THE

$2.50

AMERICAN ATHEIST
A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

(Vol. 24, No.1) January, 1982

Aggressive

Atheism
J

IIU 11IE ROOTS AND THE TREE WIU. ROT AWAY

"We are investigators, and our policy is to ascertain facts and present them to our readers in clear and distinct
language. If we find a mind bound round with creeds and bibles, we will select a sharp knife to cut the bonds; if
we find men prostrating themselves, without inquiry, before idols, our policy is iconoclastic-we
will destroy
those idols. If we find a rock in our path, we will break it; but we will not quarrel with our brother who deems his
proper work to be that of polishing the fragments. We believe all the religions of the world are founded on error,
in the ignorance of natural causes and material conditions, and we deem it our duty to endeavor to expose their
falsity. Our policy is therefore aggressive. We are, at present, of opinion that there is much to do in-the mere
clod-crushing sphere, in uprooting upas trees [moraceous trees with poisonous milky sap], hewing down
creed-erected barriers between man and man and generally in negating the influence of the priest. Our policy is
of humble character; we are content to be axe bearers and pioneers, cutting down this obstacle and clearing
away that. We respect the sower who delights in the positive work of scattering seed on the ground, but we fear
that the weeds destroy much of the fruit of his labors ....
"There is no middle ground between theism and Atheism. The genuineness and authenticity of the scriptures
are questions relevant to secularism. It is as necessary for the secularist to destroy bible influences as for the
farmer to endeavor to eradicate the chickweed from his clover field. We appeal to those who think our work
fairly done to aid us in our labors; to those who will not work with us we simply say, do not hinder us.
"Our only wish and purpose is to make men happy, and this is because in so doing we increase our own
happiness. The secret of true happiness and wisdom lies in the consciousness that you are working to the fullest
of your ability to make your fellows happy and wise. Man can never be happy until he is free; free in body and in
mind; free in thought and in utterance; free from crowns and creeds, from priest, from king; free from the
cramping customs created by the influences surrounding him, and which have taught him to bow to a lord and
frown upon a beggar. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! That true liberty, which infringes not the freedom of my
brother; that equality which recognizes no nobleman but the men of noble thoughts and noble deeds; that
fraternity which links the weak arm-in-arm with the strong, and, teaching humankind that union is strength,
compels them to fraternize, and links them together in that true brotherhood for which we strive."
Editorial by English Atheist

Charles Bradlaugh which

appeared in the Investigator
newspaper of 1 November 1858

January, 1982; Vol. 24, No. I

ON THE COVER

ARTICLES
Scientific Atheism Centre in Moscow - Yevgeny Anisimov
A Comment on Compulsory Creationism - Ian R. Bock
The Rest of The Jim Jones Story - Steve LaPrade
Dictionary of Theology - Voltaire
The War Prayer - Mark Twain

6
7
15
16
28

FEATURED COLUMNISTS
Atheism and Justice - Fred Woodworth
Ghosts, Words, and Paint - Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
Atheists Must Fight - Jeff Frankel
Some New Year's Resolutions We'd Like to SeeRichard M. Smith
Welcome, Dr. Strangelove - David L. Kent
Some People Call It War - Gerald Tholen

8
9
11
14
18
24

REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial: The Hydra Head of Religion - Jon G. Murray
Letters to The Editor
Poems
United States Supreme Court vis-a-vis
State/Church Separation - Madalyn O'Hair
American Atheist Radio Series:
War Profits and The Churches - Madalyn 9'Hair

Editor-in-Chief
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Poetry
Angeline Bennett
Robin Eileen Murray O'Hair
Gerald Tholen
Production Staff
David Kent
Samuel Miller
Richard Richardson
Richard Smith
Gerald Tholen
Gloria Tholen
Non-resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
Fred Woodworth

2
5
13
20
26

The American Atheist is published

monthly by the American Atheist
Center, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin,
TX 78756, a non-profit, non-political,
educational organization.
Mailing address: P.O. Box 2117,
Austin, TX 78768-2117. Copyright
1982 by Society of Separationists,
Inc.
Subscription rates: $25/one year;
$40/two years.
Manuscripts submitted must be
typed, double-spaced, accompanied
by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The editors assume no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts.
The American Atheist
is indexed in
Monthly Periodical Index
ISSN: 0032-43lO

January. 1982

Austin, Texas

fJ

Skoal- 1982
How fast the darts of daylight fly
When hair turns silver gold
Yet slow they move in the waiting eyes
Of the restless nine year old
But a year is a year to everyone
And its fleeting, passing way
Must be treasured now by all of us
So salute each new year's day
-Ger~id

Tholen

Whether or not January should be legitimately called the "beginning" of the "new year"
is academic. We all know that the orbital
motion of the Earth around its sun is actually
without "beginning" or \'end." Also, it would
seem more fitting that either of the solstices or
the equinoxes might more appropriately be
called the starting point of a "new" cycle.
Regardless of outlooks, as viewed from
either the northern or southern hemisphere, it
has historically been a custom for most of
humankind to celebrate the completion of
another cycle of seasons; a time to prepare for
what might lie ahead and a time to reflect on
what has passed.
Perversions of the various calendared systems are quite insignificant in reality. What is
important is that all who view such renewals of
the time frames have, in fact, survived the "trip"
and 'stand ready, for better or worse, to begin
again. In that context - may we wish you a
happy "new" year.

Page 1

Editorial
Jon G. Murray
THE HYDRA HEAD OF RELIGION
The American Civil Liberties Union, although doing an . the ACLU, and they therefore cannot afford to alienate
monetary support by backing unpopular issues. To the best
adequate job of protecting civilliberties in some areas (such
of my knowledge, national ACLU budget now is about
as criminal search and seizure, etc.), has by and large been
an organization enamored of the establishment. Their $11,000,000 ($6,000,000 in the field and $5,000,000 for the
presentation, especially on issues involving separation of national office) annually. One could ask, however, what is
state and church, can be characterized by the oft repeated
the use of remaining silent to collect funds to do nothing
film scene of an old Victorian crone, dressed in black,
with them out of the fear of losing them by doing something
unpopular?
looking over her spectacles at a pretty young thing entering
the parlor, ankles exposed, and remarking, "Oh! How
American Atheists has reached out on many occasions to
unseemly!" Iguess I should be grateful that they notice atall.
the ACLU for help and with help, but our hand has always
Only a fraction of what is noticed is acted upon. This I can been somehow too dirty to touch. We, therefore, have
understand from a logistical perspective, knowing as I do forged ahead with case after case on principle and have
the cost and complexities of litigation. That desire to remain
suffered many a defeat because we lack the ACLU level of
"respectable" has, over the years, still cost the ACLU a lot funding and availability of legal personnel. Those lost
and the public even more in terms of the decreasing circle of American Atheist cases have been used to defeat the
liberty we all find closing in around us.
ACLU in its less obtrusive actions now on several occaThe tactic of the respectable fighter is to come at you, sions.
instinctively (a product of family and school training) within
We at American Atheists willcontinue to fight on a radical
the Marquis of Queensberry rules, only to go down swiftly level with or without help from the ACLU or any other
from a kick to the groin. When fighting someone or organization, but they need to be put on notice and need to
something that is fighting for survival, it is more prudent to realize that our loss is their loss.
put some of those rules aside. The old adage of "fight fire
Speaking about losses, we all have a lot to lose, perhaps in
with fire" still has some merit.
the near future, and those losses will be across the board,
What the ACLU should have been doing all these years is not discriminating against liberal or conservative. Just
to strike at the core or root or radical of the problem,
recently the ACLU has come to a partial conclusion that the
especially in the state/church area. Instead they have combination of their legal snobbery and the defeats of
battled the peripheral consequences of key systemic flaws others has placed them in the position of needing to look
in our social, legal and governmental system, leaving the toward legislative lobbying activity in place of the courts as a
radical actions to groups of lesser financial ability and route to halt the march of the "New Right" in Congress. In
groups certainly without their "social" connections. The
fact, that realization has even brought ACLU t6-the point of
result of this has been that those more radical groups and being willingto forfeit their tax exempt status, to enter into
the activation of what they call the National Bill of Rights
individuals have taken a terrible beating in the courts,
Lobby.
thereby laying down a foundation of bad legal precedent
that the more conservative ACLU finds a now impenetrable
American Atheists likewise realizes the mounting futility
obstacle. They cannot get any further now with the courts
of legal action, but its budget does not permit it to enter into
lobbying, and its tax exempt status is crucial to its survival.
than the groups they looked down their noses at years
earlier (and still do today) as being "scruffy fanatics." If the ACLU, on the other hand, can probably operate quite
ACLU with its superior numbers and financing had lent a effectively as a lobbying group. They have the numbers and
hand where it was really needed in the '50s and '60s, it would the established funding.base that American Atheists does
not have such a hard time now.
not have.
The ACLU attitude toward Atheists is a prime example of
Perhaps the movement of ACLU into the lobbying area is
a good thing. Groups such as American Atheists never got
this. Back in 1959, when the case that eventually removed
any help on the legal front from ACLU, anyway, and
bible reading and prayer recitation from the public schools
was in its infancy, the then Madalyn Murray went to the perhaps now their radical style can operate unfettered while
ACLU for help. It was swiftly denied. They were too the ACLU targets Congress, which is an entity unreachable
respectable to get involved with Atheists then, and they are by the Atheist community at this stage in its development. If
too respectable now. When American Atheists challenged
ACLU action in Congress can in the least slow down the
moral majoritarians and their New Right allies, it will give
the right of the pope to give a mass on the Washington,
D.C., mall at public expense, an ACLU attorney from the Atheists the opportunity to concentrate on the legal front,
District was right in there on the side of the roman catholic
with the ACLU being helpful in a noncompeting area. It will
church and the right of the pope to have "free speech" in surely require a double punch of legislative and legal
America, although the ACLU knew full well that "free pressure to counter the forces of organized religion.
Some of the reasons why the ACLU has decided to move
speech" was not the issue in the case at the time.
The only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that
into legislative action are worth enumerating. We should all
the maintenance of its financial base is most important to be aware, at least, of what is going on, even though our
Page 2

January, 1982

II

The American Atheist

individual ability to do something about it may be limited to

donating to the organization of our choice. Let's take a look
at some of what the legislative and executive branches are
up to.
1) President Reagan has granted pardons to FBI officials
who were convicted of illegal breaking and entering, under
the pretext of their acting in the name of "national security."
Reagan just recently issued an executive order expanding
the power of intelligence agencies to mount some kinds of
covert operations domestically and to step up surveillance
of Americans abroad and to "infiltrate" domestic organizetions. The orders restore authority of the CIA to conduct
activities domestically as long as they do not affect u.s.
policies, politics or press; they authorize the CIA to infiltrate
U.S. organizations including those largely composed of
aliens thought to be acting on behalf of a foreign power; and
they authorize shadowing of Americans abroad and monitoring of corporations to obtain "important foreign intelligence" that "cannot be obtained by other means." "
What that really means is that "if mommy is a commie,
then you got to turn her in" syndrome is back with us again.
American Atheists fullyexpects to be one of the first groups
on the list to be "infiltrated." That will be nothing new, of
course. The offices of American Atheists have had their
phone lines tapped so often in the past that at one point they
had the tappers taking messages when the staff was away
from the phones. That would be a welcome service again in
these days of governmental cutbacks and runaway phone
bills. -,
2) The U.S. Attorney General's Task Force on Criminal
Violence recommended a change in legislation to encourage law enforcement agencies to conduct unconstitutional
searches. It also proposed that judges have the power to
imprison persons they deem "dangerous" for a period of
time without a trial. This prevention detention could be
used against almost any individual who needs to be
"silenced" in his or her expression of an unpopular cause.
American Atheists president Dr. Madalyn O'Hair has
gone to jail now many times simply for being an Atheist.
These jailings have been under a series of bizarre interpretations of antiquated laws used simply as a harassment
procedure. In the future, however, such "detention" could
be done in an open and straightforward manner, although
still accomplishing the same thing, harassment.
3) A move to resurrect the House Un-American Activities
Committee has been cosponsored by 158 members of the
House. In addition, the Department of Justice is proposing
major changes in the Freedom of Information Act to
broaden what can be exempted from public view. There is
also a campaign within Congress to reestablish an "Internal
Security Apparatus," and Reagan has taken the first step in
that establishment, as mentioned above.
Too many new books and other publications, as well as
documentaries, have surfaced since the passage of the
Freedom of Information Act. An exposed intelligence
apparatus cannot function. What we see here is a repeat of
the trepidations of our government in 1917. At that time, the
Russian revolution had every world power on edge for fear
that the revolutionary sentiment would spread.
Our government is "shaky" now. There are major
problems in many areas. They fear what the church fears,
which is the estrangement of their constituency. Just as the
pope hopes to "circle the wagons" with his new conserva-

tive policies and hold the flock together, our government

hopes to displace the fears of domestic failure with the fear
of external infiltration to maintain calm. Whether it's the
communists or Libya, the spook of the enemy without
keeps our minds off the enemy within, our owl) representatives.
4) Renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is facing stiff
opposition in Congress. It is quite possible that an entire
large segment of our population, the blacks, could be
disenfranchised.
5) Budget reductions have now begun to seriously
hamper administrative enforcement agencies. The Justice
Department now backs away from many civilrights cases it
at one time would have litigated. In addition, the Senate of
the United States has passed a rider to the appropriations
bill for the State, Justice, and Commerce departments to
endorse organized prayer in public schools, by removing
authorization from the Justice Department to spend public
funds to litigate against school districts violating the law in
that area. Only Senator Lowell P. Weicker opposed with a
filibuster. Asked about right-wing attacks on the Constitution and Federal courts, he said, "They cheapen everything ... when they use the Constitution as a garbage
receptacle for everyone of their philosophical quirks." (NY
Times, 11/30/81).

Good "christian" activities such as arms buildup can be

financed, but not upholding the law, especially when it
comes to the Constitution. Money is no object to maintain
our "national technical means" (in the jargon of the State
Department, spies to all of us lay persons) for domestic as
well as foreign work.
6) The Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal
representation to the poor, is being fought by the Conservative Caucus and other rightist groups. Equal access to
justice has never been a real factor in our justice system.
Those who have the funding are always more represented ,
than those who lack financial strength. It may now be even
more difficult than ever before for the poor orrninorities to
fight back.
7) The Family Protection Act is now pending in Congress.
This Act would withdraw federal funding from school
systems which do not institute periods of prayer or silent
meditation. It would require textbooks to depict women
solely in domestic roles. The purpose of the billis to create a
legal atmosphere under which a christian value based
"nuclear family" concept can be government-promoted,
while discouraging "deviancy" therefrom. It is a selective
protection Act, "protecting" the rights of those who choose
to conduct their personal family affairs in a particular style
only.
8) A new mood in Congress to prohibit federal courts
from even hearing claims of unconstitutionality from individuals or groups in certain subject areas. The most
prominent of these subject areas is school prayer, although
busing and abortion run a close second. Limiting or
excluding federal court review in any legislative area would
alter our basic form of constitutional government. What we
would have left is a two-part system with no checks and
balances. With only the executive and legislative branches
left and the judicial pushed out of the picture, a strong
personality in the White House with majority backing in
both houses of Congress could take over, Khomeini style.
The founding fathers set up a well balanced system at first,

January, 1982

Austin, Texas

DJ

Page 3

in order to prevent such an occurrence, and it has fared well

for over 200 years now. Only Senator Edward Kennedy has
spoken up against actions to limit judicial review of Congress in the Senate so far.
9) Jesse Helms and others of his ilkare pushing a "Human
Life Bill," which would give a fetus full constitutional rights
from conception, making abortion or birth control methods
illegal. The "Right to Life" amendment to the Constitution
proposed earlier has not fared well in the states. This bill is
an attempt to circumvent the mandated constitutional
amending process. Allof the concern over abortion rights is
based on biblical doctrine, rather than freedom of conscience considerations.
10) Sen. Strom Thurmond is backing the return of the
federal death penalty and the expansion of its application to
crimes other than homicide.
Allof the n~w right-wing religious efforts in Congress are
really nothing new. They have been going on sub rosa for
many years now. The difference today is that these actions
are flaunted instead of being carried out in closed door
meetings or during social contacts between government
officials and church leaders. The question is what can be
done about it by those of us who realize the danger at hand.
The answer to that question is a difficult one.
Currently, the "liberal" community is fragmented. On
one side are the respectable groups, and on the other side
the non-respectable groups, with each side claiming the
reverse. The churches, too, are rent with schisms, but with
one very important and overriding difference. Whenever
the root, or core, of their religiosity is challenged, they can
work together and do work together. Though their petty
theological differences keep them at one another's throats
on the surface, try challenging their tax exemptions, for
example, and see how quickly they band together. The
religious community has always had a deep and abiding
solidarity and fraternity when it comes to fundamental or
radical (speaking in the mathematical sense) concepts that
form the basis of their belief system or political or economic
strength.
The roman catholics may hate the protestants for
theological reasons, but when it comes to aid to parochial
schools, they will work together in the ultimate analysis to
keep the money coming in. The catholics may be split
internally on other issues, but when it comes to the
celebration of a golden jubilee for cardinal Cody in Chicago,
despite the recent exposures of his misuse of church funds,
they can all stand together. Denominational differences
play no part in the ability of the religious community in
general to sit back and allow a nativity scene to be ruled as
having no more significance than a mere ornament on tile
tree, to keep it on public property. The jews can fight for the
nativity scene representing the birth of a character they no
more believe in than do Atheists, to remain on public land,
under the legal theory that it represents the "nuclear
family."
In distinction to this, the ACLU defends the nazi
marchers in Skokie just to show the opposition that they are
able to stand up for an unpopular cause, even with most of
their monetary support coming from jewish persons, rather
than out of any real concern for civil liberties. It would have
been better for the nazis not to have been represented by
the ACLU in terms of their own internals, and I am sure that
they could have cared less about the nazi rights.
Page 4

January, 1982

1/

We cannot fight a well-oiled machine-type opponent that

has the ability to muster fraternity, solidarity, and synchronization at the drop of a hat out of seeming chaos,
unless we can be fraternal and synchronized, too, when we
need to be.
,
Each organization can and should maintain and retain its
individual autonomy. At the same time, we need to be able
to strike together when the time comes. A victory for one of
us is a victory for all of us, and a loss for one is a loss for all.
The religious community knows this, and they use it to their
advantage. Are we less smart than they?
The basic difference among the multiplicity of "liberal"
groups is with respect to tactics. Why not let those groups
who desire to give the right-wing forces back some of their
own medicine do so? Other groups that want to work within
the "rules" solely can do so as well. As long as they realize
that in some cases, they must stand together when basic
issues on which their very freedom to operate are at stake.
Failure to do so in the past has so weakened our
collective positions now that no individual group may be
able to succeed. We have a finite base of persons in the
United States to whom upholding the Constitution, especially in the separation of state and church area, means
anything at all. If we divide their support too much, it may
mean an over-all failure.
We at American Atheists, despite our strong stands on
many issues, have always known that solidarity on basic
issues is needed. We support and urge that solidarity: and
are willingto work toward it in the areas in which we all can
agree and in which we all can benefit. We do, however,
remain cautious when it comes to working with other
groups who have used what they deem our "nonrespectability" as a recruitment incentive for their own group. We
don't even object to that, since the persons who respond to
such incentives may not be helpful in our ranks anyway.
That does not mean, however, that on an administrative ,
and executive level between groups, we cannot cooperate
on specific and perhaps mostly legal issues; where our
combined strength in terms of numbers and finances are
needed.
Even within each group the lack of solidarity in the rank
and file membership is staggering. Every catholic knows his
rosary and every protestant his catechism, but every
Atheist willgive you a different definition of AtHeism should
you ask. Ask a religionist what separation of state and
church means, and you will get a uniform answer that it
means government not interfering with the church in any
respect. Ask an Atheist the same thing, and the answer will
vary considerably and not even be basically the same. This
internal solidarity must be fostered by each group on its
own, however, through education of its rank and file. It was
indoctrination that did the trick in the religious groups, but I
remain convinced that education can do the same for us.
What can be seen from all of this is that we are under a
strong multifaceted attack in a number of areas. Though
multifaceted, the attacks are rooted in the irrationality of
religion. It is from that religious base that all of the attacks
sprang. The various "liberal" groups are out there facing
this hydra of religion and each cutting off one head or
putting a band-aid over one of its bites, but they failto killthe
beast. The solidarity I speak of is the need for all groups to
realize the basis of the individual assaults on freedom of the
mind, some of which Ihave enumerated here, and to be able
The American Atheist

to strike tqgether.atthe basis, the irrationality of religion, as

a combined force. Even ifwe all strike at different times and
with different styles, as long as we aim for the same spot, the

heart, we should succeed. ~e are not doing thatnow; we

need to start doing, it.

Letters to The Editor

Dear Madalyn O'Hair:
I am an ATHEIST and have supported Atheism for the past 45-50
years (lgave you some support while
still in Marvland.), Right now I am 81
and illthe past 13-14 years, and living
on a limited income does not allow
one much out of social security
checks to pay anything much more
than medication bills, fuel bills, and
other necessities. I assure you that I
was never in the $50,000 bracket to
be able to save for a rainy day. Inever
even came up to earning $5,000 a
year. So please don't class me with .
the upper brackets. I am doing the
best I can when I send you $10.00 to
the sustaining fund. Outside of that I
can't do any more. I wish you and
yours well.
John V. Cassman
Pennsylvania
Thank you for your letter concerning contributions. You are not alone,
Mr. Cossman. The current economic
situation of our nation places many
persons in the position you are in
now. We at American Atheists have
never asked ,but/or Atheists to help'
as they are able. One of the things
that we don't Ii~e is that those Atheists who are in the, $50,000+ income
bracket are those who will give us
the least, while persons such.
yourself will "dollar us to death" with
small contributions often totaling
several hundred dollars by the end of
a year. About 80% a/the income of
the organization isjrom donations in .
the $1, $3, $5 and $10 range. Doriations 0[$50.00 and over are [eui in ,
comparison,
.

as

.We do appreciate your help and

we stretch those donations you are
able to give just as far as you have to
stretch your income to make ends
meet. Our message,
month after
month, is really more toward the
persons of higher income who can
afford $25 to $50 a month in a
continued way and who can't see
the importance of their help as you
can.
Jon Murray

Gentlepeople:
I'm taking the opportunity of sending my sustainer for November in
order to voice a picky gripe I have
with the editorial in the (I believe)
October issue of the magazine.
My objection is not to content,
although I know at least two people
have resigned from the organization
because of it. MY objection is in the
non-capitalization of words like Jew,
Jewish, Christian, Semite, etc.
These, and other words relating to
religion(s), are proper nouns and as
such should be capitalized. The noncapitalization of such words displays, I feel, a pettiness which Atheism doesn't need if it is to be taken
seriously by the non-Atheist world. I
approve of the capitalization of Atheist and Atheism, since we should be
proper nouns also. But I don't feel
that the cause is advanced by playing
fast and loose with the rules of the
English language. English gets distorted and tortured enough by the
communications media, politicians,
the military, and other twerps who
can't find, their way around a dictionary without a guide; I believe we
don't need to contribute to the decay
of the language in order to be heard.
And we don't need to descend to
THEiR brainless level in order to
make our point
I hope you will give my thoughts
serious consideration. Thanks ..
Christine L. Oleynichak
(Ill..Chap. Secy.)
Dear Christine Oleynichak,
I am writing concerning what you
described as' a "picky gripe" you
have with the October editorial: the
non-capitalization
of certain words.

We do lower-case "god," "bible,"

"christian," "jeui," and certain other
words used in religious jargon. It isn't
a minor point, as far as we are
concerned, and we do it deliberately.
We are changing the language, so
that Atheists will not be required to.
maintain religious usages when discussing religion. It is because of
religion that the capitalization
of
these, terms began, and we have
January, 1982

Austin, Texas

lV

decided to stop it as far as we are

concerned.
Actually, we aren't the only ones
doing it. For a long time, people have
been moving from usages such as
"He, ""His," and "Who," toward the
lower case, and you will notice it is
becoming common usage to refer to
the christian bible as "the bible. "The
capitalization
of "god" has been a
christian gimmick intended to signify
something important there or a reality behind the word, which of course
is not there. It is a tradition (incorporated in style manuals, all right)
for which we do not care, since it
conveys a false picture of realits).
Apart from the fact that "god,"
"jesus christ," etc., never existed, we
are doing this to' cause' what you
could call the "shock of recognition."
When you read a line in which
"roman catholic church" or "god" or
"jew" appears without capitalization, a different feeling is conveyed
from that experienced when reading
"Roman Catholic Church" or "God"
or "Jeu: " The slight but continuous
bombardment
with caps produces a
very subtle intimidation, which we
want to dispense with.
,
. In the magazine we cJ9 capitalize
non-religious personal names and
proper nouns and place names, but
we do want to make people think a
bit about what religion has been up
to, and We think this is a good way to
do it. As jar as respectabiiityor
being
taken seriously
is concerned:
It
comes from accomplishment
and
ideas, .not from a slavish 'c'opying 'of
"accepted"
or "correct"rul~s
of
behavior or expression.'
We are not "descending to their
brainless level," but simpl!,i'puiting
them back on the track. We are
fostering change inthe lang~age, not
the decay of the language. It isn't
, pettiness;
it isn't playing fast and
loose; it is a deliberate change we
are producing.
.
With best wishes,
D.'( Kent
;;.

"

PageS

SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM CENTRE IN MOSCOW

Yevgeny Anisimov, Cand.Sc. (Philosophy)
Director of the Moscow Scientific Atheism Centre
American tourists visiting the USSR sometimes express
surprise upon learning that in Moscow, as well as in other
Soviet towns, nobody prevents anybody from praying to
god, that christian churches, mosques and synagogues.
function in the country and that religious literature is
published for the believers.
According to Article 52 of the Constitution of the USSR,
citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience,
that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion.
The same article provides for freedom of atheistic propaganda as well as freedom to conduct religious worship.
For example, there is a special Scientific Atheism Centre
in Moscow. It occupies an ancient mansion which is a
17th-19th century architectural monument. It stands next
to the assumption church in Gonchary, which was built in
1654 and continues to function to this day.
The Atheism Centre is always crowded. People of
different age groups go there to listen to a lecture by a
famous professor or to see a film. Young people are
attracted by our disco and slide programs. Older people
often drop in on us on their way home after attending divine
service in the assumption church. They like to spend some
time over a cup of coffee or take part in discussing various
questions pertaining to religion and Atheism, expressing
their own viewpoint and listening to the well-argued views of
their opponents.
Our propaganda work consists mostly of public lectures,
including over 200 main subjects, such as "Jesus Christ, a
Myth or a Historical Personality?", "Scientific Foresight and
Religious Prophecies," "Finds around the Dead Sea," "The
Emergence and Development of Judaism." Subjects
prompted by present-day situations such as "Ecology and
World Outlook," "Demographic .Problems and Religion,"
"Urbanization and the Overcoming of Religious Feelings in
the USSR," ''The State of Stress and Religiosity," "Criticism
of the Eschatological Concepts of the Future," are also
popular.
Most of our talks and lectures are devoted to problems
pertaining to the people's world outlook, which now give
rise to discussions and debates among scientific circles and
in the press. Our listeners always display great interest in
such lectures as "Mysterious Phenomena of the Human
Mentality and Their Materialistic Explanation," "Superstition in the Light of Modern Science,", "Looking for ExtraTerrestrial Civilizations."
Most of our lecturers hold scientific degrees or titles.
Among them are academicians, doctors and candidates of
science as well as people specializing in more than thirty
branches of science-primarily social sciences, philosophy,
history and sociology, though there are also biologists,
psychologists, medical workers and physicists.
It happens that former believers and even ministers who
break away from the church or sectarian communities,
come to us with the request to be allowed to speak about
the essence of religion. Such lectures have a particularly
great emotional and psychological impact on audiences
Page 6

January, 1982

II

among whom are believers. This is the opinion of eyewitnesses.

Only a small share of our lectures are delivered in the
Scientific Atheism Centre. Most of them (the Centre
organizes more than 6,000 lectures every year) are held at
enterprises, clubs in various Moscow districts and in the
residential areas. Their range of subjects and the way the
lectures are organized vary depending upon the composition of the audience. FQr example, we know that quite a
number of Tatars live in Moscow. For them we prepare
lectures about the essence of islam, the role it plays in the
national-liberation struggle in different countries of the
world, islam's attitude to women, etc.
Our lecturers can upgrade their knowledge at seminars
and in study groups, at theoretical and practical conferences as well as in the University of Moscow.
No entries bearing on the citizens' religion are made in
any official documents in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless,
certain trends in religious worship in the USSR are now
being studied by sociologists. These studies, in particular,
show that about 80 percent of the believers come from
religious families. Women account for between 60 and 90
percent of the members of church and sectarian communities. A special cycle of lectures about the social policy
of the Soviet state with regard to family, women and youth
has been worked out for this group of the population.
The entertainment form of atheistic propaganda, which is
comparatively new for us, has won popularity in our work
with young people. For example, since young people like
musicals a modern rock opera has appeared on the
repertory of the drama studio set up at our centre. Pavel
Grushko, poet and dramatist, has written a piay specially
for our studio. It tells the story of mediaeval Florence, of the
monk Savonarola and Lorenzo Medici, the ruler of
Florence. The clash between the two outstanding historical
personalities reaches exceptional acuteness in the play.
The struggle of reason and human feelings against obscurancy and religious reaction is shown on the stage to the
accompaniment of a pop group. There is much movement
and rhythm in the play. Our young spectators speak very
highly of our new work.
Discotheques have become very widespread in our
country over the past few years, and the interest of young
people in this active and cognitive form of recreation is
rather high. The Moscow Atheism Centre has worked out
two disco and slide programs: "The Origin and Essence of
Christianity" in which we use fragments from the wellknown opera "Jesus Christ Superstar," and the program
"God's Temple and the Children of God. What is Divine
about them?" The young people met the staging of these
plays with enthusiasm, and it is by no means easy to obtain
tickets to them now.
Incidentally, we use the money we get from the sale of
tickets for our programs and lectures to pay the professional actors engaged in our plays, as well as the lecturers. It
should also be noted that about half the lectures are
The American Atheist

delivered on a voluntary, free basis.

The Atheism Centre in Moscow has an excellent library,
a considerable part of which constitutes rare publications of
religious and atheistic literature we were presented by
residents of Moscow and other cities. In a year the library
renders services to more than 60,000 people. Some of them
stay on in the reading hall until late at night. The library is

visited by people who want to enlarge their knowledge

about the history of the development of theological and
atheistic thought, lecturers, postgraduates and students of
Moscow higher educational establishments who study
scientific atheism, or just inquisitive residents of nearby
residential areas.

A COMMENT ON COMPULSORY CREATIONISM

Ian R. Bock
Any sane person reading reports of recent legislative early stage of development possesses aortic arches and gill
trends to force the teaching of a several thousand year old slits; what are these, if not vestiges of very much earlier
(fish) evolutionary stages? These features are certainly
creation mythology in school biology classes could surely
hardly essential to the embryo, and the adult arterial system
be forgiven for wondering whether we're really livingin the
develops by a complex series of secondary modifications to
latter part of the twentieth century. Is this really happening
this primitive structural pattern. Ifthis circuitous, inefficient
in a country that can put men on the moon, that can explore
system of development is the best that god can design,
the reaches of the solar system, in the most technologically
many school children could do better.
advanced country in the world? In any case, the legislators
The point is that theoretical scientific teaching goes hand
promoting the teaching of creationism in science classes
in hand with practical classes and that as far as biology is
seem to have missed a rather basic point concerning
concerned, practically everything learnt in the latter points
science education.
The teaching of every science consists of two intertowards evolution. An attempt at a creationist interpretadependent, indeed inseparable, parts, the theoretical and
tion leads to the type of absurdities just mentioned.
the practical. The theoretical instruction gives the student a
If, now, creationism is to be taught as a "theory" in
background in the principles of the subject which are then
competition with evolution in schools, what should be done
tested or demonstrated in the laboratory. This is no less
in the laboratory to supplement it? Should a plague of frogs
true in the biological than in the physical sciences. In the
be conjured up upon the land? Should all the nation's cattle
latter, the phenomena associated with light, electricity,
be afflicted with a murrain? Should 5,000 students lunch on
magnetism, etc., are studied in the laboratory, while in the
a few loaves of bread and a fish while transmuting water into
former, practical classes are devoted to an examination of wine? Perhaps a bill should be passed to order the latter: it
the structure and function of organisms and their. parts
would not only provide evidence for the theoretical side of
together with appropriate experiments.
the subject, but would also be popular with students and ,
In that branch of biology dealing with evolutionary
hold their interest, a valuable bonus for the instructors
theory, new species are not created in the laboratory;
charged with running the class. Ifnone of these experiments
science has not yet discovered everything, and how to
is considered suitable for practical classes, I trust that the
compress a process that in nature takes thousands or tens
creationist legislators have something appropriate to
of thousands of generations into a few afternoons' practical
suggest. The scientific community is waiting.
sessions has not (at least yet) been accomplished. But on
the other hand, the theoretical aspects of evolution are
supported by virtually everything that is done in biology
practical classes. Comparative studies of anatomy physiology, embryology and genetics all point to the same evolutionary conclusion as well as teaching patterns of structure,
function, development and inheritance per se. Some birds
(ostriches, rheas, emus, etc.) do not fly, yet they possess
unused and useless rudimentary wings. What are these
structures, if not vestigial organs inherited from earlier' ----------------------flyingancestors, no longer maintained by natural selection
Important notice !!
because flight became unnecessary to the pattern of life
adopted by these species? Some lizards live largely underThe second paragraph of Dr. Ian R. Bock's article "Some
ground; their form of locomotion is burrowing, yet they
Thoughts on Evolution" (The American Atheist, Vol. 23, No. 12, p.
possess unused and useless rudimentary limbs. What are
4) should read: "Simply stated, "evolution" is the concept that
these structures, if not vestigial organs inherited from
similar but different species are related by descent from a common
earlier walking ancestors, again no longer maintained by ancestral species. Thus man and the gorilla, different species
natural selection because walking became unnecessary to
showing numerous similarities, are both believed to be derived
the pattern of lifeadopted by these species? Why does man
from a common ancestral species. The potato and the tomato,
again species showing many similarities" [etc.]
have an appendix? Did god put it there to keep twentiethcentury physicians in business? The human embryo at one
January, 1982

Austin, Texas

l!I

Page 7

The Match
Fred Woodworth

ATHEISM

AND

JUSTICE

In Danbury, Connecticut
not long ago, defense arguments were made in court on behalf of one Arne Johnson,
accused in the stabbing death of another man. A routine
case? Not when Johnson's attorney Martin Minnella began
trying to introduce evidence involving "demonic possession" and objecting to not being allowed to ask jurors if they
believed in the devil. According to Minnella, his client
deserves to be judged not guilty of this crime because at the
time of the act Johnson was under control by an evil power
which had, as it were, taken over his neurological apparatus
without his consent and had utilized his body to perform
various actions, including this murder.
Fortunately, in this case, Judge Robert Callahan of the
Superior Court disallowed any testimony pertaining to
demons or devils, and so the particular trial cannot be cited
as favorable precedent in future cases where the religious
attempt to evade guilt by placing responsibility on unseen
forces. However, such is the climate of the times, we cannot
doubt that some such precedent will be established before
long. Already cases have been seen in which astrological
signs and charts found their way into the courtroom as
occasional determinants
of use in sentencing, or as mitigating factors introduced or attemptedly
introduced
by
defendants.
The system and tradition of courtroom precedents may
exclude a certain tactic innumerable times, but once it gains
a single entry it sets the stage for use and re-use by those
who cite its appearance
as an instance of acceptable
strategy. The idiotic must therefore be defeated a thousand
times, because it has only to win ONCE to ensnarl and
poison justice forever after.
While many have observed and remarked on various
instances in which supernatural
influence has been proposed as a defense in charged crimes, so far a terrible
consequence of such defenses has escaped notice by these
commentators.
Legal precedent,
like law itself. is a twoedged sword; what may be used as defense may be used as
well as prosecution. The acceptance
in court of some
defense position involving demons, elves, or jesus christ,
might therefore have profound consequences
when later
proceedings ACCUSE this or that person of acting under
the influence of these non-existent causes. What a short
step we have really come from the barbaric witch trials of
puritanism or the catholic inquisition!
That justice has progressed such a little distance is really
no news to the Atheist who attempts to utilize the judicial
system, or to defend himself or herself from some charge.
Testimony from each witness is elicited in an aura of mystic
certainty-of
"swearing," and archaic phrases invoking
something called "god." The reasonable person who enters
these proceedings with testimony he knows to be true, may
discover he is barred from uttering a single word because of
his refusal to acknowledge supernatural,
religious entities.
Page 8

- January. 1982

IY

And yet the prevailing belief is that modern life has

attained a plane qualitatively different from what has ever
gone before. Justice, as the average person peers backward
into the past, is perceived as having been crude and
arbitrary. In civil cases or formal disputes the party who
prevailed usually had more wealth or power-than his
adversary, and could force the outcome that suited him. In
cases of criminal charges, the defendant might bd'.'put to a
test" that reflected his physiological reactions and-fear, the
assumption being that the innocent had nothing at all to be
afraid of. Persons accusedof crimes might even be tortured
to force them to confess, and sentencing was likely to
impose severe or fatal penalties on the convicted.
Now, of course, civil disputes are decided by an "impartial" court which hears the arguments of lawyers, hired at
great expense to the litigants, who secure a bold and
energetic presentation in direct proportion to the amount of
money they can afford to pay. Criminal cases are no longer
assisted by procedures such as the Chinese used, in which
the defendant was given dry bread to swallow, a fearparched throat being prima facie evidence of guilt; today,
such modern products
of ingenuity as the polygraph
measure body secretions and register the accused one's
fear on gauges where drops of sweat and thudding pulse are
meticulously counted -amazing progress in quantification.
Meanwhile, no prisoner is ever tortured to extract an
admission of guilt; the modern procedure
is to confine
persons accused of serious crimes in bleak/-ciepressing,
unhealthful cages where they are likely to be harmed by
fellow-prisoners while waiting a long-deferred trial. After a
time these accused people are offered the choice of quicker
release in exchange for their acknowledgement
of guilt to
some slightly less grave charge ....
It is actually shocking to reflect how little difference exists
between justice today and yesterday. True. there has been
a change in degree. with a softening of some of the former
harshness as mankind has almost imperceptibly
grown
wiser and more humane, but there is no difference in kind.
Open divination. for instance--the
reading of patterns in
animals' entrails or tea leaves. the interpretation of omens
and signs- now has no place in the courtroom. but appeals
to "god" to direct proceedings toward truth are still found.
dangerously creating the supposition of unknowable influence on these affairs, and lessening the tendency for
accusers. judges and juries to contemplate the real probability of their error and its awful results.
.Iustice. at its best, should be an earnest and logical
inquiry. yet religion is not earnest but abject. and is in no
case logical, as even its supporters
are sometimes compelled to admit. Religion has no business mixing itself with
justice, as religion is necessarily productive of arbitrary
results. At some point even the most watered-down belief in
"god" turns up as fallacies in thinking in some other broad
The American Atheist

areas that have significance as a social manifestation.

- have appropriated
material benefits of science after earlier
Where there is an improvement
in justice at all, the
hindering in every conceivable way the effort to explore
advancement is toward secularization.
natural and physical laws. Within the Iifetirne of most of
It is now so widely believed as to have become a set
today's adults, exploration of space was branded "against
phrase, that a person is "innocent until proven guilty." On
god's will" by outcries from major churches.
But more
recently, when exploration of the Moon was taking place,
the other hand, religious people are fond of ordenng the
astronauts determinedly read bible verses in space. It is as if
Atheist to "prove there is no god," not recognizing that the
the clear-thinking and productive part of humanity has a
burden of proof which is on the person positively alleging
disreputable
brother ---a bum, a lout, who consistently
something is always on the person who asserts a positive
disparages everything new, and at times works up to a
proposition. To be in accord with the philosophical premise
frantic rage of zeal-driven hatred for products of the mind;
of religion, therefore, justice would necessarily be in the
yet later, when he has lost the battle to annihilate these
position of ordering the accused to prove themselves
things, he calmly takes them up for his own use.
unguilty, a familiar bit of Alice-in-Wonderland
reasoning.
Religion is that loutish antagonist, a hypocrite who will
What actually corresponds
with the assumption "innobounce messages and bible sermons off satellite comcence pending proof of guilt" is the assumption that there is
munications relays---messages
that only twenty or thirty
no god, pending religionists' proof otherwise. (As Sebastien
years ago were filled with mouthings about "jesus's" or
Faure said, "Cease to affirm, and we will cease to deny!") A
"ichovah's" prohibitions
against probing beyond the
civilization that holds that it is proper to believe positively in
atmosphere. Religion is that sleazy, cunning renegade who
something for which there is no evidence at all, perverts the
sends its wounded pope to a modern hospital for treatment
fundamental structure of logic upon which human civilizeby competent surgeons, after earlier setting a stern No in
tion itself rests, and no real justice can exist in such
the way of medical innovators who wanted to dissect
conditions.
human cadavers.
In addition to illogicality, a further personality trait of the
And now religion, on the heels of thousands of years of
religious believer is authoritarianism,
the firm conviction
backwardness,
of utterly fdTcicdl "justice," of monstrous
that the believer's ideas, being divinely inspired. need to
tortures in the name of "god," of persecutory
inquisitions
hold sway over all people, whether they believe in them or
and foul, barbarous acts of every kind, dares to take credit
not. This belief, which is once again sweeping across the
for the existence of codes of ethics and for civilized behavior
United States as well as a number of Western nations. is
itself After having opposed the slow growth of even such
contributing to a resurgence
of the worst outbreaks
of
justice as we now have, imperfect by far as it is, religion now
censorship and attempts to enact moralistic laws.
Now, having said all this about the consequences
of' grasps once again the benefits to it of slowly taking it over
for its own purposes.
religion, what are the consequences
of its opposite, AtheA justice system that can be perverted to the point of
ism') Atheism does not attempt to tell anyone what to do,
using astrology to determine a convict's sentence, or of
nor does it make any statement that must be taken on faith.
setting up a defense based on demonic possession,
can
It does not postulate unseen demons or spirits: it does not
easily go the next step, to prosecutions
and entire trials
lead Its adherents to think that someone besides thembased on superstitious
interpretations.
It is important to
selves is responsible for their action. Atheism holds no
keep religion entirely out of the courtrooms (not to mention
promise of escaping consequences
by appealing to super
classrooms and a number of other vital spots), where it can
natural agencies, nor does it portend the danger of the
work far-r eechinq and profound
harm. Religion, the
innocent being accused of acting out the wishes of the
bastard, sponging, unwelcome visitor, needs to be firmly
"devil." Atheism leaves the individual where he or she needs
ejected from t he places where civilized people carryon their
to be --in charge of one's own behavior
business.
It is indeed sobering to see with what pas' the irrational

On Our Way
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke

GHOSTS, WORDS, AND PAINT

If charity is a heavenly virtue-- as says religion-then
conclusive evidence of religion's essential harm rests in the
way its doctrine ignores charity and heaven, 111 committing
to hell anyone who differs with or rejects religion's commands. None of these are more than mere opinions
disguised as truths which, when taken seriously by the
believer, make him weaker, and the religion more harmful
than before; and for this reason religion continues to stand,
if somewhat wobblingly, on a foundation of both heaven and

heil.
Only the undisciplined
mind of a fool would permit
anyone to erect on a rock foundation a structure intended
to demonstrate
the foundation's shortcomings.
Yet precisely so, every religion attempts to show that the world into
which we've been born is the wrong place to search for
happiness, and that religion's promised heaven is the goal
that all of us should strive to reach. People by the millions
are every day confused by this tawdry religious ploy, but

.Ianuary,

Austin. Texas

II

1982

Page 9

anyone aware of the whimsical temperament of nature-of

her cosmically prevalent caprice-sees very little that in the
foolish behavior of human beings ought by rights be called
unusual or surprising. Just like other creatures, man is the
product of nature, of her mutable activities, of her selfunknowing though seemingly intelligent entity. That's why
today's scientist continues to find ever new cosmic marvels
which by contrast make the smallest item known to date
look large, and the largest known look small. Nature will
always retain control, always fascinate us.
In constantly surprising us, nature betrays that she has an
inexhaustible supply of everything and anything that the
mind of man aided by his senses tempts him to expropriate
and utilize. But man, to his shame, doesn't invariably use
knowledge of this kind for his benefit. He repeatedly
employs it destructively; and whenever nature chastises
him-as she usually does-for such infractions, he calls her
punishment unjust, and himself clear of blame. Ifthe history
of man's evolution from a cell randomly palpitating in the
world's seas, to a position commanding its land masses
constitutes an-encyclopedic record, it's also compendium
that his weakly contradictory disposition prompts him to
ignore and blithely contravene.
Man, ever since he first assumed the leading place among
the world's creatures, had turned into a perennial puzzle
hard for man himself to solve. Man could have easily
succeeded at it had he not set against it countless obstacles
that make it appear. hopelessly impossible to him. Man
always hates to admit this to himself because, as a creature,
he instinctively and subliminally respects nature but consciously and emotionally strives to subdue her-patently an
impossibility. And this is why he created a god, an idea
whose inexplicability is sufficiently capacious to hold all of
his guilts and doubts. He had fabricated a safety valve for
relieving his stress-prone temperament.
.'
This ghost-god, ever present but invisible, was an idea
that one day occurred to man while fantasying about
nature-about her sun, wind, water, stars, snow, heat, cold,
and other whimsies-and has from the day of the god's
invention entranced man as something that he ranked
omnipotent. Here man was on the right track but didn't
know that in nature's visible and invisible entity alone is
omnipotence-and
that, in the ghost he visualized, he was
in his mind reflecting nature's tauntingly ineffable character.
Some things take more time to realize than others; but he in
that reflection had an item for inducing the many to serve
the few-with which his priestly descendants gradually
persuaded the many: to accept this ghost -god as the
motivator of 111,.1l11an
activities. The god, said the priests,
demanded periodic appeasement; was a martinet who in
various religions held the position of predestinator of life
-;-and in time was by the priests made known as the author
of any and every rule and taboo at all effective for keeping
docile all those who remained unconvinced of his existence.
And though this nightmarish ghost-god was nothing but a
figment, the weary and exploited masses eventually worshiped even images they thought might please him, or
anything at all they thought resembled him or harbored him.
Speculating of this kind could be stretched to book length
-but should by chance a moral be found hiding in these few
lines, let it be that man is by nature compelled to be an
inveterate dreamer and visualizer: all because he finds

Page 10

January, 1982

J"

sequent thinking upon any subject exceedingly difficult.

Our human thinking is inconstant, often vague. A picture
helps elucidate it. This notwithstanding, the god-idea was
always represented as a doctrine that would sooner or later
bring joy and pleasure to man. But the claim alone was
never enough. Hence religion never passed up any available
means to attract converts, and this finally focused priestly
attention upon the sundry help to be obtained from art.
In this .connection I was given an interesting lecture on
religious art a few years ago by a friend who had just
completed a lengthy essay about it, and consequently felt
that in my Atheism I was ignoring the contributions to art
made by religion. I countered, saying that it wasn't the love
of art that moved into action the architects, sculptors,
goldsmiths, painters, printers, and artisans hired by religion, but purely and simply the church's necessity for
retrenchment. The widespread apostasy faced by the
popes of the 14th and subsequent centuries impelled them
to try and obtain, through art, what they assumed would
enable their dynastic religionism to dominate more efficiently the guilt-fraught humanity they were in those
centuries pledged to control.
As to the quality of the art then being produced for the
purpose, no impartial critic of today would sincerely
pronounce it beautiful except, perhaps, historically and
sentimentally. Only in relatively few cases is it better than
adequate, and even more rarely a masterpiece. But the
dedication, devotion, ingenuity, and patience of the sundry
artists engaged in this project isn't in any way being decried
here. For clearing the air that in further discussion of beauty
in religious art might end in smog, let's review Immanuel
Kant's dictum upon it in his Critique of Judgment:
Everyone must admit that a judgment about
beauty, in which the least interest mingles, is
very partial and is not a pure judgment of taste.
We must not be in the least prejudiced in favor of
the existence of things, but be quite indifferent in
this respect, in order to play the judge in things
of taste. Taste is the faculty of judging of an
object or a method of representing it by an
entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called
beautiful.
The fact remains that religious art, no matter how
produced and on view today was, and is, propagandistic. It
is therefore by no interpretation altruistic or humanistic. It is
pity-evoking, lachrymose, concerned with man's cruelties
to man; is in revoltingly poor taste, and wholly dedicated to
the perpetuation of the tyrannic ambitions of the hierarchy
engaged in the unholy, money-grubbing, and power-thirsty
enterprise I long ago dubbed the god business. The people
of the Western nations, for whose iron control and indoctrination such art was being produced after the 4th century,
are worse off because of it, and would undoubtedly have
been a better people without it than they currently are.
From The Victoria (Texas) Advocate of 13 November 1981:
"Church news is third class mail, but because of its nature
and the fact that many people await it each week, all local
church news gets first class handling," declared the local
USPS manager of consumer services.
The American Atheist

The Angry Young Atheist

Jeff Frankel

ATHEISTS MUST FIGHT

Greetings, fellow Atheists. This is the first in what I hope
willbe a long series of The Angry Young Atheist columns.
I hope to add a new dimension to this magazine by
'presenting ideas and opinions on Atheism from the perspective of the proverbial angry young man (I am 24).
Recent commentaries on the subject of closet Atheists
basically summed up my life prior to 1981. I was one who
would argue with those who attempted to foist religion onto
me, but that was all. I simply glided along, making no waves
and unknowingly helping to maintain the status quo.
That was until I saw the rise of the new fundamentalist
right. The actions of the moral majority and their megalomaniacal counterparts angered me. My tolerance towards
religious fanatics fell to zero. I wanted to fight. I began
researching religion and Atheism. I discovered the American Atheist Center and became a member, thus discarding
the agnostic label I had worn for so long.
Having come to the realization that being an Atheist
means taking a stand, fighting the fight, and refusing to back
down, I was quite disappointed to read in Jon's column
about .those who compartmentalize their Atheism. THIS
MUST STOP! As Atheists, we are members of a team. As
with any team, the members must pull together iUt is to be a
winner. Ifeach individual goes in a different direction, losing
is inevitable. WE DO NOT'WANT TO LOSE! WE CAN
NOT AFFORD TO LOSE!
If you will not respond .to behavior modification techniques, perhaps you willrespond to your own pride. Take a
good look at the moral majority (if your stomach willallow
you to). Like them or not, you mustrespect their ability to
work together towards getting the results they desire. Are
you willingto let a group of pompous zealots take over and
make "1984" a reality while you stand back and rationalize
some selfish excuse for not getting involved? Are you willing
to concede to the christians that they are better team
players than we are? If you 'have the courage of your
convictions, your answer should be a loud resounding NO!
To see what can be gained by "coming out of the closet,"
one only needs tolook at the gains made by blacks, women,
and homosexuals over the past few years. How did they do
it? By stepping forward bravely, identifying themselves, and
demanding their rights. They didn't turn and run the first
time, Or any time somebody said "no." They, stood and
fought, and fought some more. The fightisby no means
over for any of those groups, but the advancements they've
.made are proof that their efforts have not been in vain.
I, for one, am tired of those whose only action toward the
injustices, of life is empty complaining. ,lJnfortunately,
apathy is becoming the new national pastime. The last
election wasaperfect example. We now have a president
who won election by gaining the votes of a "majority" oJ the

52% of registered voters who actually got out and voted

(and half of those were probably moral majority supporters).
The attitude of many of our nation's voters and, unfortunately, Atheists, is best summed up by songwriter John Kay
of the band Steppenwolf in their 1968 song "The Ostrich":
There's nothing you and I can do; you and I are. only
two
What's right and wrong is hard to say; forget about it
for today
We'll stick our heads into the sand; just pretend that all
is grand
And hope that everything turns out okay.
Atheism has no place for selfish, bigoted indifferent
people. Those who fit that mold may as well go join a church
so they can be with their own kind. (It's just as well this type
of Atheist keeps a low profile. That keeps them from being
an embarrassment to sincere Atheists.) Atheism needs
those who are intelligent, caring and direct to stand up and
be counted without the fear of offending someone or
suffering reprisals. You must realize that when you subscribe to an unconventional philosophy, you willmost likely
alienate some people. It goes with the territory.
If you are going to be-outgoing with your Atheism, you
must do considerable study so you will be knowledgeable
enough to deal with those who challenge your stand.
Through my own experiences, I have found that you need
sufficient understanding of these three areas:
'
(1) The bible: This. book is its owl) worst enemy.
Everything you need to discredit it is contained within. Read
it, along with the many fine atheistic analyses of it which are
available. Showing knowledge of their scriptures will be
enough to deflate most critics, since knowledge of the bible
is something most christians are lacking (that's why they're
christians).
(2) Atheist history: Learn about the great Atheists who
contributed to the history of our nation, as well as other
historical figures who did not accept christianity. This will
enable you to educate others in regard to the respectable
non-religious heritage of our nation.
(3) Evolution: As soon as you say you've rejected the god
concept, someone willusually ask, "How did you get here?"
(This is a question you can -play a number of semantics
games with.)
Ifyou are one of a majority of Atheists who accept evolution
as the explanation of how life came about, you shouldbe
informed enough on the subject to defend it properly.
It doesn't hurt to admit your Atheism. The reactions you
get may surprise you. Most of those I've gotten have been of
sincere interest. I have an "American Atheist" shirt which
has raised a few dirty looks, but has also caught the eye of
those curious enough about Atheism that they've asked

January, 1982

Austin, Texas.. '.

II

Page 11

what it's all about. As it has previously been stated in The

American Atheist, we must draw this kind of attention to
. ourselves in order to expand the ranks of Atheism.
Let's quit hiding behind Madalyn Murray O'Hair and
stand beside her in the fight for Atheist rights and the
restoration of the separation of state and church. Remernber, it willtake ACTION! Hoping things willget better is as
useless as praying. One person can do a lot, and that person
is YOU!
How many times have you heard the old story of a
person's life being improved by acceptance of god and
christ? It's a well-worn rags to riches tale which priests
never fail to bring up in an attempt to prove "how great it is
to be a christian." They never mention those who went
insane trying to live their lives by the contradictory rules of
the bible. Nor do they mention those whose lives were
ruined by the fanatical dictates of their church.
Ihave no doubts that many people's lives have been made
easier because of their acceptance of christianity. It must be
nice to be relieved of the responsibility of thinking and
reasoning and no longer having to be concerned with the
now. But I feel the world should know that one's life can be
improved by RENOUNCING religion. Such has been the
case with me, and I feel I should present my story for all to
see.
I was raised as a christian. I was saved (spelled d-ec-e-i-v-e-d)at age seven. Iwas taught that belief in the Hokey
Babble was necessary for a fulland wholesome life,and that
prayer was essential for one's well being. Enjoyable summers attending vacation bible school and nice people in my
church left me with a very favorable impression of religion.
(Ah, yes, get them while they're too young to know better.)
My family later moved to another city, so I had to leave the
church I loved so much. Still in all, I maintained my faith
(spelled d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n), I read the bible and tried to understand it, but found it difficult. I felt it made no difference, as
long as I continued to believe.
As a youngster, Iwas far more intelligent than my peers (I
finished the first four grades in school in three years) and
also taller and heavier (over six feet tall and in excess of 200
Ibs. at age twelve); The jealousy others showed towards me
because of my intellect and the ridicule I received because
of my size prompted me to plunge even deeper into the tar
pit known as religion. I developed a very self-righteous
attitude. I felt those who put me down were of the devil. I
would draw pictures of my "enemies" burning in hell as
satan danced with glee, jabbing their burning flesh with his
pitchfork. I felt that since I was "with god," I was right, and
would be rewarded with heaven, while my detractors would
certainly go to hell. I felt secure in that because I had plenty
of scripture to back me.
My snobbery and contempt for those who didn't believe
as Idid grew as Igrew older. Iwould only speak to those who
I thought believed as I, ignoring the rest. My only school
activity outside class was attending a prayer room which
was open in the morning prior to the first bell. Then, the
prayer room was abolished after a parent complained to the
school board about it. I was very angry about this, and
urged god to "punish this infidel."
I had many problems during my adolescence (as I guess
all people do during that period of life),but instead of trying
to deal with them, I simply tried to pray them away. The
Page 12

January, 1982

1.1

attitude troubles I had culminated in my becoming a high

school dropout. There I was: A fat blob of ignorance and self
pity, wishing jesus would come and make my life better.
I decided to begin studying on my own so I could later
obtain a GED degree. I also began an extensive reading of
the bible so I could become an even more knowledgeable
christian. This was the turning point.
Reading and analyzing the bible as one would any other
piece of literature was a far cry from simply looking up a
quote a preacher used in a sermon. By the time I'd finished
genesis, I was beginning to doubt the wisdom of god.
Reading the gospels made me look upon christ as something less than perfect. Other books I read in both the old
and new testaments came across to me as just plain stupid.
Around this same time, I was beginning to study logic,
and was reading a book which contained a list of logical
fallacies. I began to apply that list to my bible study. To my
horror, I found that the bible simply does not stand up under
serious scrutiny. I didn't know what to think.
The only thing I couldn't find fault with at that time was
the resurrection. Then I found a book entitled The Jesus
Scroll by Donovan Joyce, which used evidence found
within the gospels to show that christ did not die on the
cross, and showed the crucifixion and the resurrection
could have been faked by christ and his followers. That was
enough for me. I renounced christianity as a fraud.
I was very angry that I had been led into believing a-false
religion by people I loved. Then I realized that they had been
deceived even more than I. That taught me an important
lesson: To develop a satisfying personal philosophy, one
must not look without, but look within. I'd spent so much
time trying to understand the bible that I'd spent virtually no
time trying to understand me. The time had come for that to
change.
I turned my mind inside out attempting to understand ..
myself. Use of psychology and logic replaced the empty ~
prayers I'd been saying for so long. A fulfillingphilosophy
evolved from this-one
based on common sense, not
common belief. I evolved from deist to agnostic to Atheist.
At the time I abandoned religion, I was 17 years old, out of
school, unemployed and living in an uninspiring environment. I weighed over 400 Ibs. and was a sickly weakling,
lacking in self-confidence. My social life was limited to
contacts with those whose lives and ideas were as narrow as
mine. As time went on, my life improved. My thinking
became more rational as I conditioned and disciplined my
mind. I applied equal conditioning and discipline to my
body, slimming down to a trim 260 Ibs. on my 6'5" frame. My
health problems disappeared, and I am now going on four
consecutive years without missing a day of work. I have a
good job with a nationally known company, my own home,
and the best friends anybody could ask for. I've developed
my writing skills to the point where I've had several pieces
published. My self-confidence and take-charge attitude
have been a positive influence on many people. I am at
peace with myself and the world. I live for the moment, and
am not concerned with any concept of afterlife. Death does
not bother me, and is certainly not the terrifying spectre it
was when I was a christian, because I have no fear of hell.
I'm sure that many religionists would read this and claim
that the behavior I exhibited in my youth was simply the
result of having a neurotic attitude which had nothing to do
The American Atheist

with religion. I admit Iwas indeed neurotic, and that some of

my behavior was not connected to my christian faith. But I
feel that the fires in my neurotic mind would not have
burned as hot without the even more neurotic doctrine of
christianity to fuel them. I'm sure they would also say that
with "proper christian counseling" (spelled b-r-a-i-n-w-a-s-hion-g)I would have overcome my problems and kept my
faith. I did talk to a minister who became a very good friend.
We studied the bible together and talked about life. Even
though he'd been through three years of bible college, Iwas
pointing out scripture to him that he was not aware of. In
regard to personal problems, I was more helpful to him than
he was to me. He'd had a history of mental illness, and
would suffer from severe depression at times. He'd been
treated by christian therapists, but it had done little for him.
He'd often call ME to ask for help and advice. So much for
"proper christian counseling."
Had I remained a christian, I could never have developed

the positive mental outlook I have now. As a christian, I

could never have felt I was worthwhile as a person, with
ministers constantly preaching how evil and sinful we
humans are. I would never have felt comfortable questioning those in authority, even if I knew they were wrong, for
fear of punishment. I'd still be a fat slob because I would
believe that the body is secondary to the spirit. Plus I would
never have discovered all of the glory of this wonderful
world, because I'd be too busy thinking about a next one.
This was not an easy column to write because I had to
reveal some rather painful memories of my past. But stories
like this seldom surface, and Ifelt that it was something I had
to do. Becoming an Atheist was a highlight in my life; and I
see Atheism as the wave of the future. As people come to
rely on logic and reason and develop their philosophies from
within instead of without, Atheism will become more
prominent in our society.

Poetry
The Shroud
The eager eyes of a soldier's son
Ablaze with the tales of war
While a boastful dad brags of battles won
And flaunts his hero's scar
Little wonder when he comes of age
That a youth should somehow crave
To relive his hero's gallant page
As the flags begin to wave
Full proud he'll follow glory's trail
And rush to the battle's din
No thought his valiant cause might fail
He will fight to the bitter end
Undaunted so he'll man the lines
Where he'll face some foreign sons
Or charge unwarned by the danger signs
Now flashed by the pounding guns
A sudden fear willseize the boy
As his buddies scream in pain
Soon he'll be just a battle toy
Little glory then to gain
But time has passed to wonder now
That seas of blood must run
Mid thundering shell and smoke filled sky
It will flow till the killing's done

OH NO NEUTRONS
You've heard of the Neutron Bomb,
Climax of man's absurdity ...
Regardless - our leaders approved.
We have atom bombs,
Nuclear missiles, poison gases,
Planes, ships, submarines,
Rockets, guns, cetera, cetera,
And never ending fear of wars
They all are dirty killers,
But the neutron's clean and kind.
It kills but doesn't leave
A bloody mess behind; it's gentle,
Won't scratch the fender
Or dent the heavy tank,
Doesn't destroy the buildings
Or touch the money in the bank.
Neutron kills all living things
Fries them soft and done
Same as you would roast the meat
In your Micro oven
But who is gonna kill the tank
If the driver is dead?
The tank keeps going, not knowing where,
And it won't stop till nothing's left
Standing

anywhere.

Bertha Goodall
Ohio

Now one by one the young men fall

And sounds of death grow loud
And the treasured flag that once waved tall
Becomes a funeral shroud
Gerald Tholen
Austin, Texas

January, 1982

IY

Page 13

Toward More Intelligence

Richard M. Smith

SOME NEW YEAR'S

RESOLUTIONS WE'D LIKE TO SEE
It is customary at this time of year for many people to
make resolutions to change their personal behavior.
Usually these resolutions are so petty that nobody takes
them seriously. I, for one, resolved long ago to ignore the
whole custom, and that is probably the only resolution that I
kept. However, recently I thought of some resolutions that
major people could make that would force me to reconsider
my attitude toward New Year's Day resolutions.
The pope resolves to tell the truth. He admits that the
catholic church has been wrong all along. He apologizes
sincerely for all of the needless pain the church has caused
to humanity throughout the centuries. To rectify the wrong
he abolishes the papacy, turns over all relics to museums or
garbage dumps, and converts churches into music halls and
auditoriums. All propaganda money is diverted into education of the still-believing masses by explaining to them what
a huge mistake the whole business has been and how the
Atheists had been right all along. He acknowledges that
birth control for every human being is the most important
project facing humanity. By so doing the ex-pope earns
himself the honor as the greatest pope of all time and a
genuine "man of peace."
The president of the mormon church, taking the cue from
the ex-pope, promptly does the same. The church's welfare
system is made completely autonomous. The head of the
church admits he has no ability to prophesy. He makes
special apologies to Native Americans for ever having
suggested that they were descendants of a "cursed" race
and to women for the inferior status that the church had
conferred upon them.
Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral
Roberts make a joint announcement to confess that the
U.S. was not founded as a christian nation and that all of the
"founding fathers" rejected bible stories like resurrection,
virgin birth, angels, etc. They appeal to young people to turn
away from the ministry.
Everyone agrees there's nothing wrong with private
schools if they aren't run by god-pushers, and a major
struggle is ended. Americans United, freed from the task of
fighting the catholic church, promises to divert its money to
aiding American Atheists abolish the last of all the unconstitutional laws which promote god and prayer in government.
The supreme court of the U.S. admits that it has been
bowing to religious pressure for years and promises to
review all cases involving separation of state and church. In
so doing it makes clear that tax exemptions for religion will
be abolished as unconstitutional; god mottoes will be
removed from money and pledges; and mandatory prayer
willbe ended in all government functions.
Newspaper, radio, and TV editors agree to report the
facts more squarely. Faith healers will be examined as
critically as any get-rich-quick scheme. Hellfire preachers
Page 14

January. 1982

1,1

willbe exposed as child abusers. By a new newspaper code

of ethics, astrology columns will be replaced by science
lessons. Atheism will no longer be treated as a personality
issue but as a sane outlook on life.
The president of the U.S. notes that there is no god to kill
and die for and that preservation of human life on earth is
the most important political strategy. Seeing that there is no
point in war, he promises to balance the budget by cutting
war spending.
,
Prime minister Begin admits that there's nothing so
special about being jewish. He notes that Palestinians are
semites, too. Jerusalem is demoted from holy status. Yasir
Arafat says that Mohammed was actually a barbarian. He
suggests an accord with Begin by which the billions of
dollars pouring into their country from the U.S. for arms will
be converted into homes and food for everyone within the
borders of a new country to be renamed with the he brew
and Palestinian words for "peaceland." They promise to get
off the dole from the U.S. in five years.
.
All of the ayatollahs and mullahs in Iran turn in their
turbans. In a joint declaration they renounce their behavior
in the past. Khomeini himself releases all "political"
prisoners. Science is returned to the schools, and the oil
money is put to sensible use. Women are to be treated as
human beings again. Having fun is legalized.
The prince of Saudi Arabia declares Mecca to be a fraud. ,
Would-be pilgrims expect to save millions of dollars every
year in foregoing the trip. Fearing less rebellion from
internal and external sectarian strife, the prince cancels the
multibillion dollar AWACS deal with the U.S. and designates the money saved from that deal to be spent for family
planning and education in Pakistan and India. He decrees
that the monarchy will be abolished at the end of the year.
Prime minister Gandhi responds warmly to the gesture
from wealthy Saudi Arabia and determines that some of the
education money will be used to teach all Indians about
Lokhayata.
In Poland all of the workers are released from the burden
of supporting the catholic church. When their own pope
tells them that religion is wrong, they realize that with less
money going to the church more willbe available to procure
food and shelter. A major strike is averted.
Seeing that the western world is not so bad as it used to
be, the Soviet Union drops travel restrictions into and out of
its country. Since the Afghan tribesmen have renounced
their ancient primitive moslem beliefs, the USSR withdraws
from Afghanistan and offers a program of economic aid
instead. Hearing that the U.S. no longer cares to killand die
for god and country, it agrees to more meaningful dialogue
about what to do with useless nuclear weapons.
Out of total necessity the Chinese declare war on
population growth and divert all of their military expenditures to that end. The People's Liberation Army is reorgaThe American Atheist

nized .into the People's Progressive Force to provide

effective birth control education to all of the populace.
Japan welcomes the end of the U.S.'s addiction to
religion. With the billions of dollars that formerly went
toward that unproductive business being turned to real
goods and services and basic science and research, the

U.S.'s productivityis expected to rebound, and Japan will

no longer have to be the scapegoat for the U.S.'s economic
failure.
New Year's Day is renamed World Freedom Day in
honor of the occasion.
That would be a new year I could celebrate.

THE REST OF THE JIM JONES STORY

Steve LaPrade
Steve LaPrade is a veteran of nine years with the
Amarillo Globe-News (three awards) and KAMR- TV in
Amarillo (news ratings moved into first place in the
market). He is now employed by a major book selling
house. The 33-year-old author's work has appeared in St.
Louis Journalism Review, American Whitewater, Baptist
Standard, and New Guard.
Did you know that Ralph Nader-the famed consumer
advocate-once
helped the lunatic rev. Jim Jones harass
and threaten a family who tried to expose the insanity that
was the Peoples Temple?
Did you know that Dennis Banks-famed leader of the
American Indian Movement-did the very same thing?
Did you know that a San Francisco newspaper and a
television station also worked to help the rev. Jim Jones,
even after he had come under investigation and some
national attention?
And did you know a major Bay area columnist-Herb
Caen-continued
to back Jones to the end?
These shocking stories should have been exposed by the
news media but were not. And the media can't claim no one
'knew what was happening. For Jeannie Mills exposed all
this in her book, Six Years With God: Life Inside Rev, Jim
Jones's Peoples Temple.
But the book-published
in 1979 by A&W Publishers,
Inc., of New York-was ignored by critics and the media.
So here is a review of Mrs. Mills' findings that should have
been followed up.
The book-although
vastly important-was
so overwhelmingly ignored by the media that I, an l l-year veteran
of newspaper and television news (plus publication in four
magazines), only learned of it when I saw a lonely copy on a
$1.98 sales table at a bookstore. So, for those who didn't see
the book, here's a recap of what it revealed about the
questions at the start of the article.
Mrs. Mills, the author, and her husband AI, along with
their children, lived in the Peoples Temple from 1970 to
1976. The first part of the book tells about their efforts to
expose Jones after they left. The last part tells how they
came to the lure of Jones and joined his so-called church.
On page 50 of her book, Mrs. Mills reports she saw a
picture of Ralph Nader being introduced to Jones in
November 1976. She knew that Nader was almost certainly
not one of the very few who really knew about how Jones'
sick operation was not really working. Mrs. Mills told
Nader, in a letter, what was happening with Jones in
California, enclosing critical articles from a California
journalist. She said, "I live in daily fear of my life."
She was stunned when days later, an official of the

Peoples Temple called her to say, "Don't you know that

Ralph has pledged his undying support to our group?"
Needless to say, Mrs. Mills was scared and shaken. And
regardless if Nader really did pledge support of any kind to
Jones, one question still remains: why did he tell Jones
about the letter and endanger the sender's life? Does this
now mean that if a. worker tells Nader of unsafe working
conditions at a plant, Nader willsend the letter to the plant
boss, so the worker can be threatened and intimidated,
maybe even fired?
But Nader's lapse might be explained by temporary stupidity. That excuse won't wash for some other people.
Like Dennis Banks of AIM. On page 57 of her book, Mrs.
Mills reports that after reading of a Jones rally attended by
Governor Jerry Brown and San Francisco Mayor George
Moscone, she again tried to warn people about the real rev.
Jim Jones. One of the people she says she told was a man
named Dave Conn. He put her in touch with an investigative reporter and a U.S. Treasury agent. Conn was a
close friend of Dennis Banks, who had publicly endorsed
Jones. So Conn tried to warn Banks he was being used by a
religious nut.
Was Banks appreciative? Did Sitting Bull spare Custer?
Banks apparently leaked all he learned to Jones. On page
59 of her book, Mrs. Millsreports Conn told her -after he'd
talked with Banks-that his (Conn's) girlfri~'nd had been
threatened and he had moved, fearing for his life. The next
day a threatening letter came to the Mills family.
Another horror story came on page 62 when Mrs. Mills
tells about the San Francisco Bay Guardian (in a 1977
incident). That paper was highly praised in the 1976 book,
The New Muckrakers by Washington Post staff member,
Leonard Downie, Jr. But he probably would not have
praised the paper ifthe incident Mrs. Millsrelated had been
known to him.
She reports that the paper-as many before Jones' real
story was known in California-did a story praising the
Peoples Temple as a place where "activist politics meets
old-fashioned charity."
A relative of Al Mills, having been told by him about the
Jones "ministry," sent an angp9letter to the paper reporting
incidents of child abuse at the church. This is recorded on
pages 62 and 63 of Six Years With God.
The paper did not run the letter but instead told the
Peoples Temple about the letter. The result was a threatening phone call to the Mills family in the middle of the night.
The message was, "We know about the letter you sent to
the Bay Guardian. Don't ever do anything like that again."
Revealing a source-especially
one who has reported a
breaking of the law-is a violation of the most basic
journalistic ethics. Whatever staff member leaked that

January,

Austin, Texas

Iv

1982

Page 15

writer's name to Jim Jones should be barred from journalistic employment for life.
But the Bay Guardian was not the only news medium to
sell out to Jones. Take the case of KRON-TV, San
Francisco.
On page 79 and 80, Mrs. Mills reports former Peoples
Temple members feared for safety of loved ones who had
been moved to Jonestown, Guyana. They wanted to catch
the attention of Cyrus Vance. A demonstration was
planned. Late the night before, all the TV stations were
called and told a demonstration was planned against the
Peoples Temple.
Mrs. Mills reports that of all the stations, most just noted
the time and place of the demonstration. The San Francisco Examiner and Newsweek and New West magazines
had done stories exposing some of Jones'operations.
But KRON asked lots of questions.
The next morning, only one TV station failed to showKRON-but it was obvious from pamphlets being handed
out by Jones' people, that the KRON conversation had
been leaked to the Peoples Temple.
Why would an allegedly honest news television operation
do such a thing? No one may know for sure. KRON is
owned by the San Francisco Chronicle. And its big
columnist is Herb Caen.
Mrs. Mills reports in her book that Caen consistently
bowed at Jones' feet, journalistically, even after the truth
began coming out.
In 1977, New West magazine broke the first big story
against Jones (despite a suspicious burglary at the New
West editorial offices). The report triggered an investigation
by Mayor Moscone.
But what did Caen write? That Jones was retaining two
toplibel lawyers. That's reported on page 68 of Six. Years
With God.
On page 70, Mrs. Millsreports on newspaper stories that
appeared on Aug. 17, 1977. The San Francisco Progress
reported, "Government Checks Follow Temple Members
to Guyana." A headline from the Santa Rosa Press
Democrat told about a possible exodus by all Temple

members to Guyana. On the 15th had appeared a big

Newsweek story.
So what did Herb Caen write on Aug. 18? "Whereas
Peoples Temple is 80 percent black, 90 percent of those
making the wild charges are white."
By September 9, the Examiner had run another expose
and Governor Brown's office was reporting Jones had lied
about a government appointment. What did Caen write?
"No evidence of criminal activity ... " had been uncovered
by the San Francisco D.A.'s office.
The ultimate came on Nov. 18, 1977. On page 77 of her
book, Mrs. Mills reports that Jones, asked why he was
staying in Guyana, claimed he was doing so for a 5-year-old
boy. Jones claimed he was the real father of a child of a San
Francisco couple. Caen printed Jones' story but never
bothered to call the couple to check the story. Oh well, the
old journalistic slogan is "don't let the facts interfere with a
good story."
So from Mrs. Mills' ignored book, the media and their
newsmen have questions that should be asked. Why did
Dennis Banks, Ralph Nader, the San Francisco Bay
Guardian and KRON-TV aid and abet Jones in his campaign of terror and threats against former Peoples Temple
members? And why did Herb Caen spout the Jones line for
so long?
Those questions need to be asked.
There's another interesting question that should be
asked. Why did a small publishing house like A&W print the
book? Is it because the big media own the big book
publishing companies? RCA (NBC's parent firm) owns
Random House, Knopf and Pantheon, lIT owns BobbsMerrill, CBS owns Fawcett and Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Hearst owns Avon, and Readers Digest owns
Funk and Wagnalls.
Just because Jim Jones and 912 other people have died
doesn't mean the story is dead. Californians have the right '
to know about how their news media and columnists
performed. And all Americans have a right f:6 know why
Dennis Banks and Ralph Nader aided Jim Jones in his rule
by terror.

DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY

Voltaire

Voltaire, after Shakespeare the most famous writer in the

world, needs no introduction. So well known was hefor his
ridicule of christianity that the roman catholic church found
it necessary to invent the libel that Voltaire died shrieking
for a priest. The record shows otherwise. According to
Page 16

January, 1982

S.G. Tallentyre's The Life of Voltaire (1903), pp. 556-7, "At

six o'clock in the evening of that day, Mignot fetched
Faultier and de Tersac [the parish priest]. D'Alembert told
Frederick the Great that de Tersac approached Voltaire,
saying loudly, "Jesus Christ!" and that Voltaire, rousing a
little from his stupor, made a motion with his hand-"Let
me die in peace." Grimm and La Harpe tell the same story
with unimportant variations. At nine o'clock in the evening
the priests left [last rites having been refused] . . . . Ten
minutes before he died he took Morand's hand. 'Farewell,
my dear Morand. I am dying.' He never spoke again. At a
quarter past eleven on the"evening of Saturday, May 30,
1778, in the eighty-fourth year of his age,died Francois
Marie Arouet de Voltaire." In the next few issues of The
American Atheist we will present his little-known Dictionary of Theology as a sampling of the work of this
incomparable satirist and foe of christianity.
ABRAHAM
_The father of all the faithful. He lied, and was. made a
The American Atheist

t. .

cuckold; he pared off his foreskin, and, in a word, gave proof

of so much faith that, had it not been for angelic intervention
in the nick of time, he would have cut the throat of his own
son, whom the lord, in a jesting mood, had commanded him
to sacrifice. God then made a covenant with him and with
his seed forever; but the son of god afterwards annulled this
treaty for some good reasons that his papa did not foresee
when he made it.
ABSOLUTION
The remission of the sins we have committed against god.
The priests of the romish church grant it to sinners in virtue
of a blank from the divinity itself; a most happy invention,
well calculated to reassure certain timorous rogues who
might be inclined to feel remorse for their shortcomings did
not the mother church thus take the trouble to set them
entirely at their ease on that score.
ADAM
He was the first man. God created him a big booby, who
to please his wife was stupid enough to devour an apple
which his descendants have never since been able to digest.
ALTARS
God's tables, upon which he, disgusted with the meats
formerly served up to him, now requires that his sacrificers
shall serve up to him his own son, of whom they (the
sacrificers) likewise partake and cause others to partake.
The sight of this delicate repast disarms the eternal father of
his anger and inspires him with the friendliest sentiments for
all who thus sit at his table and gobble up portions of his
beloved son under his very nose.
ANNUNCIATI()N
A visit of ceremony paid by a pure spirit to a virgin of
Judea, accompanied with a pretty compliment. The result
was a fine brat, as big as his papa, who has since made a
certain noise in the world, and, there is room to hope, will
make a great deal more if mankind continues to be as good
and wise as it has been hitherto.
APOSTLES
A dozen of knaves, as ignorant as owls and poor as
church mice, who composed the court of the son of god
here below, and were charged by him to teach the universe.
Their successors have since risen in the world, thanks to
theology, which their predecessors, the apostles, had not
studied. For the rest, the clergy, like the aristocracy, is so
constituted as to derive a greater degree of luster in
proportion as they recede from their primitive origin, or the
resemblance between them and their predecessors fades
away.
ATHEIST
A name given by theologians to whoever differs from
them in their ideas concerning the divinity, or who refuses
to believe in it in the form of which, in the emptiness of their
infalliblepates, they have resolved to present it to him. As a
rule, an Atheist is any or every man who does not believe in
the god of the priests.
AUTO-DA-FE
An act of faith. A dainty feast offered to the divinity from
Austin, Texas

time to time, and which consisted of roasting, in great

pomp, the bodies of jews or heretics for the salvation of their
souls and the edification of the lookers-on. From this we
may infer that the father of mercies has ever shown a
marked taste for roasts and broils.
BAPTISM
A sacrament absolutely indispensable to salvation. God
willreceive none into his glory unless once in their lives they
have received a douche of cold water on the occiput. This
was has the virtue of cleansing an infant of an enormous sin
expiated by the son of god and which had been committed
but a few thousand years before the parents of the child
dreamed of making him.
BELIEF
An unlimited confidence and faith in priests. A good
christian should believe all that he is told to believe,
otherwise he is only good for the stake. If he objects that he
has not been gifted with the grace to believe, burn him all the
same, for by denying him such grace the divinity clearly
demonstrates that he considers him as only fit to be made a
bonfire of to warm the faith in the hearts of his elect.
BLASPHEMIES
Words or discourses which attach to unknown objects
ideas that are not fitting to them, or which deprive them of
the idea that the priests have judged fitting to them. Whence
it results that to blaspheme is to differ in opinion to the
clergy, clearly one of the most horrible of crimes.
BLOOD
The church abhors the sight of blood. She would faint at
the sight of a single drop, but has no objection to its being
shed in torrents by the magistrate and the hangman, who
are her surgeons-in-chief.
CARNAL
,:,
That which is not spiritual. Carnal men are those who
have not mind enough to appreciate spiritual benefits, for
which they are told to renounce earthly happiness. As a
rule, carnal men are all who have the misfortune to be made
of flesh and blood, and are gifted with common sense.
CATECHISM
A collection of pious, intelligible, and necessary instructions that priests take care to inculcate into little christians
to the end that they may talk nonsense and rave for the rest
of their lives.
CAUSES (final)
Theologians are the confidants of the most high; they
know the motives of all his actions, and assure us that if
there are plagues, wars, famines, mosquitoes, bed-bugs,
and theological bickerings here below it is even for the
greater good and well-being of mankind. Anyway, it is quite
sure that whatever happens in this world invariably turns to
the greater advantage and profit of the priests, god, in all his
works, having in view the benefit of none other than of his
clergy.
CELIBACY
A correction wisely made by the romish church to the

January, 1982

lV

Page 17

command given by god himself to the human race to

increase and multiply. Thus, a sincere christian ought not to
marry. As for the priests, they need no wives, the laity
having a number sufficient for both. A married priest would
run the risk of having interests in common with his fellowcitizens, a state of things not at all in keeping with the
profound and sacred views of the holy catholic church,
apostolic and roman.
CHRISTIANITY
A religious system attributed to jesus christ, but really
invented by Plato, improved by st. paul, and finally revised
and corrected by the fathers, the councils, and other
interpreters of the church. Since the foundation of this
sublime creed, mankind has become better, wiser, and
happier than before. From that blessed epoch the world
was forever freed from all strife, dissensions, troubles,
vices, and evils of every kind, an invincible proof that
christianity is divine, and that it is to be possessed of-the
very devil himself to dare to combat such a creed or doubt
its origin.
CHURCH
In other words, the clergy. Now, this same clergy is the
spouse of christ. It is she who wears the breeches; her
husband, being a good-natured, easy-going fellow who, for
the sake of peace, never interferes with her or contradicts
her in anything. And, to tell the truth, the good lady is not

easy to manage, for sometimes she treats those of her

children who rebel with so much harshness as would cause
her spouse to remonstrate could he have his say in the
matter.
CIRCUMCISION
The most high, as we all know, is subject to whimsical
fancies now and then, so it happened that once upon a time
he' required that all his friends. should pare off their
foreskins. His own son submitted to this delectable ceremony. Since then, however, his papa has softened somewhat, and no longer lays claim to the foreskins of his friends,
but only requires that they shall never use them.
CLOUDS
We can see anything we like in them, but especially signs
and tokens of warfare when the priesthood is wrathy.
Clouds are like holy writ, in which theologians cause the
faithful or the crazy to see anything they please.
CONCUPISCENCE
This word, which may sound immodest and indecent to
delicate ears, is, nevertheless, a theological word, and
therefore can have nothing indecent attached to it. It means
that cursed attraction that, since adam's fall, men have
yielded to for all that is capable of gratifying them or giving
them pleasure.
(to be continued)

Here and Now

David L.Kent

WELCOME, DR. STRANGELOVE

In the summer of 1966 Iworked in a small cannery on one
. of the islands off the southern coast of Alaska. This cannery
had been leased to a Japanese company which was
processing salted salmon roe for Japanese consumers. One
of my acquaintances on Kodiak Island learned that this
company had reared the Japanese flag over its plant, and
did not take the news lightly. According to this retired naval
commander, he would not, repeat not, see any Nipponese
rising sun flying over his territory. He at once agitated the
local naval base officers, who in short order forced the flag
down. This same acquaintance was successful in getting
eight feet of rocks bulldozed over the only remaining
. evidence' of the Russian settlement of 1792 in Kodiak, a
stone pier. So much for Japanese and Communist infiltration in his part of the world.
This man's attitude, pathetic and ludicrous as it is, is
'common in the United States today, as witness the current
reinstatement of registration for the draft. This compulsory
program is worth examining for its implications for American freedom of speech and action. For example, not only
does the young man who refuses to register-on conscientious or other grounds-subject
himself to imprisonment
and fine; but if his mother 'or father or any other adult
Page 18

January, 1982

person advises him not to register, that person subjects

herself or himself to six months imprisonment and fine,
even if the young man ignores the advice and registers! A
person may legally voice opposition to the Act in the media,
but not to any particular person. This is a considerable
abridgment of freedom of 'speech: Another provision, of
particular interest to Atheists, indicates that the only sure
ground for objection to registration is religious scruple. The
selective service system is authorized under the Act to
secure birth, school, medical, or any governmental record,
including census, which may assist to locate anyone who
.attempts . to evade registration. The head of selective
service has announced he willprosecute on a random basis
to whatever extent proves necessary.
This sort of fascism would not have been tolerated in this
country only a few years ago. The draft registration acts of
the Northern states in 1863,for example, allowed seven
categories of exemption, ranging from marital status and
age to disability and nativity. Those acts provided that a
mother who was dependent for her support on her children
could name which one of her sons would be exempted, to
provide her support.
Militarism always fluctuates among the populace at large.
The American Atheist

Conscientious objection is at times characterized as

cowardice; at other times, it has most impressive proponents. Albert Einstein for one: "How vile and despicable
seems war to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than
take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of the
human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would
have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the
people not been systematically corrupted by commercial
and political interests acting through the schools and the
Press." (Forum and Century, 84:194) Margaret Sanger for
another: "Mothers of the working class, if your love for
offspring, husband, sweetheart or brother stirs within you
as deeply as the love that fired the mothers of France and
Spain who strove to halt unjust wars by throwing their
bodies across the railroad tracks to prevent troop trains
from leaving, you too will rouse yourselves to action. You
willmake it necessary for this democracy, which has set out
to conscript your men for foreign warfare, to take them.over
the dead bodies of the protesting womanhood of the United
States." ("Woman and War," in The Birth Control Review,
Vol. I, No.4, p. 5) There have always been sane voices
describing the unutterable horrors of war, to counteract the
political pressures. Robert Graves"autobiographical Goodbye to All That (1929) is probably unparalleled. A soldier in
the trenches in world war I who was officiallykilled, Graves
has lived to see himself acclaimed the finest poet writing in
the English language, and is known worldwide as the author
of I Claudius and many other historical novels. And in
cinema, the senseless slaughter of war is unforgettably
portrayed in Peter Weir's 1981 film "Gallipoli.'
Among national leaders, however, militarism has always
been the key to power, and a ready supply of cannon fodder
has always been essential. What we might call the "Dr.
Strangelove syndrome" can be thoroughly documented.
August Bebel's Die Frau und der Sozialismus (1883), p. 25,
quotes Frederick the Great's feudal opinion expressed in
1741:"I look upon men as a herd of deer in the zoological
gardens of a great lord; their only duty is to propagate and
fill the park." Napoleon's reply to Madame de Stael's
question, "Who is the greatest woman?" is well known:
"She who has borne her husband the greatest number of
children." Arthur Young, in his Travels During the Years
1787, 1788, 1789 (1794), p. 238, refers to the reigns of
Edward I and Edward II, when he says that none had
representation in parliament but "land possessors holding
by military tenure; all beneath were of no more account, in
great national assemblies, than the cows, sheep and hogs of
the kingdom." Kaiser Wilhelm announced in 1909 that he
was willing to be the godfather to the eighth child in every
German family. He was quite frank about his reasons, as
reported by the newspapers publishing the imperial order:
"The Emperor hopes by this means to assist to bring about
an increase of the German birthrate, which plays an
important part in the strengthening of German military
power. Recent years have shown signs of a diminution in the
percentage of births, a circumstance which not only the
Emperor, but many eminent statesmen besides, regards as
a grave national danger." (Theodore Schroeder, "Birth
Control and the Great War," in The Birth Control Review,
Vol. III, No.3, p. 9)
Once in a while, even the U.S. presidency is glimpsed
through the cracks in the media image. Last year the
National Archives declassified and mounted an exhibit of

the private journals kept by Harry Truman during his

presidential years. These contain an incredible series of
imagined military confrontations and ultimatums, and allout war plans. Comments such as, "If Stalin doesn't give in
here, then POW! the bombs, the works," are typical. If it
weren't the President writing, such comments would be
dismissed as the ravings of a madman. But this was good,
square, solid Harry S Truman, leading a nation of
150,000,000 Americans.
It is in the face of this kind of militarism, war real and
imagined, that many Atheists have struggled to spread birth
control information and a general awareness of overpopulation problems in an attempt to get at this warmongering and reduce or eliminate it on a rational basis.
Religion has been recognized as one of the most powerful
forces contributing to overpopulation and hence to warfare,
and no Atheist is slow to realize it. In mormon theology, for
example, woman's sole function in the "afterlife" is to breed
"spirit bodies" for her husband to "rule and reign" over.
This breeding machine future of course translates to the
breeding machine present, in which the mormon church
shows no reluctance to send its men to war, in fact has
officially declared that any mormon who murders the
enemy in war is free from guilt. The roman catholic church
is notorious for its rabbiting dogma, and other churches
follow suit.
As the birth control information movement gains some
acceptance, the churches are contriving to turn it to their
advantage. In 1978, psychologist Jerry Bergman suggested
a system for licensing parents. ("Licensing Parents: A New
Age of Child-Rearing?" in The Futurist, Vol. XII, No.6, pp.
363-8) He pointed out the "need" for screening out "incompetent" (that is, low-income) parents and for training future
parents in basic child-rearing skills such as "general nutrition, developmental psychology, or the legal rights of ,
children." He writes, "If science establishes a procedure
that would render males or females reversibJy sterile, the
question would automatically arise, Under what conditions
should fertility be restored. These conditions could range all
the way from those of personal choices to those of a strict
licensing program. But some standard will be adopted."
Bergman proposes a governmental control. Discussing
what he calls the "mandatory sterilization part of licensing,"
Bergman suggests that "those with religious objections,
including the christian scientist, some evangelical christians
and most catholics,' would be "considered separately."
Those who wished to prove their sincere opposition to the
program could easily do so, you see, provided they were
members of one of the designated religious organizations.
And presto! a program for sterilizing the non-religious, and
the war goes on. This conception is not a frivolous one. In a
speech before the Mental Health Association of Dallas in
March, 1979, Eddie Bernice Johnson, a representative of
the principal Regional Office of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, said licenses ought to be issued to
have babies. As the moral majority crushes onward, one
can imagine the private thoughts of Jerry Falwell on this
subject. Welcome, Dr. Strangelove.

January, 1982

Austin, Texas

II

Page 19

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

VIS-A-VIS
STATE/CHURCH SEPARATION
A History of Histrionics
Madalyn O'Hair
Qften as not the pages of this magazine bring you, dear
reader, to the immediate conclusion of thousands of hours
of hard inner-office intellectual altercations,
extending
sometimes over not alone weeks but months and in this
case over years. The American Atheist Center has the
impossible task of educating you on all the history of
religion's politicization of its aspirations so that legislative,
executive, or administrative
bodies of governm~nt
will
respond with appropriate
enactments
(rulings, promulgations, standards) which will redound to the strengthening
of religion financially and with an often legislated preferred
position in society. Since state and church have always
been the bulwarks of each other in the exercise of
suppressing human rights and human reason, this is a
surprise to no one who knows the record.
Ah, there's the rub! You don't know the record. You
don't know it because both state and church, and their
mouthpieces-the
ordinary orthodox media--do not care
to have you know about it. If you knew, you would be
alarmed and might even rise from your righteous couch of
self-content to do something about the situation.
The problem with the American Atheist Center has not
been whether or not you should know, for the assumption
here is, of course, that you should. Rather the single
problem and extensive arguments
have been how to
effectuate this. The American Atheist magazine was a 40page journal for a number of years. With rising inflation this
needed to be cut back but it has currently settled out at 28
pages per issue. Where once the magazine was printed by a
local (Austin, Texas) union firm, it is now printed "in- house"
at the Center, with all the entailed difficulties having to do
with subsistence financing, limited staff, time limitations on
a monthly journal, ete. The state/church
separation suits
concerning which you should be informed often run to 80 or
100 pages, ordinary book size, and would take perhaps as
many as 40 pages of the 28-page magazine even if set in fine
print. That would, of course, be a neat trick!
Jon Murray, the Center's director, has been adamant
that "we go" with the legal survey. The author of this
column has been just as anxious but considerably frustrated. If the cases are "extracted," the flavor of the insanity
of some of them will be lost. The title of this series of articles
relates to the "histrionics" of these court cases on a federal
level. To save you the trouble of looking that up in the
dictionary, it relates to "artificial behavior or speech done
for effect, as insincere assumption of an emotion." The
United States Supreme Court has beaten its breast crying
out how it has safeguarded the principle of state/church
separation and equal protection under the First Amendment, but all the while it has been slowly hammering away at
what Thomas Jefferson called "the wall of separation" of
state and church which that Amendment
purportedly
Page 20

January, 1982

represented for the "founding f,\1hers" There is. III fact. no

wall left. Several piles of crumpled intent constitute the
debris of the wall over which the court neatly hurdles in its
incredible subservience to religion.
There are hundreds of cases on city, county and state
levels, scores of decisions from lower federal courts and
dozens from the federal appellate courts helow the level of
the United States Supreme Court. Often we do not know
what has happened, since there is an accepted procedure
whereby a lower court case "is not reported." In fact, the
United States District Court for t he (federal) District of
Texas, Western Division, decreed that its opinions and
decisions in the cases of OHair l'. Cooke (prayer at Austin
city council meetings) and O'Hair L'. Clements (a nativity
display in the rotunda of the capitol buildinq) were not to be
reported. Subsequently, the appellate decisions in the Fjlth
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans, LA) were
received at the American Atheist Center with notice
stamped thereon that they would also not be reported. This
means that when you look in the law books to find out what
happened. the decisions in these cases are not even there>.
However, the law. in final analysis. is what the United States
Supreme Court says it is. Therefore, this series of legal
articles will deal, for the first several years (and it will take
that long or longer to even acquaint you with basir facts),
with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court
only.
::
The usual mode of operation in any of these cases is to
have a concerned
citizen see a flagrant abuse of the
principle of state/church
separation, or a flagrant abuse of
the principle of freedom of conscience, and, acting out of
intellectual indignation, to bring a suit in court to coerce a
correction of the abuse. The immediate recognition of the
problem by this concerned citizen brings a dilemma into
open public consideration.
Each time that a violation has
been challenged, it has been concerned wit h an arm of the
government
in open cohabitation
with religion for the
benefit of the latter which. in its strengthened
position, then
benefits the former as against the citizenry, generally, in our
land. There has, indeed. neuer been one case brought in
which the gouernment was not the party sued. Always it is
the government,
predicated
on t he principle of state/
church separation being a tenet of the nation's foundation,
which is caught in an act violative of the basic premise which
it is presumed to be protecting. The particular religious
denomination
caught in the act of receipt of government
favor (it is never caught while it is lobbying for the passage of
the enactment which benefits, because this is done surreptitiously) immediately puts into motion its entire grassroots
apparatus for outreach to the common man to explain why
the favor is a minor adjustment to the religious consciousness of the nation and why it is really an inconsequential
The American

Atheist

-consideration
and should not even be scrutinized, much
less challenged. Often, the religious community, en masse,
rises to 'defend the government largess or preferred proffering. This is especially so if the particular instance of aid to
a particular religious institution is a manifestation
of a
generic type of aid to religion in general. That is, if the entire
religious community sees that the basic premise will benefit
all denominations, of the judco-christian sect specifically, it
joins in concert in defense of the government favor, or aid.
From time to time the religious institutions which would be
affected by the legal theoretics involved voluntarily become
a party to the litigation. In fact, in 1963 when the Murray
family filed a 6&urt'case to t(,\x the income of religious
businesses, the roman catholic-church
intervened and the
case became popularly knownas Murray v. Maryland and
the roman catholic church. For a nation predicated on
state/church separation, such a situation only speaks to the
bizarre. The media, often as not, do not purpo.rt to
recognize that a bifurcation of outlandish proportion has
developed. On one side. is a concerned, indignant citizen
going into a court which is a part of the apparatus of the
state of which he is a compulsory (by birth) subject and on
the other side is the entire power of that state with the
massive persuasive ability of religion standing with it against
the single citizen. The state has all the time and money in the
world, including the coerced-from-him
taxes of that single
litigant, to use against him. The state has so-to-speak "free"
legal researchers, legal stenographers,
lawyers, the advantage of working within its own court system where it pays
the salaries of the judges, appoints the judges, cohabits with
the judges in the same buildings. It has free telephone
service. It has access to many legal documents which are
often not published, most notably the briefs which have
been filed in ot her cases, in vast libraries of files. It has every
service at its command, including state printing presses,
personnel, constant access to the media which are orthodox and protective of the status quo. The lone litigant, the
concerned citizen, is immediately faced with a legal bill
which can bankrupt any person of average means. If his
chosen attorney writes him a letter to tell him to come into
the office to pay his bill, often as not the writing of that letter
is charged as a $15.00 fee against him. Money is needed
upfront and immediately. The attorney, who generally has
other clients, gives-often-inadequate
attention to the
case since he must invest his time in more lucrative legal
practice. Cases based on principle, seeking to correct
legislative malfeasance, do not bring monetary awards. The
most that can be expected
is the rich satisfaction of
knowing that an important principle's continuation
has
been safeguarded and a bad legislative enactment has been
set aside. Usually what is sought is (1) a declarative
judgment and (2) an injuction. That is to say, the litigant
wants the court (1) to judge and declare the practice to be
unconstitutional
(i.e., outside the parameters of what the
political premises of the nation envision as being correct or
acceptable)
and (2) to order or enjoin the offending
governmental institution from cantinuance of the practice
which had been initiated by the attacked specific legislatian
involved. This brings no. maney into. the packet of the
attarney who. has been hired, and the realities are that a
victory will not bring the attarney a campensating
fee.
Recently several courts have held that legal fees may be
recovered. In order to. gain these an additional suit must be
Austin. Texas

filed after the first one is wan, and only if it is wan. This could
take anywhere from ane to. two. years to. accomplish and the
court may, in its discretion, set the amount of legal fee to. be
recovered. Few attorneys can wait this lang and the general
rule is that the litigant pays as the case proceeds. Therefore,
the attarney must seek payment of his work as he invests
his effarts. He has no. alternative. After all, de minimis, the
attarney has rent, a legal secretary whose salary must be
promptly paid, a family to. support, a reputation to. be made
in the community, and cetera. Following the history of any
one of the state/church
separation cases is to. watch a game
af musical chairs as ane attarney after another abandons
the lane citizen litigant and is replaced far a short while by
another and then another. Often the course of the case is
disrupted and serious cansequences
derive from the different theoretics of different attorneys involved.
Meanwhile, of course, the state-in
splendid pawer-can
simply assign several attorneys out of its legal pool to. sit an
the case far years if necessary. While the lane citizen litigant
struggles to. continue, the situation remains as it is, with the
violation cantinuing. The classic maneuver of the state, with
its religiaus ally, is to. elangate the case in time and to.
obfuscate the issues. This deprives the litigation of its
"newsworthy" attraction, far what media will follow a four
or five year case, which surfaces only now and then into. a
reportable item? But, without the necessary attention the
lane citizen litigant cannot attract the financing or the
support (psychalagical
and ather) that he needs to. continue. He is effectively isolated. Often, this leads to. same self
doubts. The litigant wanders if he is really enlarging the
import of the issue since no. ane seems to. care abaut it
except himself. He wanders what makes him feel that he
should, alone, undertake the uneven struggle to. correct
what apparently is disregarded
by everyane else. If he is
steadily ignored, isolated, without allies, financially drained,
but life gaes an as usual around him, the case is mast aften ~
dropped alang the way. At mast it survives only through a
lower court exercise, at either city, county: or state level.
Discauraged, disheartened, ofttimes frightened, but always
dismayed, the lane citizen litigant simply gives up. There are
literally thousands of such instances in the legal records,
Expecting to. have his complaint aired in court, the lane
citizen litigant is always shocked when the "issue is not
joined" immediately. The state/church
combination opponent prefers, instead of facing the issue, to. attack collaterally (legally: an the nature of the procedure), Seizing
the issue is exactly what they desire to. avoid, usually
because they know they are vialating the state/church
separation concept. They simply want to. "get away with"
whatever they are daing or propasing to. do., without any
challenge. Often as not the unknawledgeable
litigant will
find that he himself is under attack as to. whether or not he
has the requisite right (or legal capacity) to sue. The issue
will nat be the state/church
separation
violation which
assaults his sense of justice, but rather whether there is "a
case or controversy,"
whether he has "standing to. sue,"
whether he has been guilty of "failing to state a cause of
action," whether the relief requested
is "appropriate
or
available" and so. on. This is not what that citizen litigant
wanted when he appealed to the court. He wanted his gripe
heard. He is instead swallowed with procedural matters
which become a swamp in which he is drowned before the
issue at hand comes to a .hearing, if it ever does. The

January, 1982

Page 21

preliminary procedural matters can take as long as 3 to 4

years and go to several levels in appellate courts. After
these hearings on legal procedural
arguments only are
concluded, the case is then often returned to the original
court, there to be heard-finally-"on
the merits."
The single most effective tool which the state courts have
to preclude any citizen action from proceeding is the game
of "standing to sue." This is an Alice-in-Wonderland
exercise where the court, a thinly disguised Queen of Hearts,
fabricates nonsensical rules as the case proceeds. One has
"standing" if the court wants to hear the case, and one has
no standing if the court does not. The rulings are completely
capricious and arbitrary. The lone citizen litigant in this
game says, "I have too got standing!" The Court says, "No,
you don't." "Yes, I do!" "No, you don't, so there! Nyaaa!"
There is norhY!}1e or reason, no cohesive definition, no rule
of thumb. The court says, "I say it is so, and it is so! Fooey
on you! I am the authority and I say so. I have the power.
Nyaaa!" This extraordinary facetious game is then taken to
an appellate court, which engages in the exercise all over
again. The other categories are equally as nebulous. One
can read thousands
of pages of law with "clear legal
guidelines" as to what constitutes a "case or controversy"
and then see the United States Supreme Court come down
"yea" or "nay" with absolutely no logic behind the decision.
The only pattern that can be observed is that if a government sub-division, a large corporation or a religious institution wants standing or acceptance
of an issue, the
decision is favorable. If a dissident group, a minority, or a
citizen's group wants standing or acceptance of an issue,
the decision is adverse. Slaves, blacks, women, the aged,
children, proponents of unpopular political ideas, pacifists,
Atheists, and unions (when they were forming) have been
brutalized in their search for justice, legally brutalized deliberately and systematically-by
the United States
Supreme Court. If the court wants to utilize the particular
case brought in order to tighten previous rulings in favor of
the state/church separation breach, the case is usually
accepted. It can be said however, as a general rule, that
each case reviewed by the United States Supreme Court
has brought progressive damage to the famous Jeffersonian
"wall of separation" of state and church. All the while, the
Court touts that it has made more clearly defined rules and
has structured with more specificity the areas of concern
with such separation. This constitutes a blatant series of
lies. The United States Supreme Court has been the willing
instrument of violence against that "wall." It is the court
itself which has flattened it, no other. The blame-and
blame there is-can lie nowhere else.
Another factor must be considered. Every attack upon
the illicit union of the government/religion
combine is met
with hostility by those persons who benefit or profit from
the situation as it is. The lone citizen litigant therefore
becomes an object of scorn, by calculated necessity, of the
establishment controlled media. How could it be otherwise?
The dissident hero is safe to eulogize only when he is dead
and therefore impotent against state and church. During
the course of his legal contesting of the abuse he slowly
comes to perceive that his challenge must be contained,
then assuaged, then defeated if at ail possible. By this time,
that lone citizen litigant is exhausted monetarily, emotionally, psychologically, alienated from friends and family,
made an object of opprobrium in the community in which he
Page 22

January, 1982

lives and totally confused and disheartened that the issue of

the state/church
separation violation, with which he was
initially concerned, has not surfaced in the first three years
of litigation. Is there any wonder that he gives up?
To all of this must be added the money factor. Justice in
the United States is only for the very rich. A state/church
separation
case carried on for 3 to 5 years, which is
minimal-most
often the time factor is 7 to 9 years-costs
as much as $60,000 to $80,000 for even adequate, much less
effective, counsel. The state/church
combination
often
forces the use of experts and a particular cost of litigation is
the printing of the record, in addition to the fees of those
"experts" who, for some reason, are always reluctant to
testify out of the goodness of their hearts alone. An expert
can demand and obtain into thousands of dollars for his
opinion. If a hearing goes into a week's trial, the cost of the
stenographic recording of that hearing which will be needed
for appeal can run to $10,000 just for transcribing.
In
addition this transcript must then be printed to include it in
"the record" which must be sent to higher courts. Because
of this, the American Atheist Center has attempted to avoid
trials and to appeal on motions, couching its original petition
(first written complaint to the court) in such terms that the
opposition will file a Motion to Dismiss, which by federal
rules admits facts pled by the citizen litigant. If this
admission is obtained, or if there is a possible negotiated
fact stipulation, the cost of a hearing at the trial court level
can be avoided and with it the excessive cost of dragging a
very cumbersome
record up the appellate ladder. The
agreement of both sides on a set of facts (fact stipulation)
can often lose the case since the government frequently
uses doubletalk. Court regulations in respect to presentation of briefs are so filled with minutiae that often printing
plants which cater specially to "brief printing" must be
employed, with a significant cost factor added to the case.
The American Atheist Center has, of necessity,
now
become adept at this type of printing. For example the U.S.
Supreme Court Rules require that the booklets-presented
to it be in an exact bastard (i.e., not standard)
size.
Therefore,
paper companies must cut especially to the
specifications demanded of the court: "documents shall be
produced on opaque, unglazed paper 61/g by 914 inches in
size, with type matter approximately 4Ys by 7Ys inches, and
margins of at least ~ inch on all sides ....
The text of
documents
produced
by standard
typographic
printing
shall appear in print as l I-point or larger type with 2-point or
more leading between lines . Footnotes shall appear in print
as 9-point or larger type with 2-point or more leading
between lines," etc.
The miracle, if Atheists may talk in those terms, is that
any' case started by a concerned
citizen litigant has the
potential (although not a great one) to clear the hurdles of
time, money and commitment necessary to bring it to any
kind of conclusion, much less a successful one. The odds
against such an endeavor are staggering. Indeed, the case of
Murray v. Curlett, which removed bible-reading/prayerrecitation from the public schools, is the single case in the
history of state/church
separation wherein one such single
concerned citizen litigant not alone survived the effort but
won the victory.
The successful cases have been brought, by and large, by
powerful, well-financed, blocs within religious groupings.
The religious organizations of the United States have both
The American Atheist

the money and time to enter litigation. They can purchase

. the most powerful legal firms, spend money without
accounting, influence any judiciary, lobby legislative bodies
or executives of government, harass at will through their
instrumentalities,
bribe, finance or threaten. They have
used boycotts, intimidation, physical violence and psychological terrorism to attain their ends. They are, in the final
analysis, a part of the (so-called) establishment and effectively so sacrosanct that they are above the reach of not
alone any citizen but of any attempt to bring them to an
effective accounting. The only relief there has been from a
complete domination of the country by religion is that each
brand of judeo-christianity
hates the other with such
bitterness that the average citizen can function in only a
small area where the strife has not enveloped all. If you, dear
reader, are naive enough to think that the religions of the
United States do not cordially hate one another's guts, wait
until you are done reading a year of this series of legal
articles. The seventh day adventists and jehovah's witnesses have clawed and fought their way into acceptance in
our culture in some of the most bitter litigation in our
nation's history. The roman catholic church mounted case
after case against the hated protestant-dominated
school
system, before it slunk off to establish its own parochial
schools. The baptists have fought mawkish wars to rout the
papists. And, of course, everybody hates the mormons and
the jews, while the Atheists, stomped underfoot, never had
a prayer. Among religions, the mormons received the worst
slaps in the face by the court until that church had the
power of numbers and money-whereon
their status
dramatically changed.
In this column, which begins new this month, it will not be
possible during the first several years to review all of the
sub-fights on city, county, state, federal district court and
appellate federal court level. Only the decisions of the
United States Supreme Court will be reviewed. These,
alone, will infuriate you.

As a committed radical and revolutionary,

I have advocated for the past 40 years that all actions of our courts and
legislative systems be broadcast electronically,
either by
radio or by television, on a 24hour basis, every day. If the
citizens of the country knew what went on in those
"hallowed halls," they would repudiate the entire process.
The revolution which I advocate is between the ears.
There is much reverence for the idea of democracy,
but
such a political theory can only be effectuated
if the
electorate is (politically) educated. In the United States, our
citizens are political and religious illiterates.
This column will attempt some education. I undertake it
with a sense of despair. Jon Murray, the director of the
American Atheist Center, thinks that it can be efficacious.
He is probably right, but I feel that it will be so only in part,
that it is too little and too late and that its outreach is
constricted as it begins. Every case, in its entirety, should be
before you. Therefore, as I excerpt each case I will give you
the full legal citation which you can take to your public
library. Just give it to the librarian and say that you would
like to read the case, which I urge you to do. Although the
language may be technical you will still be able to understand what is said. I have several pages a month which I may
fill!Again, playing the role of the single concerned citizen, I
will try. But, does not someone hear the voice of the turtle
abroad in the land? American Atheists need a massive
outreach. The foe-state/church
combinedis formidable.
The American Atheist Center needs to produce hundreds
of thousands of books, not columns. It needs to pump out
hours of television documentaries.
It needs to purchase
space in every newspaper, on every radio, in every rnagazine, in a clear, reasonable, demanding voice throughout
the nation, crying out so that all may hear and understand of
the dangers which close in upon us. Those dangers will be
apparent to you as you read each month.
continued on next page ~

/lf7

Austin, Texas

January, 1982

Page 23

And, as you read each month, support our efforts. We

desperately need financing. I fight because I will not be a
slave, nor will I, when I die, willinglyleave a political' milieu
behind me which smacks of prospective coercive intellectual slavery for my son, or my granddaughter. As I care for
myself, demanding my right to think, I care for them-and
for others. You cannot leaveus out here in front, alone.
You survive in the ranks behind us because we are your
shield in the front. Ifyou cannot take the blows we receive,
you can give us the financial support to continue the fight.
That much is fair.
And so it is settled: starting next month, I will bring you
that terrible and terrifying legal record of the systematic
betrayal of a founding principle of our nation: state/church
separation. Treachery and disloyalty to that principle have
been the deliberate occupation of a major suppressant
force in our nation: the United States Supreme Court and
the small minded men 1 who have occupied the seats on that
bench. In it, we have nothing of which we can be proud.

IThe two exceptions 'are Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was an Atheist, and
William O. Douglas, who was becoming one.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Short-hand definitions of the legal terms used are as follows:
lack of standing to sue - you are not the proper person to be in the
court room to question what goes on;'
,
no case or controversy - the subject of the suit is not that which is
appropriate for judicial determination; it is theoretical or political;
failure to state a cause of action - it is none of your business; you have
stated no cause to bring the matter to the court for its action;
relief requested cannot be granted - the court cannot remedy the
situation, which is beyond its jurisdiction.
These definitions are in very, very broad layman terms. Charles Alan
Wright, the most noted expert on constitutional law in the United States,
who writes most of the texts on constitutional law and who teaches at the
University of Texas, takes hours to discuss these concepts and writes
hundreds of pages on each of them. Please bear that in mind. The Supreme
Court itself has said that these are" complicated specialities ... the solution
of which ... is more or less determined by the specific circumstances of
individual situations." And that is a way for the United States Supreme
Court to say that it will not take what it considers to be a "hot potato."

Nature's Way
Gerald Tholen

SOME PEOPLE CALL IT WAR

The human mind has the strange yet cunning ability to
invent words, pluralistically, in order to add dignity to the
treacherous deeds we inflict upon each other.
Seldom has such reverent respect been focused on any
earthy phenomenon as has been afforded the inhumane
activity we call "war." Hollow words such as patriotism,
gallantry, and bravery have been made synonymous with
the mechanics of warfare, Sullen, lonely parents have even
been heard to say that they'were proud of the "noble" way
their sons died in the defense of their country. In view of the
millions of young menand women who have come to a
tragic and premature end throughout the countless wars in
mankind's history, could there possibly be a more irrational
state of mind than that which causes a parent to make such
a terrible statement?
In my younger and more impressionable years Iwas led to
believe that it was a great honor to serve in' any military
capacity that our country deemed necessary. Iwas also told
that the leadership of our nation, both civiland military, held
the lives of our people to be of unmeasurable value and that
war was simply a necessary commodity to the continuity of
any culture. My history books sang the praises of our past
"glorious" campaigns and assured me that "we" were
indeed invincible and yet somehow honorable and just.
As time went on I learned more facts concerning the
more modern era of warfare in which our relatively young'
nation has been involved. It is now clear to me that there are
NO nations that can claim to be "pure and honorable"
during wartime. The very war that brought our nation into
its existence had undertones of greed and dissensio-n as
primary considerations. We had enjoyed military "protection" from the bothersome French and Indian "troublemakers," but were hesitant to pay a tax to our parent nation
Page 24

January, 1982

in order to repay the costs for that "protection." The

Revolution, however, has virtually faded into the imaginary
"glorious" past and, in a sense, probably is not really
considered a part of the classical "modern warfare" era to
which we are accustomed.
A more notable war came 100 years later when North and
South found themselves across the "field of honor" in one of
the bloodiest eras of human history. Out of the Civil War
came a legend-Robert E. Lee. The unlimited admiration
and esteem that this man received are probably unequaled
by any other general. Until more recently I too thought that
Lee was a brilliant and honorable man. I h~d been taught to
believe that! I no longer hold such an opinion. Fortunately I
was able to see the battleground at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and an accurate and authentic' explanation of the
battle that took place there. Previously I had been told that
Gen. James Longstreet, one of 'Lee's field commanders,
was responsible for the tragic loss (by the South) of that
battle, because he purposely hesitated to proceed with a
frontal attack against the Union lines. It was then that the
"masterful" General Lee ordered George Pickett (another
field commander) to proceed with the attack. After a steady
two-hour .artillery exchange between the Confederate and
Union cannons, Pickett ordered some 8,000 men to
advance on the Uniori position. Now, what the military
.refers to as advance," simply meant that 8,000 men were
required to walk some 1,200 yards squarely into the mouths
of a line of cannons-known
to be there, and also known to
have the capacity to fire anti-personnel "grapeshot" into the
face of anyone who W!'lS insane enough to proceed in such a
manner. Within thirty minutes some 6,000 proud, flagwaving, fanatical young southern rnenlay mutilated in a
remote war-torn grain field in southern Pennsylvania. Is this
The American Atheist

what we call "gallantry"? The "legend" that was Robert

Edward Lee actually was no more than the unyielding
gullibility of men who idolized a military deity-their
"beloved" general.
Subsequent wars have only been mirrored reflections of
this infamous slaughter. Only names and dates change, but
the mentality of war remains the same-insanity! As terrible
as war has been throughout the past, it took an even worse
turn in this century, because a new dimension has been
added to the age-old classical flag against flag, troop against
troop format. For the most part it began in world war II.The
prime target for the military began to shift away from the
opposing armies and more directly to the civilian population. With the introduction of long-range aircraft, it
became possible to terrorize "civilians," who had formerly
been semi-protected from direct involvement in the fighting.
The "generals" then began to delight in killing people
wantonly and with the express purpose of demoralizing the
population and destroying the resources of entire nations.
We of the United States are perhaps the best remembered for this type of warfare. With two single aircraft
attacks, we destroyed not two armies, but two entire cities
of terrified human beings.
The new countenance of war has made its true purpose
more recognizable; no longer can anyone pretend that
gallantry and patriotism are important guidelines when
nation fights nation. The only purpose war has is the murder
of people, coupled with a feeble attempt to justify the action.
There is little wonder that people have so little respect for
human life today. One need not learn to be competitive in
order to survive in today's world-one need only be able to
kill the competition.
Terrorism is the new measure of military genius. The
pretense of honor and fair play has finally been completely
stripped from the fictitious dignity formerly attributed to
war. The reason wholesale destruction of nations and

Classified Advertising
L.A. 1/82
Prosperous, healthy, slim, athletic, businessman, with 100
years left to liveand love, seeks ultra-slim gal, 44 or younger,
for ethereal togetherness. Los Angeles, California area.
L.A. 2/82
Wish to communicate with other Atheists, preferably single
female within approximately 50 mile radius to Riverside,
California. I'm caucasian, 39,6', 190 Ibs., blond, blue, better
than average looking, and responsible.

continents did not surface earlier is that the advancement of

technology was slow in coming. If Alexander "the Great"
had had a nuclear missile, he would have used it. Adolf
Hitler almost had one, and he most certainly would have
used it. Finally, the U.S. did develop one, and we did use it!
Need anyone say more? It is long past time to yell "ban the
bomb" -it is time to yell "ban murder" that has been given
the dignified title of war.
Atheist people lay claim to the fact that they understand,
completely, that life is a temporary state. With this in mind,
I'm sure that it would be to mankind's advantage to be
wholly atheistic. If everyone held such understandings,
murder would be referred to simply as murder. No sick
pretenses could hide the fact that in "war" we are required
to kill people, and that death, under any circumstances,
should not be regarded as glorious or noble-only final.
Oddly enough, I now suspect that for a moment, on that sad
morning of July 3, 1863, one James Longstreet had a
brushing acquaintance with this atheistic realization, and
that he could not bring himself to compel the men who
respected him to take their final morning stroll. It may be
that underneath it all he was a rather unusual personperhaps he subconsciously valued human life.How"disgustingly" atheistic of him if that were the case.
The so-called "terrorist" nations of today have learned
their lessons well from the more "civilized" teachers of
murder and destruction. It is foolish to engage in -open
conflict with an opponent who has already historically
demonstrated an expertise in that art of mass murder and
destruction. One can throw fear into an entire nation by
simply "bombing" a corner drugstore. The result is the
same in the eyes of those who view such insanity. The days
of the flamboyant generals are over. Seriously, the "South"
willnever "rise again." The ku klux klan and the hydrogen
bomb maybe-but the Lees, Pattons, and Bradleys are a
vanished species. Someone ought to tell Mr. Reagan.
animals, children, law studies, music, amusement parks,
good books, cycling, cooking-all of which I'm isolated from
in here. I've been in prison for 612 years for a crime I didn't
commit, and I'd love to hear from anyone who cares to
write. Thanks!
Diane Metzger, #5634
State Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 180 - Smith Cottage
Muncy, PA 17756
Address your reply to L.A. 1/82 or L.A. 2/82. Place your sealed
envelope in a letter to the American Atheist Center, P.O. Box
2117, Austin, Texas 78768-2117. We will see that all replies are
forwarded to the advertiser. No identities are ever revealed; we
protect you from any harassment which might come from your
home address appearing in our columns.
To place your own L.A. ad costs $1.00 per word multiplied by
how many months you desire it to run.

I, too, am a prisoner, and would very much like to

correspond with your readers and members on the outside.
(We're not allowed to write to other prisoners, other than
IF YOU ARE GA Y AND ATHEIST
immediate family, with special permission.) Like the other
PLEASE CONTACT:
prisoner who wrote to you, I'm very tired of people who
Gay Atheists League of America
think of me as a sinner or savage who needs to be
P.O. Box 14142
converted. I am a college graduate, have an I.Q. of 149, and
San Francisco, CA 94114
I'm a published writer and poet, which puts my accomplishMembership: $15.00/year
ments well above those of my captors and those who try to
($lO.OO/yearfor students and senior citizens)
preach to me. I am a white female, 32 years of age, married Send to the same address for subscriptions to the GALA
(my husband is also in prison), and we have an 8-year-old Review. Subscriptions $lO.OO/year; $11.50/year in Canada.
son. I'm 5'2", have blue-grey eyes, and long dark brown hair. and PUAS; elsewhere $12.50/year.
My interests include traveling, photography, the sea,
_
Austin, Texas

January, 1982

Page 25

American Atheist Radio Series

Madalyn O'Hair

WAR PROFITS AND THE CHURCHES

Hello there, this is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, American
Atheist, back to talk with you again. Since we often do not
get the fullimpact of revelations made in such papers as the
New York Times, being in little old bible belt Austin, and
since even you, in your town, get highly reduced or
censored versions of some news stories which the New
York Times sometimes prints, it is important that I just
simply read to you an article which appeared in the Neui
York Times newspaper on 5th January, 1972. It was written
by Douglas Robinson and appeared on the front page. This
gives some indication of the seriousness which the New
York Times attached to the article.
"REPORT SAYS 10 CHURCHES' INVESTMENTS
ABET 'IMMORAL ACTS' OF ARMS INDUSTRY.
"A unit of the National Council of Churches has accused
10 protestant denominations of complicity through their
stockholdings with the "irresponsible, immoral and socially
injurious acts" of 29 corporations holding military contracts.
"Among the churches with military stockholdings,
according to a report on religious investment practices, are
those that have been in the forefront of the criticism of the
Vietnam war and of the growing militarism in the United
States.
"The report, prepared by the Corporate Information
Center of the National Council, is to be made public Friday.
It shows that the 10 denominations, plus the National
Council itself, have almost $203million invested in companies that last year provided more than $lO-billionworth of
war materiel ranging from guns to missiles.
Religious involvement in the military field, the report says,
gives a 'moral aura of legitimacy' to such investments and is
a 'factor of far greater significance than the actual dollar
amounts invested.'
"Frank P. White, director of the Corporate Information
Center, said under questioning that the report did not imply
that churches were being 'hypocritical' in their investment
policies.
" 'Generally, the reason that investment ethics has not
kept pace with policy is quite simple-no one has thought
much about it,' he said.
" 'Aside from the newness of the issue, there are some
process questions involved,' he said. 'Most investment
committee men historically have been and still are top
corporate and financial executives._
" 'To ask these people to begin to prescribe moral
sanctions against peers and competitors or for that matter
their own companies is troublesome to say the least,' he
said.
Questioning Urged
"The 50-pagereport, entitled 'Church Investments, Technological Warfare and the Military-Industrial Complex,' urges
clergymen and laymen to 'ask how the moral and economic
Page 26

January, 1982

wealth of the churches and other institutions is used' and

then to 'assume a leadership role by providing an example
of corporate social responsibility.'
"To date, the report says, 'ethical and moral concerns
have not been expressed through the investment policies
and responsibilities of the church.'
"Mr. White said the report did not recommend that
churches sell their defense stocks, although he conceded
that action 'might be the end result.'
" 'Selling stock obviously negates your right as a stockholder to speak to management about policies with which
you disagree,' he said. 'Many churches can petition and
interview management, and there are proxy proposals that
can be submitted after further study.
" 'Our report only recommends that the churches begin
to look seriously at their military holdings,' he maintained.
'They must decide for themselves what to do about the
situation. '
"The churches examined in the report are the United
Methodist Church, the Christian Church (Disciples), the
United Presbyterian Church, the American Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church in America, the Protestant
Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the
Church of the Brethren, the Presbyterian Church in the
United States and the Unitarian Universalist Association.
"Among the 29 corporations named were the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, Standard Oil Com- ~
pany (New Jersey), the Ford Motor Company, the United
Aircraft Corporation, Litton Industries, Inc.,ihe General
Electric Company and the International Business Machines
Corporation.
$1.5-Billion Invested
"Others were the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, the
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Honeywell Inc., the
General Motors Corporation, TRW Inc., the RCA Corporation and Texas Instruments Incorporated.
"Mr. White said that the 10 churches, on a national
denominational basis, had investment portfolios totaling
$1.5-billion.
.
"He estimated that the nation's three major religions,
protestant, roman catholic and jewish, had about $22-billion
invested in the stock market on a national, regional and
local basis. The figure also includes religious agencies.
"The report says that, in addition to the churches and
agencies that have taken anti-war stands, others have come
out against 'national priorities that divert vital resources
into implements of war and away from tools of peace.'
"The churches, the report continues, have ignored
ethical and moral concerns and, 'instead, like other
investors, have placed themselves in a position of complicity with the irresponsible, immoral and socially injurious
acts of the corporations represented here.
" 'Instead, the churches are providing an important
The American Atheist

amount of economic support for the military-industrial

complex and the war in Southeast Asia. Instead, they are
assisting in the manufacture and use of weapons of mass
human and environmental destruction,' the report says.
"Unlike other investors, the report says the church 'with
its tradition and unique role as a moral leader in society, has
a special obligation to question that complicity.'
"The study dealt with the top 60 military contractors,
which account for about 65 percent of all such contracts.
The churches had investments in 29 of these corporations.
"The report shows that in 1970, a bad earnings year,
income from these investments was more than $6.2-million
and the total number of shares amounted to almost two
million.
"According to the report, the leading religious investor in
military hardware was the United Methodist Church with
market value investments totaling $59,751,899. The second
highest was the United Presbyterian
Church -with
$57,871,157.
Major Investors
"Other major investors included the American Baptist
Convention with $30,556,371; the Protestant Episcopal
Church with $29,891,430; and the Christian Church with
$8,690,821.
"The National Council of Churches, which, along with
several of the denominations mentioned in the report,
finances the work of the Corporate Information Center, has
a military investment of $332,831, according to the report.
"The report says that many of the corporations mentioned in the study also produce a variety of consumer
goods and services, but that 'in volume of business or dollar
amounts they are undeniably major corporations in the
military field.'
"In an interview, Mr. White said the report on corporate
investment by churches in the military field was thafirst in a
series of similar studies on other investment areas that
include pollution, foreign investments and minority hiring
policies.
"The center was established 10 months ago as an
outgrowth of a small staff studying investments. It is part of
the Office of Resource Studies of the Division of Christian
Life and Mission of the National Council of Churches. The
defense contract report is not a policy paper of the National
Council, but a study publication of the center.
"The 29 corporations named in the report, their total
defense business for 1970 and the percentage of their total
sales constituted by defense contracts are as follows:
The American Telephone & Telegraph Company$931,233,000,5.5 per cent.
Standard Oil Company (New Jersey)$229,188,000, 1.4 per cent.
The Ford Motor Company$345,877,000,2.3 per cent.
The United Aircraft Corporation$873,793,000,37.5 per cent.
Litton Industries, Inc.$543,053,000, 22.5 per cent.
The General Electric Company$1,000,452,000,11.5 per cent.
The International Business Machines Corporation$256,052,000, 3.4 per cent.
The Lockheed Aircraft Corporation$1,847,738,000,72.9 per cent.
Austin, Texas

The Westinghouse Electric Corporation$417,655,000,9.7 per cent.

Honeywell, Inc.$397,928,000,20.7 per cent.
TRWlnc.$179,067,000,11.3 per cent.
RCA Corporation$262,805,000, 8.1 per cent.
Texas Instruments Incorporated$190,540,000, 23 per cent.
The International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation$217,325,000, 3.4 per cent.
The General Motors Corporation$385,738,000,2.1 per cent.
Uniroyal, Inc.$115,253,000, 7.4 per cent.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company$161,671,000,4.4 per cent.
Mobil Oil Corporation$165,596,000, 2.2 per cent.
FMC Corporation$140,911,000, 10.6 per cent.
General Telephone and Electronics Corporation$107,715,000,3.1 per cent.
The Magnavox Company$95,225,000, 19.3 per cent.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company$103,522,000, 3.2 per cent.
The Chrysler Corporation$92,033,000, 1.3 per cent.
The City Investing Company$92,469,000, 18.3 per cent.
Texaco Inc.$85,583,000, 1.3 per cent.
The Olin Corporation$247,654,000,22.0 per cent.
The Sperry Rand Corporation$398,888,000,22.7 per cent.
Tenneco Inc.$248,944,000, 9.8 per cent.
The Standard Oil Company of California$140,347,000,3.4 per cent.
MILITARY STOCKS HELD BY CHURCHES
(arranged in order of church; number of companies
invested; market value (1970); and % of total portfolio)
United Methodist Church; 23; $59,751,899; 14.1
Christian Church (Disciples); 21; $8,690,821; 41.4
United Presbyterian Church; 18; $57,871,157; 12.8
American Baptist Convention; 14; $30,556,371; 10.5
Lutheran Church in America; 11; $7,741,698; 8.8
Protestant Episcopal Church; 10; $29,891,430; 10.9
United Church of Christ; 10; $2,903,267; 5.4
Church of the Brethren; 9; $801,199; not applicable
Presbyterian Church
in the United States; 7; $1,450,521; not applicable
Unitarian Universalist Assn; 6; $2,812,979; 11.5
National Council of Churches; 5; $332,831; 11.7"
That is the end of the New York Times article ... and you
should live to see the day that it appears in your local paper!

January, 1982 .

Page 27

THE WAR PRAYER

Mark Twain
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of
patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on
every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the
young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and
sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened,
panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of
applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked
the god ofbattles, beseeching his aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad
and gracious time, and the half- dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness
straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no
more in that way.
.
Sunday morning came-next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled;the volunteers were there, their young
faces alight with martial dreams-visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the
flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender!-then
home from the war, bronzed heroes,
welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the
neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flagor, failing,die the noblest
of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter.from the old testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an
organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that
tremendous invocation-"God the all- terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!" Then came the "long"
prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was
that an ever- merciful and benignant father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in
their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in his mighty hand, make them strong
and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor
and gloryAn aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body
clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face
unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he
ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving
prayer, and at lastfinished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, 0 lord our god, father and
protector of our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside-which the startled minister did-and took his place. During some
moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:
"I come from the throne-bearing a message from almighty god!" The words smote the house with a shock; ifthe stranger perceived it he
gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of his servant your shepherd and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, his
messenger, shall have explained to you its import-that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it
asks for more than he who utters it is aware of-except he pause and think.
,.
"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two-one uttered, the
other not. Both have reached the ear of him who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this- keep it in mind. If
you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. Ifyou pray
for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which
may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer-the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of god to put into words the other part of it-that
part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so!
You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, 0 lord our god!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those
pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results
which follow victory-must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of god the father fellalso the unspoken part of the
prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"0 lord our father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth
from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. 0 lord our god, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our
shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the
shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to laywaste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes
of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn
with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore thee, lord, blast their hopes, blight their
lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their
wounded feet! We ask it in the spirit of love, of him who is the source of love, and who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are
sore beset and seek his aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
The War Prayer first appeared in the collection of Mark Twain's writings entitled Europe and Elsewhere, published in 1923, several
years after the author's death.
.
Page 28

January, 1982

The American Atheist

LrIJuWili1fi~@lg)~(i1~~
nJ1'~@l~ lliJ~~ ~()sF~
~rn~n~J1' ~~J1'IJu~@l~
Sea-Based
Ballistic Missiles
576 missiles
with a total of
4,816 warheads

Intercontinental
Nuclear Missiles
Based on u.s.
Land
1,054 missiles
with a total of
2,154 warheads

Long-Range
Bombers
1,900 nuclear
weapons

And More

17,000 Short or Medium

Range Nuclear Warheads':

... The Soviet Union Has Over

20,000 Nuclear Weapons

of Its Own.
The ceaseless piling-up of armaments shows only too clearly that the ruling statesmen of today are unequal to
coping with the hostile forces which are preparing for war. In my opinion, deliverance can only comefrom the
people themselves. If they wish to avoid the degrading slavery of war-service, they must declare with no
uncertain voice for complete disarmament. A s long as armies exist, any serious conflict will lead to war.
- Albert Einstein

redress of grievances . AMENDMENT

I Congress shall make

...

-o

.4-J

..,

(l)

f't)

VI
""0

c
...

(t)

n
r-t'

::J

0"0

lJ
(l)
...c

::J

.4-J

(t)
VI

r-t'

0-

--

Theological literature is largely given over to fantastic

"proofs," and many of them are supported by
multitudes of earnest witnesses .
But all they really prove is that theologians are well aware,
deep down in their hearts,
that faith alone is not sufficient to make even half-wits
believe in their mumbo-jumbo.
The result of their labors in that direction,
continued through many centuries,
has been only to reduce human reason
to the quaking and malarious thing
that it is today ....
Thus will they counterfeit and debase
the coin of science.

(l)

..0

E
(l)
VI

..,.,
n:3

.4-J

>.0

n:3
Q)

n:3
Q)

0Q)

..,

(t)

Q9.
o
,::J

o
..,

:T
0r-t'

::J
0"0
r-t'

:T
(t)

0-

o
Q)

-Henry Louis Mencken

0Q)

.s:

--o
.4-J

...

a4l JO ~ssaJd a4l JO 'JO '4Jaads

-=~~

JO uropaaq a4l 8u!8puql? JO

zr

..,

(t)
(t)

s..