American Atheist Magazine First Quarter 2012

American Atheist
A JOURNAL OF ATHEIST NEWS AND THOUGHT
TheWar on
A Virginia Courthouse Lawn is the Battleground for First Amendment Rights
C hristmas
ATHEISTS.ORG
FIRST QUARTER 2012
AMERICAN ATHEIST
1st Quarter 2012 Vol. 50, No.1
A Journal of Atheist News and Thought
ISSN 0516-9623 (Print) ISSN 1935-8369 (Online) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Pamela Whissel mageditor@atheists.org AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS MANAGING EDITOR Frank R. Zindler editor@atheists.org LAYOUT AND GRAPHICS EDITOR Rick Wingrove rwingrove@atheists.org Published by American Atheists, Inc. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 158 Cranford NJ 07016 Phone: 908.276.7300 FAX: 908.276.7402 www.atheists.org
Cover: Atheist display on the Loudoun County, Virginia, Courthouse lawn Above: Another display banner Photos by Rick Wingrove
In This Issue
2011 American Atheists Inc.
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. American Atheist is indexed in the Alternative Press Index. American Atheist magazine is given free of cost to members of American Atheists as an incident of their membership. Annual Individual Membership with subscription for one year of American Atheist print magazine: $35. Online version only: $20. Couple/Family Membership with optional print magazine: $35. Sign up at www.atheists.org/aam. Discounts available for multiple year subscriptions: 10% for two years, 20% for three or more years. Additional postage fees for foreign addresses: Canada and Mexico: add $10/ year. All other countries: add $30/year. Discounts for libraries and institutions: 50% on all magazine subscriptions and book purchases.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
5 6 8 10 12 14 18 20 24 28
Gideon Bible Distribution Limited| Edwin Hensley The War on Christmas | Rick Wingrove Dying Without Gods | Hank Fox The Crumbling Wall of Separation | Clifton Perry, PhD Crucifixion Porn | Edwin Lyngar Morality and the iMind | C.E. Atkins Faith Should Get No Respect | Michael Spry Three Lives of a Warrior: Part 3 | Phillip Butler, PhD Bible Bunk and Holy Horrors | Michael B. Paulkovich Futile Confrontations | Ludwik Kowalski, PhD
atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 3
American Atheist
A JOURNAL OF ATHEIST NEWS AND THOUGHT
TheWar on
A Virginia Courthouse Lawn is the Battleground for First Amendment Rights
C hristmas
ATHEISTS.ORG
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Letter from the
Editor
ts nothing new to say theres nothing new about the New Atheism. The term took root in 2006, the year Daniel Dennett published Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion. Both titles became best sellers, which garnered quite a bit of media attention because it was newsworthy that something regarding Atheism could be so popular. But the real story was that this was the second and third time in two years for such a phenomenon. Sam Harris The End of Faith was a best seller in 2004. This was no longer a phenomenon. This was a movement. The term is still around even though the New Atheism is now old newsjust like it always was. But now its old news everywhere. I have some real news, and youre looking at it right now. This issue marks the first time in American Atheists history that the magazine is available for retail sale at bookstores and newsstands around the country. Its quite a milestone for the organization and truly a pivotal point in American culture. A magazine with the word Atheist in the title has never been on a store shelf in this country until now. Other types of publications, yes, but not a magazine. This is exciting stuff. Its also not exciting, and thats exciting too. The magazine makes its retail debut with no fanfare at all. It will be just another day at the bookstore when just another shipment is unloaded and American Atheist goes on display with the rest of the merchandise, right along with all of the other magazines about cooking, decorating, fishing, parenting, baseball, football, basketball, hockey, travel, fashion, celebrities, religion, and everything else. I may be wrong, but I dont expect to hear about campaigns or demands to remove the magazine from the shelves, or sequester it behind the register, or cover it with a plain brown wrapper. It wouldnt have always been that way. This magazine was started by Madalyn Murray OHair, who garnered her own misnomer in the media: the most hated woman in America. Its unlikely that her publication would have been flying off the shelves, unless that flying was in the form of removal. This moment in history comes to us from her and the other giants of the movement, past and present, whose efforts to secure civil rights for non-believers and to uphold the wall separating church and state were, and are, constant and tireless. The strength of that wall and the security of those rights now depend entirely on a new group of giants. The New Giants, if you will. No action can be more significant right now than that of individual closeted non-believers, no matter who or where they are, to come out of the closet and then carry on with their lives as usual. The most recent public opinion polls in this country show non-believers outnumbering Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists combined. But the data is collected anonymously, which means that every individual act of coming out makes a giant difference in the social environment right now. Not long ago, this was not the case at all. This time there really is something new. Pamela Whissel mageditor@atheists.org
4 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Gideon Bible Distribution Limited by Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers

By Edwin Hensley, Kentucky State Director of American Atheists
Dont confuse camouflage with commissioned.
he Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers (LAF), an American Atheists affiliate, have successfully ended seven decades of unconstitutional religious activity at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS). The LAF, in partnership with the ACLU and the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), has ended proselytizing by the Gideons and changed the procedures for placing religious and secular literature at all 65 MEPS stations worldwide. Since 1941, three weeks before Pearl Harbor, MEPS stations have permitted the Gideons to distribute Bibles. The Gideons used a 20-30 minute slot in mandatory briefings to give each new recruit a Bible covered in camouflage while saying the words, Here is your military Bible. They would then talk to the new recruits about the Gideons, and about accepting Jesus as their savior. In this situation the Gideons appeared to be part of the military. Gideons with no military affiliation would often appear at these meetings wearing military fatigues. They would claim to be members of the US Operation and Support Command, which, to new recruits, can sound like an official military organization, but it actually has nothing to do with the military. In 2007, the LAF hosted a guest speaker from the ACLU. LAF member Gretchen Mann, the Chief Medical Officer of the Louisville MEPS stations, came to the meeting with a
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Gideons military Bible and asked if the ACLU would be interested. Dr. T. Jeremy Dunn, the ACLU Program Director on Freedom of Religion and Belief, then wrote a letter to the director of the MEPS command (MEPCOM) and JAG offices. With military permission, the ACLU sent observational teams into nine MEPS stations, including Louisville. The ACLU study concluded that at all MEPS stations there were major violations of constitutional law, and they filed a formal request to halt the proselytizing. In 2008, MEPCOM issued new worldwide policies prohibiting the proselytizing at MEPS stations and mandating that secular Non-Federal Entities (NFEs) be treated equally with religious NFEs. A 67-year-old unconstitutional activity came to an end. The Gideons continued to place Bibles on tables, which recruits could take or ignore. But there was no secular alternative. So in 2011, Mann reached out to MAAF president Jason Torpy, who persistently applied for permission to place MAAF literature in MEPS stations. This past January, the MAAF was finally granted permission to distribute the pamphlet Living Well With Secular Humanism. The MAAF still needed local allies to obtain permission to enter the military facilities and distribute the pamphlets, so Torpy initiated a pilot program at the
Louisville MEPS, where volunteers from the LAF distribute the pamphlets. Four-year Army veteran Frank Lovell and five-year World War II and Korean War Marine Corps veteran Emmett Fields volunteered to distribute the literature. Both are veterans of the Atheist movement. Fields possesses a vast collection of freethought literature that is available online for a penny a page at Bankofwisdom.com, and he has sold items to Madalyn Murray OHair that are now in the library at American Atheists headquarters in Cranford, New Jersey. Lovell is a founding member of the Kentucky Association of Science Educators and Skeptics, along with fellow founder Joe Nickell. The efforts of Mann, Torpy, Fields, and Lovell produced a very successful pilot program. The MAAF has decided to distribute the pamphlets at all 65 MEPS as part of their Deployment Support Program. Mann felt the actions were needed because the Gideons gave the false impression that the United States military is a Christian organization. Thanks to the action of these individuals, the Gideons can no longer give that false impression at MEPS stations.
The
The historic Loudoun County Courthouse in Leesburg, Virginia, 30 miles outside Washington, DC, is the site of an ongoing clash over religious displays on its lawn.
by Rick Wingrove, Virginia State Director for American Atheists
War on Christmas
or years, a nativity scene was displayed on the Loudoun County Courthouse lawn on Christmas. Only the Christian nativity display was permitted, and only in December. No other signage or displays were allowed, religious or otherwise, at any other time of year. This amounted to privileged access and a special right provided to the local Christian community by county government. Is it even possible to argue that this exclusive accommodation was not manifest favoritism? How could government provide a more flagrant endorsement for Christianity than to carve out a unique and exclusive right to use government property to propagate the Christian mythology? Two years ago, the Grounds Committee, tasked with preserving the historic lawn and the centuryold sycamores, recommended that no more displays be permitted on the lawn. There was an immediate backlash from the religious community, bemoaning an ongoing war on Christmas and framing
Photos by Rick Wingrove

FIRST QUARTER 2012
the committees recommendation as an unconscionable attack on Christianity. The Loudoun County Board of Supervisorsall Christians and almost entirely Republican predictably caved, ignored the recommendations of the grounds committee, and permitted the nativity display to return. But then they did a curious thing: they consulted the ACLU. The Board was advised that, under Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette (1995), access for one group required access for any and all groups, and that the government had to be neutral on content. The board, apparently aware of their
Perrys presidential hopes and was immediately revealed as the thin ruse that it was. Wailing and Gnashing The Christian community, as we were shocked to discover, only believes in its own free speech. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and demands, to the Board and in the media, to expel the secular displays from the lawn. At several contentious and heavily attended meetings of the Board of Supervisors, which were packed with mobilized evangelicals and about a dozen Atheists, we were accused of vicious attacks on Christianity and a plot to force people to abandon their family holiday celebrations. I was not sure we were talking about the same courthouse lawn. Some of the displays were tongue-in-cheek, such as the one promoting Jedi-ism and the one praising the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Others were more direct, openly questioning some core tenets of the Christian mythology, like the one comparing Jesus to Santa and the Easter Bunny. Our display took a gentler approach, honoring the Constitution and separation of church and state, without being directly critical of religion in any way. Another result of the ACLUs advice was that the County could not limit access to the lawn to religious holidays. So, over the last year, members of American Atheists, NOVA Atheists (the group for residents of northern Virginia and suburban DC), and Beltway Atheists have put a large banner on the lawn every month. Our banners carried a positive message, celebrating people or events
If there were a war on Christmas, I would have gotten a memo.

legal exposure, decided to give free speech a chance on the courthouse lawn and began permitting up to ten displays on the lawn on a first-come, first-served basis. The board and the local Christian community got very enthusiastic about this scheme, apparently feeling that free speech was a more solid constitutional footing for the continued hosting of the Christian displays. Sure, let others put up displays. What could go wrong? Well, in December 2010, members of the Atheist community in Loudoun County acquired permits for seven of the ten available spots on the lawn. Thats what. The local Christian communitys enthusiasm and support for free speech evaporated faster than Rick
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Continued on page 32
Dying Without Gods

by Hank Fox
The Blue Collar Atheist:
omething amazing and terrible happened to me late in 2011, an event that hurt and healed at the same time, while proving the warmth and compassion of the Atheist community. First, some background: I had three different men in the role of male parenta father, a stepfather, and a Dad. My father was a distant, preoccupied Jehovahs Witness. My stepfather was an emotionally abusive born-again Christian. My Dad was non-religious in any real sense, but more importantly to me, anywayhe was also this welcoming fatherly presence (finally!) in my life. I met him when I was about 23, when I migrated from my home state of Texas and went to work at a pack station in Californias Eastern Sierra mountains. Pack station: think ranch on the edge of the wilderness, a horse-and mule-powered taxi service that takes campers and their gear into roadless areas for weeklong expeditions. Early on, cowboy Dan was my mule packing instructor, teaching me about knots and ropes and handling fractious, long-eared, halfton equines, but he quickly became my general mentor. Within a year, I started to think of him as my Dad. Looking back on it, I was so hungry for someone to fill that role that I was probably an enormous pest, but
Hank Fox, John Muir Wilderness, California, 1977
he put up with me and allowed me into his life. I worked with him, camped with him, drank with him, hunted and fished with him, shared campfire tales and dirty jokes with him, and just generally became part of his family. I called him Dad exactly once, and he called me Son exactly once, and we both seemed embarrassed by it, so we continued on a first-name basis, Hank and Dan. But the thing was there between us. I spent Christmases and Thanksgivings with him and his wife and two stepkids, and a hundred times that in the unnamed days throughout the year. I could show up at his door any time of the day or
nightwith two big dogs!and all hed say was, You know where the couch is, you know where the sheets and pillows are. I was welcome to stay as long as I liked. Damn, I admired the man. He was one of the toughest sons-of-bitches I think I ever knew, but one of the warmest, too. He had his edges and angleshe was a notorious bareknuckled bar fighter, for instance plus some amazing, and often funny, blind spots. A wilderness deer-hunting guide, so comfortable with hunting I think he had trouble imagining that others might not be, he once got into a call-the-cops tiff with his apartment neighbors when for several days he hung a dead deer
FIRST QUARTER 2012
from the outside porch railing, closer than ten feet from the downstairs neighbors door. He was in my life for 35 years. This last year, I had trouble reaching him. Retired and dealing with money problems, he had his phone shut off and I was forced to communicate through letters or messages relayed by neighbors. Then I got the terrible call: Dan was in the hospital, and not expected to live. I had to go. The problem was, I was flat broke myself, and I had exactly zero friends moneyed-up enough to consider borrowing from. Id been blogging with Freethought Blogs for only a couple of months, but I thought Id put up a plea for donations. I figured there was an outside chance
Dan Farris, near Independence, California, 1977
hours later from my Droid phone. The total was over $500 and headed north. Not only were my own readers responding, other bloggers had posted links to the story, and there was this rising viral Help Hank Go See His Dying Dad thing happening. I panicked. It was too much. This
with him pretty much around the clock for the next three and a half days. Talking to him, touching him, telling him all the things I felt about him, and us. And, oh boy, crying like I hadnt cried in decades. From his first day in the hospital, hed refused food and water and any needles but periodic shots of morphine, so he was pretty far gone by the time I got there. But he opened his eyes and looked at me. He saw my smiles, and my tears. No longer able to speak, he squeezed my hand and smiled back. I told him, Damn, I wish we were anywhere but here. Riding over Duck Pass, maybe, or just coming into camp at Purple Lake. And, You did everything right,
In what some would imagine to be the acid test of Atheism, the death of a parent, I got an easy A.
Id wind up with maybe 50 bucks, and in the meantime hoped I might figure something else out. I used to hitchhike when I was younger; I once even hopped a ride on a freight train. I considered both. But first I posted An Appeal on my blog. Within five minutes, I got notes from two readers that my PayPal link didnt work. I fixed it, and small donations started appearing a few minutes later. Within an hour, the total was over $150. I was stunned. PeopleAtheists! cared enough to help. I went in to tell my housemate about it with tears on my face, and felt like Sally Field at the Oscars sobbing, You like me! You really like me! I had to go off to work, but I checked my PayPal account a few
FIRST QUARTER 2012
was over-the-top kindness, the type that, to me, raised not to accept charity, carried with it an enormous responsibility. I tapped out a followup post on my phone, Everybody Stop Sending Money! But before I could get home and remove the PayPal link, the total was closing in on $1,200. Thanks only to those donations, I got a flight from New York to Los Angeles, then rented a car and made the six-hour drive to my Dads little mountain town. I got there a few minutes before midnight, exhausted after 22 hours in transit, and the hospital staff let me in to see him. I sat with him for an hour, just looking at him, then found a motel and got a few hours sleep. I was back at 5:00 a.m., and sat
Old Man. Your life mattered, you made a difference in the world, and it was a good difference. If there are people out there who went into the wilderness with you 50 years ago, they still recall it, and its one of their best memories. And even, I love you, Mister. You were just about the best thing that ever happened to me. I was so lucky to have met you. Everything I became was because of you saving me. Thank you sooo much for being in my life, and letting me into yours. You will always be a part of me. You will always be my one and only Dad. Dying can be rough. Both awake and asleep in his last couple of days, he breathed like a marathon runner.
The Crumbling Wall of Separation

By Clifton Perry, PhD, JD, LLM Through many recent rulings, the Supreme Court of the United States has whittled down the wall of church/ state separation. That wall is provided to us within the First Amendment of the Constitution, in the section known as the Establishment clause, which says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The cases in this article involved actions, on the part of the government, which would initially appear to violate the Establishment clause. The Court, however, did not rule that way in any of them. In some cases, it was ruled that the parties did not have the standing to litigate the matter. In the other cases the Court found, through innovative readings of the clause, that the facts presented did not violate the Establishment clause. Auburn University political science professor Clifton Perry explains how these rulings chip away at the wall of church/state separation.
he constitutional requirement of standing is wrought from the Case and Controversy provision of Article III.1 The party initiating litigation in a federal court must demonstrate that he or she suffered, or is in immediate danger of suffering, a legally recognized particular and concrete harm.2 The plaintiff must also show that the defendants conduct caused the harm and that the federal court is capable of remedying the plaintiff s problem. In the area of taxpayer standing, the plaintifftaxpayer would normally have to demonstrate a particular and concrete harm through his or her tax liability caused by the government and correctable by the federal court. However, the taxpayer would not generally enjoy standing in a federal court to prevent the government from spending lawfully obtained tax money. The Court has more than a few times denied standing to those individuals who simply complained that the federal government was spending tax money for an activity argued to be unconstitutional.3 General taxpayer standing may be addressed in the political forum of the legislature, not the courts. There appears to be one narrow exception to the prudential proscription of federal adjudication for general taxpayer complaints, namely church/state complaints. In Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), the Court held that James Madisons Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments informed the germane sections of the US Constitution. Therein, Madison notes that no free society may force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment of religion. The Flast Court translated Madisons remark into a judicial test for general taxpayer standing. The Courts test requires the plaintiff-taxpayer to show that money
derived from the governments authority to tax and spend, I8(1) of the US Constitution, is being utilized to establish religion or otherwise violate the First Amendments Establishment clause. Thus, I8(1), the congressional Taxing and Spending clause, is, by virtue of Madisons remark, restricted by the First Amendments Establishment clause. A taxpayer who can argue that the government has utilized the Taxing and Spending clause of the federal or state constitution in the violation of the constitutional prohibition upon the establishment of religion will have standing in federal court to challenge the questioned use of governmental funds.4 A failure of general taxpayer standing does not mean a violation of the Establishment clause has not occurred any more than a taxpayers demonstration of general taxpayer standing will necessarily result in a final judgment on the merits for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, without demonstrating standing, there is no federal consideration of the merits of the plaintiff s claim.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
The importance and precision of the Flast test are seen in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982). The issue in contention concerned the receipt of a building and 77 acres, worth over $500 million, from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to Valley Forge Christian College, a sectarian school. The transfer was pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act (FPASA). The named respondent brought suit arguing a violation of the First Amendments prohibition of governmental establishment of religion. The Court denied standing, noting initially that while the Establishment clause may restrict the Taxing and Spending clause, the Establishment clause does not similarly limit the Federal Property clause of Article IV3(2). The FPASA was passed pursuant to IV3(2), not I8(1). If standing for general taxpayers is justified on the conflict of the First Amendment and I8(1) only, then the respondent above, while perhaps upset by an actual violation of the Establishment clause, is not in the constitutionally accepted position to judicially complain about the violation. Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the Court had made a mistake. The constitutional problem was that the Establishment Clause had been arguably violated, not how the government violated it. In that same light Justice William Brennan dissented, noting that Congress might now circumvent the general standing provision arising from a conflict between the Establishment clause and the Taxing and Spending clause simply by purchasing what the sectarian concern wanted or needed and presenting it to the concern, rather than allocating funds to the concern so that the concern might purchase the wants or needs itself. After Valley Forge, it was clear that general taxpayer standing requires a narrow confluence of congressional action pursuant to I8(1) and action involving the Establishment clause, and that standing may well be circumvented by the governments use of the Property clause (IV3(2)). On June 25, 2007, the Court decided Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (551 U.S. 587 (2007). Hein involved a 2001 executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose of the order was to ensure [that] private and charitable community groups, including religious oneshave the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field. Through a related executive order, President George
FIRST QUARTER 2012
W. Bush also created Executive Department Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within several federal agencies, to ensure that faith-based community groups would be eligible for federal financial support. The plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., with three of its members, brought suit alleging that the executive orders violated the Establishment clause by giving financial support to and organizing conferences for faith-based organizations, where the belief in God is extolled. Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the centers were created entirely within the Executive branch pursuant to executive discretion. Funding for the initiative arose from general discretionary funds appropriated by Congress to cover routine and discretionary executive spending. Thus, given the absence of a congressional statute that explicitly authorized and funded the complained-of executive action, there obtained no connection between the possible breach of the Establishment clause and I8(1), and thus the plaintiffs lacked general taxpayer standing. Justice David Souter, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stevens, noted that not only is there vertical incorporation, whereby rights enjoyed by an individual against the federal government may be enjoyed by that same individual against the state, but also that no one would think that the proscription against the governmental establishment of religion applied only to the Legislature. Moreover, if a similar act by Congress would be prevented without fear of violating separation of powers, then to so prevent the Executive branch from a like unconstitutional act would not violate separation of powers. Finally, in the spirit of Justice Brennan in Valley Forge, the Hein dissent noted that one way to circumvent Establishment clause adjudication by the general taxpayer previously established in Flast is for Congress not to pass violating legislation through I8(1), but rather to grant funds through I8(1) to the Executive, and allow the Executive to violate the Establishment clause. The most recent case denying standing for general taxpayers to challenge plausible Establishment clause violation is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S.___(2011). Arizona amended its tax code to allow taxpayers in that state a full tax credit for donations to Arizonas School Tuition Organizations (STOs). STOs provide scholarships directly to students wishing to attend private schools,
Crucifixion Porn
By Edwin Lyngar
t was nearly the date of my scheduled baptism, so the lead evangelist was called in for the final Bible study to make sure I was ready. I was 23 years old, and I was going to become a real Christian. But there was a final piece of business in the form of a loose sheaf of papers. What is it? I asked, looking over the five-page, single-spaced missive. Its not enough to hear about the crucifixion, said Scott, the evangelist. You have to understand the real agony Jesus suffered for your sin. The pages held a literal blow-byblow description of the crucifixion, with doctors notes, graphic explanations, and some illustrations of the torture tools, like whips. I didnt have time at that moment to read it in detail, but I was told to take it home and pray on the suffering of Jesus. I was told to focus on the reality of it: the pain, blood, whips, and finally the spear that had killed Jesus, because I had personally nailed Jesus to the cross with my sin. Thus did I have my first run-in with crucifixion pornthat unseemly fixation on the violent imagery and sadomasochistic sexuality that is such a big part of Evangelical Christianity. I must admit that I didnt give it
much thought, even though I was instructed to ruminate on it. Even in my nave youth, the crucifixion seemed distant and vaguely obscene to me, but I got baptized anyway. I knew even as I was dunked that I had not personally caused the suffering of Jesus, even as I struggled to pray away my doubt. I lasted just under two years as a fundamentalist Christian, and I drifted away from all religion a few years after that. Fifteen years after my baptism, I am an unabashed Atheist, but I am grateful for my flirtation with Christianity. I am most surprised that so little has changed in the fundamentalist community since my time inside it. If anything, there seems to be more emphasis on the pornographic violence of the crucifixion, and that some branches of Christianity seem more intent than ever to impose themselves onto every part of America, through government, culture, and bullying. The lesson that non-Christians can take from the pornographic imagery and mythology of modern Christianity is that it serves a real and diabolical purpose: to make wafflers feel guilty and afraid. Christianity needs iconographic violence to shock the flock into submission and, tragically, to frighten
children. The claims of divine love, are represented by a half-dead, naked, skeletal figure hanging on two pieces of wood. Yet when examined with critical distance, this pornography lacks real power, magic, or logicand love is out of the question. It has only shock value and does not motivate so much as horrify. The complementary nature of pornography and the crucifixion first caught my eye when I analyzed the search terms that were driving traffic to my blog, Armchairblasphemy.com. After I casually used the term crucifixion pornin a post, I discovered that this exact phrase was generating organic traffic from different search engines. Blasphemy porn was also a common search that led people to my blog. These two phrases accounted for 28% of my blog hits in one week, and a clear majority of organic search engine traffic. Im not sure exactly what these anonymous internet searchers were looking for, but its a safe bet they didnt find it on my blog. My personal experience in Christianity was as a participant in the American evangelical experience, but this isnt the only strain of Christianity that perpetrates crucifixion porn. The Catholic Church has raised cultish violence to dogmatic church doctrine,
FIRST QUARTER 2012
best symbolized by the Catholic crucifix, which is only complete when a little mangled Jesus is attached. The crucifix is only the opening salvo in a religion that appropriates blood, bones, and body tissue from saintly corpses that are used as relics in arcane traditions.The church practices de facto cannibalism, believing that through transubstantiation, bread and wine actually transform into the body and blood of Christ after being consecrated by a priest. Catholics demand that Atheists, non-believers, and other faiths respect these sacred practices, yet outside of church walls, these bizarre behaviors would get a person dismissed as a lunatic, perhaps even hospitalized. But faith
thousand years past these dark ages, why must we continue to wallow in the murder and blood of Jesus? Is the death of Jesus more tragic than any example we could pick from more recent history? With just the hint of historical retrospection, perhaps we should really examine if it is worse to be crucified for your beliefs, like Jesus, or to be burned alive for the crime of being called a witch. Witch burnings are actual, documented murders that were often performed in the name of Jesus. I dont know which death would be more painful, but they are clearly comparable. The burnings have the added horror of being deliberate, cruel, and undeniable historical
caused the suffering of millions. If Jesus was a real person, I am sorry that the Romans killed him. But I think witches, Atheists, and heretics of all kinds have paid more than enough for the death of one guy. If Jesus had actually lived, at least he made it into adulthood. Plus, he had the benefit of dying for his beliefs. Even in the modern world, women are stoned for adultery (or the perception of such). Children in Americathe so-called First Worlddie all the time because parents pray over them instead of taking them to a doctor. These people die in no less agony than Jesus, but they die for nothing, and as a direct result of misguided religion. The overemphasis on Jesus
I was told to focus on the reality of it: the pain, blood, whips, and f inally the spear that had killed Jesus, because I had personally nailed Jesus to the cross with my sin.
remains the tenuous excuse for these absurdities. Crucifixion porn also exists in pop culture, specifically in Christian books, film, and iconography. The violent, horrific imagery in The Passion of the Christ, directed by the morally challenged Mel Gibson, is the awful standard by which all other filth is measured. Although The Passions violence is not overtly sexual, it ties into the same base instincts that drive traditional pornography. The violence is so raw and visceral that it seems more of a sexual fetish than a religious film. For a moment, lets set aside the validity of Christianity itself so we can clearly view the death of Jesus as if he were a regular human being. I understand the history of human sacrifice at the heart of the Jesus mythology. Jesus might even be viewed in a positive historical light for eliminating the need for other human or animal murder to satiate gods hungry for blood sacrifices. However, now that we are two
FIRST QUARTER 2012
fact. Crucifixion is also a fact, used in the ancient world as common punishment and tool of war. What about the masses of nameless and faceless who were crucified for a thousand individual reasons? Were those deaths any less painful? The alleged, unremarkable death of Jesus didnt alleviate human suffering, but rather it created a brand new reason for religiously inspired torture and murder. Tens of thousands of women alone were burned alive over the years. This mass of suffering inflicted by Christians is but one of the actual tragedies of the Jesus myth. The murder of witches only scratches the surface of suffering caused by Jesus and his followers. Over the centuries Christians have burnt, disemboweled, strangled, and otherwise tortured other people to death regularly in his name. The Spanish Inquisition was nothing but institutionalized, divinely inspired murder. Yet in the 21st century, Christians focus exclusively on the pain of the one person who in essence
suffering to the exclusion of real pain and tragedy is pornographic itself. I fell away or in my words escaped the church a couple years after being baptized. Although the effects lingered for a while, I hold deep gratitude for my run-in with crucifixion porn, because I now recognize it for what it is. Other than lessons well learned, I have no further desire to wallow in the violence of this particular belief set, nor will I allow those who do to somehow tie me to the death of a carpenter two thousand years ago. It is my sincere hope that the people still drenched in the blood of Christ (their words), someday find a healthier way to orient their lives. Edwin Lyngar lives in Reno, Nevada with his wife and five children, and he blogs regularly about the corrosive influence of religion on politics at Armchairblasphemy.com. He holds advanced degrees in English from Antioch University and the University of Nevada, Reno.
Morality and the iMind

An Interview with Robert Kurzban
By C.E. Atkins
an Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection help us understand the social behavior of humans? Robert Kurzban believes so. As an evolutionary psychologist, he is interested in the specific functions of the mechanisms of the human mind. He is the Director of the Penn Laboratory for Experimental Evolutionary Psychology, which he founded in 2003. His research is devoted to learning what the evolved mechanisms of the human mind do to enhance the survival of the species. His book, Why Everyone Else is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind, is a fascinating read about our how our minds are structured, and some of the inconsistent behaviors that arise due to this structure. I began our interview by asking him to explain what he means when he says the brain has a modular structure. The idea is that the human brain consists of a lot of different mechanisms, each with its own job. Everyone knows that youve got a visual system thats responsible for seeing, a language system for talking, and so on. The argument I make in the book is that there is specialization like this all through
the human mind. We have specific modular systems designed for doing things like making friends, choosing our mates, presenting ourselves in a favorable way socially, and all the other separate things that we do as human beings. Would you explain your iMind analogy? One of the things I think is interesting about modern technology is how cell phones have evolved into smart phones. It used to be that phones were just used to make calls. Now theyre capable of doing a large number of different things. We call them smart phones because they bundle together lots of different applicationsall these narrowly specialized, computer programs that perform specific functions. This gives us a good analogy of whats going on in the human mind. The argument isnt that the mind is exactly like a cell phone. The argument is that this gives us a way to think about how something becomes useful. Well, it gets that way by bundling together lots of different specialized applications. Our brains are like that, too. Evolution by natural selection has led to minds that bundle together lots of useful mechanisms with different functions. Cell phones have a user who determines which application is going to be active at any given moment. The human mind is very different. It sort of has to make its own decisions. So various things going on in the environment will activate some modules and deactivate others. For example, say youre walking down the street and suddenly you see a bear. Your fear modules, your anti-predator systems, come online in the brain, and those in turn will inhibit other modular systems from being in play. In this situation, youre not as likely to notice potential mates, for instance. So the environment can have important effects on which modules are active and which ones are inactive. Thats not to say that there isnt a lot of stuff the brain itself is doing to activate and deactivate modules. You write about the four impatient modules: f ight, flee, feed, and have sex. Obviously, a lot us have problems overriding those modules when they come online. Describe the brains ability or lack of ability to intervene when those modules kick in. Over time, brains change in such a way that they become more or less likely to be able to inhibit the short-term sorts of things, the impatient modules. For example, different people become rewarded by
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Robert Kurzban
different kinds of things. You see different sorts of addictions and so on. We can learn, to some extent, to be able to inhibit impulses, to resist temptation, and so on. These things are quite complicated, but another way to put that is the environment can activate modules, but our own modules can also have an important role in activating and deactivating various modules in your head. You say, Indeed, I think there is some sense in which the part of you that feels like you is, more or less, designed to serve this public relations function. You are the Machiavellian spin doctor, and, as such, only a small part of the sum total of whats going on in your head. You say the self may be a f iction of sorts that functions like a press secretary for the organism. One of things found in psychological literature is that people often talk about a self. Its easy to imagine when people are discussing this, that they have in mind a little person in their head thats just as smart and intelligent as the whole person. That cant be right. So I think that whatever the self is, if there is such a thing, its a subsection of all the different parts of the mind. Given that there are all these modules that are causing our behavior and we dont always know why we do what we do, I think its probably the case that, because were social creatures, there has to be a system in place to explain our actions to other human beings. To help us navigate the social matrix? Yes. And in that sense, I talk about a module that functions as a press secretary. Other people have used this idea, too. Daniel Dennett has used this analogy. So this press secretary is one of our iMind apps? Yes. The idea is that you need some system that is designed to explain your behavior and make it look as positively plausible as
FIRST QUARTER 2012
possible, given all the constraints on the audience. And this plugs into some recent work thats been in the news, called the argumentative theory of reasoning. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber recently published a paper where they talk about the role of reason in human cognition, ways to persuade people about things that you want them to believe. And this is what Im arguing as well, in part. Our minds have, in part, design features that cause us to put out favorable propaganda so that others think well of us. For example, when we endorse overly optimistic views about ourselves, the way we claim to have controlled past events that were positive, and disassociate ourselves from events that were negative, my claim is that this is part of a propaganda module. That makes sense. So if I seek a certain mate and I know she likes a particular animal meat, Im going to use reason during the tribal hunting meeting to argue that we hunt in area X because I know that particular animal is more likely to be there, thereby potentially augmenting my standing with a particular female. But dont you think that reason has become more than just that over the course of evolution? I certainly would endorse that. I think theres something really nice about having mechanisms that allow you to make good inferences that are logical. If you have two facts, and you have logic on your side then you can often generate a third fact, and true things are useful for figuring stuff out, building tools, etc. It seems to me that theres a lot we do for reasons that are useful, not only in the context of persuading other people. Tool use is one. Certainly making inferences about the natural world can be really valuable. I want to switch subjects a bit to the survival function of morality. You write about people doing what they do, and then using morality to justify
their actions. People do use morality strategically. I do think that people pursue their interests and then, for the most part, make up explanations afterwards, often using a kind of moral discourse, the language of morality, but with no sense of consistency. And thats why a television program like The Daily Show is so good at what it does because its easy to show peoples inconsistencies. Unless you point these things out, people are free to be just as inconsistent as they please. People are pursing their selfinterests and doing what they want to do and then theyre justifying it post hoc with moral principles that are inconsistent with other moral principles. The example that I think is the most glaring in our modern environment is illegal drugs. People are falling all over themselves to say that we should have freedom. Republicans talk about freedom. Democrats talk about womens freedom in the case of abortion. Then you look at drug laws and all of the sudden people are saying no, thats something that we dont want people to be free to do. We want the state to intervene. And then they make up reasons like if people do drugs maybe theyll be less productive, and yet they dont make that argument for the other ways we become less productive, like with alcohol, or the health effects of smoking. I think theres tremendous hypocrisy, and I think that the question of why exactly that occurs is really interesting. So if morality is, or can be, at least in part, a smokescreen for me getting eight pieces of candy and you get three, where might we go with that in regard to building a real morality? People use morality as a smokescreen, but it doesnt have to be. I think that we have these great moral principles in various places,
Morality and the iMind

the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, talking about freedom and liberty. These are statements about how we think we ought to live as a community. I think the real challenge is to change morality from this kind of faade to something that we actually care about. If our position is that people ought to be able to do what they want as long as they dont hurt anyone else, whether intentionally or as an externality, then the federal government, state government, local government ought to not be able to abridge peoples ability to do that. Morality isnt a smokescreen then; it becomes a way to ground our ideas about the laws we want to have. So I think the direction for the future is to ask what would happen if we actually took these moral principles seriously? What if we actually did want a world in which governments cant impinge on peoples freedoms to do what they want in the bedroom, and in terms of what they eat and so on? And again, as long as theres no externalities or side effects. The government, however, does have a role saying I cant drive 120 miles an hour on the roads. Thats dangerous. It does seem that we have made real moral advances over the course of cultural evolution, for example with regard to slavery, the continuing emancipation of women, race relations, Steven Pinkers f indings on the decline of violence over the course of history, etc. Thats not to say that we dont have a long way to go, but it seems there has been genuine moral evolution. Would you agree? I do agree with that. I think in many places people are way better off than they used to be. But I would want to distinguish two different things in terms of moral progress. One is progress in terms of peoples welfare, that is to say freedom from harm. The other is the amount of goods we have to share amongst
ourselves because of things like markets and technology. I see moral progress as this gradual process whereby people are more and more allowed to do what they want. You dont have to take the view that the expansion of freedom is what morality is. You can think about morality as people compiling a list of all those things that people can be punished for doing. And I think that list should include stuff like harming other people. I think its great that we have laws that penalize people who would intentionally harm others. But we still have laws that prevent us from doing what we want to do where were not harming anyone else. I think thats the kind of moral progress we still need to work on. Let me just say for the record that I dont think that I need to have any kind of religious justification to take a moral stand. I think its perfectly reasonable for me to say, Look, it doesnt matter if I think theres a god or not, I happen not to. That doesnt change the fact that I endorse a certain set of moral principles. People are always going to disagree about the details of morality, right? I think that as we get better at writing down on paper, or I guess now its electronic documents, what we think the bedrock moral principles are, theres an opportunity for a lot more coordination around the world on what those principles might be. I think religion has some part to play in that, but I dont think its a necessary role. Do you think we can base a moral code on science, incorporating some of the principles of evolution and natural selection? Well, Im an evolutionary psychologist but I dont look to evolution for my moral principles. I do think that those are the sorts of things that have to emerge, not so much out of what we think is true, but what we want in terms of how
we want people to behave. So I think that understanding humans beings from an evolutionary point of view is really important for bringing about what it is that we want to bring about, for understanding how to organize cultural institutions, how people are going to respond to incentives, and how people are going to produce and consume public goods. I dont think that thats where I want to look for my morality. I think morality has to come sui generis. I, as an individual, think that the deepest moral principle is freedom, is liberty. I dont think that theres anything in evolution that can tell me the right way to structure political institutions and incentives, and that we want people to have the freedom to do as they please. That has to come from somewhere else. And people can and do disagree about that. What Im saying is that I dont need to understand the process of natural selection to have the view that thats something for which I want to work. What about the argument that we are now beginning to look to science for some of our legal standards, for example, to neuroscience with regard to the functionality of teenage brains as it relates to responsibility? Why wouldnt we look to science for a moral code? My claim isnt that we shouldnt look to science. My claim is that we should decide what we want and then use science to tell us how to get it. I think thats as true for the space program as it is for morality. So if it turns out that we want a world where people are free, we have to look to our understanding of human nature and economics and political science to understand how to bring about those goals. Then our understanding of people, societies, cultures, and so on becomes really important. Its just that looking to science comes after weve introspected about our
FIRST QUARTER 2012
own moral goals. What is your current research? One of the things that Im continuing to work on now is this idea of strategic morality. How is it that people are using morality to bring about their own strategic goals? Last year I published a paper called Sex, Drugs, and Moral Goals. Essentially, it examines the idea that people are using the morality surrounding drugs as a way to curb other peoples sexual natures. It might sound a bit odd, but we have some data that are consistent with that premise. If Im pursuing a long-term monogamous strategy, and illegal drugs are going to lead to promiscuity in the world around me, then I want to ban illegal drugs, mostly because I seek to reduce other peoples ability to implement promiscuous sexual strategies that may jeopardize my standing with my mate. Soand this maybe sounds a little cynicalthe idea is to link up these moral commitments to peoples goals to try to coerce other people. Were looking at some other data in collaboration with people in other countries. Fascinating stuff. Yeah, its fun. We think its interesting to try to think about morality from a strategic context, as a way to constrain other peoples behaviors. So thats been on the top of my agenda. Obviously youre not running for off ice with this idea, telling people their moral codes are tools of sexual coercion to benef it their own goals. What has been the reaction to this line of thinking? Weve gotten pretty minimal reaction to it so far. Ive been a little surprised. When I present this material, I find that psychologists are not particularly fond of it. People in other fields seem to be a little more interested. As you say, its not going to get me elected to say that your moral views are basically a stick
FIRST QUARTER 2012
youre holding over other peoples heads to get them to do what you want. People dont want to hear that. Part of the reason that were continuing to do this research is to try to illustrate this point and make it more plausible. The other thing Ive indicated in my written work is that we often dont know where morality comes from. John Haidt is a key name in this area. Hes shown that people have these intuitions that they cant explain. Our own morality is so opaque to us that peoples initial reaction is, Could that be why I care about drugs? Morality is difficult to be introspective about. My view is that morality has a much more sinister function than a whole lot of other people seem to think it has. Another issue that weve started to look at is prostitution. There are all these strange features and really funny inconsistencies with prostitution. You cant pay someone to have sex, unless somebody films it and then sells the film. Porn is legal, but prostitution is illegal. Having sex for money is okay if other people watch it on film. Were interested in why it is that people care about whos having sex with whom for what kind of implicit or explicit exchange of resources. We hope that by looking at these victimless crime cases we can get more insight into whats going on with peoples moral intuition. I see you battling sometimes with people who want to write off evolutionary psychology. Do you want to comment on that? I spend a decent amount of time fielding the arguments that people make about evolutionary psychology, which are the same ones that people have made for 20 years, and theyre inaccurate in the same way theyve been for 20 years. Why do people make these phantom arguments about the discipline, get red in the face spending nickels on these arguments that arent reasonable?
Its a good question. People think were trying to draw moral lessons from the science. They seem to live in some kind of existential fear that science will undermine their moral fabric and they get really upset about that. They bring to bear a lot of misconceptions and havent taken the time to really understand the field. Theres a famous quote thats variously attributed: The debates are so violent because the stakes are so small. I dont think the stakes are so small here, because were battling for our vision of human nature. Sometimes the stakes are big. People get really angry about this stuff. I dont think I have a lot of insight into why thats the case. Theyre trying to control your breeding opps. Maybe (laughs). Maybe your mimetic breeding in a sense. Right, theyre trying to control the marketplace of ideas. Theres this sort of Kuhnian aspect to it. In his book The Structure of Scientif ic Revolutions Thomas Kuhn says that as science changes, the people in power lose their grip on resources. One can understand why they would be emotional. I mean if someone was threatening my bread and butter I might get angry, too.
Robert Kurzban, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the Evolutionary Psychology Specialty Chief Editor at Frontiersin.org. He is also an Associate Editor for the evolutionary psychology journal Epjournal.net. Bryan Atkins is the creator and editor of Postgenetic.com, which proposes the development of crowd, computer, and individual-sourced postgenetic codes integrated with technology to help us navigate the exponential increases in cultural complexity and reality in general.
Faith Should Get No Respect

By Michael Spry
s one of the most visible comets of the 20th century, HaleBopp would have been newsworthy anyway. Easily seen with the naked eye for 18 consecutive months, it was a constant celebrity in the media spotlight. Then on March 26, 1997, Hale-Bopp reached a new pinnacle of notoriety. It was on this date that 39 decomposing bodies were discovered near San Diego, California. These individuals had apparently been part of a mass suicide and all were dressed in similar black attire with hoods over their heads. It turned out that they were members of a cult that believed it was actively taking refuge from a damaged Earth. They were convinced that a spacecraft was following the comet and their souls would board the vessel once their physical deaths were consummated. This was all part of a bizarre vision of biblical prophecy traced back to the 1970s and spun by two cult leaders. These 39 people had incredible faith, enough to gamble their very existence on an unusual and seemingly improbablecourse of action. One cannot deny the possibility that their souls did, in fact, make the jump and move on to a better place. There is no evidence of that outcome, of course, so the rest of us must suspect that they died on the fateful night they ingested their deadly cocktail.
Certainly from that time onward, the Hale-Bopp Comets legacy would be significantly linked with the Heavens Gate cult. On May 21, 2011, the world was supposed to endat least according to a radio host named Harold Camping. Camping embraced Old Testament entries that had been passed down for centuries in the oral storytelling tradition, and employed an incredibly convoluted series of Biblically-based calculations to arrive at this date. He even pinpointed a time of six p.m., EDT. I didnt place too much stock in this claim as I headed down to Costa Rica for a well-deserved vacation
Jesus was a no-show, as he had been on so many other days.

at that precise moment. There were people, howevervarious groups of Christianswho actually had confidence in Campings prediction and made ready for the end to come. For months they reached out to others through web sites and radio programs, trying to make sure that people had made their peace with Jesus.
On May 22, 2011, all over the planet Earth, people got up and attended to the normal activities of daily living. Folks took care of elimination, brushed their teeth, got dressed, ate breakfast, and did the things they would ordinarily do on such a day. Some faced malnutrition, thirst, disease, terror, and all manner of other privations. Many laid in the sun, dying with flies buzzing around themit was the end of the world for them. Jesus was a noshow, as he had been on so many other days. Meanwhile, Camping and his followers attempted to publicly wipe the proverbial egg from their own faces. Not surprisingly, Camping later predicted a new date for the end of the world. If at first you dont succeed . . . Actually, this would be his third failed prophecy. More may followfilm at 11. A popular choice on lists of strange religions, Scientology was the concoction of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950s. Employing evidence which was apparently only revealed to Hubbard, this viewpoint posits that a galactic tyrant named Xenu came to the Earth about 75 million years ago with billions of sentient beings called Thetans. The Thetans amassed around the bases of volcanoes, then hydrogen bombs were placed inside these geological protrusions and detonated. After the fireworks, the Thetans somehow
FIRST QUARTER 2012
set about attaching themselves to generation upon generation of the living (they must have had lots of fun piloting various dinosaurs. I wonder if that had anything to do with the ultimate dinoextinction). Having assumed the lives of many humans over the millennia, members of the Church of Scientology are now able to examine their pasts through a process called auditing. That is hardly all there is to it. As one might suspect, an extraordinary amount of additional detail is associated with their doctrine and dogma. Much of the discovery of pertinent points seems to separate adherents from their hardearned cashseveral names have been suggested for this process. A number of countries, including
Scientologists, and all manner of other religious notions from the far frontiers of imagination, a lot of people might conclude that the proponents were more than a bit out there. Would anyone, though, suggest that we shouldnt respect their constitutional right to pursue their respective beliefs no matter how wacky they may be? I would certainly give them the full measure of consideration because all citizens of the US are due freedom of religion as a birthright. I also expect a similar level of respect for my own right to believe what I want about metaphysical issues. Lets take it to the next level. How many people would find fault with me as an Atheistas a person of
they strive to use the machinery of government for religious purposes, when they belligerently bully those outside their ranks, they are asking to be challenged on the strength of their spiritual foundation. People cant expect to display that degree of stubborn self-righteousness without having to establish that their faith rests upon a substantial bedrock of evidence, logic, science, and/or other matters of sound reasoning. If this isnt provided, it begs the question of how such forceful and arrogant spiritual advocacy can be justified with or without consideration of religious establishments. The individuals with whom I conversed pointed out that faith cannot be challenged on this basis,
Much of the discovery of pertinent points seems to separate adherents from their hard-earned cash.
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, as well as the United Kingdom, have refused to recognize Scientology as a religion, but it is accepted as such in the good old U. S. of A. The church gets a serious chip on its shoulder with anyone who questions the validity of the liturgy and it loves to wield the sword of litigation in an effort to silence critics. This has not spared them a large measure of derision and ridicule, however, and they are often held in disdain by the broader public. That doesnt make them wrong, naturally, but a close examination of the fountainhead of their faith certainly begs a lot of questions on the wisdom of the thesis. Just what evidence was there for all of the thetanic adventures, and how did 75 million years of history become evident to L. Ron Hubbard of all people? A lot of folks are just cynical about these mysteries, I guess. Perhaps Hubbards background as a sci-fi writer feeds the suspicions of doubting Thomases. As we look at the Heavens Gate cult, the followers of Camping, the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
any sort for that matterif I didnt respect the irrationality exercised by those individuals? Would anyone damn me or find me bigoted because I look askance at these wayward souls for demonstrating an appallingly incoherent ability to think critically? Am I supposed to see them as virtuous because their nonsensical assessments reflect religious contemplation? I guess, in a way, I might hold the strength of their personal commitment in some regard, but aside from that, should I tip my hat to their apparent illogic like its a valued commodity? Do people generally revere stupidity or foolishness? I dont think so. Yet certain groups of people seem to demand such reverence for a not altogether dissimilar investment of faith. Recently, I had separate conversations with a couple of Christians about my book No Santa, No Tooth Fairy, No GodThe Need to Challenge Faith in America. In talking with them, I stressed that when religious people are attempting to base public policy on religion, when
that it is founded on something apart from reasoning. Faith is a matter which is grounded on more of an emotional and intuitive plane and is not generally built upon a platform of rationale. Little did they seem to realize, but each was confessing that religious faith is irrational. No doubt, they didnt think of it in those terms, but if something isnt rationally basedthat is, founded upon things like reason, evidence, and logicit is by default not rational. Belief instituted on faith alone is untenable from a cognitive perspective. It is a flight of untethered disregard for facts. One of the Christians who talked with me, however, absolutely insisted that I should respect her exercise of faith. I looked at her and shook my head side-to-side, telling her that I fully respected her right to embrace that faith as long as she, in turn, has a similar disposition toward me. In retrospect, I could have added that I can respect peoples kindness, dedication,
Three Lives of a Warrior: Part 3

by Phillip Butler, PhD
American Atheists Life Member Phillip Butler is a warrior with three lives. In our past two issues, Butler has given us accounts of his f irst life, as a young skeptic growing up in the Oklahoma Bible belt, and then his second life, during the Vietnam War where he spent eight years as a POW. This third and f inal excerpt, adapted from his book, Three Lives of a Warrior, jumps ahead more than three years to Butlers release and return home to a world he hardly recognizes.
Return With Honor.

T
hat was our POW mantra and guiding motto. Finally, after 2,855 days and nights of nightmare incarceration, on February 12, 1973, I boarded the first airplane out of Hanoi, with honor. I made the first flight because I was the seventh-longestheld POW. We were flown out in order of how long we had been incarcerated, with the sick and wounded also on the first airplane. It took several weeks to fly us all out. The flight from Hanoi to Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines took maybe an hour, though time didnt matter that day. When we arrived we were asked to walk down the stairs, one by one, in order of time spent as a POW. I was number eight. They announced our names and rank over a loudspeaker as we walked down. There was a huge crowd of people, TV cameras everywhere, and military brass like Ive never seen before or since. We rode shuttle buses for the two-mile trip to Balboa Hospital on the base and were astonished to see both sides of the road, for the entire distance, lined with cheering people waving and holding Welcome Home! signs. We pulled up to the hospital and got off the bus, again one by one as they announced our names. The Chief of Naval Operations and other Joint Chiefs were there, saluting us before we could give the honor first. Before we even walked into the hospital I was asked what I wanted to do first and I said I wanted to see a dentist. I had terrible pain from broken and impacted teeth and had suffered with
Welcome home by family in Tulsa, March 1973, one month after Butlers release Photos courtesy of Phil Butler
FIRST QUARTER 2012
it for years. One tooth, broken off as the first time I held her eight in 1966, had caused me constant years before. She just stared at me pain and swelling. the whole time I carried her down I was immediately escorted to the carpet to where Karen stood. a dental chair with four Air Force I reached out to embrace my wife dentists hovering over me. They and got a hug and a tepid kiss on were extremely nervous as they the cheek. We got into the back seat examined my tooth while debating of a car, and with Diane between us, and analyzing at the same time. It Karen sat as far away from me as was comical how they treated me she could. When I asked her what like sacred material. This was a big was going on, she said, Phil, I need deal because they hadnt known to tell you now that I intend to get what to expect from us. Were we a divorce. Then we were driven crazy? Volatile? Dangerous to to Balboa Naval Hospital in San ourselves or others? They had no Diego. clue. Karen told me she didnt want I finally asked them to calm me to come to our house because down and just fix my tooth. I it would be uncomfortable for her Captain Butler, 1981 needed a root canal, which they and her boyfriend, with whom she performed on the spot. What a relief ! It was the first had been in a relationship with for over three years. time in almost seven years that I had been without It was upsetting, to say the least. Her behavior at the dental pain. Ive never enjoyed anythingwell, relatively time seemed merciless. But with the passage of time it speakingmore than that root canal. turned out to be merciful, because I was freed to begin The first thing everybody wanted to do at the hospital a new life.
This country was desperate for heroes, and we got that assignment.
was to take a shower, even before we ate. Guys would get in the shower and stand there for an hour under the hot water. It felt so good to experience a warm shower with sweet-smelling soap, and to get the prison slime and stink off. We all ate five or six entrees at that first meal. I ate desserts until I was ready to die. It was so incredibly good to taste real food. The medical people were scared to death. They thought we were going to make ourselves sick, but we surprised them. The four years we were married were really good. But after eight years apart, we both had evidently become different people. It was also a different world. I couldnt understand that very well at the time, because I hadnt lived through those changes. The Vietnam War was as much a war of values for the world outside as it was a killing war for those inside. During those eight years I had been deeply involved in the killing, but totally isolated from the values. Because I had been in an information vacuum for eight years, everything was different, even our families. Many of us faced rejection and even immediate divorce from those whom we had loved and planned for during those long, dark years of incarceration. For me, returning home was a euphoric time, pasted with deep disappointments and distress. We ex-POWs had no idea how we would be received upon our return. World War II and Korean War POWs were not welcomed home warmly. But for us, the American public went crazy. The country was desperate for heroes, and we got that assignment.
WelcomeHome?
After a few days at the Clark Air Force Base hospital, I was flown to Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego to be reunited with my family. When I arrived, I walked onto a red carpet that stretched for 40 yards. There, at the end of the carpet, stood my wife, Karen, and my now eight-year-old daughter, Diane, whom I hadnt seen since she was two days old. When Diane saw me she immediately ran down the carpet and jumped into my arms. That was as big a thrill
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Three Lives of a Warrior

When I first came home I was grinding my teeth so badly at night I had to be fitted with dental guards so I could sleep without tearing my teeth up. I also had a hair-trigger temper that I fought to keep in control. I didnt like being in close confinement with a lot of other people; I had to slowly acclimate to that situation. For a while, I would awaken in the middle of the night and go check the door, just to make sure I could indeed open it and walk out. For years I absolutely could not stand the sound of somebody rattling Going home at last. Leaving Hanoi, February 12, 1973. keys. I would always ask them to We literally became instant, though I can remember seeing women stop and even grab their hands at temporary, military rock stars. with pierced ears, and asking if times. The sound pushed me close Everyone wanted to meet, hear, and they were gypsies or in some cult, to the edge, always reminding me of know you. It was Welcome Home because women in the 1950s wore the fear prompted by guards coming POWs! everywhere and people clip-on earrings. This was all totally down the cell block to take someone frequently recognized me when I new; little things like that were just out for interrogation and torture. (I went out. The reaction to our return amazing. And seeing women with no still to this day find it irritating, but seemed like an effort to compensate bras was pretty amazing too. There it doesnt drive me up the wall as it for the sordid and ungrateful way wasnt even a hint of such fashion used to when I first came home.)
For years I could not stand the sound of somebody rattling keys.
many returning Vietnam veterans had been treated over the years before the war finally ended. I left home in March 1965 and I returned in February 1973 to a fantasy world. For a while, everything was totally confusing. When I shopped for civilian clothes, I would walk into a store and literally have no idea what to buy. The wingtip shoes, buttondown Ivy League shirtsall the familiar clothes were gone. I was in a panic; I had never seen bellbottom trousers, great big checkered pants, or such goofy shoes. Everyone had long hair, so from the back I couldnt tell a man from a woman.
before I left. I had to learn how to write a check, went back to the DMV for a drivers test, and needed literally to be shown how to use a telephone again. The verbal expressions and the way people talked were so different. I needed a translator to understand what it all meant. The music was really different and the groups who sang soft protest songs were compelling to me. Later, when I was dating I found out dancing had changed dramatically. People danced without touching each other now. Ballroom dancing and all that romantic stuff of the past seemed to be ancient history.
The demon of post traumatic stress disorder was always lurking just around the corner because in my head I was still at war with our captors. I was filled with anger and bitternessit couldnt have been otherwiseand I had all these other things going on around me. I dont think I really began to understand my process and what I had been through until I was able to put it together in a social-psychological way in graduate school. While at the hospital I was debriefed on the chronological history of my time as a POW. During my imprisonment I had deliberately memorized every date, event,
FIRST QUARTER 2012
person, and move during those eight years because I knew if I ever got out alive I would be asked to repeat this stuff. Also, there wasnt much to do most of the time, so keeping the experiences and observations sorted and updated was a good mental distraction to pass the time. My debriefing, 36 hours total, was all data-oriented. The facts came out, but my true emotions were stuffed away and didnt start to surface until many years later. I virtually had to re-learn how to have feelings about myself and other people, about life around me because for so long, in order to survive, I had to give up those feelings. When the debriefing session was over, the socialization process of my third life began and I felt like Rip Van Winkle. Within a few months of returning I was promoted to the rank of Commander and was given my choice of first duty station. I decided to get a PhD in sociology at the University of California San Diego. I had a lot of catching up to do. The real catching up was in terms of finding out what had happened while I was gone. I lived in the library and soaked up stuff like a blotter. I was making up for eight years without any reading or writing materials whatsoever. I stormed through my course work in just two years because I was starved for information. After that it was back to the real Navy. I served at the Human Resource Management Center in San Diego for three years while conducting my field research, and then, as a faculty member at the Naval Postgraduate School
FIRST QUARTER 2012
I would awaken in the middle of the night and check the door, to make sure I could open it and walk out.
in Monterey, I completed my dissertation, Engineering Organization Change: The Case of Human Resource Management in the US Navy. It is a study that shows how the Navy wanted humanistic changes but approached individual and organization behavioral change they way they would an engineering project. Of course that didnt work
Phil and Barbara, SPCA volunteers, 2007
very well. I met my wife, Barbara Baldock, through her brother Chuck, a fellow POW. At the fifth San Diego-area POW reunion, on February 12, 1978, I spotted her sitting at a table with him. I couldnt take my eyes off her. I introduced myself and it turned out she was going through a divorce. After some discussion
and hesitation on Chucks part after all his dear baby sister didnt need a womanizer like me to make things worseBarbara and I finally connected by telephone. We fell in love and married two years later. I knew Chuck at Naval Air Station Lemoore, even before I went to Vietnam. He was shot down in March 1966. I was never in a cell with him, but we were able to communicate some. When I introduce him to people I like to say, This is my brother-in-law, Chuck, who was also a POW, but only for seven years. After 20 years of service, I left the Navy in 1981 to begin my new life as a civilian business owner. I founded Camelot Enterprises, became a trainer for National Training Laboratories, worked with the American Management Association, and was a sensitivity group trainer for business and organization executives. For the next 20 years I specialized in team-building with top management groups in corporations and other organizations. It was satisfying to see people come together and learn to speak honestly with each other, take responsibility for their own behaviors, and begin to work together to make good things happen. Talking about my POW experiences was an opportunity for me to make even more of a contribution, and I eventually started being called on to speak about my experiences, and to impart the lessons learned that are applicable everywhere. In a sense, my POW experiences became a personal gift, one that I could pass on to others. The act of doing this
Bible Bunk and Holy Horrors

By Michael B. Paulkovich
hose true believers, whom many of us denigrate by labeling them with the sobriquet Bible thumpers, can be a tad frustratingbut only if you lack a toolbox chocked with formidable facts. Pious churchgoers tend to ignore history, and even much scripture; and they have read works by apologists who have figured out ways to justify the Bible as a legitimate, moral text. (Anyone who has actually read it, with honesty, knows that it is neither legitimate nor moral.) Their excuses are usually feeble; they ignore the obvious evil and skip overor are blind tothe many contradictions. I cannot imagine that Sunday Bible studies ever bring up verses wherein Jesus suggests killing disobedient children, whipping slaves, or plucking your eyes out. Nor do they expose his praise of genocide. The Old Testament, as vile and immoral and murderous as it is, is often regarded as noble gods first, failed attempts, his son coming along several millennia later to render things right. Finally. How does one argue with the Bible believers? One can begin by showing them that the book is riddled with immoral acts as well as many contradictions. This proves them wrong about Bible inerrancy as well as its ethics. This is often a difficult task, as they have been trained to pull excuses from a quiver full of nonsense, but you should be at the ready to point out little-known atrocities and evil within their holy book. Next, bring up horrors perpetrated by Christians in the real world (as opposed to Biblical fantasies), able to do so solely because they had God on their side. The Bible is an enabler
for evil. It is our job, as rational freethinkers, to remind believers of the facts they ignore, or are unaware of. Even Jesus, a supposedly perfect soul, propagated tenets contrived by Bronze Age Hebrew men who sought wealth, power, and conquest of women (virgins in particular, for some reason) as they concocted laws and histories in their Tanakh. Christian apologists begin with the assumption that the Bible must be true (after all, it says it is true), then they attempt to find evidence supporting it. This is the opposite of critical thinking and scientific method. Consider the opinions in a book by Keith Ward enticingly named Is Religion Dangerous? When I came across the title I thought perhaps the author was on to something enlightening: I might learn even more about the dangers of religion than previously aware.
It is our job, as rational freethinkers, to remind believers of the facts they ignore.
Enlightening, yes, but not as I had hoped. Ward (a Christian theologian, it turned out) wastes no time offering his foregone conclusion: religion could not possibly be evil or dangerous. His introduction, on page one, declares such notions absurd. This is his credo throughout. One may cringe while
trudging through such mendacious and shallow efforts; nevertheless such jaunts can reap rewards by gaining insight into the whirling workings of brains that have been put through a thorough wash cycle without any subsequent tumble drying. One must treat harmful mendacities with umbrage; liars and obscurantists must be called out, refuted. The unctuous believers have infected and ravaged the world for far too long. Beliefs in some superstitions are innocuous; consider for example, astrology. Yet strongly-held beliefs in irrational notions that claim to be approved by some sort of all-powerful supernatural overlord often result in the oppression and murder of millions. So: award several points to astrology merely for innocuousness. I do not believe in it, but it does not rub or rile me to raise pen or sword any more than does my neighbors barking dog. Mere annoyances, both. Self-righteous cults proffering supernatural dogmas, on the other hand, are much more than merely annoying, to say the least. The philosophy and exegesis of a religious apologist rarely surprises the intelligent reader. Ward, for example, refers to the three Abrahamic monotheisms with blinders on: The God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a being of justice, mercy, and loving-kindness, who commands [commandsany hint of a mystical dictatorship here?] humans to be just, merciful and kind... (49). Surely, Wardtheologian, historian, author and scholarmust be acutely aware of the injustice, racial intolerance, and pervasive violence proffered by the Old Testament, the Quran, and even by the apparent words of Jesus. Does he truly believe his three-headed numen
FIRST QUARTER 2012
embodies justice, mercy, and Myles Coverdales ancient portmanteau: loving-kindness? You might want to advise your local Christian Thumpers and Bible Bambis to re-read the scriptures, and pay attention next time. After all, these are the words of god and his son! For example, in Exodus 22:18, Yahweh commands us to kill witches in contradiction to his earlier thou shalt not kill decree. One may ask what constitutes witchcraft; turning water into wine? Zapping the life out of a fig tree, or conjuring zombies, as the Bible claims of Jesus? In Numbers, god commands Moses, in an early faithbased initiative, to exterminate the Midianites, except virgin girls, whom they can keep for themselves (31:18). There are no instructions regarding
of religion across time. If they were not killed or tortured, their potential free thoughts were derailed in youth by a superstitious and morbid upbringing. Drinking the blood and eating the flesh of the son of god is one example, being an ancient liturgy pilfered from pagan practice long before Jesus. Wards writing is never acrimonious. Nevertheless he, like the typical believer, lacks the acumen of a logical, freethinking individual. Wards recollection of the history of religious atrocitiesthe very point of his book is spotty at best. To his credit, he admits to the iniquities of one of the Hebrew gods many genocidal decrees, in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (extermination of those annoying Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites), calling it perhaps the worst
Matthew 5:28-30 and the unholy dicta propounded by Jesus in that same sermon, such as convicting you of thought crimes (112). In his wise and peaceful pronunciations on the mount (or on a plain, according to Luke 6:1722), Jesus, the son of god, suggests selfmutilation as your only logical recourse: cut off your hand, pull out your eyes, Jesus advises in Matthew 18. And I thought chopping off the foreskin was a silly ritual and a crime against nature. While he does not specify, Ward must be referring to Matthew 5:21-22 for Jesus supposedly annulling violent Deuteronomic philosophies. Yet Jesus contradicts himself repeatedly, sometimes approving Hebrew law, sometimes dismissing it. Jesus often strikes up an intolerant and infinitely judgmental stance. This is something
Jesus decrees you may be his disciple only if you hate your entire family, and hate yourself.
how to distinguish virgins from nonvirgins, but virgin inspector must have been a pretty groovy profession back then. From a mans point of view. In Deuteronomy 20, god declares that after winning a battle, you can indeed take their women, but then must kill all males and livestock: save alive nothing that breatheth, loving Yahweh commands. In Genesis 19:58, Lot, a righteous man, sanctions the rape of his daughters. Later, Lots daughters get drunk with dear old Dad in an incestuous mnage troi (Gen 19:31-36). In Luke 14:26, Jesus decrees you may be his disciple only if you hate your entire family and hate yourself. Ask your Christian interlocutor if she hates herself and her family. Quran 2:6-7 commands you not to aid disbelievers, because Allah made them this way, and lusts for divine retribution: theirs will be an awful doom. There have been billions of victims
FIRST QUARTER 2012
of all primitive moral ideas (109). This is an admission regarding his own allloving creator! However it is not, by far, the worst. This mythical god, in a long line of other legendary deities, commands many bizarre dictates much more gruesome and immoral than his Deuteronomic decrees. The entire book of Joshua is much more violent and foul. Just by example: And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword commanded by god (6:21). Moreover, in Jude 1:5-8, Old Testament genocide is praised and unbelievers are banished to hell. Jesus himself speaks highly of father Yahwehs genocidal tantrums in Matthew 11:2024. Ward claims that Jesus Sermon on the Mount countermanded Yahwehs ridiculous and horrible (Wards word, not mine) decrees. Yet he ignores
Ward, a supposed expert on Christianity, seems to have missed. For example, in Mark 7:9-13 and Matthew 15:2-6, Jesus agrees with the Old Testament parenting instructions to kill your rebellious or stubborn son. As a Hebrew you are a hypocrite if you do not, so declares Jesus. In Luke 19, Jesus concludes a parable, strangely with no message of morality, by commanding: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Jesus condemns certain people to death and eternal hell simply because they had not repented (Mt 11:20-23). Loving Jesus often employs the vile trick of infinite blackmail, damning you for eternity if you merely do not follow him (Mt 25:40-46, Mt 10:33, Mt 12:30-31, Mk 3:29, Mk 8:38, Mk 16:16, Lk 12:10, Jn 3:36, Jn 8:24, Jn 12:48, Jn 15:6, etc.). Comedian Bill Hicks pointed out that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions gods infinite love.
Bible Bunk
Ward missesor chooses to ignoreJesus applauding Old Testament ethnic cleansing, and his violent proclamations such as Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34), and I am come to send fire on the earth (Lk 12:49). The typical Christian apologist explains away repugnant or contradictory scriptures using wordplay, pseudophilosophical legerdemain, or excuses of context and metaphor. Sending fire on the earth is no metaphor: Jesus repeatedly proclaims that the world will come to its scorching terminus within a generation (e.g. Mt 24, Mk 13, and many others. See Mt 13:40-43 for more eschatology). So much for Jesus countermanding gods primitive morals. (Arent Jesus and god supposed to be the same entity anyway?) Moreover, the idea of anybodyeven the son of god countermanding gods words is impossible according to the Bible, as gods laws never change, and are perfect, as in Isaiah 40:8, Psalms 18:30 and 19:7-8, and 1 Peter 1:25. Page 124 contains perhaps Wards most absurd claim: There are no serious objections to the moral perfection of Jesus. Is he completely unaware of the writings since the Enlightenment? Even believer C. S. Lewis had questioned Christ as being, just perhaps, immoral. The very words of Jesus should cause one to believe he was the Devil of Hell and a madman or something worse, contemplated Lewis. He wavered and waffled, resigning to proclaim Jesus (against all of his own logical arguments) Lord and God. With the canon as my witness, I must raise serious objections to any moral perfection of Jesus. The words that come to my mind are: - ignorant (Mt 6:25-6, Mt 6:34, Acts 10:38) - contradictory (Lk 16:16 vs. Mt 5:17 vs.
Rom 6:14 vs. Mt 19:17) - violent (Mk 7:10, Jude 1:5-8, Lk 19:27, Mt 11:20-24) - unjust (Lk 12:46-48) - unforgiving and devoid of empathy (Mt 23:14) - intolerant and racist (Mt 10:5-6, Mt 15:22-24, 2 John 1:10, Acts 13:17-19, Jude 1:5-8) - illogical and nonsensical (Mt 5:29-30, Mt 24:37-39, Mt 12:40, Jn 3:14). Thus, perfect does not describe this savior, sent from heaven in all his misty and golden glory. Such claims are stretches of Brobdingnagian proportions. Check your Bibles if you got em. Ward states Christians have given up the Torah and he holds certain New Testament sections as proof (119). If so, what might Ward think about the words of Jesus supporting so much of it? Christians who dismiss the Old Testament as Hebrew tales or simple parables should read Matthew 12:40, where Jesus believes Jonah lived in a fish, or Jude 1:5-8, where he believes the Sodom and Gomorrah myths, or Romans 1:26-27, where Paul supports the god hates fags decree of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, or John 3:14, where Jesus believes in a magical pole that cures snakebites (see also Numbers 21:8-9). The New Testament propagates Old Testament racism against nonHebrews ( Jude 1:5-8, Acts 13:17-19). The New Testament declares Lotthe cowardly and incestuous Old Testament characterto be a righteous man in 2 Peter 2:7 (NAS, NLT, ESV, ISV, NIV, and many other Bible versions; KJV and DRC use the adjective just to describe this repugnant patriarch). Christians have given up the Torah? This is something that we all should surely wish for, but is not the case. Very often I see televangelists on Sunday mornings citing the Old Testament scriptures as if they accurately reflect history. The History Channel ran a
series called Mysteries of the Bible examining the Old Testament tales in detail. One particular episode was about the Cain and Abel tale, believed to be the first murder ever. This, from The History Channel, for crying out loud! I know what the mysteries are. Why do people still believe this nonsense, in the 21st century? Pat Robertson, in his book, Answers to 200 of Lifes Most Probing Questions, states he actually believes in Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and that it is as good an explanation for what happened as there could be (55). Darwin, Sagan, and Hawking come to mind as three (of so many) who might just disagree with this conclusion. In Whats So Great About Christianity?, dripping with desperate tautology in attempt to prove the universe was created by god, Dinesh DSouza quotes from Psalm 19 (131). And DSouza claims that the Christian god did so completely and solely for the sake of we humans. Arrogant, shameless solipsism, so says I. DSouza actually declares the biblical account of how the universe was created is substantially correct (124). This is pure OT BS; nothing more, nothing less. Clearly most Christians have not given up the Torah; and the New Testament supports much of the Old Testament nonsense, a fact denied by Mr. Ward. The prime DSouza factoid that really gets my goat (not available as a burnt offering; so sorry for Yahweh, our bloodthirsty creator) is his ignorant or mendacious, I dont know which claim that the total number of deaths due to the Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch-hunts amounts to a mere 200,000 (215). The actual number is closer to four million. I do not know where Dinesh gets his numbers, but I have a hunch. In a debate against Christopher Hitchens (Is Christianity the Problem? CSPAN-2 Book TV, November 2007), he brings up the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
witch-hunts, limiting his argument to Salem. I finally researched it, he declares, learning that only eighteen witches were killed there. (I was somewhat surprised his adversary did not bring up the over one million Catharist witches violently put down by Christian forces; but on that day Hitch had to shoot many fish wallowing in Dineshs lame and watery barrel.) I am tempted to coin a term, DSouzoid for Dineshs ventures into malefic depths. Read his books and watch his debates. Every time you encounter a grossly false fact, relegate it to that pile. I am sure one can produce even larger piles consisting of Foxoids and Biblioids. While our esteemed Ward reluctantly admits to some Christian atrocities, such as the Crusades and Inquisitions, he nevertheless excuses them. In his chapter Religion and War, Ward claims Christianity had humanizing effects on the Roman Empire (66). I believe the tens of millions of victims tortured and murdered by Christian oppressors would disagreeif only they could have. Ward ignores the vast majority of perennial Christian transgressions against mankind. He touches upon one or two of their many inhuman horrors now and then, with but brief mention (and, of course, tepid, even fetid rationalization). Over the centuries, the telltale eye of history has witnessed Christians murdering apostates, people of rival religions, and even fellow Christians who had trivial spiritual discrepancies. They eradicated millions. For example: the Cathars, then the Stedingers, then masses of German peasants (in the Deutscher Bauernkrieg), all excused by biblical jurisprudence, or immoral decrees from religious leaders. Christian monks burned tens of thousands of witches while aliveapproved, and even urged on by every pope across many centuries.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Yet Ward actually asserts no one who has studied history could deny that most wars in human history have not been religious (73). I had to read that sentence twice; anyone who has studied history realizes the opposite is true. He backpedals: And in the case of those that have been religious, the religious component has usually been associated with some non-religious, social, ethnic, or political component... What religion has not been infiltrated by social, ethnic, or political components? I can name some, but the three main monotheisms have always had greedy and malevolent termites in their midst. Christian leaders have suppressed freethought for nearly two thousand years. The total number of lives taken in the name of mythical Jesus? It amounts to tens, even hundreds of millions, and it took Christianity fewer than twenty centuries to accomplish this feat of moral perfection. Ward seems only slightly aware of such atrocities. His sub-section The Crusades coversI kid you nota page and a half (68-69)! Again, this is the very subject of his work, entitledneed I remind you? Is Religion Dangerous? Clearly the negative effects that Christianity and the Bible brought aboutgenocide, torture, forgeries, censorship, large-scale annexation, and psychological blackmailfar outweigh the weak and sparse and apologetic positives. And Jesus never uttered a word, it seems, against slavery, ethnic cleansing, or the violent gladiator games of the times. Ward claims that all religious views are underpinned by highly sophisticated philosophical arguments (91). This statement is not only absurd, but sadly hilarious, while hilariously ironic. The archetypical believer in Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, or Yahweh did not arrive upon his or her faith through any kind of philosophical analysis, sophisticated or otherwise. The roots of such delusions usually lie
in childhood brainwashing, instilling unfalsifiable myths in the budding mind while still soft and tender and pliable. The true sources behind most ongoing religious, superstitious, and mythical beliefs stem from youthful indoctrination by parents. It is the reason Ward is a Christian, Bin Laden was a Muslim, the Dalai Lama a Buddhist. It is the reason Hitler remained Catholic. Being so raised, he claimed to be on a mission from his Christian god: Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, Wiener Lehr - und Leidensjahre). Any freethinking individual who has studied history can see that religion is, at face value, not merely dangerous, but a malignant behemoth guilty of mass murder and perpetual spiritual blackmail. This excludes, of course, the few truly peaceful religions, such as Mithraism, Jainism, Buddhism, Bahi Faith, Universal Unitarianism, and Quakerism, as well as Zamenhof s noble Homaranismo experiment. If only such benevolent belief systems were more universally embraced, what an even more wonderful world we would inhabit. I do truly blame Constantines cronies first, for choosing scripture from violent and immoral Hebrew and Christian cults. Too bad they did not pick, say, Buddhism or Mithraism. In Histoire des Origines du Christianisme, Bk 7, Marc-Aurle, Ernest Renen wrote: One could say that, had Christianity been terminated in its infancy due to some mortal affliction, the world would have become Mithraist. Then I blame emperor Theodosius I for declaring Christianity the only legal religion of the empire, in 391 CE, under penalty of death. Eusebius
by Ludwik Kowalski, PhD
Futile Confrontations
Between Theists and Atheists
Kowalski (shirt unbuttoned) at the 1951 May First Parade in Warsaw
utile conflicts between theists and Atheists, often amounting to we are better than you confrontations, are common, as one can verify by browsing the internet. Those who promote such poisonous conflicts are usually neither scientists nor theologians. Is it desirable to end such confrontations? Is it possible to end them? If yes, then how? I have posed this question to many online discussion groups, and here are some of the comments Ive received: 1. I dont mind coexistence with religion, but religious people seriously need to practice religion in their bedrooms only. As soon as you theists cross over the line and try to interfere with my life through politics, law, and lifestyle, then you can go shove it up you know where and expect no mercy from me. 2. Organized religions are often guilty of trying to convert Atheists and non-believers; this is not good. Atheists, calling themselves intellectuals, are not better. They also often try to convert believers. 3. The focus on belief or non-belief is counterproductive for both sides of the equation. The corrosive
element to the rhetoric of some modern Atheists is pure arrogance, matched only by that of some theists. 4. I am opposed to peaceful coexistence [with theists]. One does not halt a boxing match for fear of losing.1 My purpose here is to address conceptual conflicts between theists and Atheists, avoiding the word religion. To discuss religion, one would have to address differences between religions, political exploitation of theism and Atheism, and much more. Such important topics are certainly worth addressing, but not in a short essay. In Bridging Science and Religion: Why It Must Be Done, Robert John Russell says that the path toward a world without aggressive confrontations is in cooperation between theologians and scientists.2 I tend to disagree. Cooperation may or may not develop in the distant future; what should be done first is conceptual separation. The first step toward mutual respect between theists and Atheists should be the recognition that most people on Earth live in two different worlds: material
FIRST QUARTER 2012
and spiritual. Methods of validation of claims made of other victims of Stalinism. The victims are dead but by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are I was definitely with them when I was writing. What very different from those used by scientists exploring can be a better confirmation that many of us live in two our physical world. God is not a material entity, and different worlds, material and spiritual? attempts to refute gods existence by performing The idea that theism and science are two nonscientific experiments are not appropriate. The same is overlapping magisteria is not original; it was formulated true for attempts to refute scientific claims, such as the by Stephen Jay Gould. He wrote, The net of science age of the earth, on the basis of disagreements with holy covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) books. and why does it work this way (theory). The net of Theology is like mathematics, not science. religion extends over questions of moral meaning Mathematicians start with and value. These two magisteria axioms (initially accepted truths) do not overlap, nor do they and use logical derivation to encompass all inquiry (consider, justify consecutive claims, called for starters, the magisterium of theorems. Once proven, a theorem art and the meaning of beauty).5 cannot be rejected, unless a logical Informal cooperation between the error is found in the derivation. two camps will always exist; many Science is very different. scientists are also theologians Here, claims are justified, in the and many theologians are also final analysis, by experimental scientists. They will certainly observations, not by pure logic. A know which methodology of scientific claim becomes valid after validation is appropriate in each it is confirmed in reproducible of the two worlds, material and experiments. Furthermore, spiritual. scientific validations are always As I stated earlier, holy tentative; scientists know that books contain pronouncements future experiments might result about the physical world. Such in rejection, or partial rejection, of pronouncements are rooted in the what has already been accepted. incorrect beliefs of our ancestors, Scientific truth is not claimed to who lived when faith and science be eternal. were not yet separate disciplines. The methods of validation The story of creation, the world and refutation used by scientists being created in one week, for and theologians are sufficiently example, is no longer taken literally, Ludwik, at age five, with his Atheist different to justify separation even by many theologians. A parents, Moscow 1936. rather than cooperation. formal unambiguous recognition Separation will allow theists and Atheists to rethink of this, for example, by the Pontifical Academy of and reformulate basic ideas and methodologies. Until Sciences in the Vatican, would be a tremendously this happens, scientists should not participate in important step toward the elimination of futile debates. debates about the spiritual world, unless they happen Another commenter online opined that God means to also be theologians. Likewise, theologians should not something more sophisticated than the old man in the participate in debates about the material world, unless sky, rewarding the good and punishing the bad like a they happen to also be scientists. Debates about ways cosmic Santa Claus. It is not what proselytizers tell us, or to eliminate existing conflicts might last decades, if what tells terrorists to bomb buildings and trains. Yes, not centuries. They are likely to be more productive if political abuse of religion is also one of the important conducted separately. issues to be subsequently addressed. I am a scientist, not a theologian.3 As a university Commenting on relations between science and student in Poland from 1949 to 1957, I was an mathematics, one person wrote that science would be a aggressive Atheist and subsequently became a member shadow of itself if not for the math, and math wouldnt of the communist party. I am now a theist, believing be anywhere as significant if not for the science. Will in od and attending a synagogue. Missing an earlier theology also become a partner of science, as Russell introduction to god, I am very different from other expects? It is too early to speculate about this. One theists, and I describe my ideological evolution in my fact is undeniable: many professional theologians and autobiography, which Ive posted online.4 Writing it Continued on page 41 was a moral obligation, to my parents, and to millions
FIRST QUARTER 2012 atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 29
PLATINUM LIFE MEMBER
Sam Simon
Simon at the 2008 World Series of Poker

Photo by Matt Waldron/ Wikimedia Commons
ood without god? No problem for Sam Simon. American Atheists newest platinum life member had a successful career in television as the cocreator of The Simpsons and The George Carlin Show. His writing/directing/producing credits include The Drew Carey Show, Friends, Cheers, Taxi, and The Tracey Ullman Show. When he accepted his Emmy Awards for his accomplishments, its safe to bet that he didnt thank god. It would not be safe to bet in a card game if hes at the table, however. He competes in the World Series of Poker. And wins. Another interest is boxing. He trained and fought as an amateur, and for eight years managed Lamon Brewster, who in 2004, won the World Boxing Organization heavyweight championship. Someone this successful doesnt have to worry about earning a living anymore. So with the choice of doing pretty much anything in the world, how does he spend most of his time? With the Sam Simon Foundation, which
rescues dogs from shelters and humane societies and then trains them to be hearing dogs for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Or service dogs to veterans diagnosed with PTSD. Or dogs who visit assisted living facilities, providing residents with therapeutic benefits like lowered heart and stress rates, improved memory recall, social stimulus, or at the very least a high point of their day. In case youre reaching for your checkbook, dont bother. He accepts no donations and all of the foundations services, which include a mobile clinic that spays or neuters dogs and cats belonging to low-income families in Los Angeles, are funded by him. The most recent addition to the foundation is a mobile food bank that feeds 150 unemployed families every day. God has never been in his life, so Simon is a perfect example of someone who is helping to destroy the misconception that Atheists have no morals. So if his phenomenal generosity isnt a strategy to get into heaven, why do it? It makes him feel good. Good for you, Sam.
NEW LIFE MEMBERS

GOLD LIFE MEMBER Richard Gilberg SILVER LIFE MEMBERS Diane Buckner Ed Buckner Mark Demonbreun Eric Lichtenstein LIFE MEMBERS David Burrows Albert Collins Elaine Stone Eric Stone Frederick Van der lay Indra Zuno
FIRST QUARTER 2012
No Respect (From p. 19)

productive endeavors, humor, artistry, courage to defend the oppressed, and many other admirable traits regardless of religious affiliation. Asking me to respect a persons propping of religion with faith, however, is asking me to venerate irrationality, to find virtue in something that is indicative of faulty judgment. I cannot do that. It is like presuming that people should appreciate the thinking of Heavens Gate cult members, Harold Camping, or your average Scientologist. Mainstream religious practitioners might take exception to that, but this may simply be a matter of asking whose irrationality it is. Religious faith is religious faith. If beliefs are not based upon reason, quibbling over some quantitative degree of irrationality is pretty meaningless. Within Christianity, for example, there is no substantial evidence for god and validation of the existence of Jesus is shaky at best. The Gospels have been demonstrated to have been fiction, and the word of Paul is based on visions over someone he imagined to be otherworldly and not a person who walked the Earth. Church dogma has been conflicting and self-serving. The success of Christianity is largely a matter of historical inertia, childhood indoctrination, the promise of reward, and the threat of godly punishment if faith is not maintained. When it is scrutinized with even a modicum of objective effort, all of the props fall away and it collapses under its own weight. There is nothing there. Talk with any non-believer who was once a person of faith, and he or she will tell you how quickly the fallacies melt away. Reinforced by the dominance of their relative numbers and religious institutions, mainstream practitioners find that their complacency sets like mortar between small stones to contain questioning of faith. Worse, it gives believers false confidence for bullying, even though they really do not have strong ground upon which to stand.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Most Christians, for example, dont seem to mind laughing along with comedians or commentators as they make references to Heavens Gate, Harold Camping, or Scientologists. They dont realize, however, that their own foundation is fabricated from the same kind of papier-mch. All that is left to support religious belief is faith, pixy dust, and the theological emphasis on the importance of both. Everybody wants respect. As I state in my book, Atheists want a place of respect at Americas table just like everyone else. Im not expecting that were going to win over the warm affections of the masses immediately. Theyre not ready for that. We should, however, get the same kind of respect that most people receive on a default basis without the baggage of unwarranted biases which flow from the religious community. At least nonbelievers tend to base their theological views upon sound reasoning and a disciplined examination of dogma. This contrasts greatly with the incoherence of faith-based religious support. I am certainly one Atheist among many who is willing to respect religious people for all manner of things, first and foremost their right to believe. When it comes to respecting the exercise of faith, however, that is one bridge too far. Belief through faith is an act of cognitive weakness, not strength. I cannot deny its essence to gaze upon it as admirable any more than I can look up with reverence to the members of Heavens Gate, Harold Camping, or the Scientologists. Lets look at this one more way. If I told religious readers that there was a giant purple giraffe with red spots who lives on the dark side of the moon, and that this entity has the power to grant wishes to all who believe in her, how many would be eager to invest their faith in such a belief ? People would instantly want to know what evidence supports this creatures existence and how its powers could possibly be validated. Most would laugh at the
absurdity of such claims brought out of nowhere. How could such a being have any awareness of what occurs on Earth or any impact on planetary affairs from its lunar location? People would demand proof. Oddly enough, from a perspective of simplicity, it is probably far more likely that the giraffe could exist than an all-powerful god that governs and manipulates the entire universe. Note that none of us were around when the Christian/Jewish/ Islamic god was first proposed so that we could have similar reactions to his/ her/its possible existence. The gods of today were generally suggested in a far more primitive and gullible yesterday. Obviously, just about no one would say that faith in the giraffe is commendable, yet why is faith in any god more noble? It seems that when you take a 3,800-year-old legend about Yahweh that has no more proof and is just as unbelievable, run it through centuries of primitive cultures that were primed with fear, build a model of inculcation that requires faith to indoctrinate helpless children, then voil, nonsensical faith becomes a virtue. Still, if it looks like a duck, it acts like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck. Religious faith not based on substantial reasoning or evidence is irrational. This reality is a truth that cannot be twisted by wishful thinking. Believers may form a mutual admiration society among themselves which creates an illusion of respectability for faith, but in the end, it is what it is. Certainly, no reverence of it will be forthcoming from me. Michael Spry is the author of No Santa, No Tooth Fairy, No GodThe Need to Challenge Faith in America, available from Amazon.com and other booksellers. He is a contributor to the book Michigan Atheists Speak Out and coauthor of Adoption Without Fear. More information on the author and his book is online at http://webpages. charter.net/atheistsrus.
War on Christmas (From p. 7)

pertaining to science or church/state separation. The banners have honored Charles Darwin, John Adams, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, John Lennon, reason, and the First Amendment. Our displays were never directly critical of religion. This did not mean there was no resistance. After some confusion over our first post-holiday display, we attended a meeting of the grounds committee to make sure that our permit request was properly handled. One of the committee members attempted to throw out our permit request over what was essentially a typo. I quickly corrected the error on a spare copy I brought just in caseand placed it on the table before they could even finish their refusal. Two committee members were visibly angry. But we got our permit. On another occasion, the County wanted to have final approval on our message before we could put coverage. News cameras were attracted to the sound and fury like flies. I was asked a number of times about the war on Christmas. I told them that I had been a state director for American Atheists for almost ten years. If there were a war on Christmas, I would have gotten a memo. This all came to a head last December following the appearance of a display on the lawn which outraged the local Christian community. The display was a skeleton Santa on a cross. As one CBS affiliate news camera rolled, a local Leesburg woman, short on understanding and high on sanctimonious rage, went on to the courthouse grounds and vandalized the display. She did this in broad daylight, in front of a witnesses, and, to make it much worse, in front of a Loudoun County Sherriff s Deputy. The deputys response to the vandalism of a legal display on government property was to ask the reporter
As it turns out, the artist who placed the skeleton Santa on the lawn is a Christian.
up our banner. We refused, reminding them about their newly found respect for freedom of speech, and directed them to their own rules. After a hectic day, it was determined that, short of pornography, they had no right to censor our message in any way or even to see it in advance. In the end they had to relent again and let us on the lawn. The fact that the displays never attacked anyones religion did little to attenuate the hyperbole. While it is entirely legal to criticize religion in this country, and there is much to be critical about, the monthly signs were never directly critical of Christianity. Our approach was to completely avoid criticism of religion so that we could present a clean, simple message about church/state separation. The Fallout The main result of the signs has been to demonstrate that the Board and the religious community were being disingenuous by facilitating the religious displays under the ruse of free speech. Their knee-jerk, falling-sky, full-martyrdom response more than makes that point. It is clear that the only reason the secular displays were ever allowed on the lawn was so that they could keep the religious displays with some semblance of legal ass32 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org
to get off government property because news cameras are not permitted on the grounds. The deputy then walked past the vandal, declining to get involved in that and went back inside the building, which had a security camera mounted on the outside wall to provide a clear view of the display. The vandalism was shown several times on the local news of the CBS affiliate. The woman was identified and interviewed on camera. There was no arrest. The display was repaired and revandalized three more times. The camera on the county building, and one set up directly across the street by the Sheriff s Department, were both found to be not functioning at the time of any of the vandalism. The original vandals actions were applauded by local Christians. The Loudoun County prosecutor has so far declined to bring charges. Naturally, the Atheist community was accused of a hate crime for what was called an unconscionable attack on Christianity. This would be terrible...if it were true. As it turns out, the artist who placed the skeleton Santa on the lawn is a Christian. And, as it clearly states on his permit application, this was a commentary on the destruction of Christmas by commercialismsomething that both Atheists and Christians generally dislike. The skeleton Santa is still being blamed on the Atheists.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
War on Christmas
Local Support As you would expect, we got lots of criticism and evoked a lot of anger at board meetings, in the press, and on local message boards. More than a few hand gestures and shouts were thrown at us whenever we were putting up a banner. But we had at least as many thumbs up and shouts of encouragement from people driving by. And there were always supporters from the community who spoke in support of us at board meetings. Sometimes support came from surprising sources. As we were putting up our December display, right next to the nativity scene, a small group of carolers stopped by to provide us with a little Christmas music. When they were through singing, and as they walked away, one caroler hung back, walked up to us, and half-whispered, with a big grin, Richard Dawkins is my hero. The Lessons Were there any lessons to be gleaned from all of this? Several. First, the ballistics, the hyperbole, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Christian community is frequently divorced from relevant facts. Second, the adamantly religious cannot be counted on to behave responsibly. Third, the secular displays are not a war on Christmas. Most of us celebrate the holiday in a fairly conventional way and have never suggested that anyone not do so. Fourth, the best place for the religious displays is on religious property, where they are fully protected. No ones right to practice religion is diminished in any way by being able to put up any kind of religious display they want, any time they want, on their own property. Fifth, the religious groups do not have an absolute right to occupy government property. That right comes by permit only, and permits can be denied. In fact, most government property is already off-limits to religious displays. Sixth, our goal is to honor and protect the Constitution by making sure that the separation of church and state is rigorously observed and vigorously defended. The Constitution is our firewall against theocracy.
More of our vicious attacks on Christianity
Update As of this writing, the County has temporarily discontinued all displays on the lawn. The grounds committee has been tasked to come up with a solution. New rules will be delivered in August. Our recommendation to the board is to permanently ban all displays on the lawn, to prevent collusion between government and religion at any level and to counter the anti-constitutional notion that Christianity has a unique and unlimited right to mark government property.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Crumbling Wall (From p. 11)

the vast majority of which are sectarian. The tax credit limit is $500 per year. The taxpayer claims the credit simply by indicating on a state tax return that the amount due is reduced by up to $500. The taxpayer then writes two checks, the sum of which is equal to the amount due to the State of Arizona in tax obligation. Of the total amount of state tax due, up to $500 may go to the STO, with the remainder being paid as state tax due. The named respondent brought suit under the auspices of Flast, arguing that Arizona was taxing and spending in violation of the incorporated First Amendments proscription of neither discouraging nor promoting religion. Upon the second review following remand, Justice Kennedy for the Court noted that only under general taxpayer standing might the Arizona tax credit be challenged by the plaintiff, because the plaintiff could not demonstrate personal injury, as the tax credit failed to raise taxpayer liability. Justice Kennedy then argued that general taxpayer standing would likewise fail because no ones tax money was coerced to aid religion. All donations from Arizona taxpayers are voluntary. Second, the donations never come to the government, but rather go directly to the STOs from the taxpayer. No governmental action is required to effect donations to STOs with respect to the state treasury. Thus, there is no possible conflict between taxing and spending and the First Amendments Establishment clause. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan noted in passing that over $350 million had already been diverted from the state treasury to STOs. Moreover, the majoritys argument that the states action in providing for the tax credit is different from the states action in legislatively removing money from the state treasury to the STOs is a distinction in search of a difference. Is there a difference between tax money taken from the state treasury with, as opposed to without, taxpayer approval for purposes of the Establishment clause? The Establishment clause is a constitutional prohibition, not a provision, the purpose of which is to protect individual liberty. Moreover, the money donated was already Arizonas, as it was already due as state taxes. Echoing Justice Brennens tone in Valley Forge, rather than have the government support religion, the government might simply permit the taxpayer to support religion through the obligation the taxpayer already owes to the government. Cases Where the Court Did Not Deny Standing In all of the aforementioned cases, the parties sued
to prevent a constitutional wrong. In each case, the party sued not because of a particular harm to them, but because of the harm done in their knowing that the government was violating the Constitution. In these sorts of suits, the Court has but once allowed plaintiff standing. The Court has since read the Flast test as narrowly as possible and allowed circumvention of the general taxpayer standing option at every opportunity. From Valley Forge (1982) through Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (2011), the Court has essentially read I8(1) so narrowly that clear violations of the Establishment clause will not be addressed on their merits, for want of a party with standing to challenge the governments action.5 The circumvention of the Establishment clause is not exhausted with general taxpayer standing. Even where the plaintiff demonstrates standing, prevailing upon the merits is apparently also subject to some degree of circumvention. For example, in Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S.___(2010), Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, was upset by, and therefore avoided, a certain granite outcropping of rocks in the Mojave Desert in southeastern California. The outcropping, named Sunrise Rock, is located within the 1.6-million-acre Mojave National Preserve within the 25,000-square-mile Mojave Desert. Upon Sunrise Rock stood (and continues to stand) an unadorned white cross. The cross was placed there in 1934 by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). The cross was intended to commemorate the Americans who lost their lives in military service to their country due to the United States involvement in World War I. The VFW War Memorial cannot be seen from any major highway. Mr. Buono filed suit in federal district court, complaining that since the cross rests upon federal land, there is a violation of the First Amendments Establishment clause. Mr. Buono prayed for injunctive relief in having the cross removed. In 2002, the district court found that because of his use of the federal preserve and the inconvenience caused him by the religious symbol, he enjoyed standing. The district court then found that pursuant to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), because a reasonable observer would infer that the federal government either allowed a private party to place a uniquely Christian symbol upon federal land, or at least did not require its removal once the government became aware of its presence, the cross on federal land violated the Establishment clause. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Crumbling Wall
district court, yet allowed the cross to be encapsulated within a plywood box rather than removed. The government failed to appeal the Ninth Circuits affirmation of the district courts holding, and that holding became final. Thus, in 2004, it became settled legal fact that the cross upon Sunrise Rock violated the Establishment clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Congress had, during the period of federal litigation, passed legislation that disallowed federal funds to be employed to remove the cross. The legislation also provided $10,000 to secure a replica of the cross and memorial plaque, and designated the cross at Sunrise Rock a National Memorial Commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American Veterans of War. Finally, and most importantly, while the appeal before the Ninth Circuit was pending, Congress passed a Department of Defense Appropriations Act (PL 108-87, 8121(a), 117 Stat. 1100) in which the federal government exchanged the one acre of land containing Sunrise Rock for five acres of private land, with the condition that should the one acre ever be utilized for purposes other than as a memorial commemorating American Veterans of World War I, the property would revert to the federal government. Mr. Buono returned to the federal district court, requesting that the court hold the land transfer a violation of the Establishment clause and/or that the land transfer was in violation of the initial 2002 injunction. The district court simply dismissed the former claim, reasoning that inasmuch as the land transfer did not comply with the awarded injunction to remove the cross from the federal land, the plaintiff enjoyed standing to enforce the remedy he won in 2002. The court then awarded an injunction to prevent the land transfer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Court granted certiorari. The Courts plurality opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy. The plurality acknowledged that the plaintiff s standing to challenge the cross being on federal land did not entail the plaintiff s standing to challenge the land transfer. Had the plaintiff s challenge to the land transfer been based solely upon a claimed violation of the Establishment clause, Mr. Buono might have been denied standing under Valley Forge. Thus, Mr. Buono may well have enjoyed standing to challenge the initial location of the cross, but did not have standing to challenge the relocation of the cross to private property by means of the land exchange. However, the Court, with the exception of Justices
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, agreed that Mr. Buono enjoyed standing to challenge what he claimed to be a frustration or evasion of the district courts 2002 injunction. Along with the government, Justices Scalia and Thomas denied that Mr. Buono had standing to challenge the land exchange, because the injunction the plaintiff prayed for was to cure a constitutional problem that, by virtue of the land transfer, no longer exists. The injunction was sought to prevent a religious symbol from being displayed on federal property. The land transfer would satisfy the goal of the original injunction. The transfer would satisfy the injunctions purpose not by removing the cross from federal land, but rather by removing the federal from the land. The plaintiff was thus seeking an injunction that was different from, and broader than, the original injunction. The former injunction concerned what was to be accomplished, whereas the latter injunction concerned how it was to be accomplished. The plurality held that while Mr. Buono enjoyed standing to complain, he did not have reason to complain. The land exchange satisfied the injunction, as it eliminated the constitutional infirmity that was the cross being on federal property. Inasmuch as the purpose of the injunction was to effect a separation of government from religion, it is of little moment whether the religion is removed from the government or the government is removed from the religion. Moreover, Justices Kennedy and Alito appraised the land transfer as the preferred method of satisfying the initial injunction. The cross removal would satisfy the injunction, but at the expense of giving the impression that the government is depreciating religion. The land exchange satisfies the goal of the injunction but without any deprecatory implications. In dissent, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ginsburg, argued that the land transfer means of addressing the injunction is not preferred, as it engenders the impression of governmental endorsement of religion. This is because the land transfer appears but a continuation of the constitutional affront that gave rise to the need for the initial injunction. Problems Brought by Denying Standing With regard to Buono, one might well be puzzled by the pluralitys position regarding three issues. The first enigma created by the plurality concerns the respondents standing to challenge the land transfer, as well as the land transfer being a satisfactory means
Crumbling Wall
of addressing the initial injunction. That is to say, the land transfer is argued to satisfy the initial injunction, and that works as an abatement of Mr. Buonos standing for Justices Scalia and Thomas, but does not effect a similar result for the plurality. Justices Scalia and Thomas read the plaintiff s request for the injunction of the land exchange as beyond the scope of the original injunction to separate the cross from federal land, because the original injunction is argued to be satisfied by the transfer. But then, inasmuch as the plurality argued to the same conclusion about the original injunction being satisfied by the transfer, why did the plurality not likewise find that the plaintiff lacked standing for the second injunction? After all, if the plurality agrees that the land exchange satisfied the initial injunction, then the plaintiff s request for the second injunction arguably is a request for something beyond what was initially requested. Since the dissent did not hold that the land transfer satisfied the initial injunction, it is reasonable that the dissent would acknowledge the plaintiff s standing to challenge the land transfer. It is therefore arguable that on the topic of standing, the plurality and the Scalia-Thomas concurrence are inconsistent. It is also clear that on the topic of standing, the dissent and the Scalia-Thomas concurrence are consistent. There also appears a different sort of confusion when it is suggested that the Court inquire into the intention of those who initially placed the cross upon Sunrise Rock and the length of time the cross has stood thereon. Because the two questions concern the cross on federal land, they arguably concern the topic of the initial litigation, not that of the ensuing action concerning the appropriateness of the proposed remedy. The intentions of the parties and the length of time the cross has remained on Sunrise Rock are considerations appropriate to the initial litigation that is not open to review and is, therefore, irrelevant to the evaluation of the land transfer as a proper way of satisfying the initial injunction. Finally, the plurality argues that it is better to remove the federal from the land than to remove the cross from the same because the latter remedy manifests disrespect for religion. It may be questioned how the restoration of the status quo ante, in the face of an acknowledged Establishment clause violation, constitutes disrespect for religion. Arguably, to restore the state of affairs that existed prior to the constitutional violation, and in response to the violation, shows only disrespect for the violation. This is not to maintain that the congressional
remedy of transferring the federal land to the VFW is in itself an act of disrespect. Rather, it is being questioned whether the transfer, as an accommodative remedy to a judicially acknowledged violation of the Establishment clause, can be designated as more respectful of religion than the simple removal of that which initially violated the constitutional provision. Some Modest Observations There are a few observations one might reasonably make about the line of cases discussed. First, in the light of prior Court holdings that restrict general taxpayer standing to the narrow confluence of the Taxing and Spending clause of Article I I8(1) and the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, many a piece of state and federal legislation appears designed to conjoin governmental action supporting religion through avenues not capable of raising general taxpayer standing. From this, it would seem to follow that a failure to establish standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Establishment clause is no indication that such a violation has not been committed. Indeed, in some instances, the Constitution that state and federal governmental officials swear to protect and defend is seemingly violated or otherwise circumvented by the machinations of those same executive and legislative actors. It is true that not all of those referenced above are of one mind on the issue. Justices Scalia and Thomas would simply overrule Flast and eliminate general taxpayer standing. The advantage of this approach is that it would eliminate the necessity, exemplified by the Court positions in Hein and Winn, of denying either standing through tortuous and casuistic arguments. The clear disadvantage is that all these, and similar cases, would likely suffer dismissal with very little discussion, or none at all. If the majority of the Court are going to accept the narrow concept of general taxpayer standing based upon Madisons remark, then the plain meaning of the remark should arguably be utilized in the application to general taxpayer standing. Madisons remark refers to government, not merely to the legislature. If the Court had not narrowed Madisons remark, then the Court might have reached very different holdings about plaintiff standing in Valley Forge, Hein, and Winn. If the Valley Forge, Hein, and Winn plaintiffs had been determined to enjoy standing, it is reasonable to surmise that each case would have resulted in a determination that the Establishment clause had been violated. In Buono, the plaintiff s standing to challenge the display of the cross was settled law, and the majority
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Crumbling Wall
held that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the governments method of complying with the purpose of the injunction. But even though on private land, there remains a possible Establishment problem. Although the issue is ever so nuanced, it is not a chimera. The pluralitys idea of a religious symbol as a national war memorial is, given the purpose of the Establishment clause, a symbol the government is more, rather than less, proscribed from implementing as a war memorial. The government is free to use a variety of secular objects deemed germane as memorials. But it is not clear that the government may establish a religious qua religious symbol as a war memorial. The plurality might, of course, refer to its own Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), where the Court contended that a Ten Commandments display not legally challenged for 40 years had come to represent the areas historical and cultural heritage. But this, for the government, is to deny the essential and primary meaning of the religious symbol. The governments denial for the sake of the Establishment clause would amount to an insult to the religious group whose sectarian symbol was to be displayed. If the above is not mistaken, then the governments use of a religious symbol is improper given the Establishment clause. If the religious display by the government is to be proper, the symbols primary purpose and message must be extricated or at least made secondary. Either way, either the religious group will be unhappy or the Constitution will be trespassed. That the plurality helped the cross become a national memorial is yet problematic even though it doesnt stand on private land. Clifton Perry, PhD, JD, LLM, is the Hudson Professor of Political Science at Auburn University. He is admitted to the bar in Alabama, New Mexico, Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, and Arizona. He is also a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. ENDNOTES
1 2
U.S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1976). There are many programmatic reasons for this requirement, the chief one of which is the likely benefit actual harm to the plaintiff will bring to the quality of judicial decision-making. When conjoined to the principle of Stare Decisis, the implication is that only the very best judicial judgments should find future parties in similar disputes. 3 Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), Schlesinger v. Reservists Committed to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974), to mention but two.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
The Establishment clause of the First Amendment was incorporated against the states in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1974). 5 There are other very interesting and recent First Amendment cases with Establishment implications. Consider briefly Pleasant Grove City v. Summun, 555 U.S.___ (2009). The petitioner, a town in Utah, accepted various displays to show in their city park. One such display is a Ten Commandments monument. The respondent, a Gnostic Christian Group, wished to have their Seven Aphorisms likewise displayed. Petitioner refused and the respondent brought suit arguing a violation of free exercise and free speech. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit, noting that the displays donated to the city become city property. The Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses protect private expression from governmental suppression. The sections of the First Amendment do not govern governmental expression, as it is not private. Justices Scalia and Thomas, concurring, noted that it would appear that the petitioner had pulled itself out of the frying pan of Free Speech and Free Exercise challenges and into the fire of an Establishment challenge. Recently, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 US___(2012), the Court upheld the churchs defense against two alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by reference to the Establishment clause. According to the so-called ministerial exception, the Establishment clause protects the religious organizations plenary power to pick its own officers notwithstanding concerns about discrimination on the basis of a disability. A perhaps more tenuous Establishment connection is illustrated by Christian Legal Society of University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S.___ (2010). The case centers around a Hastings College of Laws (HCLs) nondiscrimination policy for Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) and the Christian Legal Societys (CLSs) application for RSO status while discriminating against non-Christians, homosexuals, and those who engage or believe in the propriety of sex outside of marriage. HCL rejected RSO status to CLS and thus denied certain university secular benefits to the student group. However, HCLs rejection was not suppression of the student groups speech or exercise. CLS sued HCL on the grounds of Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Association. The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit held that HCLs policy is neutral and of general applicability, and therefore amounted to a policy of simple non-discrimination in compliance with California law. The Court agreed and noted that HCL did not interfere with the CLSs First Amendment rights; it simply did not extend the effort to make the exercise easier for the CLS. In dissent, Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas along with Chief Justice Roberts argued that the law schools non-discrimination policy discriminates against the discrimination by the CLS, and that the CLSs discrimination is a sine qua non of CLS. If the dissent were correct, then one of the Establishments tests, i.e., that the government neither promotes nor hinders religion, would be arguably jeopardized.
4
Blue Collar Atheist (From p. 9)

But in late morning on the fourth day, while I was sitting with him, the cadence of breaths suddenly changed, and got softer and slower. And then stopped. A nurse came in only a minute later to give him a shot of morphine, and I choked out, I think he just died. I stayed with him for another hour, just looking at him. Touching his forehead, I could feel his body slowly cooling. It was only many days later that I finally thought about Jesus and God, and some sort of fluffy afterlife, and the thought struck me as funny. In what some would imagine to be the acid test of Atheism, the death of a parent, I got an easy A. I hope I made a difference in Dans last few days. I think I did. As long as I was there to tell him what was happening, he was noticeably calmer when the nurses came in to move him, or administer shots. He looked at me, seemed to like hearing me talk. I sat for hours stroking his forehead with a cool, wet cloth. I thought about him a lot over those four days, and later, finding things to be grateful for. From mutual friends, I had learned that he felt I was a plus in his last 35 years, as he was in mine, although its difficult to imagine he gained as much as I did. But Dan got to see me, his surrogate son, grow up (as much as I managed, anyway) and become my own man. He got to see me go out and have my own adventures in the world, and fight my own battles, and he loved hearing the stories. He got to read my Atheist book, and he liked it. After he died, I drove out to one of the dusty desert roads nearby, and got out of the car. I looked at the snow-dusted mountains all around, the mountains we had both loved so much, and I found myself shouting, I knew this man! He was my Dad! Nothing can ever change that!
I did it for my own benefit and nobody elses, nailing down in my head what I felt for him, what hed meant to me. But I also did it simply because howling seemed to be required. For 35 years, Id had one of the big dogs in my life, and now he was gone. I got to help clean out his cabin later that day, and came away with his spurs and chaps and a couple of other small keepsakes. Back home a few days later, I arranged these things on the bookshelf near my bed, calling it my Dan shrine. His ashes arrived a few weeks later, and I put the box on the same shelf, joking that not only do I have a Dan shrine, now I have Dan to go with it. Id told him I would take his ashes to one of his favorite wilderness haunts. Some small part of me, a leftover from my religious background, wants to feel greater significance in those ashes, something woo-woo and spirit-y, but theyre just ashesa box of randomized matter that was once owned by my departed friend. But also something I made a promise about to a dying old man, a promise I will honor with solemn pleasure later this summer. After a train wreck of a childhood with my real parentsnice Christians, allit was the confidence I gained in my time with Dan that allowed me to follow my own thoughts and feelings and become a fully-realized Atheist. It was with his encouragement and by his example that I wrote my book, Red Neck, Blue Collar, Atheist: Simple Thoughts About Reason, Gods & Faith. A copy of that book was one of the things I retrieved from his cabin. I ferreted it away so nobody else would see it. Partly, it was kindnessI didnt want to shock anybody (his Catholic ex-wife, for instance) with it. But also, in that moment, it just wasnt something I was willing to share with them. One of his final hospital visitors
was also one of his last lady friends. A large woman, she made what I considered an appalling fuss at his bedside, smothering him with kisses, shouting for nursesBring this man some water!and bursting into huge histrionic tears. But she also made me wonder if she might have seen him reading my book. In deeply confidential tones, she shared with me what she obviously considered a shocking secret: Did you know Dan is an Atheist? He is! He dont believe in God! A companion there with her chuckled at the thought. Well, hell find out soon enough. Knowing Id been able to come see my dying Dad, to touch hands and hearts with him this one last time, only through the compassion of a community of generous unbelievers those whom plenty of people would see as cold, standoffish, deliberately wickedI smiled and thought my own thoughts. The whole thing is still evolving in my head. I find myself missing him a dozen times a day, wishing I could call and talk to him one more time, each time facing the fact that hes gone forever. In light of all this, I can definitely see the lure of religion. But I cant accept it. Not a bit of it. Not ever. If my Dad taught me anything, its to be your own self. To think your own thoughts, to never hide who and what you are, and to never shy away from true things. Hank Fox, born in 1952, has been on an Atheist journey since age 13. He grew up with rodeo cowboys in Texas, rode bulls, and worked with horses and mules in California. He blogs as the Blue Collar Atheist at FreethoughtBlogs.com. His book, Red Neck, Blue Collar, Atheist: Simple Thoughts About Reason, Gods & Faith, is available on amazon.com and elsewhere.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Bible Bunk (From p. 27)

was also a very dishonest and central contributor to the tall tales and subsequent atrocities, all based on myths and oral tradition and nonsense, some scrawled and copied by ignorant cultists, including dishonest Christian fathers. Dont get me started on Popes Innocent III, Gregory I, or Innocent VIII, or well be here all day. The current pope, Herr Ratzinger, is also worthy of many books exposing his immoral and illegal actions committed while wrapped in flowing female eveningwear andnow in his current position as infallible Vicar of Christ comical headdress. Summary Christians, Muslims, and Mosesbelieving Hebrews will find that Ward preaches to their choir, and will appreciate his book, as long as they remain ignorant of history and of actual words of violence and intolerance recorded in the Bible, Torah, and Quran. No freethinker, aware of history, will find anything of value in Wards flaccid 21st-century Christian apology. Perhaps simply by subtle contrast, Pat Robertsons aforementioned publication offers a laugh on every page. It is like a book report on the Bible written by a nine-year-old. DSouzas rants are merely sad and embarrassing: to him, and to humanity. And if anyone offers you Lee Strobels works, be sure to counter with the truths in the many publications by Bart Ehrman, as well as Robert Price, Frank Zindler, and Joseph Wheless. One must be honest, and sometimes even vitriolic about this subject, because Christians cling to the claims made by people like Ward, DSouza, Robertson, Strobel, William Lane Craig, and Frank Turek, their heads buried deep in superstitious sand, with a cherry-picking of the good parts of
FIRST QUARTER 2012
the Bible (and apparent ignorance of actual history and Bible anathemas). Such beliefs and disjointed obstinance are ultimately dangerous. Never has any act of genocide or suicide bombing been perpetrated by, for instance, a Jain or a level-headed secularist. To help convince them that they are perhaps misguided, simply point believers to the evil parts of the Bible, the plethora of contradictions, and the sad, mad results that these religions have exacted across the millennia. Such a task might seem almost impossible, but take heart. Many true believers have come to their right minds. Contemporary examples include Christians who had sought to become preachers, including Ehrman, Matt Dillahunty, David Smalley, and Dan Barker. They studied the Bible to such a great extent that they finally pulled their heads from Christendoms contradictory and immoral mud pies to realize it is, in fact, 99 and 44/100% pure: that is, pure bullshit. Point out the atrocities, the millions murdered in the name of Jesus, and contrast that with the number of people killed by, say, Quakers or Jains. By very definition, Quakers and Jains cannot use their religion to rationalize murder, or any evil action. Yet Christians are able to cite multiple scriptures to prove that gays should be killed, god supports slavery, misogyny is valid, and the notion that Christians should travel the world and preach their religion while annexing all lands occupied by heathens. The core of your argument can rightly be: if the Bible never existed, then early Hebrews and later Christians could not have claimed god on their side in performing their many immoral and murderous acts, still in practice today. No Crusades, no witchhunts, no Inquisitions, no oppression of gays, apostates, non-virgin brides, or people of other belief systems. If no
Bible: peace, prosperity, continuation of Hellenistic enlightenment, and no Dark Ages. Michael B. Paulkovich, a systems engineer at NASA, came out as a non-believer in the previous issue of this magazine. Raised Protestant, he questioned both the Santa Claus and the Jesus stories around age ten, and considers his brain to be recovered from the washing it received as a child. Suggested reading: 1. Treatments on Bible absurdities and errors: - The Bible Handbook by W.P Ball. - The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey 2. Scholarly and neutral examination of the Bible: - Constantines Bible by David L. Dungan - New Oxford Annotated Bible - Bart Ehrman (any of his books) 3. Witch-hunts throughout history: - The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade by M.D. Costen - The Devil in the Shape of a Woman by Carol F. Karlsen - The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe by Brian Levack - Witchcraft in the Middle Ages by Jeffrey Burton Russell 4. Scholarly treatment of deities and religions: - Man and His Gods by Homer W. Smith - The Womens Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara Walker - The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson
Three Lives of a Warrior (From p. 23)

was of enormous value for me. Ive been an Atheist for probably our guards, interrogators, and camp Unfortunately, the physical more than 40 years. I say probably officials. We hated them with such requirements of constant travel because like most Atheists, I passion that we resisted them with became too onerous. The was one before I realized it. My every fiber of our beings. This, I think, is a key lesson uncoordinated ejection from my journey began in my early teens, plane resulted in seven compression- when I started to reject the hard- when it comes to interrogation and fractured vertebrae. I have heart, shell, inhumane teachings of interrogation techniques, especially skeletal, and neurological problems fundamentalist Southern Baptists. since the issue of enhanced from malnutrition, beriberi, and the I resent Christians who try to co- interrogation techniques has come other diseases I had in prison. I have opt ethics, integrity, and virtue as a to the fore while fighting Al Qaeda. It has been proven to this day that if osteoarthritis and osteoporosis from result of belief in god. years of malnutrition and physical They even try to co-opt our legal you want something from a prisoner abuse. I live with constant tinnitus system, so its not going to surprise or a prisoner of war, the way to do from multiple broken eardrums. anyone that I raised the issue of it is to be decent and respectful and But thanks to wonderful VA care torture back in 2002 when it was not to do the kinds of things they and a magnificently understanding first surfacingwith America as did to us. Nor what we apparently and supportive wife, Im doing the perpetrator this time. I am did to people we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. well these days. I We prisoners all can continue to had to be hard-line, work because I have but that didnt mean taken my socialwe didnt discuss issues psychological training about the war when back to the individual we had cell mates later level of analysis. I work in our captivity. We one-on-one, exploring tried to understand, the processes that through discussions, go on inside the why we were in this individual. My clients war. Most of the guys have to be open and who had been shot willing to talk about down said that most whats going on inside of their missions had them and my goal is no real, viable, military to help them work on targets. They called it and solve their own Butler at the Peace and Justice Center, Seaside, California, 2009 bombing snakes and problems. Im vitally concerned with making this life incensed, astounded, and massively monkeys. But we couldnt afford for it not on Earth as good as possible, even disappointed in how Americans heaven-like, for myself and everyone tolerate the blatant violations of our to make sense. Not as prisoners else, because I dont count on there Constitution. The single event of and not as veterans, given all being any other heaven. 9/11, horrendous though it was, was that we had been through. These When people learn I am an not a full-scale war. That Americans were the lessons of our military Atheist, they sometimes reprise the would react as though it was, and indoctrination. For POWs, they line that there are no atheists in then buy into torture, which doesnt were the lessons we learned in order foxholes. This is no more true than even work, just made me heartsick. to become hardened to deal with the sad distortion that we never leave One of the factors that kept the interrogators. Vietnam veterans often take one our dead soldiers behind. On a scale American POWs in Vietnam of religiosity, POWs were just like determined and resistant was anger. of two courses to rationalize their a normal curve of Americans. We From 1965 up through almost service. One direction, to the right, were everything from non-believers all of 1969 we were abused and is to say they had done their job the to people for whom religion was a tortured so much that every one of best they could, only to be betrayed huge part of life. us developed an intense hatred for by the political system and the
40 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org FIRST QUARTER 2012
Three Lives of a Warrior

policies of the left wing. They often say they should have been allowed to continue to fight and win the war but it was the politics that defeated us. We should have defeated the communists, so the Vietnamese people could have freedom and democracy. The other direction, to the left, is to make sense of it all in a different way. Its the path Ive taken after considerable soul-searching and study: we never should have been there in the first place. The war was a cataclysmic mistake that this country will carry for generations to come. Just like the way we have carried the effects of the Civil War throughout our society for almost 150 years, we will carry the effects of this war in our culture for decades, maybe centuries. The bottom line for me is that American warriors performed courageously, selflessly, and loyally for their country. We did our very best and should be given credit as warriors for having done what we were sent to do. In the end, the way I make sense of the Vietnam War and all of the wars and interventions since World War IIis to hate the war but love and respect the warriors. Im no longer a warrior for war, but a warrior for peace and justice. But that doesnt mean Im a pacifist. The fact is, there are different kinds of wars. If we were to be invaded by some other nation or military entity, with bad guys coming toward my town, this old man would be one of the first to the barricades. Id have to borrow a gun though because I dont own one anymore. I have physical disabilities as a result of my prison experience that are daily reminders of what I went through. It was an experience that no amount of money or reward on this planet could get me to go through again. By the same token, I wouldnt
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Confrontations (From p. 29)

trade it for any amount of money or reward on this planet. Those eight years were the most powerful and defining of my life. I am who I am as a result of that time. It brought about a lot of introspection that has been so valuable in my third life. I have all kinds of other benefits from having been a prisoner of war. There is the enjoyment of turning a doorknob and walking through a door, something that nobody would think about unless they had had the experience of losing their freedom by being locked up with all your actions controlled by armed and hostile guards. Writing my book has reminded me of how thankful and incredibly fortunate I am to be here today. I have been blessed with a loving family, good friends, reasonably good health, an excellent and extensive education, and a rich and interesting life. Because of that Im motivated to help make a few things better for other people, animals, plants, and this lovely blue marble we call Earth. For all those, I hope this testament of my three lives as a warrior will serve in some positive way. Perhaps it will motivate others to Live With Honor so that things might become just a little better because we were here. Phils website, phillipbutlerphd.com, contains more photos, relevant links, and additional writing. From there you can go to threelivesofawarrior. com and order the book or download scientists usually respect each other. And they know which methodology of validation is applicable in each field. Ludwik Kowalski is Professor Emeritus of Physics at Montclair University.
The author, 2009
His evolution, from being an active atheistic student in Poland, to a theist, is described in his on-line autobiography: http://csam.montclair. edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html Endnotes Collected internet comments: http://pages.csam.montclair edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html.
1 2
Russell, Robert John. Bridging Science and Religion: Why it Must be Done at http://www ctns.org/about_history.html. Kowalski, Ludwik Publications: http://csam montclair.edu/~kowalski LK_publications.html.
3 4
Kowalski, Ludwik. Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality at http://csam.montclair edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html.
5
Butlers license plate 2,855 days and nights
Gould, Stephen Jay. Non overlapping Magisteria, Natural History, Volume 106, March 1997, pp. 16-22, at www.stephenjaygould org/library/gould_noma.html.
STATE DIRECTORS SPOTLIGHT

by Al Stefanelli
Edwin Hensley
Kentucky State Director for American Atheists
lease allow me to introduce Edwin Hensley, our Kentucky State Director. Like many of us, Ed was a dedicated fundamentalist Christian who became an Atheist through his analysis of the Bible and investigating the history of the church. Having taken over the role in 2010 from our National Legal Director, Edwin Kagin, Ed has done a remarkable job in furthering the causes of American Atheists. I had the pleasure of speaking to him about some of the issues that he is involved with in Kentucky, and I can report with great confidence that he is very much dedicated to the principles of the total and complete separation of religion from government, and speaks with a level energy and enthusiasm that leaves no doubt about his future successes. Ed has been working tirelessly to unify all the freethought groups in Kentucky. In fact, September 22, 2012, will see the very first Kentucky Freethought Convention, to be held in Lexington at the University of Kentucky. This summer the Louisville Atheists & Freethinkers, in cooperation with the Louisville Coalition of Reason, ran a billboard advertisement on the grounds of the Kentucky State Fair, where they also hosted a booth. This was, of course, a wonderful victory that highlighted the presence of freethought groups in the state where the Creation Museum gets a lot of attention.
Ed, along with American Atheists and other individuals, are plaintiffs in an ongoing legal challenge to the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security. The suit addresses the legislative finding of the General Assembly that the security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved without reliance on Almighty God. The statute requires the Director of Homeland Security to prominently display the finding on a permanent plaque at the entrance of Kentuckys Emergency Operations Center. Penalties for not complying can include prison time. The case was won at the district court level in 2009, but was defeated in the Kentucky Court of Appeals in 2011. National Legal Director Edwin Kagin has petitioned the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the case. Ed has also been part of a recent success in ending the unconstitutional way the Gideons have been distributing the Bible in the military for 70 yearssee page 5 for the full story. Activism works, and Ed is at the top of his game. We are extremely fortunate to have someone like him at the helm of one of the most difficult geographical areas in the country with regard to the separation of church and state. He continues to work tirelessly for our causes and we look forward to having him with us for many years to come. Contact Ed at ehensley@atheists.org.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
STATE DIRECTORS
DIRECTOR OF STATE OPERATIONS Ken Loukinen (S. FL Reg. Dir.) 7972 Pines Blvd., #246743 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 954-907-7893 kloukinen@atheists.org MILITARY DIRECTOR Justin Griffith jgriffith@atheists.org ALABAMA Scott Savage P.O. Box 12486 Huntsville, AL 35815 256-426-6473 ssavage@atheists.org ARIZONA Don Lacey P.O. Box 1161 Vail, AZ 85641 520-370-8420 dlacey@atheists.org CALIFORNIA Larry Hicok P.O. Box 277 Pinole, CA 94564 510-222-7580 lhicok@atheists.org CONNECTICUT Dennis Paul Himes 860-454-8301 dphimes@atheists.org FLORIDA Greg McDowell P.O. Box 680741 Orlando, FL 32868 gmcdowell@atheists.org GEORGIA Al Stefanelli P.O. Box 3531 Peachtree City, GA 30239 256-496-5777 astefanelli@atheists.org IOWA Randy Henderson P.O. Box 375 Ankeny, IA 50023 rhenderson@atheists.org KENTUCKY Edwin Hensley P.O. Box 6171 Louisville KY 40206 502-713-8354 ehensley@atheists.org MASSACHUSETTS Zach Bos zbos@atheists.org MICHIGAN George Shiffer, Asst. Dir. gshiffer@atheists.org MINNESOTA Randall Tigue rtigue@atheists.org MISSOURI Greg Lammers P.O. Box 1352 Columbia, MO 65205 573-289-7633 glammers@atheists.org NORTH CAROLINA Wayne Aiken P.O. Box 30904 Raleigh, NC 27622 919-954-5956 waiken@atheists.org OHIO John Welte jwelte@atheists.org OKLAHOMA Ron Pittser rpittser@atheists.org PENNSYLVANIA Ernest Perce eperce@atheists.org RHODE ISLAND Brian Stack bstack@atheists.org TEXAS Dick Hogan, Regional Dir., Dallas/Ft. Worth dhogan@athiests.org VIRGINIA Rick Wingrove Leesburg, VA 20176 703-433-2464 rwingrove@atheists.org WASHINGTON Wendy Britton 12819 SE 38th St., Ste. 485 Bellevue, WA 98006 425-269-9108 wbritton@atheists.org WEST VIRGINIA Charles Pique P.O. Box 7444 Charleston, WV 25356 304-776-5377 cpique@atheists.org
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Aims

and
American Atheists, Inc. is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, educational organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of state and church, accepting 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 is organized:
Purposes
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 their histories; To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church; To act as a watchdog to challenge any attempted breach of the wall of separation between state and church; To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular system of education available to all; To encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society; To develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself 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; and To engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to the members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism. Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style 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 humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialisms faith is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
44 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org FIRST QUARTER 2012
DEFINITIONS
FIRST QUARTER 2012
American Atheists Affiliates

For detailed Affiliate information, please visit atheists.org/affiliates or contact Stuart Bechman at sbechman@atheists.org.
Iowa Secularists Siouxland Atheists New York City Atheists Science Club of Long Island ALABAMA Alabama Atheists & Agnostics (UA) Auburn Atheists and Agnostics Birmingham Atheists Montgomery Area Freethought Association North Alabama Freethought Association West Alabama Freethought Association Marshall County Atheists & Agnostics UAH Non-Theists ALASKA Alaskan Atheists Anchorage Atheists ARIZONA Tucson Atheists KANSAS First Church of Freethought/Fort Riley Atheists Heartland Humanists Individuals For Freethought Kansas Freethought Society KC FreeThinkers Univ. of KS Soc. of Open-Minded Atheists & Agnostics NORTH CAROLINA A-News Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics NORTH DAKOTA Red River Freethinkers OHIO Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati & Northern Kentucky Freethought Dayton Freethought Wright State University Humanist Community of Central Ohio Mid Ohio Atheists OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Atheists Tulsa Atheists
CALIFORNIA Agnostic & Atheist Student Association Atheist Coalition of San Diego Atheists & Agnostics Group of Rossmoor Contra Costa Atheists & Freethinkers Atheists & Other Freethinkers Atheists of Silicon Valley Backyard Skeptics Central Valley Alliance of Atheists & Skeptics East Bay Atheists Humanist Society of Santa Barbara Orange County Atheists San Francisco Atheists Atheist Advocates of San Francisco Santa Cruz Atheists Shasta Atheists & Freethinkers New Atheists of East County COLORADO Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver Boulder Atheists Metro State Atheists Western Colorado Atheists
KENTUCKY Humanist Forum of Central Kentucky Kentucky Atheists Lexington Atheists Louisville Atheists & Freethinkers
LOUISIANA Ark-La-Tex Freethinkers (Shreveport) New Orleans Secular Humanist Association MARYLAND Freethinkers Union at McDaniel College Maryland Freethinkers
PENNSYLVANIA Central Susquehanna Valley Freethought Northeast Pennsylvania Freethought Society PA Nonbelievers RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island Atheist Society SOUTH CAROLINA Secular Humanists of Lowcountry
MASSACHUSETTS American University Rationalists & Atheists Atheists of Greater Lowell Boston Atheists MICHIGAN Atheists at Oakland University Michigan Atheists Mid Michigan Atheists and Humanists MINNESOTA Atheists for Human Rights Campus Atheists & Secular Humanists Minnesota Atheists MISSISSIPPI Great Southern Humanist Society Gulf Coast Atheist and Freethinking Association Mid-South Humanist Society Humanists Ethical Atheist Rational Thought Society
TENNESSEE Chattanooga Freethought Association Memphis Freethought Alliance Nashville Secular Life Rationalists of East Tennessee
CONNECTICUT Atheist Humanist Society of CT & RI Connecticut Valley Atheists DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Washington Area Secular Humanists FLORIDA Atheist of North Florida Florida Atheists & Secular Humanists Gator Freethought (UF) Rebirth of Reason in Florida Saint Petersburg Atheists Tallahassee Atheists Treasure Coast Atheists GEORGIA Atlanta Freethought Society Black Non-Believers of Atlanta Fayette Freethought Society Kennesaw State U. Student Coalition for Inquiry Macon Atheists & Secular Humanists
MISSOURI Black Freethinkers of Kansas City Columbia Atheists Community of Reason Joplin Freethinkers MU Skeptics Atheists Secular Humanist Agnostics Rationalist Society of St. Louis Springfield Freethinkers St. Joseph Skeptics Secular Student Alliance at UCMO NEBRASKA Lincoln Atheists Omaha Atheists
TEXAS Atheist Community of Austin Atheists Helping the Homeless Denton Atheists Meetup Freethinkers Association of Central Texas Freethought Oasis of Amarillo Houston Atheists Meetup Kingwood Humble Atascocita Atheists Lubbock Atheists Meetup Metroplex Atheists San Antonio Atheists UNT Freethought Alliance Golden Triangle Freethinkers UTAH Atheists of Utah Salt Lake Valley Atheists VIRGINIA Beltway Atheists WASHINGTON Seattle Atheists Tri-City-Freethinkers
WEST VIRGINIA Morgantown Atheists
ILLINOIS Bradley Atheists Chicago Atheists & Agnostics The Chicago Freethought Project IWU Atheist, Agnostic, & Non-Religious IL/WI Stateline Atheists Society The Secular Segment IOWA Atheists United for a Rational American Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers
NEVADA Reno Freethinkers
WISCONSIN Southeast Wisconsin FreeThinkers
NEW JERSEY New Jersey Humanist Network Secular Student Alliance at Montclair State University
MILITARY (APO/FPO) Southeast Asia Freethought Association 379th AEW NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Atheist Nexus Atheists for Human Rights Atheists United for a Rational America Military Assn of Atheists & Freethinkers
NEW YORK Freethinkers of Upstate New York Hudson Valley Humanists Long Island Secular Humanists
FIRST QUARTER 2012

American Atheist Magazine First Quarter 2012

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

American Atheist Magazine First Quarter 2012

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

American Atheist

A JOURNAL OF ATHEIST NEWS AND THOUGHT

A Virginia Courthouse Lawn is the Battleground for First Amendment Rights

FIRST QUARTER 2012

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

2011 American Atheists Inc.

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 3

A Virginia Courthouse Lawn is the Battleground for First Amendment Rights

FIRST QUARTER 2012

Letter from the

4 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org

FIRST QUARTER 2012

Gideon Bible Distribution Limited by Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers

Photos by Rick Wingrove

If there were a war on Christmas, I would have gotten a memo.

Dying Without Gods

The Blue Collar Atheist:

Hank Fox, John Muir Wilderness, California, 1977

Dan Farris, near Independence, California, 1977

The Crumbling Wall of Separation

Morality and the iMind

14 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org

Morality and the iMind

Faith Should Get No Respect

Jesus was a no-show, as he had been on so many other days.

Three Lives of a Warrior: Part 3

Return With Honor.

FIRST QUARTER 2012

Three Lives of a Warrior

Phil and Barbara, SPCA volunteers, 2007

Bible Bunk and Holy Horrors

by Ludwik Kowalski, PhD

Between Theists and Atheists

Kowalski (shirt unbuttoned) at the 1951 May First Parade in Warsaw

PLATINUM LIFE MEMBER

Simon at the 2008 World Series of Poker

NEW LIFE MEMBERS

30 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org

No Respect (From p. 19)

War on Christmas (From p. 7)

More of our vicious attacks on Christianity

FIRST QUARTER 2012

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 33

Crumbling Wall (From p. 11)

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 37

Blue Collar Atheist (From p. 9)

Bible Bunk (From p. 27)

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 39

Three Lives of a Warrior (From p. 23)

Three Lives of a Warrior

Confrontations (From p. 29)

The author, 2009

Butlers license plate 2,855 days and nights

STATE DIRECTORS SPOTLIGHT

FIRST QUARTER 2012

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 43

FIRST QUARTER 2012

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 45

American Atheists Affiliates

WEST VIRGINIA Morgantown Atheists

NEVADA Reno Freethinkers

WISCONSIN Southeast Wisconsin FreeThinkers

46 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org

FIRST QUARTER 2012