******* *.

****

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational orjanization,
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 life on 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 life asserting. 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 fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited .

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

American Atheist Membership Categories
Life membership
Sustaining membership
Family/Couple membership
Individual membership
Senior Citizen/Unemployed*
Student membership*

membership

S500.00
S100.00/year
S50.00/year
S40.00/year
S20.00/year
S12.00/year

*I.D. required
All membership categories receive our monthly "Insider's Newsletter," membership card(s), a
subscription to American Atheist magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional
organizational mailings, i.e. new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.

American Atheists - P.O. Box 2117 - Austin, TX 78768-2117

April,1985

Vol. 27, No.4

American Atheist
A Journal of Atheist

News and Thought

2
5

Editorial: Atheists and Death - Jon Murray

Ask A.A.
News and Comments: Political Pandering
Another Sade - Maurice LaBelle
Coming Out of The Closet - Lowell Newby
Mr. Righteous' Neighborhood - Mark Fara
Survey: Perspectives
Immorality and Christianity - Robert H. Countess
What Is Death? - Frank R. Zindler
Virtue Restored - Margaret Bhatty
Dial-An-Atheist
Historical Notes
Z.P.G. and Religion - Madalyn O'Hair
Poetry
Here Come De Judge - Gerald Tholen
Book Review
Letters to The Editor
Classified Advertisement
Reader Service

11
14
15
19
23
24
29
30
31
32
34
35
37
38
40
40

On The Cover:
This issue of the American
Atheist magazine contains the completed report of the findings complied from our 1984 Atheist
member/reader
survey. The March '85 issue contained a demographic
report concerning
the age, sex, geographical
disposition, etc., etc., of the
American Atheist community and it, most likely, will become an historic guide for future sociologists. The American Atheist Center has already, at this
early subsequent date, received inquiries from the media in this regard. This month's report, Perspectives ( p. 19), relates to you the likes and/or dislikes of
the "average" American Atheist in regard to our organizational
policies, publications,
and efforts. As would be expected,
we received numerous
suggestions, some of which have been previously tried - sometimes successfully but more ofter with disappointment.
On the positive side, however,
other suggestions will probably prove very helpful to our future efforts. All in all, we at the Center are finding that this survey report is, and will increasingly
be, a very important tool for all Atheists and related Atheist social studies as time goes on. As with any journal, the American Atheist must first be
informative. Secondly, it should be entertaining.
To meet these requirements
we try to include a number of light-hearted
essays, cartoons,
and
illustrations, so that we can all smile together - on occasion. Unfortunately,
some of the "cold fact" articles - those reporting the sobering side of
world/American
religio-politicism,
tend to make it necessary that we cry together as well. But, laughing or crying, one thing is becoming obvious
-Atheists,
for the first time in history, are finding unity!
G.Tholen

Editor/Robin Murray-O'Hair, Editor Emeritus/Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Managing Editor/don G. Murray, Assistant Editor/Gerald Tholen,Poetry/Angeline
Bennett, Gerald Tholen, Production Staff/Bill Kight, Gloria Tholen, Sandra M.P.
McGann, Douglas A. Barnes Non-Resident/G. Stanley Brown, Jeff Frankel, Merrill
Holste, Margaret Bhattv, Fred Woodworth, Frank R. Zindler.
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in
Monthly Periodical Index
ISSN: 0332-4310
copyright 1984 by Society of Separationists, Inc.

TheAmerican Atheist magazine is published monthly by the American Atheist Press

(an affiliate of American Atheists), 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78768-2596, and a
non- profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to the complete and
absolute separation of state and church. (All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole
or in part without written permission is prohibited). Mailing address: PO Box
2117/Austin, TX 787682117. Subscription is provided as an incident of membership
in the organization of American Atheists. Subscriptions alone are available at $25.00
for one year terms oi.lv. (Frequency monthly. Library and institutional discount:
50%.) Manuscripts submitted must be typed, double-spaced and accompanied by a
stamped, self-addressed envelope. A copy of American Atheist Magazine Writers
Guidelines is available on request. The editors assume no responsibility for
unsolicited manuscripts.

ARE YOU MOVING?

Please us notify six weeks in advance
to ensure uninterrupted
old label from a recent magazine in the bottom space provided.

NEW ADDRESS:

delivery.

Send

Name

Address

Address

City

City
Zip
Mail to -

Austin,

Texas

both

your

OLD ADDRESS:

(Please print)

Name

State

us

old and new addresses.

(please

Atheists,

PO Box 2117,

April,1985

attach

print)

State
American

If possible,

zip
Austin,

rx

78768-2117

Page

EDITORIAL/Jon G. Murray

ATHEISTS AND DEATH

the Director of The American Atheist
A.s Center,
I receive countless clippings

from various hard media sources in the mails

addressed to my attention daily. I try to read
as many of them as time permits so that I
may keep abreast of the "goings on" in the
field of separation of state and church in the
world as well as to keep up with what the
religious zanies are doing in various parts of
our country. It has come to my attention
that during the second term of the "king for
a day" enthronement of our chief executive
that there has been an increase in journalistic attacks on Atheism through the use of
observations of the Soviet Union. I am
becoming rather sick at my stomach about
these repeated and increasingly more pointed attacks on Atheism as a lifestyle particularly in the editorial sections of various
periodicals as one so-called journalist after
another takes off on some hard news event
coverage concerning the Soviet Union to
deride the "Atheist scum" both abroad and,
by implication, here in the good old U.S.A.
I regard most of these writers as intellectual wimps. They are so emotionally spineless that they must have their god, to blow
them up as a puffer fish blows itself up to
ward off a predator, in order to withstand
any of life's minor rigors. If you were to take
their belief systems from them they would
be intellectually flaccid and pathetic, needing help to just "find themselves" in the
morning while looking square in the mirror.
Over and over again, I am reminded that
those who despise the Atheist most are
those who can cope with the ups and downs
of lifethe least. They hate us because we are
happy and because we are living proof that
anyone can walk tall and proud, handling
what life has to offer along the way with no
need of the crutch of religion. We Atheists
don't need to be told once a week that it is
O.K. for us to be complete and total failures
at life as long as we believe because we can
then succeed and be happy after death.
Whenever you can cope with any particular situation better than others, they get
jealous and hostile and begin to despise you.
The jealousy increases dramatically when
you can cope with life, in general, at every
juncture, better than they. Then they really
get steamed. I think that the time has come
for Atheists to start exposing these malingers of reason for the mental jellyfish that
they are.

Page 2

One of the worst attacks of recent times,

of which I have become aware, debuted
recently in the Washington Post and was
then picked up by the wire services for
national distribution. It was entitled "The
Case against Atheism" and was authored by
one Charles Krauthammer who was identified as" .. senior editor of the magazine,
New Repo..Iblic." Mr. Krauthammer took the
recent occation of Soviet Premier Chernenko's funeral which was carried on nationwide television here in the U. [ , as were two
previous funerals of heads of state recently
required in the Soviet Union. Keeping in
mind that extensive coverage of Soviet state
funerals has the primary media goal of
allowing our "masses" to gloat over the
demise of a "dirty Communistic Atheist"
leader, it is not hard to answer the question
of why a journalist would be so low as to use
a tragic event of the Soviets as a vehicle for
ridicule of an entire socio-cultural politoeconomic system.
Since the wire services, naturally, saw fit
to give national distribution to an attack on
Atheism, I think that it requires that specific
commentary on some of the particular
points be made in the editorial of the "Journal of Atheist News and Thought." It is
curious, as an aside, how the national press
always picks up anything that may even be
slightly derogatory concerning Atheism or
Atheists to spread it far and wide while your
American Atheist Center, on the other
hand, has a terrible struggle to get any of its
frequent press releases picked up even
locally. It shows us where we stand in this
"free" nation of ours, but that could be the
subject of another editorial altogether.
Let me now turn to a point by point
examination of Mr. Krauthammer's "Case
against Atheism." He starts out in a first
paragraph by saying that in modern times he
need not bother with the classic philosophical proofs for god. All"we" really need to do
to make a case against Atheism is to watch a
Soviet funeral. Now this is an interesting
statement. The classic philosophical proofs
for god (of which there are seven) have been
refuted and shown to be absurd by a series
of materialist philosophers. None of the
classic proofs for god can stand up in front
of a child, so I was happy to see the author
abandon them all in this first paragraph.
Krauthammer goes on then to list the
specific parts of the Soviet state funeral

April,1985

which disgusted him. He says first of all that

the use of Chopin's funeral march he can
stand (which is damned decent of him) but
that he cannot stand " . . . the massive,
stone-cold setting. The Lenin Mausoleum,
the focus of ceremonies, is a model of
socialist brutalist architecture." This is the
first time that I had ever heard of architecture as being "brutal." Buildings are buildings, and certainly mausoleums are usually
dour structures by virtue of what they
house. I have never been in a gay and cheery
cemetery or mausoleum. In fact, I have
never been in a mausoleum that was not
"stone-cold" being that most of them are
made of massive stone of one kind or
another, have a certain stale odor, have no
windows, and don't require heating, at least
not by the demand of the occupants. Would
the author have the Soviets paint daisies all
over the outside of Lenin's mausoleum to
make it look "happier'? If you have ever
visited any of the tombs of our national
heroes they are not exactly the kind of place
in or around which one would want to have a
birthday party. But Krauthammer goes on
to say that "The Lenin Mausoleum has
nothing to compare man to but its own
squat vastness." I can't believe that even the
height of a national memorial in the Soviet
Union can be used against its people. This is
in distinction, naturally, to the grandeur of
the cathedrals of the Christian West that
remind us of "the smallness of man" in the
presence of god, as the author points out.
To my mind having a burial place of granduer is about as useful as printing flowers on
toilet paper, considering what you do with it
- why bother? In a culture where death is
considered the only doorway to happiness
in another life I guess a burial place should
be grand and a funeral a happy occasion.
We as Atheists know, however, that death is
final and that it is also a part of the natural
cycle. We need not show either phony grief
or exuberance. We simply acknowledge
death for what it is - the termination of an
individual biological unit. It is only that and
nothing more.
The columnist moves on to say that the
speeches at Chernenko's funeral were nothing but party rhetoric. Have you listened to
the funeral speakers at the occasion of the
death of any of our leaders? It is always fullof
party rhetoric of what a great leader of men
the deceased was regardless of the actual

American Atheist

circumstances of his reign. As an Atheist, I

don't like it that the Soviets practice such
public hypocrisy on state occasions any
more than I like to have the same take place
here at home. I feel that at the time of
anyone's death there should be an acknowledgement 'of what they were in life. If they
were unkind, inconsiderate, mean, disreputable schmucks, they should be referred to
as such. Those who knew them personally
should not be afraid of saying that they are
glad that they are dead. Personally, I celebrated when the Lord called home Cardinal
Spellman. Iadmired Foreign Minister Gromyko for the fact that he did not attend the
Chernenko funeral alongside his Politburo
peers because he simply did not like nor did
he get along with Chernenko while he was
alive. That is a more honest and admirable
position than being part of the eulogy of
someone whom you do not respect in life
but participate in a service as a symbolic
gesture of support for "the system." Krauthammer is appalled by "the utter effacement
of the person by the party ... " in the Soviet
eulogy and quotes Vladimir Posner who
recently said in a reply to a question on
Chernenko's health, "In this country the
private lives of the leadership ... are not
subject to discussion."
Posner is absolutely correct. Actually,
this is a rule of thumb in almost every nation.
A national leader, such as a premier or a
president, is primarily a figurehead and
secondarily a true "trendsetter" in policy
matters. When the chairman of a party dies,
and that is all that our president is, you
simply appoint a new one. The country does
not collapse when a leader dies. Things go
on, and the leader is simply forgotten as
someone else takes charge. I see no reason
for the intense personalization of leadership
that pretends in this country. Rank and file
voters have to know what Reagan had for
breakfast each day or off what color plate he
eats or who made Nancy's latest dress. All
of that is totally trivial and non-relevant. I
remember the attempted assassination of
Reagan and all of the next rank of leaders
running around like chickens with their
heads cut off screaming "Who will run the
country that our leader has fallen?" The
media even went along with this. Did anyone
think for a moment that our Constitution
was immediately void and that the country
would run amuck overnight with our "leader" down for a couple of weeks? Perhaps
Alexander Haig did, but I was not worried
for a minute. The private lives of our leadership should be their own. Only their public
lives are of consequence. I didn't care how
many times a day Nixon had to shave, but I
did care that he demonstrated himself to be
a petty criminal while occupying the highest
position of public trust in this country.
Posner's position is correct, and we should
stand corrected here with our messianic
treatment of our leadership. It only shows

Austin, Texas

that in the Soviet Union the people are truly

in control because the leadership can
change as it may but life goes on. Here a
change of leadership is an agonizing ordeal
because we know that we, the people, are
not in control and that we must worry about
the personality of the next leader who may
truly make our lives harder through whim.
Ordinary rank and file people participate in
all levels of the Soviet government, and they
know that they need not worry so much
about high level change; they are in control.
We are not, so we truly need to worry about
leadership changes.
Krauthammer then says that "to me most
chilling, was the open casket displaying
Chernenko's (and Andropov's and Brezhnev's) powdered body drowning in a sea of
fresh flowers. The open bier is a mere
variation on a communist theme: the mummification of the great leader." Had Krauthammer never seen the nationally televised
burial of a Pope? The open bier with a
Pope's body rotting in the Italian heat for
days and days of useless religious ceremonies while a paint brush fullof formaldehyde
is applied to the papal face to keep a nose or
a lip from falling off during the massive
prayers is much more "chilling." In fact, I
find it rather disgusting. At least the Soviets
bury their dead rather quickly after death
and don't pickle them for a week and lay
them out to "rise again." Chernenko, as
Brezhnev and Andropov were before him,
was laid out for those who did respect their
administration to show that respect, and
then he was planted in the Kremlin wall.
None of them were mummified. They willall
rot in their respective holes in the wall. As to
the preservation of Lenin's body in his
Mausoleum, had any of our founding fathers
died when the technology was available to
preserve them as was done with Lenin, I am
certain that such an option would have been
considered. The columnist comments on
this by saying, "In the great materialist
religions, Soviet and Chinese communism,
the resting place of the redeemer, indeed his
frozen body, becomes a shrine." Let us
remember that the purpose of erecting any
sort of monument to a fallen leader 5 to
acknowledge the contribution of that leader
to the society in which he or she existed the larger the contribution, real or fancied,
the larger the monument. I see no reason,
however, for that practice to continue. I
think that all persons' bodies should be
similarly des posed of after death in one
manner: cremation. I can't see using up
prime real etate to create one marble orchard after another. Simply burn them up
and scatter the ashes or use them as
compost. Monuments can be left behind
dedicated to the ideas that given individuals
espoused during their lifetimes that may
have been of particular uniqueness or value
to the society of a whole. Those ideas and
their impact on society are the things worth

April,1985

memorializing, not the individuals. As I

stood before Lenin's Mausoleum in Red
Square, I viewed it as a tribute to the
founding ideals of a nation, not as a tribute
to his individual personality.
Then comes the coup de grace of Krauthammer's observations when he says "But
what struck me most ... was the fact that
from start to finish there was not one
mention of - God." Did he truly expect the
Soviet Union to find god, en masse, over the
death of Chernenko? It had not done so
over the death of Brezhnev or of Andropov.
The Christian mind, for some reason, likes
to seize on the moment of death to make its
best pitch for conversion purposes. This has
happened with the death of all public Atheists of which I know. The word always
spreads like wildfire, before the body is cold,
that the Atheist converted to Christ on
his/her deathbed. No true Atheist ever
.turned to Christ at deathbed. I will leave
directions that my death be video-taped to
leave a permanent record of the fact that no
such "conversion" occurred. I would suggest this to other Atheists as well. What did
the columnist find so shocking about the
lack of a reference to god in the Soviet
ceremony? He quotes G. K. Chesterton
(English essayist, critic, and novelist, 18741936) as saying, "The trouble when people
stop believing in God is not that they
thereafter believe in nothing; it is that they
thereafter believe in anything." Krauthammer then goes on to add, "In this century
'anything' has included Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao, authors of the great genocidal madnesses of our times." I would like to point
out that Hitler was a Christian (specifically a
Roman Catholic) and rose to power in a
decidedly Christian country with the support of the organized church and with
Concordats which he signed with the Pope.
Stalin, of course, was a product of Jesuit
training. The U.S.S.R., itself, was a very
religious (Eastern Orthodox) nation prior to
its revolution of 1917. Many very pious
Russians revolted against many of the same
abuses that spawned our own revolution.
One of the many causal factors in the revolt
was religion as related to separation of state
and church, which was also a factor in our
own revolution. Mao saw China through its
transition from a peasantry nation into a
modern superpower. Stalin led the U.S.S.R.
through its most difficult period, World War
II, in which it sustained great casualties than
all other nations in that war combined. Stalin
and Mao are said to have authored genocides, but they could never approach the
mass slaughter that the Judeo-Christian
religion caused throught the world in its
nineteen hundred years of dominance without even the excuse of attempting to
change the condition of the common man
which is the call for most modern revolutions.
Krauthammer then says, "Today the So-

Page 3

viet system, the greatest of all the failed

totalitarianisms, no longer believes in 'anything.' It now believes in nothing. A nothing
on eerie display at Wednesday's funeral." I
was not aware that the Soviet Union, as a
nation, had "failed." It seems very much
alive and well to me. Why would the United
States be starting new negotiations in Geneva with a power that has "failed"? On the
contrary, the Soviets do believe in many
things that we would do well to start accepting as well: the value of not basing an
individual's net worth on his dollar value to
society, the value of not exploiting each
other in the narneof "success" or "profit,"
the value of being truly desirous of peace in
the world after having suffered the horrors
of a modern war in its own land - something that has never occurred in the United
States. The Soviets believe in preserving the
health of their people, their most valuable
resource, regardless of the population's
ability to "pay" for the service, and the
Soviets could well be emulated by allnations
for the emphasis it places on education.
Krauthammer ends with this line, "The
case against a public life bereft of all spirituality rests less on its danger than on its
Percentage of Americans who believe
the Russians are our enemies because
they are Atheists: thirty seven.
from "Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, March, 1985, p. 19. Source:
Public Agenda Foundation (New York
City, NY.)

utter desolation." I can see where someone

watching a Moscow ceremony on television
could get the notion of "desolation." Moscow has c ne of the world's worst climates,
year round. It is truly "grey" in Moscow
most of the time. The climatic conditions in
the Soviet Union land mass have been a
major inhibitor to its success in agricultural
endeavours. That climatic desolation does
not necessarily manifest itself in turn in the
countenances of the residents of that particular area of the world. In fact, a desolate
climate often serves to foster a determination and spirit that rises above the complacency of it people who "have it all."
I know that I will anger many readers of
this journal for my foregoing "undeserved"
sympathy for the people of the Soviet Union.
Many of you willnot like to see me stand up
against criticism of its system. I have this to
say to al my critics: I have consistently
taken the position that both the United
States and the Soviet Union have positive
and negative aspects in their respective
systems but that it should be up to all of us,
Americans and Russians alike, to get together and build a common world system
composed of the best ideas from both East
and West aimed at the goal of true human
happiness and the unleashing of full human
potential worldwide. This is not a utopian or
unrealistic goal. It can be accomplished, but
not as long as we permit persons such as Mr.
Krauthammer to perpetuate the petty and
vindictive emotional appeals to narrowmindedness of which his editorial is so
typical. Matters of religion or spiritual values, or whatever you want to call them,
simply need to be swept from the social

It's easier for a camel

to enter the eye of a
needle than for a rich
man to enter heaven.

Page 4

April,1985

consciousness so that we can all concentrate on the realities, through both joy and
hardship, of life.
As for death and funerals. Death is simply
a biological certainty. It is as everyday an
affair as is birth and should be treated as
such. We should not allow it to consume our
lives or to slow us down in the least. I can
hear many of you saying, "He says that now
but wait until his mother, or any 'significant
other,' dies and he will change his tune."
Well, I hope that some of you are around for
that day, for my mother and I have agreed
that I should sack her up in a plastic garbage
bag and haul her off to the crematorium.
There is nothing monstrous or heartless or
unfeeling about that at all. If you admire and
respect someone it is up to you to show that
admiration, respect, and love (if any) while
he/she is alive instead of waiting to weep
hypocritically over the grave and what
"might have been." Actual dignity in lifeis far
more important than contrived dignity in
death. The Soviet funerals demons tate an
appreciation for the finality of death, and to
my way of thinking that is far better than any
funeral I have attended in the United States
with caterwauling ministers faking a supposed "afterlife"for the "departed."

IMPI

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A second generation Atheist,
Mr. Murray has been the Director of
the American Atheist Center for nine
years and is also the Managing Editor
of the American Atheist. He advocates
"Aggressive Atheism."

So - empw YOUr
pockets into the
collection box.

American Atheist

ASK A.A.
In Letters to the Editor, readers give
their opinions, ideas, and information.
But in "Ask A.A." American Atheists
answers questions regarding its policies, positions, and customs, as well as
queries of factual and historical situations.
The magazine mentions that Madalyn
O'Hair and other representatives of the
American Atheist movement make appearances on various TV & radio stations around the country. In the area where I live,
the newspapers and TV guides almost never
mention the talk show guests on TV stations, and they do not list the talk shows on
the radio at all. Ifthey mention any guests on
talk shows in the newspaper, it is for TV
only, and even then, only well known sports
figures, or TV actors. They totally ignore
"controversial" talk show guests, and won't
even mention them.
In the future, whenever possible, could
the American Atheist magazine, or the
Insider's Newsletter, print a listing of TV
and radio stations (mention call letters,
station or dial number, time, day(s), title of
program, etc.) on which representatives of
the American Atheist movement appear if known in advance,
I first learned of the American Atheist
movement by pure accident when I turned
my channel selector on the TV to a talk
show many years ago. There was no listing
in the newspaper, or TV guide on who
would be the guest(s).
It was mentioned that there is a regular
American Atheist program on PBS radio.
Since the TV guides and newspaper in my
area never mention PBS radio, I have not
the slightest idea where that station is on the
dial in this area, or the times and days when
it is supposed to have talk shows.
Dan Chilinski
Ohio
You put your finger on the answer to your
query when you ask that notice be given "if
known in advance."
The "lead time" on the magazine is three
months and on the Newsletter about two
weeks. In addition both are mailed to you by
"bulk mail" which takes two days per zone
to traverse the nation. Mail zones, for
American Atheists, are concentric enlarged
rings leading away from Central Texas.
From here to Ohio isfive zones. It takes ten
days for either the magazine or the Newsletter to get to you.
To make such an announcement American Atheists would need to have information approximately one to four months in
advance. But, just about every radio or T. V.
talk show is a spontaneous event. Usually a
talent coordinator of such a show calls the
Atheist Center and asks if someone at the
Austin, Texas

Center can take a "pnoner" (a radio talk

show completed entirely by long distance
telephone), or if an actual body appearance
can be made on a particular. show. It is
usually all over and done in several days, at
most in a week. Your May magazine, if on
schedule, would be printed already in February. The magazines are placed in the mail
on the 15th of the month before their cover
date. The April magazine, now in your
hands, was scheduled to leave Austin,
Texas, on March 15th.
The Newsletter is mailed, if possible, on
the last day of the month before. Your April
issue was scheduled to leave Austin, Texas,
on March 31st.
Simply, what you ask is not possible.
American Atheists does not actively solicit such appearances. The request for an
appearance is almost always initiated by
the "show" which desires a guest. The
single exception to these rules is when a
university appearance is scheduled. Here,
again, the university generally initiates the
request. At that time, the group sponsoring
the program and seeking the guest is asked
by American Atheists to seek out as many
media outlets as there are in the immediate
vicinity and arrange for appearances enough
to saturate the area. When a Chapter is
being formed, or ifAmerican Atheist representatives are for any reason in a Chapter
area, the same procedure is followed.
In such out-of-town appearances, the
person appearing flies out one day, stays
from one to three days in the area, then
returns. It is seldom that a week is involved.
No advance mailing has been possible in the
last twenty four years of such activity
because there has never been a sufficient
time interual in which to accomplish it.
There are many problems with all of
these "talk shows. " Perhaps the greatest of
all is the censoring implicit on them. Generally, with Atheists, the game of "bear baiting" is played. You may recall that in
England a sport of the Middle Ages was to
tie a bear to a sturdy pole in the center of a
square. The more "brave" in the community then came to poke sticks or throw rocks
at the bear to harry it. Remaining at a
distance which the bear could not traverse,
the bear, often with scant food or water so
that his mood would be testier, was "baited" for endless hours.
One must play the game. No one wants a
clear discussion. What is wanted and needed is "a good show." If that is not given, the
guest is never asked to return.
Central to all of this is the point that never
dares to be forgotten. The primary aim of
both radio and television is to make
money - not to educate or inform. Too
many people forget that as they complain
mightily over the fare offered to their eye on
their tube, or to their ear via radio.
April, 1985

The other consideration is that the host

of the show is there to display his personality, not to be a catalyst to precipitate out
from the guest, with his questions, the
fundamental principles to be discussed. The
host is rarely prepared beyond having his
makeup aplied, hair dressed, and clothing
groomed. This category includes many "big
name" hosts. Any information sent in advance is usually not read. Probably no host
has ever read any book which he is
discussing with the author who appears
on his program. There is a staff of persons
who list questions which are on the "prompter," being read by the host. Usually, he
hasn't enough brains to get past saying
"Good evening" and would fail completely
were it not for his prompts. The questions
are often "off the top of the head" of the
staff. The staff is most generally composed
of very young persons, usually recently
employed and with variable, and often
freighteningly, inadequate training. A "standards criteria" for questions has never been
demonstrated on any talk show on which
any Atheist representative from The Center
has ever appeared. (Read the sentence
again. It should shock you.)
Over the years, American Atheists have
found that such appearances are almost
totally useless as educational tools. Also,
they are as bones thrown to the dogs - the
least that media stations can offer in order
to placate the public and give some semblance of covering "all points of view." The
truth of this evaluation is fo.und in the fact
that the guests and hosts are rarely or never
listed in your local newspopers - as you
have indicated. It does not matter if the
bones are of pork or of beef. Your city's
hard media is not alone in ignoring these
shows.
Several years back it became apparent
that unless the content of a television or
radio program could be controlled by American Atheists, its representatives would never have an effective voice. This is what is
now being developed, first, on community
access cable television channels. American
Atheists are not on any PBS or NET
channels or stations. In this, you err. Future
plans include such outreach.
All of the above answers your questions
by saying that it is hit or miss that you may
catch one of us somewhere, sometime.
Generally, the number of shows on which
The Center's staff appears in anyone year,
is about four hundred. Including the appearances of all our Chapter representatives
across the nation, that count might rise to a
thousand or more. But, it's a big country,
and actually that number is small . . . not
even a crumb of what religion receives
daily.
It is a long, tiring, hard job ahead of us.

PageS

NEWS AND COMMENTS

POLITICAL PANDERING
The National Religious Broadcasters'
Convention has become, in the Reagan
scheme of things, a show place whence
he can demonstrate his religious convictions.In prior years, his most vicious
attacks on the collective intelligence of
the nation has been given during his
presentations to this group, when it
meets in convention the first of each
year.
It is tragic that there is such a group in
the United States. For many years
American Atheists has attempted to
obtain from the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) a list of radio
and television stations owned by religious organizations. The magnitude of
the tragedy of religious broadcasting is
still unknown. Even the Freedom of
Information Act could not produce it as
the F.C.C. stonewalled every effort to
discover information. The National Religious Broadcasters was cagey at best.
This year the Reagan administration
outdid itself. Not only was its religious
spokesman Jerry Falwell there, but he
introduced some of the speakers. And
they were (1) the President of the United States, (2) the Vice President of the
United States, and (3) a Commissioner
of the F.C.C.
In introducing Bush, Falwell made a
Freudian slip. After ticking 01/the litany
of conservative religious concerns: military spending, abortion, prayer in the
schools, in all of which Bush supports
that group, he then turned toward Bush
and said, "My friend, the pres ... the
vice president of the United States."
During the time that Andropov headed the government of the U.S.S.R., the
'politicians of our nation took every
opportunity to identify him as the former head of the KGB, the intelligence
service of the U.S.S.R. Not a murmur is
had, however, that Bush has been the
director of the CIA, the intelligence
service of the United States of America
(1976-1977), after he had spent some
time in Peking, China, as the chief of the
U.S. Liaison Office (1974-1975) to that
country.
And on the fourth day of March, on a
visit to his home state of Texas, Bush
revealed through the Waco Tribune
Herald that he will make his full bid to
become president of the United States
in 1988 within the next tWo months.

Page 6

Remember that Reagan's choice of Bush

for a running mate had been "to balance
the ticket" between the right-wing Reagan and the "liberal" Bush. Now, Bush is
also the darling of the more radical right
wing, and the selection of Falwell to be
Reagan's successor. "We've come to
believe, now in 1985," Falwell emphasized, "that he has complemented the
(Republican) ticket." He also complemented the Texas oil interests' fight for
the notorious oil depletion allowance
- which benefits his own lucrative 01/shore drilling.
Three top representatives of our nation's government groveled before the
religious broadcasters. Three such top
executives would not befeatured speakers for the American Association of
Science, or NOW, or the NAACP. They
stay away from any such conventions
- with the excuse that the president
and vice president are too concerned
with executive duties (unless he is runningfor re-election). But, when it comes
to an identification with the most blatantly irrational elements of our culture
- our chief executives are there.
For your edification, we present for
you in the following pages the full remarks of President Reagan, Vice President George Bush, and James H.
Quello, a Commissioner of the F.c.c.

Remarks of the President to the

National Religious Broadcasters
Convention

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Brandt Gustavson,
Dr. Ben Armstrong and all of you distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it's good to be
here.
I've been coming to this annual convention since 1982, and it's always been one of
the high spots of the year. This year, with the
inaugural and the State of the Union and our
arms control preparations and our work on
reforming the tax system, I had to discipline
myself and say "No" to a few things that I
enjoy, but I didn't like - or learn to like my
decision.
So, the other day I reversed myself.
[Laughter] [Applause] Iwas so mad I almost
fired myself. [Laughter] I've decided to give
myself another chance and I hope you will

April,1985

too. [Laughter]
There is a real and a heartfelt reason why
I'm here today. I just sent the budget to the
Congress. [Laughter] And I hope that, at
least in spirit, sort of figuratively, We can all
from here on have our hands joined in
prayer.
AUDIENCE: Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: The next few days, and
maybe weeks, will probably be dominated,
in terms of the news, by talk of economic
matters - budgets and the tax structure
and so forth. But I want you to know that as
we begin the great work ahead of us, I've
been thinking very much about Divine Providence, and turning to our Lord and asking
for His guidance. I have found myself as
Abraham Lincoln did once - driven to my
knees more than ever because there was no
place else to go. [Applause]
But I'm also aware as never before that
what the polls show is true:
In virtually every public survey there are
indications that the importance of spiritual
faith has grown stronger among the people
of our country. Recent Gallup surveys show
sixty-four percent of Americans - adults
- express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the church or organized religion.
Fifty-six percent of Americans believe that
religion can answer all or most of today's
problems. In fact, only one in five doubts the
relevance of religion in the modern world.
And we'll get them, too. [Laughter] [Applause]
As a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I may have a special vantage point from
which to judge these things. In December,
when Ilooked north from the White House, I
would see the huge Menorah, celebrating
the Passover* season in Lafayette Park.
And when I looked south from the Truman
Balcony, I could see the Pageant of Peace
and the creche symbolizing the birth of
Christ. Showing the symbols of our beliefs in
this way and what it - is, for many of us, the
holiest time of the year, is good - good for
all of us, for Christians and Jews and any
others who wish to share the joy of our
holidays.
The other day I was at the National Prayer
Breakfast here in Washington, and I spoke,
as so many others did, of the central place of
faith in our lives and how belief in something
bigger than ourselves is probably a neces*Hanukkah

American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS

sary precondition to peace. And Imentioned
that after four years in this job, I know as
never before that we are all God's children,
that the clerk, the king, and yes, the communist were made in His image. [Applause]
And I've often wondered about one individual there because when I said that, a fellow
in the back of the room - and I heard him
say, "Amen." [Laughter] There were more
than 3,000 people in that room, from almost
every country in the globe. African chiefs,
Central American businessmen, people
from Australia and Europe and the Middle
East. And the room seemed to hum with
agreement that faith and belief are the key to
man's salvation and the only way we'll learn
to live with each other in peace.
Allof you, all of the people in this room are
doing your part to fillthe world with God's
work and make more gentle man's life on
earth. Like St. Peter, and his brother, St.
Andrew, you've been good and faithful fishermen and you've fought the good fight for prayer in the schools and against abortion and for freedom in the world. You
know, perhaps better than I, that you have
never let us down.
And I'm not too shy today about asking
you for your continued support in many
areas including our economic program. It
occurs to me that the doctrine of election
means one thing to some of you and quite
another to those of us who hold public office.
[Laughter] When Iwas re-elected in November, I didn't figure I was being sent back to
the White House to turn back the policies of
the past.

have to some day negotiate because of our

weakness. [Applause]
But all of these things I've mentioned are
pretty revolutionary. All of these things learning to control the government, limiting
the amount of money it can take from us,
protecting our country through a strong
defense, all of these things revolve around
one word, and that word is "freedom." And
as Jefferson said, "The Lord who gave us
life, the God who gave us life gave us liberty
also."
That's what we stand for here and everywhere. And that's what I need for your
continued help in preserving and promoting.
And every voice counts. These are crucial
days ahead of us, in terms of the budget and
taxes and keeping our commitment to rebuild our defenses.
I need all of you as never before. And we
need Him as never before. And we mustn't
doubt at all that He will give us help and
support and encouragement and guidance.
You've given me these things time and
again. And for all of this, I am truly thankful.
And I thank all of you now for your wonderful warmth. I bask in this and willall the way
back to the White House. [Laughter] God
bless you all. [Applause]

Excerpts from Remarks by Vice

President George Bush at the 42nd
Annual Convention of The National
Religious Broadcasters

AUDIENCE: Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: I still believe the government is the servant of the people and not
the other way around. [Applause]
We're trying to get government spending
down, to hold down the huge cost of government, to keep it from taking the money you
deserve to keep for your family and your
future and for God's work. We mean to
ensure greater possibility for the production
of wealth by lowering tax rates through tax
reform. We mean to maintain a strong
defense because only with a strong defense
can we preserve the peace we cherish. And I
found myself wanting to remind you of what
Jesus said in Luke 14:31: "Oh, what king,
when he sets out to make war against
another king - or meet another king in
battle willnot first sit down and take counsel
whether he is strong enough with 10,000
men to encounter the one coming against
him with 20,000. Or else, while the other is
still far.away, sends a delegation and asks
the terms of peace." I don't think the Lord
that blessed this country as no other country has ever been blessed intends for us to

Austin, Texas

During the recent inauguration ceremonies, sitting there with Barbara on one side
and the President and Nancy on the other,
getting ready to place my hand on the Bible
and swear to "support and defend" the
Constitution, Ibegan thinking of the opening
words of that document "We the people .
in order to form a more perfect union
"I
thought of that union the founders created.
First of all, it was a union of liberty and
justice for all. Andjust as important, it was a
union that formed one nation under God, a
moral as well as political union.
Now, that's not to say that it was a union
under one religion. We had and always will
have many denominations, many faiths. But
whatever the denomination, whatever the
faith, everyone was united around one core
of principles - principles of love, of tolerance and respect for others, of decency, of
reverence for a loving God whom we all
acknowledged, however we conceived of
Him, as the Creator of us all.
Faith, freedom, family, neighborhood,

April, 1985

work - these are the values that inspired

our nation; values that have kept us free and
strong over the years and that gave these
United States a greatness of spirit that made
it as a beacon of hope for all mankind. And
men and women came from all over this
world to live in the bright light of American
liberty, of American pluralism. Today they
still are drawn to that beacon. Our newest
citizens, it seems, are among those who
value our freedoms the most.
The idea of pluralism was rooted in our
very beginnings. "A decent respect for the
opinions of all mankind:" That was the
reason our forefathers gave for writing the
Declaration of Independence. Decency, respect for diversity of opinions: That's what
American pluralism is all about.
Idon't know about you, but several years
ago I was asking myself, what has happened
to our American pluralistic union?
Take education as just one example. I
cannot believe that the founding fathers
intended that the Consitution prohibit children from opening their school day with a
voluntary prayer.
I cannot believe that they intended that
the Constitution would prohibit measures to
extend pluralism and tolerance in education
- measures like the tuition tax credit.
And Icannot believe that they intended
that our Constitution permit the use of
school buildings by political groups of every
shade, but not by students of faith for the
study of the Bible, the word of God. Though
I'm glad to say that with your help, we
recently passed an "equal access" bill that
has started us off in the right direction
toward openness in our public schools.
Finally, Icannot believe the Constitution,
a document founded on a firm conviction in
the worth of the individual, could ever
sanction the wholesale destruction of innocent human life.
No. "To provide the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity:" that's what
they said they intended the Constitution to
do.
What's happened? Well, I believe the
Constitution is still good and true. I believe
the government it created - of the people,
by the people, for the people - is still the
best on earth.
But I also believe that over the years we
turned too much to the Federal Government to solve our problems and, in the
process, to overly regulate our lives. The
price we've paid is some measure of our
liberty.
We talk about compassion, for example,
and it's right that our national government
be compassionate. But compassion at the
national level is no substitute for loving our
neighbor at the local leveL I believe it's time
Page 7

NEWS AND COMMENTS

we looked less to Washington and more to
our States and cities and counties and
towns, and more, beyond government more to our churches, our communities of
faith.
Ultimately, we must look to our own
resources, values, and moral beliefs - which
means that we must look to God for the real
and lasting hope for our personal lives. As
you take to the airways, this is basically your
message. The future is not dark and foreboding and apocalyptic - ifwe have faith in
God.
We are now sitting down together at the
conference table with the Soviet Union. Can
we have an understanding with them? Is it
possible to coexist on this planet? Is there
hope for lasting peace in the world? Yes, I
say there is hope. But our ultimate hope is in
God, with whom nothing is impossible.
In the last four years, I think we have seen
a new birth of hope in this country. As family
values are reinforced, as pride in country is
again treasured, as decency becomes more
honored, you have been on the cutting edge
by taking the message of hope and optimism
across our land - by teaching, listening,
caring. In sum, you have been involved.
I have always loved the story about the
enthusiastic parishioner who, after the sermon, would be so inspired that he'd jump up
and yell, "Use me, Lord. Oh use me, Lord."
The pastor called him in and told him the
Lord had decided to use him. Please paint all
these Sunday School benches and have
them ready by next Sunday. The man
quietly left.
The following Sunday, the preacher was
pleased to see his parishioner back in his
familiar pew. Following a stem-winder of a
sermon, the man jumped up, obviously
moved, and shouted, "Use me, Lord. Use
me, but - use me in an advisory capacity."
We need more activists now to build the
compassionate, strong and hopeful America
we all desire. But if ever there was an
example of preaching to the choir, this must
be it. So I'll close with something from
Corinthians. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad
idea for everyone of us who stands before a
microphone or camera - everyone of us in
public life - to read the following New
Testament words every morning:
If I speak with the tongues of men
and of angels, but have not love, I am
only a resounding gong or' a clanging
cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy
and can fathom all mysteries and all
knowledge, and if I have a faith that
can move mountains, but have not
love, I am nothing. IfI give all I possess
to the poor and surrender my body to
the flames, but have not love, I gain
nothing.
Page 8

I think it is precisely that love, that true

caring, which has enabled the electric church
to reach out to so many people and to be
such a tremendous force for good over the
years.
Thank you, and God bless you.

Remarks by Commissioner James H.

QueIl<..Federal Communications
Commission
at The National Religious
Broadcasters' Association

Thanks for the generous introduction. I'm

reminded of a response made some years
ago by that great religious broadcaster,
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.
Upon being applauded when introduced
he said, "Thank you for this act of faith. If I
happen to be applauded in the middle of the
speech, I would presume it willbe an act of
hope. And if you applaud at the end of the
speech, it willhave to be regarded as an act
of charity." So I'm somewhat comforted that
this compassionate audience has already
conferred upon me one of the three great
Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity.
Please keep me in mind forthe other two.
I'm delighted to revisit this esteemed
group and update my message. I made my
first appearance as a luncheon speaker
before you over six years ago.
Much has transpired since that time.
Many positive things have occurred for you
and even for me. There have been two
national elections, unprecedented progress
in broadcast de-regulation and freedoms
and continued growth and influence for the
electronic church.
During this period, I was fortunate to
receive two reappointments to the FCC
[Federal Communications Commission],
Since I have been living in Virginia for over
ten years and I have 6-1/2 years remaining to
serve on my present term, I decided to
become a Virginian. My wife and I like it
here.
I reviewed the history of Virginia and it is
an awesome experience for a native Michigander. Michigan had its Fords, Romneys,
Harts and Vandenbergs, all of whom I know
or knew. But Virginia is the historical birthplace of American greatness. The voice of
the revolution, Patrick Henry, was a Virginian. The pen of the Revolution, Thomas
Jefferson, was a Virginian. The sword of the
Revolution, George Washington, was a Virginian. The father of the constitution, James
Madison, was a Virginian. The author of the
Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe, was a
Virginian. A great Chief Justice of the UnitApril, 1985

ed States, John Marshall, was a Virginian.

And today, in a more contemporary vein, a
powerful leader and moral voice of the
electronic church, Jerry Falwell, is a Virginian and a famous American whether you
agree or disagree with all his doctrines.
On a more minor note, today a first
generation Italian Roman Catholic, now a
Virginian, feels privileged to share his deregulatory views with this prestigious and perceptive forum of religious leaders.
But first I want to remind you of my
personal experience with an impressive example of your success. It has a fascinating
sequel. I mentioned I was a Catholic, but my
wife and I are the only Catholics left in the
family. We Quellos are really ecumenical.
My nieces and nephews are all Baptists,
Methodists or Unitarians. Two grandchildren are Lutheran, one granddaughter is
Jewish - one of my sons was an agnostic
until his deliverance. Six years ago he was
miraculously transformed by a powerful
positive religious force that made him see
the light and brought him back to God. At
the time I said Iwanted Dr. Schuller to know
we had a younger Quello, a family man,
that's now a believer and loyal viewer to the
"Hour of Power" every Sunday morning in
Deerfield Beach, Florida. And you have a
senior Quello here who is both grateful for
this salvation and impressed with the positive power of persuasion of the electronic
church with its inspirational home delivery
service.
The very first dialogue began six years ago
when I was visiting my agnostic son in
Florida. Even though we are an unusually
ecumenical family, I had always hoped that a
Quello would somehow believe in God regardless of what particular gateway he chose
to salvation. It was Sunday morning. My
son, Dick, was tuning in some religious
program. I growled "What have you got on,
the heretic hour?"
His wife answered "Oh no, Dick always
watches Dr. Schuller. I can't talk while Dr.
Schuller is on."
Dick looked up, "Certainly you have
heard and seen Dr. Schuller?"
I said "I have heard of him but I haven't
seen him." (I have seen him many times
since.)
He was annoyed. "Isn't it your job to
watch and analyze TV programs? This is
great ... if more religions could tell it like
'Hour of Power,' you wouldn't have to worry
about heretics in your family."
I said, "It isn't my job to watch every
program, but I'm delighted that you have
finally seen the light - even though it had to
be delivered to your home."
The next sequence happened just this
past year - you haven't heard this before.
I got an early call from Dick. He said,
American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS

"Dad, do me and yourself a big favor. I want
you to go out today and buy a book Tough
Times Never Last but Tough People Do by
Dr. Robert H. Schuller. Read it and please
call me tomorrow night and tell me what you
think."
I said, "Dick, we have thirty-two Cornmission items this week and I'll be lucky if I
have time to read the top most contentious
five. "
He said, "Read Dr. Schuller's book first.
You willdo a better job at the Commission."
I couldn't quite accommodate my son's
time schedule, but I did read the book. It is
uplifting, inspirational and worthwhile. Read
it before your next service and you will do
even a better job at your ministries.
I was so impressed by the book's
positive influence that I urged Choirman Fowler to make this book required
reading be/ore renewing any broadcast
license. [emphasis added - ed.] But as
highly as he esteems evangelism, he told me
it would be too regulatory. He would rather
have the book sell itself on the open market.
And speaking of powers of persuasion, we
at the FCC are stillunbelievably overblessed
with the continual flood of letters protesting
an issue that never existed. I
The letters received by the FCC opposing
atheism and pleading generally for religious
freedom on the air totalled over 17,722,000
at the end of 1984. In 1984 alone we received
1,165,200. This unprecedented volume of
mail continues to pour in unabated.
This is an overwhelming display of the
power and influence of religion, electronic
and mainline. This is especially true considering the mail was initially generated by a
petition, not to keep God off the air, but
requesting a freeze on applications by religious institutions for television or FM channels reserved for educational stations. The
petition filed by two broadcast consultants
was denied August 1, 1975.You won the war
over nine years ago. But the letters still keep
pouring in because the petition has somehow become misconstrued as an atheistic
plot to keep God and religion off the air.
Believe me, we God fearing commissioners have truly seen the light. We are impressed that in 1985like in 1978Jesus Christ
is still broadcasting's No. 1 super-star with
an unbelievable all-time high mail count.
But, seriously, we have to again issue our
regular counter-plea - and this comes
unnaturally to a former broadcaster like me.
"The commissioner is discussing here the
totally false rumor that Madalyn O'Hair
had/has a petition before the FCC to prohibit religious broadcasting. See the American Atheist magazine, Vol. 24, No. 5 May, 1982 issue, pp 10-20.

Austin, Texas

Please don't keep those cards and letters

rolling in. We are not administratively equipped to handle them. More importantly,
remember that those wonderful but misinformed letter writers have now spent over
$3,544,400 in postage alone! This doesn't
count the envelope, paper, time and effort in
mailing. This significant expenditure of
money and manpower could be efficiently
utilized for productive work and live issues.
Next, I want to share with you some
thoughts about bigotry against evangelicals.
In a recent article headlined Religious Bigotry of the 80's (Washington Times, November 9, 1984), American Enterprise Institute
resident scholar and Catholic Theologian
Michael Novak opined:
Thus, bigotry against evangelicals has
remained the last permissible bigotry.
Anti-black, anti-semitic, anti-Catholic,
anti-woman, anti-handicapped, and
other forms of bigotry are easily spotted and publicly denounced. But even
'the best people' feel free to express
bigotry against evangelicals.
In another paragraph, Mr. Novak further
observed:
Somehow, we manage to accept evangelical Protestantism among blacks
better than among whites.
Mr. Novak went on to conclude:
It is much better for this nation to
have a 'Moral Majority' than a 'silent
majority' - better for two reasons.
First, by breaking their silence, the
evangelicals have learned that they
are not a majority, but only a significant minority. They also have
learned that other Americans do not
spontaneously admire their morality.
Second, by entering the national
debate, they have been obliged to
rethink their positions, develop larger
sensitivities, expand their horizons,
learn new forms of cooperation and
civil argument. Entering the national
dialogue has been good for them and for the rest of us.
Mr. Novak's points are excellent.
First, the bigotry against Fundamentalist
Christians recently shown by many of "The
Establishment" is insufferable. Even as fine a
man as Walter Mondale - who undoubtedly doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body
- fell into this latest trap of intolerance.
During the last presidential election much
rhetoric was made about the injection of
religion into politics during the campaign
such as:
April,1985

If Ronald Reagan is re-elected, Reverend Jerry Falwell will pick the next
two or three Justices of the Supreme
Court.
I don't know one member of "The Establishment" who denounced that prediction as
suggesting religious prejudice, nor did "The
Establishment" media.
But, suppose - just suppose - the
Reagan campaign had declared: '
If Walter Mondale is elected, Rabbi
Alexander Schindler willpick the next
two or three Justices of the Supreme
Court.
Can you imagine the editorial "hue and
cry" from "The Establishment" church and
press.
I bring this up only to reinforce Michael
Novak's point that we may be falling inadvertantly - out of step with our highly
cherished tradition of "tolerance." We must
never forget that America exists primarily
because thousands of intrepid souls who
faced the perils of the sea and the wilderness
were desperately fleeing the religious intolerance of old Europe. The Huguenots were
fleeing the French Catholics; the English
Catholics were fleeing the Anglicans; the
Calvinists and the Quakers were fleeing
everybody. In the second "Great Migration," the Irish Catholics were running from
the Protestants and Jews were escaping the
pogroms of the Czar.
So, today, I ask my American brothers
and sisters of "The Establishment" or mainline churches: Let's tap some ofthe precious
resevoir of religious tolerance for those with
whom we disagree, and truly honor their
right to practice and preach in accordance
with their understanding of God's way.
Michael Novak's second point - and
mine - is that we should welcome the
dialogue that follows the "intrusion" of
church views into our secular society. I do
not have to personally agree with all, or any,
of the views of the Chicago bishops on
nuclear deterrence or on economic justice,
to be glad that they have spoken out. By
ventilating their tentative views in the public
forum, they have necessarily opened themselves up to the criticism of a larger universe,
one which may not share those views or
their moral judgments. And in the wake,
views become qualified and modified before
they are codified. By that process, we all
absorb new points of view, and that is the
essence of education and understanding.
The same is true of the "Moral Majority." I
don't have to accept all of their views either sectarian or secular. But I do learn
from them, as well as from the responses of
Page 9

NEWS AND COMMENTS

those who disagree.
These robust, wide-open debates are the
intellectual salvation of our unique country;
and as an FCC Commissioner, I willfight to
the last breathe to make sure that our
nation's broadcasting airwaves are open to
all important views - including the views of
you out there today, delivering God's message direct to miJIions of American homes.
Religious broadcasting has long been part of
. the great American mosaic - as great a part
as the fearless circuit -riding preachers of our
pioneer past. And so I say to the religious
broadcasters of America: You can count on
the FCC to be prime protectors for the
Constitutional guarantees of freedom of
speech and religion.
However, religious broadcasters have the

responsibility of maintaining the highest professional standards to merit continued respect and support. Unfortunately, you, too,
must self-regulate and guard against the
greedy, the unethical, the intolerant, the
cultists and the fiscally careless.
The overall inspirational positive influence
of your broadcast ministeries must not be
tainted by the indiscretions and intolerance
of a very iew .
I'm personally delighted to see you popularizing and glorifying God on TV and
radio. You are attracting miJIions of Americans to religious faith and a better way of life
who would not otherwise be reached or
influenced. I'm glad to see the impressive
public acceptance and support inspired by
ministries who build beautiful monuments to

God that wiJI serve mankind for years to

come.
In my opinion, the ultimate test for evangelical religious broadcasters as well as for
mainline religions is: Does it inspire a loyal
following to have faith in God and a belief in
religious virtues that result in a better way of
Life? Does it make for a more decent, better
and stronger American?
My answer is a resounding yes! So, to the
Schullers, Falwells, Humbards, Grahams,
Roberts, the Moody Bible Institute and to all
the dedicated religious broadcasters here
and in the hinterlands - and to Ben Armstrong and Dick Wiley - may your tribe
increase and God bless you.

JESUS CHRIST
FL.AVIUS !
CAN'T '{OU GET AN'{THING
RIGHT!
Page 10

April,1985

American Atheist

The following is the fourth of a series

of articles on the French philosophes,
the intellectual leaders of the Enlightenment of seventeenth and eighteenth
century Europe. A second article on the
Marquis de Sade will appear next month.

onatien Alphonse Francois, the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) was to curse

D
the day of his birth and his name, but never
did he recant that he was an "atheist philosopher."
Because of the scandals associated with
his name during the first period of his life, he
spent twenty-seven years in prisons and
died a sane man in the mental hospital of
Charenton. His name is reviled as the basis
of the word "sadism," meaning "A condition
in which sexual gratification depends largely
on the inflictionof pain upon others." Recent
literary history shows that such a characterization of him is inaccurate.
There is no doubt that during many years
of his life he was indeed a sado-masochist,
but it also is true thatwhen he regained his
freedom during the French Revolution, he

never returned to his former lifestyle. In fact,

his actions were altruistic. For instance, he
devoted himself to modernizing Parisian
hospitals, he loved his mistress tenderly (she
was to be with him for over twenty years),
and cared for her young son under the most
adverse conditions without the slightest taint
of sexual activity; moreover, when he had
the opportunity to take revenge on the
person who put him in prison for thirteen
years, he refused to use his power - he put
himself in danger of being arrested in order
to secure her freedom.
A Reconsideration
Scorned for most of his lifeand for almost
a century and a half after his death because
of the scandals and his writings, the Marquis
de Sade is now being reconsidered, and he is
emerging as one of the great philosophes
and influencial minds of post-Enlightenment
thought.
Three scholars have changed all views of
Sade's life and work. The first was Mario
Praz, an Italian, who wrote a book which
was translated into English as The Romantic

Austin, Texas

Agony, which became famous because of

the chapter "The Shadow of the 'Divine
Marquis.'" The Marquis de Sade, one of the
most heinous names in Western literature
-"divine"? The appellation piqued the interest of several significant scholars, who
began to reassess Sade and to find his
influence on Western literature to be considerable. Could this "pervert" have influenced so many great literary figures?
The second source of research on Sade
has been the work of two superb French
scholars, Maurice Heine and Gilbert Lely.
The latter wrote an inconsequential introduction to a very brief, introductory anthology of Sade's work (D.A.F. de Sade; Paris:
Pierre Seghers, 1948). Lely's day in the limelight of Sadean scholarship was yet to come.
Heine's book, The Marquis de Sade (1950)
remains a landmark of scholarship. At long
last a scholar of impeccable credentials had
surfaced, a person who rose above the
traditional views of Sade to reevaluate his
work. Heine's brilliant study was closely followed by that of Lely, whose biography of
Sade in 1952 and his edition of Sade's
Complete Works (Oeuvre completes; 1966)
brought Sade's major works and letters

together so scholars could study them.

The study of Sade has been significantly
enhanced by two works in English. The first
is by the anthropologist Geoffty Gorer, who
rewrote an earlier work and in 1963 published it as The Life and Ideas of the Marquis
de Sade (New York: Norton). It is a fine
study of Sade's life and major works, and it
also treats his lesser known writings. Gorer
also directs scholarly attention to the study
of Sade's intellectual origins. Donald Thomas
published his excellent study of Sade in 1976
in which he argues convincingly that one of
the quintessential influences on Sade's life
was his cultrual milieu. Thomas points out
that the Regency (1715-1723)was a period of
relaxed moral standards. The Regent, his
mother once said, "used a woman in the
same spirit that he used his toilet bowl." The
Regent also "possessed a fine Sievres dinner
service, each piece of it ingeniously obscene
and so remarkable that it was valued in the
middle of the nineteenth century at 30,000
livres:" "Such was the climate of aristocratic
libertinage," Thomas adds, "which had been
carefully fostered in Parisian society during
the twenty years before the birth of the

April, 1985

Marquis de Sade. Even to a young nobleman

with pretentions to virtue, the path was
perilous enough, but to one who felt an
enthusiasm for vice and sexual exploitation
every opportunity was available." The Regency ended before Sade was born, but
Sade was raised in its cultural atmosphere.
When the new king began to restrict those
excesses, Sade would pay the penalty.
The Marquis de Sade was born on June 2,
1740, into one of the noblest, oldest, and
most prestigious families in France, one
allied by birth to the throne. His father
served as ambassador to four countries
(including Russia and England) and was lord
over extensive estates near Avignon. Sade
was educated by his uncle, the Abbe de
Sade and then at the prestigious College
Louis Ie Grand in Paris. He gave no sign of
being a brilliant student, although he would
later give evidence of vast learning. He
began his army service when he was fourteen years old and shortly afterward led a life
of gambling and womanizing in Paris. He
eventually fell in love with a woman, but his
father, facing major financial reverses, decided that his son would marry ReneePelagie de Montreuil, the second oldest
daughter of the very wealthy and socially
ambitious Montreuil family. Monsieur de
Montreuil was the president of a court which
dealt with welfare payments, a position
which was as elevated as a person of the
commercial class could attain in the rigidly
stratified French society. His wife, nicknamed "Madame la Presidents," was very
socially ambitious, and she dominated her
husband and used his wealth and what
position he had to advance the family socially. Given the rigid caste system of French
society, it would not be an easy task. The
elder daughter, who would be most important in Sade's life, was very religious and
lived in a convent; there was yet a son to be
married, a fact which would prove most
costly to Sade. The Count de Sade was
aware of these facts; he did not sell his only
son cheaply. On May 17, 1763, ReneePelagie and the Marquis de Sade - new
wealth and old name - were married.
Five years passed. They were not without
interest. Sade's taste in entertainment, especially with Parisian actresses, had come to
the attention of the police. Gradually, his
escapades and expensive lifestyle forced
"Madame la Presidente" to change her view
of him from being a "funny boy" to "a madman." Sade's father had reached the end of
his patience, and there is reason to suspect
that he had his son imprisoned on a lettre de
cachet for two weeks in order to bring the
Marquis to his senses. Events would prove
that the Count failed. The Count died on
January 24,1767, and the Marquis inherited
whatever fortune the Sade family had left,
which was so little that the Marquis was
imprisoned for eight days in 1771 in a
debtor's prison.

Page 11

Rose Keller Scandal

Then came the morning of April 3, 1768.
About 9:00 AM., Sade met Rose Keller on a
" street in Paris where she was begging - she
was an unemployed cotton spinner. Her
native language was German - .she was
Alsacian - and she did not speak French
very well, but Sade later said in a legal
deposition that she knew exactly what he
meant by his overtures. She claimed that he
offered her a job in his household; he said
she was a prostitute. They went to his house
in Arceuil, which was then a suburb of Paris.
He took her to a room, and according to her
testimony, forced her to undress, tied her
arms and legs to a bed, flogged her, cut her
with a knife, poured an ointment into her
wounds, and threatened to kill her. He left
the room, whereupon she managed to untie
herself, presumably dressed, tied some
sheets together, fastened one end, and then
shinnied down the wall to the garden below.
She then crossed the garden, climbed a wall,
and raced to the village. Sade's male servant
sprinted behind her asking her to stop
because his master had not paid her, but she
outdistanced him. Once in town, she met
some women who befriended her, and the
case was taken to the police. Thus began
"The Rose Keller Scandal," which would
gain European-wide fame.
Did Sade seduce and abuse a poor woman
or was she in reality a prostitute? Keller was
examined" the next day by a physician, who
reported in a sworn affidavit that she showed
no signs of being tied up, although she
clearly had been beaten about the buttocks.
If she had not been tied up, then she must
have been a willing participant. It is also
hardly likelythat a woman who had just been
tortured as she said she had been would
have been capable of such physical feats as
shinnying down sheets, climbing a wall, and
sprinting to the village.
"The Rose Keller Case" quickly became a
European scandal. Madame du Deffand, a
leading Parisian socialite, wrote to Horace
Walpole, the English writer, about the incident, and she did not hesitate to embellish
freely on the facts. Restif de la Bretonne, a
French pornographer who wrote for a Parisian newspaper and who became a foe of
Sade, was a caustic publicist of the case. He
portrayed Keller as a poor woman abused
by a nobleman, and he, too, added freely to
the evidence. He reported that Sade had
planned to dissect Keller physically, but
when he went to admonish his servants to
get further away from the dissection room
so they would not hear her screams, she
managed to free herself. Bretonne also
added that Keller said that she saw three
corpses as she left the grounds of Sade's
house. Given such publicity, the authorities
had to act forcefully: Sade was arrested and
imprisoned on April 23, 1768.
Enter on the stage of Sade's life his
Page 12

mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil. The

greatly-valued name of de Sade was in
danger; "Madame la Presidente" went to
work. Through her emmisaries, she offered
a bribe to Keller to change her story. Keller
proved difficult to bribe. Her initial offer was
"outrageous," but ultimately she yielded.
She was very expensive. ("Madame la Presidente" paid her 2,600 livres.) Was Keller,
with her tale of her seduction and flogging,
deliberately trying to bilk the Sade-Montreuil
family?
A few peaceful years passed. Then, on
June 27, 1772, Sade and his male servant
were in Marseilles and hired four women,
eighteen to twenty-three years old, from a
procuress. As part of the orgy, Sade was
sodomized by his male servant and then
Sade sodomized one of the females. Sodomy
was a cepital crime. He then gave candy
laced, unbeknown to the women, with an
aphrodisiac. Two of the girls became violently ill after the orgy and needed medical
attention. Sade had no knowledge of their
condition because he and his servant had
left Marseilles the next morning. The episode was far from over; it had just begun.
The illness of the two girls led to the
analysis of their vomit by two pharmacists,
who concluded that the girls had been
poisoned. Poisoning, like sodomy, was a
capital crime. But there are some significant
questions. Were these women exploited?
Unlike the "Rose Keller Case," there is no
doubt that these women were prostitutes
and knowingly and willinglyengaged in sexual acts with Sade and his servant. Although
the candy is clearly another question, Sade
showed no malice in giving it to them.
Sade, meanwhile, returned to his home at
La Coste, and it was there that he learned of
the warrant for his arrest. He acted immediately: He sent his wife to Marseilles to
bribe the two girls, while he, his male servant, and Sade's sister-in-law, Anne-Propsere, escaped to Sardinia. It is difficult to
underestimate the importance of this escapade. From an Atheist's standpoint, it is
clear that if he wanted to have sexual
relations with his sister-in-law, then so be it,
but there were other considerations. AnnePropsere was marriagable now that she had
left the convent; in fact, she was scheduled
to marry. Sade's affair with Anne-Propsere
could not only scuttle the marriage but harm
the opportunities of the son to marry advantageously. There was also the names of
Sade's chidren - "Madame la Presidente"
had become their legal guardian - to be
protected. She was at the end of her patience; now Sade would know her power and
wrath. Walter Lennig (Portrait de 5ade;
1965) speculates that Sade's affair with his
sister-in-law "was an irreparable blot on the
family reputation, and from the moment she
discovered the truth, Madame de Montreuil
became the Marquis' sworn enemy - the
full implications of which he was to experiApril,1985

ence in the future."

Sade and his male servant were tried in
absentia: He was found guilty, sentenced to
"repent publicly in front of the cathedral,"
and then to be beheaded on the guillotine.
His servant was to be hung. Both corpses
were then to be cremated, and the ashes
were to be scattered in the wind.
"Madame la Presidente" learned Sade's
"location and then used her power to get the
King of Sardinia to arrest him. It was done,
but Sade escaped and returned surreptitiously to his home at La Coste. The year
1774 was very important in Sade's life: the
king, Louis XIV, died, and thus the arrest
orders against Sade were invalid. Feeling
reasonably safe, Sade travelled to Paris and
then returned to La Coste and hired a young
boy to be his secretary and five servant girls
(all fifteen years old). Clearly, Madame de
Sade was aware of the hiring, and during the
seclusion at La Coste, she must have been
part of the events which took place. Then
problems arose. One of the girls began to tell
stories in the village about events at the
castle. Some of the parents fileda complaint,
and one of the young girls was surreptitiously taken to the Abbe de Sade's chateau
where she told a lurid tale. There was also
the case of her pregnancy by the Marquis.
The Sade and Montreuil families were outraged, but they went to considerable effort
to silence the girl, which they did by bribery.
She was not nearly as expensive as Keller.
There are fundamental questions: To what
extent was Sade a pervert? Did he exploit
the children? The Sade-Montreuil families
certainly thought so.
Lettre de cachet
On February 8, 1777, Sade and his wife
went to Paris, where Sade wanted to see his
dying mother, although she had already died
by the time he arrived. Sade knew his visit
was risky because he sent his wife to stay
with her mother while he stayed with his
former tutor at Louis Ie Grand so his motherin-law would not know he was in town.
Nevertheless, his wife stupidly told her mother where Sade was staying. "Madame la
Presidente" obtained a lettre de cachet, and
the same day Sade was arrested.
Arther Wilson, the brilliant scholar of the
Enlightenment comments that in the eighteenth century the letter de cachet was used
to "enforce family discipline," but it became
"one of the most odious symbols of the
ancien regime . . . forty thousand were
issued in the seventeen years of Cardinal
Fleury's administration alone." Wilson explains that:
Apologists for the good old days
point out that for the most part [lettres
de cachet] were used to straighten
out family tangles . . . There is no
record of active maltreatment of perAmerican Atheist

sons detained by lettres de cachet: no

evidence, for example, of torture or
starvation, though there is a forgetfulness. Indeed, orders were given
that people should be granted food
and drink in approximate accordance
with their social rank ... But lettres de
cachet ... did not have to state the
cause of arrest. Furthermore, persons thus arrested were held incommunicado, and it was entirely legal to
detain them indefinitely. There came
to be a rather widespread feeling in
France when Sartine was LieutenantGeneral of Police (1959-74) that the
practice of issuing lettres de cachet
was becoming too extensive. By the
time of the Revolution, they had
aroused a great sense of injustice.
In his cell, the Marquis de Sade pleaded,
begged, ranted, and went into insane rages.
The jailers were not allowed to speak to him
or pay any attention to his pleas. After three
months in solitary confinement, he was
allowed to have paper, pens, and exercise
twice a week. He was well aware of who had
obtained the lettre de cachet, and he begged
"Madame la Presidente" to let him go into
exile, but she had another plan. Through her
influence, Sade was granted the right to
appeal the decision of the court which
sentenced him to death, and eventually the
appeals court struck down that decision. He
thought he was free, but he was returned to
prison because of the lettre de cachet. He
was sent back to Vincennes Prison in Paris.
It is fair to ask where the justice was in the
lettre de cachet. Perhaps he should have
been punished for his affair with the children, but that was not a legal issue. Technically, Sa de had not committed a crime; he
was imprisoned because of his mother-inlaw's machinations.
He was allowed to furnish his cell, and his
family paid for his food, which was indeed
adequate. He was allowed to receive books,
and eventually his personal library became
extensive. He knew the works of many of
the philosophes, including Diderot, d'Alembert, and the Baron d'Holbach, (1723-1789),
who was a principal influence on his thought.
It is hardly likely that Sade read the works of
these men while in prison because Sade's
wife and prison authorities censored the
books he was allowed to read. Nevertheless,
Sade admitted to having read d'Holbach's
The System of Nature.
Because of the renovations at the Vincennes Prison, Sade was transferred to the
Bastille prison in Paris in 1784. His cell was a
small, octagonal room -fifteen feet in diameter and fifteen to twenty feet high - with a
stove to heat it. He was allowed to furnish
the cell. Beginning in early October, 1788,he
had an invalid servant, who was paid by
Sade's family. Sade's medical needs, and
they were pressing, were attended to by

Austin, Texas

Parisian specialists who came to the prison.

He had been having severe problems with
his eyes; the ailment proved to be keratitis.
To give him better light, he was given a cell
on the fourth floor of the prison tower, but
he nevertheless became permanently blind
in one eye.
One day in 1789,Sade looked out from his
cell in the Bastille and noticed a crowd.
According to the police report, "Sade seized
a long funneled pipe he had to facilitate
pouring water, shoved it through the window facing the Rue Saint Antoine, and
harangued the crowd. He shouted insulting
remarks about the governor of the Bastille
and claimed that people were being murdered at the prison; his tirade attracted a
large crowd." On July 3 he was transferred
to the asylum of Charenton, a mental hospital. Eleven days later, a crowd stormed the
Bastille (July 14, 1789). "It is one of the
paradoxes of history," Lenning comments,
that Sade "undeniably contributed" to the
French Revolution, "by drawing the attention of the public to the Bastille as the stronghold of royal tyranny." It is also paradoxical
that during the sacking of the Bastille almost
all of his manuscripts, which argued so
strongly for freedom, were "burned, pillaged, torn up, and carried off."
After Imprisonment
In March 1790, the Assembly released all
prisoners held by lettre de cachet who were
not insane; on April 2, 1790 - Good Friday
- Sade was once again a free man. Clearly,
the state did not consider him insane or
dangerous to the public. So much for the
argument that he was a dangerous sex fiend,
a man of monstrous sexual proclivities. He
was fiftyyears old, and he had spent thirteen
years in prison. He had not been guilty of a
single criminal charge; he had been in prison
because of a lettre de cachet obtained by his
mother-in-law.
Sade could not return to his wife because
she had fallen back into the arms of the
priestcraft and joined a convent, where she
later died. Not only did she and her mother
burn many of Sade's manuscripts they had
in their posession, but she refused to give
him the manuscripts which she had smuggled out of prison toward the end of his
incarceration. The separation was legalized
on June 9, 1790, and Sade was ordered to
return 164,842 francs as part of her dowry,
but Sade was penniless.
During his freedom, Sade's activities fell
into two categories. First, he became an
administrator for some of the Parisian hospitals. It was during his tenure that many
humane policies were put into practice.
Secondly, he was very busy writing plays
and trying to get them produced. He had no
success because the plays were terrible.
On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI was
beheaded, and the French faced major fi-

April,1985

nancial difficulties, civil unrest, and foreign

wars. As the tensions increased, the French
became suspicious of anyone who did not
completely accept the Revolutionary Government and such people were treated severely. "The Reign of Terror" began and
with it the tumbrels bringing people to the
Place de la Revolution to be guillotined. Sade
cursed his name because it caused him to be
suspect. Sade's sons had left France and
were actual emigres, but Sade's name was
confused with their's, and it was he who was
to suffer the consequences. He was arrested
on December 8, 1793 for being anti-revolutionary and sentenced to be guillotined, but
fortunately for him, before the sentence
could be carried out, Robespierre, the principal figure of the "Reign of Terror," was
overthrown and guillotined.
Sade was freed on October 15, 1794. He
lived in Paris with his mistress's young son
during the winter, and there is no reason to
suspect homosexuality. Sade earned a pittance working at menial labor in a theater,
but he nevertheless managed to feed and
care for the boy.
Life with Napoleon
Napoleon Bonaparte came into power in
his coup d'etat of 1799, and in 1804 he
proclaimed himself Emperor of the French.
Almost from his first day in office, Napoleon
wanted to "stabilize" the revolution, that is,
reject what he considered its excesses. Thus
the paths of the great Napoleon and the
titanic genius de Sade were to cross. In July,
1800, an anonymous pamphlet appeared,
Zoloe, which attacked Napoleon and his
wife, Josephine. Sade was thought to be the
author, but recent scholarship has refuted
that. Nevertheless, the accusation remained.
Napoleon was furious. Sade's name came to
his attention about ninety days after the
appearance of Zolo-e, when a leading Parisian newspaper published a review of a
collection of Sade's short stories called The
Crimes of Love. This was too much, and
Sade consequently became the focal point
of Napoleon's efforts to eradicate pornography from French culture. Sade was arrested (March 6, 1801) in the office of his
publisher, who probably had assisted the
police by telling them where Sade could be
found. Sade was sent to prison, technically
for "administrative punishment" for having
written Justine and Juliette.
Sade continued to write while in prison he would never leave during the last thirteen
years of his life - but the police frequently
confiscated his works. Moreover, his wife,
the bovine Renee-Pelagia, had returned to
religion, and she was no longer a courier of
his manuscripts out of prisons. He eventually was sent to the mental hospital at
Charenton where he staged his brilliant
theatrical productions, but an administra[cont'd on pg. 17]

Page 13

Lowell Newby

Coming Out of the Closet

---------------------------------------------~------------------------------~
was raised to be so very "nice." And
"nice" people, I was told, have to obey
certain rules. For example, they don't talk
loudly, they wear subdued colors, they allow
other people to go first, they are especially
polite to their elders, and they never, but
never, argue or express a strong opinion. IfI
had been one of the unfortunates gassed at
Auschwitz, it would not have been out of
character for my last words to the executioner to have been, "Have a nice day."
Clark Kent, Walter Mitty, and Darren on the
old "Bewitched" show - these are my
behavioral peers.
So what does a "nice" person like myself
do when he first becomes an Atheist? How
does he handle those awkward moments
when his nosey sister-in-law asks why he
quit attending church, or his elderly cousin
requests that he "return grace" at mealtime,
or his neighbors eye him suspiciously be
cause atheist literature addressed to him has
been mistakenly placed in their mailbox? He
has a momentary mental breakdown. With
every outgoing nerve pipeline blocked by
conflicting messages, he merely stares in
unresponsive horror as his distraught brain
searches futilely for an inoffensive reply.
The maxim that "No one who ever advanced human thought did so without making somebody mad," is meaningless to him
because his primary goal in life is to avoid
giving offense. He doesn't even care for
popularity because being popular means
being well-known, and well-known people
run a greater risk of making enemies. And
how could he sleep at night, he wonders, if
someone, somewhere, should become angry with him or disapprove of something that
he did?
Yet, because this Mort Meek of a man had
the audacity to reject "the highest truths of
our Christian nation" in the first place, we
can assume that he has at least a modicum
of intellectual courage and love for the truth.
Also, he is as stubborn as the proverbial
mule. He is quietly stubborn, it is true, but
those times when he stood unmoved behind
a right cause (like when he was driven from
his teaching job in a rural Southern school
because he grew a beard) constitute some of
the proudest moments of his life.
So what does he tell his sister-in-law, his
elderly cousin, and his disapproving neighbors? When the fidgeting and the stammering have passed, he tells them what he
feels he must - that his behavior can be

Page 14

'6
( l
,

explained by the fact that he is an Atheist.

And although he might speak with a quiver
in his voice and might stand with a wobble in
his legs, given who he is, he has done the
best he can do. He willreceive no praise for
his courage; he willnot even be gentle with
himself for his timidity. Yet, he will grud
gingly have to allow himself some pride in
knowing that, in spite of his fear, he has
remained true to his ideals.
And because he was true to his ideals, his
future holds tremendous promise. What his
parents never taught him, Atheism willteach
him. It will teach him that the need to have
his every word and his every action approved by everyone he meets is an imaginary
need. He willlearn that even ifpeople should
turn red in the face and jump up and down in
anger because of his Atheism, he can go
home and sleep soundly, knowing that the
victory he wins tomorrow will have been
made a little easier by the one that he won
today. He will also learn that every act of
honesty is a personal affirmation of his right
to his own life and that every act of dishonesty is an act of treason that works to
destroy that life.
Perhaps it is never easy - those first few
steps out of the closet - but ifwe should put

April, 1985

our hands on the doorknob, so to speak,

only to draw back, only to abandon the
intellectual courage that made us Atheists in
the first place, then what value do we place
on our lives? How can we meet ourselves
with pride when we look in a mirror? How
can we face our fellow Atheists knowing that
their future has been jeopardized by our
timidity? Can any concern that we might
have for the feelings of religious lunatics
outweigh these considerations?
My own feelings about the image that I, as
an Atheist, would like to project were wellexpressed by Jon Murray when he altered a
well-known Marine advertisement to read,
"The Few. The Proud. The Atheists." So
may we all conduct our lives. ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lowell Newby, a freelance writer, says
of himself, "Being introspective by
nature, my interest in Atheism centers
around the innermost effects that it
has upon the individual, particularly
one who lives in a theistic environment
such as we now have in the United
States."

American Atheist

Mark Fara

MR. RIGHTEOUS' NEIGHBORHOOD

Broadcasting NetThework,Armageddon
ever on the move with innovative

gospel programming, is pleased to announce

what can only be termed a breakthrough in
children's instructional television. Following
is a transcript of the premiere episode of the
series, tentatively entitled "Mr. Righteous'
Neighborhood," pending the outcome of the
copyright infringement suit currently in litigation.
ANNOUNCER: And now, for the young
and young at mind, the Armageddon Broadcasting Network goeth before a fall in presenting "Mr. Righteous' Neighborhood,"
with your heavenly host, Mr. Robby Righteous.
(Credits and theme music, then fade to
Mr. Righteous' living room. Mr. Righteous
enters through front door and removes his
sweater.)
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Hello there, boys and
girls. How are you? (Pauses) Well? (Pauses,
then smiles.) Good. I'm fine, too. In fact, I'm
on top of the world, because I have Jesus in
my heart, and if you do too, why don't you
come closer to the TV set and we'll all sing a
little song together. I know a good song for a
lovely day like today. It's called "We Will
Follow Jesus," so won't you sing with me?
(Pauses) I knew you would.
(Piano intro, then sings)
We willfollow Jesus
Any where he goes
Into a hot volcano
Without a garden hose
Or over a high and rocky cliff
With gaters down below
Because he wipes our butts for us
And helps us blow our nose
Aaah-choo, aaah-choo, he helps us
blow our nose
We will obey Jesus
In all he says to do
Push two thumbtacks in our eyes
If he tells us to
And tie big rocks around our necks
And jump into the deep
For he is the good shepherd
And we are all his sheep
Baaa-baaa, baaa-baaa, we are all his
sheep
Austin, Texas

Thank you for singing with me, boys and

girls. Wasn't that an inspiring little tune? Can
you say inspiring? Now, that's inspiring, not
conspiring. Conspiring is what the secular
humanists and communists over in Russia
are doing to subvert America's Christian
way of life. Can you say subvert? (Pauses) I
knew you could.
(Walks to window and pulls open drapes.)
Oh, my. It was such a sun-shiny day just a
second ago, and now it looks like it might
rain. (Thunder and lightning, sound of rain
hitting roof.) There it goes. The Lord sure
moves in mysterious ways, doesn't he? Can
you say mysterious?
(Sings, with piano accomp.)

(Giggles) bounce on by.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well, it's always good to
have you. (Squeezes her arm.) Why, you're
not even wet. Did you have an umbrella?
BUBBLES: No, Mr. Righteous. I let the Lord
be my umbrella.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Isn't that wonderful,
boys and girls? The power-of God is just so
awesome.
BUBBLES: Totally.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: It's such a blessing to
serve a Lord who is so utterly, completely
provident.
BUBBLES: Uh-huh, and neat, too.

I wonder who might come drop by

On a rainy day like this.
What neighbor would come visit
On a rainy day like this?
Maybe we'll have a party.
Why, who knows what's in store?
Could be we'll even see Jesus
Who is always at every heart's door.
Now who could that be, boys and girls?
Let's go see. (Walks toward the door.)
Might even be Jesus, huh? (Reaches and
opens the door.) Please come in, please.
(Bubbles the Bakerette squeezes through
the front door, wearing a chef's hat and
carrying a cloth-covered tray.)
Why, it's Bubbles the Bakerette. Hello,
Bubbles.
BUBBLES: Hi, Mr. Righteous. Hi, boys and
girls.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Can you say "hi" to
Bubbles, boys and girls? (Pauses) I knew
you could.
(Bubbles waddles into the living room,
places the tray on the coffee table, and
then sits on the sofa. Mr. Righteous closes
the door and joins her.)
MR. RIGHTEOUS: It sure is good to see
you, Bubbles.
BUBBLES: Well, my husband, Bobo the
Baker, and me just finished taping this
weeks' "Pigging Out For Jesus" in the other
studio, and - (Mr. Righteous flashes her a
stern look.) Oops, Imean down the street at
The King's Bakery, and I thought I'd just

April,1985

MR. RIGHTE;OUS: Yes, and omnipotent.

BUBBLES: And keen.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: And ineffable.
BUBBLES: And swell.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: And immutable.
BUBBLES: And (Swallows heavily.) marvy.
(Sighs softly.) Oh, praise you, Jesus.
MR. RIGHTEOUS:
you, Lord.

(Softly): Yes, praise

BUBBLES (Eyes closed): Mumble, mumble,

mumble ...
(They eventually stop and shake their
heads to refocus their eyes.)
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well, Bubbles ...
BUBBLES: Praise the Lord.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, praise Him. So, uh,
what have you brought for us today? (Gestures to the tray.)
BUBBLES: Well, my husband Bobo the
Baker and I whipped up some (She removes
the cloth from the tray.) salted pork chips.
(Close up of tray)
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Oh, my. That's one of
my all-time favorites. Could I please have
one, please?
BUBBLES: Why certainly, Mr. Righteous,
help yourself.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Thank you very much.
(He takes a nibble of one.) Mmmmmmm.

Page 15

Gracious, these are still warm.

BUBBLES: Yup. My husband Bobo the
Baker whipped up the dough and warmed
up the oven while I went out and shot the
hog.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: You don't say. (Returns
the chip to-the tray.) Well, how about that,
boys and girls? A husband and wife working
together just the way god wants it.
BUBBLES: That's right, Mr. Righteous.
Bobo . the Baker and I have a Christian
marriage. I give unto him the head of the
house, and he gives his head to the Lord.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well, praise be unto his
most holy name. And you shot the hog.
BUBBLES: Yup. Splattered that porker all
over the place. (Giggles) Bobo the Baker
calls me his little help-meat. Hee-hee-heehee-hee ...

make me promise, 'cause I always do what

he tells me anyway and besides, this is just so
cute. Do I have time to tell it?
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Please do, please.
BUBBLES: Well, it seems that there was this
little black boy who was real hungry one
Sunday morning so he went to the black
people's bakery on his way to the black
people's church and he bought a chocolate
donut and when he got to the black people's
church he still had half of it left so he put it in
his pocket. And during the black people's
church service the black preacher says,
"God be here. God be dere. God be everywhere." and the little black boy looks in his
pocket and says "God, iffen you be in dere,
please don' eat mah donut." Hee-hee-heehee.

BUBBLES: (Whispers) Praise you, Lord.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Eyes closed.) Mumble,
mumble, mumble ...
BUBBLES: Anyway, boys and girls, my
favorite Bible story is the one where Our
Lord was sleeping in a boat and all the
disciples were in there with him only they
were awake and they were real hungry and
this big storm started and they woke Jesus
up and he rebuked them, and ...
MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Eyes pop open.) Can
you say rebuked.
BUBBLES: Of course I can, Mr. Righteous. I
just did.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: No, Bubbles, I was
talking to the children.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Hoo-hoo. Isn't that a

good one, boys and girls?

BUBBLES: Oh, well, anyway they were real

hungry and he rebuked them and he stood
up and held his arms outstreched and ...

my

BUBBLES: And while I'm here, Mr. Righteous, I'd like to share my favorite Bible story
with the boys and girls.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Can you say outstreched?

..

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Heh-heh. I'll bet it does.

Look at you. Why, heh-heh, you're laughing
so hard, you're crying.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: My goodness, we've just

got surprises and. blessings out the old
kazoo today, don't we boys and girls? Can
you say "Bible?" I kn ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo ...

BUBBLES: . . . hee-hee-hee-hee-hee,
stomach hurts, hee-hee-hee ...

BUBBLES: Oh. (She abruptly stops laughing.) I'll bet my make-up's running. (She
finds a dress pocket, fishes a compact from
within, opens it, and looks at her face in its
mirror.) Dang. (Wipes face with cloth from
pork chip tray. Regains composure. Returns compact to pocket and sets cloth on
coffee table. Smiles.) Whew.
Mr. RIGHTEOUS: Oh, but I do so love to
watch a godly person laugh, don't you boys
and girls? (Pauses) I knew you did.
BUBBLES: You'd sure like it around our
house then. Bobo and me joke around like
that all the time.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Roberta and I do too,
Bubbles, because when you're in a marriage
blessed by the Lord ...
BUBBLES: There's always something to
laugh at.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, there is.
BUBBLES: Oh, praise the Lord.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Praise you, Jesus.
BUBBLES: He's so groovy.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: And omniscient.

BUBBLES: Mr. Righteous, did you know

that was the first word out of my mouth
when I was a child?
MR. RIGHTEOUS: You don't say.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Er, yes Bubbles, and

what did the disciples say then?

BUBBLES: Yup. I had this squeaky little

voice and I went (Squeaks) "Bi-ble, Bi-ble."

BUBBLES: (Crinkles nose impishly.) Why,

don't you know your Bible, Mr. Righteous?

MR. RIGHTEOUS (Slaps knee.): Oh, hoohoo-hoo.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Of course I do. I'm a

doctor of divinity. But tell the children.

BUBBLES: Hee-hee. I was just the cutest l'i1

thing.

BUBBLES: Why, they said: "What manner

of man is this, who can take but three loaves
of stale bread and an itty-bitty little old dried
up fish ... "

MR. RIGHTEOUS: I'llbe you were. (Winks)

Don't you boys and girls? (Pauses) I knew
you did.
BUBBLES: Anyways, here's my favorite
Bible story ...
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Goody. Let's just cover
up these pork chips before they get cold and
(Picks up cloth. Spreads it on coffee table in
amazement.) Bubbles, look at this cloth!
(She looks and becomes briefly speechless.)
Look boys and girls: It's got her face on it.
(Holds cloth up to camera.) It's even still
. damp.

BUBBLES: And boss.

BUBBLES: (Gasps in astonishment.) A miracle! Hallelujua!

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well (Chuckles) I know

he's certainly the boss in my life.

Mr. RIGHTEOUS: God is truly with us

today!

BUBBLES: Mine too, and like I was getting

ready to say, Bobo the Baker is such a cutup. In fact, he told me a joke last night while I
was giving his Porsche a lube job and he
made me promise that I'd tell it to the boys
and girls today. 'Course, he didn't have to

BUBBLES: Fer sure!

Page 16

BUBBLES: (Loudly and rapidly.) It stormed

for days and days and the disciples got
hungrier and hungrier and everybody except Jesus got wet and caught colds but
Jesus kept his arms out and it stopped
raining and the sea parted right down the
middle. Then all the Israelites ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Oh, praise you Jesus.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: "... and make the winds

and the sea obey him." (Pats her hand.) Isn't
that right, Bubbles?
BUBBLES: Well, it's your show. (Smiles into
camera.)
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, it is. (Smiles into
camera.) Praise the Lord.
BUBBLES: Yes, He's just so, so ...
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, he is.
BUBBLES: And he's near, Mr. Righteous.
He's very near. he is. Ican feel him all around
me and inside me. Deep inside me. Penetrating my very being with his flaming white-hot
love. Deeper ... deeper ... oh, Jesus, yes.
Oh, Jesus baby, oh, oh, oh ...
(There is a knock at the door.
Bubbles sighs.)

BUBBLES: He's just so nifty.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Bubbles, you don't suppose ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: And omnipresent.

B~BBLES: Oh, Mr. Righteous. I'm feeling

April,1985

American Atheist

his presence so strongly, it just could be.

They burn!

MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Calls to door) Please

come in, please.
(Satan kicks down the door and enters)

BUBBLES: Take that you 01' devil you!

MR. RIGHTEOUS and BUBBLES: Oh my

gosh! It's the devil!
(They leap to their feet.)
SATAN: Hah-hah-hah. Got any Michael
Jackson records?
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Great Caesar's ghost!
SATAN: Welfare for everybody! Hah-hahhah!
BUBBLES: Eeek! Begone Satan!
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Quick, Bubbles! Let's
rebuke him!
MR. RIGHTEOUS and BUBBLES: Satan,
we rebuke thee! Satan, we rebuke thee!
Satan, we rebuke thee!
BUBBLES: (Gestures to camera.) Come on
boys and girls!
MR. RIGHTEOUS and BUBBLES: Satan,
we rebuke thee! Satan we, rebuke thee!
MR. RIGHTEOUS: In the name of Jesus.
SATAN: Hah-hah-hah! You idiot, I'm Jewish!

SATAN: Aaargh! (He stumbles out of the

front door, howling in pain.)
BUBBLES: Jeepers, that was awful.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: It certainly was, wasn't it
boys and girls? (They reseat themselves on
the sofa. Bubbles sets the tray on the table.
Mr. Righteous picks up a single pork chip.)
I'll hang onto this, just in case.
BUBBLES: Well, I'll tell you one thing. If he
thinks those pork chips burned, he should
just wait until Jesus throws him into the lake
of fire on Judgment Day.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: That's right. (Turns to
face camera.) And that's where you'll be
going, boys and girls, ifyou don't have Jesus
in your heart. You'll be thrown into the lake
of fire that the Bible tells us God has
prepared for Satan and his angels ...
BUBBLES: And there won't be anything to
eat!
MR. RIGHTEOUS: That's right, and you'll
burn all over and scream for your mommy
and daddy, but they'll be in heaven with our
Lord and they won't be able to hear you and
you'll bum and burn and burn ...

BUBBLES: Eeeeeeeeeeeek! He said Jewish.

Right in front of the children!

BUBBLES: And you'll be so hungry!

SATAN: Cut defense spending! Hah-hahhah!

MR. RIGHTEOUS: But you'll never burn up

completely and bugs willeat your insides out
forever and ever ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Quick Bubbles, the pork

chips!
BUBBLES: Good thinking Mr. Righteous.
(She picks up and holds the tray while Mr.
Righteous throws pork chips, which sizzle
as they hit Satan.)
SATAN: No, no, not pork! Ah, they burn!

BUBBLES: And they'll get bigger and fatter

and just keep eating more and more of you,
but they'll never eat you up, and they won't
burn up, either.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: No, they won't
BUBBLES: But if you give your heart to
Jesus, then the bugs won't eat it, and you'll

be happy forever, eating and singing songs,

and playing games, and eating.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Just like we do here.
BUBBLES: Yup. It'll be just like being in Mr.
Righteous' neighborhood allthe time. (Close
up. Slowly and breathily.) And it'll never,
ever be bedtime.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Isn't Jesus wonderful?
BUBBLES: The eat's meow. (Moans softly.)
Mr. Righteous, I'm feeling his presence
again.
(A knock at the door.)
MR. RIGHTEOUS: Did you hear that, boys
and girls? (Pauses) I knew you did.
BUBBLES: Oh, I just know it's Him in this
time. (Feels around dress for pocket.)
Where did I put that compact?
MR. RIGHTEOUS: That's OK, Bubbles.
We're out of time now. But be sure to watch
tomorrow, boys and girls, when we'll all see
who's at the door here in "Mr. Righteous'
Neighborhood."
BUBBLES: And don't forget to tell mommy
and daddy to get out to the nearest Bomagain Family Bookstore and pick up my new
book, God's Answer to Fat: Trick Mirrors.
MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Smiles and waves.)
Bye-bye for now, boys and girls.
BUBBLES: (Smiles and waves.) Bye.
(They continue smiling and waving. Fade
out to theme music and credits.) ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mark Fara lives in Ohio with his
"Significant Other" and two children,
ages five and seven. His favorite
commedians are Steve Martin and Jim
and Tammy Bakker.

ANOTHERSADE
[cont'd from pg.13]

tive zealot forced the cancellation of those

productions in 1813.

LE MARQUIS

Austin, Texas

DE SADE

Epitaph
He died on December 2, 1814, at 10:00
P.M. "without a murmur." Naturally, there
was the traditional assertion that he had a
deathbed conversion, but that cannot be
taken seriously. In his will, Sade gratefully
acknowledged his mistress, but his generosity was quickly compromised by his family.
.He asked in his will to be buried "without
ceremony of any kind." That request was
not honored either - he was buried with a
chapel service, candles, and chaplain. He
asked that his grave be covered with acorns
"so that the spot will become green once
again ... and that the traces of my grave will
disappear from the face of the earth as I trust
the memory of my name will fade from the
minds of all people - except for those few

April,1985

who in their minds and hearts have loved

me."

IMPI

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Prof. Maurice M. l..aBeUe holds a Ph.D.
in Comparative Literature. He
presently teaches in the Department
of English at Drake University in Des
Moines, Iowa. His work has been
published in both French and English
in scholarly journals throughout the
United States, Canada, England, and
France. His book on the French
Atheist Alfred Jarry (Alfred Jarry,
Nihilism, and the Theatre of The
Absurd) appeared in 1981.

Page 17

-=:::::::J ~

~~/eI'105,
WHY Ai...I.. OF
TJilS UNS.E.Ml...'1 MOST/I.ITY
TOWA~IlS
17105 OF us WITH
FA/nil
FO(J~Il WITHIN T1iE~E.

I/I!A.Y
fflSeS~

IT NDT BeT7't!A.

V;OR

ftCCQMPl...I$HMt::N7"S
~y A.E.t.IGION-?

I/lIDE-E.D, WHEAt:

,N\/i0/!.

AAANEO

UPON THE frlAYFI.':>WER~

.~

~r

WliS FflfTH TIiIiT PLANTe!.) ~

me SeE.DS OF MDRAt.rT'1 IN rue
FE.R71~ SOIL Of L/ElEAr., ,."
PLOWED THE. E/iRTfI
WIfrEP,ED IT WITf/

'

'-

'

~,

WDULD ~

THIS 8RJ!1iT COWITFIY & /!lOW

WITHOUT OUR HER/Tli6E. OF
F~mil OIiTIN613fiCX
70 TJVfr VEIiY
IJIW 7'HIfr THE. .8RA\ PI~R./MS

PAI!S"'i
Ii MoP.E../3AI./lNce.O
VIEW OF THE MANY PosI11VE

wrrn PIETY...

~DJNEO
HIiNes 70 ~
POJ..t. 11iE. WEEDS OF
~LO"Tl-l MD SIN, .&'ISkEO
IN 7"H1!SUNSHINE
OF

Al6HTt:.OUS

VIRi(JE.

CDMPN3S/ON ...

~NTIL. A fJ.OWeR!N(j

OF l3NEFICEN'r
LOVE. AND GAACE SHfiJ.L MflNCM

cor flCAOSS

J./WO

8 EAAlNG

TMe. fR,.UITS OF 6QO:S 6R.I!:EN

THiJ1118TD DNE. /WI) AU.'.'

1>-

SlN8

/1AllELUJNj.'

7llfvw.S/C

Page 18

April, 1985

American Atheist

Just what do Atheists want

to read about as Atheists?
What do they, as Atheists,
want to learn? Just what
kind of people are Atheists?

The American Atheist wanted to know, so it conducted

an extensive survey of its readership in late 1984. The
question of what Atheists are was answered in the March
1985 issue of the American Atheist. Commonly Atheists are
male, married, white, have children, and have been involved
in at least some higher education. But just what do these
individuals want to read about, want - as Atheists - to
know?
Naturally, those who work in The American Atheist
Center had some pre-conceived ideas as to what would be
discovered, principally because of the long term involvement of the national personnel with the local Chapters.
Over the years, the staff had met literally thousands of
Atheists, received letters from a hundred times as many as
those to whom they had talked. The personnel at The
Center had built up some perceptions from those contacts.
They thought that the survey would reflect the concerns
which they had heard. In a large sense, the staff was correct.
But acting as the administration of a national office of a
much despised group brought some false concerns.
Performance

The American Atheist wanted to know if it were doing its

job, and a series of specific questions were asked concerned
with that. Out of approximately one thousand returns, 850
answered those questions. The percentage replies below
are based on those replies:
Do you feel that the American Atheist has substantially
increased your awareness and/or comprehension in any of
the following areas:

Austin, Texas

April, 1985

Page 19'

Understanding and defining Atheism

Yes - 86.72 percent No - 13.28 percent
Understanding state/church separation
issues
Yes- 92.86 percent
No - 7.14 percent
Recognizing religio-political methodologies
Yes - 89.41 percent
No -10.58 percent
The nature of religion
Yes - 80.66 percent No - 19.34 percent
Gains in general historical knowledge
Yes - 90.43 percent No - 9.56 percent.
Better understanding of foreign cultures
Yes- 68.62 percent
No - 31.37 percent.
Better self-analysis
Yes...:....64.10 percent No - 35.90 percent
Some of the percentages became clearer
as the written replies were analyzed. For
example, the articles from Margaret Bhatty
on India and its culture had whetted reader's
in the requests for articles on Atheism in
other countries and on other continents.
The "No" answers were often attended by
remarks also. Some of these were: (1) "No
to all; long time Atheist, not arrogant, you
simply can't tell me anything," (2) "No to all. I
know all this already, I'm ready for action,"
(3) "I'm sixty-eight years old. It's good to see
it in print, collected together, but I know all
this."
In this section of the survey the single
most often made comment was, "I thought I
was all alone." The only variation was when
a word or two was added, but the theme was
the same; "I am not alone anymore," or
"Now I know there are others such as I."
Ranking Regulars
In another section of the 1984 survey,
readers were asked to rank in the order of
their preference, the regular features and
columnists of the American Atheist.
In compilation, the answers were weighted and a scale of 190 to 1900 used, with 190
being the first choice by all concerned and
1900 the pits. The following is the list of
features and columns in order of preference
and the points earned in this ranking system:
Feature

Potpourri
Poetry

1010
1406

The results of this ranking were of some

surprise to the editors. The single most
controversial feature writer - Jon G. Murray - was far and ahead the most popular.
This was particularly interesting as he is the
writer with the single most problems meeting his deadlines. The two columnists whose
work appears most irregularly, Jeff Frankel
and Richard Smith, proved to be well appreciated. "News and Comments," the most
hastily prepared section of the American
Atheist, was consistently reported as educational and rewarding. Allthese results willbe
carefully studied by the editors, and future
changes may reflect the preferences expressed.
Favorites
And what recent American Atheist articles had "hit the spot" with readers? The
American Atheist felt that it was important
to know; it would give particular examples of
the type of work which Atheists considered
pointedly interesting. So the question "In the
past year, what articles in the American
Atheist have you particularly liked?" was
included in the 1984 survey.
More surprises were to be had in this
section. Repeatedly, articles dealing with
events or situations in other countries and
cultures were named. And despite the fact
that the readers are predominately male
(83.1 percent are men), women's issue
pieces were often named.
Of the articles published recently by the
American Atheist, the one most frequently
named as "particularly liked" was "Sexual
Mutilations and Islam" by Soledad de
Montalvo-Mielche (July 1984). What was
named second "most liked" in the articles in
the year acculmulation was spread out almost equally among seventeen different
articles. They are listed alphabetically for
they were all greatly preferred ..

ity that animals may possess crude ideas and

primitive rituals.) July, 1984.
For Mature Audiences Only by Jon G.
Murray. (The history of cinema and television censorship in the U.S.) March, 1984.
The Great Irish Sting by Frank Snider.
(Roman Catholic control of Ireland.) May,
1984.
Groucho Meets a Preacher by Jeff
Frankel. (High humor at the expense of
religion.) February, 1984.
Happiness and the Atheist by Lowell
Newby. (General comments on atheist
thought.) September, 1984.
Maiming of The Dillywhacker by Richard W. Morris. (Circumcision.) December,
1982.
Matilda Joslyn Gage, from the Roots of
Atheism series. (A short biography.) March,
1984.
Mental Circumcision, from News and
Comments. (A report on the Accelerated
Christian Education schools.) September,
1984.
Politics and Religion in the Middle
East by Dr. Alfred Lilienthal. (A speech
analyzing the continuing crisis in the Middle
East as given to the 1984 American Atheist
Convention.) August, 1984.
The Pope and the Pendulum. (An analysis of the Bishop's letter on Nuclear Disarmament.) February, 1984.
, Sex As An Argument for Atheism by
Ben Edward Akerley. (A speech from the
1984American Atheist Convention concerning Christianity's repressive effects on sexuality), August, 1984.
Women and Christianity by Josephine
K. Henry, from the Atheist Masters series.
(A criticism of Christian attitudes toward
females.) July, 1984.
Women and the Law of Karma by
Margaret Bhatty. (Women's lives in Hindu
tradition and suttee.) August, 1984.
Also reflected in this list is the same
general desire for the history of atheist
thought and personalities which was portrayed in the "free answer" portion of the
survey.
Good Ideas

Score

Editorial (Jon G. Murray)

News and Comments,
Letters to the Editor
American Atheist Radio Series
Nature's Way (Gerald Tholen)
Ask A.A.
Angry Young Atheist (Jeff Frankel)
Toward More Intelligence,
(R. Smith)
Report From India
(Margaret Bhatty)
The Atheist Next Door

203
310
413
443
511
523
584
745
789
846

The median for scoring was 855 points,

Page 20

and all of the above fen on the plus side of

that; the two features which did not were:

Advertising Dial-An-Atheist on Salt

Lake City Buses, by David Chris Allen,
from News and Comments. (A recounting of
the fight to carry atheist advertising in public
buses in Salt Lake City.) August, 1984.
Atheism as Therapy by William Talley.
(A new approach to alcoholism.) September, 1984.
Clarence Darrow - American Atheist from the Roots of Atheism series. (A
short biography.) April, 1984
Diderot, from the Roots of Atheism series. (A short biography.) July 1984.
Did Human Gods Evolve from ApeGods? by Brian Lynch (Discusses possibil-

April,1985

A major portion of the 1984 survey was

left open so that readers would be free to
add their very valuable comments. And
what was found from this effort?
Readers want to know about "old-timer"
Atheists, famous Atheists of history, current
Atheists, women Atheists, atheist leaders,
the fights for atheist rights. They want to
read articles about Atheism and Atheists
written by Atheists, past and present. They
want expert answers in many categories by
experts who are Atheists. ("An embryologist should write about the fetus." "An archaeologist should write about the ark search
on Mt. Ararat." "Where's our expert on

American Atheist

comparative religious studies?" "Did one

atheist scientist get a chance to look at the
Shroud of Turin?"
The survey has netted about eighty pages
of instructions, desires, wants, need-toknows, and please-investigates. Readers are
anxious to learn. They want to know Atheism's place in the stream of history. And they
want to know, objectively, more about religion. (''Take one denomination a month and
feature it." "How did it start?" "Who are
these people [religious leaders such as Calvin, Luther]? Give us a short biography.")
And, then, most wail: "How can we, as
Atheists, cope with the increasing encroachments?" The Bible, objectively, is of interest.
("Who indeed wrote it?" "How did it evolve?" "Is there any original anywhere?")
Readers want book reviews and many
asked if the American Atheist knew of this
book or that: George Elison's Deus Destroyed, Gore Vidal's Creation, Homer
Smith's Man and His Gods, and many more.
Would the American Atheist please look up
the history of Poland and Unitarianism? Has
information on Catherine Crane Gartz
(whose family owned Crane Plumbing Fixtures) who in 1937 openly proclaimed her
Atheism been found?
It will take the American Atheist twenty
years and a staff of twenty people to get
around to all of it, but it will.

cfJore~",
The 1984 survey also involved a preference question: "Do you have a definite
preference on whether your American Atheist is mailed with a 'plain wrapper' (with just
the American Atheist Press logo and return
address) or with an envelope with' American
Atheist' spelled out?" The questions was
asked because American Atheist, taking
pride in the identification of Atheism, began
to use "American Atheist" as the return
name for all of its mailings many years ago.
The resulting hassles which it had and
continues to have with Christians working in
the United States Postal Service has been
overwhelming. Mail is not delivered, lost,
returned, destroyed, misdirected, delayed,
or mutilated. Perhaps the envelope which
had 217 staples put through it willsuffice as
an example. Obscenities and religious slogans are not infrequently stamped on mail
received. Book orders, for many years,
simply could not get through the Chicago
Post Office to the recipient. In face of these
increasing problems, American Atheists felt
that it might need to change that proud
banner of defiance, the words "American
Atheist" as a return address on the envelopes. And, of course, during the twenty-

Austin, Texas

Constructive Criticisms
It would not be remiss to say that ninetynine percent of the readers love the American Atheist and The American Atheist Center. But they still rage at the American
Atheist for its faults. ("Find a proofreader!"
"You are a mess, but keep after it; no one
else is doing it!" "Your cartoons stink.")
Readers want Atheism to have even a stronger voice. Their criticisms are almost totally
constructive. Their suggestions are excellent. ("Distribute to schools." "You lack
financial power because you have not focused on getting it." "Growth plans, stategy
and tactics need formulated." "Start a
monthly 'Open Forum' on topics of continuing interest such as tactics, P.R., strategy." "Be careful. Don't become victims."
"Use massive direct-mail." "Our own government is resisting our nation's constitution!" "Let us Atheists do the 'defining.' We
can't let the theists tell us what we are." But,
the most used single sentence of reply was
"Keep up the good work," as you went
about your further ranking.
And then, there was the one percent who
hate everything the American Atheists does
or represents. They lashed out at Jon
Murray. ("He is establishing a cult.") At
Gerald Tholen. ("He is bitter." "He is vintwo years of American Atheists' operation,
various individual members had complained
about the use of "American Atheist" on the
envelopes. After lengthy discussion, it was
decided that a question concerned with that
usage should be put in the survey. Meanwhile, as the postal situation worsened, the
envelope return was reluctantly changed.
Now the return name on the magazine is
"AAP." and the return address of the
Insiders' Newsletter is "S.O.S_", the initials
of the Society of Separationists, the parent
organization of the American Atheist Center and the American Atheist Press.
When the results from the survey were
finally counted, it was found that American
Atheist readers were not as concerned with
this situation as anticipated. Over one-half
(51.34 percent) checked off "No; I do not
care about the envelope at all." More than a
quarter of the respondents (26.55 percent)
wanted "American Atheist" on the envelope
big and bold. And less than a quarter (22.11
percent) felt that a "plain wrapper" would be
preferable. Some individuals expanded on
their answers, usually commenting that they
just wanted to get the mail and that anything
that defeated that purpose should be allayed. The four most compelling reasons for
the choice of plain envelopes were: (I) "We
should make our own decisions about the
amount we wish to advertise our views,
which often depends on time and circum-

April, 1985

dictive.") At any mention of nuclear freeze.

("I'm pro-nuke." "I don't want to hear about
it.") At Madalyn O'Hair. ("She is an ugly fat
slut." "She is a misanthrope.") At Atheism.
("I hate the word." "Let's drop the word and
go for Freethinker.") At Atheism's stance.
("Don't ridicule religion. We must respect
religious beliefs.") At any objective analysis
of the Middle East. ("You favor that bastard,
Lillienthal." "You are anti-semites.") At anything else they could criticize: the paper
used in the magazine, the typestyle, its dimensions, the writers.
It was very easy at times to see whence
the readers came. As the survey was further
analysed, if there was a short burst of
energetic language about the need to live
with religion, a check would find that almost
inevitably it was a comment from an Atheist
living with or married to a Christian. The
figures, matched with the statistics, were
alarming as over one-third of the readers
were in unions where religion has the potential of being a disruptive factor. Atheist
couples tended, generally, toward taking all
religions head on. When a veritable diatribe
against religion appeared most often this
was from an older person. Atheists apparently become more radical and more angry
with age.

stances," (2) "I live in a Cuban area. The

word Atheist is dangerous," (3) "I am old and
in a red neck community. When someone
else gets my mail, Iam in trouble," and (4) "In
Utah there is a religious clause in the apartment rental contract."
Meanwhile, from January to March 1985,
the American Atheist Center had sent approximately thirty-five complaints of nondelivery (for one reason or another) to the
Austin Post Office. The Postmaster in that
city is determined that atheist mail shall be
handled like any other and does her best to
see that it is so. Meeting with officials of the
American Atheist Center, taking them on
tours of the Post Office, she had guaranteed
that the mail would move in and out of
Austin. (Last year, one entire bag of The
Center's mail was found in the lobby of a
building in the downtown area, by a janitor
who was cleaning the building.) There is no
way that five hundred or more clerks can be
individually watched.
Following the advice of a large mail handling firm, The Center decided it was more
important to get the Insider's Newsletter,
the American Atheist, and book purchases
to individuals than anything else. The Center will thereore continue with its policy of
using "plain wrappers." Perhaps one day,
American Atheists willbe able to return to a
proud and proper identification for mail.

Page 21.

Over and Over

There were two questions, both concerned with psychology, that the thousand
readers who responded asked at least one
thousand times:
"What's wrong with them, that they believe?"
and
"What's right with us? How did we, as
Atheists, manage to get out of the religious
trap?"
The questions about theists were many:
"How can they accept myths?"
"What do people get from religion?"
"Why do they cling to these horrors?"
"What makes human minds work to
accept absurd, illogical ideas?"
"Why are they, substantially, mindless?"
"Why do people need psychological
crutches?"
"Why is there, to these people, a perceived need for religion?"
When it came to themselves, the
questions were other. They all want
out and touch one another. They
know how each other lives, works,

reader's
to reach
want to
plays. It

is important that they all know how they

communicate, what their problems are with
religion, how others handle them. What is
your human interest story? How did you get
to Atheism? What are you going to do now
since you are there? What do you think of
every issue of the day? What are the trials
and tribulations of contemporary Atheists?
How do you uncover other Atheists around
you?
Readers are desperate to explore the
thinking, the habits, the lives of each other.
The "Letters to the Editor" are just the first
timid outreaches to see ifa name in print will
cause the wrath of a god - or the wrath of a
Christian neighbor - to descend. Readers
have must more to say than what has
appeared. They want to shout their opinions
to the rooftops. They don't want to be a/one
anymore They ask, "How can we come out
of the closet when our families are religious?" "How can we find other Atheists,
communicate with them in a meaningful and
in-depth way?" "How does one manage day
to day livingamong theists?" "I want to hear
from another Atheist, with experience, so I
know how to cope."
And in all of the comments there were

more than a thousand questions. How can

we find each other? How can we start small
groups? How can I talk to my neighbors?
How can we communicate? American Atheists have an unquinchable thirst for knowledge of one another. And the statistics
discussed in the March 1984 issue of the
American Atheist tell them a great deal
about themselves. But all of that is only the
beginning. If they have a good, strong,
atheist organization standing somewhere in
the United States, pumping out information
as it can, Ameican Atheists are just about
ready to reach out one-to-the other.
Perhaps Reagan is pushing Atheists to the
brink of fear - they damn him enough for
the tone he has set in the nation. But they
are dangereously near to opening up, reaching out, working together, trying to understand the position in which we find ourselves
in this nation. They are amazed, confused,
angry at the sudden surge of mindless
religious dominance. But never do they
think of turning to main-line religions for
help. Thev know the answer, really, is Atheism. ~

"Seems to me that if they can recall cars for not livina UP

to their promises they ouaht to do the same with politicians.
salesmen. and TU evanaelists."
Page 22

April, 1985

American Atheist

Robert H. Countess

IMMORALITY AND CHRISTIANITY

B. Whitworth's well written arWilliam
ticle in the November, 1984 issue of

the American Atheist raised anew that terribly uncomfortable question which Christians wish would go away - but never does.
It is this: If god is both an all-powerful
sovereign and a loving god, why does he
supervise over wicked, hurtful, and immoral
actions?
The standard reply has been: "But god
only allows these; he doesn't cause them."
Adolescents, of course, could spot the
question-begging weakness of such a copout non-answer. Clearly, one can recognize
that if god is not the ultimate source of all
created activities and concrete matter, then
god is not truly the creator par excellence he
is usually presented to be. The Apostle Paul
understood this when he wrote in Ephesians
1:11 that god "works all things accord to the
plan of his will."
On the other hand, if man is the ultimate
source of any action, then Christians (Jews)
have two ultimate sovereigns in a single
universe - an intriguing dualism indeed!
Recently I was raising this uncomfortable
problem for a pastor I have known many
years, a Presbyterian who prides himself on
being Reformed, on being a Calvinist. "Calvinism is the most perfect expression of
biblical Christianity" is his commitment. My
friend asserted that "God is the ultimate
source of all - even immoral actions - but
man is responsible for his own sinful actions
because god says so!" It is obvious that this
pastor wanted to have his cake and to eat it
also.
I referred then to a scholarly Calvinist
author of the same Presbyterian denomination (Presbyterian Church in America),
whom I have long admired for his gutsy
embrace of the full implications of Calvinist
theology. He is Gordon Haddon Clark,
whose PhD is in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania. He was for many
years the Chairman of the Department of
Philosophy at Butler University and his
pristine position among American fundamentalists has made him a figure to be
reckoned with.
Clark's major work, in my opinion, is
Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1961), and the
key chapter is the last one, "God and Evil"
(pages 194-241). My personal acquintance
with Dr. Clark over nearly twenty years now
has revealed a no-nonsense attitude toward
the tough questions of religion. Clark sserts:
Austin, Texas

"God's decretive will . . . causes every

event." Then: "It may seem strange at first
that God would decree an immoral act, but
the Bible shows that he did."
Many folks find it strange indeed!
Now, the point of my writing this article is
not to explore how Clark goes about trying
to make his immorality-decreeing god into
some sort of moral deity. Interested readers
can explore that on their own and may
possibly conclude with my estimation that
Clark outdoes Orwellian "Newspeak" when
appealing to logic for support. My point is to
emphasize that Clark has faithfully and
accurately presented the nucleus of biblical
religion. Jehovah-God - literally JehovahElohim (Jehovah-Gods) - is in fact in the
Bible the sort of god that Clark has faithfully
defended for nearly eighty years of his life.
The biblical god is in fact Jesus' god, St.
Paul's god, Luther's and Calvin's, Billy
Graham's and Oral Roberts' and the Pope's
deity as well. He is the one true deity of all
the Judeo-Christian orthodoxies.
But Gordon Clark has the back bone of
conviction and intellect to assert forcefully
and clearly the all-determinative nature of
this god. The Judeo-Christian reactionaries
have, of course, moved away from this
jealous, vengeful, decreeing god of whom
Gordon Clark asserts: "I wish very frankly
and pointedly to assert that if a man gets
drunk and shoots his family, it was the willof
God that he should do so. The Scriptures
leave no room for doubt . . . " The reactionaires opt for a loving, fatherly deity who
is powerful but who, yet, is not an absolute
powerhouse.
It is my opinion that Clark's bold, honest
representation of Judeo-Christian thought
invites some sort of canonization for s linthood in a Nobel Prize in the religious arena.
He the quintessential Jew, Christian, Moslem all rolled into one.
I used to agree with Clark. I avidly read
and re-read his finalchapter in RRR and tried
it out on unsuspecting opponents - and
with great success. How I enjoyed smashing
an opponent's weak view of God! What a
high! At the same time, I had convinced
myself that I was doing this out of love for
both God and the "smashee."
Multitudes of us former Calvinists are out
here in a wretched world of suffering humanity. We no longer accept the word games of a
Gordon Clark. We may admire his guts, but
we refuse to bow before his malignant deity,
because his God is untimatley the sole

April, 1985

responsible source of every phenomenon in

the cosmos. His God allegedly loves and
showers blessings on the elect; on the rest,
He pours our His hatred (d. Romans 9:13ff.).
Clark's God covers all the bases: He is
benevolent, malevolent, and absolute. And,
with such a God, there is no need for a devil,
because the two "beings" coalesce into one.
Whoever remarked, "Your God is my
Devil" captured Clark's God indeed. Likewise, I am reminded of the little child who in
Sunday School learned about Jehovah commanding the Israelites (the chosen people of
God) to tear up the pregnant bellies of
women (i.e., on the spot induced abortions!)
to dash the brains of little children against
walls, and to annihilate everyone else, hamstring horses and more: the little boy said:
''That God is dirty bully!"
Today, in our sophisticated religious world
of megabuck programs and building complexes in the name of God, we see that most
religionists have divided Clark's God into
two antagonists: on the one hand there is a
God who loved the world so much that he
sent His son Jesus to die for people's sins
(the latter being, of course, decreed by
God!); on the other hand, a hostile Devil
who opposes both the work and the word of
God. The responses from audiences who
get involved in this great conflict on the side
of God have been enormously successful for
.the building of huge power and financial
religious empires.
Preachers tell us how to have happy
homes, material prosperity, obedient children, safe streets and a holy nation: fear God!
Hell and the wrath of God are often played
down, but they lurk just under the surface of
the Gospel pronouncements and reveal the
real God who decrees all things nefarious.
The orthodox Grahms, Schullers, Falwells,
Roberts, Popes and Rabbis all accentuate
the positive.
Thank God (sic) for Gordon Clark! ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert H. Countess holds a PhD in New
Testament Greek from Bob Jones
University (1966) and an M.L.S. from
Georgetown University. He is a writer
and lecturer. His book, The Jehovah's
Witnesses' New Testament appeared
in 1982.

Page 23

THE PROBING MIND / Frank R. Zindler

WHAT IS DEATH?
t was probably the last college biology
Icourse
I would ever teach. The first

laboratory session began in the same way as

had almost every other one Ihad taught over
the course of seventeen years.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Modern
Biology, a course devoted to the scientific
investigation of the nature, origin, and evolution of life. This is the laboratory session,
and it lasts three hours. Instead of actual,
hands-on experiments, today we shall indulge in some thought experiments. Since
we shall spend the rest of the semester on
life, today, by contrast, let's talk about
death. What is death, anyhow?"
What follows is a distillation of the discussion that ensued, with arguments from previous years being mixed in as necessary.
A Class Discussion
TOM: Death iswhen your heart stops beating.
ZINDLER: I see. Does that mean that poor
Smedly here [petting a potted philodendron] is dead? He's never even had a heart
- let alone had it stop beating!
TOM: Well, I thought we were talking about
people.
ZINDLER: Biologydeals with alllivingthings,
plants and microbes as well as animals.

ZINDLER: Tom, this dead man here seems

to disagree with you.
[laughter]
CAROL: I don't think the heart has anything to do with it. The heart isjust a pump.
A man is dead when his soul leaves his body.
ZINDLER: Does that happen instantaneously, or is it a gradual process? How do we
know when the soul has left?
CAROL: Instantly. Either you're alive or
you're dead. At the instant your soul leaves,
you're dead.
JIM: What about a guy who's been in a
coma for a month? Is his soul still there, and
how do you know it?
CAROL: I think he still has a soul.
ZINDLER: That means we can't disconnect
him from his life-support system? What will
we tell his heirs who are ready to inherit his
estate? How willwe convince them that this
guy still has a soul?
HAROLD: I just read in The Enquirer that
they once did an experiment where they
took a guy who was dying and put him on a
scale. The moment he died and his soul left
him, he lost weight.

TOM: I don't know much about plants. I'd

rather talk about people. I think a person is
dead when his heart stops beating.

JIM: How did they know the change of

weight was due to the loss of the soul?
Maybe he just became more dehydrated.
Maybe he just lost bladder control!

ZINDLER: What if a doctor starts his heart

up again? Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
happens all the time.

HAROLD: I don't know. They must have

had some way of knowing when his soul left
him.

TOM: Well, he's been deadfor awhile. Then

he's come back to life.

ZINDLER: [Speaking to entire class] How

would we know in advance how much
weight change to expect ifthe soul is leaving?
How could we know if we should expect a
weight change of an ounce or something
less? Ifthe lungs collapse a bit and some air is
lost, might that affect the body weight as
much as the loss of a soul? How heavy is a
soul, anyway?

ZINDLER: What ifhis heart is removed surgically and he's kept going on an aritificial
heart-lung machine?
TOM: For practical purposes, he's a goner.
I think he's dead.
ZINDLER: [Holding an imaginary microphone up to an imaginary patient on a
coronary replacement unit] Excuse me, sir.
Tom here tells me you're dead. Is that really
so?
[Ghostly voice replying]
Would I be doing the Times crossword puzzle if I were dead? The
rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Page 24

CAROL: I don't think you can weigh a soul. I

don't think you can detect it. It's just there,
that's all.
JIM: Then how will you ever know if someone is dead or not? I don't think there is such
a thing as a soul. I think life and death have
something to do with chemical changes.
CAROL: You'll know when it's your turn!
April, 1985

Then you'll find out!

ZINDLER: Let's assume, for the sake of
argument, there is such a thing as a soul.
How and when did we get it?
HAROLD: The Catholic Church says we
get our souls at the moment of fertilization,
when we become a fertilized egg.
ZINDLER: How many souls does single
zygote (fertilized egg) receive? And if the
zygote receives one or more souls, does that
mean that the zygote was dead before it got
a soul? Do souls enter dead eggs?
CAROL: The zygote receives just one soul,
of course!
ZINDLER: If that is so, then what
when the zygote splits into two
daughter cells and each becomes
Identical twins? Is one a person
other a soulless zombie?

happens
separate
a baby?
and the

JIM: And what about the egg receiving a

soul? If the loss of a soul makes something
dead, then wouldn't a cell which gains a soul
have to be dead before it receives it?
HAROLD: I think there are different levels
of aliveness. Before it gets a soul, the egg is
just alive. After it gets the soul it's a person,
a human being.
ZINDLER: We seem to have gotten bogged
down on the problem of when an individual
gets his soul. Let's consider the evolutionary
aspect of the problem. When in the course
of evolution did our ancestors get ensouled?
Janet? You haven't said anything yet. What
do you think?
JANET: Our ancestors got souls at that
point in evolution when they became human.
RUTH: That's circular reasoning. Besides,
we have no way of knowing when these
so-called souls came into our ancestors. All
we have are skeletal remains. You can't tell
from a skeleton if it once had a soul or ...
JANET: Well the soul had to come in somewhere. Maybe Neanderthal Man.
ZINDLER: Keep in mind that evolution in
the past took place pretty much the same as
it does at present. Each generation at the
time of, say Peking Man, differed from its
parental generation no more than you differ
from your parents. Imagine Hank over here
one morning after breakfast suddenly anAmerican Atheist

nouncing to his parents:

Eat your hearts out, folks. You're
justa couple of animals. I, however,
am a full-fledgedhuman being. I have a
soul and willgo to a groovy garden in
the sky when I die. You two are just
going to rot like wet turkey feathers
when you kick off.
Do you think that sort of scene actually
happened once upon a time?
SAMANTHA: Like, you know, I've been
kinda, like into Eastern Religions lately, and
I think we never got our souls in the course
of evolution. I think all living things have
souls. I think our ancestors all the way back
had souls of some sort.
ZINDLER: Even Smedly here? [petting the
plant again]
SAMANTHA: Hey, man, they've shown
that plants have brain waves! Like they can
tell if you don't like them.
RUTH: Brain waves? They don't have
brains! How can they have brain waves?
SAMANTHA: Well, they produce electrical
waves of some sort. All living things have
feelings.
JIM: Prove it!
ZINDLER: Let's come at the problem from a
different angle. Hank, when you cash your
chips in, just who and which body is it that's
going to die, anyway?
HANK: I don't get it. What do you mean,
"which body?" I only have one body.
ZINDLER: Really? Is it the same body with
which you were born?
HANK:

Of course it is!

ZINDLER: No fooling?You were born with a

beard? You were born six-foot one?
HANK: No, of course not ...
ZINDLER: Can you show the class any part
of the body you with which were born?
HANK: Well ... I was born with some of the
cells of this body, and they grew and ...
RUTH: I think what Mr. Zindler's driving at
is the fact that the actual atoms that make
up your body today are not the same atoms
that composed it when you were born. I
read somewhere that all the atoms in your
body are replaced every couple of years.
ZINDLER: Why didn't I say it that clearly?
Yes, indeed, you are made up of a different
set of atoms than the ones with which you
were born. As a matter of fact, all the atoms
of your body are recycled from the bodies of
other people and other organisms. If some
madman rushed in here now and blew up
Hank and me away to kingdom come, parts
of other people would be going with us at the
same time. Some of them would be people
who died - whatever that word means Austin, Texas

twenty or one hundred years ago.

JIM: You're begging the question if you use
the word die. We haven't defined it yet.
ZINDLER: You're absolutely right. I just
want to add that since most atoms are for all
purposes immortal, they just keep recycling.
Almost surely, every atom in your bodies
now was once part of the body of a dinosaur.
When I die, does that mean that a dinosaur
will also be dying? Wait! Don't answer that
question!
[laughter]
Actually, this reminds me of a problem the
medieval theologians used to worry about.
Consider a baby born to cannibal parents.
The kid has never eaten anything but human
flesh. He dies, and comes the day of resurrection. Whose body is resurrected? If the
cannibal is resurrected, the people he has
eaten lose out. Ifthe lunches and dinners are
resurrected, the cannibal loses out! Recycling theology is not an easy subject.
HANK: All this recycling business has me
confused. I myself am recycling. What has
happened to all the other "me's" that have
existed in the bodies I've inhabited between
the time I was born and now? I'm almost
twenty years old. If matter recycles completely every five years, say, then at least
three "me's" have died since I was born or at least they have somehow disappeared.
But why do I still feel like me?
ZINDLER: Whoa! I'm supposed to ask the
hard questions here! It sounds to me that
you identify more with your mind than with
your body. It sounds as if you feel that your
mind is the real you and your body is just its
receptacle.
HANK: Yeah, I do sort of think that way.
ZINDLER: But hasn't your mind changed
also? Can you remember the mind with
which you were born ?
HANK: No ... I can't remember much of
anything from early childhood.
ZINDLER: Oh dear, you've lost a mind also!
How many minds do you think you've lost in
the last twenty years?
HANK: I think Ijust lost another one when I
signed up for this class!
[laughter]
But I thought we were discussing the question "what is death?" Death is the opposite
of life.
[laughter]
ZINDLER: Now we're getting somewhere.
CAROL: We are? It seems to me we're
totally lost!
ZINDLER: Let's approach the problem from
a different angle. Hank says death is the
opposite of life. What kind of opposites are
life and death? Does life differ from death in
the way 'on' differs from 'off or in the way

April,1985

'hot' differs from 'cold'? Jack? What do you

think?
JACK: When you die, you get coid. So I'd
say "hot-cold".
.
ZINDLER: What if you die by being burned
at the stake - the way a lot of local
politicians would like to see me go? That isn't
exactly cold, is it?
CAROL: It's on-off! The instant your soul
leaves you, you're off. You're dead.
SAMANTHA: I don't think either opinion is
correct. I don't think there is such a thing as
death. Like, I think you are just transformed.
ZINDLER: Maybe we can settle this issue
quickly and democratically. Let's vote on it.
Let's see a show of hands. How many for
on-off? How many for hot -cold?
[counting]
It appears we have eleven hot-colds, ten onoffs, and Samantha abstains. So that settles
it. Life differs from death as hot differs from
cold.
HAROLD: Wait a minute! Just what's the
diference between on-off and hot-cold, anyway? I'm confused.
ZINDLER: Ruth? Can you enlighten Harold
on this point?
RUTH: Well, in an on-off universe, there are
only two possible states: on or off. There
can be no in-between condition. In a hotcold universe, you can have a lot of inbetween states besides hot and cold.
ZINDLER: Very good. But I'd like to know at
what temperature hot becomes cold. Jim?
At what temperature do things become
cold?
JIM: There is no such temperature. I mean,
it's arbitrary at what temperature you think
things become cold. If you're heating a
rooming house, 'cold' will be a different
temperature than it would be if you're running a frozen sperm bank!
ZINDLER: Do you mean to tell the on-offer
that you, as a hot-colder, think the dividing
line between life and death is as arbitrary as
that between hot and cold?
JIM: Exactly. It's absolutely relative. Or is it
precisely imprecise?
[groans]
CAROL: That's crazy! Before you get shot
in the head, you're alive. An instant after a
bullet blows your brains out, you're dead.
There's nothing relative or arbitrary about
that.
ZINDLER: Would you say, Carol, that a
man walking all alone, at night, in the Sahara
Desert, having a heart attack one hundred
feet away from a pack of rabid hyenas is
dead?
CAROL: Yes, for all practical purposes,
Page 25

he's dead.
ZINDLER: You're sure he's dead?
CAROL: Yes.
ZINDLER: You would agree, then, that the
same man having the same heart attack in
the midst of the Coronary Intensive Care
Unit at Albany Medical College Hospital,
during a world conference of cardiac resuscitation experts, is also dead?
CAROL: Well, I don't ...
ZINDLER: It's the same guy, the same heart
attack. As you say, there's nothing relative
or arbitrary about death.
RUTH: The question of whether or not this
guy's dead or not depends to a very high
degree upon the circumstances. It is relative. The question is, how much disintegration or break -down can we suffer, yet be
repaired "intime. If we disintegrate beyond
the level repairable with the technology at
hand, we are dead.
JIM: Exactly. The guy in the desert had no
chance. Whether or not we judge him to be
dead at the moment of the heart attack, it is
that it's only down-hill from there on: no
reversal is likely. In the coronary unit, on the
other hand, the heart attack can be viewed
as a temporary low point, with a high likelihood of recovery.
RUTH: Death depends upon our point in
time as well as space. The guy could have
been at the exact same spot in Albany two
hundred yers ago. No cardiac resuscitation
equipment existed then, and he would have
been about as dead as he was in the
Sahara.
ZINDLER: How many people stillbelieve life
and death are on-off opposites?
[counting again]
Down to three? Three die-hards?
[groans]
CAROL: Religion and law have always
dealt with life and death as being on-off
opposites. Either a person has a soul or he
doesn't. You can't have a partial soul. Either
something is a person or it isn't. You can't
have a partial person. Either you've committed a murder or you haven't. You can't
be guilty of 2.6 murders! Either you're human or you're an animal or something. You
can't be part human and part something
else.
ZINDLER: Really? How do you interpret the
tissue-culture experiments where they take
human cells and mouse cells and cause them
to fuse, producing hybrid cells which then
proceed to multiply. What kind of culture
results? Is it a man or a mouse? Each cell has
both human and mouse chromosomes.
CAROL: I never heard of that. But I don't
think that proves much of anything. Life and
death are still opposites like on and off.

Page 26

ZINDLER: Very well. Let's perform a

thought experiment. Let's take poor old
Tom over there, and let's pretend to kill him
in slow me tion. Tom, come over and sit on
the demonstration bench where the class
can watch you die.
[Sheepishly, Tom gets up, walks to the
bench, hops up on top of it, and sits
Buddha- like facing the class.]
Watch carefully, Carol. I want you to tell the
class the exact time at which Tom dies, the
exact point ar which he switches from 'on' to
'off.
All right now. Let's imagine that Tom is
actually sitting in a giant glass cylinder. The
cylinder is filled with water, and Tom sitting here in his birthday suit - is fitted out
with a respirator which allows him to breathe
under water.
As you watch Tom in the fish-bowl, you
notice thai his hair is all coming off and his
skin is starting to float away. That's because
this isn't just water in which he is immersed.
It's actually a solution of enzymes - special
enzymes that can dissolve the intercellular
glue which holds his cells together to form
his body.
Tom quite literally is becoming unglued
before your very eyes. If you look carefully
through the mats of drifting hair and dermal
sludge, you can see Tom's individual muscles - red and shiny - and the blood vessels,
and the subcutaneous fat deposits ...
JANET: Gross! This is disgusting!

as to whether or not he is alive. If a man can

doubt, can he be dead?
As more of Tom's muscles and fat tissues
dissolve away, let us hook his circulatory
system up to an artificial kidney, heart, and
lung machine, so that whatever is left of him
at any moment can get oxygen, get rid of
wastes, and receive nutrients which we can
supply in pure chemical form to the blood.
Why don't we remove the leg and arm
bones? They're just dangling there in an
unsightly manner, and he doesn't need them
anymore anyhow. Is he still alive?
CAROL: Yes. As I said, lots of people get on
fine without arms and legs.
ZINDLER:"Well, Tom, I hate to do this to
you, but the reproductive organs have got to
go! But looking the way you do now, you
really have no likelihood of finding employment for them anyway.
MIKE: They were unemployed before the
experiment!
[Fraternity brothers snort and snicker]
ZINDLER: What do you know? At the same
time he lost his reproductive organs, Tom
lost his kidneys, urinary bladder, body musculature, and digestive tract! Tom, are you
still in there?
[reading the EEG paper strip]
His answer seems to be rather short ... just
four letters long ... just one four-letter word
followed by an exclamation point ...
[laughter]

ZINDLER: ... notice how he seems to be

staring simultaneously at everyone, now
that he has lost his eyelids ...

Tom, it's unbecoming for a dead man to use

foul language!

JANET: I think I'm going to be sick!

CAROL: This is silly. You can go and

remove everything except his brain and he'll
still be alive.

ZINDLER: Well, Carol? Is Tom still alive?

CAROL: Of course he is. You've only
removed his hair and skin.
ZINDLER: Being careful not to dissolve
holes in any blood vessels, we now dissolve
away all the muscles in his legs and arms.
Tom's life as a gymnast is over. Is he still
alive?
CAROL: Certainly. Lots of people live without legs and arms.
ZINDLER: Tom? What do you think? Are
you still alive? Oh! I forgot to tell the class
that Tom can't talk under water. To assure
his ability to communicate with us under
these odd circumstances, I trained him
ahead of time to be able to transmit Morse
code directly from his brain. By alternating
between alpha and beta electrical rhythms,
he can send messages to us. Let's stick a
recording electrode needle in his brain and
see what he has to say.
[walking over to an EEG machine and
pretending to read a message from the
recording paper strip]
The message reads, "You call this living?"
It appears as though Tom has some doubt

April, 1985

ZINDLER: Your wish is my command. But is

it O.K. to leave his eyeballs attached to the
optic nerves and to leave his middle and
inner ear structures intact?
CAROL: Be my guest. But lacking eye muscles, his eyes can't do him much good. They
just bob about in the solution. He can't see
in 3-D.
ZINDLER: You seem to know quite a bit
about vision.
CAROL: My father is an optometrist
ZINDLER: If we move a book past an eye at
just the right speed and just the right distance, he can still read - proof positive that
he's still alive. Tom's brain, eyes, and ears
are just suspended now in our special solution. Blood still supplies the necessities
through the tubes running from the lifesupport machines to the brain arteries. Tom
can hear, and Tom can see. Tom can still
remember. Is Tom still alive? Is Tom still
Tom?
HAROLD: He's still alive, but I don't think
he's Tom anymore. I mean, he doesn't have

American Atheist

his body anymore. How can he still be Tom?

do their electrical tricks at this temperature.

CAROL: Why does he need his body? He

still has all his memories.

CAROL: Well, can you bring back the

memory by heating the cells up again?

ZINDLER: Ah, yes. 'Tis memories that make

the man ... That being the case, we can
chop off his eye-stalks ...

ZINDLER: Do you doubt it? Of course we

can. There! One burnt-toast consciousnessraising session back in full swing.

JANET: Oh, yukk! He must be dead now.

CAROL: I guess he's come back to life.

ZINDLER: Not at all! He can still hear, you

know. He's been listening to our discussion
all along. Let's see what he thinks at this
point.
[examining EEG strip)
Tsk, tsk! He can't seem to manage any
words at all more than four letters long ...
[laughter)
I don't know if the class realizes it, but there
are large parts of Tom's brain for which he
really has no use at this point. All the parts
that control muscle movement and physical
coordination. He doesn't need them ... zap!
Tom really doesn't need more than twenty
percent or so of his brain that stores his
memories, if I understand Carol correctly.

RUTH: So you agree reversibility of disintegration is a criterion for defining death?

CAROL: Well, I didn't realize ...

ZINDLER: Of course you're absolutely right.
AllTom needs are his memories. Memories
make the man, as we already observed. But
does he need all his memories? Ifany of them
are missing, is Tom still Tom?
CAROL: People forget things all the time.
That doesn't make them dead.
JIM: But there's a limit. And certain memories are more important than others - as
far as personal identity is concerned. What
if he forgets he likes girls? What if he forgets
his name?
ZINDLER: What if we remove all the nerve
circuits involved in memory storage except
for the circuitry needed for conscious recall
of just one memory: the memory of the taste
of burnt toast. How will Tom's memory,
when activated, be identifiable as his memory of burnt toast? How will it differ from
anyone else's memory? Ifthat is all that's left
of Tom, is Tom left at all?
RUTH: Tom as a person is dead, but lifestill
exists. There are levels of aliveness. Personality is the highest level; individual cell functions are the lowest.
CAROL: But there's still consciousness, it's
Tom's memory.

CAROL: If you destroy those cells irreversibly, he's dead.

ZINDLER: Happy to oblige. [pretending to
drain all the fluid out of the imaginary dissolution tank] There! no more burnt-toast
memory. Tom is now dead, right?
CAROL: Are you kidding? There's nothing
left at all! Of course he's dead!
ZINDLER: Aah! I forgot to tell the class
when we began! Whenever any cells came
floating away from Tom's body, they were
immediately sucked up from the dissolution
medium and piped into the thousands of
tissue culture flasks which surround you on
the walls of the lab. All the cells of Tom's
body - minus the few thousand neurons
needed for burnt-toast consciousness - are
happily growing and reproducing all around
you.
[pretending to pick up a flask]
In this particular flask, we have an interesting mixture of Tom's cells: there are
some eye-ball cells, some liver cells, some
toenail-making cells, and some cells that
used to be a freckle. Anyway, this is an
interesting collection of cells!
The really interesting thing about these
cells in culture is that we should be able to
make them lose their inhibitions about asexual reproduction. We should be able to coax
cells into reproducing that were no longer
reproducing when they were imprisoned in
Tom's body. In a few weeks, we'll have three
times as much Tom as when we started.

RUTH: Can you reassemble Tom from the

cell cultures?
ZINDLER: Certainly! As a matter of fact, I
can produce identical triplet Toms - all
exactly alike.
RUTH: I'm reluctant to say you have committed murder, since Tom's body - I mean
bodies - are still carrying on the so-called
life functions. But Tom isn't here anymore.
You've killed his mind. I don't know what
the crime is you've committed, but you
definitely are a criminal.
JIM: Mind-killing is 'menticide.' He's a menticidal maniac.

TOM: May I say something?

ZINDLER: It all depends on whether you're
alive or not. If you're dead you can't say
anything.

HANK: So that's what my brother meant

when he warned me that your class was
"murder"!

TOM: I'm dead.

[uproarious laughter]

ZINDLER: Well, I'm afraid time is running

out, and we've barely begun to answer the
question "What is death?" Since we have a
consensus that life and death are hot-cold
opposites, Ihave a home-work assignment
for you to write out for next week.
[groans, boos, hisses]
The degree of hotness or coldness can be
measured - we use a thermometer to do it.
If aliveness and deadness can also be measured as points on some sort of continuum
- ifwe can place them on some sort of scale
- then I want you each to design for next
week a 'biometer'. Just as a thermometer
measures the heat content of objects (albeit,

ZINDLER: At what point did you die?

TOM: When there was nothing left.

CAROL: He's dead.

ZINDLER: Quite right! What is missing?

What is it that makes Tom be Tom?

Austin, Texas

ZINDLER: That's all very true and very well

put, but I would like to know what you're all
going to tell the Sheriff in a minute when he
comes to arrest me for the murder of Tom.
Have I committed murder? If not, what
crime - if any - have I committed?

ZINDLER: Give that boyan 'A,' but don't let

him talk to the judge! Now that we have
come to the conclusion that a person is a
bundle of memories, I have some disturbing
news to tell you. During the last three hours,
I have been insidiously altering your minds
- making you all different from the bundles
of memories that came in the door over
there. A little bit of each one of you has
'died', and a slightly new person has taken
over each body.
Slowly but surely, I've been killing a little
bit of everyone.

ZINDLER: All right. At this moment, in this

big vat with a few thousand nerve cells activated, there is a consciousness of the taste of
burnt toast. Let's slowly cool the medium ...
as the nerves cool, their electrical activity
begins to dim. The memory begins to fade.
It's going, going ... gone.
ZINDLER: But his nerve cells are still carrying on metabolism, even though they can't

have the cells too, but without organization

- without the neurons connected to store
certain memories - you don't have a person. Like Ruth, I think there are different
levels of aliveness. The highest is that of
consciousness or mind. But to have mind,
you have to have body-level or organismal
organization and life. To have organismal
life,you have to have tissue and cell level life.
Iguess the cellular level of aliveness is as low
as you can get, but I don't know too much
about viruses. They might be subcellular
forms of life.

ZINDLER: What do you mean, when there

was nothing left? We have three times more
Tom-cells than we had at the beginning.
TOM: But I'm not here anymore. A messed
up bunch of cells isn't me.

JIM: Organization. Of course you have to

April,1985

Page 27

rather indirectly), your biometers should be

able to measure the amount of 'life' in an
object. Any questions?
JIM: What is life? ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Formerly a professor of biology and
geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a
science writer. A member of the
American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the

American Chemical Society, and the

American Schools of Oriental
Research. He is also co-chairperson of
the Ohio Committee of
Correspondence on Evolution
Education and Director of the Central
Ohio Chapter of American Atheists.

UDid sou or did )'ou not refuse to eat )'our vesetables 1

99

Page 28

April, 1985

American

Atheist

REPORT FROM INDIA / Margaret Bhatty

VIRTUE RESTORED

uman interest stories in our papers are

usually about women. They make good
H
copy by getting themselves burned for dowry or by jumping into wells after being raped.
Sometimes we get another kind of report
- like the expose on pregnancy tests being
used to abort female fetuses about which I
wrote in the June, 1983, issue of the American Atheist. Recently some newspaper reporters turned over another stone, and for a
few days, the crawlies under it made news.
This time it was hymenoplasty - the surgical restoration of virginity in unmarried
girls.
Before coming to that, some background
to the concepts of chastity might be in order.
Some years back, matrimonial ads always
asked for "fair, beautiful, homely, conventeducated virgins." Homely means homeloving, and convent-educated means English-speaking. The word virgin, however,
has been dropped for some unknown reason. I'm sure it isn't as a concession to a new
permissiveness because the same rigid conventions prevail as before. In some communities the bedsheets are viewed the morning
after the wedding to satisfy the bride's inlaws that their stock willnot be bastardized
and that their son's new wife is as good and
virtuous as the day she came off the assembly line.
The alarming increase of VD among college students, particularly in metropolitan
cities like Bombay and Delhi, points to a high
level of sexual activity. This is especially
worrying because parents refuse to face the
question frankly with their children.
Most Indian men, despite having been
sexually active themselves before marriage,
insist that their brides be virgins. A Bombay
women's magazine once interviewed a few
well-known men on the question. I remember a film actor and producer declaring that
he would not like a non-virgin for a bride any
more than he'd like putting on someone
else's dirty shirt. The idea that a "fallen
woman" is like soiled linen fitted in well with
his own vulgarization of man-woman concepts projected through his own film productions. And he is only one of many.
The superstition persists that the presence of that small triangular fold of tissue is
proof of female goodness and virtue. Its
absence, for any reason whatever, is proof
of wicked wantoness. But the facts are that

Austin, Texas

Indian girls are now more active in vigorous

sports and games and that there are far
greater chances of accidental rupturing.
Because of the many different cultures
prevalent here in India, one finds widely
differing attitudes towards pre-marital sex.
The Warli tribe living in the wooded hills
near Bombay have companiate marriages. If
the girl becomes pregant, she has reason to
be very happy about it and the marriage
ritual is then solemnized. Ifnothing comes of
the trial relationship or if the two prove
incompatible, they are free to part amicably
and try out other partners. Hindu social
workers are now trying to convince them of
the sinfulness of this sensible custom.
Consequences
I was once somewhat startled when a
young friend about to be married wanted my
advice on whether she should go to a doctor
for surgical perforation before her honeymoon. Some of her friends had done so. She
came from an orthodox, middle-class, Hindu background, and I am sure that her
mother wouldn't have approved. She didn't
have it done, however, because she wasn't
sure how her fiance would take it.
Another couple I knew, Christian this
time, had married late in life, and within
months the relationship had turned ugly
with accusations and counter-accusations.
He declared she hadn't been chaste even
after marriage. In fact, said he, from the
showing of their first night together, she
hadn't even been much of a virgin.
The obligation to prove herself utterly
virtuous lies heavily on the conscience of an
Indian woman. This holds true for married
women and widows.
The goddess Sita is the heroine of the
Ramayana, a beautifully written old epic
venerated by the Hindus. It tells of Sita's
abduction by Ravana, the demon-king of
Ceylon. Her husband, Rama, rescues her
and brings her home, but his subjects seriously doubt her chastity since she had lived
for months in Ravana's castle as a captive.
To satisfy her detractors, Rama allows her
to undergo ordeal by fire.
She has a funeral pyre prepared saying:
When the shadow of dishonor darkens o'er a woman's life,

April,1985

Death alone is a friend and refuge of a

true and faithful wife.
When a righteous lord and husband
turns his cold averted eyes,
Funeral flames dispel suspicion, honor lives when woman dies!
Sita emerges unscathed from the fire, and
as a paragon of virtue, she is held up as a
model for Hindu girls. In fact, in most of our
films this theme turns up in different forms.
Womanly virtue and fidelity is put to the
severest test by ordeal and suffering at the
end of which the victim is rewarded with
beatitude. For women, death is recommended as more desirable than dishonor.
Widows seek refuge in extreme and rigorous kinds of piety. Their reputations are safe
from wagging tounges when chastity is practised as a pious necessity.
Seamy Sides
Sexual repression in men and women is
largely responsible for many of our social ills.
They are unable to have open, frank, and
entirely platonic relationships with each other. As a result, women are not safe in any
place, and there is a rising incidence of rape
in our cities.
Middle-class morality masks an uglier,
seamy side which comes out in the harassment and ill-treatment of women in the
streets and in co-educational colleges. Films
and popular songs are suggestively vile, with
strong sexual overtones, Some years ago
one such song went like this: "If you and I
were locked into a room and the key got lost,
what would happen?" Voyeurism at its subtle best! But with all heroines affected with
the Sita Symdrome, my guess is that nothing
would happen - not behind that locked
door anyway. After the key was found and
the pair let out, he would boast to his friends
what an easy conquest she had proven to be
so that none should doubt his virility. And
she, to prove that she was virtuous still,
would jump off a high building or swallow rat
poison. It is very important that a girl not
only assiduously avoid sin, she must even
avoid the appearance of being sinful because
Indian society makes no distinction between
the two conditions.
Our peculiar ambivalence towards sex is
reflected in the Indian contempt of the

Page 29

"permissive West." In films the more liberated white woman is projected as being
unchaste in contrast to the pious and restricted Indian heroine, I recall once reading
a letter in a national daily in which the writer,
a male, said that no other country in the
world had been able to sublimate sex as we
Indians have, transforming the grossly sexual impulse into a mystical one. The decadent West could learn much from us. Thisfrom a citizen of a nation bursting at the
seams from overbreeding itself!
When abortion c1incs were opened in
Bombay and MTP (medical termination of
pregnancy) was legalized, more unmarried
girls came for treatment than married ones.
There was also a startlingly high incidence of
incest involving fathers-in-law.
Hymenoplasty
In a patrilineal system, the arranged marriage makes everything - including virginity
- negotiable. Hymenoplasty has been
around for centuries in folk-medicine. But it
has now become a part of florishing medical
practices in Bombay where some of the
city's leading gynecologists and plastic surgeons have been performing the operations
for more than a decade. According to one
news report, many of the girls come in from
the Middle East and belong to the upper
classes of Muslim society in those countries.
They pay up to Rs 20,000 ($2,000 U.S.) to
have their virginity restored. One doctor
disclosed that he did the operation only out
of compassion when patients approached
him in a state of "desperation." At that price

it must be easy to be compassionate.

Deserted by their lovers and forced into
arranged alliances by their parents, many of
the girls were accompanied by their mothers
who were worried that they might never find
husbands if they were not virgins or that
they might be abandoned after marriage and
become a burden to their families. In one
case, a father had threatened to murder his
daughter when he discovered her condition.
The identity of the girls is protected by
keeping them in small private nursing homes.
One operation consists of paring the edges
of the torn hymen and suturing them. But a
more reliable method has been developed
by a plastic surgeon in which mucousal
tissue of the vaginal walls are sutured instead. The surgeon claims this provides the
girl with a "thick hymen" - to prove to the
husband that she is extremely virtuous since
bleeding will be profuse. Cycling, gymnastics, and other vigorous sports are discouraged for at least four weeks after surgery.
The doctors interviewed by the reporter
all took the view that they were rendering a
valuable social service. Said one, "It's a
question of the girl's life. If she doesn't bleed
on the first night, her whole future is at
stake. She will be thrown out by her husband and be reduced to utter destitution."
A woman health researcher takes a different stand; "I suppose hymenoplasty could
be justified within the limitations of such an
argument," she says. "On the other hand, if
you popularize it and make it more widely
available, this phenomenon willreinforce the
old beliefs and odious nuptial customs which
are dying out, particularly in urban situa-

tions."
A feminist member of the Foundation for
Research in Community Health comdemns
it "as the most tangible expression of double
standards we have about sexuality."
According to her, a well-known gynecologist of Bangalore, whose patients are
drawn chiefly from the middle-class trading
communities, has taken the initiative of advising surgical removal of the hymen to
avoid the subsequent trauma not only for
the girl, but to her husband and in-laws. She
has had considerable success in convincing
her patients.
The entire warped view of women's virtue
being located in that part of their anatomy
places many girls under the cumulative
trauma of risking abandonment by the man
they must marry. To avoid that they must
submit to painful and expensive surgery.
They then go on to embark on a lifetime's
relationship with a total stranger in an atmosphere of fraud, secrecy, and guilt. ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
In the year 1978, your editors, assisted
by Joseph Edamaruku, editor of an
Indian atheist publication, combed
India seeking writers who would
consistently offer an interpretation of
Indian religious events. Margaret
Bhatty, in Nagpur, a well-known
feminist journalist, agreed that she
would do so in the future. She joined
the staff of the American Atheist in
January, 1983.

DIAL-AN-ATHEIST

The telephone listings below are the various services where you may listen to short comments on state/church separation
issues and/or viewpoints originated by the Atheist community.
Tucson, Arizona
San Francisco, California
Denver, Colorado
Atlanta, Georgia
Northren Illinois
Central Illinois
Des Moines, Iowa
Lexington, Kentucky
Boston, Massachusettes
Detroit, Michigan
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minn.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Schenectady, New York

Page 30

(602) 623-3861
(415) 668-8085
(303) 692-9395
(404) 455-8860
(312) 335-4648
(217) 328-4465
(515) 266-6133
(606) 278-8333
(617) 969-2682
(313) 721-6630
(612) 566-3653
(505) 884-7360
(518) 346-1479

April,1985

Sierra Nevada
Columbus, Ohio
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Portland, Oregon
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Austin, Texas _D1ALHouston, Texas
Dial-A-Gay-Atheist
Salt Lake City, Utah
Northern Virginia

(702) 972-8203
(614) 294-0300
(405) 677-4141
(503) 771-6208
(412) 734-0509

THE-ATHEIST_(512)

458-5731

(713) 664-7678
(713) 527-9255
(801) 364-4939
(703) 280-4321

American Atheist

HISTORICAL NOTES
100 Years Ago ...
In April, 1885, the Roman Catholic citizens of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, petitioned the county court that the school
directors of Sharpsville be restrained from
the use of the (King James) Bible in the
public schools. The petitioners claimed that
the service is offensive to all members of the
Roman Catholic Church and calculated to
injure their children by inculcating erroneous views. (Truth Seeker, April 4, 1885)
In the same issue, the Truth Seeker
reported:
"About the year 1656 the Jews of the
synagog at Amsterdam excommunicated
and cursed one of their number, even the
illustrious Spinoza. * This great man was
distinguished for the spotless purity of his
moral character, but being a student and
philosophe, he had, like, thousands of others
since, thought himself out of the Jewish
church, and had taken final leave of the
synagog, The charge brought against him
was that of heresy. He gave up the ridiculous notion of a personal God, . __He was,
under the most solemn circumstances, declared: 'Accursed by the same curse wherewith Elisha cursed those wanton and insolent children, by all the curses, anathemas,
interdictions, and excommunications fulminated from the time of Moses our Master to
the present day ....
'''In the name of the Lord of hosts, Jah,
and in the name of the globes, wheels,
mysterious beasts, etc., let him be cursed in
heaven and earth, by the very mouth of the
Almighty God, by the mouth of the Seraphim, and Opanim, and ministering angels.
"'By the seven angels who preside over
the seven days of the week, and by the
month of the seven principalities. If he was
born in March, the direction of which is to be
assigned to Uriel, let him be accursed by the
month of Uriel, and so on through all the
months.
"Let him be cursed wherever he turns;
may he perish by a burning fever, by a
consumption and leprosy. May oppression
and anguish seize him; may he drink the cup
of indignation, and may curses cover him as
a garment; let his sins never be forgiven, and
let God blot him out from under the heavens."
"Thus it runs on through several pages of
terrific denunciations, which were accompanied from time to time by the thrilling
sound of a trumpet, and wound up wth a cry
of execration, by the spectators, who shouted 'Amen, so let it be.'"
(*Baruch Spinoza, 1632-77, Dutch philosopher)

Austin, Texas

35 Years Ago ...

The Progressive World magazine carried
a short item in its April, 1950, "Department
of Things Almost Unbelievable"
"When St. John the Evangelist was ninety
years old, the emperor Domitian commanded him to be cast into a cauldron of boiling
hot oil. The place appointed for this torture
was a large open field before the Latin gate.
A huge cauldron was prepared and filled
with oil, pitch, and resin, which were melted
over a fire of wood. An enormous crowd
assembled on the spot to see the spectacle.
The evangelist, having been scourged according to the custom, was led into the field.
More fire was built up and the cauldron
began to seethe and overflow.
"Then the evangelist was taken up and let
down into the midst of the boiling mass. The
flames were so fierce and high as wholly to
conceal the martyr, but the crowd distinctly
heard a voice singing in the cauldron. Every
one was amazed and waited impatiently to
see the end. More and more fuel was piled
upon the fire until the heat was unbearable
for many yards' distance, and still the voice
was heard singing hymns of praise.
"At length the fire burned out. The multitude gathered around the cauldron. La!
there/ sat the aged apostle in the midst
wholly uninjured. The oil, the resin, and the
pitch had all boiled away so that the cauldron was quite dry, but there sat the evangelist, not a hair of his injured, but his face
beaming like the sun, and his aged body
actually invigorated. The officers lifted him
out of the cauldron and led him back to
prison.
(This story is told by St. Jerome, by
Tertullian, and by Eusebius, all in the third
and fourth centuries and has been repeated
in almost all the "Lives of The Saints.")

25 Years Ago ...

And The Freethinker was reporting that
in England "The Daily Maif' had released
"facts about religion" it had found in an
intensive enquiry. Out of 100baptised members of the Church of England, 6 thought the
Church "old-fashioned," 68 thought it was
"mainly for women," 61 felt it was "mainly for
the old," 59 thought it was "dull," and 49
thought it "uncomfortable." Some of the
more fervent "believers" felt that the clergy
should brighten up the services and others
noted that they would not like to have "rock'n'-roll" used for this purpose.
Only one person in seven went to church
or chapel and most of these were completely ignorant of the Bible. In fact, the Daily
Express discovered that six out of every ten
people in England had never read the Bible,

April,1985

"but very few claim to be non-believers."

The Freethinker was caustic: "Were they
really to read the Bible with understanding,
they would certainly nearly all be nonbelievers. Out of every 100 people in England, nine do admit to non-belief, but most of
the others call themselves Church of England, and only nine in 100 call themselves
Roman Catholic."

20 Years Ago ...

On April 9, 1965, the U.S. Senate passed a
$1.3 billion dollar school aid bill. The House
had previously passed the bill 263 to 153.
The measure, as reported by The Liberal
in its May, 1965 issue, was designed to
improve education inpoverty-strickenareas, but also included benefits to private
and parochial (i.e. religious) schools.
The Liberal, in"its analysis, noted, "Parochial schools will benefit as the long stalemate in Congress over the church-state
issue finally is broken. For years aid to
public schools with federal funds had been
help up by Cardinal Spellman (New York)
who has openly stated that unless the aid
included his church schools his subjects in
Congress would block aid to the public
schools. This bill is a step in the direction of
complete financing of parochial schools,
under the guise of helping poverty-stricken
areas where children drop out because of
their parents' inability to keep them in
school.
" ... A Parochial school is in reality a part
of the church and the stress is on indoctrination in the R. C. religion."

15 Years Ago ...

The National Secular Society, in its publication The Freethinker, April 4, 1970, declared that the British Humanist Association had been guilty of "a sell out" to religion
in respect to British school children. The
Social Morality Council, a body made up of
Christians, Jews and Humanists, had just
published a report in which they had stated
that while "compulsory worship (in public
schools) was indefensible" they recommended "worship by different sects . . . and
(religious) assemblies from which there
would be no opting out." The editor of the
Freethinker charged, "For some reason the
British Humanist Association is bending
over backwards to conciliate the religious
and is sellingBritish school children, teachers
and in my opinion Humanists up a most
obscure and ill-defined river."
(Religious education was and is compulsory in English public schools.) ~

Page 31

AMERICAN A THEIST RADIO SERIES / Madalyn O'Hair

Z.P.G. AND RELIGION

When the first installment of a regularly scheduled, fifteen minute, weekly American Atheist radio series on KTBC radio
(a station in Austin, Texas, owned by then president Lyndon Baines Johnson), hit the airwaves on June 3,1968, the nation
was shocked. The programs had to be submitted uieeks in advance and were heavily censored. The series was concluded
on October 18, 1975 when no further funding was available. ,
The following is the text of American Atheist Radio Series No. 174, first broadcast on December 27,1971.
came back from the University of
Ijust
Wisconsin which had asked me to give a
speech concerned with Zero Population
Growth. When I was first asked to speak to
this concern of human pollution of the
world, I wondered how I would tie this into
my specialty. The subject on which the
students asked me to speak was "Religion
as a Barrier to Population Control."
It turned out that the students knew more
than I did, for when I really dug into the
matter that old enemy religion was at the
root of it all again. So when I listened to Paul
Ehrlich on television this week and heard the
story all over, and refreshingly so from him, I
wondered why he did not get down to the
nitty gritty which is that the opposition is
religion . . . and we have to meet that
opposition head on.
I think I came to this conviction through
GORA, the head of the Atheist movement in
India. When he visited the United States,
and our American Atheist Center, we discussed this at length. We had both been
attacked by the Marxists who claim that
economics is the determinant force for man.
He and I both felt that some ideas are so
powerful and so irrational that they cause
human beings to not alone act against their
own economic interests, but against the
very life force within us all.
GORA brought this forcibly home to me
when he pointed out that in India a man will
drop over from starvation in the streets
when the streets themselves and the curb
markets are fullof food. GORA thought that
he would, himself, grab some food and run
with it. He would, he thought, catch and
slaughter a sacred cow so that his family
would eat. Yet, he had seen many, many
men, emanciated, desperate with hunger,
die in the streets without attacking a sacred
cow or without simply taking the food they
needed to remain alive.
GORA, originally of the Brahmin class, a
PhD in Biology, abandoned his class and his
profession in order to fight the Hindu religion in which the Indian populace was so
acculturated that death in the streets was
preferable to a breach of the religious laws.
Page 32

Actually, the use of death is one way to

control population and that, through famine,
may be the way which is finallychosen by the
people of the world. Actually, the single
most effective way is through education. We
have, today, the knowledge we need; we
know the statistical probablities of the overcrowding of Space Ship Earth. We have the
technology to move toward what needs to
be done, which is, to control our population
growth.
Why don't we move on it? Why don't we
act against the threat implied in the statistics
and information available? We don't move
because we hold ideas which are largely
irrational, which keep us from moving.
Religious ideas are foremost in this list.
Let's review briefly what everyone knows.
Population is a problem because of the
climbing human birthrates, the decline in
human death rates, and the attendant difficulties relating to food and space distribution - and the diminuition of natural and
man-produced resources to handle this popoulation.
In 1850we had one billion people on earth.
In 1930 we had two billion people on earth.
In 1960 we had three billion people on
earth.
In 1975 we willhave four billion people on
earth.
In the year 2000 we willhave seven billion
people on earth, at the present rate of
increase in demographic projection.
Everyone knows these figures these days.
The paperback books are coming out by the
hundreds; newspapers feature these stories
and plays, movies, and television shows love
the theme. We either increase the death rate
or we decrease the birth rate. Those are our
only two choices.
So what do we do? Nothing. We do
absolutely nothing. And why? Ah! That is
where religion comes in.
Let's look at some world sores, where the
population problems are the greatest. Hindu
is the religion in one such country, India, and
in this religion, according to the Dharma
Shastras, one of the major objectives of
marriage is a praja, "progeney." Unless a
April,1985

man begets at least one son, the aim of

marriage is not fulfiled. According to Manu,
a man proceeds downwards while trying to
attain Moksha ifhe does not beget a son. He
remains in debt to his ancestors, and this
debt is called a pitri rina. The debt is only
paid off when one male issue appears and
the "progeny-chain" is completed. Ifthe man
can not do this, his youngest brother (dewar)
is called in to impregnate his wife in a ritual
Niyoga. These are called field-born sons or
Kshetraja san tan. If the wife is at fault and
cannot have children, she may be disowned
from the marriage.
Now the catch is that while he tries to
have a son, any number of daughters can be
born - twenty ifthe wife can hold out in that
much child birth. He must keep trying, for
only the birth of a son can save the father
from hell (Put), for a man attains heaven by
the birth of a son, enjoys the comfort of
heaven by the birth of a grandson, and
attains the "sun-world" (surya-loka) by the
birth of a great-grandson.
Only a son can offer fire (agni-dana) at the
funeral pyre of the deceased father. The
sons grow beards for a fortnight after the
death and think about their forefathers and
the progeny chain.
Sterile women are abusively addressed as
bajhin or thantha and ifthe child dies during
or after birth the women are accused of
devouring them (chabauni, putkati). A sterile man is addressed as banjha, and if his
issue dies the address is abusive - nirbansa,
meaning "one without progeny." And the
doctrine of determinism is inherent in the
Hindu religion. That is the number of children to be born is pre-fixed by a god. This is all
to say that the Hindus would need to
transgress their religious values to accept
family planning, and vasectomy would be
the last technique accepted by them
So let's turn to the Islamic religion. Here
children are viewed as the richest blessings
granted by Allah. The Koran insists on
marriage. Celibacy is contrary to the ethics
of Islam. There is a strong belief in the active
providence of Allah and the concept of
predestination or kismet.
American Atheist

Islam's most powerful medieval theologian, AI-Ghazzali, reminded that the Prophet
Mohammed said three times "a man who
abstains from marriage because he is terrified of a family cannot belong to us."
In Islam, the entire importance of women
is based on marriage and motherhood, Indeed coitus interruptus as a birth control
method is only licit when it is necessary to
preserve the wife's health and beauty for the
husbond. Now, when a religion such as this
trusts the beneficient character of divine
providence - of its god - any question of
restricting the number of offspring tends to
appear as a lack of piety or a lack of trust in
that god's divine judgement
As I researched for this University of
Wisconsin speech I found that we have no
idea of what goes on in the Islamic countries
of Africa and Asia on this matter, and yet
they have five hundred million people, onesixth of the world's population and in typical
American fashion we ignore them in our
research.
About the Buddhists, seven hundred million in Asia - with Shintoism, Taoism,
Confucianism, in their midsts, although they
represent one-fourth of the world population we wipe them off with not even one
sentence in a book on the subject of world
population.
We don't even know anything about
China, which has perhaps 750 million people, another one-third of the world population. Chou En-Iai, in 1964, stated:
We do believe in planned parenthood,
but it is not easy to introduce all at
once in China and it is more difficultto
achieve in rural areas where most
people live, than in cities. The first
thing is to encourage late marriages.
And, this has been stressed that age twentyfive is the age for women, age thirty for men.
The two-child family is strongly promoted,
with a three to five year space between
births recommended. Abortion is widely
available (the vacumn method) and birth
control information is widely available. Yet
China will reach one billion people before
the end of this century which is just twentynine years hence.
All that we really know about Russia and
Japan is that these nations have furnished
abortion on demand to women, but their
statistics do not speak to their population
problems and we do not know how to judge.
Counting Islams, Hindus, Communists,
we have ignored five-sixths of the world in
our research on population. We know some
of what they do and think on a religous basis
but not much. So let's look at the whiteJudeo-Christian world which is less than
one-sixth of the globe population and see
what this ethnic group is doing about birth
control.
Orthodox Jews: A Jewish couple is expected to fulfillthe commandment in GenAustin, Texas

esis 1:28 by producing at least one son and

one daughter. The Jews of Reformed Judaism, however, do (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Central Body of Reformed Judaism, 1959 resolution) "favor
elimination of all restrictions and prohibitions against the dissemination of birthcontrol information and the rendering of
birth control assistance." But, Orthodox
Jews object to "every form of castration and
surgical sterilization (of men) in the most
uncompromising terms," but sterilization of
women is permitted (based on Moses Maimonides, 12th century Jewish Scholar's edict)
"better childless than to have godless children" or for "fear of excessive pain or danger
in childbirth." On abortion, the Orthodox
Jews define human life as being "distinctly
fixed at the moment when the greater part of
the body (some versions: the head) has
emerged from the birth canal." Maimonides
taught that if the unborn child was "like a
pursuer (intention) killing her (the mother)"
abortion could be justified "by drug or by
hand." And in the Talmud and the Responsa
the use of contraceptives is decreed thus
"by using an absorbent to prevent conception" when the woman is a minor, or pregnant, or still nursing her child.
It is extraordinary that in the 1970's in
America, this religion would reach back to
base its values on a 12th century interpreter
and on this bases its attitude in respect to
population now.
The Roman Catholics reject the idea that
coition can be separated from reproduction.
Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubbii: "Any
use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in
such a way that the act is deliberately
frustrated in its natural power to generate
life is an offence against the law of God and
of nature, and those who indulge in such are
branded with the guilt of a grave sin." On
abortion, I quote the authority of Fr. Charles
McFadden, writing in Medical Ethics in
1961, "every human fetus, regardless of its
stage of development, is a human person
and any act which is a deliberate and direct destruction of that innocent life is therefore an act of murder." Serillization is
condemned, in this religion, on the basis of
the ban on mutilation (Pius XII 2/24/70,
based on the Decree of Sacred Congregation of 21st March, 1931). Even anovulant
drugs (Pius XII, Sept 1958) are forbidden
when used to prevent conception by preventing ovulation. Indeed, the Code of
Canon Law of 1917 (Canon 1013, No.1)
states, "The primary end of marriage is the
procreation and education of children."
It has been consistently held by the Roman
Catholic Church that any conjugal act involving a physical or chemical barrier to the
union of sperm and ovum is vitiated in its
integrity and its essential nature and not
being carried out "in proper manner" is
"gravely sinful." Actual "continence" or refraining from all sexual intercourse is the
only licit Roman Catholic method of birth
April,1985

control, sanctioned by the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853. The so-called rhythm method,
countenanced in November 1951, is an interpretation of this, being nothing more than
a periodic continence (in Pius XIIaddress to
Italian Catholic Society of Midwives.)
The Protestants are no angels. Luther laid
down the "twice a week" rule for maritial
relationship, toward family obligations, and
Calvin decreed that "procreation remained
for them (man and woman) as for Augustine
and Aquinas, the only really positive purpose of sex."
Sex for anything but reproduction has
been strongly condemned by all of Protestant puritanism. It was not until the so-called
Lambeth Conference in 1930 that a very,
very cautious sanction was given to the idea
of family limitation by some Protestants, but
even today the National Council of
Churches and most Prostestant bodies do
not endorse direct sterilization or direct
abortion.
Yet, there are currently fiftytypes of birth
control methods, under seven categories of
types which are known and could easily be
put into effect In the offing is a wonder-land
of "pills."
We are faced with a conflict of basic
values, and religion is the older, cherished,
and protected value in our culture. But now
the situation is one of our private selfdetermination, our national self-interest, being set within the confines of international
and global well-being and survival on Space
Ship Earth. One of these values must be
subordinated to the other, or even sacrificed
in whole to the other, or we willlose both. A
moral commitment must be made. The
whole family of man must be respected ...
and only the illogic of religions of the world
stand in the way.
No private groups such as Zero Population Growth (ZPG) or even a combination
of private groups can hope to reach these
problems. It must be undertaken with concerted action and tax funding which means
under the aegis of government and its coercive persuasion and this coercive persuasion must be on an international basis,
rationally determined. For, there is an urgency to the population problem and an immensity which transgresses all boundaries
of nation, geography, ethnic grouping, and
religion. The sacred cow of religion - like
the sacred cows in India - can no longer
wander aimlessly among the heavy world
populace while people die from the lack of
food that the cow's death could provide.
Even more so, it is that cow - the symbol of
irrational thinking - which we can no longer
countenance: We must confront the religious base of these attitudes, whether you
like to do so or not, for that is our primary
hinderance. ~

Page 33

POETRY

CA TILE BEAMS
The sun crashed down
Waiting to poison the waters of the
Rivers of the brain
Elastic hotels bent their
Fingers into the holes of the
Dam of the ectomorph ism
Clocks in a catatonic cacophony
Broke up the game of checkers
Told everybody to go away
And so they all sidled along
To a different shape.

QUESTIONS ...
Tom James

Do you like the feel of velvet grass

stroked gently across your palm,
Or the delicate touch a rose
leaves upon your cheek,
or maybe the earth
sifting through your fingers?
Does a tree move you when leaves
dance like martinettes in the wind,
or the hoot of an owl as he
perches watchful?
Does the fragrance of strawberry blossoms
thrill you,
or maybe the caress of an icy
mountain stream as it races between
your legs?

THE WALL
I watch the tears,
Like a waterfall,
Flowing freely
At the Western Wall.

When was the last time you stole

solitude in the wake of a sunrise,
or swam the ocean of your youth,
or merely walked the hidden lands
that absorb your secret fears?

It's said a warmth

Touches fingertips
And works its way within;
That bodies fillwith holiness
To cleanse their every sin.

I'm sorry you thought this a question,

the bastards even burn the books.
Charles L. Carr

But, for me,

It's too far away to feel.
I touch cold stone.
I am alone.
Written prayers,
From the pious
To cease their misery,
Are placed within the crevices
With the hopes that god willsee.
But, for me,
It all seems so unreal.
Their yellowed words
Are never heard.
Steve Becker

Page 34

April,1985

American Atheist

NATURE'S WA Y/Gerald Tholen

HERE COME DE JUDGE

he trouble with this world is that it has no

referee - nobody to determine whether
nations are playing fairly or biting and kicking secretively. To make matters worse,
most people are so busy promoting their
own interests they don't give a damn that
there's nobody umpiring. Wouldn't it be
keen if some great big joker with an earpiercing whistle and a striped shirt could
send political idiots to the penalty box when
they did (or said) something stupid?
A less visible problem is that while there
actually is no bona fide referee, there are
many people (and/or groups) who visualize
themselves as stalwarts of truth and justice.
Ask any person, court or government in
history if they have truly been "fairminded."
You know the answer is sure to be, "Why,
certainly."
Whether culturally drawn self-evaluations
are developed naively or with deliberately
intended misrepresentation is, I suppose, a
matter of time, geography, and social circumstance. The fact remains, as I have stated
repeatedly, written history to a great extent
represents one of the grandest fiction annals
of all time. Oh sure, the dates of events may
be accurate, many of the specifics totally
and unequivocally correct, but the causes,
the results, and the analyses of those events
are usually something out of fantasyland. So
it is in our own time and in our own culture.
Who willbe the judge, the bedrock of fair
consideration, with compassion for all people? Perhaps it is not possible to find a
person (or group of persons) totally unswayed Bypersonal considerations or completely
unaffected by contemporary social customs.
The United State is presently responding
to some kind of mind-sucking, pious, and
falsely-directed partisan patriotism. We are
the "good guys." We should know by now
that we have always been the good guys.
Haven't we told ourselves this down through
history? Continually? We are a dressmaker's form of virtue and respect on which
the world would do well to pattern itself! All
of these things we tell ourselves - without
benefit of unbiased judgment. Whatever
became of the fine art of constructive criticism?

Austin, Texas

I used to be a bit less than attentive during

discussions about free-enterprise, capitalism, democracy, etc., vs. communism and/
or socialism. However, more recently, especially since these two "opposites" have been
conservatively and religiously redefined, respectively, as good and evil, my interest has
been significantly rekindled. In order to form
sensible opinions in these areas, I knew it
would be imperative to have valid definitions
of the terms involved. And, being as there
was no referee - no non-prejudiced authority on whom I could rely for honest definite
terms - I concluded that I would have to be
my own judge. I would have to thoroughly
familiarize myself with the absolute meanings of the political and economical aspects
involved. Or, to put it more accurately, I
would have to know precisely what other
people meant when they used these words
in conversation. I was subsequently amazed
to find that most people do not have the
vaguest notion of the meanings or the
implications of any of those words. Communism, in its classical, political/economic sense, was perhaps the easiest ideological
concept to analyse. And, although in some
under-developed social communities, it may
be utilized to social advantage, in the long
run, and idealistically, it won't "fly." Why?
Simply because people through individuality, indifference, or varying degrees of interest in society as a whole, although they may
be perfectly willingto share equally, will not,
or cannot work equally for the benefit of all.
Therefore, the concept of true communism
is internally defeated before it ever has any
chance to be tested by actual application.
Without individual incentive individuals will
not perform. That has nothing to do with
politics - it is human nature.
But, what about capitalism and free enterprise? Being the opposite of communism,
wouldn't this be the ideal political/ economic
situation for people to adopt? At least this is
the current idealistic rhetoric being peddled
in the United States today. And, I must
admit, it took me awhile to identify errant
theoretical concepts in the minds of most of
us. The words "free enterprise" and" capitalism" are by no fanciful stretch of the imagination synonymous. To begin, free enterprise

April, 1985

refers only to the practice of permitting

private business/industry to operate with a
minimum of government control. Look it
up! The true wealth of any nation lies in its
(natural) resources and the ratio of those
resources to its national population (consumption). A nation without sufficient resources, food, water, minerals, agriculture,
etc., cannot possibly fare well. It is, indeed, a
poor nation. In such a nation, and as distasteful as it may seem to many under the
present pressurized world political circumstances, certain communistic (share-theresources) principle, may be in fact advantageous. Now, before you take pen in hand
to write me a "you dirty pinko" letter,
consider for a moment the qualifying circumstances of this statement in its entirety. By
no stretch of the imagination do I advocate
totalitarianism in government, whether communistic, socialistic, democratic, fascistic,
monarchistic, theocratic, or otherwise. And,
as I stated above, communism (generally
speaking) won't "fly."
But to get back to the subject of free
enterprise. Let's examine free enterprise.
Historically it was a manner in which individuals (note emphasis) bartered (traded)
goods in order to obtain sustenance. It
began as a trade system between citizens
and, as such, governments had no particular interest. To quote from the American
People's Encyclopedia, "It is conceivable, in
fact, that under free enterprise a system
might develop in which each individual
worked at whatever he liked to do, gave
away what he produced, and depended on
gifts from other people to satisfy his needs
and desires. It may be surmised, however,
that if exchange of gifts was permitted,
many individuals dissatisfied with their gifts
would exchange with each other to obtain
goods more to their liking, and that common
sense would suggest a direct exchange of
goods in the first place." The Encyclopedia
further states - and this is a very important
part of the free enterprise concept - "The
basic requirement necessary for the existence of free enterprise in society is that the
laws and customs allow the necessary individual freedom of choice within wide limits.
This requirement is not as simple as it seems

Page 35

at first sight. Laws and customs must also

specify what resources an indiuidual may
claim as his own and what uses may be
made of resources without infringing the
rights of other people." [Emphasis added.]
Everyone should pay particular attention
to that last sentence because it represents
the significant difference - the immovable
dividing line - between free enterprise and
capitalism. To insure that free enterprise
remains free, safeguards or regulations laws, if you will - must be adopted by the
participants in order to prevent fraud, coercion, exploitation, and, most importantly
MONOPOLIZATION
of resources. In
short, rules of conduct are the definitive
boundaries of any endeavor, whether one is
talking about business or card games. They
are our only means of determining what we
have decided is acceptable in our society as
opposed to what we regard as cheating. But
what if these "rules of conduct" somehow
become circumvented? What if the regulatory agency (government) itself comes under the manipulatory influence of certain of
the more powerful members of the free
enterprise community? What if tax shields
and/or other regulations favoring specific
groups or individuals become a part of the
rules of the game? Would it still be the same
game? Or would it, instead, have been
perverted into a system then ultimately
designed to destroy the very concept of
"free" trade?
As I stated earlier, most people do not
have the vaguest notion of the meanings or
the implications of any of those words (free
enterprise, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.) Or at least my conversations with
many would so indicate. Surely I am. not
alone in recognizing that when Ronald
Reagan opens his mouth it is, in fact, the
voice of corporate influence that spews
forth. It is people such as Reagan, who
through ignorance or intentional deceit, try
to imply that capitalism and free enterprise
are one and the same. In that respect, and in
a broad sense, Ronald Reagan is a blatant
liar.
Let's look at capitalism a moment. According toAmerican Peoples' Encyclopedia
again - "Capitalism, (is) an economic system the basis of which includes a society of
free individuals, the private ownership of
productive equipment and resources, a money medium of exchange [Emphasis added]
and opportunity for the individual to maximize his income - profit, interest, or wages
- by entering into free contracts arising
from rational choice in a free competitive market." Now, on the surface this
definition sounds peachy-keen - it does
appear to bear close resemblence to free
enterprise. This, most likely, is what confuses people who tend not to closely analyse
situations. Note, however, the (emphasized) inclusion of "a money medium of exchange" in the criteria of capitalistic rePage 36

quirements. This is, in fact, where the

system gets its name - capitalism. It would
be impossible, in a system based on bartering (tradng), to misconstrue the value, say,
of a potato. A potato has the same, identical
value to every consumer - whether banker
or bartender. It only has a value of one meal
(or a portion thereof). On the other hand,
money - a dollar bill or a quantity of
gold/silver (any "medium of exchange") has a changeable value. Its value of exchange can be manipulated by certain interests: (1) by regulatory agencies (governments) or (2) by enormously wealthy individuals or groups of individuals within
the particular system, or (3) by control of
resources or production facilities within a
system. Money is, therefore, the control
device of a capitalist system. It would be
naive to suppose that an average citizen in a
purely capitalistic system could "control"
the value of money. It is this fact that
introduces the appearance of "social classes"
within the system, i.e. poor, middle-class,
and wealthy. Some people are poor because
of a lack of ambition or of opportunity. Many
more are middle-class because of unique
capabilities and/or opportunity. A very few
become enormously wealthy because of
unique capibilities and/or opportunities, but
mostly because they come into positions
where they can manipulate and/or control
the flow of currency or the acquired control
of resources. Let's look at an extreme
example of "manipulatory control." Take
the state of South Africa. It is the world's
major producer of diamonds. So much so
that one can easily claim that it sets a
worldwide price standard in the diamond
trade business. Diamonds are not rare.
There are billions of diamonds "available" if
one can afford the purchase price thus
established by this highly controlled industry. Does this make diamonds "valuable?" If
you think so, try to sell your diamond to
someone else at anything near the price you
originally paid for it. With this in mind then
consider - did the price of diamonds substantially benefit the living conditions and
the economy of the original owners/inhabitants (citizens) of South Africa? Just what is
the current political! economic situation in
South Africa in respect to the Blacks and
the South Afrikanders?
Here are two more significant paragraphs
regarding the economics of capitalism as
stated in the Encyclopedia.
Most writers who have described
the functioning of capitalism have had
in mind an economic model corresponding closely to the economic reality of the mid-nineteenth century.
Such an economy is made up of
relatively small, privately owned, competing firms, many of which produce
similar or identical products. They
compete for raw materials, labor, and
the purchasers' dollars, just as workApril,1985

ers compete for jobs and purchasers

for products. The market is free from
governmental, monopolistic, or other
restrictions, and the price of any commodity is determined solely by supply
and demand.
Under these conditions, if the supply of a particular good is scarce
relative to the demand for that good,
competing buyers willbid up its price.
The high price of scarce goods will
tend to draw wealth and labor for its
production away from the production
of goods for which the demand - and
therefore the market price - is lower.
The opposite tendency is observed in
the case of goods of which the supply
is high in relation to demand. This
system brings profits to effecient producers - those most successful in
estimating and most economical in
satisfying demand - and penalizes
inefficient producers with loses or, in
the extreme case, bankruptcy. Thus
ualue determines price, and price
guides decision in the allocation of
resources throughout the economy.
[Emphasis added throughout.]
These statements alone point out that
when resources available within the system
are controlled by select special interest
groups, indiuiduals, or corporations, or when
the value of currency is determined synthetically, the system becomes something that
does not vaguely resemble free enterprise.
In any system - capitalist, communist or
otherwise - if a "nation" (i.e., a body of
people, associated with a particular territory, sufficiently conscious of its unity to
seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own) claims to be a nation it is ethically
obligated to see to the needs of its people. In
order to see to the needs of people certain
things must be classified as "utilities." Among these utilities must be listed certain of
the necessities of existence - food, housing, availability of medicine, energy, transportation, jobs, and any of the items without
which life cannot be adequately supported.
These utilities must be beyond the reach of
greed or unconcern. Otherwise a "nation" is
simply an exclusive country club wherein
only survivors can exist. ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The "common sense" man of Atheism,
Mr. Tholen is the product of
the Gulf Coast marshes of Texas.
When he's not slaving over
the American Atheist
as its Assistant Editor,
he's writing poetry of which
an Atheist movement can be proud.

American Atheist

Book Review
Abortion Freedom
A Worldwide Movement
by Colin Francome
London, England:
George Allen & Unwin
241 pages; $7.95 paper, $19.95 hardback

his is an 8Y:!"x 5Yz" paperback book,

published in England and Australia in
1984. It is extracted from the author's thesis
for a Ph.D.
Beginning with the British Act of 1967 the
author traces a world-wide trend to relax
the laws of abortion. Seeing the beginnings
of concern in the increase of world population, and noting the trial of birth control
information disseminators (Charles Bradlaugh and Anne Besant, atheist leaders, trial
of 1877) as being a turning point in the
approach to the problem, the author deals
frankly and forthrightly with the problems
which are caused by religion doctrines.
The author documents "the facts" claimed by each side. and then examines the four
main disputes which seem as having arisen
therefrom: (1) the effects on attitudes to life,
(2) effect of legislation on "back-street"
abortions, (3) medical effects, and (4) public
opinion.
She premises that the "social climate" is a
factor in the development of birth control
and abortion rights but gives no explanation
or evaluation of how that "social climate" is
engineered. She does, however, reach back
to find the origins of the debate about birth
control, naming both Robert Dale Owen,
Dr. Charles Knowlton, Emma Goldman,
Margaret Sanger (all atheists leaders in the
U. S.). Unlike American authors, she does
not shy away from several short analyses of
religion's influence, each in a different time
frame.
From these individuals came an awareness for many persons and abortion reform
associations were started - the beginnings,
programs and activities of these being documented. As the movement developed it is
followed in England, the United States, the
U.S.S.R., Scandinavia.
The issue in seen as developing by spurts,
each time being locked into confrontation
with conservative and religious ideology.
From the mid-nineteenth century to First
World War being one period, the debate
between the two great wars being the second, the debate up to the sexual revolutions of the 1960's and that which has
extended since to the current date.
A chapter is spent reviewing the legalisation of abortion in England (even recognizing that the atheist Natural Secular Society
was in on the fight) and another on the same

Austin, Texas

in the United States. For an Englishwoman,

she has a good grasp of the problems in our
culture. She does take an objective look at
Planned Parenthood, our Constitution, and
the differences between the U. S. and
English medical practices. Our old friends,
Lawrence Lader and Bill Baird are actually
recognized as being in the fight - and so are
the forces of religion.
As one would expect, the book being
based on dissertation material, it is well
documented with statistics.
Perhaps the most difficult writings are
those of our own times. And, here the
author has the benefit ot viewing the United
States from afar. When she gets to analyzing the opposition to abortion, again not
shirking the religious, from the U. S. Supreme Court Roe u Wade decision forward,
she is incisive. She does not even hesitate to
take a shot at forecasting. Based upon her
analysis of history and the obvious world
trend, she specifically outlines possible developments in Britain, Ireland, the United
States, Europe, the Moslem countries, and
Latin America.
Although it looks grim to those of us who
are involved in the birth control fight, it is
reassuring to lay down the book with a
feeling that there has been documented
progress and that it is just as likely as not to
continue, transcending all reactionary efforts.
The author has some short failures of
understanding in regard to the cultural
milieu of the United States, but by and large
her grasp of the essentials seems to be more
than adequate to enable this educational
publication.

The American Pope

The Life and Times
of
Frands Cardinal Spellman
by John Cooney.
New York, NY: Times Books
, 364 pages, $19.95
is an 8Yz" x 6~" hardback book,
Thispublished
in fall of 1984. At the time it

created considerable excitement with innuendoes of the homosexuality of Cardinal

Spellman. It contains, however, just thatsuch innuendoes. The value of the book
does not lie in the emphasis on homosexuality which the media used to sensationalize it.
Its value is in the disclosure of the power of
the Roman Catholic Church, housed in this
man, as it was exerted in the national and
the international political policies of the
United States for three decades.

April, 1985

The author is clever, and he has a devastating use of words to support Roman Catholicism while he castigates, ah! but gently, the
purported personal pettiness of Spellman.
His introductory history of the papacy is
naive. His slight probes into the childhood,
youth, and first assignment of Spellman are
ideal to buttress church philosophy, salve it
over, make it palatable. He actually believes
that Peter was crucified and buried in Rome.
He delights in jabbing at Atheist U.S.SR
His evaluations are unreal: he sees a Roman
Catholic Church marriage being accepted
as a state (Italian) civil requirement as a
"loss" to the church. He glosses over the
reasons for the position of the church at the
time of the Lateran treaties with Hitler and
Mussolini. In one sentence he undermines
Eleanor Roosevelt, in another he destroys
the reputation of Henry Wallace. He wafts
away the intrusion of the papacy into the
Civil War in the United States. The Croatian
slaughter of Orthodox Serbs by Pavelic is a
mere "embarrassment" to the church. The
butchery in Spain is condoned by the Vatican because Franco was "rabidly anticommunist." The exiled Polish government supported by the Vatican in London is simply
due to papal alarm. One hesitates to accept
the author's evaluation of Spellman when
his evaluation of history, politics, and the
Roman Catholic Church is so simplistic.
But the facts in the book-spill out over the
intent of the writer. Here we see the incipient outreach of religious and political power
brokers to Central and South America, in
whose wake Reagan is increasingly entangled now.
'
While documenting slowly and carefully
the base of power which Spellman put
together for himself, the author is forced to
reveal glimpses into the financial wealth and
political machinations of the church.
The most shocking disclosures come with
the war efforts of our nation, World War II,
the wars in Korea, Vietnam. The fusion of
religion and patriotism, with which we still
struggle, is disquietly disclosed as a Spellman binder. It is chilling to find that the U. S.
_"Cold War" with the "godless U.S.S.R." was
a Vatican concoction. It is totally shocking
that he was deliberately used by the U. S. in
its intelligence apparati. The Marshall Plan,
the "Christian Democratic Parties," secret
funding of elections in Europe, the MeCarthy era, tinkering with the United Nations, with federal financing of education in
the U. S., were but routine activities of the
papacy.
The unintentional, but necessary, disclosures of the author as he picks away at
Spellman are meat for any Atheist. The
book is recommended to the political literati; it may fool the naive.

Page 37

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

the ball made when it hit the catchers mitt.)

Someone once asked Casey Stingle if it
helps to make the sign of the cross when
coming to bat. He said, "Sure does, especially if you are hitting over 300."
Stephen Kushner
North Carolina

Thank you for publishing my quotation

research (Feb. 1985American Atheist magazine). Iam glad we have adopted a policy of
"no quotation without documentation." After all, a quote without its source is worthless.
For the further sake of accuracy I would
like to point out one correction in my
research. The book by John E. Remsburg,
which I listed as Six Historic Presidents, is
actually entitled Six Historic Americans, as
you indicated in your article.
Keep up the good work!
August Berkshire, Director
Twin Cities Chapter
of American Atheists
Minnesota
P.S. I willsend you the book titles, as well
as photcopies of the entire letters, from
which I got the quotes by Adams and
Jefferson. They willno longer be unverified!
Thanks again!

Anyone who would tend to believe in the

efficacy of prayer, consider this.
Bob Gibson, the HALL OF FAME pitcher
for the St. Louis Cardinals for a number of
years, now the pitching coach for the Atlanta Braves, was on the mound in a game
with the Pittsburgh Pirates. It was the ninth
inning. Two outs, the score, Cardinals ahead
2 to 1. A Latin player stepped to the plate.
He dropped the bat, rubbed his hands in the
dirt, picked up the bat, held it in his left hand,
and with his right hand, made the sign of the
cross. (He blessed himself asking the Lord
to help him get a hit). Bob Gibson seeing
this, walked halfway to the plate, struck a
pose as ifreceiving a signal from the catcher,
looked the batter in the eyes and said to him:
"OK turkey, we're going to see which one of
us the great umpire in the sky favors."
Gibson walked back to the mound and
proceeded to blaze three fast balls over the
center of the plate. The batter walked back
to the dugout without taking the bat from his
shoulder. (Some umpires admitted that they
used to call balls and strikes by the sound

Page 38

I just finished reading "Quest for Ire" by

Steve Becker in the February issue. I found
it interesting. I would like to add to his list
two more popular Rock & Roll bands that
have critcized religion: Rush & Pink Floyd.
Both of the bands consistently produce
'substance songs.'
Rush's early days had many distopia
themes with religion as a part of the distopia.
Some examples are: "They left our planets
long ago/The elder race still learn and growl
Their power grows with purpose strong/To
claim the home where they belong/Home to
tear the temples down/Home to change - "
from "2112" (the elder race is ourselves in
the future), or "Xanadu" (a parody of the
original) where the singer finds immortality
and then laments the boredom of it.
Later criticisms include "Free Will", a
direct slap in the face at the interventionist
god point of view, and "Witch Hunt", excerpt: "Those who know what's best for
us/must rise and save us from ourselves" an
attack on the 'Moral Majority' and company.
Pink Floyd has criticized religion too many
times to mention them all, but two of the
most notable are "The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want/He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green he leadeth me the
silent waters by/with bright knives he releaseth my soul/He maketh me to lamb
cutlets" in the song "Sheep" (oh! what an
excellent metaphor) and "by the cold and
religious we were taken in hand/shown how
to feel good and told to feel bad/tongue-tied
and terrified we learned how to pray" in the
song "your possible pasts."
Atheists who enjoy Rock & Rollshould try
these two bands.
Ewan Dowell
Missouri

Avi Naftel (Letters, February '85 issue) is

not alone in questioning whether Atheism
needs the Winter Solstice. Naftel views the
issue psychologically: do we cling to the
Solstice only to avoid being without a winter
holiday? I'd like to examine the Solstice

April,1985

historically. One freethought writer promotes the holiday thus: "The Christians
stole the Solstice from the pagans, and we're
going to take it back." Atheists reject any
prescientific superstition. So why embrace
this particular pagan feast?
Like christian celebrations it predates, the
Solstice originated in ignorance. Ancient
peoples saw the days growing shorter and
feared the sun would vanish altogether. This
gave rise to all manner of myths telling of
demigods locked in battle for the sun, dragons eating it, and the like. The Solstice
marked some cosmic hero-priest's victory in
arresting the disappearance of the sun and
defeating "the powers of darkness." Today
we know that variations in day length are
natural phenomena; we are content that the
days willgrow longer again without any need
for clestial heroics.
Given this, it's hard to see why Atheists
should revere the Solstice in preference to
other discarded myths. Are we, as Naftel
suggests, too weak to disdain the christian's
holiday unless we can erect a childish counter-celebration of our own? Or are have we
become willingto embrace any foolishness,
as long as it is not a christian foolishness? I
think not.
Granted, there are no Druids who today
open city council meetings with prayer or
inject their creation myths into school curricula. While that makes them less dangerous than christians, it scarcely makes their
myths less intellectually respectable - nor
their holiday, the Solstice, any more fit for
contemporary Atheists.
Thomas Flynn
New York

This column, in the February, 1985, issue

of the magazine, featured a plea from Rufo
Baes of the Philippines for aid from fellow
Atheists. After the death of a baby (seven
months old) daughter, his home and small
independent business were destroyed in the
super typhoon "Undang" on November 5,
1984. Subsequently, American Atheists initiated a Rujo Baes fund with an initial$100.00
contribution.
Since that time the following persons
have also contributed to this fund:
Cali/ornia
Charles W Amlin
$10.00
Ella May Elliott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00
Colorado
Billie Jean Smith. : . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00
Florida
Howard R. Cahoon. . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00

American Atheist

Otto Mikosek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.00

Georgia
Emily Stevenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.00
Louisiana
Frank P. Sison
25.00
Maine
Floren P. Serafin
$100.00
Maryland
Robert Merritt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00
Minnesota
Anonymous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00
Ohio
Doug Brassil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.00
Nick Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.00
Pennsylvania
Martin L. Bard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00
Robert O. Kutz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00
John R. Spengler
100.00
New Jersey
Herman J. Biunno. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00
W. Caldwell
10.00
Celeste Parisi
10.00
New York
Francis Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00
Samuel Cembalest .. . . . . . . . . . .. 50.00
Canada
Horst J. Wystrach
30.00
Mexico
Jon C. Allen
10.00
Thank you, each and everyone. It is
difficult to transfer funds to the Philippines
and each transfer costs $8.00, whatever the
amount. Three such transfers have been
made. (The Atheist Center, of course, paid
for the transfer [eel.Upon receipt of the
funds Ruio has had to pay 1% to the
Philippine government.
Despite the difficulties attendant to the
venture, Rufo writes as follows.
January 8,1985 - The Philippine government is aiding the poorest typhoon vietims in Roxas City, Capiz, in the form of
relief food and materials but in selective
basis only. Foreign countries are also sending their aids but in limited area. Aids or
reliefs are very limited. Religious organizations are giving aids especially to the Catholics and Protestants but I don't belong to any
religious group.
The Philippine government is granting
calamity loans but until now the calamity
loan is not fully implemented due to economic budgetary difficiency. We are facing
economic crisis due to foreign loans. The
Philippine government is bankrupt. I cannot
afford to transact a calamity loan due to high
interest.
January 18, 1985 - With your kind
permission, please reprint my letter of appeal for humanitarian gift/donations for
three consecutive issues of the American
Atheist magazines.
Hoping that American Atheists will response my appeal.
Thank you.
At the time of the receipt of that letter,
your editor was waiting to see response and
Austin, Texas

if money could be successfully transferred

to the Philippines (no currency of that
nation being available for purchase in the
United States.)
February 1, 1985 - I am patient enough
to wait for the response of my appeal. Until
now, our emotional distress and worries
about the death of our baby daughter cannot
be erased. With the calamity or strongest
typhoon, our house was not yet repaired.
We made an improvised repair but not
permanent repair.
For fellowship as brothers and sisters in
Atheist life, I do hope that they willrespond
to my appeal. I don't have any alternative
but to ask an appeal, gift or donation to my
fellow Atheists in America.
As time and years will pass, we can
recover our losses in money and property
but it will take four years to survive. The
year 1984 is a very sad experience and
traumatic year for us. Our struggle for many
years was only destroyed for one year.
Ways and means are being planned by me
and my wife to recover our losses and
savings. Self-reliance project or sarilingsikap are the means for recover but it needs
money for capital.
Thank you for the kind help.
February 25, 1985 - Received your
letter together with the bank draft. We are
grateful. With this meagre amount' it will
help our problem and will aid my family.
Please continue the appeal to remind my
fellow Atheist for their unselfish gift or
donations.
For justification, the amount sent will be
used as follows: 25% for the little and partial
repair of my damage house; 25% is used in
buying material/nails, wire for the damage
house; 25% is to be shared to my poor
sisters who were victims of the strongest
typhoons and the last 25% is to be used in
paying our debts for the expenses hospitalization of my deceased daughter.
May I know to those American Atheists
who answered my appeal? I'm happy to
know them and to be acquainted to them.
Without their kind sympathy and love to
use, we were not able to repair our house. I
willsend a letter of thanks individually.
If there are more gifts or aid coming, it will
be used to finish the repair of my damage
house and if there are a lot of help, I willuse
the amount for my sariling-sikap or self-help
projects. This self-help project will help me
to recover my loss property: projects as
piggery, duckery and vegetable gardening.
March 9 - I have received the second
International draft in the amount of $300
U.S. With this large amount, we can pay all
our remaining accounts from the hospitals
for the expenses of our deceased daughter.
.We can also now finish the repair of our
damaged house by the strongest typhoon.
We are proud to say to our neighbors and
relatives that this aid was sent by my feilow
April,1985

American Atheists.
As to the piggery and duckery project,
this amount is just a little amount but I try
ways and means to improve my income and
to recover our loses. It will take me two or
three years to recover my losses but in
gradual process.
This help is a very unforgettable and
memorable aid in our life. The money was
deducted by one percent taxes and documentary stamps.
Rufo Baes
Philippines
The rate of exchange is such, that the
meagre amount of money sent to Rufo Baes
to date, ($770.00 - including another $100
from the American Atheist Center) has
been able to assist him and his family a
great deal. But there is no reason that this
man should need to work from two to four
years to just get even to the place he was in
1984. If everyone of our readers would send
in a $5.00 check the man could be put in
good stead. Needless to say this would be
evidence of international Atheist good will.
The American Atheist Center, about a
dozen years ago, sent $1,000 to the Indian
Atheist Center in the state of Andre Pradish, India, when that was hit by a typhoon.
American Atheists should be able to compile several thousand for Rufo Baes. With
the current good rate of exchange for the
American dollar, it should place the family
in such a position that it can walk with pride
- and using sariling-sikap - show the
human community how Atheists do it.
The editor and staff

NOTICE
"Letters to the Editor" must be either
questions or comments of general
concern to Atheists or Atheism.
Submissions should be brief and to the
point. Space limitations allow that each
letter should be two hundred words,
or preferably less. Please confine your
letters to a single issue only.
Mail them to: .
American Atheists
PO Box 2117
Austin, TX 787682117
Thank you.

Page 39

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT
Publications

Organizations

American

Atheist Addiction
Groups Inc.

Recovery

AMERICA's ONLY ALTERNATivE

to GOV.
BACKED AA, FAITH HEALING
(Killing)
Publishers of world's only
monthly newsletter for
alcoholics & other addicts;
their families and friends
Mem/Sub: 12 issues/$25
Sample 25 cents
AAARG, 2136 S. Birch St.
Denver, CO 80222
24hr "warm line" (303) 758-6686

GALA

For membership and newsletter

information write:
Gay Atheist League of America
PO Box 14142
San Francisco, CA 94114

Classified Rates: 25q: per word, $6.00

minimum. No boxes available.
Frequency Discount: (For classified) 10%
for three insertions, 20% for six.
Payment: Classified ads must be paid in
advance.
Publication policies: TheAmerican Atheist reserves the right to reject or cancel any
advertisement at any time for any reason.
No advocacy advertising will be accepted.
Samples of products may be requested.
Tear-sheets of ads willbe sent to all clients.
We require street addresses for all advertisers using box numbers.

PO Box 66711, Houston, TX 77266

PO Box 8644, Austin, TX 78712
PO Box 248, Vlg. Sta., NYC, NYI0014
AGA membership is restricted to Atheists and
ONLY Atheists. Membership rate set at $10.00
per year by the Board of Directors.
DialaGayAtheist

(713) 5279255

SEND A GIFT SUBSCRIPTION!

To send a special gift subscription* of American
magazine, enter the name and address of the
recipient here:
Atheist

Name __ ~~~~

(Please Print)

Address

City

_
Zip...,..

*By taking advantage of this special gift subscription offer,

you save $5.00. You may send the American Atheist magazine
to anyone in the U.S. for $20.00 for a one year period (for
orders outside of the U.S. add $5.00 for postage).

_
.Zip

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

newsletter address label) here:
Name __ ~~~~

(please Print)

Spouse/Partner

Name

_
---,

_
_

State

Zip

I enclose check or money order, or authorize a charge

(VISA or MASTERCARD only), for the above orders in
the amount of $
_
MCjVISA #

One-year subscription is $25.00.

For orders outside the U.S., add $5.00.

Page 40

Membership categories are (check appropriate category):

0 Couple**; $50/yr
0 Sustaining; $100/yr
0 Lifetime; $500
*Send photocopy of 1.0., etc.
**Include partners' name
Membership includes the American Atheist (monthly) Newsletter and subscription
to the American
Atheist
magazine - plus all regular additional mailings that are made
by the organization.

o Individual; $40/yr
o 65+/unemployed*; $20/yr
o Student"; $12/yr
o Info packet only; free

City

City

Religious Jokes! Totally irreverant gutbusters about Jesus, Moses, et al. Warning
Puritans: Bad Language. Large collection
-$4.00.
RMP Enterprises, Box 42296A,
Portland, OR 97242

TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE

AMERICAN ATHEIST ORGANIZATION.

Address

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

magazine address label) here:
Name __ ~~~~----------------------------(please Print)
Address

Available at the astonishingly

low price of only $6.00/year.
[Box 3488,Tucson,Az 85722]

(Please Print)

TO SUBSCRIBE TO AMERICAN
A THEIST MAGAZINE ORTO RENEW
YOUR PRESENT SUBSCRIPTION!

State,

THE MATCH !
The Apex of
Atheistic
Anarchism

AMERICANGAVATHEISTS

\IREADER SERVICE

State,

Nutrition myths are as widespread as

religious myths. Protect yourself by
subscribing to Nutrition Forum, a
monthly newsletter covering practical topics with emphasis on exposing
fads and quackery. Prestigious editorial staff. Send $30.00 for 12 issues or SASE for details to:
NUTRITION FORUM
Box 1602. Allentown. PA. 1B1 05

Bank Coda.;
Signature

Exp. Date,

_
Date

Texas state residents please add 5Vs% sales tax.

April,1985

American Atheist

ATTENTION PLEASE
a MUST for Atheist reading!
......................................................................................

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

&TITIlIlli@ CQ2m@~l1nlJU~ )fm IEW@lS W CDlJUll@cilll &~lli

&lJUU@lSn~CDlJU&l1lli@n~l1~
~nlllli

&TITIlilli@ &lJU~~@lS~
by

Jon G. Murray
and

by Jon Murray

From 1959, the Murray-O'Hair family has been "facing

the nation" in television and radio interviews and talk/back
shows, in debates, panel discussions, lectures, forums,
informal gatherings, parties, banquets, conventions,
brunches, lunches, at podiums, microphones, loud speakers. They have done this before private groups, fraternal
and business groups, organizations, colleges, universities,
women's dubs, in churches. They have spent hours with '
the hard media in newspaper offices, magazine editorial
rooms, in hotels, on the sidewalks and streets, at The
American Atheist Center, in courtrooms, on the steps of
government buildings. They have been accosted in shops,
stores, restaurants, business place, swimming pools, public
toilets. Even in airplanes, buses, trains, subways they have
been stopped for questioning.
Deluged with questions by mail, in newspapers, in
- magazines, in person, in a continuing waythey have come
to be the professional voices of American Atheism in our
time, in both our nation and throughout the world. This has
been a battering, for - by and large - the questions have
been more attacks than queries. The hostility which they
have faced has been the most extraordinary in our times.
Jon Murray was five years old when it started, in 1959. He
reached maturity in a swirl of hostility. But, by the time he
was a teenager he was facing it head on. Now as the
Director of the American Atheist Center he is as adept at
parry and thrust as is Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Together,
they have assembled their usual answers, just as they
usually give them on the air, in the public, or whereever
t delivered. As you study this book, and study it you must,
you will become aware for"the first time what American
Atheism is. It is time that you had the lesson .

a"~(lir

Madaly" Murray 0 H

359 PAGES

$6.95

.. . ..... .......... .. . .

"

_ 0 COPIES@$6.95TOTAL$,

Texas state residents please add 5~% sales tax.

Make checks/money

Madalyn Murray O'Hair

orders payable to: AMERICAN

ATHEISTS.

PO Box 2117. Austin. TX 78768

Name

Or charge to my:

Address
City

[ 1 VISA or [ J MASTER CHARGE

Number

State
Signature

Zip

Expiration date
Bank no.lcode

lettersi,

-------,--

AMENDMENTI

CONGRESS

SHALL MAKE NO LA W RESPECTING

Eostra Eggs?
"Many of the, popular observances of
Easter are pagan in origin. Some may be
traced to the feast of the goddess of
spring, Eostra. The (christian) church endeavored to give christian significance to
such of the pagan rites as could not be
rooted out (emphasis added) ... The great
bonfires, which formed a part of the pagan
festivals, had their counterpart in the
"paschal tapers," or "Easter candles," sometimes weighing 300 pounds ... The Easter
egg and Easter rabbit are also pagan in
origin."
American Peoples Encyclopedia

..

C/)
C/)

~
~
p...
~

::r:
f--<
.ro

~O

'H:J33dS

-ro