.

)allUcHy,

I~/~

'1>1./~

The Journal

Of Atheist

News And Thought

eligion and hildren - he Costs

SPARING THE ROD-SOMETIMES
SHADES OF ATHEISM

~
Q~~

American4theist
Vol. 21, No.1

articles
Vol. 21, No.1

... the New Look

Guyana Suicides:

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair
MANAGING EDITOR
Jon Garth Murray
GENERAL EDITOR
Frank Duffy
ART DIRECTOR
Joe Kirby
NON-RESIDENTIAL
STAFF
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
G. Richard Bozarth
James Erickson
Wells Culver
J. Michael Straczynski
Elaine Stansfield
Bill Baird
Gerald Tholen

The American
zine is published

Atheist magamonthly
by

American
Atheists,
located
at
2210
Hancock
Drive, Austin,
Texas 78756, a non-profit,
nonpolitical, tax-exempt,
education
al organization.
Mailing address:
P.O.

Box

78768.
Society

2117,

Austin,

TX,

Copyright
1978 by
of Separationists,
Inc.

Subscription
rates:
year.
Manuscripts
must betyped,
accompanied

$20.00
per
submitted

double-spaced

and

by a stamped,

self-

addressed envelope. The editors

assume
no responsibility
for
unsolicited

Austin,

Insanity

Religion & Children

15

as a Sacrament

18

- The Costs

Sparing the Rod - Sometimes

21

Shades of Atheism

30

A Con Game

32

features
Editorial

Our Readers' Opinions

Atheist

News

Patricia Voswinkel

- Atheist

5
7
8

with Class

Whatever Happened to Baby J.?

Islam vs. Progress - Iran's Dilemma
Roots of Atheism

- George Jacob Holyoake

AA Radio Series - Atheist

Children

AA Movie Review - "Foul

Play"

Book Review - 3 Atheist

THE

HAPPY

& The Courts

Books for Children

our cover:
CHILDREN

12

24
35
36

Where you don't have to be afraid

Of things you cannot see
No gods or devils lurking there
No punishments to flee

Pretend that there could be a land

Where everyone was good
And everybody did the things
That everybody should

And fantasies that children have

Are theirs alone to hold
And they will pass as well they should
With children growing old

And kindness dwells within the heart

Of all within this plsce
And you can see that kindness lives
In every smiling face

And only fondest memories stay

As happy children age
And pleasant twinkling childlike eyes
Will last through life's last page

manuscripts.

Gerald Tholen

Texas

January,

1/

1979

Page 1

BY 10

GARTH MURRAY

Atheist Children
American history has been characterized by persistent efforts toward securing individual liberties on behalf of a number
of groups. At first those of differing religious faiths labored
for the free expression of their beliefs. Later followed the issue
of slavery with black Americans straining at the yoke of misfortune to which they had been unjustly chained. Stililaterthis
nation's workers joined the struggle for freedom with their
demands for better working conditions and an end to sweatshop conditions. Currently the women of America are exercising their right to dissent in their struggle for recognition as
an equal part of the human community.
One group of citizens, however, still remains in the background of these struggles for equality. These citizens, perhaps
the most important of all, have been more or less ignored as
far as rights are concerned. This group is composed of our
most valuable national resource: our children.
Considered for many years to be but adults in miniature,
children had been relegated to the role of replacement fieldhands in our earlier agricultural society. The Industrial Revolution likewise subjugated children to intolerable factory conditions. In fact, it is only recently in our historical panorama
that any concern for the welfare or education of the child has
been noticeably evident beyond those biological concerns of
a mother's love. Mandatory public education came late in our
nation's two centuries of existence.
America's children have been - and the majority. currently
still are - victims of the old adage which would have them be
"seen but not heard."
Is it any wonder that in our age they are eager to begin
their initial flight from the nest so as to secure their full share
of human rights and dignity?
Along the way, however, we have had
and still do have a number of institutional
organizations which seek control of the
child's mind in order that his or her growth
to maturity (or lack thereof) might be in a
direction which these institutions deem as
being no threat to their continued dominance.
Paramount among those seeki ng control of
our children is organized religion.
Through control of the parents, organized religion today guarantees perpetuation
of its power by implanting the god. idea in
young minds which are yet incapable of
recognizing the detrimental effects of such
unfounded
beliefs. Churches assume a
position of exploitation
no different than
the exploiters of children in former times in
that they have no concern whatsoever for
the overall welfare of the child so long
as he or she remains loyal and unquestioning;
and, in turn, so long as that child's offspring
is likewise taught to have "faith"
in the
i rrati onal.

Page 2

January, 1979

As Atheists we are essentially anti-authoritarian,

especially
in regard to authority that is thrust upon us without rational
explanation as to the merit of its acceptance. We prefer to accept only those authorities which we can see are reasonably
concerned with our welfare and the welfare of others. Why
then should we surrender our children to the Grim Reaper of
Religion which uses the blind acceptance of parental authority as a palliative to smooth the process of enslaving the
minds of our young? Should we allow ourselves to be used as
the means to enslave our children? Never!
Yet those within the confines of the religious community
chastise Atheists for not allowing our offspring the "freedom"
to know their unknowable god. Is it proper for us to allow our
children to be exposed to the detrimental effects of religion
under the auspices of providing them with a well-rounded
education? I don't think so. Such is comparable to my allowing my child to leap off a precipice so as to give him or her
the chance to experience the sensation of falling, never taking
into account that it may well be his or her last sensation. I
think it far wiser to stand close while holding Junior from behind as he peers over the edge - safely.
Our children are our assets, true; but, not in the sense of
their being used as fodder for the mechanizations of religion
and its attendant wars. Our children have the unique ability
to carryon our social concerns tempered by their individuality in a way that mere writings cannot. They are a living legacy.
All that has been achieved is only as valuable as its on-going
contribution
to what will be achieved, lest it be forgotten.
The bedrock of mankind's future happiness and welfare depends upon the continuing maintenence of the foundation
upon which it began. The blueprints for that
maintenance will always be there, but the
individual
touch of the contractor
will
determine future quality and stability.
Those future "contractors"
are our
children and we can see to it that they are
not handicapped with an inability to read
that
all-important
blueprint:
the
U.S.
Constitution.
Our children are the basis for a better
tomorrow. The lawful removal of compulsory
religious ceremonies from public schools in
1963 was only the first step toward the
assured maintenance of ours and our descendants' liberties. All of you as parents,
potential parents, or assistants to parents are
next in line, for it is your ultimate responsibility to provide for the liberty of future
generations by seeing to it that reason is not
extinquished by religion.
Just as the all-new American Atheist
magazine is off to a new start for a new year,
we urge you to start your children on the
road to a new world th rough reason.

The American

Atheist

VOL. 21, NO.1 ...

and the new look

he

deathless chronicle of Atheism which you, dear reader,

hold in your hands today as Vol. 21, No.1, began in the base- '
ment of the home of the beleagured Murray family, in Baltimore, Maryland, when that family was locked in the fight to
remove compulsory Bible-reading/prayer recitation from the
what he was worth, the Atheist Center would go broke.]
Yet, in the last year, we have never seen a day in the
public schools of the United States.
Atheist Center which has not been enlivened by Duffy's cynical
Exhausted, against a powerful enemy, frightened - but
determined - they issued a poorly typed, mimeographed,single
smile. He is always in rare good humor and fine form.
But then, he is a running nut. After Atheism and an Oriental
sheet of paper which was optimistically called a "Newsletter."
lady, Duffy's other obsession is to return to Japan each
By January, 1979, [today!] this has evolved to the sophistiOctober to run in the Mainichi newspapers marathon.
cated, upbeat, voice of aggressive Atheism in the, world. And,
to make certain that this voice becomes even more powerfully
persuasive, the American Atheist Center has induced two very
When Duffy met Joe Kirby, through the mails, an idea was
special persons to invest themselves, totally, toward that end.
born. You all know Joe, too, for he it is who has invigorated
One you already know. In his column he identifies himself
the magazine with cartoons all these months. Finally, Duffy
as "Gadfly" - [Webster's Dictionary: "gadfly, one habitually
sent stories to him to illustrate ... and then in the summer of
engaged in provocative criticism of existing institutions, typ1978 Joe came to the Atheist Center to visit, the institution
ically as an individual citizen"] - but Francis Daniel Mark
lures the best of the lot! Joe fell in love with Austin - his
Duffy is that and more. He is an integral part of a consciously
heart was already with Atheism. When we said we would try to
match his salary at the New Jersey advertising agency with
assembled body of persons Atheistic whose raison d 'etre is to
which he worked, Joe was prepared to migrate to Austin alpromote "consciousness raising" among Atheists, to move
them to a Weltanschauung of intellectually and emotionally
most instantly.
We could hardly believe our good fortune for Joe has 30
matured total living called the "life style" of Atheism.
years in all phases of commercial, as well as fine art. His wide
Duffy is at the American Atheist Center as editor of The
range of skills are from art direction, advertising and illustraAmerican Atheist magazine, as a member of the Board of
tion, through television and stage scenic design, to product and
Directors of the Society of Separationists, Inc., as the persondisplay design. Working with NBC for over eight years, he was
ification of avant garde Atheist living, as a close personal
the scenic designer and creative director for Kraft Theatre,
friend of the Murray-O'Hairs, as a confidant and as a mainthe Kate Smith Show, the Steve Allen Show, Your Hit Parade,
stay helping hand wearing a dozen other hats.
His main job is to educate you up to full-blownAtheism.
the NBC Opera and many others. For four years he had been the
He is a wordsmith, an idea molder, a craftsman of prose.
chief display designer for Philadelphia's Wanamaker store.
He agonizes over the layout, the word style, the idea thrust.
All of this recommended him to us, but what endeared him
And, in the year that he has been on the magazine you have
to us was his perverse anti-religious cartoons, his rare sense of
all seen it mushroom under his tender care.
humor, his congenial personality and his total dedication and
And so, a bit this month about Duffy! He is a Philadelphia
commitment to Atheism.
product, but he was reared in Catholic primary and high
A graduate of the Philadelphia College of Art and the
schools in South Jersey, experiencing for a dozen years the
Pennsylvania Academy, he had also spent three years in the
mentally stultifying Roman Catholic educational process.
Army Air Force, 1943-1946 in the "big war" - World War II.
Three years after graduating Duffy joined the U.S. Marine
Joe joined us in early November, 1978 and immediately beCorps, to "do" a 3lh-year hitch with 33 months of that in Vietgan a new image for us. Everything is on the planning board:
nam, Japan, Okinawa and the Philippines. His service job was
the "introductory" packets, our book catalogue, the Newsletas a jet engine mechanic on F4B fighter-bombers.
ter format, the magazine - ah! the magazine! Look at this isWhen he returned to the U.S. he was already an agnostic
sue in your hands.
well on his way to Atheism. He began East Asian History
His blue eyes light up as he talks about the magazine "at
studies at San Francisco State University, returning to Japan
every check-out counter in the land!" ... because it deserves
two summers while going to college. He received his last year
to be a beautiful, exciting and important opinion-maker.
under scholarship from SFSU to study at a university in
"Our new face-lift has been designed to attract more attenTokyo, Japan, taking his degree in 1973.
tion . . . to have old friends more pleased, but hopefully to
He taught English language to Japanese businessmen, was
bring more brightly colored light to more and more of the
hired as a proofreader for an English language daily newspaper,
Atheists in the closets ... since the magazine is slim enough to
moved to the rewrite section, then to make-up, then to page
slip under the door."
editing, in a 3th-year stint with Tokyo's Mainichi Daily News.
,With a rare combination of these coworkers who respect
each the skills of the other, we can only expect that the magaThe Japanese people he found to be blissfully free of theism;
zine will continue to evolve to become an excellent voice for
his continuing study of other nations' religions led him to doubt
our representation in the cultural milieu of America.
all religions. Then, in 1972 he heard of American Atheists and
Now, relax in your chair and look it over one more time. It
subscribed to and received our publications while in Japan.
is "our new look" for this year, but from now on, every year
The monthly onslaught of this material caused the erosion of
- every issue - it will be better than before as Frank Duffy
the remnants of his Christian upbringing. He left Japan in
and Joe Kirby, with more nonchalance, slip more fully into
November of 1977 and by mid-December of the same year
had indentured himself to human slavery, a meager salary and
their seats as General Editor, and Art Director, respectively.
the prospect of a lifetime with Atheism. [If we paid Duffy
Fellows, you have come home!

Austin, Texas

January,

1979

Page 3

LETTERS
Mud Slingers

Christian Justice

Dear Editor,
I have read with pride and enjoyment the news of the opening of the
American Atheist Museum in Indiana
[Oct. issue, page 18} . I particularly enjoyed the article "Armageddon in
Indiana." What I can't understand,
however, is how the one minister completely neglected to mention our everpopular Tuesday Afternoon Nun Rape.
But seriously folks, I found it wonderfully ironic that the ammunition
they chose to hurl at Lloyd, Pam and
the Museum had nothing whatsoever
to do with Atheism but was instead
a prime example of religion's own sick
and sexually twisted imagination.
Dan A. Mitchell

Dear Editor,
It was interesting to me that Bruce
Hunter, the Dallas school teacher who
was recently ruled against in federal
court [Dec. issue, page 5}, was judged
to be an excellent teacher for most of
his 17 years in the Dallas Independent
School District, yet when it was
learned he was an Atheist, his rating
dropped to unacceptable and he was
fired. Is that a good example of
Christ's teachings of tolerance?
Here is a man of demonstrated
competence who has had his career
ruined simply because he dared to express his lack of religious beliefs. Had
he remained silent, he would still be
teaching in the Dallas school system.
The sad case of Bruce Hunter tells me
that religious freedom is a farce in Dallas.
Ideas are not going to hurt our childreu.It is the lack of ideas we must fear.
Dick Nelson
Dallas, TX

~Burbank'

~UJ,.O-~.

~~

IL

!.;;;~
~

'Wi~~~

~~#~

~~(q~

?"

"Where in the Hell ...

Dear Editor,
I know that Texas is a huge place, so
"you all" should be pardoned for
thinking that most other places are
just specks on the map.
However, Indiana is a state and not
just a city despite the impression
created by the November issue of the
magazine. One has to wade through a
half dozen pages describing the new
American Atheist Museum to learn
where in the state it is to be found.
Indiana is 300 miles north-south and
150 miles east-west.
Finally, in a dateline near the back
of the issue, Petersburg is mentioned,
permitting the rush to the Rand
McNally Atlas to learn where it is and
how to get there.
Otherwise, you're doing a really
great job with the magazine. Every
issue is stimulating.
Curtis D. MacDougall
Evanston,IL
Dear Curtis,
Our apologies for inadvertently
leaving you in the lurch. Petersburg is
located 50 miles north of Evansville
and 60 miles south of Terra Haute.
The American Atheist Museum is just
across from the entrance to Pride's
Creek Park on Rural Route 3 and
County Road 400 North (Grapevine
Road).

Page 4

Those interested and able to help in

Bruce Hunter's appeal suit should
please send contributions to:
Bruce Hunter Appeal Fund
7417 Alto Caro
Dallas, TX 75248

.-*

In The Light Of Reason ...

Dear Mrs. O'Hair,
I wish to apologize to you.
About 20 years ago, I wrote you a
lengthy letter (after hearing of your
being harassed for your individualist
stand against religion) expressing my
belief that "true Christians" wouldn't
hurt or abuse you. I exhorted, I
preached, and I hoped that YOU
would see the light.
After all these years, Madalyn, it is
I who has seen the light! I am now a
Libertarian and a Freethinker. At long
last I have the courage to renounce my
past 30 years of blindly embracing
evangelical Christianity. Since I came
to my senses I have felt so free, so
unlimited and just plain good!
I applaud you for your courage to
be different ... to be an individual in
this repressive society of fearful conformists.
Samuel Ervin Brown
Toms River, NJ

*
Phantom Atheists

Dear Editor,
I recently received my first copy of The American Atheist.
Among other things, I was interested in Patricia Voswinkel's difficulties in getting The American Atheist into the public libraries of Mecklenburg County, N.C.
[Nov. issue, page 5}.
I have never seen any Atheist material in the public libraries in my town. But,
being a public benefactor type of person, I intend to correct this situation. I am
going to donate my copies to the libraries as soon as I am finished reading them.
And I don't plan to ask anyone's permission to do so. I'll just place my copies on
the shelves. I might even, as a philanthropist, deduct the cost from my income tax.
It occurs to me that the entire country would benefit from Pat's recognition
that we should make Atheist literature available to the public. So I suggest that all
readers, when they have finished reading them, put their copies on the shelves of
their public libraries.
This would be much better than throwing them away or letting them gather
dust on their own shelves. Since the patrons of public libraries are literate, and
some are intelligent, this action might help advance the cause of Atheism.
"Anonymous"
(for economic reasons)
Dear Anonymous,
You would be benefiting your neighbors and your A theism more sincerely if
you would make an initial gift subscription of The American Atheist to your local
libraries, see to it that each issue is displayed prominently, and become more honest
and above-board with your Atheism (a la Pat Voswinkel). We are American (not
Anonymous) Atheists.
The Editor

January,

1979

The American

Atheist

~NEWS
Pat Voswinkel-Atheist With Class
Patricia J. Voswinkel is a beautiful,
mature woman who simply oozes ferninity. She is quietly, but expensively
dressed in coutier fashions which are
distinctive and matched to her unique
personality. She is charming and her
warm smile reaches out to all. Exquisitely manicured hands are in full
control of the notepad which vanishes
quickly into the smooth calfskin bag.
Her auburn hair cascades around a
lovely face. And, underneath it all she
is a woman of steel, highly organized,
efficient, cool, methodical and persevering.
She had, in just a few weeks, organized a series of appearances, a chapter outreach program, a shattering attack on officialdom in North Carolina, confirmed and coordinated a
speaking engagement for Dr. O'Hair
at the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill ... and there she stood
at the airport to meet Dr. O'Hair and
Jon Murray, the Director of the
American Atheist Center.
Beginning at 7 a.m. and continuing
through the day until midnight, they
were transported from one television
station to another, to radio stations,
to newspaper interviews, to special
meetings (one with a founder of the
infamous PTL Club), to a large chapter
meeting, a catered dinner buffet, and
back to a beautiful suite of rooms at
Charlotte's finest hotel. A number of
advertisements peppered every newspaper - where she wanted them to
be placed - on page two of the news,
or opposite the editorial page; but certainly not in the "church news" section.
There was no sense of hurry, no
bungling, no mix-ups ... just a series
of events perfectly timed, sensed out,
explicitly accomplished, then away to
the next one. It caused no inconvenience when American Atheist Harold
Church came down from Tennessee,
where he is the chapter director.
Another guest was well taken care of.

A formal complaint from a Newport, N.C., resident, concerned with

religious activities in the Carteret
County schools - the anxious father
there in person to seek help - Patricia
could handle it. An upset mother at the
chapter meeting, fearful of the effect
on her children if she should complain
of prayers in their school - Patricia
handled it. The University of N.C.
inquired about our speaking there Patricia handled it. And at every
radio station, at every television
station, with the newspapers, it was
obvious that Patricia had made many
friends for us.

At the airport it was casual, as she

handed us the morning newspaper
with a large picture of The American
Atheist magazine on the front page.
The Mecklenberg County libraries (all
17 of them) had not alone received
their first issue of our journal, but had
it out on the racks so that all could see
and enjoy. There it was, together with
Time and Newsweek and the rest.
[In late October the county of
Mecklenberg and the public libraries
of Charlotte had capitulated
and
agreed to signa
formal "consent

decree" to accept The American

A theist magazine and to display
it in every library in Charlotte and
in Mecklenberg County. The order
was duly signed by the U.S. District
Court judge for the Western District
of North Carolina making it legal for the entire state.]
The publicity could not have been
better, guaranteeing a good media
turnout for the chapter meeting that
night. Everyone was at the hotel that
night anyway because N.C. had, at
6 p.m. that very night, begun to serve
liquor by the drink for the first time
since 1904. The new, plush Radisson
Plaza Hotel, in downtown Charlotte's
Central Square, had been a prime
mover to obtain repeal of the old
prohibition law. The manager of that
hotel took time out to speak with Dr.
O'Hair and welcome her there on that
important night.
So, in the middle of all this other
excitement, the visiting Atheist leaders
presented Pat Voswinkel with a new
law suit to be filed in her state. Pat already knew the clerk and the court
from her last suit. She read with subdued amusement that she would be
suing the governor and attorney
general of her state.
Briefly, this suit shows that the Constitution of North Carolina, Article VI,
Section 8, states "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
first, any person who shall deny the
being of Almighty God."
Our organization, and Pat Voswinkel as the Director of the North Carolina Chapter, then declare that this
provision of the North Carolina Constitution is unconstitutional and void
on its face and that it flies in the face
of the guarantees afforded to all citizens by the Constitution of the United
States. The suit asks that this article
be declared to be void and unconstitutional and that attorney fees and
costs be given to our organization because we were forced to file the suit
to correct the N.C. Constitution.
Was she worried about filing such

Help Keep Your

Library Clean!
Austin, Texas

January,

1979

Page 5

a suit? We asked Patricia. Well, she said

she just didn't bother any more to clean
up the eggs which are flung at her
front porch. If a weekend brought
pleasant weather, she might hose the
mess down. The vicious letters are
now amusing. The crank calls are a
distraction, but on the other hand it
enlivens her life.
And meanwhile she takes care of
a home, a husband, three children in
school, and ... Atheist business, Atheist business and more Atheist business.
She found her own attorney for the library suit. She personally visited each
library branch. She contacted the TV
and radio stations and the press. She
justs gets up and does what needs to
be done. The chores are plebian. She
believes in what she is doing and
methodically, business-like, she accomplishes what she sets out to do.
The chapter meeting at 8 p.m. was
set up, modestly, to accomodate 50
persons. A second section of the room
had to be opened to hold the 120 persons who attended. Over 80 stayed to
the end, and as a large pad circulated,
we could hardly believe our eyes as
person after person casually signed up
for work with our North Carolina
chapter. The buffet was fabulous - a
catered cornicopia. We finally needed

'I~G'L~
~

to ask everyone to go home. Those

good assembled Atheists were willing
to stay all night.
We don't know what all is going to
come out of Charlotte, but we know
that with Patricia Voswinkel heading
it up, it will be - finally - total civil
liberties for all Atheists and an image
of pride in being Atheist that persons
in the area will muster around.
Patricia Voswinkel, all Atheists owe
you a large "thank you" for your
aplomb in North Carolina. We tip our
hats to you.

Ancient
American
~theist
Charlie Smith, the subject of Sam
Merrill's award-winning profile, "The
Oldest Living American," is no doubt
also America's oldest living 'Atheist.
Charlie is a resident of the Bartow
Convalescent Center in Bartow, Florida. For his 136th birthday on 4 July,
the celebration was more subdued
than in past years.

In November of 1977, Charlie's

right leg was amputated below the
knee after gangrene set in on his toe.
Doctors felt that an artificial limb
would be too confusing for him, so he
now sits in a special cushioned chair
equipped with a tray and wheels.
"Charlie is not as talkative as he
used to be, but he's in good spirits,"
says Ruth Aiple, administrator of the
Bartow Center. "At times he seems
strong, but then other days he's not
quite as strong; we don't understand
why. We were having a problem getting him to drink his nutriment at
one point, so we flavored it with rum
extract. Now he really likes it."
For Charlie's 136th birthday celebration the staff tried to keep away
visitiors to avoid overly exciting him.
However, an opportunistic
minister
and his wife were allowed to see this
ancient American Atheist, and the
woman kept asking Charlie if he believed in a god, and if he spoke to
Jesus.
"No, ma'am," he said. "I don't
talks to no one I don't see."
"But Charlie," she said, "don't
you want to go to heaven?"
"No, ma'am. I don't know no one
who's been there who's ever been
back. "

fYFWfE ctM(9T{crH DEPT._---.

DRIP Div.
In recent months the face of Jesus
Christ has "miraculously" appeared on
a moldy tortilla in the U.S. southwest,
wedged between the mushrooms and
the anchovies on a New Jersey pizza,
and on the sole of a dead priest's shoe
in Quebec. Omnipresence or no omnipresence, the sudden appearances of
such a divine face of specious origin
means big bucks for the wily fox who
doctors the moldy miracle just enough
to ca$h-in on his neighbors' profitable
"will to believe."
J.C. has yet to show his face in a
bowl of borscht in "godless" Russia,
but the King of Kinks may be sampling Soviet waters for a future sham.
In a little village outside Voronezh, near the Romanian border, busloads of faithful believers are flocking
to an old peasant woman's house in
which they seek to see a dark brown
spot on the ceiling in one of the rooms.
The old woman who lives there
alone recently lost her grandson. Soon

Page 6

after his death, a mark appeared on

the ceiling which she swears looks
exactly like his face. She has declared the crinkly apparition to be a
miracle.
Her neighbors, however, have declared the event a disaster as crowds of up
to 100 persons camp outside her house
and remain there singing all night
long as though they were in church.
The villagers are disturbed by all the
motorized pilgrims.
Word of the miraculous wall spot
soon spread, becoming more fantastic with each retelling. Pilgrims have
now been making their way to the
greasy spot on the ceiling for more
than six months. Seeing the miracle
has become a point of honor for
everyone in the region, and those
who do not are made to feel they
have missed out on something of
other-worldly proportions.
Voronezh is now gathering in the
harvest of rubles as some Russians

January. 1979

~J

are learning the age-old financial

lessons upon which all preisthoods are
erected:
There's a Christian born
every minute.
Eventually word got around to the
local branch of the Institute for Scientific Atheism'. Voronezh, it appears,
is quite a center for Atheism, and in
the region there are more than 5,000
people studying the theory and practice of this officially approved science.
One of the principal points they learn
is that rumors are born of a lack of
information or when there is no authorized opinion expressed.
Officials came to take a sample
from the ceiling of the room where the
spot appeared. And in the chemical
analysis department of the Voronezh
Building Institute lies the secret, so
far undisclosed to the town, of the
miracle.
The face on the wall is made by a
mold, appropriately known to science
as the "shaggy head" mold.

The American Atheist

BISHOPS:
STATE-CHURCH
COLLISION
INEVITABLE
Organized religion and government
in the United States are on a collision
course and the next 25 years should
see the matter resolved one way or the
other. Either we amend our Constitution to declare this a Christian nation
or we secure a return to the strict
separation of state and church as it
was written into that document 200
years ago.
The nation's Roman Catholic bishops are in clear recognition of this
confrontation and are already preparing to secure the U.S. for Christianity. In a paper considered at a fourday meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the battle
lines were drawn: "During the next
25 years, the process of government in
the United States will inevitably
wrestle with, and resolve in some fashion, the question of whether or not
churches are to be favored institutions under our system of law."
"It now seems apparent that there
is developing a collision course between
government and organized religion,"
the paper said.
A number of bishops think the
government
increasingly is taking
the position that the First Amendment protects only the right of religious institutions to worship in the
manner in which they choose. Such
is not enough for the prelates as they
seek a free rein to be without both
financial accountability and responsibility to the government of the land.
The bishops say the government is
beginning to treat their charitable activities, such as hospital work, in the
same manner as it treats other institutions with no religious affiliation.

Austin,

NEWS
If such were actually the case, Catholic hospitals receiving federal funding
would not be permitted to deny
patients access to abortion, birth
control and sterilizing services, as
they currently do.
The paper said that "Many individuals in government fail to see any
distinction between a church-owned
charitable entity and a nonsectarian
entity established for the same purpose." The churches claim that such
work is part of their "religious mission," and as such they should be given
tax benefits over and above those
given to non-sectarian institutions.
The Catholic report singled out for
special concern a number of actions by
governmental regulatory agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service
and various government agencies dealing with labor-related matters.
For example, an effort by the
National Labor Relations Board to assert jurisdiction over parochial elementary and secondary lay teachers
involved in union activity is before
the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Roman Catholic bishops would
prefer to continue receiving tax benefits for its churches, schools, hospitals,
orphanages and related and unrelated
businesses, while at the same time they
shun any accountability to the government from whom they receive those
financial benefits.

Whatever
Happened
To Baby J.?
A growing backlash by concerned
citizens against the intrusion of "muscular Christianity" into the halls of
local, state and federal governments
has resulted in the ouster of unconstitutional nativity scenes from government property nationwide.
Subscribers to this magazine read
in our December issue how American
Atheists achieved the eviction of
a "plastic Jesus" from the Rotunda
of the State Capitol Building in
Austin, Texas.
In Traverse City, Michigan, meanwhile, that city's commission was to
consider a recommendation by a member of the local Human Rights Commission that the custom of placing a
nativity scene in the business district should cease because it is clearly
unconstitutional.
Joseph Neiman said the practice

Texas

January,

1979

violates the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof."
"It's not a particularly good piece
art-wise, but it has been around a
while and does have a lot of sentiment
to a lot of people," Neiman said.
Nevertheless, he contended, "The
city is in a bad position. If it were
challenged in court, I don't think the
city would win."

Churchgoers
Give $159.33IYr.
A recent national survey of churchgoers in America and Canada' has
shown that the average member of 45
American church denominations put
$159.33 in the collection plate in
1977, up almost $10 over 1976.
The National Council of Churches,
releasing figures from its annual survey on "Church Financial Statistics
and Released Data," also reported a
decreased membership is giving more
than ever to a sampling of 10 major
Protestant denominations.
The report said giving to those 10
denominations kept pace with inflation in 1977, increasing by 6.6 percent.
In Canada, meanwhile, the survey
showed that giving to 10 major church
bodies increased by nearly 13 percent,
beating Canada's 1977 inflation rate
by about 3 percent. That increase
came despite a membership loss of
more than 200,000 in Canada.
According to the survey, contributions to the 10 selected denominations
totaled $3,915,887,176.
Those 10
have an aggregate membership of
25,474,133, down 115,899 from 1976.
The full survey covered 45 U.S.
church bodies, and the average contribution of $159.33 (compared to
$149.75 in 1976) was computed from
a total 1977 intake of $6.7 billion.
The council said giving to the 45
churches in this year's survey represented about 40 percent of contributions to all U.S. churches. Some
churches do not collect financial data
at the national level and still others
refuse to make such reports public.

Page 7

NEWS
ISLAM VS. PROGRESS-IRAN'S
In August of 1978, returning from
a trip to India, Dr. Madalyn O'Hair,
Jon Murray and Robin Murray-O'Hair
had occasion to stop in Iran for a few
days due to air-travel delays.
The focal point of the visit was
Teheran and it was decided that the
four days would best be spent exploring the country in as much depth as
possible - taking about 16 hours of
each day to do so. Iran's government
buildings, historical sites, museums,
mosques, national monuments, cultural
and industrially significant sites were
to be visited.
Since the Iranian government had
recently come in for much criticism
from Iranian student protestors at
various universities in the United
States contra Shah Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi, it was felt that the tours
should be conducted by Iranians and
knowledgeable foreigners who were
politically and sociologically attuned
to the crisis in Iran.

A Secular Nation

Immediately it was apparent to us

that Iran is deliberately secular in its
government. Iranian coins and csrrency
reflected no "In God We Trust," all
national monuments were secular, museums were ostensively so, and the
government in all of its manifestations
studiously avoided any mention of religion.
The Iranian Constitution stands for
a secular nation, the national documents of import were secular, and
every government building was clear of
religious interference. We had not
visited any nation in the world which
was so starkly devoid of religious reference.
Enshrined in everything the Shah
said or did, or which was openly recorded, even cut into marble for all to
see was the declaration to "free the
women of their veils," which is the
mark of the Moslem subjugation of
womankind in the Isalmic world.
The Shah's wife herself was everywhere pictured without the veil, and
the Shah was never seen associated
with a religious personality. Iranian
women were given the right to vote in
1963.
The celebration of the 5,OOOthyear

Page 8

of the Persian kingdom had been held

near the ruins of ancient Persopolis,
without any religious referent. The old
ruins themselves were devoid of the
shabby clutterings of religion found
elsewhere in these old hallmarks of
mankind.
Everywhere lands were pointed out
to us as having "formerly" belonged to
the Muslim hierarchs before the Shah
had liberated and redistributed it to
small farmers in a land reform movement. Yet religious rights for minorities
were safeguarded to the extent that
even the oft-persecuted
Jews felt
(guardedly) at home.
The look of prosperity was everywhere in modern-day Iran. Paved roads
from farms to markets, broad, lighted
city streets, Western-made appliances
at obtainable prices, highways choked
with new, albeit small automobiles,
and adequate clothing on people in
the streets. The bazaars were full of
merchandise and the markets were
full of food. New apartment complexes were springing up everywhere
and rents were nominal. Governmentsponsored education through the university was available to all, as was the
right to education obtained abroad.
It was apparent that Iran's oil
wealth was being put to good use.
We wanted to see a functioning
mosque. We were told that there
really weren't any. The government
kept one open for the tourists - and
when we went there it was inhabited

DILEMMA
only by tourists! Once a year the Shah
and his wife appear in a particular
room in the mosque for a public
appearance. The room was clean,
elegant - and obviously seldom used.
Military service is required for Iranians and a part of their duties is to
work with villagers to help bring their
more backward countrymen into the
20th century - an improvement in
the human condition always opposed
by religionists of all persuasions.
Education is free and compulsory
but within the army both a Health
Corps and a Literacy Corps function.
That is, those with a high school or a
college degree may, rather than serve
in compulsory military service, instead
teach in the Literacy or the Health
corps in villages, to spread literacy,
foster education and teach basic health
safeguarding methods.
Women wearing veils were many in
the countryside, but in the cities they
were more scattered throughout the
female population.
Attendance was heavy at the tombs
of the poets, who were honored more
than ordinary men - certainly more
than the military or even the religious.
The "palaces" of the Shah and the

u. s. s.

S A U 0

ARABIA

January,

~/

1979

The American

Atheist

royal family were of the size of the

Beverly Hills homes of America's
cinema-affiliated, but not so big or
fabulous as those of our "stars."
But in the midst of this attempted
modernization an old problem had
reared its ugly head: religion, specifically a religion which wanted to take
the nation back to the 7th century.

Progress Anathema
Beginning in November of 1977,
Moslem fanatics began to set fires to
moviehouses, nightclubs, liquor stores
and banks, all to which their religion
is opposed. The concept of a "modernized" Iran is anathema to them. As
the Shah has attempted the introduction of Western-style culture, these
ultra-conservative Moslems have chafed
at the reforms and set fires, hurled
bombs and rioted. They are incensed
at the idea of a "loosened" press
which may speak against the old Moslem ways. Resistance in the backward countryside is even more vehement.
In mid-August, fanatic. Moslem
zealots blocked the doors of a large
cinema and then set it afire, murdering 377 innocent men, women and
children - done in the name of a
blood-thirsty barbarous god of the
sword.
The extremists
include Shi'ite
Moslem clergymen, the avowed leader
of whom is Ayatollah Khomeini,
currently in unofficial exile in Paris
after Iraq, his home of 15 years,
expelled him and Kuwait turned him
away at its border.
Khomeini calls for a return to
a fundamentalist "Islamic republic,"
which, of course, would be run by the
priests.

Religiously Anti-American
Khomeini is anxious to see the
progressive thinking Shah out of
power because, " ...
He's destroyed
the economy and given away our
natural resources, especially our oil,
to the industrial powers. He's reduced
agricultural production to provide a
market for American goods."
American industries which are in
Iran to build airports, railroads, and
modern postal facilities are as much
the enemy to these religious fanatics
as is the Shah because such advance-

Austin,

Texas

ments are contra to the Moslem religion - and an enemy to be fought.

Sophisticated pumping equipment
at large oilfields has been sabotaged,
as have telecommunications
centers.
American technical personnel are harassed, and sometimes beaten.
The protesters who chant "Death
to the Shah" often contain many
black-veiled women and are characterized by religious chanting. Often a
tactic of mob activity is to line up on
the streets, block all traffic and kneel
in prayer as a Moslem priest recites the
Koran.
Moslem "holy" days find difficulties
heightened and theater fires raged during the month of Ramadan ( a Moslem
month of fasting).

The Shi'ite faction is one of two

divisions of Islam. Basically, they hold
that only Ali (Mohammed's son-in
law) and his "rightful" descendants are
the only valid caliphs, and that this is a
god-given office privy to an absolute
personal and hereditary monarchy.
They see no separation between politics and theology and their clergy
(mollahs) are the judges, notaries and
the only persons who can give legal
responses.
Islam's other faction, the Kharijites, is mainly composed of rural
Arabs and they believe that the main
office of caliph should be elective.
The Arabs brought Islam to Persia
in the 7th century and it was ruled by
a religious-politico caliphate until this
century. The name of the dissidents'
game now is to return to those rustic
days of the 7th century and to a
religious dictatorship
of barbarian
ideology.
Here, as anywhere in the world,
when religion is the principal enemy,
our sympathies can only be with the
modernizers, in this instance, with
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

January,

1979

THEOCRACY
CHOKING
PAKISTAN
The nation of Pakistan was created
31 years ago solely to provide a Moslem homeland, and recently Islam has
been reasserting its grip on this rival
neighbor of Hinduistic India.
The growing influence of conservative Moslem religious and political
leaders in Pakistan can be seen in numerous recent events:
* A painting was removed from an
art show in Lahore because it depicted
a woman with a bare arm.
* Women television broadcasters
have been told to keep their heads
covered and to wear shirt and trouser
outfits, rather than saris which might
expose a bit of midriff.
* The government is talking about
abolishing interest in banking and finance because devout Moslems consider
the charging of interest to be immoral.
The thrust toward religious conservatism began more than a year ago, as
much from political necessity as from
religious belief.
Shortly after his ouster in a July
1977 coup, Prime Minister Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto imposed prohibition and
banned gambling in an attempt to
squelch opposition to his regime from
conservative Moslems.
The military government that succeeded Bhutto and remains in power
is going even farther and ,says it wants
to govern the nation by Islamic - not
secular - law known as "Shariat."
"Islam and Pakistan are inseparable," Religious Affairs Minister Iftikhar Ahmed Ansari said recently in a
typical comment in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, which means "abode
of Islam."
British India was partitioned into
the independent nations of India and
Pakistan in 1947 so that the Moslems
would have their own nation, Pakistan.
Millions of Hindus and Sikhs crossed the border into India, passing millions of Moslems going in the other
direction. Religious war raged for
months. At least 500,000 persons
were killed.
The leader of Pakistan's present
military regime, Gen. Mohammed Zia
ul Haq, is a devout Moslem.
Iran, Pakistan's oil-rich neighbor to
the west, is currently embroiled in a
religious revolt by the nation's Moslems
who seek to halt the modernization
programs of the Shah of Iran.

Page 9

NEWS

for

Catholic
Rackets
When faced with dwindling income
resulting from disinterested church
members, Christian churches in general
and the Roman Catholic Church in
particular have historically been everready to violate civil laws in the name
of advancing their voracious creeds.
So it was in the mid-1970s when
Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania were
faced with the growing defection of its
youth to exotic cults and various stages

of disbelief. Vocations to the Catholic

priesthood dropped so alarmingly that
the clergy went to the extreme of seeking replacements by advertising in
Playboy magazine, that fleshy monthly
which has done so much to entice
potential prelates away to furrier pastures.
In Delaware County (PA) dioceses,
the mitered Mafia put a new twist on
a very old idea to raise money: they
conceived (no pun intended) a lottery
that cost $42 to join, had weekly
drawings for 42 weeks and cash prizes
totaling $1 million.
The lottery is structured so that
46.3 cents for every dollar are returned in prizes, and 42 cents are returned to each participating parish.
The 42 cents include five cents in
commissions
to sellers, which is
credited to the tuition of sellers whose
children are in the parish school system.
Only 4.1 cents of every dollar are
consumed in the actual administration
and operation of the lottery.
The "game" - which the Pennsyl-

" ... and now, some inspiring words from Monsignor DeFraud,
who has had enormous experience serving the hungry. r r

Page 10

January,

~/

1979

vania secretary of revenue said could

become statewide - is against the law.
But neither the lottery nor its lawbreaking holy operators will be disturbed.
The district attorney in Delaware
County, who would have jurisdiction
since the lottery accounting is done
there, said no prosecution is planned.
"It's (the law against such games, including church-operated bingo) simply
not enforced," said Dist. Atty. Frank
Hazel.
)

In 1977, Hazel said, the lottery was

investigated when its size made the district attorney's office suspect that professionals might be employed for profit.
An investigation then determined
that the lottery was in the hands of
"volunteers,"
for "charitable"
purposes, and that no private individual outside of Catholic prelates - was profiting.
At about the same period of time,
legislation had been introduced in the
state capitol of Harrisburg to legalize
such "charitable" gambling, so that,
at the time, it was decided to do
nothing. The legislation failed, yet
the illegal lotteries go on.
State officials contend that any
enforcement of the law is at the discretion of the county prosecutor. Ray
Kleiman, the Department of Justice
deputy attorney general for the state
lottery, said such enforcement of the
law is a county prosecutorial function.
"That (any enforcement) is a prerogative of the district attorney. That's
a local matter," Kleiman said.
He added, however, "The only lottery that's authorized is the Pennsylvania State Lottery."
The Catholic lottery began three
years ago, when 19 parishes in the Philadelphia archdiocese were faced with
money problems. That year the pool
was $1 million.
In 1977, when Allentown (PA)
parishes first became involved, the pot
had swelled to cash or goods and services valued at nearly $9 million. That
year, 70 parishes had boarded Christ's
gambling bandwagon. The price of the
lottery ticket is now $E6. This can be

The American

Atheist

"prepaid" or paid in 28 weekly installments of $2 each.

A descriptive pamphlet about the
lottery, which is in circulation in churches in the dioceses, does not use the
word lottery. Instead, it is called
"MILLION DOLLAR ADVE TURE"
and "JOURNEY TO A GALAXY OF
STAR AWARDS . . . Over $7 million
in cash or close to $9 million in spectacular prizes."
When contacted for comment on its
practice of reaping profits from illegal
gambling, the Allentown diocese office
of information said the official diocesan
position is "no position."

Illinois Hi kes
Bingo Loot
Illinois Governor Jim Thompson,
reelected to office in November and
widely mentioned as a Republican
contender for the White House in
1980, in September signed into law a
bill which increases the take of churches and other so-called charitable
organizations from bingo games.
The signing ceremony was held in
the basement of St. Thomas Aquinas
Catholic Church, on Washington Blvd.
in Chicago, a popular location for
bingo games. After Thompson signed
the bill, he went down the street to a
neighborhood bingo game where he
helped call out the numbers.

mD~
~

O~ ~1!!!!itJ@

"."

T' f.+l ~a
?il \!!!$
Ii~
~ 027 ..,~00 ~
<V ~ ., ({Jf)
Pi ~~ ~
o O~ I/.~

0;.,

10\
The new law allows the 1,560 licensees in Illinois to keep $5 million a
year more by reducing from 10 percent to 5 percent the gross proceeds
that have to be turned over to the
state. The law takes effect on 1 Jan.,
cutting in half the $10 million a year
the state now receives from bingo
games.
Thompson said that, based on the
mail he has received this year, the bill
was the most important one (of 334)
to be acted on by the legislature.
"As of Friday (22 Sept. 78), I had
received 2,795 letters from supporters
of the bingo legislation," Thompson
said. "Only three people wrote to say
they opposed it."

BUT AN ATHEIST!
VOTE FOR A WOMAN

A recent Gallup poll which surveyed

Americans' tolerance levels for women,
Jews, blacks, Catholics and Atheist candidates for the presidency has revealed
that WASP Americans could tolerate
anything BUT an Atheist president.
The survey showed that the climate
for women, blacks, Jews and Catholics seeking the nation's political leadership roles has never been more favorable than it is today.
The latest survey sought to find out
how many people would be willing to
vote for a woman, a black, a Jew, a
Catholic, a divorced person and an
Atheist for president.
The current findings show that only
in the case of an Atheist would a majority of Americans be opposed.
* The most dramatic change has
come about in terms of support for a
woman for president. Since 1937 the
percentage of Americans who say they
would be willing to vote for a woman
for president has increased from 31
percent to 76 percent.
* Over this same 40-year period
the proportion willing to vote for a
Catholic' for president has climbed 27
points, from 64 percent in 1937 to
91 percent today.
* The percentage saying they
would vote for a Jew was 46 percent
in 1937 and 82 percent today.
* The percentage of Americans
favorable to a presidential candidacy
by a black has doubled in just two
decades. In 1958, 38 percnet were
willing to vote for a black for president;
the figure today is 77 percent.
* Atheists, meanwhile, were looked
upon favorably by a minority 40 percent of those polled in 1978 while 20
years earlier only 18 percent of those
polled said they would vote for a
qualified Atheist for president.
Following are the questions asked
and the results:
"If your party nominated a woman
for president, would you vote for her
if she were qualified for the job?"
The latest results reported are
based on in-person interviews with
1,553 audits, 18 and older, taken in
more than 300 scientifically selected
localities across the nation during the
period 21-24 July 1978.

Austin, Texas

January, 1979

Latest
1978
1971
1969
1967
1955
1949
1937
VOTE

No

76%
73
66
54
57
52
48
31

19%
23
29
39
39
44
48
65

Yes

No

40%
18

53%
75

Yes

No

91%
88
89
87
84
82
71
69
68
62
64

4%

VOTE

Latest
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
1958
1937
VOTE

4
4
4

No
opinion
7%
7

No
opinion
5%

9
10
13
13
20
20
25
31
28

2
3
3

5
9

11
7
7
8

FOR A JEW

Yes

No

82%
86
82
80
77
68
62
46

12%
8
13
15
17
23
28
46

No
opinion
6%
6
5

5
6
9
10
8

FOR A BLACK

Yes

No

77%
70
67
54
59
47
38

18%
23
23
40
34
45
53

VOTE FOR A DIVORCED

Latest
1963

FOR A CATHOLIC?

Latest
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
1960
1959
1958
1940
1937

Latest
1971
1969
1967
1965
1963
1958

No
opinion
5%
4
5
7

FOR AN ATHEIST

Latest
1958
VOTE

Yes

Yes

No

84%
78

9%
17

No
opinion
5%
7
10
6
7
8

9
PERSON

No
opinion
7%
5

Page 11

ts
80
of theism =:

No man has ever sat down

calmly unbiased to reason
out his religion~an? n?t

GEORGE J.
HO LYOA KE

~~:~e~f~7gi~tg

socialism, his wages were increased to 30 shillings a week.

Working people, particularly the carpenters, seized upon
the opportunity of the new idealism to build lecture halls
which came to be known as "Halls of Science," as the "socialism" presented there was under the aegis of a new scientific
idea. Holyoake soon became aware that the theologians sawall
science as a form of sin, but particularly this new social
science. By 1845, in fact, the new party adherents came to be
known as "Rationalist Religionists" as well as "Socialists."
Holyoake, however, added other topics which were of
import to him. Influenced by Malthus who was calling attention to the danger of population growth, Holyoake went further to engage in what he called "a family limitation" fight,
telling the poor not to multiply and to make cheap labor
available. He also advocated more gentle treatment of children, one of the first in England to recognize that children also
should have personal autonomy in their lives.
A prodigious writer, completing 160 books and pamphlets, in addition to hundreds of lectures, debates and
speeches, he early wrote on the need for "trade unions."
His fame spread because of several events incidental
to his main interest of Owen's socialism and co-operative
trade unionism. The lecture halls were under episcopal license
and the lecturer could be called upon to take a public oath
that he held Christian tenets and took the Bible as the guide
of his teachings. Charles Southwell and Holyoake refused
to do so. In addition, they had both, together with Maltus
Ryall and William Chilton, begun to issue a paper which was
called the Oracle of Reason. Its motto was defiant:

George Jacob Holyoake, the self-educated son of a Birmingham (England) mechanic, was born on 13 April 1817. As
was common, he followed in the workcraft of his father from
the time he was able to handle the tools of the trade, graduating to general work in the foundry by the time he as 11
years old.
Early in his youth, he "thought it prudent to form his
own opinions," and he got into the "perilous habit of saying
what he thought." Finding that he had a facility with the spoken word, while still in his teens he took to some traveling
when he discovered that his opinions were nationalistic and of
a provincial mind. He soon became what he described as "a
wandering speaker on prohibited subjects of usefulness and
progress." In that, which became his profession, he soon found
that his life afforded him many opportunities of self-denial, as
he sought to right what was wrong in the England of his birth.
He began to promote a co-op movement among the working class so that they could, together, cure some of the ills of
early industrialization. He chose to take the leadership in this
area of concern because, simply, he said, "I never studied the
art of doing nothing when something ought to be done."
During this period he supported himself by his speeches,
by teaching, by secretarial work, by writing the correspondence of private persons, by writing technical treatises for mas"We war not with the church but the altar - not
ter craftsmen, by writing advertising copy, by teaching mathewith the forms of Christianity but with Christianity itself matics at a ladies school, and by writing prefaces to books.
not with the attributes but with the existence of deity. "
He was fond of attending chapels and missionary meetings
to see the nature of the public discourse delivered there and
In this paper, (issue number 47) Southwell spoke to the
because he had beginning doubts concerned with the religion
"regular gradation of species" 12 years before Herbert Spencer's
of the day. By 1835 he had become attracted to the ideals of
articles on evolution appeared and eight years before Darwin's
Robert Owen and began to speak for them.
book on The Origin of Species. When Southwell wrote an arRobert Owen (1771-1858) founded the "social ideas"
ticle entitled "The Jew Book," the repercussions were such
movement in 1838. His ideal was to organize labor, to cover
the land with self-supporting cities of industry, in which a
that he was arrested and sentenced at Bristol "gaol" to 12
months' imprisonment.
well-devised material condition should render ethical and,
"social" life possible. In this community, labor would be, as
Holyoake walked the 90 miles from Birmingham to
far as possible, done by machinery and education, recreation
Bristol to visit with him and on the way he stopped to lecand competence should be enjoyed by all. The community
ture in the Cheltenham Mechanics' Institution Hall, on the
would be co-operative, dividing profits and commerce should
subject of "Self-Supporting Home Colonies" which were the
be accomplished by a mere exchange of surplus wealth.
. social dream of Owen. At the end of the speech, a local
This idea of organization into "social states" came to be
preacher arose and said that Holyoake had spoken of duty to
called "socialism" about the year 1841. The enthusiasts who
man, but had said nothing of duty towards god. The substance
advocated the system were granted lectureships and Holyoake
of Holyoake's reply was that in the proposed industrial colonwas one of these, cheerfully walking 26 miles each way to. and
ies, all were free to erect as many churches as they pleased, but
from work, for 16 shilling a week. After six months he became
that he felt it was bad political economy to expend money
an accredited lecturer for "socialism" and was identified as a
that way, seeing the distressed condition in which people
then were. The meeting was then quit and Holyoake contin"Social Missionary," with the right to use the letters "SM"
ued his walk to Bristol. He did not know then that "this unafter his name. As he progressed, teaching at a school for

Page 12

January, 1979

The American Atheist

foreseen incident brought consequences which affected all

my future life."
He later returned to Birmingham where he took over
the editorship of the Oracle
of Reason. Six months later,
again walking to Birmingham,
he was arrested in Cheltenham for "blasphemy"
and
"Atheism."
He was required
to have two sureties each of
which could claim to have
wealth of at least 50 pounds,
and with them he could
swear on his own recognizance. Since he could not
swear "so help me god," he
was placed in prison for three
weeks and hence could not
prepare his defense to the
blasphemy- Atheism charge.
His trial by jury was held
on 2 August 1842 and he was
found guilty and sentenced to
six months'
imprisonment.
During his imprisonment
he
was plagued with visiting
magistrates
who desired to
convert him, a job also
1I.If
undertaken
by the prison
f.;i-r:rCA.]
chaplain. He refused to don
prison dress, refused to go to chapel each day and spent his
time teaching the rudiments of knowledge to his fellow prisoners. During his incarceration,
his family did not have money
enough to subsist and his daughter, Madeline, age about 8,
died of malnutrition.
During the time of his confinement
he knew only cold,
darkness, privation, isolation and insult. The prison had a
rule that lights were out from 4 p.m. to 9 a.m. and he had
limited time, or was forced to write in the dark to smuggle
out articles for the Oracle of Reason journal. He could not
stop his agitation for equality and justice and from prison
he could only return to what he had done before. Now, the
way was much more difficult. As a known "heretic"
and
"Atheist,"
doors which had before been open were now
closed. Yet, he had no great knowledge of Atheism, its philosophy , or of anti-theological
ideas. His main thrust was for
the social ideas of Owen.
Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill (180673) founded some
secular schools in London, but the charges against Holyoake
made even a teaching job there impossible. He found that he
could not teach, he could not lecture, and so he began to write
for others or to write anonymously,
or to write unsigned articles, which were soon much in demand. When he won an
essay contest for writing articles of belief for the "Oddfellows" club, it was necessary that the name of the author not
be disclosed. But, with the 50 pounds in hand, he was able to
set up a new publication,
the Reasoner. In this one immediate
area of interest was women's rights in which he pleaded with
women to assert the same.
He soon was publishing the ideas of all those great old
fighters for human rights:
Garibaldi, Mazzini, Kripotkin,
Robert Owen, Louis Kossuth, Louis Blanc, Karl Blind, William
Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Martineau,
Toussant L'Overture,
Richard Carlile, Henry Hetherington,
Charles Southwell and
G.W. Foote. He met with and befriended
political refugees
from France, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary and

iJ

Austin, Texas

Ireland. He soon was feeding

his articles to many other
journals.
Again, as a publisher he
had to pay tithes to the landholder, to the church, and to
a particular bishop. This he
refused to do and each year a
distraint
order was issued
against him, followed by a
seizure of some goods. One
year his clock was taken,
another year reams of blank
paper, until in anger he went
to the bishop and told him
that he would give him
something of equal value each
year and from then on sent
the bishop a bound copy of
the Reasoner magazine.
It was through the magazine that he came upon what
he called a new form of "freethought" about the year1851.
Joseph McCabe succinctly
describes "secularism"
as a
word coined to express the
extension of freethought
to
ethics. But, in Holyoake's
own words it was "a simple
theory of ethical duty." That
is, "it seemed to me that
doing good was being good - that it was good to do good, and
that if a god or goodness existed he would count goodness as
merit; and if no such god did exist, goodness was the best
thing men could do in this world. It was the best for ourselves
for its satisfaction and its example, and it was best for others
as they would profit by it. These principles being few, practical, and demonstrable
to any capable of observation
and
reflection, they constituted
an independent
code of conduct
which, owing nothing to ancient revelations, adherents of such
views were under no obligation to waste time in reconciling
the truth of today with error of the past."
Holyoake was quite adamant that "this secular form of
opinion" did not constitute or imply Atheism and said that
those who supposed it did were simply falling into error.
He then formed a Secular Institute and in 1852 repre
sentatives of 22 secular societies met in Manchester.
Holyoake
was, himself, the president of the London Secular Society
until 1858. One of his most famous debates, "The Cowper
Street Debate," was concerned with "What advantages would
accrue to mankind generally, and the working class in particular, by the removal of Christianity
and the substitution
of
Secularism in its place?" Holyoake was quite angry with the
published title ("The Cowper Street Debate") and said that
"the object of our contest was to contest the error, not the
truth, which was included in Christianity."
Meanwhile, Holyoake continued
with his major thrust:
the struggle for a free press in England, the education
of
workers, temperance,
the rights of women, peace, improved
nutrition, and a firm advocacy of Owen's ideals of socialism.
In pursuit of these reforms he published the Reasoner
journal from 1849 to 1862.
The difficulty of the free press concept began with the
Queen Anne Stamp Law of 1693 and continued for about 150
years. Each newspaper or journal was required to carry a revenue stamp, which increased the cost of the publication.
In
addition, each publisher had to post a bond in case of blas-

January,

o--~ll.;

1979

Page 13

phemy he might print, or of seditious libel.

Henry Hetherington had been the first to refuse to give
bond, to refuse to use the stamp and on 17 June 1834 he was
brought before the Court of the Exchequer and sentenced to
prison. The contest over the repeal of the stamp duty was
sparked and sustained almost completely by heretics, blasphemers and incipient Atheists. The agitation was continued
for over 20 years and Holyoake was the last person against
whom the Queen's Exchequer writ was issued. The law was
repealed finally on 26 March 1855.
Immediately Holyoake found that he was able to post
the Reasoner by mail. He also won the respect of the journalists of England and four papers chose Holyoake as their
publisher. Together with his brother, Austin, he formed a
publishing house: "Messrs. Holyoake & Co."
He published for the world, giving a voice where there had
been none, meeting with the greats of his time - even in the
United States, dining with and staying at the home of Robert
G. Ingersoll.
Although he ran for public office, he was unsuccessful in
this endeavor. Being a parliamentary candidate in 1857, he advocated that married women should have the independent
right to their property, that there should be an abolition of
church "rates," that the "affirmation" should be sufficient
for public office-holders instead of the "oath," that museums
and libraries should be open to the working-class man on
Sundays as this was his only time to frequent the same. In
1868, again a candidate, this time in Lancaster, he was fighting for working-class enfranchisement and in 1864 when he
ran in Leicester, Charles Bradlaugh, himself, was one of his
committee. Always his platform was for Owen's socialism
and trade unionism, as well as for freedom of the press.
By the mid-1860s he was an English spokesman of repute, a friend of Gladstone's as well as Garibaldi, and Mazzini.

,...-ext Mont n---------,

Holyoake is tried for the "crime" of being an
Atheist. His "blasphemous"
remark: "If poor men
cost the state as much, they would be put like
officers upon half-pay, and while our distress
lasts I think it would be wise to do the same thing
with deity."
In his long fight for freedom of speech he decided that
freethought, Atheist, and secularist publishing belonged in
the most prestigious part of London, and managed a publishing house at 147 Fleet Street which he continued from 1853
to 1861. There he published the works above indicated, and,
in addition, had a meeting room, a printing room, the publishing house and a constant issuance of catalogs. The Fleet
Street address was also a clearing house for his many speech
engagements and the appearances of his many co-workers
and friends.
The objectives of "147 Fleet Street" Holyoake gave as
follows:
1) Promoting the solution of public questions, on secular
grounds, apart from theology.
2) Obtaining equal civil rights for all excluded from them
by conscientious opinion not recognized by the state.
3) Maintaining a publishing organization which should influence public affairs.
4) Maintaining a center of personal communication open
to publicists at home and from abroad.
5) Stimulating the free search for truth, without which it
is unattainable ... the free utterance of the result, without
which the search is useless ... the free criticism of it, without which truth must remain
uncertain ... the fair action of conviction,
without which public improvement is impossible.
6) Maintaining a journalistic organ which
should be open to all writers without regard
to coincidence of opinion, provided there
was general relevance and freedom from
odious personalities.
In his extended career, he came early to know
of the spies, dissenters, obfuscators, attackers
and obstructors who try to still the voices
which protest religion. He noted: "In ecclesiasticism all is different. The church forgets
no offense against it, and rarely forgives it."
He was right, of course. The church never
forgave him and English history has little or
no reference to the part he played in the preservation and advancement of mankind's most
precious heritage: freedom of speech and
freedom of the press. George Jacob Holyoake
died in 1906. Nowadays, only the Atheists remember him.

"Believe me! It's not that you're black ...

or that you're gay ...

or

that you're an Atheist. I just have a funny feeling I'm not the right
lawyer for you. "

Page 14

January, 1979

The American Atheist

GUYANA SUICIDES:
INSANITY as a SACRAMENT
What in god's
America?

name

goes on in

Shoot your wife, let your child die

because of your withholding
insulin
for religious reasons, handle poisonous
snakes so as to die from the venom,
"shun" a husband out of his home,
beat children in religious homes, refuse
blood transfusions
and watch your
father die, force a woman to go through
a dangerous
pregnancy
and even
ultimate
death, permit a horribly
deformed monster to be born rather
than to abort when the fetus is known
to have been harmed by harmful drugs
used by the mother, blow your brains
with mind-altering
drugs, pretend to
healing by laying on of hands, rape the
pocketbooks
of the misguided or the
stupid,
send fellow humans
into
glossolalia schizoid episodes, lay on
burdens of guilt and anxiety - or,
finally, lead gOO-odd persons into a
mass suicide to meet in a promised
heaven "up there."
It is all kosher. All of it is acceptable if you simply say that you are
doing it for "god." Be a "Son of Sam"
and say that Jesus moved you. Keep
your dead mother in a freezer and
announce that the lord willed you to
do it. Flaggelate yourself. Cut off a
hand, if it offends thee. Pluck out an
eye. Even if you are the president of
the United States, bow your head and
admit,
ashamedly,
that you have
"Iusted in your heart."
Anything anti-human goes. Say your
crime was done for the lord and you
have your defense.
The United States government does
anything it can do for the zanies who
drape their neuroses in religious vest-

Austin,

Texas

ments.
Do you want free government land?
Claim you are a church and you have
it. Want reduced air fares on you rtrips?
Just say that you're a minister. Want
to skip paying your income tax, or inheritance tax, or ad valorem taxes?
Simply claim that you are a church.
Want to start a con game selling
pieces of blessed cloth? Want free or
cheap air time to propagandize
your
insanities?
You need only proclaim
yourself a church and the treasury
doors of our state, local and federal
governments will open to you.
Want to receive a letter of recommendation
from California Governor
Jerry Brown, or from First Lady
R osalynne Carter, or from the HEW
Secretary of the United States? You
need only drape your sickness with
the sanctity of religion and you will
have your wish. Want to have power
over people? Claim that god speaks
to you. Or even to have sick fools end
their lives at your command? Say the
Bible tells you so.
Everywhere the insanity is sacrosanct.
Eat this wafer. It is the flesh
of Christ. Drink this wine, for it is
the blood of Jesus. Is that any less
insane than Guyana?
Down on your knees and confess
you have had a bad thought:
"Oh
Father, I have sinned!" Is that any
less insane than Guyana?
Never take your blessed, moldy
underwear off, for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints wills it. Is
that any less insane than Guyana?
Kill a Commie for Christ! Is that
any less insane than Guyana?
Dancing is sinful, say the berserk

January,

1979

Baptists. Is that any less insane than

Guyana?
Progress is anathema, so damn education, say the Amish. Is that any less
insane than Guyana?
Burn down the movie houses, and
the innocent people in them, insist the
Moslems. Is thay any less insane than
Guyana?
Religion has caused more misery to
all of mankind in every era of history
than any other idea. It is time the
zanies were stopped.
"Oh, Jim Jones and his followers
were justs 'cultists',"
the religionists
scoff paranoically.
But the Presbyterians
have a cult.
The Methodists have a cult. Certainly
the Roman Catholic Church is but a
cult gone corporate with a glut of bugeyed adherents. The Lutherans have a
cult.
They are all cults of the irrational,
the bizarre, the insane, the sado-masochistic. They would reach out however they could to destroy - and historically they have done so.
I can see each minister in the
United States in the inner recesses
of his mind insisting, "Oh, if only I
hat! that power! Oh, if only I could
make my congregation
listen to me
like that!"
Jim Jones was not a horror - he
is a model for others of similar "calling" to emulate. He is the ultimate,
the epitome,
the desired end of
every minister. Who does not yet
know this? Who is kidding whom?
What in god's
in America?

name

is going

on

Page 15

A JOYOUS ATHEIST

G. Richard Bozarth
Parochiaid Letters
On 23 March 1978, I went up to the employee's cafeteria at
the Nut Tree, a first-rate restaurant/store complex where I earn
my biweekly paychecks as a janitor. I settled down to eat and
read that day's Sacramento Bee. My digestion was almost ruined
when I read the news about the introduction of the infamous
Packwood-Moynihan Bill. My muse was also inspired with wrath, and on 25 March I
sent the following letter to California's U.S. Senators:
"I've just learned of the Packwood-Moynihan Bill, and I'm
disgusted! It disgusts me because I'm an Atheist, and it disgusts
me because I'm an American.
"It is only the First Amendment at stake here. The separation of state and church is a vital part of the foundation of our
nation. Take it away, and though the nation may go on, it
won't be America, for America is an ideal, a philosophy, a glorious expression of the finest yearnings of the human spirit; it is
not the 50 states anymore than the alphabet is literature.
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion! This odious
bill seeks to make such a law. It may not say so in actual words,
but a law that enables a religious institution to be legally financed by public funds has established that religion! This bill
is grotesquely unconstitutional.
"If parents are so religious they desire to fully imprison the
minds of their children within their faith, then let them do so
at their own expense, not at the expense of this nation.
"Consider too the deathblow this bill will deal to our public
schools. If passed, we will see a boom era of church school expansion as money-greedy sects strive to get in on the wealth by
using the inclinations of the faithful to pressure them to remove
their kids from the public school system. Can we afford to lose
our public school system where a child can acquire knowledge
free of confusing dogmas-where science won't be perverted to
save the biblical fables? Our future will be grim indeed if we
let our children be taught by religious schools to distrust human
capabilities to solve our problems, and trust instead biblical
myths and the intervention of the deity to solve our problems.
"I don't know your present opinion of this lousy bill, but I
hope it is an opinion formed out of respect for the First Amendment.
"Do not vote for the Packwood-Moynihan Bill! Religion
will prosper, to be sure, but it will prosper like a cancer prospersto the death of the victim, and the victim in this case is America. "
A few weeks later I received a reply from California Senator
S. I. Hayakawa dated 13 April 1978. Enclosed with the letter
were two transcripts of portions of the Congressional Record,
one from the 7 Feb. 78 issue and the other from the 8 Mar. 78
issue. The 7 Feb. transcript was the text of testimony given by
Hayakawa entered into the Record on a motion by Senator
Moynihan. The 8 Mar. transcript was a reprint of a Washington
Post article by Moynihan entered into the Record on a motion
by Hayakawa.
This is Senator Hayakawa's letter:
"Thank you for writing concerning Tuition Tax Credits.
"Many people have objected to legislation containirig tax

Page 16

January,

1979

credits for tuition payments because it would violate the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. However, legal experts who testified before the Senate Finance
Committee argued that the Supreme Court has never resolved
this issue in previous rulings. Whether or not it is constitutional is a matter of some dispute, with many legal experts on each
side of the issue. Therefore, I believe that the Congress should
pass this legislation if it considers it to be good policy and let
the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of it at that
time.
"I believe that this legislation is good policy. It is the greatest
piece of consumer legislation in this decade. It will allow parents
to choose the kind of education they want for their children
and restore accountability to their parents from the educators.
For many less fortunate families, it is the only way they can
have the option to seek a better education for their children
outside the public schools.
"Thank you again for taking the time to write. Although
we disagree on this issue, I appreciate receiving your comments
and hope you will continue to keep me informed of your views."
On 29 April, I made the following reply to Senator Hayakawa,
answering some of the arguments raised in his 13 April letter
and in the portions of the Congressional Record he had sent to
me:
"Thank you for your informative reply, particularly for the
relevant portions of the Congressional Record you sent.
"I am not convinced. If this bill dealt with only private
schools which I define as non-public, non-sectarian schools, I
would have no objections at all. Unfortunately, S. 2142 embraces parochial schools, which I define as non-public, sectarian
schools. If fact, it is deliberately meant to embrace parochial
schools. Wasn't the Packwood-Moynihan Bill actually written
by a group of Catholic priests? I can not believe Senator
Moynihan when he says, 'Equality of educational opportunity
has been the purpose of this legislation.' I believe the only purpose of this bill is to give to the Catholic Church the parochiaid it has sought so persistently for so long.
"Do you deny that something like 91 percent of the nonpublic schools in this nation are Catholic parochial schools?
Do you deny that the primary purpose of parochial schools
is to insure the children of the faithful grow up confirmed
Catholics? I hope not. Pope Pius XI stated clearly in his Rappresentanti in terra in Catholicism that, 'it is the inalienable
right as well as the indispensible duty of the church to watch
over the entire education of her children, in all institutions,
public or private, not merely in regard to the religious instruction there given, but in regard to every other branch of learning and every regulation insofar as religion and morality are
concerned. '
"Because it is easier to control the dogmatic purity of parochial schools than it is that of public schools, the Catholic
Church maintains its own school system. However, this is expensive, as is reflected by the one-third drop in the number of
Catholic parochial schools since 1965. This is why on 5 July 77
the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education encouraged

The American

Atheist

the pursuit of parochiaid by 'those responsible for Catholic

schools in countries where the Catholic community must still
shoulder a very heavy burden of cost to educate their own children in their own religion' (italics mine).
"Clearly the Church wants to reopen the 5,000 or so parochial schools they have had to shut down, and to expand beyond to insure every Catholic child gets educated in the Catholic
religion. To do this requires federal funds in the amounts of
billions of dollars. To get these funds requires a bill like S. 2142.
You have spoken of the inexpensiveness of parochial education. It's true that 92 percent of Catholic parochial schools
now have total tuitions less than the ceiling of $500 for the
tuition proposed by S. 2142. Do you think that will hold true
if this bill is passed and it survives the Supreme Court? As soon
as government foots the bill, the first thing that will happen
will be to get state-level legislation passed that will pay for the
other half of parochial tuition not covered by federal parochiaid.
"The second thing that will happen is that tuition for all
parochial schools will increase to the ceiling limits.
"Thirdly, they will try to get state and federal legislation
passed that Will automatically raise the ceiling limits to cover
what will be called 'necessary tuition cost increases.' How do
I know this? I've studied history, and have learned that no human institution has ever been or is now as greedy as organized
religion.
"You praise the equality of parochial education. I'm sure
in basic 3-R education they do very well. But, what about preparing the mind of the student for independent thinking;
that is, trying to inspire the student beyond basic education to
become a rational person with an open, questioning intellect?
That is not about to happen, for the purpose of parochial
schools is the preservation of religion, which has no desire to
have its flocks become possessed with open, questioning intellects that might openly question religion's nonsensical
dogmas.
"In Freedom Under Siege, Chapter 4, Madalyn Murray
O'Hair gives the results of a study of the textbooks used in
100 Roman Catholic and other parochial schools done by Dr.
George R. NaNoune. They are:
'(1) Religious symbols and subjects are commonly used
in mathematics and language art texts.
'(2) Specific sectarian doctrines are presented where controversial matter appears in science, geography, and
language texts.
'(3) All subjects are presented with a general Christian
theistic approach.
'(4) Texts in some subjects request that pupils concern
themselves with specific church goals, such as working
and praying that non-Western cultures will adopt Christianity, or playing one's part in spreading the gospel message.
'(5) Appeals are made to church authority to prove points
in many subject areas.
'(6) Selective emphasis is placed on denominational institutions and contributions to culture and on facts favorable to the particular church, while contributions to
culture by other churches and facts unfavorable to the
particular church are omitted.
'(7) Texts in a number of subjects defend denominational
social ideas and regulations.

"This is what you want to finance with federal tax money with my tax dollars? I find it incredible that anyone, let alone
a man of your 'esteemed intellectual reputation, could believe
that somehow parochiaid is constitutional. S. 2142 is most
definitely a law respecting an establishment of religion. In an
1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, Thomas

Austin,

Texas

Jefferson envisioned the First Amendment as 'building a wall

of separation between church and State.' The PackwoodMoynihan Bill would blow a hole in that wall that might
damage it beyond repair.
"Once again, sir, I urge you to oppose this religionist assault on our Constitution. If you believe private schools are
valuable to this nation, then give us legislation to promote
private schools committed not only to the 3-R basics, but to
the inspiration of intellectual excellence. Parochial schools
exist only to imprison young minds as completely as possible
in a particular religious faith. Whatever good side-effects they
happen to achieve are not worth sacrificing the precious First
Amendment for."
What did I accomplish with these letters? For one, this is
proof that letters to congressmen get read, and are paid attention to, particularly if the constituent's opinion on a bill
is opposed to the congressmen's. Writing to D.C. is not a
waste of time. You will not be writing to a circular file.
How much influence did I exert? Two letters from one
person are not influential. But what if every American Atheist
in California had written, or will write, similar letters? I suspect then Senator Hayakawa might at least blink once or twice.
Numbers influence. The religionists know this. Their leaders
constantly urge them to write letters to their state and federal
representatives supporting religion's goals. In his book, An
American Life, Jeb Stewart Magruder revealed that one of the
best offensive weapons Richard Nixon used against Congress
were letters supporting his policies written by as many loyal
Nixonites as his people could muster. Are we to ignore such
a potentially powerful weapon? We would be stupid if we did.
A letter may take a whole half-hour to write, address, and
stamp. If this is too much time, use one of our pretty American Atheist Center postcards [five for $1.00 - Editor] , and
write something like, "Dear Senator So-and-So, S. 2142 stinks.
Don't vote for it." Or send a telegram.
But do something to let D.C. know you exist and you are
pissed off with garbage like the Packwood-Moynihan Bill. If
each of us doesn't take basic action that we all are capable
of (such as writing letters to D.C.), then I guess we deserve
S. 2142 and anything else the religionists care to legislate ..

"Oops! That was the National Conference of Catholic

Bishops. Better change my vote from 'No' to 'Yes' on the
Parochiaid Bill. "

January,

1979

Page 17

by Chris Brockman
"As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." This old addage
suggests that probably as long as human beings have been conscious they have been conscious of the profound effect of early
experience on the type of person a child will grow up to be.
Unlike trees, human beings are not absolutely determined
by their environment.
To a greater or lesser degree each of us
is self-determining.
We think, we decide, we choose. But this
factor of self-determination
makes early experience even more
important for human beings.
Trees interact with the world in a fixed manner, according
to their nature. The characteristic
ways that human nature
interacts with the world, thinking and feeling, are largely just
potentials.
Humans must learn, must acquire skills to do a
good job of thinking and feeling, and in the final analysis both
are voluntary behaviors. Whether or not a person will typically
choose to think or feel, whether or not he or she develops the
technique to do either well, both depend largely onhis or her
early experience.
Freud sought to search out and understand the influence of
some aspects of early experience on the formation of personality. Whatever the correctness of his conclusions, his work created
an awareness of the general importance
of early experience.
Maria Montessori did the same sort of pioneering work in education, showing the critical relationship between the quality of
early experience and intellectual development.
Since the beginnings made by such people as Montessori
and Freud, recognition
of the importance
of early experience
has grown, and developmental
psychology has sought to qualify and quantify its effects. One very significant quantification
was done by Benjamin S. Bloom. Bloom sifted through, sorted,
and analyzed virtually all of the studies that had been done on
intellectual
growth and published
the results in Stability &
Change in Human Characteristics in 1964. His conclusion was
that there is a negatively accelerated growth curve for intellectual development;
that is, with increasing age there is a decreasingly positive effect from a person's environment.

The importance
of early experience has been well supported
by many other psychologists
and educators. It is now generally
conceded that about two-thirds
of a person's ultimate intellectual growth takes place by the time a child is six years old.
This isn't hard to believe when one considers that the most
phenomenal
single learning task we all ever undertake
is done
completely
from scratch by the time we are three-the
acquisition of language.
While children learn the most from 0-6, because there is so
much to learn since everything is new to them, the years between 6-12 are the time when children are maximally ready
for active learning, according to Erik Erickson. And the refine-

Page 18

January,

1979

The American

Atheist

ments in personality development that take place in adolescence

are as well known and documented as any that occur in human
development.
A number of popular books have surfaced in recent years to
aid parents in providing their children with worthwhile experiences and being themselves a good influence on their children's
development. Many of them, such as Between Parent and Child
by Haim Ginott, stress the importance of relationships.
In 1968, John P. Scott published Early Experience and the
Organization of Behavior, in which he claimed that periods of
great change are critical periods for intellectual and emotional
growth. Relationships formed (or not formed) during these
periods are likely to exercise a large and lasting influence on a
person, according to Scott. The periods of greatest change are,
of course, childhood and adolescence.
With what relationships are we going to provide our children?
What kind of a picture of the world and their place in it are we
going to help our children form? What tools are we going to
give them for dealing with themselves and the-world?
All relationships perceived by human beings fall on a scale
from "For Me" to "Against Me." There are of course many
qualifications and refinements that can be made. Some of the
ways this scale manifests itself are:
Good-Bad
Beautiful-Ugly
Comfortable-Irritating
Malleable-Intimidating
Organized-Confused
Knowable-Ineffable
Shall we give our children a sense that they are themselves
bad and incompetent and that the world is confused and ugly?
Most people would surely say no, but most people would also
choose to give their children a religious, or at least a pseudoreligious, upbringing. Let's see how religion equips a child for
facing life.
The most pervasive thing children learn from religion is that
they don't own themselves, hardly an apt notion for preparing
someone to be a free and independent being. Other people, of
course, share the same fate. They are the property of a god,
existing at its pleasure. Children of all ages, but especially
younger children, identify strongly with their parents. From
religion they learn that god can snatch them from their parents
or their parents from them as a punishment to them, as a punishment to their parents or merely on a whim.

Being separated from his or her parents is probably more

threatening to a young child than the hard-to-conceive idea of
burning eternally in hell. Both, though, are part of another
penetrating principle children learn from religion, that coercion is the ultimate rule of morality, that being good is done in
response to the threat of punishment by a god. Parents can try
to sugar-coat it with talk of making god happy, but children
have learned who wields the power, and they know that the
threat of god-not the love of god-is the motivation.
Is it any wonder that so many people are plagued by neuroses,
psychoses and paranoia? These are disorders that many psychologists date from childhood.
The subtle or overt threat that religion presents to a child is
compounded by a feeling of being out of control. Children learn
from religion that their tools for understanding and thus
manipulating their world are ineffectual. Gods and other ghosts
that people the religious world are ineffable. There is no way
to see or hear them, no advance warning; they mayor may not
do something to one at any minute-there's
no way to know.
Children depend heavily on their senses. They are gathering
information about the world at a tremendous rate, and they
need to know that that information is reliable and that they
can safely act on it. Can you imagine what an act of faith it
would take to walk across a room if one didn't know that the
floor wasn't just an illusion? Yet children quickly learn from
religion that they ultimately cannot trust their senses. If this
isn't taught to them, they press the issue themselves-"Daddy,
why can't I see god?"
Religion says there is a whole other world out there filled
with angels and devils that the senses are unable to know.
What other sorts of things might be lurking out there to do
who knows what? No wonder some children have bad dreams,
schizophrenics make up other worlds, and so many people are
fascinated by movies about exorcism, by astrology, and by any
number of other games which require only judicious use of the
senses and a little sense to expose as frauds.
Now, recall that as human beings we must learn how to think,
we must develop good techniques for thinking and solving, and
we must choose to use our rational faculty. What does the child
brought up religiously learn about thinking? He or she learns
that the mind is not only furnished with raw materials by the
senses on an unreliable basis, but that the mind itself is as
unreliable as the senses are. Thinking can only be a hit-andmiss proposition because god controls the world, and as every
religious person knows, god works in strange ways. Thinkers philosophers and scientists - and the things they discover by
thinking very often contradict religious dogma; both can't be
right. The child is left with a "rendering unto Caesar" problem
to reconcile secular knowledge and religious faith.
From such epistemological conflicts children learn that the
most basic tool of thought, logic, only works sometimes. The
Law of Non-Contradiction is not inviolate: god is all good, but
god made evil and suffering; the child is free to do what he or
she wants, but god already knows what it will be; evolution is
a painstakingly well-documented fact, but god created the
world and everything in it in four days.
The Law of Identity is quite breakable: anything might be
god, a burning bush or a flat piece of bread. The Law of Excluded Middle is revoked: the Bible is not really true, but it's
not false either; many things, like taking birth control pills,
are not really wrong, but they're not right either.
Children do notice the logical difficulties of religion, and
they do ask questions. There is only one answer to such questions - no answer. Having no answer, the religious parent
must resort to mysticism, threat, or irony: the "strange ways"
ploy, "It's a sin to doubt," or "Do you think you're smarter
than god?" No wonder so many people can believe that Red
China and the Soviet Union are liberating people or that the

January, 1979

Austin, Texas

~/

Page 19

National Debt doesn't have to be repaid. One look into a full

church on Sunday is enough to confirm that a sucker is indeed born every minute, or rather mqde, not born.
The inappropriateness
of thinking, religiously raised children discover, is especially applicable to moral matters. Rules
are rules; thinking about them will only lead to no good. If
a rule doesn't seem right to a child then the child, or course,
is wrong, or bad for questioning the rule.
At this point another
key component
of a religious upbringing comes into play. The child finds that whereas parents
and clergy teach the absoluteness
of rules, when rules don't
suit them, they rationalize
them away. Children do imitate,
and what they learn to imitate under this circumstance
is to
pay lip service to rules, but to follow them only when it suits
their purpose. Thus may integrity be stillborn at a painfully
early age. No wonder religious terrorists in Ireland and the
Middle East can do god's will by murdering innocents, including children.
And finally, so far as this essay is concerned,
though it
hardly exhausts the bag of nasty tricks religion has in store for
children, when children have learned what terribly defective
creatures they are it should come as no surprise to them that
the most evil thing of all is to be selfish. After all, isn't it highly selfish to have one's own thoughts, to come to one's own
conclusions
about what's right and wrong, to rely on one's
senses as a test for reality, to want to stay with one's parents and not have them or oneself carried off into the clouds
by a ghost?
Since children are naturally egocentric and possessive, selfishness can be a very good means for the religious parent to
reinforce
in them the idea that they are rotten to the core
(human nature), and that they need god's mercy to set them
right. How many thieves do you suppose were children whose
parents repeatedly
forced them to share with other children?
Or what of the timid taxpayer who quietly submits to every
second-rate bureaucrat's
sharing of his hard-earned money?
The result of a successful religious upbringing is a grown-up
child who consciously or subconsciously
finds the world confused and confusing. He or she feels alienated fr~m fhe world
- "alone and afraid in a world I never made," as Erich Fromm
put it.
He or she may be quite humbled by the lowness of human
nature, or more probably will compensate
for the damage this
causes to his or her self-esteem
by latching on to the selfstretching cause provided by the "truth" of one or another religious doctrine, gaining ego satisfaction
by the literally selfdefeating means of becoming just a part of a whole. He or she
will add meaning to life and find self-worth through decrying
the immorality of the rest of the world.
Self-righteousness,
faith, the missionary fervor are all nonthinking ways to preserve one's belief in a non-thinkable
doctrine. Thus do the things religious people learn as children help
them remain religious people as adults, and achieve happiness.
But I ask you: What profit it a person to gain heaven, but suffer the loss of his or her mind?
There is, of course, also the moderately successful religious
person, who only relinquishes
his or her mind on Sunday
mornings and in discussions on religion. Such a person is far
more common than the fully successful religious person. But
such a person is apt to be even worse off - riddled with gross
inconsistencies
and more consciously
aware of them. Such a
person must be frequently scrambling to anesthetize his or her
integrity, and usually gets pretty good at it. I wouldn't knowingly but a used car from one.
What is the alternative to giving a child a religious/theistic
upbringing?
The only genuine alternative
involves helping
children to gain the ability and desire to live a piece of advice
given in What about gods? [see page 36], "Keep on thinking."

Page 20

January,

1979

This, and an understanding

that being good is rational, reasonable, and self-interested.
An ethical upbringing
would celebrate human nature, not
denigrate
it. It would teach the joys and responsibilites
of
rationality.
A truly moral upbringing stresses the sacredness of
individuality
and the necessity for freedom to maintian it. It
presents the primary substance
of being good as respect for
human dignity and the recognition
of natural rights. It requires commitment
to a set of principles that are derivable
from human nature and applicable to the real world, a set of
principles that demand understanding,
not obedience.
And what about gods and religion? All things being equal,
neither would even arise in a parent/child
relationship.
Unfortunately, confrontation
with gods and religion by children and
subsequently
by parents is inevitable. God may not be everywhere, but religion darn near is.
A child is almost sure to be constantly
exposed to some
form of goddism in all the media, in school, through other
children. The view of god a child gets may be piecemeal: an
"Oh, god" or "goddamn"
from parents, a song such as "god
didn't make little green apples" on the radio, a reference to
little children being made by god on a TV program, a friend's
talking about Sunday school or heaven, a copy of Bible stories
in the doctor's office. One thing remains the same in everything a child hears about god in the outside world, however,
everything implies that god exists.
Keep in mind the exaggerated
importance
of childhood
experiences,
especially those of early childhood,
to how a
grown child will ultimatley
look at and deal with the world.
Setting a child adrift in the sea of missionary zeal - that is,
anything short of actively and effectively teaching that there is
no god - could very well mean a 20- or 3D-year or even a
lifetime sentence to wrestle with uncertainty,
guilt, self-doubt,
or other of the plagues that religion has loosed on humankind.
While your children are with you, while your children are
young, teach them. Teach them to think, to rely on their
minds. Teach them principles
of goodness, and as much as
possible allow them and encourage them to apply these principles themselves. Talk with one another, discuss what happens
in your lives in a moral context. The Mormons have an almost
good practice in this respect. Once a week they have a family
night, in which family members get together to talk about religion. Substitute ethics for religion and you have a good idea.
The family that thinks together is almost sure to stay together.
As a postscript I'd like to call attention to the work of Lawrence Kohlberg. After conducting
a long series of studies with
children and adults, Kohlberg charted the stages of moral development and the approximate
age range for the achievement
of each. Interestingly,
the successively complex and abstract
levels of moral development
correspond quite well with Piaget's
stages of intellectual
development,
but occur at slightly older
age levels, presenting
the suggestive possibility
that one is
derived from the other, or both from a common cause.
Attainment
of the highest levels of moral development,
Stage 5 in which behavior is primarily the result of a perceived
social contract, and Stage 6 in which universal principles guide
moral judgments,
is not automatic.
Just as relatively few people characteristically
operate on the abstract level of thinking;
Kohlberg's
studies show that by age 16 about 35 percent of
American youth operate at Stages 5 & 6. By age 21 this has
increased to only 51 percent, and as we all know, many people never begin to base their moral or ethical operations
on
principles or justice.
The suggestion of a connection
between cognitive development and moral development
is very persuasive.
It lends
weight to that piece of advice from What about gods? for both
children and adults - Keep on thinking.

4.

The American

Atheist

PARING
THE
ROD
\

.:',
..

:-

:::

~-

:i

~
~

~: .. -~:

1
so

f.

~:

rr

-SOMETIMES
by Robert Joe Stout
From desks linked together by wooden runners within the
high-ceilinged schoolroom,
we could look past snow crusted
on the window sills, across a playground
criss-crossed by
reminders of freezing recess activity, towards the winterstricken prairie. A column of telephone poles dwindled into
the horizon, reminding us of Indian fights and the faraway
war where valorous deeds were performed by men who existed
beyond "Our Father Who Art ... " and the Palmer Method.
We sniffed, scuffed our shoes against the floor, picked scabs
and scratched our noses, absorbing more than the geographies
scraped onto the long blackboards
with stubs of preciously
conserved wartime chalk.
Wyoming was patriotic, functional and Protestant in 1944.
It could afford to be all three. Life Magazine brought the news
to us in small doses. We were not so far removed from horse
and carriage days that the gasoline shortage was a problem
and the only Catholics I knew lived in the orphanage on the
northeastern
corner of Torrington,
a town so singularly selfdisciplined that the graffiti on the wall of the C.B. & Q. station
hasn't changed in 35 years.
The orphanage was surrounded
by a high metal fence.
Within its grounds, punishment
was even swifter and more
severe than it was in public school. A large percentage of the
orphans were of Slavic descent and had names like Amicich
and Fojtacek. They were marched to school by resolute nuns
who wore the same starched white collars and ankle-length
black robes in summer and winter.
Of these nuns, Sister Ana was by far the most feared. She
wielded a willow switch with such force that some of the fifthgrade boys would report to school barely able to move. Pete
Lynas, who was tanned and slender and smoked cigarettesa remarkable
accomplishment
for an ll-year-old
in that
restrictive, class-conscious
society-used
to rub dirt into the
welts raised by her beatings. When I asked him why, he
explained that as long as the welts were ugly and swollen,
Sister Ana wouldn't lay it to him with such ferocity when she
caught him smoking.
Sister Ana would not let her orphans mingle with
Protestants.
(This seemed reasonable to my untrained
mind,
C

Austin, Texas

since the Ladies' Guild of the Methodist Church would not let
their children mingle with the orphanage Catholics.) While in
the fifth grade, I briefly fell in love with a slender blonde girl
named Carol Gard. One day I persuaded Carol to leave early
and go to the creamery with me instead of marching back to
the orphanage with the others. She was both exhilerated and
frightened, twittered like a sparrow, touched me with nervous
fluttering gestures and half-believed
my assurances that the
nuns wouldn't punish her as long as she was with me.
Sister Ana was at the gate to meet us. I tried to speak to
her, explain that I liked Carol and had bought her an ice cream
cone out of my paper route money, but the nun lifted her
militantly forged chin and refused to acknowledge
my presence. When Carol quiveringly explained, "I was with him, he
said ... " Sister Ana swept past me, her long neck twisting first
in one direction, then the other.
"I see no guardian angel," she hissed and spun Carol onto
the sidewalk that led to the chapel. There, I learned later,
Carol recited Hail Marys for four hours every night after
finishing a double shift in the orphanage kitchen.
Except for Sister Ana, the nuns were identical, faceless
creatures who seldom stepped outside the orphanage grounds.
In that respect they were not unlike the teachers, who seemed
to have existence only within the classrooms, for I don't
remember ever seeing them in any other surroundings.
They
wore dark-colored,
full-length dresses and low-heeled, solidlooking shoes. Their "hair-dos,"
if you could justify giving
their weekly hair-sets such a distinction,
were identical one to
another (perhaps, indeed, they went to the same beauty parlor
each Saturday morning).
They taught reading, spelling, arithmetic and penmanship in
the lower grades. History, geography and science were added
somewhere between the third and the sixth. There were no
physical education classes, only two 15-minute recesses when
the boys were allowed to bloody each others' noses as long as

January,

1979

Page 21

they didn't attract the playground supervisor's attention. The

girls did somersaults on the parallel bars, the same underclothing they so assiduously kept from view at all other times
displayed without embarrassment as they whirled like little
mechanical toys until the clamoring school bell brought them
back inside.
One's position in the rows of desks was determined by the
teacher. Once, after misbehaving (though precocious, I was
somewhat a clown), I was reassigned to the back of the class
where the Mexican children sat. (Only in later years did I fully
realize that the classroom was a microcosm of the community,
with the town children in the center, a core that included the
sons and daughters of tradespeople, full-time sugar factory
workers and the more prosperous farmers, flanked by the
orphanage Catholics in their ill-fitting second-hand clothes, the
kids who came by bus from little sandhills' farms where their
parents, many of them "Rooshians"-immigrants
of German
descent who came to parts of Wyoming, the Dakotas and
Canada from White Russia at about the time of the Bolshevik
revolution-eked out a living and, finally, the Mexicans, many
of whom had been born in Wyoming or Colorado but who still
spoke Spanish at home.) It was a different world back there.
One could barely hear the teacher and didn't have to follow
the lessons in the textbook or turn in assignments if he was
willing to settle for a D or an F.
I was accepted, at least temporarily, into their group, a sort
of a back-of-the-class sub-culture that exchanged notes and
pictures, jokes, threats, pennies and chewing gum. I was the
youngest member, both in duration and age, for most of my
new compatriots had flunked one or two grades along the way
and were several years older than I was. A handful of candy
squares made from dextrose (the only kind of candy that we
could get during the War) and a two-bladed Barlow knife won
the friendship of Eddie Rodrigues, a stocky Chicano whose
voice already had begun to change. He was fiercely loyal and
told me he'd take care of me if I ever got into any trouble.
When I showed up for class one day, scraped and daubing a
lip cut by a bully's attack, Eddie's eyes narrowed. He sat
through arithmetic quietly carving shavings from the corner of
his desk with a brightly sharpened pocketknife. Just before the
bell that ended recess sounded an hour later, the bully who
had attacked me came crawling across the schoolyard on his
hands and knees. His face was bruised and a cut showed blood
on the side of his neck. In a quavering voice he asked me to

kick him "-anywheres, even in th'teeth-"

as a means of
getting even. I chose his rump and didn't really put my weight
behind it. Back in class, Eddie extracted the pocketknife. Its
blade showed a drying bloodstain.
Nex time kick hes teeth! the note he passed with it read.
I felt strangely giddy. "I'll kill him for you!" Eddie had
whispered. The teacher passed out workbooks, some kind of
grammar exercise that described Dick and Jane going through
a happy Sunday routine of "Good morning, Father's," "Oh!
What beautiful dresses!". a walk through a tree-shaded neighborhood to a white-steepled church and a handsome minister
spreading his hands to an all-white, all-middle-class congregation.
Using the blood-stained knife as a weight to hold the workbook open, I scribbled answers in the blanks. But my thoughts
were occupied by Eddie, the bully and a budding friendship
based on vendetta and a threat that could end someone's life.
Donna Jensen was even more grown up than Eddie. Though
only in the fifth grade, she was at least 13 and had older
brothers and married sisters. Her parents were Danish immigrants, poor hog farmers and very strict. Donna wanted very
much to be liked. I passed her some answers to an arithmetic
quiz and she cornered me at recess to ask me why I'd done
that. I answered that I knew she was having trouble and I
wanted her to pass the test. A funny, wrinkled smile tangled
the corners of her mouth.
"Why do you care, anyhow?"
I said, "Just 'cause I wanted you to pass it," but she was insistent and wanted a more definite answer.
"Well, 'cause I like you!" I blurted.
She took a deep breath, then smiled and touched my cheek.
"I like you, too. I really do," she answered.
All of Torrington's school buses made two trips each morning and each afternoon, taking those who lived closest to town
on the first circuit and those who lived farthest away last.
Donna had to wait 45 minutes to an hour for the one to take
her to a remote part of the sandhills. Since I lived in town,
walked to and from school and did no chores, I had the afternoons to myself and often stayed at the busstop to talk to
Donna.
We were, I realize now, a curious couple. Donna, at 13,
scarcely could read and write. Her grammar was faulty and occasionally profane but in her lack of sophistication she had a

1979 has already arrived and the next convention of American Atheists is but a few months away - in Dallas during
the weekend of April 13-14-15. The nu mber of pre-registrants
indicates a record turnout of out-in-the-open
Atheists .
. . . . .. For registration info write Convention Coordinator John Mays at P.O. Box 2117, Austin, Texas 78768
.

Page 22

January,

~/

1979

The American

Atheist

brashness, a frankness, that amounted

to wisdom. She described her father's violent temper tantrums in the same flat,
unquizzical voice that she told me about butchering pigs and
her problems with menstruation.
(The latter biological occurence so astonished me that I dug through the school encyclopedia for corroboration,
only to find that it had been bowdlerized. The title page was stamped, "Approved
for elementary school use. Board of Christian Education.")
Temperatures
on the northern Great Plains dip to below
zero in mid-winter. Donna and I found a protected alcove behind a shrub under the school building's back steps to huddle
and wait for her bus, our bodies together and our hands in
each other's pockets as we talked. I was her link to the world
outside of Torrington,
for her parents never left the county
and they did not buy newspapers or own a radio. The local
sheriff served papers on one older brother before Donna's
father would release him to be drafted by the Army and a
sister, only 19 or 20, I believe, who'd run away from home,
was stabbed in an alley behind a bar in Scotts Bluff by a
drunken soldier.
Just before Easter of that year, Donna quit coming to
school. I tried to find out what had happened to her but the
adults I asked evaded my questions and the few students who
knew her shrugged blackly and mumbled that they'd heard
" ... something awful, really awful ... " and that Donna
wouldn't be coming back.
That same week I overheard two women shaking their
heads and clicking their tongues over a case of child abuse and
my father and Molly, a neighbor and fellow sugar factory
employee, mention a "Jensen" who'd been brought into town
in handcuffs but later released because neither his wife nor his
daughters would give evidence against him.
Eddie finally told me the story in brutal field language. I
had nightmares for weeks afterwards and never successfully
juxtaposed my memories of Donna with the abuse from both
father and brothers that had been going on for years. (The husband of Donna's married sister apparently found out and was
the one who reported it.) Nor was I able to reconcile a Sunday
school lesson about "bad" women with the Donna who had
shared her knowledge and personality with me and had shared
an initmate, if fleeting, part of my life.
(Many years later my mother told me that the school had
received a letter addressed to me later that same spring. It
was from " ... that Jensen girl, the one who was so badly
abused ... " but the school had decided not to let me see it
because they felt I would be better off not knowing anything
about her.
"They said they felt you were too young to learn about
sin," my mother shrugged.)
My adapting to the back-of-the-room
sub-culture thwarted
the social punishment
intended by putting me there. The
teacher began to snipe at me, directly and indirectly.
She
threatened
others with the same discipline. ("Brian, I suppose
you want to go to the back of the class and be laughed at,
too?") And she used me as an example of wasted talent. I was
compared to the Prodigal Son and once, much to Eddie's
muffled delight, was told to stand and translate the burst of
Spanish I'd let go with after stubbing my toe against the desk
runner.
"Well?" she demanded, "are you going to tell us?"
I hesitated once more, then let a chain of vulgarities spew
forth. She charged down the aisle and I stumbled backwards,
defending myself by flinging my arms across my face and
whimpering that she'd insisted that I translate the phrases.
Such pleadings didn't save me from a swat across the
shoulders and banishment
to the principal's office, where I
expected, quite apprehensively,
to get it with the dreaded
razor strop.

Austin,

Texas

But the principal, a big, stoop-shouldered

man with a face
that resembled a drying onion, lay the weapon aside and put
his dry, pudgy hand on my shoulder. He had talked to my
teacher, he said, and was disappointed
in me.
"I thought you'd want to work your way back up with
your peers." (It was the first time I'd heard that word and I
wasn't quite sure what it meant.
I shook my head. He told me how important
it was that my
father and mother not find out about my misbehavior.
In a
squeaky voice I told him I didn't care.
He patted me with nervous familiarity, cleared his throat
and told me, "Now son, I want you to go back to your class,
take your own seat and show your teacher what kind of work
you can do."
I hesitated. I could picture Eddie hunched over his desk at
the back of the class flicking his pocketknife
and the empty
seat where Donna had slumped, vacantly listening to "Himommy! -Hi-daddy! -tirne-to-go-to-the-pretty-church"
stories
after coming to school brutally abused by the head of the
home in which she was a captive. Slowly I turned my head.
"Spank me," I ordered (but despite my resolve my voice
quavered).
The principal's onion face tightened around his mouth. His
jaw trembled - from rage, I thought at the time, but realize
now more likely from frustration
- and he fingered the strop.
Then, listlessly, he struck me, twice or three times, and I
walked out of his office, proud of the red near-welts that
made me a fully accredited member of the sub-culture in the
back of the room: tough, errant and privileged to take the
name of god in vain until summer released us all to fields,
hoes, pictures of the war and fishing poles.

~ouId:?lJe tfJMe

t-~~~~
Ii~

Ii

ANOTH ER BOY

.~
~

l
}

He lies prone in front of the fireplace

~~

(With a book about history or such)

Reminiscent of cabins and fence rails. . .,~
Children really don't change very much.

~;

CHILDREN

Ii

'I

OF WAR

The American has left his seed

Sown wild in many places
Some beautiful results and some

With gaunt and hungry faces.

'i-

,,

S'0 give, America, give, give

',~,'

Bounteously of your pap

As your seed is scattered, fill

:"

The world-wide hunger gap.

"

~~~.ti#'~~~""-\lifWlj~;j1i'Jill.ft~v.m~~~;'M1~~

January,

1979

Page 23

The American Alhe ist Radio

Atheist Children &The Courts
Program 324 .....

14 Dec. 74 ....

KLBJ ....

Austin, TX

******************************************
Hello there,
This is Madalyn Mays O'Hair, American Atheist, back to
talk with you again.
Atheists have had some difficulties with the courts with
respect to their children. Probably the best known case of this
was with the English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley who was
deprived of his children after the death of his wife, Harriet. At
that time his work, The Necessity Of Atheism, was well known
and when, in 1816, he sought to regain possession of his children, then living with their maternal grandparents, he was charged with Atheism and subsequently was deprived by the courts
of the custody of his children because of his Atheist views.
In the case of 19th century English Atheist Annie Besant,
we find that the law's theological fist could also strike the
face of a mother. This is fully reported in Frank Swancara's
Obstruction Of Justice By Religion:
"Annie Besant was a lawfully wedded mother, and an
august judicial tribunal compelled her to suffer because of
her Atheism.
"In 1869, a son, and in 1870 a daughter, Mabel Emily,
were born to Annie Besant and her husband, minister Frank
Besant. In 1873, the father, a clergyman of the Church of
England, objected to the heretical views of the mother, with
the result that, to quote the case record itself (Besant, 11 Law
Rep. Chancery Div., 1879, p. 508):

mother to deliver up her infant daughter.

Annie Besant being a woman of high and unimpeachable
character, this was not, and could not have been, a case where
it was sought to deprive a mother of the custody of a child on
the grounds that the respondent parent had been guilty of immorality. The charge against Mrs. Besant was, in substance,
that within a year after the separation she revealed her "atheistical opinions" to the world. She had published the Freethinkers Textbook, the Gospel Of Atheism, and Fruits Of
Christianity, and had engaged in the publishing business in
partnership with the Hon. Charles Bradlaugh.
Upon the court's hearing of the Rev. Besant's petition on
18 May 1878, it became the province of the court to determine
whether the enforcement of the agreement which the parents
had entered into with reference to the custody of Mabel Emily
Besant would be "for the benefit of the infant." In the consideration of the case the Master of the Rolls indicated that he
would employ his "knowledge of the world" as well as of the
judicial precedents.
The court decided in favor of the father. The main ground
of the court's decision is indicated by the following from the
opinion:
"Mrs. Besant herself says that she prohibited the governess
from giving any religious education to the child, and has prevented the child from obtaining any religious education at
all ... She considers it her duty to educate the child so as to
prevent her having any religious opinions whatever until she
attainds [sic] proper age."
The judge then speaks and says:

'On the 25th of October, 1873, a deed of separation

was executed, by which it was agreed that Mrs. Besant
should have the entire custody of the girl (Mabel Emily)
for 11 months of the year, Mr. Besant having the custody
of her for the remaining month, and in like manner that
Mr. Besant should have the custody of the boy during 11
months of the year, Mrs. Besant having the custody of
him for the remaining month.'"
Annie Besant in her autobiography says:
"An attempt had been made in August, 1875, to deprive
me of the custody of my little girl by hiding her away when
she went on her annual visit of one month to her father ... I
received notice in January, 1878, that an application was to
be made to the High Court of Chancery to deprive me of the
child, but the petition was not filed till the following April."
The petition was filed by the Rev. Frank Besant, then the
vicar of Sibsey, in his own name and in the name of the child
by himself as next friend, asking the court that it ord~r the

Page 24

January, 1979

"I think such a course of education not only reprehensible but detestable, and likely to work utter ruin to the child."
The court admitted that "Mrs. Besant has been kind and
affectionate in her conduct and behavior toward the child, and
has taken the greatest possible care of her, so far as regards her
physical welfare, ... and that she entertains that sincere affection for the child which a mother should always feel." Yet
this mother was forced to lose her child because the Master of
the Rolls found such reasons as indicated by his remark:
"I do not believe that a single clergyman's wife in England
living with her husband would ... associate with Mrs. Besant."
One of the reasons also given for the decision against Mrs.
Besant was that the little girl would "have the companionship
of her little brother," who was already in the custody of the
Rev. Besant.
Attorney Swancara, reviewing the desision, notes:

The American Atheist

"This is simply hypocrisy. In the usual case where it is

desired that little brothers and sisters live under the same roof,
all the young children of a family are placed in the custody of
the mother."
On the point of the education of the child being without
religion until the child reached a mature age, Mrs. Besant made
this point when the case reached the court of appeals: "Mr.
John Stuart Mill was brought up in this manner by his father,
and no injury to his character resulted."
However, the appeals court, viewing the books written by
Mrs. Besant, noted: "If the ward were allowed to remain with
the mother, it is possible, and, perhaps, not improbable, that
she would grow up to be the writer and publisher of such works
as those before us."
The appeals court said, further: "From such a possible
future the Master of the Rolls thought it his duty to protect
her, and we have no hesitation in saying that we entirely concur with him."
Referring to the mother, the Master of the Rolls said:
"She has endeavored to convince others, by her lectures
and by her pamphlets, that the denial of all religion is a right
and proper thing to recommend to mankind at large ... I
know, and must know, as a man of the world, that her course
of conduct must quite cut her off, practically, not merely
from the sympathy of, but from the social intercourse with,
the great majority of her sex."
The court's decree was enforced. The child was carried
away shrieking and struggling. The child was still weak from
scarlet fever. The process of tearing her away from her mother
caused her to become frantic with fear; she resisted the separation passionately.
The legalized abduction also tortured the mother. In her
autobiography she wrote:
"The loneliness and silence of the house, of which my
darling had always been the sunshine and the music, weighed
on me like an evil dream; I listened for the patter of dancing
feet, and merry, thrilling laughter that rang through the garden, the sweet music of the childish voice. During my sleepless nights I missed in the darkness the soft breathing of the
little child. Each morning I longed in vain for the clinging
arms and soft, sweet kisses. At last health broke down ... "
"Not A Proper Person"
Just prior to this, in the United States, a Baptist sought to
remove one A.A. Bell (Maxey v. Bell, 41 GA 184, 1870) from
the office of testamentary guardian of two children on the
grounds that he was "not a proper person to have the custody
of the minors," because he had long been "an infidel of the
order usually denominated Universalists, who deny the gospel,
and profess to believe that all will finally be saved." Such a

reason was advanced in spite of the fact that the testator and
father of the child had himself been a Universalist and that
courts generally favor having a child educated in the same religion which its father professed. The court ruled against the
petitioner on constitutional grounds, but it is very instructive
that such a case whould have been tested in a United States
court, at that late date.
Of course, Lord Coke, who was the last authority on the
law of England, had said and was quoted by a Mississippi court
with approval (Hairn v. Bridalut 37 Miss. 209,226, 1859):
"All infidels are, in law, perpetual enemies for between
them, as with the Devil, whose subjects they be, and the
Christians, there is perpetual hostility, and can be no peace."
Residual Injustice
There is a link between this and a residual injustice in the
United States now. In 1970, the latest year for which figures
are available, 176,000 children were adopted out of a pool of
236,000. Of those adopted, 12 percent were non-white; of the
60,000 remaining, two-thirds were non-white. Almost all, 86
percent, of those adopted were under a year old, with most of
the others, 11 percent, under six.
The children not adopted in 1970 were non-white, over
six, physically handicapped, or all three. And this trend is
holding. Contributing to the problems are the restrictive laws
and customs that still govern adoption in most states. Thirtythree states, for example, still insist that the adopters have a
religion and that the religion of the prospective parents and
child be the same. Besides being unconstitutional on its face
(because it tends to "establish" religion, an activity unequivocally prohibited by the Constitution), such a rule is a philosophical inanity: what is the religion of a year-old child?
Nonetheless many couples who would otherwise make
perfect parents have been prohibited from adopting because
they profess no religious preference or because they were
Jewish and seeking to adopt a "Catholic" child, or vice versa.
In practice this has meant that many people who have adopted
have done so by lying, either with the knowledge of the
agency or without, about being church members.
Unfortunatley, it is here that the Atheist loses out. Annie
Besant could have gone into the court and lied - she could
easily have said that she would give her child some Christian
religious training - in that case, the training of the Church
of England.
She could not.
The Atheist is usually too honest to pretend that (s)he
acknowledges the existence of a personal and watchful "supreme being" when, as in the case with many presumed
Christians, (s)he is unable to feel any personal contact between
him/herself and a self-conscious deity, and is unable to see
any evidence of supernaturally produced efficacy of prayer.
If the Atheist professed a belief in order to obtain civil

AT LASTI

----.

THE ATHEIST CHILDREN'S BOOKS YOU REQUESTED ~

SEE PAGE 36 .,

Austin, Texas

January, 1979

Page 25

rights, his/her doing so would be but an empty formulism.

Yet, most Atheists will not do it.
We have won a fine precedent, however, for Atheists
who do desire to adopt children. In August of 1974, my husband and I, known Atheist leaders and writers, were able to
conclude an adoption, ourselves, in Travis County, Texas.
We adopted my granddaughter, who had been living with
us for a number of years. In the process we refused to comply
with requests for information concerned with our religion or
what we do with respect to any religious or non-religious education for the child, who was then nine years old. Our contention was that it was none of the business of the Great State of
Texas as to freedom of conscience since the United States
Constitution, in the First Amendment, precluded a requirement in this area.
A very courageous Travis County, Texas, judge agreed

with us - and we now have a daughter in our home.

In the 1870s, Annie Besant lost her child because she was
an Atheist. In the 1970s, we kept our child even though we are
Atheists. It is a long, hard road. Had our judge not been foresighted and courageous, we also well may have lost. .
This informational broadcast is brought to you as a public
service by the Society of Separationists, Inc., a non-profit, nonpolitical, tax-exempt, educational organization dedicated to
the complete separation of state and church. This series of
American Atheist Radio Series programs is continued through
listener generosity. The Society of Separationists, Inc., predicates its philosophy on American Atheism. For more information, or for a free copy of the script of this program, write
to P.O. Box 2117, Austin, Texas. That zip is 78768.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Bill Baird
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Bill Baird's initial column for The
American Atheist in September of last year brought an angry
response from A theist Garry Neale. In this month's column
Mr. Baird will reply to some of Mr. Neale's charges against
him. For purposes of brevity, Mr. Neale's letter has been
condensed.}
As a recent subscriber to The American Atheist and a longtime Atheist, I would like to comment on an article I read
in the September issue of the magazine. I am referring to
Bill Baird's article on "Compulsory Reegnancy."
When I read the part in his article where he refers to a human embryo as being comparable to an acorn, I wanted to
throw up. His statement that "We all know that acorns are not
oak trees any more than embryos are people ... " infuriated me
more than anything ever said to me by any supporters of religion in any of my numerous arguments with them.
This is typical of the warped philosophical arguments the
pro-abortion forces use to justify their crimes. Their position
that human embryos and fetuses are not human beings is absurd. Even the most demented biologist will admit that such
fetuses meet all existing criteria for life. If cut they bleed, if
removed or damaged they die, if left alone they will take in
oxygen and nutrients and grow. But the pro-abortionists
will still argue that even though such fetuses are alive, they
are not human beings.
Some pro-abortionists will say that a fetus is a human being
when the fetus can be removed from the mother and immediately becomes self-sustaining in a gaseous environment (that
is, the atmosphere which we breathe). Must we now conclude
that people who are confined to respirators and oxygen tents
are no longer human beings? And then there is the view that
since a fetus cannot carryon life independent of the mother
it therefore is not a human being. Must we now conclude that
infants, comatose patients or people who are dependent upon
a kidney dialysis machine are no longer human beings?
There are two rights in conflict in the case of pregnancy.
The child's (embryo's) right to life, and the mother's right to

Page 26

January, 1979

her own body, a right which she has forfeited by having

intercourse without using contraceptive means. True, if the
mother's life is definitely endangered by the pregnancy, then
she does have the right to be relieved of the life threatening
her own by abortion if necessary. However, such is the case
only if she did not have foreknowledge that her life would be
threatened by pregnancy and only if she had taken reasonable
contraceptive measures.
Mr. Baird tries to play on our sympathies by telling us of
how he has seen women who were injured or died while attempting to perform a do-it-yourself abortion. I have no sympathy for someone who is injured or killed while trying to
commit murder (abortion). If we leaglize abortion for this
reason, then surely bank robbery should be legalized on the
basis that the robber may be killed or injured in the process.
All through his article Mr. Baird attempts to sway Atheists
to his side by indicating that anti-abortion forces are motivated
by their religious beliefs and therefore wrong. For the most
part I will agree that the majority of those persons in the
anti-abortion movement are concerned because of religious
considerations, but I am one Atheist who stands at their side.
Mr. Baird states that forcing people to go through this
sexual slavery is a barbaric concept which must be fought by
. all free-thinking people. It seems strange to me how he perceives saving lives as barbaric and mass murder as normal. If
there ever was a person who could wear the title of "peddler
of death," I can think of no one more qualified by his accomplishments than Mr. Bill Baird.
Garry Neale
Niceville, FL

The American Atheist

BAIRD REPLIES

I feel that Mr. Neale's response to my column on "Compulsory Pregnancy" reflects both his confusion about the issue
and about ideas he has not fully, logically explored.
He expresses his furor at my statement that acorns are not
oak trees any more than embryos are people. His "criteria for
life" ("if cut, they bleed ... they take innutrients and grow ... ")
do not take into account facts such as that some eggs, following conception, developing in an embryonic stage, may go
through a rapid myosis and mitosis and become hidadidiform
moles, which are cancerous tumors. They take in oxygen and
nutrients, they grow, yet they aren't human beings.
To show how ludicrous his position that a person exists
from the moment of conception is, I would like to ask him
and other concerned readers to consider the following: Ninetyone percent of all abortions are done before the twelfth week,
when the tissue is approximately the size of an acorn. Approximately 24 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages before the twelfth week. Should we now have a law passed that
would bury all embryos as people, add them to the population
figures, allow them income tax deductions? Where legislators
are elected based on the number of people in the community,
would we count all pregnant women as two people? Do we
outlaw the use of IUDs (intrauterine devices) which prevent a
fertilized eight-day-old egg from attaching to the wall of the
uterus?
His argument equating human beings who are not self-sustaining (people on dialysis machines, respirators, etc.) is fallacious. Those machines have separate people attached to them,
whereas an embryo is attached to a woman's body. Through
potential problems such as toxemia pregnancy or hemorrhage,
the embryo could indeed cause the death of the woman. No
one pays that price because he is on a respirator.

Millions were shocked when Ms. Marla Pitchford of Kentucky

in desperation aborted herself with a knitting needle. She was
first charged with manslaughter, then with practicing medicine
without a license. Her boyfriend was even forced to testify
against her as a state's witness. She faced 10 years in prison before she was acquitted by reason of temporary insanity.
The writer's reasoning reminds me of my recent debate on
ABC-TV with Michael Schwartz of the Catholic League. When
I asked if he would permit an abortion in the tragic case recently
of the 15-year-old California hitchhiker who was raped by a
51-year-old man, who was found wandering in a dazed condition with both arms severed at the elbow, his perverted answer
was that he would deny her an abortion and that if she attempted to get one, he would bring homicide charges against her.
Emotional Name-Calling
It is an insult that the writer's limited vision allows him to
refer to people like myself as "peddlers of death," when I can
document in any courtroom in a civilized society that when
abortions were illegal, women suffered and died by the thousands. I challenge him to name any state that has decreed by
law that an embryo is a person. In fact, the 14th Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution states" ... all persons born or naturalized ... " (not "conceived ... ").
The argument is not whether an embryo is a person. The
argument is whether each of us can reach our own conclusions.
In its 1973 decision legalizing abortion, the U.S.' Supreme
Court said that philosophers, theologians and judges have not
been able to reach a conclusion throughout hsitory on the
question of when a person exists. Just as people of many varying religious beliefs hold differing views (as there are many
different views even among Atheists), those of us who believe
in freedom of choice fear that some people would impose
criminal sanctions on other moral people of a different belief.

So-Called Reasonable Maasures

I would like to awaken the writer to the world of reality
and help him become aware that "reasonable contraceptive
measures" often fail. For instance, the birth control pill, lauded
as 99 percent effective, could, based on its 1 percent failure
rate, result in the pregnancy of 100,000 women (1 percent of
the approximately 10,000,000 women on the pill in this
country.) These women are certainly taking "reasonable contraceptive measures." And what about the misconceptions that
cause conceptions? i.e., women using a diaphragm with vaseline,
not knowing that petroleum jelly causes the rubber to deteriorate; or men carrying condoms in their wallets, allowing their
body temperature to effect the quality of the rubber; or
women taking baths after using contraceptive foam, not being
aware that the foam will be diluted or washed out, increasing
the risk of pregnancy.
Mr. Neale says, "I have no sympathy with someone killed
trying to commit murder ... " It is outrageous that he can be
so chauvinistic and sexist as to compare a pregnant woman
seeking to terminate a pregnancy with a bank-robber. If he
really believes that abortion is murder, would he impose the
same criminal penalty such as life imprisonment or the death
penalty on a patient who has an abortion as on other "murderers"?

Austin, Texas

January,

"Senator, we're so glad that you see abortion our way.

We just may have to make you number one stud in our
lecture stable!"

1979

Page 27

ON OUR WAY
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke

American Atheism Vs Theocratic Communism

Since nothing much can be done about solving any problem until it's understood,
these words might help to clarify
one of long standing. The thing that our American philosophers
only inferentially
admit about Western philosophy
is that the
West's religion, organized Christianism, forced philosophic delvings to be concerned
only with the problems of the West's
people - those of Europe and the Americas.
This happened
because the religion always stood in the
way of any proposal for mankind's benefit in which religion
wasn't asked to take one of the leading parts. I'm not saying
that such plans would have worked had the religion not opposed them, but only that this has prevented
Western philosophy from becoming
as good a bellwether
as it in fact
ought to be.
The Western philosopher
has until recent times deferred
to religion's meddling in his profession. He and his fellows are
only now beginning to realize that anything in which religious
bias plays a part will to the extent of the bias fail to transcend
geographic
bounds, and stand defeated by the problems besetting peoples who - important
or not - exist at the same
time in other regions as familial units whom circumscribed
philosophy can aid but very little, if at all.
Hence it isn't surprising that, up to the present, Western
philosophy
tends to be irritated by philosophic
opinions that
exist outside its own provincial limits - showing, in this way,
that it deems its own opinions more progressive. But are they,
really? Would the West's outlook be the same were the religion
from its very outset not to have interfered in the Western philosophy's outreach? That it indeed would be different is as obvious as is its need for thorough reappraisal and consonant revision. Nowhere is this more evident than in the persisting
bickering between the North Atlantic nations and the Soviet
Union.

USSR More Hegelian

Inasmuch as we Americans are one of the principals being
looked to for a solution of this perennial quarrel, it's imperative that we face and correctly evaluate the Soviets' position
in it: the standpoint
from which, as the past 60 years have
shown, the Soviets will not be budged. It seems to me what we
fail to take into account about the government
of the USSR
(regardless of the political philosophy
that undershores
the
executive, legislative and judicial components
of our constitutional republic) is that the USSR, although doctrinally
Marxist, is patterned
according to the philosophy
of Hegel (1770-

1831).
Hegel's political theory was actually theocratic.
Consequently, everyone
of the kings and emperors of Prussia and
Greater Germany idolized him for it. Like ours, its authority
today depends on three divisions: 1) the legislative; 2) the administrative
and judicial; and 3) the executive
(Politburo).
The subtle but big item is that in the USSR the Politburo functions as a god for the other two divisions - just as in previous
times functioned
in European states the king or some other
kind of sovereign.
I consider our American form of government
better be-

Page 28

January.

1979

cause theirs, as shown, is actually quadruple - ours triple and

hence simpler by one. Here space forbids my going into
greater detail, except to add that theirs defers to the concept
of a collective will, ours to the will of the individual.
We shouldn't
look down upon the USSR system, but we
mistakenly
do, calling it outdated
in structure
because it is
basically
Hegelian. We forget that our own system was in
1776 created of a combination
of political theories that were
being discussed for a generation or two before Hegel was born.
I assume that we think ourselves more up to date because
we are free to elect a new chief executive and a fresh Congress
every few years if we so desire. We should remember that this
nevertheless
entails risks and poses dangers of the kind that
Tocqueville's
Democracy In America cautioned us against way
back in 1838.

Politburo Watchmen
Hence we are apt to forget that while we are occupied
during election years with the process of bringing the outlook
of current times to bear on our political conduct, the Soviets'
policy for political dominance
keeps marching
on, guarded
against the fickleness
of public opinion
by its Politburo
watchmen.
If they are keeping their people from thinking,
as we say they are doing, we should thank them for it. Who
knows what their peoples' minds would devise were they to
be as free as we are?
So, even if the Soviets' behavior at odd times can be called
outdated or relatively elementary
- it relates to or delves into
problems of wider scope than only those of our Western concern. It seems to me that their philosophic
outlook, by being
less religiously circumscribed
than our own, is consequently
more productive.
It doesn't conflict with the religious notions
of any nation. It usually focuses exclusively on the basic problems confronting
mass humanity.
Now ask yourself which one of the two - theirs or ours is more likely to produce a salutary effect in the shortest time?
Which one will gain wider understanding
or approval? Which
one is bound to produce the most "good" for the authorities
backing this policy, and for the societal group or nations they
represent?
If the Soviet outlook
is philosophically
Hegelian (as
granted here), and the mind of the Russain is in this instance
outranked
by the West's, isn't it at least conjecturable
if not
possible that his abiding loyalty to Hegel's theories could lead
to philosophic
development
behind the Iron Curtain as significant as all that has happened since 1776 on this side of the
Atlantic?
Even though philosophic
thinking usually defends
an arbitrary
postulation,
there have been occasions when important problems have been solved by its abandonment
of all
rules of logic.
In the post-Hegelian
years, practically every Western philosopher of stature, with the possible exception
of Descartes,
had tried to reconcile his thinking with the Christian dogmas
of the time in which he lived. All failed; each in turn a bit farther afield than his predecessor
from the Augustinism
and

The American

Atheist

Thomism that all of Europe once abjectly respected.

It could be argued that Spinoza initiated the trend that,
throughout the days of Locke, Leibniz, Hegel, Hume, Kant,
and Fichte to Darwin, took religion out of politics, but all of
them having failed to convince the masses that religious beliefs were folly, forced Western philosophy to turn within itself, and seek relief in what John Herman Randall, Jr. calls attention to as mathematically supported "objective relativism."
Rather than to heap contumely on the Soviet thinkers,
wouldn't it be more realistic to suppose that they are wide
awake to the sundry theorems that burgeoned since Hegel's
time, and are "captivated" by his postulations only because
these cover more of the area with which Soviet ambitions are
concerned?
Why not be prudent, and assume that the Soviets are well
aware of their commitment to Hegel's theories, but are presently so intent on the technical answers which they nevertheless must provide for their needs as to willingly trade for their
sating the inferior standing which we of the West assume is
the result of the Soviets' lack of perspicacity? Well, let no one
tell you that Hegelism destroyed the Politburo's recognition of
an advantage when the opportunity to gain it presents itself.
The Soviets' emancipation from the subversive domination
by religion of Russia's politics (such as existed there during
the Rasputin era and before) has now endured for more than
60 years. In that relatively brief period Russia attained in
science and technology a position enabling it to compete with
our US of A on almost equal terms.
How? Because in 1945 we emerged from the war suffering
from a missionary complex. The sickness prompted us to worry
more about Russia's freedom from churchliness than about
ourselves. Shouldn't American leadership and not religion have
then been our first concern? Yet, ever since that time we've
been worrying about nothing but communism.
If the above statement is untrue, we are making a pretty
big fuss over nothing in Africa, South America, the Middle
East, the Iberian Peninsula, and other hot spots on the globe.
And practically everyone of our recorded disappointments in
this category came to term because - despite clerical protestations to the contrary - our sadly infantile religious outlook
has made us and kept us myopic.
Our governmental authorities and political leaders have by
dint of a religious doctrine (that for more than a century has
been culturally defunct in all the West but in the Americas)
been duped to pull religion's chestnuts out of the fire. Seeing
us so avidly diligent at this thankless chore, the Western nations - our allies - are shaking their heads in disbelief. Our
anachronistic behavior doesn't make sense to them; and, in
1978! after two centuries of our independence, is something

that's impossible to rationalize.

Western philosophy, its progress restrained for more than
a millenium by a vampiric doctrine that made of philosophically inclined minds a shambles wherin thinking was largely
paralyzed by visions of dungeons, tortures, and pointless persecutions, took more than 400 years - from the days of Galileo to Darwin - to escape and enter the sunlit province
wherein thinking could unrestrained be engaged in and enjoyed. I'll even risk being ridiculed, and venture to say that in
the 10 centuries of the Hallstatt civilization there live in Alpine Europe men who were mentally more free than the masses whom superstition and religious dogmas befuddled during
the 2,000 years that followed.
We can marvel at our philosophical progress, if we so desire, but should also remember that Christianist dogmas still
benumb our lives today. Western philosophy hasn't thus far
produced anything as noteworthy as the thinking which the
record attests was done long before in Cathay, Greece, Egypt
and possibly even in pre-Columbian America. That it was superior to ours is beyond dispute, for it conceived nothing anywhere near as moronic as today's stereotyped Christianity.
Sanctimonious Imbecilities
In the outlook of these earlier humanists rests their bequest to us: their primitive but honest and non-Christianist
kind of thinking that over the years evolved into Atheism
which, now science-strengthened,
enables us to speak up
trenchantly for the first principles of Americanism. If we succeed in preventing clericalism from replacing those principles
with its sanctimonious imbecilities, we will have little else to
fear.
As to the growling Russian Bear, I see no occasion for
fears of the kind expressed by David Ormsby-Gore in his mordant Must The West Decline? We have as great a stock of fissionable junk with which to blow Russia off the map as Russia has in stock against us. That it's highly dangerous junk is beyond argument, but thus far just as dangerous to the one as to
the other, and for this reason neither of the two wants war.
So, the real danger is in the possibility that some hotheaded fool might push the fatal button at the wront time: a
possibliity that isn't to be ruled out, especially since the
button-pusher is bound to be a member of the race of earthlings some of whom have been bamboozled to think themselves
"children of god," but only when they behave like children
assured by mommy that god will love them no matter how
simple-minded they are .

,.

By Wells Culver

/'

,.

"

"
/
/

"That's one hell of a gimmick, Harry."

Austin,

Texas

January,

1979

Page 29

:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::::;:;:::::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::;:;:::::::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:}~{{{:~:~:~:~{{:

_____________

JERRy W BORCHARDT

The Age of the Enlightenment was the harbinger of the

modern age of secularism; not since the establishment of
Christianity as a state religion by Constantine in 395 had
Christian dogma so fervently and blatantly been rejected.
To be sure, Christendom had always been rent by heretics,
but heretics had usually agreed with orthodoxy on the questions of the existence of god and the divinity of Jesus. The
heretics had simply interpreted doctrine differently from that
found in the official church. There had been religious dissenters prior to the Enlightenment, men such as Martin Luther
and Baruch Spinoza, but such dissent involved elaborate religious systems that rivaled the supernaturalism of orthodoxy.
The first unadulterated refutation of the Christian god in
Western thought may be found in the writings of the 18th
century philosophers. The writings of the 18th century Deists,
Materialists, and Atheists represent a radical break with Christian tradition that continues to effect and influence the
thought of the Western world.
This paper will exclude consideration of the liberal
Christian viewpoint in the 18th century. There is no doubt
that liberal Christians, such as Jonathan Swift and John Locke,
are important in understanding the attack on mainstream
Christianity. But these men, however liberal, retained the bare
essentials of Christian dogma. Rather this essay is concerned
with the professed non-believers and their attack against the
god of Christian tradition.
THE DEISTS
(Voltai re, Jefferson)
The Deistic movement was the primary anti-Christian
philosophical persuasion among the intellectuals of the 18th
century. Deism originated with an English diplomat, Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, through his published work, De Veritate
(1624). By the next century Deism gained prestigious support:
Deism was professed by such remarkable men as Voltaire,
Montesquieu, Paine, D'Alembert, Condorcet, Volney, Jefferson, and Madison, With such subscribers Deism was a powerful influence in the Enlightenment against the Christianity
of the priests and clergy and of the masses.
Deism, briefly stated, is the hybrid philosophy born by
the marriage of the scientific revolution and the prevailing
notions of the deity in the 18th century. Newtonian physics
helped explain, in rational terms, the workings of the universe; gone were the mysterious and animistic forces that had
prevailed in European thought. Popularizers of science, such as
Francis Bacon and Locke, emphasized the empirical method,
the use of induction.
Yet the notion of the Supreme Being, of the Great First
Cause, was still held to be true by most of the intellectuals
of the day. Thus the Deists understood the universe as operating strictly through natural laws as discovered by science and
set in motion by the deity. This view did not admit such
Christian notions as miracles and revelation and rejected

Page 30

January,

1979

equally the Atheistic notion of a godless universe.

Voltaire (1694-1778) was the most well-known and important Deist of the age. He was a prolific writer and much
of his work consisted of witty broadsides against the Christian
religion and is still being felt today. Nearly 200 years after his
death one can still find in Christian propagandist tracts the
false story of how Voltaire died a sorrowful and repentant
death for his diatribes against the Christian faith. Voltaire is
still the agitator.
A passage of Voltaire's concerning a theologian is a good
example of his rejection of the theology of the Christian religion. He wrote:
The difficulty of arranging in his head ideas which
are confused by nature, and of throwing a little light
into so much obscurity, often discouraged him; but since
such research was the duty of his position, he devoted
himself to it in spite of his distaste. A t last he arrived at
knowledge unknown to most of his confreres. The more
he grew truly learned, the more he distrusted everything
he knew, he confessed he had squandered his life uselessly.
On the American shore the most influential Deist was
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). Jefferson was an important
figure because he was instrumental in shaping the national
policy on religious tolerance and freedom. He authored the
Declaration of Independence, with its typical De(stic notions
of the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God." His work on
religious tolerance influenced the age and was represented
by Madison's First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Jefferson epitomized the spirit of the Enlightment: he
was a strict proponent of religious tolerance. Toleration of
various religious beliefs did not originate with the Deists;
Locke had argued for toleration. But the Deists were the
most generous champions of freedom of religion. Locke
denied freedom for Atheists, while Voltaire allowed such dissent: his life-long friend was Baron d'Holbach, an Atheist.
Jefferson helped rescue the United States from the puritanical
intolerance that infested the nascent nation.
Jefferson wrote in his Notes on Virginia that:
Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion.
The several sects pel/arm the office of a censor morum
over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction
of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one
half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.
With the cause of toleration we see indirectly the Deist
contempt for Christian supernaturalism. If Christianity is to be
taken seriously, then intolerance necessarily follows. The

The American

Atheist

Christian must maintain faith in one god and must proselytize that belief. The Deists, as Jefferson illustrates, would
point to the fact that the history of the West since the advent of Christianity is a history of oppression and bloodshed. Thus the notion of monotheism found in Christianity
is a deterrant to the advance of civilization, the Deists would
have argued.
The Deistic movement played an important role in the decline and fall of the Christian concept of god. The Deist
attack on Christian dogma gave impetus to more criticism and
rejection of such dogma during the 19th and 20th centuries.
But the positive side of Deism died during the 19th century.
The Deist idea of a first cause was either rejected as false
(Atheism) or was not accepted as certain (Agnosticism). The
intellectual movement of Deism in America was eventually
incorporated into the Unitarian Church. While the Deists' god
was finally abandoned, their trust in reason and the rejection
of the Christian creed has been maintained up to the present
century by more people than even the most optimistic Deist
had hoped for.

With men such as Diderot and La Mettrie we find a

further step in the decline and fall of Christian supernaturalism.
The Deists had criticized Christianity, but they substituted
one supernatural doctrine with another. The Materialists,
on the other hand, concerned themselves more with the facts
found in empiricism than with metaphysical constructions.
La Mettrie did not reject god, but was more interested in the
natural explanation of the world. Diderot was so concerned
with the natural, that the supernatural held no place in his
thought.
Thus the Materialists of the Enlightenment were more
consistent in their application of science. The Deists retained
a degree of the supernatural; the Materialists rejected supernaturalism as bankrupt for explanatory purposes. The Materialists were forerunners of the modern secular age; the Deists
were vestiges of a past religious age.
The Materialists have been vindicated; while Materialism
as a methphysic is still being disputed, men nevertheless behave practically as if Materialism is true. The Materialism of
the 18th century was indeed an enlightenemnt, enabling men
to cast aside the supernatural element in contemporary thought
and to forge ahead with scientific advancement.

THE MATERIALISTS
(Diderot, La Mettrie)

THE ATHEISTS
The 18th century Materialists rejected Cartesian dualism.
(d'Holbach)
Rene Descartes had postulated a mechanistic explanation for
the material world while assuming a supernatural realm that
In the Atheism of the Enlightenment we find the comwould explain the human intellect. For Descartes the spiritual
plete break with supernaturalism. The ambiguous deity of La
world, including minds, was the primary and the material
Mettrie, or the first cause of the Deists, is absent in the
world was the secondary reality.
thought of the Atheists. They accepted the anti-Christian
Bolstered by the scientific revolution, the Materialists
elements of the Deists and the non-supernatural explanation
argued that Descartes was wrong in positing a supernatural
of the universe of the Materialists.
order. They maintained that nature is all that is, the concept
They did not accept the notion of god, because such a
of a world outside of nature is mere verbiage and fabrication.
notion is superflous. The world is governed by natural law and
The greatest champion of the Materialist viewpoint duris eternal. God, by definition, is unknowable. How may one
ing the Enlightenment was Denis Diderot (1713-1784). Diderot
fancy he understands what the word means? The Christian
was a very prolific writer who fluctuated between Atheism and
god, the triune, is a childish fabrication. There is no such god.
Deism. He remained constant, though, in his Materialism.
The most popular Atheist of the Enlightenment was
He suggested to his Deist friend D'Alembert to 'be logiBaron d'Holbach (1723-1789). He was the most militant
cal, and do not substitute for a cause which exists and which
Atheist of his time and had a wide circle of friends, including
explains everything (matter or nature), another cause which
Voltaire and Diderot. In his primary work, The System of
cannot be comprehended, whose connection with the effect is
Nature (1770), he wrote about his dissatisfaction concerning
even more difficult to grasp, which engenders an infinite
the concept of god:
number of difficulties and solves not one of them (superThe principles of every religion are founded upon the
naturalism). "
Julien Offray De La Mettrie (1709-1751) concerned himidea of a god. Now, it is impossible to have true ideas of
self primarily with applying Materialism to human beings. He
likened the human body to a machine which winds its own
springs. Every facet of the human being can be underCCrstood as a~alogous to a ~ac~ine; the Cartesian dichot~
// ~
j~\ ~ ~
.,~
omy of mind and body IS mistaken.
~'
'V~~I
VVll.J/~
~
La Mettrie was not Atheistic; he implied that
'!o~
~
there was a god. But he belongs to the camp of the
,
18th century thinkers who rejected Christian su.
pernaturalistic metaphysics. He argued that:
I
-:'.
\

A cr (.;(,

~h
\
(
I
7;{fi

If there is a god, he is the author of

nature as well as of revelation. He has
given us the one to explain the other,
and reason to make them agree. To
distrust the knowledge that can be
drawn from the study of animated
bodies, is to regard nature and
revelation as two contraries
which destroy each other, and consequently to dare uphold the absurd
doctrine, that god contradicts himself
in his various works and deceives us.

~
i

l1'1\."\

,,*'"l~~.,.,
-

!J

~'\

._.

./ ~

c:

"I never told you? Well, you certainly never

told me you were an A theist too!"

January, 1979

Austin, Texas

~/

Page 31

a being, who acts upon none of our senses. All our ideas
are representations of sensible objects. What then can
represent to us the idea of god, which is evidently an idea
without an object? Is not such qn idea as impossible as
an effect without a cause? Can an idea without an archetype be anything but a chimera? There are however
divines who assure us that the idea of god is'innate;
that we have this in our mother's womb. Every principle
is the result of reason; all reason is the result of experience;
experience is acquired only by the experience of our
senses: therefore, religious principles are not founded
upon reason, and are not innate.

0;

In d'Holbach we find the non-Christian philosophies of

the Enlightenment carried to the logical conclusion. Nature
and science are to be trusted; revelation is false. D'Holbach
did not shy away from Atheism, as Voltaire had, but embraced it. To reject supernaturalism as interfering with the
natural world order, as both Deist and Materialist had is to
reject supernaturalism all together, d'Holbach would ~rgue.
Therefore, Atheism, the notion that the concept of god
is quite literally nonsense, is the logical outcome of the application of reason. In his Atheism, d'Holbach becomes more
consistent and reasonable than Voltaire and braver than La

Mettrie, who never took the step beyond a vague Theism.

Conclusion
The Christian world of 18th century Europe received the
strongest attack on their dogmas that had ever occurred
prior to that century. That attack was spearheaded by a
small but determined group of philosophers. The decline of
the Christian concept of god can be found in the writings of
the Deists; the Deists' creed may be understood in Tom
Paine's statement "I believe in one god, and no more." They
accepted a bare god stripped of the Christian paraphernalia
of miracles, revelations, messiahs, etc.
The supernaturalism of Christianity also suffered a blow
from the thought of the Materialists: the Materialists found
that the present condition of the world could be explained
without reference to the interfering hand of the Christian
god. And the fall of the Christian god occurred when the
Atheists realized that god becomes a word without a sensical
meaning under close scrutiny.
The Christian god suffered an illness under the hand of
the Deists that sapped him of his power; in his illness he was
forgotten by the Materialists; and after he died he was buried
by the Atheists.

A.

One lovely Sunday morning a good

Catholic went strolling down the block
on the way to mass. He was met by a
derelict who asked him to lend him a
dollar for breakfast. The Catholic pretended not to hear, so the man said
that he was hungry and would surely
pay him back as soon as he received
his check, and that he could always be

This robed man also offered ou

Catholic a plot of land in a real estate development called "heaven," but
you had to be the right kind of person
or else the boss wouldn't let you move
into the neighborhood.
This white-collared man then asked
everyone to put a down payment into
the basket going around, and payoff
the balance every Sunday for life,
and that they wouldn't need receipts
as the boss knows who everybody is.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::

Page 32

,f

Further down the block the Catholic met a few neighborhood toughs
who offered to sell him protection for
his family and home against the "bad"
people who were moving into the area.
He told them to shove their protection
scheme, and proceeded on his way.

This man with a -black shirt threatened our Catholic that he could go to
a place where all the "bad" people go
after they die where they will burn
forever. He offered the good Catholic
protection from going to this place,
and offered him the prospect of
living: forever.

January,

1979

The American

Atheist

INSIDE OUT
J. Michael Straczynski

~bt 1o5t ~o5ptl of ~t. ~pptnbicitu5

(As the reader is probably well
aware, there has long been speculation
within the religious community regarding the possibility of a fifth Gospel of
Christian theology. So it was with considerable shock that the world greeted
the discovery of this long-discussed
document last month. Although the
circumstances of the discovery have
been largely withheld from the press,
The American Atheist has managed to
obtain several already translated portions of the document, a transcription
of which are presented below for the
first time anywhere.)
And so it came to pass that three
Wise Men came from the East, bearing gifts of myrrh, frankinsence, and
several good tips on the horses. They
finally arrived at the Bethlehem Inn
of Holidays, where they were directed
at once to the child who, they were
told, was born of a virgin.
And there was much snickering and
slapping of knees among the Wise Men,
who had heard the same such story of
others making the rounds in Judea, Samaria, and Philistine at dozens of crossbow weddings. Then the Wise Men
lifted up their heads and gave thanks,
for they knew that Joseph was a fool,
and would be easy prey for some lakefront property in Egypt.

. . . He was taken by his parents into Jerusalem for the annual festival of
the scarab. Yet soon did they notice
the child missing, and did run searching
through the streets of Jerusalem, asking all present if they had seen the child
called Jesus. Finally, they entered the
Temple and, searching therein, found
the child among the learned men of
the Temple.
"What dost thou with our child so?"
asked Mary as the men pulled on their
robes and stepped away from the child.
"Er, ah, actually, we were merely
examining the child's mind," said the
leader of the group.
"But," said Joseph, who was always quick to pick up on little discrepancies, "his mind resideth not in that
portion of his body."
"Well, while we were at it," replied
the learned one, "we thought it wise

Austin, Texas

to simply check his circumcision while

examining his mind."
And so, satisfied, Joseph left the
Temple with the child, who continued
to smile strangely for several days afterwards.

When he had come upon his thirtieth birthday, Jesus did take it upon
himself to go forth into the desert,
there to fast for forty days and forty
nights in order that he might commune
with God.
Thus it was that Jesus wandered
through the wastes for thirty-eight
days, deep in meditation, and was rewarded by a visitation from the Almighty.
"Blessed art thou, my Son," said
Yahweh, "for thou hast denied all mortal and worldly things for my name's
sake. Thou hast done well."

."OPtll<>IIITIZ;
~ET!()lOr/<.OlY

l(I{01Tlf<$o

T(ABr~ocp<f>HIA'/-OVT
q:.NO~ATVO

.P.11;;J~T.!..."::__
)(AlOkl:o~.

/<.4> 'fA 1f"'0

r"luA"''',T"J(1
'\'J(OAOC"'~"

l'lcq.WAt+TO
"l-l<.TCO-~ Q
pt.'('o"
1D

Then Jesus turned his gaze to the

Lord of Hosts and did call out: "Is
that it? Is that the best you can do? I
mean, nothing personal, you understand, but that and two shekels will
buy me an ounce of camel dung. If
you really want to show your appreciation, I could really use a ham
sandwich right about now."
And the heavens rumbled with anger.
"Okay, so make it roast beef. Let
be, already."
And the Lord spoke: "The Laws of
Moses are like unto the word of the
Lord."
"Laws, shmaws," replied Jesus, taking a rock from out of his saddle. "One
lousy little piece of ham it shouldn't
hurt to part with. You'd think you

January, 1979

could do that much after I walk around

out here like an idiot in this crazy desert for five weeks. For a nice sandwich
and a pickle, I can go to Moshe's and
have it in ten minutes, with some garnish and a little cole slaw on the side,
no less. Ten minutes! Do you hear
that, Mister 'I-created-the-universe-inseven-days?' Did you hear that, Mister Big Shot God who can't even pull
off a lousy little sandwich without getting his bowels all in an uproar. Just
forget the whole thing. Forget I ever
said a word, okay? Next time, may my
tongue fall out of my mouth and lie
on the ground twitching before I ever
turn to you again for a favor.
"Now go away. Don't bother me.
I've gotta take a crap. What, you like
looking at dreck? A real sickie, that's
what you are, you know that? A real
shlep. "
And the Lord of Hosts was silent,
for He was pissed off.
. .. To be continued next month.

FOOTNOTE: In the last installment of this column, I dealt seriously with the equally serious problem of
the infringement of religion into the
media, particularly television on a
creative level. Between that time and
now, another flagrant example has
occurred, which is so disturbing that
it simply must be brought out to the
public. (Hence the reason that this
month's column has been split into
two parts.)
The circumstances behind this latest
example are known primarily by those
in the writing profession, particularly
those who work in television, and have
been largely kept quiet and contained
to those "in the ranks," so to speak. It
was only as a result of my own work
in the media, and my contacts in the
field on the East Coast, that I was able
to find out anything about this at all.
So, to proceed.
Several weeks ago (as of this writing)
a peculiar thing happened on NBC,
That network's late-night comedy program, "NBC Saturday Night Live,"
suffered an odd jumble in the television
scheduling. On a show scheduled to be

Page 33

hosted by Richard Dreyfuss - a rerun appeared

instead another
rerun, this
one hosted by Ray Charles, which had
been "bumped"
up in time a full week
in order to make the switch. The Dreyfuss-hosted
rerun finally did appear
the following week, but something had
been changed from the original, live
version. I picked up on it immediately,
and dug out the story.
On the original, live version of that
particular show had appeared a standup comedian working under the name
of Father Guido. His entire monologue
was a massive satire of organized religion. While it sometimes lacked a bit
in good taste - as does all satire, from
Swift's A Modest Proposal up to Philip
Roth's Our Gang - it was intelligent,
witty, and neatly structured
to draw
blood.
After the first airing of that show, a
firestorm of protest erupted from the
religious
community.
The common
feeling was: "Make fun of our society,
our elected officials, our oddities and
personal eccentricities,
but keep your

grubby little paws off our religion!"

However, it was, of course, a little
late for protest.
The show had been
aired over all the continental
states
and Hawaii, and it's virtually impossible to suck up those little broadcast
beams once they've gotten out of the
antenna, y'know.
So the furor died down.
Until the rerun of the show was
announced
in TV Guide. Then everybody and his mother that happened to
remember
dear Father Guido and his
"questionable"
satire descended upon
the network
en masse, with one request: "Get that guy the hell outta
there! "
Now, let's face facts: Networks are
corporations.
They are out to sell a
product,
pure and simple. What they
do not need are hassles, controversies,
threats of boycotts
and all that good
stuff of which a deranged democracy
is made. So they put the show on hold
for a week, and bumped up the Ray
Charles rerun to fill the gap while they
considered the situation.

A Modern Cynic's
Dictionary
........
ARRANGE -vt- Bribe.
ARSENIC -Fl- A popular cure for marital unrest.
ASCETIC -adj- One who indulges in denial.
ASEXUAL -adj- Truman Capote.
ASHAMED -n- Caught with the goods before you could
get away and enjoy them.
ASININE -adj- Comparing the actions of a human being
to those of a donkey. That the donkey has not objected to
this comparison
long ago is a tribute to the patience of the
creature.
ASTONISH -vt- To tell the truth.
ASTROLOGY
-n- The study of the stars with the goal of
gaining a government grant.
ATROCITY -Il- Acts of war committed
by the side that
lost.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
-Fl- Foolishness
feeding upon itself.
AWFUL -adj- Anything written by Micky Spillane.
BABY CARRIAGE
-Fl- The first link in the revolving cycle
of human evolution; carriage, tricycle, bicycle, car, stroller,
hearse.
BACHELOR
-Fl- An individual
with a hole in his nose,
eagerly awaiting the ring.
BAIL -n- A process created by the judicial system which
allows a thief the opportunity
to raise further funds for his
defense.
BALANCE SHEET -Fl- A physical manifestation
of metaphysical numerology, usually without foundation
in the physical world.
BALD -adj- A state of reflection. The term comes down
to us from the memory of Prelate Augustine Bald of the
Ottoman Empire. In his fortieth year of political and economic affluence, he died of dyspepsia, leaving no succesors

Page 34

January,

1979

"Considered
the situation."
That,
dear friends, is a euphemism.
Roughly
translated,
it means they strapped on
their parachutes
and did a half-gainer
off that sucker while they had the
chance.
The interim one-week
was put in
digging through
the files and finding
something
that would fit exactly into
the time spot formerly
occupied
by
Father Guido. They finally found one,
a harmless
satire called "La Dolce
Gilda," slipped it into place, and aired
the finished product,
confident
that,
given the average attention span of the
American
viewer, no one would notice.
And unfortunately,
they were right.
With the exception
of those in the industry - writers, producers,
directors
and other network brass - virtually no
one else knows about it, or cares to
ask.
It's just myself, my fellow peers in
the media, and you, courtesy of The

American Atheist. A
Such is life.

M..

by J. Michael Straczynski
bearing his name. Thusly, he came to be known as the late
Prelate Bald, the Heirless.
BALDERDASH
-n- Accusations
that this lexicographer
makes bad puns.
BALLAD -n- A song, usually slow, andof Country-Western
derivation, with a prosaic plot something along the lines of:
"I lost my wife, you stole my horse, we shot the sheriff,
Dad sold your sister, momma's dying of cancer, and we're
all jumping off the Tallahatchee
Bridge."
This version of the ballad is uniquely and solely American.
No one else would have it.
CADDY -n- 1. A small cad. 2. A member of the clergy
who is privy to our transgressions butwilling to forget them in
return for a contribution
to the furtherance
of his ministry.
CAIN AND ABEL - Two brothers who jointly participated
in the invention
of a pastime that has enjoyed a long and
prosperous history. Further, so important has it been deemed
for the happiness of mankind that the whole thrust of modern
technology
has been designed to make the process more efficient.
CALAMITY
-n- A major heading for any number of
natural
disasters,
including
earthquakes,
floods,
births,
deaths, marriages, tidal waves and the first faint stirrings of
juvenile love.
CALCULATE
-vt- To guess.
CALCULATOR
-Fl- The response
of modern science to
the divining of portents by reading the entrails of a chicken.
CALENDAR -Fl- An index to missed opportunities.
CALIBRE -Fl- A manner of describing a person by comparing him/her to another explosive device, the gun. e.g.,
"He is a big bore of small calibre."
CANARY -n- A parakeet afflicted with jaundice.

The American

Atheist

Film
Review

FOUL PLAY

elaine stansfield
There's a popular expression today
which refers to a lot more than women's
cigarettes: "We've come a long way."
Those of us who hope with all our
hearts that man is slowly becoming
more thoughtful, more civilized, more
reasonable, would like to believe that
expression. But sometimes it's hard to
keep any "faith" at all in it.
Foul Play, an otherwise silly but
nevertheless rather charming movie,
would seem to be a case in point, since
it is the villains who have founded an
organization called "Tax the Churches,"
master-minded
by a militant and
strange-looking woman who gets to
speak all the diatribes against the
multi-million dollar Catholic Church.
Is she patterened after our Madalyn?
Her cohorts are an albino muscleman
(who interestingly always wears a
white suit), a scarfaced short man
called "The Dwarf," and the twin
brother of the archbishop of San Francisco. "The City" is lovingly photographed throughout.
The film opens with the murder of
the archbishop by his twin brother,
who later expresses his hatred of the
money and trappings of wealth enjoyed
by his churchly relative by saying, as
he looks around the study, "Does this
look like a stable to you?"
The movie takes no chances about
being on the side of the good, the right
and the religious. The villains are so
stupid that they run around trying to
kill Goldie Hawn until she asks her
kidnappers in total bewilderment, "But
why do you want to kill me?" and
"Why assassinate the pope? What's he
ever done to you?"
"Because," hisses the lady, "he is a
symbol of the evil of this monolithic
church. For years we tried to fight
them legally with our Tax the Churches
organization, but it hasn't worked,
they've just gotten richer and bigger,
so now we must adopt other means."
The reason they were after Goldie is
too complex to go into here; suffice
to say that she had picked up a hitch-

Austin, Texas

hiker who was doing CIA undercover

work. He had gotten wind of the nefarious plan and had put some film in
Goldie's purse (which we never get to
see) before he is killed.
Granted, the movie industry has
been beleagured by all kinds of groups
objecting to being cast as villains in
films; it is no longer possible for them
to use ethnic groups, or the handicapped, or morons, or even kooks.
One recognizes the possibility that
some Atheists were at work here, slipping in the anti-Catholic message via
the villains, but I question if it's going
to do us much good. Still, even if we
haven't come a long way, perhaps a
few inches is better than nothing.
I am indebted to a reader in Long
Beach, Calif., for suggesting we review
this film. As she indicated in her letter, I did, indeed, find it a delightful
piece of fluff.
I am also grateful because it contains

January, 1979

one of the most lovable snakes ever to

delight an animal-lover's heart, and because the musical director, Charles
Fox, has composed a charming song
vocalized by Barry Manilow entitled,
"Taking a Chance Again"; and finally
because it introduces a superb comedian
named Dudley Moore playing one of
the funniest would-be swingers ever.
Nor is this intended to ignore the
considerable comedic talents of Goldie
Hawn who does her consummate best,
in a silly part, to be charming and
helter-skelter amusing.
The movie ends in a race across
town to save a pope, toothily amused
by a New York City Opera production
of "The Mikado," from the aforementioned assassination.
This race destroys more lives and
automobiles than could possibly be
worth the cause, and is alleviated only
by a funny bit with two Japanese
tourists trapped in the back seat of a
limousine commandeered by Chevy
Chase (aptly named in this case) who
do not speak English and are terrified
until Goldie, trying to explain to them
why they're tearing through town with
such destruction, mentions Kojak.
"Ah, Kojak," say the Japanese to
one another, breaking into grins, as
they settle down to enjoy the rest of
the ride, waving small American flags.
That splendid and venerable actor,
Burgess Meredith, the eccentric snake
owner and Goldie's landlord, also has
a very funny scene in which he bests
the Tax the Churches lady at karate.
At the end of the fight his admiring
our-of-breath comment: "She was a
good tough old dame."
Perhaps, in the long run, we might
say this picture has something for
everyone. It was produced by Thomas
Miller and Edward Milkis, written and
directed by Colin Higgins, and the
newspaper ads suggest "Read the
Jove /HBJ paperback."
This might be worth following up,
to see if the Atheist material is treated
better in the book than in the movie.

Page 35

_1

3_CH_I_LD_R_EN_'S_B_O_O_K_S _3------1

1:-

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

:.)~:.:.:.:.

:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::

.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::;::::::::;::::::::::::::::::~;::::::.:.:.:

Three desperately needed books

For a number of years Atheist parents have been asking for Atheist books
for their children - and, during the
1978 (April) Annual Atheist Convention, held in San Francisco, a resolution was passed urging the national
office of American Atheists to search
out appropriate books for Atheist parents to give to Atheist youngsters.
There just were none to be found.
There never had been any. American
children were alive only to be indoctrinated
into Judeo-Christianity
and
the idea that children could possibly
be confronted with Atheist literature
at an early age has been such a horrifying thought that no publisher anywhere has ever undertaken
to print
any.
As we debate Atheism up and down
the land, as we hold forth at universities and colleges the "fair play" question has arisen again and again. Even
Atheists have cautioned us that Atheist
child ren must be given the opportunity to explore religion in case they
should desire to opt for it.
\
As the years have rolled by we have
increasingly stiffened our spine. Just
why should we permit our children to
be exposed to religion? Why should we
not have Atheist children's
books?
Why should we not educate (not indoctrinate) along the lines of basic Atheist
principles?
Just exactly what does
"fair play" have to do with deliberately
ruining a child's mind?
Then we heard of a book by a good
Atheist,
Chris Brockman,
entitled
What about gods? We found that the
book was so small and its price so big
that we decided we needed to forego
it. Twenty seven pages for $5.95 we
thought was out of this world. It was
then that we began an argument with
the publisher and only after 10 months
of haggling have we received a very
special price for our readers only.
In' this book Brockman asks, "What

Page 36

about gods?" He answers that they are

"make believe" - like dragons and
fairies and goblins. He makes the child
understand that these beliefs must be
examined, as must every belief, to see
if it is sensible. His language is clear
and simple - often explicit.
For instance: "Religions say that
having faith in a god is a very good
thing for people to do. But believing
something without good reason is like
lying to your mind." . . . and . . .
"Some
religions have a ceremony
called baptism that people go through
in order to be forgiven for being born
human beings."
What about gods? is powerful medicine - and precisely what the doctor
ordered for our precious children who
all need to know about their innate
Atheism. The age range for this book
is probably 4th-5th grade.
*
*
*
This summer when Eddie Ruth (of
our Deriver, Colorado, chapter) walked
into our office and said that she writes
children's
books,
we immediately
asked, "Well, why don't you write
some Atheist kids' books?"
To our delight, she had done so
and had one with her. We could not
believe it: here was a simple kindergarten, first-grade book which oozed
Atheism without saying a word about
it! We siezed upon the opportunity
immediately.
This is the second of our books
which we offer to our members and
subscribers .. '. beautifully illustrated,
this 27-page book, titled How Do the
Ducks Know? is a clearly materialist
philosophy,
barnyard tale which the
kiddies will understand
at their level
while it gives them a basis of Atheism.
You will be fascinated with how easy
it is to show our children that the
world is what they see: not the world
of phantom gods and unseen moving
forces which can frighten them or in-

January.

1979

timidate

them.
*
*
*
The third in this first-of-its-kind
triumverate
of kiddies' books is one
for the beginning reader. Fashioned
after Ingersollian ideas, it tells briefly
of some of the innumerable gods man
has created in the world while explaining the where and the whys for each.
Written by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
("Well, they were nagging us for it; so
someone had to write the book!") and
illustrated by Joe Kirby, art director
for The American Atheist magazine,
this book likewise establishes a framework for questioning. Just as you are
not alone in your Atheism anymore
(as long as the American Atheist Center flies its banner), your child is not
alone if (slhe has one or all of these
books.
It isn't just his or her Atheist mommie and daddy saying it is true, but
here are books, just like their school
books, and in them - just as they are
beginning to read - comes the strange
stories of gods and why they are but
mere fables, only bogeymen ideas so
that they can early learn to laugh at
them, early learn to know them and
the follies and foibles of mankind's
acceptance of all of these very queer
gods.
*
*
*
Each of these three Atheist books
is priced at $2.95 - a little high, perhaps, but we think fair for a "first-ofits-ki nd" venture.
Because of the overwhelming
demand we have received from Atheists
nationwide
for such works, we are
offereing a special price of $7.50 for
all three books.
As books of this nature are so desperately needed at this time, we are
also offering a bulk price of $25.00
for 10 books so that they may be sent
as presents to your nieces, nephews,
and friends of the family.

The American

Atheist

\l NEi
____ QoOKs

<~~.:
.~~
j

iL_,.""l""""""''''''<

all 3 for
50
only $7.
......

Use the enclosed order blank t a purchase your co pes

i a f the long-overdue

Ath erst
. children's
.

books

redress of grievances . AMENDMENT I Congress shall make

:::J

o
'-++-l

Q)

rD

Vl

-0

c
~

rD
Ii

Q)

>

rt

(]Q

:J

Q.J

:J

...r::::
+-l

rD

Vl
rt

o
+-l
+-l

Q.J

0..

o
+-l
U
C

res

I am not an advocate for frequent changes

in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress
of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths discovered and manners
and opinions

change, with the change of

circumstances. Institutions must advance also

to keep pace with the times. We might as well
require a man to wear still the coat which

>-

.s:
res

Q.J
U

fitted

him when a boy as civilized society

~
0Vl

:::J

rD

:::J
rt

o
-+-.
~

rD
(]Q

o
o
~

,:J

-0
~

:::J

to remain even under the regimen of their

a-

barbarous ancestors.

rt

:J

res

(]Q

Q)

rt

Q)

rD

0..

:::J

0..

o
Q.J

0..
Q.J

...r::::
+-l

'-+-

as inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial