Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
$2.50
AMERICAN ATHEIST
(Vol. 24, No.5) May, 1982
--------
----
___
-----
----------
------
L--
_.
- --__
AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of state and church.
We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment" to the Constitution of the United States was
meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs,
creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough understanding
of them, their origins and histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual sympathy,
understanding
and interdependence
of all people and the corresponding
responsibility of each individual in relation to
society;
to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of strength, progress
and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and SCIences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,
perpetuation
and
enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social. educational. legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to members of American
Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined
as the mental attitude which
unreservedly
accepts
the
supremacy
of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook
verifiable by experience and
the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and
creeds.
Materialism declares that
the cosmos
is devoid of
immanent
conscious
purpose; that it is governed by
its own inherent, immutable
and impersonal
laws; that
there is no supernatural
interference
in human life;
that man - finding his
resources within himself can and must create his own
destiny. Materialism restores
to man his dignity and his
intellectual integrity. It teaches
that we must prize our life
on earth and strive always to
improve it. It holds that man
is capable
of creating
a
social system based on reason
and justice. Materialism's
"faith" is in man and man's
ability to transform the world
culture by his own efforts.
This is a commitment which
is in every essence life asserting. It considers the struggle
for progress
as a moral
obligation
and impossible
without
noble ideas that
inspire man to bold creative
works. Materialism
holds
that humankind's
potential
for good and for an outreach
to more fulfilling cultural
development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
P.O. Box2117
AUSTIN, TX78768-2117
Send $40 for one year's membership and you will receive our newsletters, a membership
card and certificate. and one year of AMERICAN ATHEIST magazine.
AMERICAN ATHEIS'i
A J",,,n.1
01
AI".'.'
;-"-'-'--'-"-"
N .o Mnd '''QUilt"
-#---_.
1,1",
24
Nu
61
M..
1882
FEATURED COLUMNISTS
Shaky Compromises and Shady Deals If Looks Could Kill - Gerald Tholen
Richard Smith
3
26
Listing
28
REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial -
Jon Murray
ILLUSTRA TIONS
Onward Christian Petition (Collage)
Editor-in-Chief
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Poetry
Robin Murray-O'Hair
Production Staff
Art Brenner
Bill Kight
Richard Smith
Gerald Tholen
Gloria Tholen
Beverly Walker
14
The American
Atheist magazine is pub
lished monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and 1982 by Society of
Separationists,
Inc., a non-profit, non-political, educational organization
dedicated to
the complete and absolute separation
of
state and church. Mailing address: P. 0
Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768-2117. A free
subscription
is provided as an incident of
membership
in the American Atheists organization. Subscriptions
are available at
$25. for one year terms only. Manuscripts
submitted
must be typed, double-spaced
and accompanied
by a stamped.
self-addressed envelope. The editors assume no
responsibility for un-solicited mariuscripts.
-Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Ignatz Sahula-Dvcke
Fred Woodworth
Austin, Texas
May, 1982
ON THE COVER
John Adams (2nd President of the
US) expressed it quite simply: "This
would be the best of all worlds if
there were no religion in it." There
have been other great people who
perhaps have made more eloquent
statements expressing the same sentiment. However, Adam's words
were clear and to the point. He, and
others like him, had experienced the
tyrannies of colonial America and
was insistent that this nation would
not tolerate a religio-political factory
of intellectual oppression as had enslaved the world since before known
history.
Unfortunately, for the 200 years
following Adams's courageous
words the persistent ideology of religious fanaticism and superstition is
still with us - perhaps to an even
greater degree than before.
Thus, the dreams of a society
where thought and expression are
free have again been dashed on the
rocks of hopelessness. Any such
hope for the world that Adams envisioned now lies in the hands of the
few who dare to flaunt their desire for
intellectual freedom in the ugly face
of godism.
The peaceful setting depicted on
our May cover could be a truely
peaceful scene if there were no religiously spawned bigotry and prejudice lurking in the minds of those
within.
- G Tholen
Page 1
EDITORIAL
"PhD" in Ignorance I?
One of my duties as Director of the national American
Atheist Center is the handling of an increasing number of public appearances.
Due to the sometimes
uncertain
health of
American
Atheists'
President,
Dr. Madalyn O'Hair,
I have
found myself chosen to speak before more and more college
and university groups.
My most recent engagement
was before a class at a North Texas junior college.
What I find on the college level is an ever growing hostility
to the topics of Atheism and separation of state and church.
I
have been appearing at the college level for some five years
now and the situation seems to be worsening.
Apathy among
students is a much more easily understandable
phenomenon
than hostility toward a particular
position or lifestyle. After
all, what is the goal of attending college in the first place? It is
the attainment
of a "degree" which is a stamp of your worth
on the open market as you enter the job market, much like the
grade markings on a side of beef determining
the appropriate
price per pound. With the economic situation in this country
growing more harsh by the month, it is only natural that students would concern
themselves
with graduation
with the
proper qualifications
for that "good paying" job to the exclusion of much other than sports and sex. Those few students
around the country
who are attempting
to form University
Student Atheist (USA) groups can attest to this "blinders on"
view of hallowed college days by the vast lack of participation
in any of their programs.
In addition to mere apathy, however, the actual hostility
toward Atheism, Humanism, "Secular Humanism" and the like
among students is much more alarming. Part of the root of the
cooler and cooler receptions
Atheist speakers on campuses
receive may be that the parents of this generation of students
are turning to more traditional
values. This can be seen not
only from the election of Ronald Reagan but by increased
parent support of return to the basics in the public school system which include
basics such as corporeal
punishment,
book censorship,
"creationism,"
classroom prayer, dress codes
and the like. Who is to say: One group of sociologists will tell
you that students reflect parental attitudes and another group
will say that students generally turn from parental authority
and assume attitudes
in direct conflict
with those taught
at home.
The North Texas junior college class is a good case in point.
First, no matter what the topic one discusses, the questions
posed in the question and answer session are always along the
same line, most often having nothing whatsoever to do with
the topic. Even before the questions are put, a speaker can
sense the feeling tone of the audience. In this particular class I
could tell that the prevailing attitude
(before I said word one)
was "Atheist = amoral = no veracity = Whatever this guy says
is Atheist propaganda
so I can fall asleep now and avoid the
rush".
After I carefully explained what an Atheist was, clarified the agnostic differential and even went into the philosophical base of materialism,
the instructor
(no less) stopped me
to ask about my brother who had found the lord and what I
Page 2
May, 1982
would do if I were dying of some terminal desease. My assurance to him that I would not have the least interest in crying
out for god at a time of illness drew the usual "yeah, uh huh,
that's what you say now" verdict from the students.
It was
then that I noticed that every woman in the room, save for the
lone Atheist in the class who had invited me, had enough
makeup on to put on a circus.
The questioning
from the
students
then turned personal as it always does. "What do you
think happens to you when you die?" I replied that my dying
would be the same as a leaf dropping off a tree, just another
step in a natural cycle. Well, you would have thought that I
had grown horns on the spot. The negative reaction from the
leaf analogy rippled across the room as if a sudden cold draft
had come up.
Another
question
was "What about all the
miracles?"
which was posed by a women who seemed quite
sincere about their existence.
I said that no miracle had ever
been scientifically
verified to my knowledge
and that they
were all attributable
to natural phenomenona
The look I received back was one of "Well that's what you say!".
All in all I think that the class was struck with horror that
someone could actually exist in modern America who did not
"believe in god." The idea of being on your own, emotionally
and intellectually,
was so foreign to them all that they viewed
me as a freak. That is exactly what the problem is, in a thematic sense, with all of the student groups. Atheist speakers are
viewed as freaks and the attention they receive is the attention
of curiosity not that of academic interest or sincerity,
It is a
hard feeling to try to explain to those of you who do not
engage in this type of activity as do I. To be put in the initial
position of a freak, like in a sideshow, and then to need to
convince the audience otherwise,
often in a very short space
of time, is a unique feeling.
If you're waiting for a solution, I don't have one other than
to keep going and keep convincing one small audience after
another that we as Atheists are not freaks, we are not insane,
we are "normal"
people and our views need to be respected.
The fact that precursor Atheist organizations
did not got out
into the field and try to make the general public understand
about Atheism
has helped to bring us to this position
of
hostility through ignorance that I face today.
The fact still
remains that there are too many of them, the uneducated
with respect to Atheism, and too few of us. That is why it is
more important
than ever for all of you "rank and file"
Atheists to take the time to explain Atheism to at least one
person each day. It may take a generation or two of that sort
of grass roots outreach but it is time well spent.
While you take that generation
or two, we here at The
American Atheist Center are going to continue to try to do it
in "double time."
American
Atheists
SHAKY COMPROMISES
AND SHADY DEALS
J
May, 1982
Page 3
May, 1982
'liberal' counterparts.
It's the same as if the nazis had conquered the world and
had forced everyone to believe and behave according to
their ideology (as the christians did to the roman world).
Then 2000 years later some intelligent people discover it
was wrong all along, but the 'liberal' minions of the nazi state
who can't argue with the facts try to preserve their position
by putting the mind of Hitler on an ever more abstract level.
Thus, they keep themselves in power by continually
reinterpreting Mein Kampf so that no blame can firmly be
laid on the original source of their power. No honest person
could compromise with such snakes, nor can they now with
their 'liberal' religious counterparts.
Fifthly, the methods of science apply to the bible itself.
Sound scienfific analysis will always demonstrate it to be
nothing but the confused rantings of an ignorant powerhungry tribe with some history and unoriginal nice words
thrown into a mass of myth. Religionists always oppose this
understanding with the confused claim that the bible is
god's word and any of its errors are mistakes of people- not
god, who could never have had any blame in the matter!
This is, of course, a sad obfuscation of reality by people who
put belief before the evidence, another example of the basic
opposition between religion and science.
I have yet to see any solid evidence that religion and
science are not opposed to each other.
Another scientist who has been lured by the sweet 'let'skiss-and-make-up' syndrome is a Nobel prize winner,
Steven Weinberg. His name should also be familiar to
knowledgeable Atheists because he is one of the principal, if
not the principal, architects of modern unification theory of
physics. Through his work we now have a coherent
connection of all the fundamental forces of physics excepting only gravity. He has also written a book called The First
3 Minutes which outlines, according to known physics, the
main events after the big bang of the present what -we-call
universe.
Recently he did an interview with a student magazine
called UTmost out of the University of Texas at Austin. It
was generally very good, and it's unfortunate that many of
you who would like to read such a personal interview won't
be able to do so in the near future. In the interview he rightly
panned the book The T ao of Physics which has enjoyed a
vogue amongst mystical pseudointellectuals. Weinberg
didn't hesitate to say that the book was nonsense, pointing
out that the development of quantum mechanics (another
subject with which Atheists should become somewhat
familiar)has not "restored any mystical quality that Newtonian
physics had driven out," as the book claimed. Weinberg
also commented on the speculation (which has even
reached the pages of Scientific American) that quantum
mechanics implies that the universe is all in the mind of the
observer. It is refreshing to hear a sober opinion from
someone who knows what he is talking about. As Weinberg
reiterated, there is an 'objective reality out there' that
operates according to its own laws regardless of the actions
or thoughts of any observers. He also noted that the laws of
nature really are something compared to which "human
beings look like an unimportant accident." This, of course,
is about the opposite of what the baptist 'educator' previously referred to in this column would like us all to believe.
Weinberg also belittled the creationists appropriately. He
even condemned textbook publishers for not standing
American Atheists
(Speech addressed to the National American Atheist Convention at Rosslyn, Virginia on April 11, 1982)
The exact time in history when belief in an afterlife
entered human thought is unknown. Some scholars postulate that man has believed in this concept for at least 100,000
years. Their hypothesis is based on excavations of Neanderthal graves in Iraq where the dead were buried with food and
flowers and markers were carefully placed over their graves
(Siegel, 1980).
Some creationists, of course, would have difficulty with
this hypothesis because they cannot concede that humankind existed before five or six thousand years ago. However, there are some more serious problems in inferring
belief in an afterlife from the behaviors of deliberate burial
and ritualism at death. One is that species other than man
engage in deliberate burial and/or ritualistic and even
religious-type behavior when encountering death (see, e.g.,
Siegel, 1980; Teleki, 1973; Wilson, 1971). Second, ancient
human societies - such as that of the biblical Hebrews practiced deliberate burial and ritualism at death without
seeming to believe in an afterlife.
Perhaps we will never identify the time in history when
belief in an afterlife entered human thought. No doubt
Atheists would like to see the concept dead, entombed in
libraries, and resurrected only by scholars interested in the
history of human beliefs and customs. But, the idea is very
much alive, an active part of human beliefs and customs,
and a favorite topic of religionists. For example, estimates
from a 1978 Gallup poll indicate that 70% of Americans
believe in a hereafter (in Siegel, 1980) and the revival of
Austin, Texas
May, 1982
PageS
May, 1982
of
American Atheists
References
Addison, J.T. LIFE BEYOND DEATH IN THE BELIEFS OF
MANKIND. Boston; Houghton Mifflin, 1932.
Christopher,
M. HOUDINI: THE UNTOLD STORY. New York:
Thomas v Crowell, 1969.
Driver, H.E. INDIANS OF NORTH AMERICA. Chicago &
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Eliade, M. SHAMANISM: ARCHAIC TECHNIQUES OF ECST ASY, Princeton, N,J.: Princeton University Press, 1964.
Gauld, A. Discarnate suruiual. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), HANDBOOK OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY,
New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1977.
Gordon, D.C. OVERCOMING
THE FEAR OF DEATH. New
York: MacMillan, 1970.
Gould, F,J. COMMON-SENSE
THOUGHTS
ON A LIFE
BEYOND. London: Watts, 1919.
Grof, S" & Halifax, J, THE HUMAN ENCOUNTER
WITH
DEATH. New York: Dutton, 1977.
Gurney, E. On Apparitions Occurring Soon After Death. PROCEEDINGS
OF THE SOCIETY
FOR PSYCHICAL
RESEARCH, 1889,5,403-485.
Hudson, T,J. A SCIENTIFIC
DEMONSTRATION
OF THE
FUTURE LIFE. Chicago:
McClung, 1901.
Huxley, L. THIS TIMELESS MOMENT. Millbrae, Cal.; Celestial
Arts, 1968.
Kubler-Ross, E. ON DEATH AND DYING. New York: MacMillan, 1969
Kubler-Ross, E. DEATH: THE FINAL STAGE OF GROWTH.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Lilly, J.C. THE DEEPSELF. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977.
Moody, R. REFLECTIONS
ON LIfE AFTER LIFE. New York:
Bantam/Mockingbird,
1977.
Myers, F.W.H. HUMAN PERSONALITY
AND ITS SURVIVAL
OF BODILY DEATH. New Hyde Park, N.Y. University Books,
1961. (Originally published in 1903.)
Noyes, R. The Experience of Dying. PSYCHIATRY,
1972.35,
174-183.
R., & Kletti, R. Depersonalization in the face of lifethreatening danger: An interpretation. OMEGA, 1976, 7,
103-114,
Noyes, R. U. SLymen, D.J. The subjectiue response to lifethreatening danger. OMEGA, 1977,8,181-194.
Sheils, D. A cross-cultural study of beliefs in out-of-body experiences, waking and sleeping. JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY
FOR
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, 1978,49, 697-74l.
Sidgwick, J" Johnson,
A., Myers, F.W.H., Podmore,
F., &
Sidgwick, E.M, Report on the census of hallucinations. PRONoyes,
CEEDINGS
OF THE SOCIETY
FOR PSYCHICAL
RESEARCH, 1885,3,69-150.
Siegel, R.K. The psychology of life after death. AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGIST,
35 (10), 911-93l.
Siegel, R.K. Hallucinations. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1977,237
(4),132-140.
R.K. & Jarvik, M.E. Drug-induced hallucinations in
animals and man. In R.K. Siegel & L.J. West (Eds.), HALLUCINA-
Siegel,
1952,
Teleki, G, Group response to the accidental death of Q chimpanzee in Gombe National Park, Tanzania, FOLIA PRIMATOLOGICA, 1973,20,81-94.
West, L.J. A clinical and theoretical oueruiew of hallucinatory
phenomena. In R.K. Siegel & L.J. West (eds.), HALLUCINATIONS: BEHAVIOR, EXPERIENCE,
AND THEORY. New
York: Wiley, 1975.
Wheeler, D,R. JOURNEY TO THE OTHER SIDE. New York:
Ace Books, 1976.
Wilson, E.O. THE INSECT SOCIETIES,
Cambridge,
Mass.:
Belknap Press, 1971.
Winters, W.O. The continuum of CNS excitatory states and
hallucinosis. In R.K. Siegel & L.J. West (Eds.), HALLUCINATIONS: BEHAVIOR, EXPERIENCE,
AND THEORY. New
York: Wiley, 1975.
--~h~"h
c:
Austin, Texas
\'1
~;:~
~
1"" ""
May, 1982
Page 7
Jean-Yves
Riviere
May. 1982
Atheists
APPARITIONS
IN THE CHURCH
May, 1982
Page 9
May, 1982
Atheists
May, 1982
Page 11
May, 1982
. >~t::!~
/?
L __.::
Jeremy
C;~
L/
D. Lansman
Lorenzo W. Milan
1 December, 1974
222 University Avenue
Los Gatos, California
*** Footnote.
APPENDIX A
Some Examples of Duopoly Situations Where A Governmental Body controls More Than One Radio or Television
Outlet in a Single Market.
I
)
++
The Curators of the University of Missouri:
KUMR [FM] and KMNR [FM] - Rolla, Missouri
Metro Pittsburgh Public Broadcasting:
WQED [TV] and WQEX [TV] - Pittsburgh, Penna.
Twin Cities Educational Television Corp:
KTCA [TV] and KTCI [TV] - Minneapolis, Minn.
American Atheists
University of Washington:
KCTS [TV], KUOW [FM], and KCMU [FM] Washington
Seattle,
Chicago,
II.
100 KW.
Columbia,
College, Nashville,
10 W
100 KW.
B
WPGT [FM] Roanoke Christian School, Roanoke
Rapids, S.c.
90.1 mHz
84'
860 W
Religious and Sectarian Groups with Licenses, Construction Permits, or Applications to Broadcast on the "Educational" Reserved Portion of the FM Band.
Nazarene
300'
College, Nampa I.
10 W.
APPLI CATIONS
WMCU [FM] Miami Christian
HAS: 3 KW
Iowa
48 KW.
Boynton,
50 KW.
10 W.
FLA
3 KW.
Colo.
26 KW.
1.33 KW
College, Goshen,
65'
Indiana
390 W
62 KW.
Carlinville, III.
258'
50 KW.
South
330 W
May, 1982
Page 13
s,
e
L..
~
1'0
V')
;:
i
IL
..,
.-
~-j.':
One
very sto
~~~
mr'c],p<t
1__
.L.. __. __ ,
Report of drive to ba
gospel broadcasts sti
protest in lIatntratnc
By Georce Ballard
Nea 8talrWriter
o.e-w
V.ASIDNGTON
IIAoAlYN ~
(AP)
15, 1171
, ,,__
it
dcUIg or ~
a
never
"
in at the rate at &,a ID 7,000
"The letters are stiJI cOlllUl
ban reiiPJus broadcia, pleading with the FCC not to
cbid at the
from the airwa-.
JtClbert NeIsm,
CC'
all room told areponer.
F
sm
hat abo tu 4 6 million letters have been reHe
estimated
a a1th'~g h nobody has actually countceived in the twothat
years,
COIIIIdemI
:Uung
ed them,
, I1Iemail volume dropped to about 2,000 a day
Nelson said r when there was publicity ahoot the erearher this yea
all has built up again since,
roneous report. B~~~
'-en allle to figure out woo keeps
Nobody at the
but It's IIMi laIIle In fM!l'Y part of
the ~
aIlw, or wby,
.~ !Ilelst, MadalYn Murthe IIIt1a11.
gist Ia that the not"" a
on.
Page 14
May, 1982
American
Atheists
ATTENTION!
M IS BEING THREA TENEDfl
lV.in/ 111611m.,h. il lite m." to ""'UI' I6t teug;..,.
"d I.V.Sbt b
lllal", i, OIl It "'" ..,
//gha,. Remember, ,b. made n U/ega/ It read "" BI6/e IIId
dint lb. lible '.... tlleir ,,,,,, CI.n.
Ir. bll rlatH "" lite, mutl 1M" ~
,ctoow,","
~Il~''''h,
do. Sign, cu, out, .nd m.il lb. form b.,ow. PLEASE
~lo'hing!
H., we " I/td 101/ ~
/etten It
or _
.........................................................
- ------the
~~.
TURf
, oe
1 ..
..
.............
ZIP
Jour".. TI_
Thur"'-y. ~
16.1976
__
P.''''.rtty
ko.h'~r
WASHINGTON
no .-
(AP)
ce ""'"'::
e=:
:.., _.'
o::i...
petition
with fl..000
tn . .,._~__
Dation's signatures
~ ....
has
. Texas
Austm,
.w.
't111I::...
to RaeCObe.IIIIIII
the jeer..': ..The
whole.!~inl
IS
~
.:.
..
9A
CC can't-halt ;ail
ased on false rumor
.
""~r'
",4
Page 15
May, 1982
applications.
May, 1982
religious writer, who is slow and not all that bright; had
picked up the story. This time he was catering to the Roman
Catholic Office for Film and Broadcasting. The "father" in
charge had come to notice that across the country people
met, signed counterpetitions, lauched letter-writing campaigns and had now swamped the FCC offices with more
than 3,000,000 letters of protest against Madalyn O'Hair.
The frantic head of the FCC was quoted as saying "I've
never seen anything like this." But at the same time (then)
Sen. Walter F. Mondale was being staggered with 7,000
letters a week based on the false story about the child care
centers. When told about three million letters to the FCC
he signed and opined that "People simply willnot accept the
facts when we tell them."
In four months time it was worse and this time T. V. Guide
in its July 24th, 1976 issue attempted to stay the flood. By
then the FCC had 3,700,000 million letters and they were
coming in at the rate of about 4,300 a day. The story now
told was that Lansman and Milam had protested against
"certain fundamentalist religious institutions, which held
broadcast licenses for educational stations" but "were in
fact using them to air religious 'propaganda.' The petition
asked for a review of the performance of these outlets to
determine whether they were fulfilling their educational
function. In the meantime, the petition requested a freeze
on issuance of such licenses." This article disclosed that the
story of the 27,000 letters supporting RM. 2493, presumably from O'Hair Atheist types, had been perhaps started
with a brochure that the National Religious Broadcasters
had put out giving this statement (incorrectly.)
The article noted that in garden clubs and church
bulletins, on supermarket community boards, in letters-tothe-editor, Madalyn O'Hair was the villainand the call was
for more letters to the FCC.
The FCC now confirmed that by August 1, 1975, the date
of the denial of the Petition, it had received 750,000 pieces of
mail. Many had one signature, often more, and a few
contained as many as 3,000 signatures. By September 1st, a
month after the matter was closed, the mail had reached
1,000,000 pieces. Three additional staff members had been
hired to handle only the RM. 2493 matter.
Meanwhile, Lansman and Milam wanted to know more
about the content of the letters and had filed a Freedom of
Information Act request, which meant that the FCC had to
store the RM. 2493 mail until September, 1976. After that it
could be destroyed every 30 days.
Lansman and Milam found what they wanted to know.
The letters were just about the same. A typical letter would
read: "I personally appreciate and wholeheartedly support :
the Sunday morning worship services and other religious
programming that are broadcast over radio and television.
Many sick, elderly people and shut-ins depend on radio and
television to fulfilltheir worship needs. I urge you to see to it
that such programming continues and that the O'Hair
petition be denied."
September came and went and the first enormous
quantities of mail were destroyed. But by October, 1976 the
rumors were still going strong. Mail was now coming into
the FCC at the rate of 6,000 letters a day. The 4,000,000
mark had been reached and passed. The lutheran church of
America was attempting to get 1,000,000 letters in from
lutherans alone. The episcopalians, the presbyterians, the
churches of christ, the VFW and the OAR's were outdoing
Austin, Texas
May, 1982
Page 17
May, 1982
Atheists
calculate that a postage stamp costing only 12q: on 12,000,000 letters had cost about 1 Yz million dollars. The terrible
burden on the U. S. Post Office, on state and national
legislative bodies, on the FCC all testified to the intransigence of the religious mind in the United States.
But it did not stop in 1980, or in 1981, or even in 1982. In
January, 1982, Jon Murray personally stopped in the office
of the FCC in Washington, D.C., there to find eight persons
who answered the telephone for R.M. 2493 queries and five
persons who did nothing but open the mail. Just about all
count had now been lost. The destruction of the mail was
automatic. The remarks were cynical. After eight years of
combined effort from the FCC in Washington,
D.C. and
The American Atheist Center in Austin, Texas, the end was
no where in sight. At the end of April, 1982, as this article
was being prepared, Mrs. O'Hair made a final inquiry of the
F.C.C. to get absolutely current statistics. Incredibly, they
are:
The FCC currently has four people employed, supervised by a fifth, to open R.M. 2493 mail. Eight persons
answer telephones. Twelve to twenty Congressional
inquiries are received each day. A minimum of 100 telephone
calls are channeled into the Consumer's
Assistance Office
alone. On March 30th, 1982 the FCC put out an official
"Public Notice" concerned
with the rumor, asking the
assistance of media, business and religious groups to stop
the rumor. A pamphlet "Religious Broadcasting
and The
FCC" has been sent out in tens of thousands of copies.
Since the beginning of 1982, the rumor has started anew
and again mail is beginning to crescendo. The rumor is now
eight years old, beginning in 1974 and continuing with only
short intervals of moderate activity, until April, 1982, with
no end in sight. Approximately 13,000,000 letters have now
been received. Since many letters have more than one
signature, often the missile received being a petition bearing
from 10 to 30,000 names, the magnitude of the problem for
the FCC is apparent. With this writing the rumor enters the
ninth year.
But it was exactly during this time that the religious
community fought for and won control of the FM band,
obtained its own 24-hour a day non-stop religious TV
stations, inundated the airways with religion and gained
such a foothold in the electronic media that the politics of
the nation are now an open battleground where religion is a
major player in the field.
It is not untoward to ask the question: was this rumor a
deliberate religious geopolitical ploy to intimidate the FCC
to such an extent that the religious community could
receive anything that it demanded of that agency? Is this a
lesson to every other agency of government to yield or be
besieged?
The religious of our nation are mindless and could easily
have been encouraged to participate in this black geopolitical attack against an agency of government using the devil
as counterfoil in the endeavour. Madalyn Murray OHair
was the emotional bait in the trap. The blind, the following,
the obedient and the disciplined would be eager to obey
even a suggestion - an order would not be necessary.
And the lesson is driven home. One only need to call or to
write the FCC to have the stink of fear exhude from that
agency. Will the IRS dare to stand firm on its exclusion from
tax exemption of those religious schools which practice
segregation? Will the Congress need to yield on federal aid
May, 1982
Page 19
May, 1982
Atheists
May, 1982
Page 21
remaining submarines would have more than 2,800 additional warheads with which to completely destroy the
Soviet Union as a functioning society. ISN'T THA T
ENOUGH? WHY CONTINUE TO ADD MORE NEW
WEAPONS?
There are three answers to that question of why we
continue to add more new weapons:
(I) The simplest answer is plain greed for profits and
military power.
(2) A more complex answer is that our military-industrial
complex would rather have a Soviet threat in order to
provide a means to counter it, than to have the Soviet
threat removed through negotiated agreements to reduce armaments.
(3}Still another answer lies in an important United
Nations report of September '80. Paragraph 493 says: "It
is clear that in many cases technology dictates policy
instead of serving it and that new weapons systems
frequently emerge not because of any military or security
requirement
but because of sheer momentum of the
technological process .. .This general trend, that technology rather than policy leads, carries with it an intrinsic
danger...In this situation, it is imperative that statesmen
and political leaders accept their responsibility. If they do
not, the arms race is certain to go out of control."
The same UN report says: "It is inadmissible that the
prospect of annihilation of human civilization is used by
some states to promote their security. The future of
mankind (sic) is then made hostage to the perceived
security of new nuclear-weapons
states and most notably
that of the two superpowers."
Yet, an American President, 20 years ago, consciously
made a decision that he expected to lead to war with the
Soviet Union, with millions of lives lost on both sides. Proof
of this is found in Robert Kennedy's book, "Thirteen Days."
Relating his conversation
with the President after Robert
had delivered the ultimatum on Saturday night to the Soviet
Ambassador:
"I returned to the White House. the President was not
optimistic, nor was I. He ordered 24 troop carrier
squadrons of the Air Force Reserve to active duty. They
would be necessary for an invasion. He had not abandoned hope, but what hope there was now rested with
Krushchev's
revising his course within the next few
hours. It was a hope, not an expectation. The expecta-
May, 1982
Atheists
CLAUSE CASES
by Ron Lindsay, Atty.-at-Iaw
(Speech addressed to the National American Atheist Convention at Rosslyn, Virginia on April 10, 1982)
My topic today is the future of establishment
clause
cases. "Establishment
clause" is, of course, a shorthand
reference for that portion of the first amendment
which
provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion." 1 think it would be useful to begin
by asking why Atheists should be interested in establishment clause cases. After all, it has been almost 200 years
since the First Amendment was adopted. Moreover, it has
been more than 200 years since the Enlightenment - since
Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Surely, after all this time, Atheists should not have to
worry about protecting their rights in the courts. This is also
the United States - supposedly
the freest country on
earth. Surely Atheists can expect to be treated decently and
fairly like other Americans. If Atheists have a problem, why
can't they write their state legislators or their congressmen?
In other words, why can't Atheists make use of the normal
political process to protect their rights without having to
worry about how the courts interpret the establishment
clause of the First Amendment?
I read to you now from the legislative history of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII, for those of you who
may not be aware of this fact, protects employees from
being discriminated
against because of their race, sex,
national origin or religion. When Congress was considering
this bill, Rep. Ashbrook introduced
an amendment
to
exclude Atheists from the protections afforded by the bill. In
support of his amendment
Rep. Ashbrook reasoned as
follows:
"I am thinking in terms of a private enterprise for
profit, which would be covered by this bill. A man
comes for employment and the employer is honest
enough to tell the applicant, while he is otherwise
qualified, he will not hire anyone of atheistic convictions. The atheist (sic) then uses his remedies provided by this measure. It is my interpretation
of the bill
that as a part of his civil rights purported
to be
extended by this ... title, he could allege he has been
discriminated against and proceed against the employer. "
Ashbrook then asked the then Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee,
Emmanuel Celler, if this was a
correct interpretation
of the bill as it was then written; in
other words, whether the bill would in fact protect Atheists.
After Celler said that it was, Ashbrook continued:
"This would be a practice which the employer could
not do, according to what you said. He could not
Austin, Texas
May, 1982
Page 23
Page 24
May, 1982
Page 25
t he author })
RONALD A. LINDSAY
Born in Boston, MA on December 8,
1952. Graduated from Georgetown University with an A.B. cum laude in philosophy in 1974. Georgetown University
Fellow from 1974-77. M.A. in philosophy in 1976. University of Virginia Law
School-J.D.,
May 1980. Electedtothe
Order of the Coif, 1980; received the
Shawe Labor Relations Award, 1980.
Currently practices law in Washington,
D.C. Recently represented the Society
of Separationists in a suit seeking to
enjoin the payment of the salaries of
Congressional chaplains out of public
funds.
Nature's Way
Gerald Tholen
May, 1982
Those were the good old days. Too bad McCarthy was
unable to emit a stare-generated
laser capable of knocking
out the Kremlin.
It has occurred to me recently that the American public is
very lax in its duty as responsive defenders of truth, justice,
and the "American way". We never seem to instinctively
know exactly who to hate at a given time. We must
constantly be told by our government when and where it is
imperative to hate another nation or culture. Our government, of course, is not all wise and knowing either, and, on
.occasion,
must be reminded of necessary
hatreds by
religion. After all, it is the atheistic communists that we are
supposed to hate - not the catholic communists of Poland
and/or other places.
As I look back over the past, what fond memories I have
of the real great hate eras. Could any of us forget those
memorable years we spent hating Communist China! Boy
- those were great times! Just think what we could have
accomplished with a blood-curdling "whammy" stare directed at Mao. What flag-waving, John Wayne zealot wouldn't
have jumped at the chance' It really bothers me now when I
think of the beautiful opportunity we "Americans" missed
by not completely annihilating Communist China with our
devout christian American hatred. Now, all of a sudden,
American
Atheists
May, 1982
Page 27
from pg 9)
DIAL AN ATHEIST
CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN ATHEISTS
Dial- The=Atheist
(512) 458-5731
(314) 771-8894
(505) 884-7630
(518) 346-1479
(704) 568-5346
Phoenix, Arizona
(602) 899-7411
(405) 677-4141
Tucson, ATizona
(602) 623-3861
Portland, Oregon
(503) 287-6461
Sacramento, California
(916) 989-3170
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(714) 232-6767
(801) 364-4939
(415) 974-1750
Alexandria, Virginia
(703) 370-5255
Denver, Colorado
(303) 692-9395
South Florida
(305) 384-8923
(813) 577-7154
Atlanta, Georgia
(404) 329-9809
Chicago, Illinois
(312) 335-4648
Evansville, Indiana
(812) 425-1949
Lexington, Kentucky
(606) 278-8333
Boston, Massachusetts
(617) 344-2988
Detroit, Michigan
(313) 721-6630
Page 28
May, 1982
(201) 777-0766
The Letter
It was, written, as stated above, by
a "friend and correspondent"
of the
late Albert Einstein, who was perhaps one of the most adamant and
noted peace advocates of our time.
The writer complains (timidly) that
he "regretted" to see an "appeal for
donations to the Einstein fund" beginning with a "statement that is unscientific, dangerously misleading, and,
if I (sic) may say so, un-Einsteinian".
The statement
had read: "The
state of the world has deteriorated to
the point where both the US and the
Soviet Union have officially declared
war thinkable". The writer presumes
that "you (the journal) did not mean
by this statement simply that both
governments
think about war but
that both governments
think the
same way about it, have the same
attitude toward entering into it".
The writer then suggests that any
criticism of American policy on situations concerning differences of opinions between the US and the Soviets automatically indicts the author
of the criticism as being pro-communist or at least pro-Soviet! In such
cases, the writer continues, we (Americans) "lose scientific objectivity
and Einsteinian integrity".
It is then pointed out by the letter's
contents that the Soviet government
"on three separate occasions" has
proposed
a mutual treaty of "no-
first-use"
of nuclear
weapons!
(These proposals came from Warsaw in 1976, Budapest in 1979 and
Moscow in 1980.) The proposals
were rejected by the US "behind
closed doors, without any discussion
in Congress, or any report or explanation to the American people". The
writer then states that this escalates
the "spirit of the Cold War" thus
reinforcing prejudice and bigotry.
The letter's author also wrote a
pro-peace book in 1950 for which
Albert Einstein wrote Letters of Introduction. The book was intended to
expose the "present state of hysterical fear" and would hopefully lead to
"more sane and constructive
political attitudes".
The writer continues, "The Soviet
government
has made many mistakes, but its peace policy is not one
of them." He pleads that it is of
crucial importance
to accept the
concept of a "no-first-use"
treaty
(which could only be beneficial to all
concerned) without hesitation or secretive avoidance.
This would at
least reduce world anxieties and al-
--
o6oJ
c:
Q)
E
c
~
Q)
>
o
U
Q)
s:
o6oJ
c:
.?:
.c
"'u
"'
0..
OJ
OJ
~0..
o
~
OJ
.s:
--o
o6oJ
-o
~
~
~:
o
,~
o
~
"0
zr
0-
;:=;.
~
()Q
zr