistry
and electronics),
La
Salifera Siciliana (salt), La Societa Prodotti Chimici Superfosfati (chemicals), Bottonificio Fossanese
(buttons), Saici
Societa Agricola Industriale per la Cellulosa Italiana (cellulose), Cotonificio Veneziano (cotton), Lanificio de Garvardo (wool), Fabbriche Formenti (textiles), Sacit (ready-towear clothing), Molini Antonio Biondi di Firenze (spaghetti),
CIT (travel and tourism), and CIM (department
stores).
In addition, Italy has a unique institution called the IRI, the
Instituto di Ricostruzione Industriale. This is a public law
corporation to which the Italian government assigns specific entrepreneurial
functions. It controls hundreds of firms,
including television and radio, railroads, airlines and shipping, steel, automobile manufacturing
and banking. The
single biggest investor in this conglomerate is the vatican,
which now owns controlling interest Nino LoBello was
concerned that the vatican, in actuality, owned the Italian
economy, He was later to write to-expose-type
books
concerned with his findings: in 1968, The Vatican Empire,
An Authoritative Report That Reveals The Vatican as A
Nerve Center of High Finance - and Penetrates The
Secrecy of papal Wealthand in 1972, Vatican, USA
Of course, after the Second World War the vatican
prospered under the CIA-financed reign of the Christian
Democrats. The IRI now handles 40% of Italian investments,
the father company having 300,000 employees. And, the
vatican moved out to take holdings in Alfa Romeo (automobiles), Firmeccanica (engineering combine), Finmare (shipping, and the lucrative banana market The IRI constructed,
for example, the Fiumicino Airport and the vatican profited
from it all. In Rome it now owns 102 million square feet of the
city proper. (There are approximately 2714 million square
feet in a square mile.)
And then, of course, the vatican got serious about banks.
We do know the situation in 1966 and it can only be
presumed that it has flourished since then. At that time the
three leading banks of the country, Banca Commerciale
Italiana, Credito Italiano and the Banco di Roma were
closely tied to the vatican. The Banco di Santo Spirito, it
owned outright, having been founded by pope paul V in
1605, one of the oldest banks in the world. The foremost
bank in the thigh part of the boot was, of course, Banco
Ambrosiano in Milan, founded in 1896. In the mind 1960's'
Banco Ambrosiano bought interests in three foreign fiscal
organizations: the Banca del Gottardo di Lugano (Switzerland), the Kredietbank
S.A. Luxembourgeoise
and the
Interitalia (both in Luxembourg.) All of these banks provided a service whereby Italians could acquire shares of foreign
mutual funds, through over-the-borders
holding companies
free of investment regulations of any of the states involved.
But in Italy, the vatican was moving out. In the north it
owned outright seven of the largest banks: the Banco
Ambrosiano of Milan, the Banca Provinciale Lombarda,
Piccolo Credito Bergamasco, Credito Romagnolo, Banca

Page 4

November, 1982

Cattolica del Veneto, Banco di San Geminiano e San

Prospero and Banca San Paolo. It owned heavy interests in
13 others (names on request) and in 62 banks it owned
medium interest but had one or more agents of the vatican
on the board of directors or at the policy-making level
(names on request). On the tailing out of the situation there
were thousands and thousands of small rural banks spread
all over Italy owned 100% either by the vatican or by the
local parish church, which submits to vatican controls. This
does not speak to its outreach
to the Swiss banking
institutions or those in the United States. The vatican's
intrusion into insurance and credit institutions in all countries is almost impossible to unravel.
-Sut, it is important to get to Banco Ambrosiano.
Ambrosia, of course, means "nectar of the gods" - and
that it is. One of the principal characters in the drama is Paul
C. Marcinkus, an Archbishop of Lithuanian ancestry, born
in Cicero, Illinois. Marcinkus was moved to Rome in 1947 to
become an Archbishop there later.Tn Rome he became
involved in the early 1960's with a Sicilian named Michele
Sindona. The ties of the vatican to the Mafia has a long
history of speculation,
but it should be pointed out that
Cicero, Illinois and Sicily are Mafia strongholds. It was in
Cicero, Illinois, that your editor was approached by a Mafia
envoy. She was told that throughout
the kingdom the
traditionalist split of the gains of the Mafia was one-third to
the family, one-third to the poiiticians and one-third to the
roman catholic church. The envoy wanted to know how
your editor could help to put together a plan to cut out the
money to the church. Her immediate reaction was to get the
hell out of town as fast as she could.
Sindona was in Milan in 1947 where he met Giovanni
Montini, a monsignor who was later to become pope paul.
He eagerly entered the banking business for the church.
When the new pope took over in 1963 he called on
Marcinkus and Sin dona. Marcinkus was known then to the
Italians as "II Gorilla." Michele Sindona had purchased the
Banca Privata Finanziaria which was pretty good for a man
who once drove US Army trucks in Sicily. There was rising
unrest in Italy, with the popular fronts moving toward
socialism and the Italian state, in financial difficulty, suddenly decided that it wanted to tax the earnings on the vatican's
stocks and bonds. It was a several year fight before the
vatican finally agreed to pay, but even at this writing, it
appears that all that the State of Italy received was an
agreement for apparently no money has been paid. Instead
the vatican decided to transfer its holdings to the United
States. In 1969, the pope decided to sell the vatican's
controlling interest in Societa Generale Immobiliare and he
assigned the secret sale to Sindona, under the eye of
Marcinkus. The stock was sold to banks in Luxembourg
and Paris. A large chunk was sold to Charles Bluhdorn, who
had established the Gulf & Western conglomerate in the
US. Sindona soon moved into the US where, as an agent of
the vatican, he bought into Chase Manhattan
Bank,
General Foods, General Electric, Shell and Standard OiL
This is not to say the roman catholic church in America was
not already heavily into the stock market with holdings in
Hilton Hotels, Grace (steamship) Lines, oil companies,
telephone companies, energy companies and - of course
- blue chip stock such as AT&T, IBM as well as all of the

The American Atheist

war industries. The roman catholic church in the US is is to be in book stores later this year.
It appears that the United States Department of Justice
notorious for holdings in assumed names: Angela Co.,
Annunciata Co., August Co., Trubell Co., Bishop Co., went so far, in 1971, as to fly a representative to Rome to
talk to Marcinkus about his connection with it all. The
Lamore Co. and ownership in the names of its orders
(priests and nuns), its fraternal organizations such as the forthcoming book now alleges that he was to receive a $150
million kickback from the counterfeiting scheme.
knights of columbus and its colleges and universities.
By 1978 everything had gone askew. Money was missing,
In 1972, Sindona bought controlling interest for himself in
the Franklin National Bank in New York and offered Sindona had taken a 25 year rap, the Governor of Italy's
Maurice Stans, Nixon's money raiser, a cool million in a Central Bank was arrested and eased out of office, an
secret campaign contributions. (Stans did not accept the investigating judge in Italy, Emilio Alessandrini, was assasdeal.)
sinated and only a part of the turmoil was showing.
Well, what is the lOR? It's official name, as above
The vatican wanted diversified investments outside of
Italy and it began to sell off its major shareholdings in Italian indicated, is the Institute for Religious Works. It has
companies while it became a conduit also to smuggle money approximately 7,000 customers which include the vatican,
out of Italy which was becoming a communist country faster religious organizations, members of the clergy and select
than the pope would admit. The Italian government,
people who have assisted the church. Your editor's guess is
that it is also probably a laundry for Mafia cash. It has
breaking loose from its CIA mentor - the Christian
Democratic party, began to demand that the vatican be perhaps $2 billion in deposits and makes a profit of at least
subject to exchange controls and banking regulations. The $20 million a year. However, the Vatican is running a deficit
vatican became more determined to transfer its holdings to of $20 to $30 million a year and it relies on the lOR profits to
a reliable capitalist country base. But suddenly in 1974,
fillthe gap. Since the exchange is internal in the vatican, no
there was anywhere from $150 million to $1 billion of the one really knows what goes on. Peter's Pence, a voluntary
vatican money which simply disappeared, and when it did, 2 donation given each year to the pope by roman catholics
foreign (i.e. not Italian) banks collapsed. The first was the around the world has dropped off recently in magnitude so
Franklin National Bank of Long Island, New York, which that even the pope now wails that he is "hard up."
went into bankruptcy and the Herstatt Bank in Germany.
Marcinkus is the chief administrator of the 108 acres of the
At this time, Sindona was found to have a network of vatican, and he has virtual autonomy in running lOR, with
fiduciary trust, phantom holding corporations and phoney
Luiggi Mennini second in command. When Sindona came
deposits scattered everywhere. Although he was indicted,
up with the major hole in the vatican finances it was thought
found guilty and jailed, no one to date has really found out
that Marcinkus would be eased out after pope paul's death
anything about the maneuvers and no one knows exactly
but he was instead reconfirmed. He probably knows too
how much money is missing.
much. The same situation appertained in the United States
It was felt that those primarily responsible were Marcin- with J. Edgar Hoover, a roman catholic who ran the FBI
kus - "II Gorilla," Luiggi Mennini the second in command
with an iron hand for years. No one dared to remove him
at the lOR in the vatican and Sindona.
from office.
Now, the story dramatically changes with a new characBut the bankers of the world got together and in 1974
. ter on the scene. A mere bank clerk, Robert Calvi, was
issued something called "The Major Bankers Concordat"
which was a statement of an agreement that they would join working at the Banco Ambrosiano during all of this time.
together to help bailout any bank which got into trouble.
He came to work on time, kept his cage accounts in order,
was a faithful employee, all of that, and finally - lo! the
Since Germany was financially shaky that first help went to
the Herstatt Bank in that nation, but in the good old US of miracle - he became the head of the Banco Ambrosiano.
A, our government had to bailout the depositor in the
This is now regarded as Italy's catholic bank, the l l th
Franklin National Bank fiasco. The vatican made no
largest in the nation. Once owned outright by the vatican,
comments.
since the "selling off" of interests the vatican is now alleged
But something else which was rotten was going on.
to have only a 1.8% interest, but no one knows for certain. In
the US we have long had. Olivetti typewriters for sale, and
Finally uncovered now by The Wall Street Journal, in 1982.
A former head of the Organized Crime Strike Force in
that Italian firm manufactures other office machinery also.
Southern New York had finally come forward to talk about
The owner of the firm bought a stake in the Banco
a 1973 operation when he managed to get legal wiretaps
Ambrosiano and within several months got out because he
placed in New York and in West Germany to investigate a
"was appalled at what he found." Whatever that means.
possible securities counterfeiting scheme cooked up by
In 1967 the Banco Ambrosiano had reported a capital of
some of the same personnae. It was at that time uncovered
$6Y-tmillion with a net profit of $1.4 million, a fabulous 22%
profit. In 1980 Banco Ambrosiano was 790 million in the
that $950 million worth of Pan Am, AT&T and other stock
was being counterfeited. The wiretaps resulted in 8 federal
hole on its accounts. In 1981, Roberto Calvi, its director
indictments, 18 New Yorkstate indictments and guilty pleas
took $26.4 million out of the country to Switzerland, was
from a number of U. S. citizens. An Australian con man
caught, convicted, fined $19.8 million and sentenced to 2Y2
(Leopold Ledl) claimed that his "vatican connection" had
years in jail. He immediately gave a bond and was out, still
ordered $14.5 million of the bogus certificates for phony
head of the bank, pending an appeal. That's one story. On
collateral for loans and that he delivered these to a the other hand, it is also said that Roberto Calvi was such a
monastery outside of Turin, Italy. Subsequently a book by fabulous manager that in 1981 the bank had tripled its
another author entitled just that, The Vatican Connection
profits and had 18 to 19 billion in assets. Take your pick of

Austin, Texas

November, 1982

Page S

the tales; the real one is never going to come out.

In spring, 1982, it was suddenly revealed that Roberto
Calvi was loaning money to Banco Ambrosiano subsidiaries elsewhere and then on June IOth he disappeared.
Prior to this however he became involved in a scandal
having to do with a secret faction of the Masons in Italy,
heavily roman catholic (!) and dedicated to the destablization of the Italian parliament, which was slowly moving to
the left. The faction was identified by its use of black robes.
One week after Calvi 'disappeared a short notice appeared
in Italian papers that his secretary had "defenestrated"
herself. In plain English, she committed suicide by leaping
out of a window. The next day Calvi was found hanging
under the Blackfriar bridge in London, quite dead. The
obvious connection of the black robed secret Masonic
faction and the name of the bridge, Blackfriar, sent chills
throughout the Italian banking world. A shaky inquist
verdict of suicide is simply not accepted.
. the reason for the two deaths was obvious when it soon
became apparent that the Banco Ambrosiano was not a
mere $790 millionshort, but that the real figure was about 15
times that amount. There were $1.4 billion in loans corning
due and no one was around to pay them. Who had those
loans? Some Panamanian companies with mail addressed
only - paper companies - and not even that, mere
phantoms. They were Bellatrix Inc. (beatuiful trick!), Manic
Inc., Astrofine, Inc. Other names are unknown. The money
was loaned by Roberto Calvi from the assets of the Banco
Ambrosiano because Paul Marcinkus of the lOR, the
vatican bank, had given what is called a "letter of
patronage" (or a "letter of comfort") to Roberto saying that
the lOR had controlling interest in about a dozen of these
Panamanian companies. This letter would not make the
lOR liable for the debts but such a "letter of credit" (as it is
called in the United States) would clearly induce the Banco
Ambrosiano to approve the loan. Here, it gets sticky
because some of that money went to Peruvian, Nicaraguan
and Nassau subsidiaries of Banco Ambrosiano and it is
known that a "Peruvian connection" purchased the Exocet
missiles used by Argentina to sink several British ships in
the recent Falkland/Malvinas Islands war. The British
Secret Service, in fact, is investigating ifthe $1.4 billion went
to Argentina to finance its confrontation with Britain.
Meanwhile, the Argentine Society of The Defense of
Tradition, Family and Property began to take out half page
ads (even in the New York Times, April 30, '82) on behalf of
"catholic Argentina."
When the news got out, in late summer, the stock in the
Banco Ambrosiano fell so dramatically (30% to 40%) on
the Milan stock exchange, with depositors rushing to'
withdraw funds also, that for the first time in 64 years, the
Italian government closed the stock market. Do you read
any of this in your newspaper? So hushed is it all! .
The Italian government moved in on August 6th, ordered
liquidation, replaced Banco Ambrosiano's Board of Directors with a three-man commission; then decided to sell off
the investment portfolio of the bank, preserve some assets
of its core (particularly La Centrale, a major holding
company and Toro Assicurazioni, an insurance company)
and start a new bank called, Nuovo Banco Ambrosiano
under control of seven other Italian banks which have

Page 6

November, 1982

guranteed loans to rescue the operation of Banco Ambrosiano.

The Interminister Committee for Credit and Savings of

the Treasury Minister of Italy then went to the vatican and
asked it to assume its share of responsibility for the debt.
With alacrity, Marcinkus produced a purported year old
letter from Calvi dissolving the vatican lOR of any financial
responsibility for the loans. The Treasury Minister was
furious and attempted to serve legal process on Marcinkus.
Concerning the two letters the Treasury Minister stated,
"The vatican must have known that the two letters could
not be genuine at the same time; the deal was intended to
defraud and to lead people astray." The powerful vatican
was then characterized as, at least, being guilty of "acting
improperly" in the transaction It pointed out that the letter
alleged written by Calvi which absolved the vatican of all
responsibility for the loans had not been approved by the
Board of Directors
of the Banco Ambrosiana and, as a private letter, was worthless for the vatican's
defense.
The vatican, naturally, refused to accept any legal service
saying that it was a sovereign state and need not answer to
an Italian action. However, LuigiMennini is an Italian citizen
and that state promptly notified him that he would need to
stand trial in the Sindona affair of 8 years ago. Mennini, as
indicated, is the managing director of the lOR.
But meantime, the Banco Ambrosiano Holding Bank of
Luxembourg was found to be in default $400 million and
that state froze its assets. Luxembourg immediately notified
international bankers that in accord with their "Major
Central Bankers Concordat of 1974" that it had a bank in
trouble. The bankers replied that this was not really a bank
in trouble, it was a bank (and holding company) which was
involvent and they would not help. Then the Banco
Ambrosiano Overseas Ltd. in Nassau, Bahama, petitioned
the Bahaman court to liquidate it and the court responded
by suspending its license for 30 days (in late July.) Markincus resigned from the Board of Directors of this bank after
Calvi disappeared. It is not known how much money is
missing there but that bank is apparently also insolvent. The
Banco Ambrosiano had other subsidiaries, particularly in
Latin America, and news is not in as yet on what willhappen
with them. The vatican is now stating that it does not own
the Panamanian companies which Markincus said it owned
and on whose behalf he wrote an lOR "letter of patronage."
Much pressure was put on the vatican until it finally
agreed to an independent commission of inquiry appointed
by the pope to report their findings to the Secretary of State
- of the vatican. For the whitewash he chose a commission
of three loyal roman catholic bankers, one from the United
States, one from Italy and one from Switzerland. The
current status of the bank formerly headed by the American
is enough to raise the hair on your head. Joseph Brennan,
age 71, is the retired former chairman of the Emigrant
Savings Bank in New York. A graduate of roman catholic
Georgetown university he retired in 1978 to devote his full
time to US domestic roman catholic affairs. The Emigrant
Savings Bank is now in trouble, having lost $20.4 million in
the first quarter of this year. Estimating that its net worth
will be wiped by the end of the year, it has asked for
government assistance to keep it from being closed. Even

The American Atheist

J.
r
I

the patient New York Times opines that the pope has
appointed "an ineffective group."
Mostly in Italy, $1.4 billion dollars belonging to Italian
citizens have been lost in this bank fraud. In Luxembourg,
the loss stands at about $400 million and perhaps the same
magnitude of loss has occurred in the Bahamas. Chase
Manhattan Bank now has announced that it may arrange a
$500 million credit for theIOR, but, of course, as indicted
the vatican has bought heavily into the stock of Chase
Manhattan. Now our countrymen will get their feet in the
glue.
Someone had to finance the arms purchases during the

war over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and it looks like

Italian citizens were forced to do that, without their prior
approval or consent.
International banking is in trouble and the roman catholic
church is in the thick of it. But, in every nation and
particularly in the United States, bank frauds involving
other churches also are frequent. The same thing could
strike home in our nation any time. Money is the ambrosia
of the gods - and everywhere their henchmen reach to
control or to manipulate it, and they are protected by
government and the media because here in America the
churches are sacrosanct.
~

.-

..

-.

.~
"

y\tJf\lL'{

~u-r

"OG,ETHE~

TRUE CRoS~
P\M"l) _
Austin, Texas

l'\lE

..

~l\.. TH E "\EC~

~E~tJ

CDll~CT\NC

voilA.'"
November, 1982

Toward More Intelligence

Richard Smith

SHEEP IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING

Humanism is one of those nice sweet words like motherhood. Who could possibly be against it? On its face it
connotes everything nice and noble to which anyone would
want to aspire.
However, motherhood has its drawbacks. Women can
bear too many children and cause desperate poverty as
they are presently (usually against their willat the behest of
the church or their male husbands) in Mexico and most of
the rest the world. Also, the image of traditional motherhood can be and is used by unenlightened men to subjugate
women. And women who have found themselves unwilling
to fit the socially-pressured role of motherhood have lived a
nightmare of guilt feelings or continued rebellion against a
callous society around them.
Similarly, humanism has its drawbacks. It can be used to
smother those who want to make some genuine improvements for humanity. How? By diverting people's attention
from the anti-human actions of some people by overemphasizing that the antihumanists are human, too! Thus, a
humanist reaction to someone like Hitler could be - "Well,
he's human, too, so let's not talk about racism or militarism." Even ifsuch were not the position of many self-styled
"humanists," the effectiveness of their ranks would be
diluted by those who did hold such a position. Thus, they
could not work as much genuine positive good for humanity
as those who simply opposed racism and militarism. Those
who simply opposed such antihuman beliefs and practices
would not have to wear a badge of being "humanist"
because by simply opposing racism and militarism they
would be proving their "humanism."
The same situation exists with respect to "humanism"
and religion. At present, we are suffocating under the
weight of antihuman religion. All religion is antihuman. The
origin of the word is "to tie back" and that is exactly what it
does - it ties humans up into a regimented structure of
beliefs and behavior. It is not a "quest for ultimate value" as
Mr. Bahm has confusedly asserted (quoting from an
"authoritative" grocery-store-quality paperback) in another
article, titled "Humanism and Religion," in this magazine.
Religious believers do not quest for anything. They just
believe what they are told.
The essential component of all European and Mideastern .
religions (Note when we use the word "religion," we are
using a European word.) is submission to a god's authority,
always ultimately through an intermediary. (Our understanding of the nature of religion is not advanced by calling
Asian religions like buddhism "atheistic," since they make
Iitle or no effort to scientifically analyze god myths. They
also disdain the known world in favor of a mysterious
"nirvana," which is equivalent to "heaven." ((I'm referring to
the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I think is as good as a
Dell paperback)) These buddhists do not regard hindugods
as myths but as merely "inferior" to their system. All

Page 8

November, 1982

buddhists have simply made buddha into a god - a

legendary, infallible authority - and they are tied back by
rituals and beliefs that have little or no basis in fact.) This is
the same as being a slave, and it is not a role fit for humans.
To condone slavery by focussing on the "love" that a slave
might have for his master is callous and truly inhumane.
Yet, that is the position of "religious humanists" as we have
seen stated by Archie Bahm. Nauseating, isn't it?
There are self-styled "humanists" who do call themselves
Atheists. However, they overemphasize their humanism at
the expense of the indispensable tool for humanity's full
mental emancipation - Atheism. No humanist group will
advertise its Atheists or Atheism. You have to work a little
to find that out. Can such behavior ever make the
necessary impact on our culture to free it from the most
powerful and most antihuman institution (other than the
military - which religion feeds) around - religion? I doubt
it for the same reason that Hitler could not be opposed with
a limp wrist. Such "humanists" do little service for humanity
by hiding from, or making friends with, humanity's true
oppressor - religion. What is needed is for Atheists to
stand squarely and openly against it. Religionists - not
Atheists - should be on the run. These "humanists" are
sheep in sheep's clothing, and they are on the run.
By not plainly calling a spade a spade, by not making it
exclusively clear that the only genuine humanism is Atheist
humanism, the door is left open for the "religious humanists" to infiltrate and cancel what positive good the Atheists
do - as Mr. Bahm has demonstrated. The same thing
happened to the women's movement early in this century.
Ida Harper's biography of Susan B. Anthony, The Life and
Works of Susan B. Anthony, provides a clear example of
that. For 40 years Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B.
Anthony liferally built by themselves the first organized
women's movement. They were Atheists and they eschewed religion, but they did not exclude religion from their
movement. Eventually religious women came into the
movement and overwhelmed it, refusing to give up their
religiosity. Soon thereafter, the women's movement expired (for 50 years), having achieved only suffrage. Similarly, with "religious humanists" you can be sure that as far as
they are concerned keeping organized prayer out of
schools (something they never worked for) is enough, and
little more should be. done to "antagonize" other human
beings, even if they are mental slaves.
That is why American Atheists is the only group on the
horizon that I expect will ever the necessary resistance to
entrenched and established superstition, resistance that
humans in this country, hemisphere, and world need - not
only for their mental well-being but, as a corollary, for their
survival. That's -genuine humanism, and we don't need the
extra weigbt of a badge for it.

$
The American Atheist

1
I

THE AMERICAN ATHEIST RADI

LEGALIZING
THE SYMBOLISM
OF RELIGION
I don't know as yet what motivated your nation to
become almost hysterically christian during the period from
the end of the Second World War to date. It did.
It started immediately after the World War, in 1946. First
a .series of acts were passed by the United States Congress
which authorized the Health, Education and Welfare Department of the United States to give sectarian religious
groups whatever federal lands and buildings are declared to
be surplus by government agencies having their use.
As you will recall in these programs I have given rather
extensive reference to Madison's answer when he was
approached to give federal lands to the church. The House
of Representatives passed a bill to give federal lands to the
baptist church in the Mississippi Territory and Madison
vetoed the billon February 28, 181l. His Veto message said,
"Because the billin reserving a certain parcel of land of
the United States for the use of said baptist church
comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and
support of religious societies, contrary to the article of
the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' "
The politicians who passed this series of acts giving federal
lands and buildings to sectarian religious groups deliberately violated the First Amendment in order to bolster religion.
But, it did not end there. For a series of other acts were
passed also. Let me inform you about some of them. On
June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 907 was passed and in that act it
became mandatory for each federal judge or justice to be
sworn or affirmed into office "So help me god," an official
recognition of a need for belief in deity in order to assume
office. This act violated Article 6, paragraph (3) of the U.S.
Constitution which says, "... but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States."
Eisenhower and Nixon went into office in January, 1953
and it was downhill then all the way. On June 14, 1954 the
words "under god" were added to the pledge of allegiance to
make it read "one nation under god." In the same year
special mailing rates were enacted by Congressional decree
to give all religious magazines a mail rate so low as to be an
actual federal subsidization of the religious mailings. Actually the legal fiction was developed that the religious need not
even subscribe to the magazines in order to have the low
rate and to have them mailed to everyone (wanted or
unwanted), since a part of the church budget could be
allocated toward such subscription requirement! No other
organization is given this break.
Public Law 140 signed by Eisenhower on July 11, 1955,
that is about a year later, made it mandatory that all

Austin, Texas

currency and coins bear the motto "In God We Trust."

Prior to this, dating from a campaign by one rev. M.R.
Watkinson, the coinage act of April 22, 1864 had designated
that "In God We Trust" be put on coins "when and where
sufficient space in the balance of the design" would permit
it. Now, under Eisenhower it came to be mandatory not
alone on all coins but even upon paper currency.
Again, a year later, on July 30,1956, Public Law 851 was
signed by Eisenhower. This officially ditched our old
national motto, "E Pluribus Unum" which means "from
many comes one" (from many people, one nation) which
had served our nation from revolutionary times forward.
The new national motto was designated and it was "In God
We Trust."
By 1959, of course, I had begun the case to remove bible
reading and prayer recitation from the public schools, and
the federal government from 1963 forward introduced the.
Becker amendment, the Dirksen amendment, and the
Wylie amendment to return bible reading and prayer
recitation to schools.
The US Congress was so angry that in 1964 when the
Civil Rights Law was in front of it, incredibly an amendment
was attached that anyone in America who was discovered
to be an Atheist could be fired from his employment without
recourse: that is, with no right to fight for his job, no
unemployment compensation, no nothing. This bill, known
as the Ashbrooke amendment, actually passed the House
of Representatives and was only stopped narrowly in the
US Senate.
Then, in defiance of the case of Torcaso u Watkins (367
US 488) and in defiance of the US Constitution, Public Law
89-554 was passed on September 6, 1966 (80 Stat. 424; 28
USCA 331) that any individual elected or appointed to office
of honor or profit, in the civil service, or the uniformed
service (except the president) had to take the oath, or
affirmation "So help me god" upon entering office.
Of course, by then, in 1965 the massive money breakthrough had come for religious schools under the Primary
and Secondary Education Acts. By that time the segment of
the United States claiming roman catholicism as a religion
had increased to a politically significant number and this
was simply a bid for that vote.
In early 1969 president Nixon introduced religious ceremonies into the White House. In late 1969 the Apollo VIII,in
circling the moon, was given the task of showing the world
what a christian nation could do. In a carefully pre planned
gambit, code named "Experiment P-l," actually programmed into the flight plan, the astronauts were given the
military order to have a spontaneous manifestation of
religious awe at 7:31 PM plus 10 seconds,and to, under the

November, 1982

Page 9

influence of the christian euphoric mood, recite the first ten

verses of genesis, all carefully pre programmed
and preprinted into the flight plan for them.
And Billy Graham prayed that it would all come off all
right.
I think it also important to remember the bitter battles
going on yet around the so-called "Blue Law" cases, for the
important ones came up in this period since the Second
World War also_ Two Guys u McGinley (366 US 582) 1961
and McGowan u Maryland (366 US 420) the same year
were both examples of the United States Supreme Court since it could not legislate Sunday as a day of god's rest keeping the blue laws intact by the gross pretense that
Sunday as a day of rest belonged to all of western culture.
The unprincipled yielding to religious pressure was poorly
disguised.
But parallel with this has gone many other straws in the
wind - which is what our vaunted principle of state/ church
separation has become - a simple straw blown where the
religious community desires to blow it and with the United
States government
giving every accomodation
to the
religious community to do so.
I have investigated the history of the process of naturalization. I began this when a trembling Egyptian came to our
offices in Austin, Texas after an eight month frightening
go-round with the Department of Immigration and Naturalization of the United States. Actually the transcript
of
testimony he gave me coincided with the findings in In Re
Weitzman, 426 F. 2d 439. In that case a woman was denied
her citizenship because of her involvement with Atheism
and in the appeal to a federal court won only because a fluke
occurred. Since she was a jew in her rearing and ethnic
identity one federal judge said he would count her as still a
jew - and she got in. The entire case was on an objection to
bearing arms but the plight of the Atheist was ardently
discussed. Justice Blackmun, now on the US Supreme
Court, sat on that case and he quoted an earlier judge with
relish: "One cannot speak of religious liberty without
assuming the existence of a belief in a supreme allegiance to
the will of god." The case was a portent of things to come.
Selective Service cases were just about as bad and in the
cases of US u Seeger (380 US 163) decided in 1965 and
Welsh u US (398 US 333) decided in 1970 it came through
loud and clear that "A registrant who was an Atheist ...
would not be permitted
entitled to classification
as a
conscientious
objector." In both cases men who little
relished religion were interpreted to have some of the same,
that is "in the objector's own scheme of things, religious"
and focusing on some external force greater than human
relationship.
Some of the law is absurd. In Anderson u Laird, cadets at
West Point tried to escape from attendance at church. The
case is still in the appeal process (Editor's Note: That case
was later won infauor of the cadets in 1972. 499 US 1076).
In that the government contention is that such compulsory
attendance
is a "purely secular exercise carried out for
purely secular reasons." I can almost hear you cry out,
"What could it be?" Why the officers must be trained to
understand the religious sentiments of their men! But, in so
doing, the roman catholics go to mass and the protestants
to services and the jews to their synagogue. They never

Page 10

cross sectarian lines!

In January 1972 the US voted to circumvent all copyright
laws in order to give the mormons a perpetual copyright to
their religious books. In February 1972 the Equal Employment Opportunity
law was amended so that all religious
organizations are exempt from it. Now, the Black man who
cleans up at the local roman catholic church may need to be
roman catholic to get the job. And, in March, 1972 the Dept.
of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance issued an
order that all federal contractors,
subcontractors
and
federally assisted firms are required to keep records of
religious affiliations of their employees and determine the
number of jews and roman catholics occupying executive
and middle management positions.
Who is paranoid now?
There is a concerted
legal drive to make us into a
christian nation symbolically - and it contravenes all the
concepts of state/church
separation with which we began
the nation.
I call this the fight for religious symbols. The religious
people in our community are not that dumb. They recognize that they can't get what they really want - tax money
- unless and until they can convince everyone everywhere
that this is a christian nation. The state has its own axe to
grind. For the special privileged position of religion, for its
being sacrosanct and protected in that image by the state a
favor needs to be returned.
The Constitution of the state of New Hampshire let it all
hang out some years ago. That Constitution states:
"As morality and piety, rightly grounded onevangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security
to government, and will lay in the hearts of men, the
strongest obligations to due subjection .. "
Beginning in 1946 and coming to date the ground has very
carefully been laid to make us appear to be "one nation
under god" where prayer and where the oath (or affirmation) of "So help me god" is important, where everyone in
public office allegedly has entered into that office under a
religious test.
In our continuing confrontation
with the Federal Communications Commission we are told over and over again
that there is no controversy
in respect to religion in
America, that Atheists do not have a right to speak. Every
radio or TV station which refuses to sell us time stands on
the FCC regulations and rulings against us. Every station
which sells us time does so on its own sense of "fair play."
Until earlier this year the total impact of my investigations
had not hit me:
No church in any age of man, no religion, has ever won
either the mind or the heart of man. Left alone,
without the power of force to support it, every
religion, every organized church has failed. The state
has given that force on most occasions. Churches and
states have acted in concert since there has been
either one or the other. Standing alone, trying to get
its own adherents by the force of its doctrines alone,
every single church and religion has failed and has
been succeeded
by another in the struggle that
religion has undertaken for survival.
Now is a good time to see that the failure is final. Despite
these laws, I'll see what can be done. Won't you join me?

November, 1982

The American Atheist

1
I

Merrill Holste

ANECDOTES FROM
THE EARLY HISTORY

OF JEHOVAH
The gods grow and develop with the passage of the years
just as do the tribes of people who create them. The
development of jehovah, as recorded in the old testament,
still grateful today - billions of dollars' worth.
is an interesting illustration of this fact. The concept of
The god-in-a-box fable was a universal piece of intellectujehovah as an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient god is a al baggage among all the tribes in the eastern Mediterranelate development in religious thinking. Students of comparaan area. Greek mythology contains a story about pandora
tive religion know that all the ancient Semitic peoples,
who, through curiosity, opened a box containing all the evil.
including the Hebrews, as is conclusively shown in many spirits, thereby, permitting their escape to plague mankind.
bible texts, believed in numerous baals - lords, or gods of Egyptian mythology, long before moses, contained a story
different localities such' as rivers, trees, ravines, stones,
in which their evil god, typhon, made a box, likewise called
mountains and temples. Each locality, of course, was an "ark," into which he induced his brother, the good god
osiris, to enter. Typhon clamped the lid down, soldered it
believed to be the private preserve of its own particular
tutelary spirit - ghost, spook, nymph, dryad, pyxie, satyr,
tight and cast it into the Nile. Thus it became osiris's coffin.
faun or god. The Hebrews believed as all the other Semites
A story in the arabian nights tells of the fisherman and the
did, that their god was one of many; that each nation had its djinn. In this fable a fisherman found a bottle while casting
own god, all of which were every bit as real as their own. The
his nets. When he opened it, a diffuse pillar of smoke came
first commandment, as was supposedly given by jehovah
out, rose to the clouds and then collected itself together by
himself, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," insists . degrees until it became a fierce supernatural being or god
upon the existence of other gods. Unless the Hebrews did called a djinn. In order to dispel the fisherman's unbelief, the
believe in many gods, such a commandment would have djinn obligingly reversed the process and entered the bottle
once more, much as jehovah, the cloudy pillar-god of the
been completely unintelligible and pointless.
Hebrews, must have done when he crawled into moses's
The exodus story relates some of the original Hebrew
ideas about their jehovah. At that time they believed he "ark." The arabian nights stories arose from the same
appeared to them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire storehouse of Semitic myths as did the fables in the old
testament.
by night. Such a belief conforms to the primitive Semitic
It isn't hard to demonstrate that the Hebrews once
idea that gods were immanent within some object of nature
believed they actually had their god confined in a wooden
- river, tree, ravine, stone, temple, altar, relic, etc., etc.
The Hebrews, according to tradition, wandered in the box. This edifying story is recorded for us in I samuel,
desert of Arabia for many years. Travel must have posed
chapters 4 through 7. In many bible passages we can read
quite a problem to the superstitious, stone age people who how jehovah promised to fight for the Hebrew tribesmen in
believed in a multitude of locality gods. Their leader and their battles. Since they thought they had their jehovah in
chief magician, moses, who learned the arts and wiles and their box, they decided to test his fighting powers. They
priestly subterfuges in the land of Egypt, devised a plan tried to use the sacred box as a "secret weapon" by carrying
whereby they could keep one god for themselves and it with them into a battle against the Philistines. As a result,
remain the "peculiar" people and sole possession of this one the Philistines captured the Hebrews' magic-box, defeated
god, jehovah. Moses, in his role of magician, had his artisans
them, and proved the Hebrew god to be what he always was
make a magic-box out of sacred "shittim" wood. In his role - an impotent fetish whose alleged promise to fight in battle
of priest, he induced their jehovah to adopt this box as his for the Hebrews was only a baseless priestly imposition.
temporary home so that the porters could carry him about
That the Hebrews were convinced they had lost their god
with them. Keeping one's god locked up in this way seemed
when they lost the sacred box is shown by their extravagant
sensible to a primitive savage who wanted to go travelling, though brief affectation of grief and by the fact that they
for in those days gods were notoriously jealous, evil- immediately returned to their original worship of local
tempered, blood-thirsty and quarrelsome. The Hebrews
fertility deities - baal and ashtoreth. Nor did they worship
adopted the god-in-a-box plan as the best way to keep their the traditional jehovah again till his "return" more than'
god from getting mixed up in a lot of useless god-fights with twenty years later, still cooped up within the magic fetishall the other jealous, bloodthirsty, small-time locality deities box. This story, written by Hebrews and for Hebrew
through whose numerous territories they planned to pass,
readers, makes out that the Philistines were convinced that
loot and possibly take over for themselves. Moses's igno- they had in actuality captured the Hebrew god. On its
rant dupes of stone-age culture were eternally grateful to return, the sacred box passed through the land of the
him for devising such an ingenious scheme - and they are Beth-shemites and of Kirjath-jearim. The people in these

Austin, Texas

November, 1982

Page 11

invented by moses and carried about in a wooden box,

places, according to the Hebrew-told story, also credited
this magic-box with containing the Hebrew jehovah. In I unable to act for himself or to know what to do unless
samuel 6:19 we read that the men of Beth-shemesh were previously instructed by some practitioner of religious
killed because they looked into the sacred "ark" of the magic. We have many evidences that the real christian faith
Hebrews. Why? Checking with exodus 33:20 we see the is in the little fetish:
1. The billions of dollars collected for propaganda
reason, as given by the Hebrew scribes. We are told that no
purposes.
(unconsecrated?) man might look upon jehovah's face and
2. Their efforts to insinuate their myths into the public
live. Any Hebrew of that day would have understood that
schools.
the Beth-shemites had looked upon the face of their jehovah
3. Their efforts to influence government in their god's
crouched in a corner of his box, glaring back at them with
favor.
beady, baleful, malevolent eyes, putting such a hex on them
4. Their efforts to begin a church-controlled censorthat 50,070 of them died before its venom had been
ship of literature.
assuaged.
5. The final evidence that the christians have no faith
In I kings chapter 8, we read about the installation of the
in the proclaimed attributes is the constant effort
sacred box in Solomon's temple many years later. We note
made by christians to squelch by law any possible
in verse 9 that the magic box was reported to be empty save
criticism of the little fetish they borrowed from
for the two tables of stone. The reason for emphasizing the
emptiness of the box appears in the next two verses where
barbaric stone-age Hebrews.
The christians show no sign of realizing that their fetishwe are told that the "cloud of god" filled the temple.
Therefore, their god could no longer be in that box as visual . deity is on exactly the same cultural and intellectual level as
examination had supposedly shown. Obviously, the cere- theju-ju fetish of the African witch-doctor. There is only one
mony of dedication had either cajoled or permitted the saving difference - in favor of the African, for, when he
Hebrew fetish to resume his cloudy shape and leave his box discovers that his fetish is a fake and powerless, he has
to take up residence in the roomier quarters afforded by his sense enough to smash it and make a new and (he hopes)
new temple. The installation of their cloudy god in a fixed better one to take its place. The christian witch-doctor
(preacher or priest) on the other hand, upon being told that
place of habitation had been the ambition of the Hebrews
his fetish is a fake, a fraud and powerless, tries to keep up his
for many generations before Solomon finally accomplished
it. That surely was a long time for a supposedly omni- money-grabbing sham, tries to safeguard his racket by
present, omnipotent, omniscient god to be cooped up in a smashing and suppressing by law all criticism of his fetish.
Ifthe christians could have their way, they would enforce
box! So far, we secularists have never heard any adequate
explanation from either christians or jews of this glaring upon us all the old errors embodied in their myths. They
would soon proclaim the earth to be flat; the sun to revolve
theological incongruity.

"... A story in the arabian nights tells of the fisherman and the djinn. In this fable a
fisherman found a bottle while casting his nets. When he opened it, a diffuse pillar of
smoke came out, rose to the clouds and then collected itself together by degrees until
it became a fierce supernatural being or god called a djinn. In order to dispel the
fisherman's unbelief, the djinn obligingly reversed the process and entered the bottle
once more, much as jehovah, the cloudy pillar-god of the Hebrews, must have done
when he crawled into moses's 'ark.' The arabian nights stories arose from the same
storehouse of Semitic myths as did the fables in the old testament."
The christians advertise at every opportunity their belief
in those mythical attributes for their god. Always the
christians are loud in professing belief in the grandiose
attributes, yet their actions always betray the fact that their
real belief is in the same little tribal deity who once crouched
in a Hebrew fetish-box. They prove this by their constant
prayers telling their fetish-god what to do about this, that
and the other thing. They constantly make the welkin ring
with millions of payers suggesting, instructing, commanding
their little fetish what to do about every minor detail of their
lives exactly as any African witch-doctor instructs his fetish.
Such profession of belief on the part of christians is only
empty talk, coming only from the mouth. By their actions
the christians prove clearly that secretly and deep down in
their hearts their real belief is in the same powerless fetish

Page 12

around it again; the rain to leak out of holes in the floor of a

brassy, material heaven as it did in the days of noah; the
stars to be once more mere lanterns hung on the under side
of the brassy heaven in.the evening and put away in the
morning by the host of heavenly angels; men would once
again have one less rib than women; and all diseases,
epilepsy, insanity, etc., would once again be caused by evil
christian devils and demons, only to be cured by exorcism
duly practiced by christian preachers and priests. And it
would once more be heresy punishable by the inquisition
and by burning at the stake for scientists who dare to deny
that such misconceptions are true. The true nature of the
christian religion and its aims should never be forgotten. It
has not changed one iota in the past 1900 years!
~

November, 1982

The American Atheist

tongrtssional Rtcord
United States
0/ America

Vol 127

PROCEEDINGS

AND DEBATES. OF THE

WASHINGTON;

THURSDAY,

97th

CONGRESS,

MAY 21, 1981

FIRST SESSION

No. 78

Senate
Excerpted from. the Congressional
Record, May 21, 1981

Mr. WEICKER - The law of the

land that we are now operating under
by virtue of the last continuing resolution states as the exceptions "except
where the life of the mother would be
endangered if the fetus were carried
to term or except where such medical
proced ure is necessary for the victims
of rape or incest and such rape has
been reported within 72 hours to a
law enforcement agency or public
health service; nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent fertilization of the implanted
ovum; nor for ectopic pregnancy."
Of course, the language we are
dealing with today has as the only
exception the life of the mother. So
we have not debated what is before us
today. This is a ban in the extreme.
Mr. President, I think it is inconceivable that Senators on this floor
are going to insist that a woman who
has been raped carry that baby to full
term. Yet that is exactly what will
happen if the Hyde language is adopted as a part of this appropriations
bill. Even in that regard, it is only
those who are indigent or poor who

will have to carry the baby to full

term. I really do not care to hear
anything about the judeo-christian
ethic or morality when that kind of
reasoning dominates this floor.
Mr. President, I have heard a great
deal- I am going to use exact quotes
from two of the speakers this afternoon. One referred to the fact that we
are running the country by divine
commandments.
Somebody else referred to instructions
from Sinai.
That is the whole issue and it is one of
the great issues before this body.
I care not a whit what any particular religion states, Mr. President, and
neither should any of my colleagues.
Our only duty is to make certain that
every individual can believe anything
that he or she wants and is free to
practice the articles of their faith in
this nation without any interference
from their government. That is the
only matter that is the proper concern of this body; not judeo-christian
ethics or divine commandments
or
instructions from Sinai ...

Despite Sen. Weicker's argument, the Senate voted 52-43 to deny

Medicaid abortions to women pregnant by incest or rape. Today,
Medicaid will provide an abortion only to save the life of the mother.

I am not pleased even with the

restrictions that presently exist in the
law; but rape and incest are exceptions, the life of the mother is an
exception, an ectopic pregnancy is an
exception, birth control devices are
an exception. The law has been set
forth very clearly on the matter of
abortion, and the public policy has
been set forth with great clarity.
This little procedural end-run of
legislating on this particular appropriations bill is meant to obviate all
that public policy and all that law.
The reason given is some sort of
vague reference to orders from above
as to what is right and what is wrong.
... We do not legislate in god's name
but in the name of the people of this
country and its Constitution. That is
the precept that is going to be violated by this type of legislation, and
there will be no end to it. .. Make no
mistake: Should this be adopted and the life of the mother is the last
exception on the books - it will not
be long before that is gone. Then
someone's religious belief will have
been fulfilled.
There is great error in what is being
presented before this body today.

If you care to write to Senator Weicker to congratulate him on his courage in

making this statement on the Senate floor, he is:
Senator Lowell P. Weicker,
313 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Or, if you care to call his office his telephone number is (202) 224-4041.
Austin, Texas

November, 1982

Page 13

Scattered throughout the members of American Atheists are to be found, from time to time, humanists or unitarians
who exhort us to the example of the national organizations of the same and state what they conceive to be the "superior
position" of these two groups. The argument is that the humanists and the unitarians are, allegedly, based on a much
more sophisticated position with, clearly, a hightone "soft sell" which Atheism is said to lack. We are constantly told that
the use of the word Atheism is abrasive; that we must reach out a hand to our religious brethren.
Again and again we have pointed out that the unitarians believe in "one god." That is the meaning of the word unitarian.
And, the humanists cling both to religion and the pseudo- respectability that they feel the cover of religion gives to them.
The response has been that both humanists and unitarians are really superbly suave Atheists and that we do not know
what we are talkin~ about to snv that they still suffer from the cuitural Iao of relioious residuals in their thotl~ht
We are, therefore, delighted to bring to humanists and unitarians only in our ranks, the position of The American
Humanist Association stated in its newsletter "Free Mind" under date of December, 1981. Read and learn. For Atheists,
we do not recommend that you read it. Our typesetter and proofreader had a difficult time keeping a settled stomach
when working with it. We don't really want to pass the nausea on to you.

WHY HUMANISM IS A RELIGION

by Archie J. Baum
At stake are two questions:
humanism?

What is religion? What is

What is Religion?
The misunderstanding
of the nature of religion is unfortunately widespread and persisting. The most popular conception, based on generalization
from too few examples,
identifies religion with belief in god, specifically with the
judco-christian-islamic
conception
of god. Acquaintance
with some additional examples extends the meaning to
include belief in gods and in supernatural
or superhuman
powers. But too few people know that some religions,
jainism and theravada buddhism, for example, are explicitly
atheistic.
Jains, believing both that souls are eternal and that the
world is everlasting, have no use for a creator. Believing that
persons must earn their way to salvation - that is, freedom
from rounds of reincarnation
- entirely by their own
efforts, Jains practice generosities and austerities to increase their stores of "good karmas," which, when sufficient, result in release from Earth. Belief in a savior not only
is unnecessary but is considered an evil, for willingness to
accept help from another is cheating and this results in bad
karmas and greater distance from the goal.
Theravada buddhists believe that all is impermanent;
there are no permanent
souls or selves, no permanent
deity, and no permanent things of value. They too have no
need for a creator, since nothing permanent can be created,
and no need for a savior, since appealing for help increases
bad karmas and prolongs the evils of illusory life. Not only
are jains and theravada buddhists explicitly atheistic in their :
doctrines but they regard religions upholding belief in god,
or creator or grace, as inferior religions.
Other examples are available, but these two should
suffice to demonstrate that defining religion as belief in god
is false. Widespread ignorance of this falsity persists and
provides a basis for misunderstanding
about humanism as a
religion.
If religion is not essentially belief in god, then what is it?
My conclusion after a lifelong study of and teaching about
religions is: "Religion consists in concern for ultimate value
and how to attain it, preserve it, and enjoy it" (The World's

Page 14

November, 1982

Living Religions, Dell Publishing Co., 1964. p. 16).

Orthodox christians locate enjoyment of that ultimate
value as a beatific vision of a perfect god in heaven after
death. Orthodox hindus (advaitins) locate it as nirvana, a
state of bliss from which all self-awareness has disappeared
at moksha. Orthodox jains locate it in an isolated celestial
state freed from desires, motives, and satisfactions. Orthodox theravadins locate it in a cessation of self-awareness as
well as of all desires and satisfactions. All of these religions
locate the ultimate values beyond life. They also recognize
minor and subordinate
values within life, but, generally
speaking, the purposes of present life are to serve achievements beyond this life. Their aim is humanistic in the sense
that they seek what they believe to be best for human
beings. But their explanations of what is best make them
anti- humanistic.

What is Humanism?
Humanism,
on the other hand, claims that persons
should locate and seek the ultimate values of human life
within life and not beyond it. This claim is a common
denominator
of all varieties of humanism. Claiming that
human beings do have ultimate intrinsic values that ought to
be realized and optimized is what makes humanism a
religion.
Many varieties of humanism exist. Humanists differ in
their conceptions of human nature and of human values,
including how to conceive, and then achieve and optimize,
what is ultimate. Some emphasize enjoyment of personal
integrity, others gregarious generosity. Some idealize individualism, others socialism. Some claim small is beautiful,
others that all is beautiful. Some emphasize the values of
reason, others emotion; some culture, others physique;
some enjoyments of the moment, others enduring security.
Humanistic explanations often succumb to reductionistic
tendencies. Whereas some religions reduce the significance
of ultimate human values by subordinating them to some
partly or wholly other-than-human
values regarded as
superior, humanists sometimes reduce the significance of
the ultimate values of human life as a whole by regarding the
values of some parts of human beings as representative
of,
even at times somehow superior to, the values of human life

The American Atheist

Scattered throughout the members of American Atheists are to be found, from time to time, humanists or unitarians
who exhort us to the example of the national organizations of the same and state what they conceiue to be the "superior
position" of these two groups. The argument is that the humanists and the unitarians are, allegedly, based on a much
more sophisticated position with, clearly, a hightone "soft sell" which Atheism is said to lack. We are constantly told that
the use of the word Atheism is abrasiue; that we must reach out a hand to our religious brethren.
Again and again we haue pointed out that the unitarians belieue in "one god." That is the meaning of the word unitarian.
And, the humanists cling both to religion and the pseudo- respectability that they feel the couer of religion giues to them.
The response has been that both humanists and unitarians are really superbly suaue Atheists and that we do not know
what we are talkin~ about to sav that thev still suffer from the culturai iac; of relieious residuals in their thou~ht.
We are, therefore, delighted to bring to humanists and unitarians only in our ranks, the position of The American
Humanist Association stated in its newsletter "Free Mind" under date of December, 1981. Read and learn. For Atheists,
we do not recommend that you read it. Our typesetter and proofreader had a difficult time keeping a settled stomach
when working with it. We don't really want to pass the nausea on to you.

WHY HUMANISM IS A RELIGION

by Archie J. Baum
At stake are two questions:
humanism?

What is religion? What is

What is Religion?
The misunderstanding
of the nature of religion is unfortunately widespread and persisting. The most popular conception, based on generalization
from too few examples,
identifies religion with belief in god, specifically with the
judco-christian-islamic
conception
of god. Acquaintance
with some additional examples extends the meaning to
include belief in gods and in supernatural
or superhuman
powers. But too few people know that some religions,
jainism and theravada buddhism, for example, are explicitly
atheistic.
Jains, believing both that souls are eternal and that the
world is everlasting, have no use for a creator. Believing that
persons must earn their way to salvation - that is, freedom
from rounds of reincarnation
- entirely by their own
efforts, Jains practice generosities and austerities to increase their stores of "good karmas," which, when sufficient, result in release from Earth. Belief in a savior not only
is unnecessary but is considered an evil, for willingness to
accept help from another is cheating and this results in bad
karmas and greater distance from the goal.
Theravada buddhists believe that all is impermanent;
there are no permanent
souls or selves, no permanent
deity, and no permanent things of value. They too have no
need for a creator, since nothing permanent can be created,
and no need for a savior, since appealing for help increases
bad karmas and prolongs the evils of illusory life. Not only
are jains and theravada buddhists explicitly atheistic in their'
doctrines but they regard religions upholding belief in god,
or creator or grace, as inferior religions.
Other examples are available, but these two should
suffice to demonstrate that defining religion as belief in god
is false. Widespread ignorance of this falsity persists and
provides a basis for misunderstanding
about humanism as a
religion.
If religion is not essentially belief in god, then what is it?
My conclusion after a lifelong study of and teaching about
religions is: "Religion consists in concern for ultimate value
and how to attain it, preserve it, and enjoy it" (The World's

Page 14

November, 1982

Liuing Religions, Dell Publishing Co., 1964. p. 16).

Orthodox christians locate enjoyment of that ultimate
value as a beatific vision of a perfect god in heaven after
death. Orthodox hindus (advaitins) locate it as niruana, a
state of bliss from which all self-awareness has disappeared
at moksha. Orthodox jains locate it in an isolated celestial
state freed from desires, motives, and satisfactions. Orthodox theravadins locate it in a cessation of self-awareness as
well as of all desires and satisfactions. All of these religions
locate the ultimate values beyond life. They also recognize
minor and subordinate
values within life, but, generally
speaking, the purposes of present life are to serve achievements beyond this life. Their aim is humanistic in the sense
that they seek what they believe to be best for human
beings. But their explanations of what is best make them
anti- humanistic.

What is Humanism?
Humanism,
on the other hand, claims that persons
should locate and seek the ultimate values of human life
within life and not beyond it. This claim is a common
denominator
of all varieties of humanism. Claiming that
human beings do have ultimate intrinsic values that ought to
be realized and optimized is what makes humanism a
religion.
Many varieties of humanism exist. Humanists differ in
their conceptions of human nature and of human values,
including how to conceive, and then achieve and optimize,
what is ultimate. Some emphasize enjoyment of personal
integrity, others gregarious generosity. Some idealize individualism, others socialism. Some claim small is beautiful,
others that all is beautiful. Some emphasize the values of
reason, others emotion; some culture, others physique;
some enjoyments of the moment, others enduring security.
Humanistic explanations often succumb to reductionistic
tendencies. Whereas some religions reduce the significance
of ultimate human values by subordinating them to some
partly or wholly other-than-human
values regarded as
superior, humanists sometimes reduce the significance of
the ultimate values of human life as a whole by regarding the
values of some parts of human beings as representative
of,
even at times somehow superior to, the values of human life

The American Atheist

as a whole.
For example, many humanists enjoy the value of reason,
but some make reason the supreme value of life(even of the
universe) and subordinate all other human values to it.
Many humanists enjoy the value of romantic emotion, but
some make enjoyed emotion the supreme value of life and
subordinate all other values to it. Whether it be reason or
emotion, health or wealth, privacy or popularity, reputation
or power, self-pity or service to humankind, any claim that a
particular value is the only locus of ultimate human value
becomes reductionistic and in a measure anti-humanistic,
to the extent that it then also serves to eliminate or reduce
other equally available human values.
It is true that personal preferences, potentialities, and
opportunities lead to specializations providing value enhancement. But, when any humanist claims that a specialized and partial human value is either the whole or superior
goal of human life, his claim is reductionistic. It is antihumanistic to the extent that it intends to exclude or
denigrate other equally enjoyable values.
Mistakenly defining religion as belief in god (that is, in the
judeo-christian-islamic god) leads to mistakenly defining
humanism as not a religion. However, when religion is
properly recognized as concern for the ultimate values of
life as a whole, it should be obvious that humanism's belief
that human beings do have intrinsic value and that life
should be devoted to optimizing those values constitutes
not only a religion but a religion par excellence.
Is humanism essentially atheistic? Humanism is essentially positive. It affirms intrinsic values in human life and

Austin, Texas

idealizes their optimization. How human nature and values

are caused is not something that humanists agree about.
But any claim that human beings do not have intrinsic
goodness or that they should not try to optimize such
goodness is anti-humanistic. Humanism is negative in the
sense that it is opposed to any theism, or to any Atheism,
that makes such a claim.
Some humanists, finding enjoyment in projecting theistic
ideals, remain humanistic when they locate intrinsic values
not in the projected god or doctrine but in the enjoyment of
projecting. Those theists who manage to make god or god
ideas serve persons rather than 'proposing that persons
serve god or god ideas are obviously humanistic. Those
Atheists who manage to make matter, mechanism, or
chance serve persons rather than claiming that persons are
victims of mechanical determination are obviously humanistic. Therefore, humanists seem more likely to prosper in
their cooperative efforts if they relegate questions about
theism and Atheism to the back burner.
Humanists should not permit attacks by any intellectually
ignorant narrow-minded "moral majority" to revive any
latent intellectual ignorance or narrow-mindedness among
themselves. Religious humanists are as anxious as anyone
to fight (be negative) against false and evil religious doctrines and practices. But proclaimed humanists, intent on
promoting humanistic aims, who mistakenly regard themselves as anti-religious, not only are self-deceived but seem
likely to exert some efforts that are humanistically counterproductive.
~

November, 1982

Page 15

"GOD" IN THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
By Sherman D. Wakefield
the grandson-in-law

Ex-president Eisenhower and others have pointed to the

mention of "god" in the Declaration of Independence as
evidence that the United States was founded on the
christian religion by the founding fathers, who were "christians." But such an attitude can be taken only by those who
are ignorant of early American history or by those who are
so pious that any mention of "god" can refer only to the
christian god. Not only do other religions than christianity
believe in some god or gods, but the anti-christian deists of
the 17th and 18th centuries particularly believed in a god.
Since it was the deistic god in whom the founding fathers
believed and wrote into the Declaration of Independence of
July 4, 1776, it is important that we look into the nature of
this god and decide whether or not it was the christian god.
Deism arose in England in the 17th century and spread to
France in the 18th century where it was developed and
liberalized in some cases to the point of Atheism by such
men as Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet, Holbach, and others
who are known in history as the Encyclopedists and their
period as The Enlightenment. Deistic ideas were brought to
America before the American Revolution where they were
popular among the intelligentsia. Along with deistic views
on religion there also came scientific, political and social
views held by the Enlightenment, such as beliefs in nature,
natural rights, democracy, progress, science, and humanitarianism (philanthropy). Many of these beliefs were
worked into the Declaration of Independence, but it is the
nature of the deistic god with which we are concerned here.
Dr. Morton Scott Enslin, professor of new testament
literature and exegesis in Crozier theological seminary, in
his article on "Deism" in the Encyclopedia of Religion (1945)
states: "Deism asserted belief in one god, creator of the
universe, but regarded him as detached from the world and
making no revelation ... While there was a wide diversity in
the opinions of the several deists, they were at one in their
opposition to revealed religion in general and to christianity
in particular." Does this indicate that their god was the god
of christianity? The deistic god was one god, not a trinity; he
created the universe but detached himself from the world
and made no revelations to mankind such as the bible.

of Robert G. Ingersoll

All are but parts of one stupendous whole,

Whose body Nature is, and god the soul.
By the 18th century Nature had intervened between god
and man. As Carl Becker wrote in his book, The Declaration of Independence
(1942, p. 51), "It deified Nature and
denatured god."
Thomas Paine, for many years defamed as an Atheist and
only recently acknowledged as "godfather of America" and
admitted to the Hall of Fame, was a deist. Nobody ever
accused him of having been a christian! Read some of what
he wrote about god and christianity in his Age of Reason:
Of all the systems of religion that ever were
invented, there is none more derogatory to the
almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to
reason, more contradictory in itself, than this thing
called christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it
renders the heart torpid, or produces only Atheists
and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the
purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the
avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of
man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter. ..
How different is this to the pure and simple
profession of deism! The true deist has but one deity,
and his religion consists in contemplating the power,
wisdom and benignity of the deity in his works, and in
endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral,
scientific and mechanical. ..
Deism, then, teaches us, without the possibility of
being deceived, all that is necessary or proper to be
known. The creation is the bible of the deist. He there
reads, in the handwriting of the creator himself, the
certainty of his existence and the immutability of his
power, and all other bibles and testaments are to him
forgeries.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, a believer in the deistic god, was particularly
incensed over the doctrine of the trinity. In a letter to James
Smith he wrote:

".'.. Ina long letter of advice to Peter Carr, one.ofhis favorite nephews, dated August
10, 1787 he (Jefferson) wrote: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal
every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of
blindfolded fear."
The deistic god was the god of nature or nature's god, not
the theistic god of christianity. Alexander Pope, in his
deistic poem, "An Essay on Man," described this idea of god
in two lines:

Page 16

November, 1982

The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another

cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth
aid growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of
martyrs ... The athanasian paradox that one is three,

The American Atheist

"Itis now clear that references to 'Nature's god,' 'creator' and 'providence' in the
Declaration of Independence of 1776 were not to the christian god but to the deistic
god... and by 1787 even the word 'god' was omitted from the Constitution of the
United States ... It is time, therefore, that pious christians of our own day, from the
president down, should look to their facts before making public pronouncements on
this subject."
and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the
human mind, that no candid man can say he has any
idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no
idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself.
He proves also, that man, once surrendering his
reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities
the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is
the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility,
which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of
reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.
Jefferson went beyond Paine in that he was willing to
question the existence of a god. In a long letter of advice to
Peter Carr, one of his favorite nephews, dated August 10,
1787, he wrote:
Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal
every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness
even the existence of a god; because if there be one,
he must more approve of the homage of reason, than
that of blindfold fear ... Do not be frightened from this
enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a
belief that there is no god, you willfind incitements to
virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its
exercise, and the love of others which it willprocure
you.
The Declaration of Independence starts off with a salute
to "Nature's god," the god of deism, not the god of
christianity:
When in the course of human events, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's god entitle them ...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights ...
But the Declaration ends with an apparent contradiction:
"with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,
and our Sacred Honor."
The Encyclopedia of Religion, in its article on "Providence," says: "The doctrine of providence is a phase of
christian theism. It is to be distinguished from deism on the
one hand and impersonalistic conceptions of god on the
other. .. An aspect of providence is divine guidance; god's
assistance to individuals in the ordering of their lives."
Hence one would not expect a deist to believe in providence. However, this definition fails to make a distinction
between general and special providence and defines only
the christian belief in special providence. But most of the
deists believed in general providence, which means that

Austin, Texas

when god made the world he imbued it with a general moral

solicitude for man, but that he does not give a continuing
and personal attention to human details. Of course, the
deistic general providence is not the christian theistic
special providence, and really is not what is meant by the
word "providence" today. Many of the deists used the word
"providence" with the general meaning, but Thomas Paine
seems not have used the word when referring to his own
belief. That Paine believed in a general providence, however, is seen from such passages as the following in The Age
of Reason: "Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see
it in his not withholding that abundance even from the
unthankful."
It is now clear that references to "Nature's god," "creator" and "providence" in the Declaration of Independence
of 1776 were not to the christian god but to the deistic god.
After the American Revolution deistic views became popular, were no longer limited to the intelligentsia, and by 1787
even the word "god" was omitted from the Constitution of
the United States. Then in the Treaty with Tripoli of 179697, the foundation of the United States upon christianity
was specifically denied: "The government of the United
States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the
christian religion." It is time, therefore, that pious christians
of our own day, from the president down, should look to
their facts before making public pronouncements on this
subject. ~

REGISTER NOW!
$20.00

The 13th Annual National

Convention of
American Atheists
In

San Francisco, California

April 1-2-3, 1 983

November, 1982

P.o. Box 2117

Auatm, ~exa& 78768
Page 17

G. Stanley Brown

THE MEANS TO THE BEGINNING

Children usually stumble on to the question "Where did I
come from?" and often they expand it to "Where did
everything come from?" Both questions are obvious and
many adults have difficulty answering either. If "god did it."
will not suffice, then science is the vehicle to obtaining an
answer. Whereas a microscopic answer to the former
question has been available for a few centuries, the latter
question has a scientific answer much younger in age.
Modern technology had to evolve before convincing evidence became available. The machines of the astronomer
and physicist, by detecting very weak signals from deep
space, are providing an answer to this question of ultimate
origin. However, the answer may not be convincing to those
who insist on common sense. The people who spend their
lives studying this problem find it necessary to reach
beyond the world of only three dimensions. They find it
necessary to break the chain of every moment having a
preceding moment. If this seems dubious, you may take
comfort in the fact that scientists are still looking for more
evidence and are receptive to informed ideas about how to
interpret the evidence.
This paper willdescribe the evidence and the way it has
been obtained. It willelaborate on the connection between
gravity and the geometry of space and the failure of
common sense. A subsequent paper willdraw the evidence
together and explain the dominant current interpretation
known as "The Big Bang."

alBER'S PARADOX
We can do some elementary cosmology by looking at the
clear night sky. We see a few bright stars, more average
brightness stars, and many faint stars. Binoculars show still
more stars too faint to be seen with the eye alone. There
appear to be ever more stars at ever fainter levels. If we
interpret the faintness as being due to distance, it appears
that space is filledwith stars as far away as we wish to look.
However, ifwe proceed with an assumption of an infinite
universe with stars scattered throughout, a problem arises.'
As you look between two stars you would expect to see
another fainter pair, and between them still another, etc. In
an infinite model universe there is no reason to expect to
run out of stars, so wherever you look, in no matter how
small a patch of sky, there should be a star. So the whole sky
should be filledwith stars and everywhere you look your line
of sight willrun into the surface of a star.
Stars are self-luminous balls of gas. Their surface is bright
like the sun. So in a sky filled with stars, the sky should be
bright, all over, like the surface of the sun. Imagine the sky
filledwith suns! That would really light things up down here.
So this is Olber's paradox (Heinrich albers was an 18th

Page 18

century German astronomer). The sky is dark; the innumerable distant stars do not make it bright.
You may attempt to resolve the paradox by pointing out
that our sun is in an arm of a flattened spiral galaxy. So ifwe
look in a direction perpendicular to the plane we would
expect to run out of stars. True, but in that direction there
are galaxies of stars. And the galaxies increase in number as
we look to fainter ones. So the argument used for stars
should apply to these groups of billions of stars. Still the
paradox exists and indicates a need for more information.

RED SHIFT
Light from stars is rich in information, ifwe know how to
read it. Physicists, in their laboratory, working with flames
and machines that modify light, have learned how to read
light for many kinds of data. Astronomers have adapted the
techniques to telescopes so they can learn more about
stars. One of the things that can be known is how fast a star
is moving with respect to the earth, and whether that
movement is toward us or away from us. The technique
relies on a principle known as the Doppler shift (C.J.
Doppler was a 19th century Austrian physicist and mathematician). The principle explains what happens to a pulsing
signal when the distance between the source and receiver
changes. It can apply to sound as well as light.
Let us suppose that a man strikes a drum once each
second. You hear the sound at one second intervals. If you
ride away from the drum on a bicycle, your distance from
the drum will be greater each time the drum is struck, so
sound willtake longer and longer to reach you, and you will
judge the interval between strikes to be greater than one
second. Conversely, if you ride toward the drum, the time
interval between strikes willbe less than one second. If you
know the speed of sound, and the time interval between
strikes you hear, and the time interval at the source, you
can compute your speed.
The same technique applies to light, except that instead
of a drum we have atoms emitting and absorbing light.
Because of the structure of atoms, the light from them has a
well-defined time interval associated with it. A device called
a spectrograph can measure this time interval. A quantity
associated with the time interval is called "wavelength." The
wavelength will change in proportion to the speed of
movement toward or away from us, and astronomers
routinely calculate that speed. They do it for stars and for
whole galaxies.
In the early part of this century, astronomers noticed that
all galaxies further away than our closest neighboring

November, 1982

The American Atheist

galaxies were moving away from us. None were moving

closer. They called this the "redshift" because motion away
caused all colors of light to be more red. In 1929 Edwin
Hubble announced something even more interesting. He
had estimated distances to galaxies and found that the more
distant ones were moving faster. In fact, a simple relation
existed. If one galaxy is twice as far away as another, it is
moving twice as fast. This was true as far away as he could
measure speeds. So he concluded that the universe is
expanding.

THERMAL RADIATION
All of us are familiar with the connection between light
and heat. A light bulb is hot to the touch. Additionally, we
may have seen what happens when light passes through a
prism. The white light is revealed to be a composite of many
colors. Occasionally we see an automobile headlight which
looks fainter and redder than normal. This is caused by low
voltage, or insufficient energy being put into the light. All of
these are examples of the fact that something which is as
hot as a bulb filament emits all colors and heat and the
relative contributions
change as the power changes. Science classes teach us that light and heat are the same thing,
electromagnetic
radiant energy, and radio and television

(11

- 5{--. J
""".,. lU . .

~.

@ r @

-AI_oJ

I @)

Optical astronomers
have applied the technique
to
measure the temperature of stars. Radio astronomers use it
for clouds of gas and dust between stars. But the most
outstanding
development
in this area occurred in 1965
when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered radiation
from something very cool coming from all directions. By
using a radio antenna at Bell Laboratories and measuring in
several frequencies,
they found a distribution of signal
strengths which suggested something was very cool and
radiating everywhere. Other researchers
confirmed their
work and Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize.
This discovery has cosmological significance because its

J:0 .~

.1.-..

signals and X-rays belong in the same group. Also included

is what radiates in a microwave oven. The difference among
these is the frequency, or time interval associated with
each.
Physicists have found that everything,
even human
bodies, radiate energy at all frequencies. But the amount
radiated at each frequency is determined by the temperature of the radiator. Thus a hot body radiates blue light
which dominates all the colors, and a cooler body has red as
the dominant color. A body which is so cool we see only
reflected light may still emit very weak infrared waves. By
measuring the strength of radiation at various frequencies,
scientists can determine the temperature
of the source.

..........
/

tfAO

A.:

(
Ani

elie

C' ,.

N TAR

I.C

@ @ @ @
8:00

1:00.

8:00

9:00

,@>

CD

10:00 11:00 NOON 1:00

0, 0 .0

2:Oe

3:00

1:00

8:00

9:00

..

A N:T

A;R

@ @

110I10NIGH

1:00

2:00

3:00

@:

10:00 11:00

.-

Figure 1
Austin, Texas

November, 1982

Page 19

material, the greater the pressure and temperature in the

center, and the faster changes occur. Massive stars explode
as supernovas, while light-weights evolve quite slowly. Both
theoretical studies and observations agree on what happens to a cluster of stars. The pattern seen in a graphical
plot of brightness versus temperature is the same for all
clusters. The Main Sequence is a band extending from
hot-bright to cool-dim. Young stars are scattered along it
according to mass with the more massive appearing in the
hot-bright region. With time they evolve, out of the hot
region, and less massive stars follow.
This surface cooling as stars age becomes an indicator of
the age of a cluster of stars. The older a cluster, the more of
STELLAR EVOLUTION
its stars will have cooled from their initial state. Astronomers have calibrated very well the age of a cluster as a
In a previous paper (American Atheist, Vol. 24, No.6, p.
function of brightness and color of stars which are just
5) the life of stars was discussed. It described how a star
beginning to cool. By looking at a Hertzsprung-Russell
collapses out of the interstellar medium and manufactures
diagram they know the age. Such diagrams for clusters in
helium and heavier elements in its core. The speed of this
our galaxy show none to be more than 13 billion years old. If
process is dependent on the mass of the star. The more
our galaxy were much older than
this, some of the clusters would be
,~rr-,~~~~~~;i0f~~~~~'~~~~~,1'
expected to appear older. No reason
~~f~~& is known which would suggest that
our galaxy is far older than its clusters. And no reason is known which
would suggest that the universe is far
older than our galaxy. So our knowledge of stellar evolution certainly
puts a lower limit on the age of the
universe, and probably puts an upper limit on it, too.

cause must be explained. It cannot be coming from the

earth or a star or a galaxy because that would cause the
strength to change with direction. It needs a source of
energy and a mechanism for generation of the radiation.
There are no known explanations in the atmosphere of the
earth or the space between the stars. Scientists find the
most attractive explanation to be that the radiation is part of
a universe cooled from a far hotter past. In other words, this
super cool distribution of radio waves indicates that the
universe has not always been like it is now, no matter how
large a volume you consider.

Frg~~~-'

GEOMETRY OF SPACE

"WATERFALL,"
a black-and-white lithograph by Maurits C. Escher, is an example from the
world of art of how space might be locally quite ordinary and yet globally quite surprising.

Page 20

November, 1982

When a person starts thinking in

very large terms, a natural question
arises: "If I travel far enough in one
direction, will I get to the edge of the
universe?" If the answer is negative,
our universe would appear to be
infinite and a strain on comprehension. If the answer is affirmative,
another question arises: "What is
beyond the edge?" This dilemma
elicited opinions from such great
minds as Isaac Newton, B.G.W. von
Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant. However, all three made the same error
by applying common sense to the
problem. They assumed that what
was true for all of their intuition and
experience must be true for all of the
universe. They assumed that a scale
model can be constructed for the
positions of all the galaxies in the
universe.
Scale models are fairly common.
Architects build models of buildings
before beginning construction.
Mechanical engineers build working
prototypes
of machines before
The American Atheist

investing in the real thing. Hobbyists build scale models of

boats and airplanes and cars. In all of these there is a rigid
distance correspondence; one inch on the model equals
one foot on the real thing, for example. However, consider
the following modeling requirement. You are told that four
basketballs have been arranged so that each is the same
distance from the other three. If you try to arrange marbles
on a floor by the same rule, you will not succeed. Four
marbles cannot all lie on the floor and be equally separated
from each other. The requirement forces you to arrange
three in a triangle and hold the fourth above the others. If
you are asked to arrange five marbles so they are equidistant, you find this to be impossible no matter how you
support them. Hence, you may have difficulty ifan astronomer says that five galaxies, far from us in the universe, are
the same distance from each other. Yet the galaxies may do
what your marbles cannot, and the astronomer has not lost
his marbles.
There is another example of things not being what they
seem. Figure 1 is a map of the world. Australia is a
continent, Greenland is an island. Yet Greenland appears
larger than Australia. What is wrong? The problem is
caused by trying to represent the earth with a flat sheet of
paper. One inch on the map willnot correspond to the same
number of miles at all places on the map. Similarly, six
inches between marbles may not indicate the same distance
in all directions for a group of galaxies having the same
arrangement. Our model (map and marbles) does not
portray the real situation. Yet with maps we can know the

round shape of the earth. And with data from distant

galaxies we can know where they are even though our
models cannot show it. This distortion in our models has
been given the name "curvature of space." It is not
important in the small world of our experience for the same
reason that a flat map of an area as small as a city has very
little distortion. A map of the 48 contiguous states has more
distortion. A map of the whole world has a lot of distortion.
Thus things are not always the same over large and small
pieces of space. In Figure 2 we see an artist's example of
how things may look quite reasonable if seen part by part,
but unreasonable if seen as a whole.
Albert Einstein was able, in his general theory of relativity,
(American Atheist, Vol. 23, No. 11, p. 21), to show a
connection between curvature of space and gravitation. He
found that a strong gravitational force meant a lot of
curvature, and a weak gravitational force meant little
curvature. He was able to apply this to the entire universe
so that curvature in the universe as a whole depends on how
strongly galaxies are attracted to each other by gravity.
There is gravity acting over the whole universe, and
therefore there is curvature of space, or distortion over
great distances. Ifthe gravity is strong enough, the universe
willbe finite and unbounded, like the surface of a ball. Ifnot,
the universe willbe infinite and forever expanding. Which is
true depends on the average amount of matter in the
universe per unit volume, or its density. In the next paper in
this series, the estimation of this quantity and its interpretation will be discussed.

$,

*.**.****** *.*.** **.****.********.*********

"It's ONE NATION UNDER GOD, son - not one nation under a Constitution."

Austin, Texas

November, 1982

Page 21

Excerpts from

THE CHRISTIAN CREDIBILITY GAPS

a new book by

Hiram Elfenbein

PART I: BRING ME YOUR YOUNG

How Organized Religion Harms a Child
(Excerpted by Frank Zindler)
(Editor's Note: CHRISTIAN CREDIBILITY GAPS is as yet unpublished. We expect to make it auailable to you
as soon as possible.)
The tragic paradox of formal worship of god is that it
survives from one generation to the next by virtue of its
basic vice: It is preserved by transmitting it to children.
Moreover, it is absorbed by infants when they cannot
understand its literal meaning, nor its emotional impact, nor
- what is more important - its ultimate influence on their
individual personalities and social involvements. As a result,
the entire community is later harmed by instilling a lifelong
hypocrisy in each rising, helpless wave of humanity which is literally coerced and conditioned into pretending to
believe in an extensive system of thought which the infantile
professors not only do not agree with intellectually, but also
which they do not comprehend. At this stage the child can
conceive of a god who rules the world only as if he were
another invisible person merely hidden from the youngster's view.
But the child has no choice or chance to express its own
belief on the theology thus presented to him as an undebatable proposition. On the contrary, fear is relied upon by the
adults to induce the young into accepting (that is, into
acting as if they accepted mentally) the idea of an almighty
and omniscient god.
God must be pleased by the child, since this god is able
and likely to punish or reward the child for the way in which
it pleases or displeases him - he being the source of the
parents' power to provide the child with food, warmth and
security. The child is thus influenced by fear tacitly to seem
to accept the parental notion of god. At this initial mental
stage, the child can have no genuine or understandable love
of its alleged - only fear.
The full effect of this early and almost universal deceit is
totally ignored by students, as far as I have learned. As a
whole, the intellectual members of our society do not even
recognize the implantation of the idea of god in pre-school
minds either as a deceit, or as a long-lasting deceit, or as a
deceit that has any particular collateral mental or social
consequences on the child, on his family, or on his
community.
**********

In the child's learning of physical things (such as the use of

its body), in the acquiring of emotions (such as the love or
satisfaction he receives from his parents), and in his initial
mental accomplishments (such as language acquisition),

Page 22

November, 1982

there is nothing comparable to being indoctrinated with the

idea of a god that arbitrarily runs the world. In fact, at this
point in its career, "the" world is something intellectually
outside of the child's world. Besides being instilled with the
fear he must have for the arbitrary god who he is told rules
that world, he is being given a conception in words which he
cannot put into thoughts.
He knows virtually nothing of the things or forces of that
external world - nothing of the nature or cause of material
wealth, for instance - nothing of the source or acquisition
of goods such as his own food or clothing. And all of this is
supposedly in the control of this rewarding or punishing
god. The scope of this idea of "the world" at that period of
the child's development is so vast and appalling in the face of
the ignorance and non-comprehension of the child that it is
enough to frighten and panic a sane child into madness.
Rather than think about the subject carefully, the child - to
preserve his mental stability - has no recourse but to
make-believe that he understands the existence of god and
his outer world.
We must understand that the adults' first mention of god
to their wards is not direct but oblique, not analytical but
incidental, not explanatory but dogmatic, not with clarity or
detail but blurred, not with reason but with edict.
Thus, the initial word of the existence or the role of this
god of the parental ancestors comes about in some casual
and negative context. His mother, for example, may say,
"Johnny, please don't bang on the dish with the spoon. God
won't like it." Or Gramma will say, "Sally, you mustn't hit
Dotty or god will punish you."
It is in this offhand way that "god" is first insinuated into
the child's mind as the great censor and monitor. Almost
invariably, this unplanned reference to god puzzles the
infant, who mentally digests the admonitions in idle moments of recall. He soon realizes that this instruction rests
on no demonstrable evidence and has no convincing
argument to support the indicated nature and behavior of
the supposed god.
But the child is in a sorry plight. He can then barely
express in speech the simplest ideas. Yet his elders call
upon him to accept the involved notion of an omniscient
and omnipotent god who rewards or penalizes humans for
what they do and don't do. This child soon learns that the
only practical course open to him in his then helpless
dependency on his elders is to tacitly "agree" with the

The American Atheist

parents. This conduct, in cruder language, we must describe as pretending to agree.

The deception is understandable
and forgiveable, since
the child has neither the mind nor the body actively to resist
the false idea of the parents. But the child is still able to form
internally (and to conceal outwardly) ideas inconsistent
with those of its elders. This is commonly revealed when the
inquisitive six-year-old asks such silly-sensible questions as:
Then why does god hide himself? And why does does god.
make bad people? He knows what I want, so why must I
pray to him? When I get sick, is god punishing me for
something? Does he make people poor? When will god
make Daddy well?

means that motion or that object," even though his

thoughts do not take the form of words.
From this intellectual occurrence,
speaking proceeds
onward, in a way which is scarcely begun when it is
confronted with the concept of an arbitrary god. And this
confrontation constitutes a collision of thinking and acting.

In virtually none of the other things that a child learns is

there room or occasion for self-deception or deception of
others. The child relies on its elders for necessities and for
example and instruction in speaking.
Suddenly into this picture is injected the idea of an
arbitrary god which is factually undemonstrable
by the
parents but requires the child to believe without conviction

"The tragic paradox of formal worship of god is that it survives from one generation
to the next by virtue of its basic vice: It is preserved by transmitting it to children.
Moreover, it is absorbed by infants when they cannot understand its literal meaning,
nor its emotional impact, nor - what is more important - its ultimate influence on
their individual personalities and social involvements."
In view of these childish queries, it is incomprehensible
how scientists ignore the primary question of how the
infantile introduction
to god affects his character
and
personality and conduct. Yet I have never encountered an
objective analysis of the influence that a belief in a jewish or
christian god exerted on childish "believers."
On the
.contrary, nearly all commentators
on the effect of organized religion drift unwarily into laudatory exaggerations of
the one or another such creeds without thought or question, without explanation or argument.
Unless we grasp the full import of this initial, hypocritical
indoctrination of the child - who must accept unquestioningly the un demonstrable
instruction of the parents and
learn to pretend silently to agree with an idea (i.e., learn the
practical, personal benefit of mute tolerance of imposed
adult concepts) - we cannot gauge the lifelong harm and
degradation resulting to society at large by this youthful
inculcation of the belief in a ruling god.
If the insinuation of this particular false practice were an
isolated case affecting only one child, we could understandably conclude that its effect - even if of major influence on
the child - would be dissipated entirely in later life. But
unfortunately,
here we have the diametrically opposed
situation. Instead of an occasional youngster, or even a
small handful of children, being morally corrupted by this
deceitful device of being induced to say falsely that they
know or believe in an arbitrary god, we have virtually an
entire new generation
so afflicted with the custom' of
misrepresentation.

or demonstration
- an inconsistent notion of obedience to
some vague whims of a hidden personality that knows all
and demands all and controls all. Under normal conditions,
the child gets all he needs from his parents, and fear or love
of them is not an element. Now he is to be motivated in what
he does by an invisible god who will punish him for doing or
not doing certain things.
**********

**********
For the normal child, acquisition of speech is due to his
own, internal urge. It is a rational mental process of a
complexity that the average adult hardly appreciates
or
understands, since he has long ago forgotten the method he
himself used to develop his art of speech. The child must
learn to associate an action (eat) or a thing (spinach) with
the words or specific sounds. He must think: "That sound

Austin, Texas

November, 1982

"Bring me your young - and your ignorant."

Maureen Hammond

Page 23

"The full effect of this early and almost universal deceit is totally ignored by
students, as far as Ihave learned. As a whole, the intellectual members of our society
do not even recognize the implantation of the idea of god in pre-school minds either
as a deceit, or as a long-lasting deceit, or as a deceit that has any particular collateral
mental or social consequences on the child, on his family, or on his community."
In learning the art of communication, the child is at the
outset only a mimic, first aping sounds of its elders, and then
using them when he learns their various meanings. A child
thus develops mentally by copying sane and logical and
understandable actions of its guardians and companions.
The child in its initial basic learning, learns to think and
express itself without doubting or questioning - as well as
without an inducement of love or fear. It accepts completely, not only the names (sounds) applied to objects ("shoe,"
"hand"), but it adopts the grammar (use or arrangement) of
those sounds.
The habit of blanket compliance with parental thinking as
expressed in vocal language is a necessity if the child is to
learn to speak its own thoughts and to understand the
words of others. But this custom has a strong influence on
its own attitude in accepting this first great abstract thought
of an arbitary god when it is presented to him. The child has
already learned how necessary and convenient it is to use
the "words" or language of its parents. So at this stage,
being obsessed, as it were, with the need to hear and say the
"words" of its elders, it is now pre-conditioned to accept and
repeat and use these "words" about god - as if they meant
something to it. If it is inexplicable to a child why what he
drinks is called "milk," it likewise becomes accustomed in
many cases not to have an explanation of why the
controlling force of all existence is called "god" without
explanation. Just as he became adjusted to the idea that he
must accept the idea and the action of drinking milk
because it is "good" for him, so he is likely to be induced to
accept the idea of "god" as being "good" for him also
without elaboration. Thus, behind the bare presentation of
this initial idea of god is both a materiality, or a quasimateriality, and a benefit, or quasi-benefit. He is inclined to
accept the idea not because he understands it, but because
it is told to him by those he trusts and respects. Thus, the
idea of god is again induced by, and conducive of, a
fundamental hypocrisy of gain, not truth or reality.

deity, cannot escape observing the failure and the avoidance of his elders to answer these defects, such as "Why
does god hide himself?" Compounding this evasion, the
grownupsalso show no desire:"'" and offer no opportunity
- to discuss the childish objections. To the thoughtful
child, therefore, the impression inevitably arises that he is
obliged to accept the idea of an arbitrary god without test,
protest, or contest. It is something the adults cannot justify,
and everyone must pretend to know and to believe in its
undisplayable accuracy.
By dint of constant repetition - all before the articulate
powers of the child are developed - the child becomes
mentally adjusted to act as ifit both understood and agreed
with the idea of an arbitrary god - a position that is fortified
by the fear of doubting or questioning that god's existence.
In this way, the idea is hypocritically repeated until it is a
habitual or reflex mental concept without logic or fact to
support it - similar to the belief that primitive people have
that it is evil to speak to one's mother-in-law, or that
orthodox jews have that it is a sin to pronounce the name of .
god, which in the old testament is spelled YHWH.
The adolescent girl or boy will forget all his own factual
and logical objections to the concept, just as adults have all
forgotten the details of how they learned language. Only the
fear that accompanied the idea now remains. The youth is
afraid to think about the subject; he fears that the arbitary
god willpunish him for merely doubting or considering god's
nature.
**********

The child's outlook toward the older generation, prior to

learning to speak fully,is that they are all-powerful- able to
give the child everything he desires or needs physically. This
sensing of parental omnipotence is soon amplified or
supplemented by a feeling that the adults are also allknowing and that they know everything that is to be known
- even the thoughts of the child - since by their acts they
**********
feed him when he is hungry and cover him when he is cold.
There is probably no method available to mankind to
Beliefin a super-human director differs greatly from belief prevent these two false assumptions of children. But if this
in fairies and ogres because, as we see all around us, childish attitude were not traumatically interfered with, it is
likely that the correction of the false beliefs would come
organized religion based on that arbitrary god flourishes
everywhere in our culture - from our pennies which say "In about slowly and painlessly for the children. Just as false
god we trust" to our public meetings with prayers to god to notions are later dissipated about the stork bringing baby
"Give us this day our daily bread." And these expressions of brothers, or that reindeer bring santa claus across the skies,
so the erroneous concepts, self-acquired by the infant as to
constant reminder are maintained and supported completelyby adults. The grownup preservation of this institution, by . its parents' knowledge and power, would slowly crumble
dint of unremitting stern repetition, is evidence of the
away.
But it is the crudeness and abruptness of the parents in
persevering nature of the falsely originated belief in an
disillusioning the child when submitting the idea of an
arbitrary god - which is self-perpetuating indoctrination.
The normal child-thinker, on encountering the notion of a arbitrary god that is of lasting harm. Even the casual or

Page 24

November, 1982

The American Atheist

subtly-indirect way used by parents, such as I have already

described, is one of major impact. In the first place, besides
introducing the element of omniscience and omnipotence
of the arbitrary god, the parents are implying that not only is
the child to be guided by the wishes of the new deity, but the
parents also are acting toward the child, primarily not out of
love or justice or deservingness, but out of the same desire
to appease the arbitary god which they desire to instillin the
child. In short, the child must feel that the care and
attention spent on it by the parents is not that of those
acting as benefactors, but that of people acting as agents
for an arbitrary god. .

The important factor in this conjunction of learning

language and being told of an arbitary god, is that the child
is told something contrary to, and at variance with, all his
preceding learning processes. The adult does not wave an
object before the child, saying, "This is god; this is god." so
that the child may reason what the sound "god" refers to.
Quite otherwise, "god" is presented in absentia, as something invisible. The tendered idea is a mere telling, with no
such visualization of an accompanying act or thing, such as .
accompanies the parents in teaching of the words "doll,"
"don't," "drink," "bath," and "stand up."
The cogitation induced by mention of god to a child is

"But the child is in a sorry plight. He can then barely express in speech the simplest
ideas. Yet his elders call upon him to accept the involved notion of an omniscient and
omnipotent god who rewards or penalizes humans for what they do and don't do.
This child soon learns that the only practical course open to him in his then helpless
dependency on his elders is to tacitly 'agree' with the parents. This conduct, in cruder
language, we must describe as pretending to agree."
If, however, the child does not make this last interpretation of why the parents take care of him, the alternative
thought remains open to it: that the parents do not mean
what they say about the duty to please god. Either attitude
assumed by the child is thus the adoption of a hypocritical
parental example.
There is another ramification of this matter when, like a
blown-up balloon pricked by a pin, the idolizing offspring's
exaltation of its parents as the height of knowledge and
power is abruptly deflated by the bewildering announcement that a hidden arbitary god rules the world and knows
all that happens. This disclosure to the budding intellect is,
as far as I can observe, the first ideological abstract learning
of a major sort which it has met. From thinking of facts
-observable realities - the child is irrationally dragged to
hypothesis and conjecture about an undetectable and
unverifiable hidden identity which it can imagine only as a
person.
Furthermore, we must consider the fact that this unanswerable question as to whether an arbitrary god exists is a
question which, until its presentation, has no parallel in the
child's experiences in the depth of its intellectual nature.
The greatest mental effort thus far exercised by the child is
the learning of language - a truly heroic mental accomplishment.
A child who is taught to "eat" is taught something to do
with his mouth and his food, and perhaps with his spoon.
But in his mind, "eat" may mean either the act of swallowing, or the food he is consuming, or it may mean stirring the
dishful with his spoon. He must learn to make these
distinctions. And this calls for lengthy observation and
analysis of when and to what the word "eat" is applied by his
mother in feeding him.
Yet no sooner has the infant accomplished this almost
miraculous task of puzzle-solving, when he is met with the
bewildering idea of an arbitary god about which he "learns"
in a new way - by being told, not taught. And in this he
"learns" by believing, not by knowing or experiencing.

Austin, Texas

therefore entirely strange to it, since the pattern of the idea

has no means of being verified in substance. Everything else
it has learned until that moment has verification. Language
until then is a means of expressing the child's relation to the
material things known by it. But "god" is introduced in a
new, non-material, absent, unknown capacity - an abstraction, not a reality - and he can only imagine such an entity
as an actual but absent person.
Thus, teaching - telling - a child about god at this stage
is a backward step for him intellectually. Instead of advancing him mentally, by enabling him to learn by his own
thought-processes from observable data, the parent or
adult inculcator of god coerces and intimidates the child
into pretending to know the non-physical, non-confirmable
idea of an arbitrary god. This instance of indoctrination

November, 1982

Page 25

"Ifthe insinuation of this particular false practice were an isolated case affecting
only one child, we could understandably conclude that its effect - even if of major
influence on the child -would be dissipated entirely in later life. But unfortunately,
here we have the diametrically opposed situation. Instead of an occasional youngster, or even a small handful of children, being morally corrupted by this deceitful
device of being induced to say falsely that they know or believe in an arbitrary god, we
have virtually an entire new generation so afflicted with the custom of misrepresentation."
becomes the model par excellence: "Believe what you are
told; or pretend to believe what you are told. Don't demand
verification; don't use your reason."
The parents' forceful suppression of the child's legitimate
queries aobut an arbitrary god when it first tries to
comprehend the idea thus becomes an ingrown pattern of
illogical thinking after the child grows up. The infant's tacit
acceptance of the obvious nonsense of that idea becomes
the model of its later hypocrisy. How prevalent this
hypocrisy is is only too well known to the readers of this
periodical. To repeat them here would render this article
unmanageable. How pervasive they are I have shown in my
book on Organized Religion: The Great Game of Make
Believe.

Another immoral influence of formalized theologies is the

direct result of praying. The child is told to pray almost
simultaneously with being told of the arbitrary god who
rules his new little world. It is in this situation that we must
judge the ethical and social force of all organized religion.
The two concepts - an arbitrary god, and prayer - to him
are inseparably interlaced. To a child, a god who must be
obeyed means only one who must be asked for things. To a
child able to learn a most complicated language even in its
simplest, baby-talk pattern, a rewarding or punishing god
who has the nature of man must be appeased. Even to the
more learned parent, the introduction of god would serve
no useful purpose unless he was presented to the child as a
punisher or rewarder. Telling the child that god merely
exists as an observer and does not interfere with human
affairs would completely destroy the desired concept of
god. Ifgod does not interfere, he can be - and would be ignored. Both parent and child would reason this out.
Hence, it becomes necessary on the part of the parent to tell
the child that god can and willreward or punish good or bad
deeds of the child.
The immorality of this doctrine has escaped all religionists so far. Yet it ought to be self-evident. It teaches the child
to conform to "god's wishes": Do this or that solely because
"god desires it." What is so plain and yet is unseen by
religious indoctrinators of children is that the young, by this
precept, are told to do things regardless of right or wrong.
For example, an orthodox jewish child is instructed not to
indulge in both milk and meat at the same meal. Or a
catholic child has, until recently been directed not to eat
meat on Friday or during lent. But no effort is made to

convince either child of the "rightness" of the dietary

restraint - except that indulgence on such occasions is
frowned upon by jehovah or jesus.
. The child, however, cannot see - and cannot be shown
- that these prohibited feelings are wrong, illogical, sinful,
harmful, or painful. The child learns that the god of his
fathers is truly arbitrary and not necessarily sensible.
From this manifestation and experience, we conclude
that the inducement of such irrational attitudes and behaviors in the young, behaviors which are retained throughout
most adult lives, creates a permanent corruption of childish
and, as a sequel, of adult psychology. The child suppresses
its awareness of these manifest discrepancies at first
because of its inability to express itself adequately in speech
and soon thereafter because all argument or dissent is
forcefully forbidden by the parent as sacrilegious. In this
way, conformity becomes a hypocritical expedient.
But far more damaging to the personality is the childish
recognition of the silliness of the various religious customs
whose observance is required by the "all-knowing" god: If
god makes such senseless rules, god is a fool. Ifgod is a fool,
he cannot know everything. Ifgod doesn't know everything,
he cannot know what I hide from him. And ifI can fool god, I
can fool people, too. Again, this realization produces
hypocrisy - while preserving "religion."
So, by dint of parental reiteration the child is conditioned
to react to these pretended beliefs about god as if he
believed them - when in fact he does not believe them
subconsciously. He learns to conceal his true belief. Just as
Pavlov "taught" a dog to make his mouth water at the sound
of a bell as if he were hungry, so we are "taught"
hypocritically to "believe" in the all-knowing god whom we
know not at all.
Finally, it is unavoidable for us to conclude from the texts
of the "holy gospels" that the organizers of the new jewish
messianic faith were well aware of most of what we have
said above. There is no other credible explanation for the
writers of the new testament putting the following words
into jesus's mouth:
"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid
them not: for of such is the kingdom of god. Verily I
say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of god as a little child shall in no wise enter
therein.
(Emphasis added) mark 10:14, luke 18:16
~.

Telling the child that god merely exists as an observer and does not interfere with
human affairs would completely destroy the desired concept of god. If god does not
interfere, he can he - and would be - ignored."
Page 26

November, 1982

The American Atheist

STATEMENT OF FRED G. LURIE

In early July of this year, the state of Tennessee passed legislation (Chapter 899 of the Tennessee Public Acts of 1982)
which provided: "At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in
charge of the room in which such class is held shall announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute in
duration, shall be observed for meditation or prayer or personal beliefs and during any such period, silence shall be
maintained. "
Working together with the ACLU the Tennessee Chapter of American Atheists prepared to participate in a suit which
was to be filed challenging this legislation. In the middle of the continuing conferences, the attorney for that Chapter
awoke one morning to read in the newspapers that the ACLU had filed the challenge alone. American Atheist member,
Fred G. Lurie, who was a planned plaintiff in the action, was considerably discomposed with the events and decided that
he would ask the court itself to include him in the case. Therefore, on July 19th, he filed a pleading to intervene in the case.
While Fred was planning this, your editor initiated a lengthy telephone conversation with him, in which she advised that
since the ACLU had seen fit to jump the gun on the projected joint action, it would most probably be wise to permit ACLU
to go ahead without American Atheists. It would save our organization money andACLU is sufficiently proficient in these
cases that the issue would be faced. However, Fred was reading the Nashville newspapers, seeing the television and
hearing the radio. He felt that the issue of Atheist children's rights, or Atheist parents' rights were not being presented. He
hoped by his intervention to be able to make both the court and the media aware that this was at issue too. Not alone was
a religious child to be protected, but an Atheist child as well. Your editor opined that the court would not give a damn and
most probably would deny his motion to intervene.
Fred was then working on a statement which he felt that the news media would accept if he intervened in the suit. Your
editor warned that the media would not give a damn how any Atheist felt about the situation and would not give any
coverage to it. Therefore, she agreed that ifF red would write up what he wanted to say, it would be printed - at least - in
the American Atheist magazine.
Unfortunately, your editor's predictions were born out. Not alone did the media
ignore Fred, but the judge refused his pleading to join the case, just several weeks after he filed his motion. But, the
situation no longer appertains that there is no voice for Atheism in our land. As long as the American Atheist magazine
issues, Atheists will have a forum. We present to you, the hopes of Fred Lurie as he tried to enter the Tennessee prayer
case.
The new "minute of silence" law of the state of Tennessee
is clearly in violation of the "establishment clause" of the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
for several reasons that shall be explained. That this law is
only part of an effort by believers in the theistic mythology of
bible religion to see their faith ensconced as an established
religion in the public schools of America is obvious from a
general trend of events that sees Congress ready to
consider a "prayer amendment" to the Constitution.
The many things that can be mentioned to challenge the
lawfulness of the "minute of silence" take on a special
urgency in view of the mood in Congress that seems to
regard a change to be desirable in the wall of separation
between church and state in our country, and to see the
public school become a medium for an essentially religious
exercise. How far we have degenerated from the condition
of historical knowledge and agonizing experience during
the colonial years that sparked the inspiration of the
founding generation of our country!
.
Ostensibly established, among other things, to cause a
large number of the nation's children to develop into
knowledgeable and responsible citizens, the public school
system fails in its service to our American form of government and that of any state when it acts as a medium for
removing from discussion or consideration any belief or
attitude even when, or especially when, that belief or
attitude is subscribed to by a majority, even an overwhelming majority. After all, it is perfectly obvious that when one
person has a new and truthful idea, everyone else is either
wrong or ignorant concerning that idea.

Austin, Texas

The minute of silence or any other form 'of ritual,

obeisance or prayer very definitely causes children to
become future citizens incapacitated by an emotional
conviction that certain areas of thought, belief or attitude
are properly outside the realm of discussion, analysis, and
communication.
Our American form of government is not most importantlya democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. It is
most importantly what might be called a Constitutional
person-ocracy in which any person acting individually or in
consort with others is reserved the right, by the basic law of
the land, to try to change the opinions and beliefs of the
majority. The national commitment of the American people
to the power of a judiciary acting to prevent majority-rule
government from destroying the seedbed of new ideas is the
envy of social philosophers and humanitarians throughout
the world. A minute of silence or school prayer as decreed
by majority-rule law or amendment exalts a certain mode of
thought or behavior as sacrosanct and not discussable,
precisely the attitude that the "founding fathers" saw would
lead to mistrust and polarized divisiveness to the point of
hostility. Then change through adjustment that preserves
the greater sense of humane community becomes impossible and factional hatred and conflict result.
A cursory knowledge of history and the role the established religions have played in creating the divisiveness that
destroys nations and sets one nation against another in war
is all that is needed to appreciate the wisdom of the
"establishment clause" to the First Amendment. The
government of Tennessee is obviously in the hands of those

November, 1982

Page 27

who see their bible religion as superior. They see no need

for an American identity rather than a religious identity to
be inculcated by the schools. If Congress follows suit with
the recommendations of a prayer amendment to the
Constitution, several identifiable vectors of inexorable
disaster will be fixed on the generations of future Arnericans.
As a possible case in point, a prayer amendment would be
interpreted throughout the non-white and non-christian
nations that contain seven out of ten of the people in the
world as putting the American government solidly behind
bible religion as the official American religion. Our already
faltering influence as a "moral" leader in the world would slip
farther and faster. Over a period of time our racist practice
and bible-religion bigotry and propensity for using trade
relations as a lever for christian church money-power to buy
communications-in- ignorance could see educated leaders
in a large number of nations enter into a tacit conspiracy to
see America destroyed in a nuclear war. The trend of events
in the United Nations and the deep hatred of our country in
many nations of the Third World make this scenario not at
all melodramatic.
Believers in bible religion can hardly do or say anything
except as it exposes hypocrisy either hilarious or appalling
in combining unmitigated arrogance with abject feeblemindedness. It would be entirely in character that the
proponents of the minute-of-silence or a prayer ritual by an
entire classroom of children be also inspired to their faith in
the greatness of the religion of christ partly by that famous
passage in which he admonishes his listeners in denunciatory terms to hide their ritual displays and their prayer
performances in their closets. Perhaps the proposed prayer
amendment that Congress recommends willrequire all the
children in a class to troop into the cloakroom to say their
prayer?
There is no doubt that proponents of school ritual
measures are sincerely concerned that a sizable number of
children come from homes where there is little or no
parental example making for a sense of responsibility
toward the community or persons outside the family. For
these children some kind of ritual or prayer is believed to
work' a positive good. Organized religion has a complex of
conditioning words and ideas that are used on children, and
there is no doubt that lawmakers think that some religious
word or ritual magic delivered in an incredibly cursory and
superficial form will work some wonder on children who
seem to be incorrigible. The three main parameters of the
conditioning complex might be described as: (1) fear of
"god," (2) "god" as comforter in the instance of injustice or
hurt suffered at the hands of another, (3) belief in life after'
death as essential to workability of the first two parameters
as well as placating childhood fears over death.
Since jurists and legislators seem to think that there is
properly an area in which the public school can and should
re-inforce the terminology and practice of the theistic
mythology of bible religion, these parameters will be
explained in more detail. Pathicities stemming from this
same religious tradition make an interesting contrast.
The fearof-"god" parameter appeals to women with.
unruly children. Ifmother is too weak to punish and father is
unavailable right now or would not punish if he were, then

Page 28

November, 1982

mother has to make the child afraid of the policeman, or of

"god" or some other handy male authority figure. "God will
punish you" or "You willnot go to heaven if you do that" is
not unlike a voodoo curse, and can be expected to work on
some people in direct relation to how small and young they
are.
Church and temple attendance helps mothers control
boys through the example of men other than their fathers,
and can be valuable when a father is an irresponsible or
criminal type. A male member of a religious group might be
a hypocrite and fail to abide by some or all of the principles
he pretends to believe, but this is quite a bit better than the
condition of an irresponsible amoralist as an example for
children. The church or temple also acts as a social, marital,
and burial club and widow's helpmeet, and gives a woman
some authority to get herself out of the house on the
sabbath. Despite the incredibly demeaned position into
which women are cast by bible religion, it is not hard to see
why so many women hold to belief in it.
The "god"-as-comforter parameter sets up "god" as a
third person intermediary to mitigate temper, the desire for
revenge, the sense of having been wronged or not recognized or rewarded. " 'Vengeance is mine,' saith the lord" of
the old testament. Jesus says, "... and ye do this for my
sake." There is no doubt that faith gets support from these
statements.
Experiencing a life after death in the congenial atmosphere of "heaven" is made conditional on both faith and
moral performance in the bible. That jewish prophets from
joseph to jesus did not see their "lord god" as an invariably
decent sort of fellow is irrelevant to the use of notions of
responsibility and humaneness as conditions for entering
into an afterlife, although the requirement of faith means
that humaneness can never be sincere outside the sect
holier-than-thou c1ubiness of a particular brand of christian
or particular brand of jew.
The notion of life after death as a reward for faith comes
as a felt need to many parents of young children at about the
same time they feel a need to induce a "fear of god." Having
a ready explanation for where people go when they die and
an uncomplicated personal reward promise for good behavior allows of considerably reduced mental exertion in the
job of parenting.
The superstition function of the "god" idea should be
mentioned here, although superstitious persons willusually
have several different things to pray to and "god" might not
be considered the most powerful or most accessible. In
World War II some newspaper reporter spent a night in a
combat zone and coined the phrase - "There are no
Atheists in foxholes." It got wide publicity as proving up
some eternal and absolute "truth."
The plaintiff, then afoxhole Atheist, remembers that the
only praying he observed during combat action was by
someone rubbing and talking to a rabbit's foot. The closest
thing he observed to a prayer into space Was some
occupants of foxholes hoping-at-a-distance to the artillery
well back of the infantry line, with half the deeply felt magic
words of supplication being curses and foul obscenities. To
be sure, a large artillery shell hitting directly on a troublesome machine gun nest was given the same accolade that
the ancient Greeks gave to a deus ex machina solving a

The American Atheist

troublesome problem in a stage drama, it being acknowledged that the proper magic words had been uttered to
produce the intercession.
There is no doubt that the brain ideates words and
images in the hope of controlling events in moments of dire
exigency, as when a gambler rolling dice yells at them to
make them come up lucky. Perhaps school children should
be taught how to rub and talk to rabbits' feet. And a school
showcasing of that phrase from the old testament - "Love
thy fate." - would undoubtedly be denounced by glory
christians as far too modern, secular, and fatalistic.
What increment of benefit will accrue from having
something put into a school ritual that reinforces the fear of
"god?" This fear works in church or temple largely because
the parent is present with the child and the fear of deity is
reinforced by fear of the parent. The school has a moral
influence of its own form of organization in the peer morality
expectations of other children and the role image of the
teacher. Little is to be gained and much will be lost by
intruding theistic imagery any farther in the schools.
Our secular literature is replete with fiction and nonfiction that does a good job giving children a full-picture
insight into lifecrisis situations, although it is to be conceded
that providing comfort at time of death remains a central
problem. However, there is no reason to believe that
incorporating silent ritual or theistic religious terminology
into public school practice will have much effect in better
fitting any child to accomodate the trauma of a loved one's
death or in more easily considering the imminency of his
own. A philosophy of secular fatalism is bound to develop to
make the starkness of lifepalatable to the young and tender
in this age of the emerged cosmology and genesiology of
science. And, it should be mentioned in passing that this
secular fatalism will have a humane moral imperative as
compelling in its own way as that of the christian which has
always been flawed by a too easy escape from immediate
involvement to an ideation of existence in a hereafter.
There has been accepted what might be called a tactful
accomodation area of school participation in presenting a
reinforcement of certain religious terms and symbols to
placate the majority of the people of the community. This
has been accepted despite the "hands off religion" policy
called for in the First Amendment that is looked to by a large
minority who place great emphasis on the pathic effects of
any government reinforcement of the terms and practices
of religion.
A central issue for the court seems to be whether the
minute of silence willbe accepted into the tactful accomodation area. The central issue for Congress with the prayer
amendment plan is whether prayer as tactful accomodation
shall be challengeable as being unConstitutional. That
prayer in the schools could lose for public education the
support of a large number of educated secularists seems
not to bother the ultra-conservative faction who support
the amendment. What with their white racism, christian
fundamentalist bigotry, and support for heavy tax credits
for private school education they are enemies of the public
school system to begin with.
So the total impact of a possible tactful accomodation
practice becomes of major importance to both courts and
Congress, with the courts still having the critically impor-

Austin, Texas

tant issue of basic lawfulness under the present Constitution to decide. In the judicial balancing act of weighing the
possible good that might be derive from another religious
practice in the schools (for the purpose of tactful accomodation) as against the harm would be caused by the practice, a
good starting point might be the notion that the "establishment clause" in and of itself creates a humane imperative
superior to anything deriving from either or both the jewish
and christian parts of bible religion.
All humanitarian admonition found in the bible is always
qualified as a reward device for gaining recognition of the
deity or for gaining power as a means of spreading the faith.
This is quickly made nationally elitist or imperialist by the
contrivance that the "god" of the bible created all of
humanity but is accessible to communication from and
worship by the jewish people exclusively, and, derivatively,
by christians. The power thrust of this thought complex
sees a modicum of humanitarianism combine with religious
symbolism to justify total political and military activism with
this activism often becoming a travesty of anything humane.
The establishment clause creates an American identity as
superior to any religious identity. Qualified solely by the
being a person in this country, its humaneness is purely
empathetic with no ideological ulterior purpose or motive.
Limited by the powers of our government to our own
geographical territory, this humaneness still becomes the
basis for our nation to develop into one of those continental
humanity's countries that must begin to emerge in the world
if we are to have the peace that our good life and form of
government need for survival, to say nothing of bringing
American hope to the rest of world humanity.
Avoiding a community divided by religious authoritarianism where faith is indoctrinated on the one hand and
questioning and communication is avoided on the other is
basic to a free, open, and vital community dedicated to the
person as an individual and humaneness as superior to any
faith. The minute of silence law intrudes the notion of faith
as pre-emptive of and superior to both knowledge and
humaneness, a tyrant's doctrine well-developed in the bible.
The minute of silence is another inching of the foot of
religious tyranny in the door of separation between church
and state. Furthured in the belief that comfort and control
as goodness are a greater truth, necessarily, than descriptive truth that does not achieve quickness in comfort and
control, we are given pause by the knowledge that in times
past this has also been exclusively the point of view of those
who avoided, suppressed or denounced ideas of goodness
contrary to or different than theirs.
The minute of silence law has been implemented by a
community that perpetrates the historical hoax that bible
religion and the judaic-roman tradition are the basis of our
form of government, and, indeed, of all of "western"
civilization. This completely avoids the ultimately more
important Hellenic-scientific tradition. In their hands the
actual practice of the minute of silence would quickly
degenerate into open support for biblical and, particularly,
christian reference.
This plaintiff believes that the ritual minute of silence
perpetuates the authoritarian power mode and devices that
are part of the inherited control system of the class of
religious shamans - priests, ministers, and rabbis - who

November, 1982

Page 29

inherit power to their class from one generation to another

entirely on the basis of the indoctrination of the children of
the community through devices of fear, and with the
collusion of parents, teachers, and politicians.
This sort of indoctrination - that works to elevate or
sustain immune to questioning either or both a system of
thought and belief and the class of persons who sustain the
language, artifacts, and rituals of that system - has no
place in the school system of a dynamic America whose
only hope for survival is to become humanity's country with
its total allegiance being to the human-ness of persons per
se irrespective of any act of religious affirmation or the birth
circumstance of race, gender, or ethnic type. Doing nothing
to reinforce the power of the religious shaman class is an
evident, obvious purpose of the establishment clause of the
First Amendment. It is equally evident and obvious that
other purposes are to maintain peace between the religions,
to cause the American identity to be not dependent in any
way on religious affiliation, and, just as importantly, to
prevent the exercise of honest and informed intellect from
being crushed by religious authoritarianism.
The minute of silence requires ritual obedience not in any
way associated with discipline or an active learning situation. Intruding this practice into the school schedule
essentially expands the function of the school process into
inculcating behavior of a religious or church worship
conformity or mode. It establishes in the school a mode of
quiescent ritual obeisance otherwise only associated with a
house or place of religious performance, and places the
image of the teacher in the memory process of the children
as a reinforcement authority figure to that of some person
who would conduct a religious ritual or performance in a'
place of worship.
Conditioning the behavior of a child with an authorityfigure image that requires obeisance and the withholding of
communication about a religious belief of a majority of
others in the class while this belief is being given support or
an opportunity for display by the authority of the teacher
and the school system establishes a peer-pressure indoctrination and suppression system within the community of
children, themselves, that massively favors a majority
religious viewpoint and the crushing of the prestige and
favorable imagery in which the beliefs of the child's parent
are or might be held in the instance of the child from a family
not subscribing to the majority religion. This is clearly an
establishment of religion in a most virulent form.
In the instance of the plaintiff's child, whose education is
seen to occur entirely and properly within the public school
and family home without the need for indoctrination in an
institution purveying a religion of theistic mythology, the
minute of silence works to exert peer pressure favorable to
the orientation held by the majority of children in a context
in which those beliefs are not only not examined but in
which the minute of silence creates the emotional conviction that such beliefs should not, under any circumstances,
be examined or discussed. This minute of siience becomes
just another form of religious shamanism, with the teacher
becoming an authoritarian and oppressive shaman rather
than an openly helpful resource person ready to give
referents to qualify what is presented as being knowledge.
The minute of silence is as virulent in its own way as ifthe.

Page 30

teacher came out verbally or symbolically in favor of one

particular religious viewpoint out of several held in the
community, for this would challenge the children to wordsymbol thought and reflection at the time and in memory
process throughout life, while the minute of silence stifles
thought with the image of the silent teacher-shaman
authority figure.
The situation is not helped by that large number of
teachers who are educationally and culturally backward
types, not even comparing favorably with the best ecumenists among christian and jewish religious leaders. This is to
say nothing of the failure of the public schools to have
courses in comparative religion and philosophy to present
fairly the thought of the religious leaders of other lands and
cultures, as gautama-the-buddha and kung fu tse (whose
"golden rule" is phrased in an imperative superior to that of
christ).
The statement by the governor of Tennessee, Lamar
Alexander, when he signed the minute of silence billinto law
is disingenuous in the extreme. The state Senate and House
sponsors of the law clearly said that their purpose was to
. return school prayer and religion to the classrooms of
Tennessee.
An Associated Press dispatch quotes gov. Alexander as
saying: "It is important to understand that this bill does not
require prayer in the public schools. It does require at the
beginning of each school day that there be one minute of
. silence." During that silence, he continued, a student "may
pray, meditate, or otherwise consider his personal beliefs,
or do nothing. The bill accomodates religious beliefs but
does not advance them."
That the minute of silence takes its place immediately as
part of a religious conditioning continuum without any
further embellishment in law according to the intent of its'
.fundamentalist christian sponsors can be seen from the
close juxtaposition of the minute of silence and the pledge to
the flag of the United States in which the phrase "under
god" is used. The two rituals take place before class begins,
one right after the other.
The tactful accomodation area so lackadaisically established by the" don't make waves" jurists and legislators who
went along with seemingly innocuous initiatives now contains a full-fledged theistic indoctrination complex. There is
no interruption or attention-span lapse between the minute
of silence and the pledge to the flag in which the
subservience-conditioning adverb "under" modifies the
word "god" in such a way that it is obviously used as an
imagined theistic referent rather than in a non-theistic sense
(Such use isn't valid anyway being attached to or modified
by any other word.). So the obeisance of the minute of
silence reinforces the subservience implied by the adverb
"under" and the silence automatically attaches to. the
hocus-pocus word "god."
Don't the shamans love it! Could there be any nicer
power and profit operation for the priests, preachers, and
rabbis than to have the public schools deliver an unending
stream of dumb, unintellectual, believing slaves into the
churches and temples? Don't the politicians love the
production by the schools and "houses of worship" of
additions to their constituencies who can be relied on to
react with knee-jerk immediacy to certain conditioned

November, 1982

The American Atheist

words and symbols? Invoke the word "god," talk about the
flag, and the voters react as if you knew something about
the job or the issues and problems you willface in office. At
the very least, you are bound to be considered an honest,
decent sort.
The phrase "under god" was placed into the pledge to the
flag by a pressure campaign on Congress orchestrated by
cardinal Spellman of New York - he of the careful plan
worked out with president John F. Kennedy, our only
catholic president, to put a communicant of his church into
the office of the presidency of South Vietnam to act as this
country's ideological puppet there. This was the beginning
of our catastrophic involvement in that country, an involvement that was basically an American attempt to continue in
power a roman catholic government established during the
days of the French empire and bitterly hated by the 90% of
the Vietnamese people who are buddhists.
Ah, the white man "lord god" of bible religion, used as the
basis for military aggression and political control and
subjugation of a people brown-skinned and buddhist. They
were led by one Ho Chi Minh who was a national hero of
liberation to buddhists as buddhists and Vietnamese as
Vietnamese long before he started calling himself a "communist." And the American people just knew that they were on
the side of freedom all along, and if they lost the war it was
only because of all that jungle foliage.
Much of the world sees our American national continuum
as something of a continuation of the British empire, whose
two theme songs were "Rule, Britannia" and "Onward
christian soldiers." If we do not abide by the first, we
certainly have not given up the latter, nor the holier-thanthou cultural imperialism that goes with it. An opportunity
to foist the christian religion is a basic explanation for the
westering of Americans, isolationist in regard to Europe for
so long but interventionist in the Far East for so long. Seeing
a christian Chiang-Kai-Shek supported as "president" of
China by the United States, when there was no such thing
as a christian community in China, undoubtedly acted as a
trigger to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931,
generally considered to be the start of World War II.Did not
"Onward christian soldiers" spark the enunciation by
Japanese leadership of the "Greater East Asia CoProsperity Sphere" that would be an Asiatic defense, led by
Japan against the economic and political and religious
control and domination of the peoples of Asia by the
arrogant white christian American? And was not this
Japanese orientation the basic explanation for the militarily
quixotic but totally meaningful Japanese attack on the
American base at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941? (Note the.
date is even based on the mythical christian calendar.) The
verdict of history will undoubtedly better apportion the
infamy in which that date is held.
For the sake of the position in the world of this nation that
our children shall inherit, it behooves us to look closely at
any unthinking reinforcement of political symbols by religious symbols of absolutism. If the phrase "under god"
urgently needs to come out of the pledge to the flag, the
immediate issue is to not reinforce it with a ritual minute of
silence, or institutionalized bible-referent school prayer.
The phrase "under god" allegedly was taken from
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but the original

Austin, Texas

copy of that address in the National Archives does not

contain that phrase. It was only later put in at the instigation
of one of his cabinet members. Rather than fit Lincoln's
attitude, the phrase "under god" fits perfectly with roman
catholic attitudes as to the way in which the word "god" is
interpreted and indoctrinated for persons of school-child
age and knowledge. Use of the word "god" by the catholic
clergy represents word shamanism at the ultimate in
sublime refinement and insidious corruption. The basic
thought behind the system was developed by Thomas
Aquinas in the 13th century. Europe had rediscovered
ancient Greece in the works preserved in the libraries of the
Arab nations. The elaborateness, completeness, and integrity found in Hellenic thought worked chastening shock on
the scholarly readers of the bible.
Aquinas set about some sort of reconciliation of two
cultural traditions. In Aristotle's concept of the "unmoved
mover" behind or at the nether limits of the universe, having
omnipotence, omnipresence, and capacity for instantaneous "action at a distance" Aquinas found attributes reconcilable to the "lord god" of the bible, who was supposed to be
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The qualities or
powers of "action at a distance" and "omniscience" were
reconcilable into the notion of instantaneous knowledge
possessed by the godhead. Omnipotence and omnipresence might mean nothing more than that words like "god"
'and "the universe" are really synonymous, but knowledge
would have to be separate from physical reality and
controlling of it. This squared beautifully with the first six
words of the bible: "In the beginning was the word."
That these six words are ridiculous, as is the Aquinian
notion that "god" exists "outside time and space" is proven
by a moment's reflection on the notion that existence
means both time and volume, so that the existence of
anything proves that time has always existed and that
volume is infinite. This idea is staggering to the human
emotional system, and not really comprehensible to the
brain.
The mystic experience and capacity has sometimes seen
theistic reference attached to the process simply to put an
end to it and salvage from the chastening experience a word
with which to talk about it. So the bible tells us, "The fool
says there is no god." The fool who said this might not have
been aware that the other fool had thought enough to know
that the right things had not been said on the subject.
In any case, the Aquinian word-shamanism system used
by the clergy and "theologians" of the roman catholic
church sees the positive response conditioned to the word
"god" used in the most intellectually vicious thought control
system the world has ever seen. "We must not anthropomorphize god" quips the priest and in the very next
sentence, the next breath, attaches the word "god" to a
contentious and sometimes petulant jewish prophet named
jesus who snubbed his own mother and took a whip to
moneylenders in a temple after having told people they
should "turn the other cheek" and remove moteness from
their eyes, an altogether anthropomorphized scenario.
"God" word conditioning lets the shamans and politicians
get away with just about anything they want to iricontrolling
the pocketbooks and lives of the vast majority who have
done no thinking on the subject.

November, 1982

Page 31

By way of challenge to the Aquinian shamanism system

some of the proofs of science have been disappointing. This
partisan of the thought of Lucretius was chagrined to see
Fred Hoyle withdraw his "steady-state universe" theory.
The theologians have gloated in times past over the basic
contradiction at the ultimate level of mystic abstraction
between the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
They need not find comfort in the trend of modern
thought. A good case might be made for the notion that a
:great deal of the thought of Aquinas anticipated the thought
of Einstein in developing the mathematics that led to the
formuia E mc-, The hilarious outcome might be something
like: c, being the speed of light, or a function of c, in any
circumstance being both ultimately immutable but also noninstantaneous, then only one fairy can stand on the head of
that pin at anyone time. This being the proof of corporeality
as opposed to spiritism there cannot be, therefore, any such
thing as "god" except in the atheistic context of synonymity
with the notion of an infinite and eternal universe having had
no start in time or space but having always existed and
always to exist. So the word "god" is completely without
value in any ritual, prayer, as a referent for any other word
or in combination with any word in any thought process.
"Under god" in the pledge to the flag is nothing but a
device to put the children under the control of the shamans
and politicians who have always set themselves up as
arbiters of the ultimate in thought and morality. Nothing
should be done to move the school closer to perpetuating
their control over the minds of children.
The minute of silence cannot but reinforce the christian
imagery already present in the public school classroom.
Increasing the incidence of this imagery was an avowed
purpose of the sponsors of the law in the Tennessee
legislature.
This plaintiff believes that the minute of silence performance is entirely of the demeanor of contrite obeisance
expected by bible religionists, and especially christians, of a
child in the process of emotionally accepting that he is sinful
and evil in the nature and fact of his birth. This is
undoubtedly one of the most vicious personal and social
control doctrines ever invented by the priest-class of the
religions. This emotionally and mentally destructive doctrine is the very basis of the christian religion, with the
christian communicant actually participating in the symbolism of a barbaric human sacrifice (wafers and juice representing "the body and blood of christ") to placate a savage
and jealous "lord thy god" and win forgiveness for the sin
into which the person is indoctrinated to believe he is born.
The protestant work ethic of Martin Luther ("When I
work I feel that I serve god) is patently not the work ethic of
jesus christ, Luther's ethic fits the needs of a normal,
temporally healthy and dynamic community. The ethic of
christ is ascetic, quiescent, withdrawn, and parasitic on the
work of others, and viciously denigrating of the work
activity by which practically all persons must win a good life
and the respect of others, something not always appreciated by wordmongers who make their facility the basis for
snobbish mandarism.
The economic ethic of christ is totally communistic.
Although this has worked from time to time in situations of
agrarian communalism, it cannot be the basis for the main

Page 32

November, 1982

activity conformity of an industrial society, and nothing

should be done to give universal and absolute approbation
to what amounts to flippant and uneducated dicta pronounced by a very real and fallible person whom the
shamans of christianity have been able to protect from
analysis on the basis of an alleged connection with an
imagined "god."
The effect of the strong emphasis on total and innate
sinfulness basic to the christian liturgy destroys the selfrespect of the individual. One of the central findings of all
schools of modern psychology as a science and therapeutic
art is that the person with low self-esteem has little or no
capacity for developing respect for others. There is little of
the capacity for empathetic transference and humaneness.
This explains why devout christian churchgoers are so
often the most vicious and hostile members of the community. It explains the high rate of violent crime in protestant
fundamentalist and roman catholic communities. To the
extent that some christian religious leaders are concerned
about the high rate of violence in our country, they ought to
look to their own practice and belief as the root cause and
start of it.
Attachment of moral precept and inspiration to a bible
religion in which faith is rapidly being eroded by the facts of
modern science in cosmology, genesiology, and psychology
causes an erosion of the imperatives to which the morality is
attached. A feeling of having been used or exploited as a
subservient figure by authority persons causes the one-time
believer to develop a degree of vehemence toward the
former faith and everything attached to it, so emotionally
rewarding responsibility toward others that might otherwise develop out of the goodness of innate temperament is
actually discounted or prevented from showing itself out of
resentment over the fraud of the faith to which it was
attached in the person's formative years. Any reinforcement of faith as in the minute of silence is bound to have a
"counterproductive" effect in personal behavior over a
person's lifetime.
Any reinforcement of bible religion as in the minute of
silence causes an emotional acceptance of the subjugated
position of women by a male child, with automatic emotional discounting of the orgasmic sexual need of a wife in
marriage. Failure to meet that need is believed to be a major'
cause of divorce. This means that the male community is
terribly hurt by the discounting of women that derives
directly from bible religion. That women have opinions on
the subject can be gleaned from the literature of the
women's liberation movement.
The plaintiff objects to the minute of silence as reinforcing
lack of capacity in this area of his son's awareness and
attitude. ~ =~~~~~~~~~~~~rIl
IF YOU ARE GAY AND ATHEIST
PLEASE CONTACT;
Gay Atheist League of America
GALA
P.O. Box 14142
San Francisco, CA 94114
Membership: S20/vear
($1 O.OO/yr. for students and senior citizens)

The American Atheist

The First 110 Seconds After A One-Megaton Air Burst

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were "atom"
or "fission" bombs, now obsolete. We now
have many "tactical" or battlefield weapons
with greater yield or explosive power.

Modern nuclear weapons are "hydrogen" (thermonuclear) or "fission-fusion" bombs, with

yields up to 1,000times the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bombs - vastly more destructive.

One-megaton (1,000,000tons of TNT) nuclear bomb exploded 6,500 ft. over New York City.
1.8 SECONDS AFTER DETONATION

BRONX

GEORGE
WASHINGTON
BRIDGE

PRIMARY BlAST
WAVEFRONT

FIREBAlL

RIVERSIDE
CHURCH

EMPIRE
STATE
BUILDING

Extremely hot, luminous fireball emits Intense thermal

(light and heat) radiation at the speed of light.

WORLD
TRADE
CENTER

STATUE
OF
LIBERTY

STATEN
ISLAND

Destructive blast wave moves out at supersonic speed.

Gamma rays and neutrons radlat. outward.

4.6 SECONDS AFTER DETONATION

OVERPRESSURE
18 P.S.I.
s

At 4.6 seconds and about 1.3 miles from ground zero

under the explosion, the primary and reflected blaat
wave frontl join near the ground.

REFlECTED BlAST
-eFRONT

"Overpressure" (air pressure over atmoapheric preaaure)

Is 111pounds per square InCh.

11 SECONOS AFTER DETONATION

WNl VELOCITY
1110 M.P.H.

OVERPRESSURE
~ 6 P.S.I.

At 11 seconds and 3.2 miles from ground zero, the overpressure Is 6 pounds per square Inch,

--

Wind velocity Is about 180 mil per hour. Thermal and

nuclear radiation are strong.

WINO VELOCITY
- 40 M.P.H.

OVERPRESSURE
= 1 P.S.I.

--+

At 37 seconds and 9.5 miles from ground zero, overpressure Is one pound and winds 40 mph. Thermal radiation
is small, but gamma rays may be lethal.

The fireball, no longer luminous but Itlil very hot,

rises rapidly, drawing "afterwlnds" Inward and upward,
raising dirt and debris In the mushroom cloud stem.

110 SECONDS AFTEA DETONATION

10

2
1
0
1
2
3
DISTANCE FROM GROUND ZERO (MILESI

By 110 seconds, as the rising fireball expands and

cools, radioactive particles condense Into a Cloud at
a sevenmlle height.
From "The Prompt and Delayed Effects
of Nue"', War," by Kevin N. lewis.
COPVRtGHT I BY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
A" rights rMefVS.

10

After 10 minutes the cloud rises to about 14 mllea.

Wind later disperses the cloud, though precipitation
may cause early (local) radloactlve fallout.

AMENDMENTI

CONGRESSSHALL MAKE NO LA W RESPECTING

...,

::r:
tT1
tT1

o:
...,

>
~

l"

tr:

::r:

s:
tT1

...,
o
2!
"Tj

~
tT1

-l"

a
o

The Republican Party's chief moneyraiser, Richard Viguerie, says: "We've

already taken control of the conservative movement. And conservatives have
taken control of the Republican Party.
The remaining thing is to see if we can
take control of the country."
(Washington Spectator - 8/15/82)

~2!

o
~
~
~

--...,
-...,
::r:
ee

2!

::r:
tT1
"Tj

~
tT1
tT1
tT1

ir:

ir:
~
~
~

><

tT1
~

-::r:~

tT1

-ro ~O 'H:J33dS -ro WOa33~d

tr:
3Hl

DNIDaI~HV

~O ~d03~3Hl