American Atheist Magazine Nov 1980

NINE DEMANDS - ANOTHER HUNDRED YEARS?
On January 1,1874. Francis Ellingwood Abbot published on the front page of his weekly paper, The
Index. nine demands for separation of state and church. At the time, the National Reform Association
(founded by Presbyterians
and Episcopalians)
was attempting to amend the Constitution
of the United
States to endorse Christianity officially. Abbot was a leader in a counter movement to propound "a religion
of humanity:
guided by reason and offering an organizational
"home" to non-theists.
In a nation predicated upon the political idea of separation of state and church, we are - incredibly
_ nowhere near attaining such separation.
Since 1874, in 106 years, only one part of one of these nine
demands has been wrested from government and that by a bitter and protracted legal struggle. In June 1963,
in the case of Murrav \'5. Curlett, reverential Bible reading was barred from the public schools of the nation
(see second part. point 4. of "Demands" below) by the Murray-O'Hair
family. founders of the American
Atheist organintion.
The nine demands are reprinted here to scream out to you, in a continuing way, that American
Atheists can not. dare not. permit another hundred years to pass without attaining them. These are
demands.
1.
now. for our times and for our accomplishing.
We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no
longer be exempt from just taxation.

2.
We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in state
legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other
institutions supported by public money shall be discontinue.
3.
We demand that all public appropriations for sectarian educational and
charitable institutions shall cease.
4.
We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the
public schools. whether ostensibly as a textbook or avowedly as a book of
religious worship. shall be prohibited.
5.
We demand that the appointment by the President of the United States
or by the governors of the various states of all religious festivals and fasts
shall wholly cease.
6.
We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other
departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.
7.
We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance
of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.
8.
We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of "Christian"
morality shall be abrogated, a-nd that all laws shall be conformed to the
requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.
9.
We demand that. not only in the constitutions ofthe United States and
of the several states but also in the practical administration of the same, no
privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special
religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on
a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to
this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.
Volume 22, No. 11 Brumaire, 188

NEWS
ON THE COVER
The Whole World in Their Hands

NEWSHORT -
p. 4
Charlotte Shenanigans
Utah Chapter Triumphs in The Face of Adversity
FEATURED
Reverse Evolution Roots 'of Atheism -
COLUMNISTS
Jon Murray
Charles Knowlton -
Teaching Myths in Public Schools The Woman's Bible -
Mary Lee Esty
Ralph Shirley
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Why The Untold History Vulgar Freethinkers -
19
21
22
Oscar
26
Chapman Cohen
28
Of What Use Atheism? -
Ignatz Sahula-Dyke
30
The Three Faces of Evil -
Gerald Tholen
33
Sacrifice -
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
36
ARTICLES
Negative Proofs Regained Don't Be A Pigeon -
Stanley Paluch
John Edwards
On Giving Equal Time to The

Teaching of Evolution and Creation -
EDITORINCHIEF
Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair
MANAGING EDITOR
Jon Garth Murray
ARTIST
Felix Santana
NONRESIDENTIAL
STAFF
Bill Baird
Angeline Bennett
Wells Culver
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
Elaine Stansfield
Gerald Tholen
Charles Robert
Darwin,
1809 - 1882
John A. Moore
10
The American Atheist magazine is

published monthly by American Atheists, located at 2210 Hancock Drive.
Austin,
Texas 78756,
a non-profit,
non-political,
educational
organization. Mailing address: P.O. Box 2117.
Austin, Texas 78768. Copyright
1980
by Society of Separationists,
Inc. Subscription rates: ~20.00 per year. Manuscripts submitted
must be typed, double-spaced
and accompanied
by a
stamped, self-addressee
envelope. The
editors assume no responsibility
for
unsolicited manuscripts.
The
religious
leaders
know the
enemy - and that enemy is reason.
Uninhibited
reason seeks knowledge,
constantly,
in every age, in every field.
The hunger "to know" is a part of
humankind
which must ba killed for
religion to survive.
When a thinker appears on the horizon, it is imperative that religion go to
the attack first on the ideas, then on
the man. The greater the contribution
of a thinker, the more ignominious the
attack. Even after death, his bones are
scattered .
jn the Western world, Charles Darwin has been under such attack for
over a hundred
years. Today in the
nation which is the most technologically advanced
on earth, which has
more colleges and universities than any
other, where the communication
system is beyond comparison
- Darwin is
still the despised and Billie Graham the
revered.
The footsteps
of man came from
mud of the first river bank to the dust
of the moon only through the contributions of men such as Darwin. What
our culture owes to him is inestimable.
The American Atheist will again
and again feature
his thoughts
and
work. This is the first of such tribute.
REGULAR
FEATURES
Letters to The Editor
Serious Smiles
24
Poems
32
Chapter Chatter
35
Book Review
40
The American Atheist magazine is indexed in:

MONTHLY PERIODICAL
INDEX
ISSN: 00324310
Austin, Texas
Brumaire 188 (11/80)
Page 1
LEITERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor,
I thoroughly agree with your concern about the "transformation in our
government from democracy to theocracy." The overt militancy of some
religious groups is frightening to me.
Locally, Colorado State University (tax
endowed by state and federal funds)
has become a "Christian institution"
run by and for Christians.
This week (mid-August, - ed.) for
instance, the campus has been turned
over to a National
gathering
of
Lutheran youth. The dormitories,
class rooms, gyms, dining halls - the
whole campus is at their disposal.
The administrative rational is that
the University collects a rent, a token
amount compared to renting a commercial convention facility. The matter
of renting tax endowed property for
religious purposes has never been
before the Supreme Court; there is,
however, precedent which has ruled it
illegal by virtue of the Constitution.
The manifestation of the "Christian" influence on the C.S.U. campus
has reached a stage of "overt" militancy: the campus newspaper (partially tax endowed and partially
funded by .student fees) advertises
rentals for Christians only. Class
rooms are turned over to religious
groups for all manner of religious
functions and celebrations. I have
seen religious announcements written on University stationary, distributed through the University
mail
system to announce functions of Christian gatherings to be held in University
class rooms.
None of the local agencies usually
concerned with constitutional matters, the A.C.L.U., etc., is interested in
pursuing any aspects of the use of tax
funds for religious functions; most of
the membership in these organizations is made up of C.S.U. faculty
Page 2
1'1orth PO/emembers and they fear their jobs would

be in jeopardy if they "made waves."
Thank you for your attention, and
please feel free to contact me for
information or help in regards to the
local Christian militants.
Sincerely
Richard Rupp
Colorado
Dear Richard,
Your letter has been referred to our
Colorado Chapter, (P.O. Box 6120,
Denver, CO 80206).
Although your letter was lengthy
and prefaced with several more paragraphs indicating your difficulty in finding the national office address, I have
reprinted here in full that part dealing
with your concerns for your school
because it is illustrative of the literally
thousands of letters which we receive at the Center in an unending
stream. The state/church separation
violations in the United States penetrate to every stratum and every facet
of our cultural milieu. .
It would be necessary to file 10,000
- no! 20,000 - or more - law suits
to even begin to bring the religious
community to the bar of justice of the
First Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. Our legal files
bulge with these letters. Your complaint, the use of state school facilities
for religious meetings is going on
everywhere: in universities, colleges,
high schools, junior high schools, elementary schools, in every state of the
union.
Everyone in the United States has
been too polite or too afraid to fight the
religious and they have already
won by the default of Atheists not
doing anything. We recognize that we
are fighting by nibbling around the
edges, by a show of bravado, by trying
to rally a force which should have
been rallied one hundred years ago.
We have asked the Colorado Chapter to contact the University and you.
We will try. You are aware - that is
half the fight as far as you are concerned. Now, help us to work on the
other half: doing something about it.
At this moment we don't know what
that will be, but the Colorado chapter
is a good one and the people in it will
try.
Editor
Dear Editor,
Apropos to the alleged
roundness of the earth and the date at
which this was known, I thought you
might be interested in the material
given in Modern School Solid Geometry, New Edition, World Book Co.,
Yonkers, MCMV
"Chap. IX Spherical Polygons Spherical Volumes, Early Measurements of the Earth, p. 187.
"As early as about 200 B.C., Eratosthenes, the famous Greek scientist
andmathematician,measuredthe circumference of the earth. Eratosthenes
came upon some records which informed him that at noon at Syene,
near the present Assuan Dam on the
Nile River, on a certain day the sun
was reflected from a deep well. This
showed that the sun was directly overhead - that the direction of the sun's
rays, if produced, was through the
center of the earth. Erathosthenes
knew that at noon the sun is directly
over the meridian of the observer and
that Alexandria is on the same meridian and 500miles north of Syene. At
noon on the same day that the sun
was reflected in the deep well at
Syene, Eratosthenes found that the
sun was 7Y20 south of the vertical at
Alexandria. The study of the figure will
show that this means that a 7Y20 arc is
500 miles long. The circumference of
the earth can be easily calculated from
this in-formation."
500 x 36017.5 - 24,000 - correct.
Estimates varied considerably.
Norman J. Whisler
New York
Thank you Norman. We needed that.
Ed.
American Atheist
EDITORIAL
JON GARTH MURRA Y
REVERSE EVOLUTION
Recently I was in attendance at an Atheist party and a
woman accosted me with the following questions, "Why must
your entire approach be so warlike? Why must you always talk
in terms of a battle, or a fight? Why do you have a fighting
stance all of the time? Why can't you have your ideas, and they
have their ideas and live together?" I have given that some
thought since the day ofthe party and find that the answer is in
the theory of evolution to which we speak in this issue.
If one goes all the way back to the beginning of ideas, both
Atheism and theism had the same source. There was an
ignorant savage, a primitive man, out in the bushes. He knew
nothing. He was tremor-filled at lighting. He did not understand storms. He had no answers. He was awed by the moon,
the sun, the earthquakes, tornadoes.
One day, one of these primitives had a personal subjective
opinion - and came up with the idea that "someone up there"
was throwing the lightning he feared, making the thunder
bolts which terrorized him. It was his personal opinion,
dawning in a brute and beginning brain.
He went back to his hut, or cave to communicate this. But.
his fellow dumb, hairy, half-ape brethern, who had no more
education or sense than he, his co-ignorant, sitting there
hunting fleas, came to a dim understanding through their
grunt-like exchange and replied "No. No thing make. Not so."
But, this opinion was based on ignorance, which is to say,
lack of knowledge. They had conflicting opinions. They may
have picked up clubs and "gone to" over the difference. But,
the idea was subjective, not based on data, or material
evidence of any kind. The scientific method was notused to
arrive at these "opinions" unfounded on fact. But in essence,
one of the primitives was an Atheist, the other a theist.
Over the centuries as more understanding came with more
obtained data, the Atheists changed their opinions, or had
evolving opinions, while the majority stuck to the old ideas.
The persons who were intellectually curious enough to accept
the altered, or new, ideas, based on accumulating observable
phenomenological data, were usually in the minority.
The mass remained with the old, the accepted, the traditional. Those who understood that their opinions must be
altered as information acccumulated from studying their
environment, enlarging their data base, could be described as
mutants of the tribe. They strayed from the old established
ideation formats, adjusting, adapting, altering their intellectuallife styles to include such activities as would give them
the ability to better adapt to their increased information base.
The larger group, that is the non-changing, the static group,
became the "ideaists," basing what they came to call their
religion on the first unsubstantiated "idea" which someone
subjectively had had. They stuck with it: In the beginning god...
The few, seeing some answers in their environment. slowly
understanding how it came to be, enlarging their knowledge
of the material world, demanded that there be an intellectual
accomodation to the enlarged information base. They changed their opinion in a continuing unending evolutionary way
with the input of more data, until now, after many thousands
of years of human civilization they stand in a direct 1800
opposing position to the mental Neanderthals. They are in a
confrontation with the opinions remaining with those who
persist in being fixated in an intellectual lag which holds them
to a primitive time. Why is there a battleline drawn? Why,not
ask me why we do nbt accept the striking of flints together to
Austin, Texas
light the kitchen stove I

Somewhere down the line, however, the accumulated
pressures of an increased body of knowledge became so great
on ideaists that they had to accommodate to some mechanical
(technological) new ideas (such as the plow and the automobile) but the accommodation was external. The original
opinion then became internalized, much like a recessive gene
which they carried with them and passed from generation to
generation, by implantation in the mind of each babe, a rigid,
static, unaltered, unchanging ideology: The lightening thrower is god. They abandon the peripheral ideas once associated
with the lightening god, but the core, the root, idea of god and
associated insane ideas are still there and so they kill a Galileo
who is a threat to their belief system. All of these primitive
ideas are alive even today. The fascination with the idea of
werewolves is quite real. Mothers murder their children to rid
them of demons today in our nation. Magazines, newspapers
and books on exorcism sell by the millions. Possession films
garner profits in the hundreds of millions. The most primitive
ideas of afterlife, creation, prayer are abroad in the land,
hallowed, honored, respected.
.
The theists are internally terrorized, holding fiercely to the
god idea out of fear, anxiety, guilt, inadequacy. The Atheist is
hesitant to arouse the primitive rage trapped in the theist.
The first two ideas are still alive today, so that now in our
modern times, there are two stances. One has followed a
natural evolutionary intellectual progression from one uninformed subjective brute mind idea to multifaceted idea systems
based on observed phenomena and analysis of material
nature; the other has remained intact fixated in pre-civilization.
The evolution of mankind then is exactly backwards to the
evolution of the rest of the entire animal kingdom. For, in the
animal kingdom that species which evolved by adaptation and
change became dominant. With the human species the exact
opposite is true. Those who did not change intellectually
remain dominant. Those who evolved, those who accommodated to the increase of data, were deliberately killed off by
those of meek mind who would inherit the earth.
The dumb, slow, lame, deer is eaten by the wild mountain
lion. In the human community, the dumb, the slow, the
intellectually lame, killed off those who would have advanced
the human community. Their solution was death to the
innovator, the curious, the intelligent.
In every other species natural progression took its course,
but in the human species the process has been exactly the
opposite. The scoff is at the egghead, the intellectual. It is
reverse evolution. We have been held back socially, culturally, intellectually by the dominance of the unchanged Neanderthal mind. Our culture exalts war, racism, chauvinism, stupidity, irrationality. By all natural progression, in ten thousand
years of human civilization the materialist should have be on
the top of the heap, attempting to ameliorate the condition of
mankind by the application of reason to his problems. Instead,
we drag with us the insane ideas of 8,000 or 10,000 years ago.
But. I must get back to the original question which was
asked of me. Why do we have the fighting stance? The reason
we have the fighting stance should be clear in that it is not
natural that the strongest should have succumbed. Reverse
8rumaire 188 (11/80)
continued on page 31
Page 3
..front ~agt l\tbtttu

we are man a~ bell ...
THEY HAVE THE WHOLE WORLD IN THEIR
HANDS
There has been a continuing analysis of the recent elections in every aspect
except that of the impact which the Moron Majority et al might have made.
Therefore, in this short time span since the elections, the public and elected
officials have had only the boasts of the evangelical political action leaders on
which they could rely. This was to the effect that the electronic churches had
delivered 10 million votes to Reagan, Bush and the Republicans, dramatically
seizing the Senate and unseating many popular and well known liberals such as
Senators Bayh (0 - Ind.), McGovern (0 - S. Oak), Church (0 - Idaho), Nelson (0
-Wisc.) and Durkin (0 - N. Hamp.).lmmediatelyfollowing the elections representatives of these reactionary right wing religious groups were invited to appear on
camera for most television networks. They were, by and large, puffed with
victory and ominously threatening in their remarks. In no uncertain terms
Raegan and Bush were told that they must "hew the line" or that the same
people who put them into office could take them out. Bush, particularly, was
warned that he was not in conformity with the Republican Party platform on
denial of abortions and that he needed to "shape up." The attitude of the
evangelical speakers was one of arrogance.
Almost immediately the United States Senate, construing the election result
to be one of a power show of the Christian right wing and evangelical voting bloc
immediately passed an anti-forced busing bill. The bill prohibited the Justice
Department from suing to force school districts to use busing to end racial
discrimination and was a victory for Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse
Helms. The Senate perceived, correctly, that the evangelical right was white and
wanted white schools to remain white. Where did they get that idea? Also, the
same tactic was utilized as had been used to try to push through a prayer-inschool bill. The judicial branch of the government was prohibited from reviewing
a legislative act.
A small digression will throw light on what was happening. The Senate had
just been through a fight on 'white is right and religious' and had felt the power
of both the evangelicals and the main-line religious groups. When the original
Supreme Court ruling had come down in respect to busing for racial integration,
many new schools had sprung up across the nation. They were mainly white and
Baptist. Seeing that the private schools were havens for avoiding integration a
fight was begun to give the IRS power to remove the tax-exempt status of those
schools found to be discriminatory. IRS first published regulations in August
1978 and then revised them in February 1979 with the object of making certain
that such discrimination did not exist. The regulations required that the schools
show they had a minority enrollment equal to a percentage of the minority
population in a community or that special circumstances prevented them
reaching such a percentage. The (Roman Catholic) Citizen for Educational
Freedom favored a bill which would prohibit IRS from monitoring the schools
and so did the Evangelicals. After a lengthy struggle Philip Crane, (0 - III)
championed the cause of the religious and included protection for private white
Christian schools in the omnibus Family Protection Act. Paul Laxalt (R - Idaho)
sponsored the bill in the Senate. In the battle, the religious schools defeated the
IRS which had to back down from its initial position. Seeing the power of
religion, the Senate learned a lesson.
Indeed, the danger is in the Senate, the House, or the Reagan administration
believing that the landslide victory belongs to the Christian Right.
Searching all of the media for analyses yielded little until the Boston Globe
NEWSHORT
In the continuing saga of the city of
Charlotte, North Carolina and its desire to
retain a police chaplain there is an addendum.
On November 6th the nephew of a
leading Baptist minister "returned" to
work for the city. His degree in journalism, his graduation from a theological
seminary, and the fact that he was the
nephew of a leading Baptist minister, put
him in first place over the qualified psychologists and counselors who had applied
for the job.
And, what was the job? He had formerly been the police force's chaplain.
Now, he was to become its "counselor."
When he was first assigned to the
position of police minister, in January,
1980, with his uncle who runs a Baptist
church paying $10,000 of his salary and
the city payi ng the other $10,000, Patricia Voswinkel, Chapter Director of North
Carolina American Atheists, challenged
the arrangement. After a long legal fight,
late in the summer, the United States
District Court judge ordered the unconstitutional arrangement to be terminated.
The church, and the uncle, immediately took over the cost of paying the
entire salary of the nephew, until the end
of October, with the chaplain continuing
to go to work every day as a "volunteer."
A part of his volunteer work we suspect
was "to help to draw up a job description
for a police counselor's position" which
was then advertised as an opening in the
police force. The dutiful nephew and "in"
volunteer counselor then applied, with
41 others, for the job, which was set to .
pay $20,3t>6. a year.
In an interview following his reinstatement he noted that he had not bothered to look for any other work. His acted
out prognostication paid off. The mayor of
Charlotte dutifully picked him out of the
41 applicants as the new "counselor." In
an interview he noted that he had been
advised that he "can't get into religious
matters unless it's requested."
American Atheists continue their
same batting average: we win on principle and lose on fouls.
The news is chosen to demonstrate. month alter month. the dead reactionary hand of religion. It dictates your habits, sexual conduct, family
size. It censures cinema. theater. television. even education. It dictates life values and lifestyle. Religion is politics and, always, the most
authoritarian and reactionary politics. We editorialize our news to emphasize this thesis. Unlike any other magazine or newspaper in the United
States, we admit it.
'
Page 4
:;
American Atheist
newspaper printed a short unsigned article in its November

13th issue, on page 15, near the inside fold and dwarfed by an
advertisement for a shirt and tie sale. Apparently both the
Harris and the Gallup poles had attempted an analysis of the
polling in respect to ideology involved. Both polls found that
the monetary factors were compelling in the repudiation of
Carter. People were distressed about inflation, unemployment
and high interest rates and were responding to Reagans's
promises of "jobs, jobs, and more jobs," together with a
stabilization of the economy.
What did the nation think of the evangelical right and its
positions? The polls first attempted to have the voters define
their positions on a left-right continuum. The right of center
was about the same as 1976 (32 percent in 1980 - 32 percent
in 1976); 49 percent were middle-of-the-road; and 19 percent
were left of center. Of the conservatives Reagan polled 62
percent.
The above statistics show that 61 percent of those who
voted did not view themselves as conservatives. This is borne
out in respect to the religious issues. Using the issues of the
Moron Majority as a test, the results show that:
Exposing children to religious teachings in the
schools. The followers of the TV evangelists favored this by better than 2-1. The entire electorate opposed it 50-47
percent.
A constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Favored by the extreme conservatives, opposed
by the electorate, 16-34 percent,
The charge leveled by the electronic churches
that sex education in the schools is little more than
pornography, was denied by a 61-22
percent
majority of the voters.
The equal rights amendment (ERA), opposed by
the TV preacher groups, was favored by a 56-36
percent majority of the country.
.Registration of handguns, opposedbythe evangelicals' political action committees was favored by
a 78-20
percent majority of the public.
The Harris surveys covered 15,979 voters nationwide, between October 22nd and November 3rd. The Gallup
findings were based on in-person interviews conducted in
scientifically selected localities throughout the nation. In
general, it appeared that there was little change this year in
respect to these major religious issues. The issue of abortion,
for example, is instructive. The proportion of Americans who
favored making abortions "illegal under all circumstances,"
has shown little change since the mid-70s. While 25 percent
of those polled in 1980 felt abortion should be legal under any
circumstances, only 21 percent felt that way in 1975; 53
percent this year said it should be legal under some circumstances, compared to 54 percent in 1975; and 18 percent said
abortion should always be illegal, compared to 22 percent in
1975.
Then Ronald Reagan, Mr. Nice Guy in the seat next to god's,
while saying that he would not close his door to any group,
particularly one that supported him, pointedly gave his blessings to Republican Sen. Howard Baker from Tennnesse for,
Senate majority leader. The New Puritan Right detests Baker
for, among other things, favoring the Panama Canal treaty.
Vice President-to-be George Bush meanwhile announced
he would be the captive of no group. "I happen to take violent
exception to certain individuals in some of those groups, some
of their positions, and have stated it publicly and am' not
intimidated by those who suggest I better hew the line. T'hell
with them." It was fair warning to the new trinity: Paul

Weyrich of the Committee for The Survival of a Free Congress,
Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action
Committee and Jerry Falwell of the Moron Majority.
However, the theists were crowing from their pulpits and it
is apparent that they will demand that Reagan deliver on his
promises. One of those promises was federal aid to parochial
schools. It was startling to see Jerry Falwell, on television,
supporting the Roman Catholic fight for a "Right to Life"
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Indeed,
the Roman Catholics are also seeing the election of Reagan as
a religious victory. In a November 14th interview on NBC's
"Today Show" several bishops speaking for the National
Conference of (Roman) Catholic Bishops stated that abortion
is the taking of human life and that they will continue to work
strongly for their moral position which should culminate in a
"Human Rights" or a "Human Life" amendment to the
constitution, a demand first made in 1973. The interviewer
and the bishops both saw that the election had escalated the
hopes for passage of such an amendment. Prior to this
interview of the bishops, the president of the conference had
told the Associated Press, "The President-elect promised that
an amendment would be a part of his program. We would hope
to see it as early as possible." He added, "It is my personal,
private opinion there there is a unique malice and horror in
abortion ... There is nothing more helpless than an unborn
chid. The abhorrent nature (of abortion - ed.) seems to have a
unique quality that other issues don't have." The Senate
committee which such an amendment would need to pass is
now to be chaired by Orrin Hatch (R - Utah) who has already
proposed the amendment in the Senate.
Where does this leave the Atheists?
The article which follows is indicative of what the Atheists
should do. They have upon them the burden of developing
themselves into a cohesive and powerful group. It is, simply,
an absolute necessity that they should take positions and not
alone stand by them, but fight vigorously for them.
The Moron Majority has already fingered its next target
- television. It has given notice that any television program
which fails the moral test applied by the fundamentalists will
cause a boycott to be brought against the sponsor's products.
Already pictures have been received at the American Atheist
Center of grocers in Oklahoma and Tennessee removing
products from their store's shelves, in the name of the lord.
The boycotting of Kool-Aid, Jell-a, Chef Boy-R-Dee pizza mix,
Gaines dog food, Anacin, Black Flag bug spray, Sani-Flush and
Preparation H, somehow, apparently, pleases Jesus ..
It is necessary that the Atheist community understand that
the Moron Majority has not caused the electorate to give a
mandate for a Christian nation. The news media must, for
once, seriously consider the matter of theopolitics and, in this
case, in its failing. Heretofore, the attitude of the journalists
could best be stated in the truism that "God is in his heaven
and all is well." The religious community has been considered, in a vague sort of way, to be so powerful that the proper
stance has been that of reverential awe and not of. investigation. The basic problem is that there may be a continuance
of the myth that the Moron Majority delivered the nation to
Reagan and, therefore, should reap its reward.
The problem is confounded further because Reagan cannot
payoff on his promises. No one in the oval office can doctor
this nation's economic ills. Carter illustrated that. Although he
has been voted out of office for his failure, the possibility of a
continuing failure by any occupant of the oval office is very
real. Reagan cannot hold down interest rates. He cannot
restore the economy or bring full employment. He cannot
Austin, Texas
~/
Page 5
jfocu~ on ~tbtt~t~
. anb we won't take it anrmcret

UTAH CHAPTER
TRIUMPHS
IN THE FACE
OF AD VERSITY
Richard
And rcws--Utah
Charter
Chris Allen -Assistant
Director
Director
--------------------------------------------------~
The Utah Chapter came through
with a significant
- even a stunning
- victory at the polls during the November election debacle, in no place other
than Utah, which
is owned
by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints.
In September,
when it became apparent that the church was trying to
manage the ultimate
rip off in tax
exemption,
Richard Andrews,
the Director of the Utah Chapter of American Atheists, and Chris Allen his Assistant Director, began a long educational campaign in Utah toward a denouement of that attempt.
Fighting continuously
for radio and
television time as well as for coverage
in the hard media (newspapers
and
newsmagazines) their efforts were enormous. By October 5th, they were able
to write their own editorial opinion in
the Salt Lake Tribune and their analysis of the church
effort was most
cO(Jent.
Titled "Vote Against
Tax Amendment" and by-lined "By Richard Andrews and Chris Allen" the article (to
which the newspaper editor attached
adisclalmer)was31
inches, in a thr ee
column span, In headline position on
the "Opinion"
page, associated with
the Editorial and Letters pages.
The core of their objection
to a
certain Proposition 2, which was a Tax
Article
Revision Amendment
to the
Constitution
of the state, was sue-
Page 6
cinctly put. "The Utah State Constitution now provides (Article XII, Sec. 2)
that only 'lots with buildings
thereon
used exclusively
for either religious
worship
or charitable
purposes'
may
be property tax exempt. The proposed
amendment
would change this to read
'Property owned by a non-profit
entity
which is used for religious, charitable,
hospital, educational,
employee representation, or welfare purposes' will be
tax exempt. This amendment
changes
the basis of the decision for granting
exernption from the 'use' of a property
to the 'ownership'
of a property.
"This change stems from a tax reform effort
by a former
Salt Lake
County Assessor, who found that many
properties that had obtained tax exemptions did not satisfy the constitutional
requirement
of being used exclusviely
for reliqious worship or charitable purposes, so he placed them back on the
tax roles. This action created an unprecedented uproar amcihg the influential special interests(the Mormon Church
- ed.) that benefited from the exemptions. These special interests countered the assessor
by persuading
the
State Legislature
to empower
their
friendly
State Tax Commission
to
grant outright exemptions.
"The Salt Lake County Assessor and
his attorney
prepared
96 briefs
in
appeals to the State Supreme
Court
over unconstitutional
exemptions
granted by th~ State Tax Commission.
Br urnair e 188 (11 80)
The court upheld the assessor in most.

"The current language in our state
Constitution
is designed to protect us
from excessive taxes caused by granting exemptions
as political favors. The
proposed
constitutional
amendment
threatens to wipe out a II of the reforms
instituted
to tax the property 'of businesses owned by churches.
Religious
organizations
are estimated to currently own 25 percent of privately owned
property
in the county of Salt Lake.
Many church businesses
will be able
to qualify for exemptions. A good example of this is a restaurant
and catering
service for weddings (Lyon's House in
Salt Lake). Such businesses
have an
unfair advantage
in competing
with
private businesses."
"This change ... will exempt parsonages: rectories,
welfare farm homes,
rentals, private colleges, hospitals and
gymnasiums
(owned by the Mormon
church - ed.)."
The article ended with an appeal to
the voter to stand against Proposition
2.
As the fight mounted
and as Mormon politicians
deliberately
misrepresented the issue, the Utah Chapter of
American
Atheists
decided to go into
court. On October
16th, a suit was
filed in an effort to keep Proposition
2
off the ballot. The thrust of the suit
was that the constitutional
provision
would, if voted for, permit the use of
the taxing power of the State of Utah
American Atheist
to aid and subsidize

religion
and to
discriminate
against non-religious
citizens.
Taking the fight also to the University of Utah, the Chapter convinced the
Daily Utah Chronicle newspaper
to
take an editorial stand which pointed
out the possible church/state
conflict
inherent in Proposition
2.
The law suit was heard on October
22nd but the court ducked the issue by
ruling
that there was "no case or
controversy"
until voters passed Proposition 2. At that point, the Utah Chapter was told, it could return to court.
No one helped. The Utah Chapter of
American
Atheists
stood absolutely
alone in this fight. The principals in the
media were Chris Allen and Richard
Andrews,
obtaining
what electronic
media coverage they could and persuading
Paul Wharton,
an attorney
and Chapter member, to read an editorial on the Mormon-owned
television
station (KSL). But on that station,
it
was impossible
to mention
that the
opposition
to the proposed
amendment was coming
exclusively
from
American
Atheists in Utah!
Throughout
the nation religion has
had as a goal the obtaining
of real
property
tax exemption on the basis of

than use. This has
become increasing
urgent to religion
as more and more land is titled to
churches and religious organizations,
much of which is used for commercial
enterprises.
The Mormon
church,
in
this instance,
was trying a direct as-
ownership rather
sault upon the constitution

of that
state in order to gain the desired end. If
this church won, the other Christian
denominations
would emulate the excercise in their states.
The tax assessor, an honest man,
had tried to keep the Mormon church
within
the confines
of the current
constitution
of Utah. The state tax
commission,
in the pocket
of thechurch,
granted
exemptions
which
were violative of the constitution.
The
fight over Proposition
2 was the effort
of the Mormon Church to legitimatize
the practice of its being granted tax
exemptions
unconstitutionally.
While the fight was going on at the
ballot box, an anomaly
began to appear: Proposition 2, early in the voting,
was defeated; late in the evening, the
battle was close: in favor 39%;
opposed - 39%. But, when the smoke
cleared, 187,196 voted against Proposition 2 and 174,140 for it.
It was a stunning
victory for the
Utah Chapter of American
Atheists.
Without
the fight, headed up by Rich
Andrews
and Chris Allen, the Utah
population
would not have had any
inkling that this effort was being made
by the church. The Chapter was just as
jubilant as was the national American
Atheist Center. In a victory statement
Rich Andrews
noted that the defeat of
of the Proposition
pointed
out the
necessity for a state/church
separation watchdog
in Utah. However,
he
continued, "The fight against the broadening of rei igious tax exemptions
does
NEGATIVE
PROOFS REGAINED
Like many another

good thing negative
proofs may be
abused (as Mr. Tholen brings out in his "Negative
Proofs and
Other Nonsense,"
American Atheist, Thermidor,
1980) but it
would be a mistake to renounce
negative proof techniques
simply because they may be misapplied.
It is thanks to the
reductio techniques of the Pythagoreans
and Euclid that few
are now tempted
to discover the rational
roots of 2 or to
construct
"a prime number greater than which none can be
conceived."
Note very carefully
that the Pythagoreans
and
Euclid proved that certain numbers could not exist: there is no
rational root which is a root of 2, no prime number which is the
greatest prime number.
Reductio arguments are not nearly so common in theology
as they are in mathematics
but the celebrated argument from
evil goes back to antiquity
and is clearly designed to demonstrate (granted
the assumption
that there
is evil in- the
universe)
that no being can exist having
the properties
orthodox believers assign to god. Entire volumes have been
written, and it is safe to predict that many more will be written,
to accomodate
the posit of an omniscient,
omnipotent
and
benevolent
being to the facts of human and animal suffering.
If this fine old negative proof, whose spelling-out
is familiar
to every reader of American Atheist, is not a concl usive proof,
it is a dandy imitation of one; designed to disturb the respose of
generations
of theologians
yet unborn;
they will wander
through the maze of its deceptive simplicity
and try to break
the argument
now here, now there, but finally
conclude
"Credo ut intelleqem" or wander off from the road of orthodoxy.
'
In modern times various
philosophers
have contributed
negative proofs to theology (I think that of the late Jean-Paul
Austin, Texas
not end with the defeat of Proposition

2. In recent years, the state has allowedmany property tax exemptions
which
are outside of the strictures
required
by the Utah state constitution.
These
exemptions
have cost the state millions of dollars
in lost revenue.
The
state legislature
has encouraged
this
abuse by passing laws which broaden
religious
exemptions
and which permit the state tax commision
to grant
exemptions
when both the statutes
and the tax commission
regulations
are in violation of the Utah state constitution.
With
the mandate
given by
defeat of Proposition
2, American
Atheists can do much to plug the leaks
and eli mi nate future losses, ultimately
reducing
the property
taxes paid by
Individual
home owners."
Most Atheists are overwhelmed
with
fear when faced by a formidable
opponent, such as the Roman Catholic
Church
in Massachusetts,
the Baptists in Georgia, the Lutherans in Minnesota or the Hare Chrisnas
in Denver.
But, there is hardly a church
more
powerful
In the world
than is the
Mormon church in Utah. Richard Andrews, Chris Allen and the Utah Chapter of American
Atheists
took on that
church, on its own stomping
grounds
and beat it. There
is no better
lesson.
Pr e s ide nt Franklin
Delano
Roosevelt said it all when he told the
nation back in 1935 that all we had to
fear was fear itself.
Sartre, to be found in Being and Nothingness, is especially

brilliant)
which attempt to show that the concept of god - If
analyzed carefully - is self contradictory.
Sartre, for example,
tries to show that the Thomistic
theology
(or any orthodox
theology)
posits a god who IS both completely
active and
completely
passive, a bundle of acts and a reservoir
of the
eternally
settled, being totally for-itself
and being totally initself. The Satre of Nausea or No Exit does not always control
the writing
of Being and Nothingness but I believe that an
early morning r is inq on Sunday morning to heat up the telly
will lead to a communication
of his meaning. To put it crudely
God is changeless
but it we pray really hard - hard, you know
- we may Just get that well-deserved
eclipse
It is only fair to say that negative reductio proofs are serious
contributions
to philosophical
theology;
not good substitutes
for empirical research. There may be, for alii know, a finite god
who looks like General MacArthur,
fights like Ghengis Khan,
reaches for his revolver when he hears the word love and has
a summer home in Malibu. I cannot disprove the existence of
such a diety for the description
of the being is internally
consistent
and this divinity
is quite at home with "evil."
Armchair
theology
is no help to me in dealing
with the
existence of this divinity but I can confirm, or disconfirm,
the
existence
of this divinity
by stak-ing
out Malibu
over a
summer.
Even in logic and set theory, ex nihilo nihilfit. Insofar as the
Christian
divinity is like the one in Malibu' the logician must
assume
a hands-off
stance.
But insofar
as the Christian
divinity is supposed to be infinite the negative proofs have a
great role to play in theological
dialectic.
Dr. Stanley Paluch
Page 7
Don't Be A Pigeon
A Hint from Science
John R. Edwards
"Don"t be a pigeon." That's the way Humphrey Bogart
would have said it. Don't be fooled easily; it's good advice.
Don't be a dupe, a sucker, a patsy or a fish. In the Navy we used
to call someone a fish if he were gullible enough to swallow
our B.S. stories hook, line and sinker (oddly or appropriately
enough, the fish is the fashion in Christian symbols). I don't
know why people started calling a dupe a pigeon, but the
expression is appropriate because pigeons were used to show
that animals are easily fooled - they are superstitious.
In an article called "Superstition in Pigeons," B. F. Skinner,
the eminent behaviorial psychologist, describes how he put
hungry pigeons in separate cages and offered them food at
regular intervals. Six of the eight pigeons developed "food
dances" - sequences of hops, jerks and bobs, in apparent
efforts to "cause" food to reappear. In each case, the bird
would begin by repeating what it was doing just before food
appeared and then, by slowly adding variations and changes,
it evolved an elaborate dance. Each dance was as unique as it
was absurd.
The similarities between this pigeon behavior and the rain
dances of ancient cultures immediately struck old B. F. Rain
comes annually in fairly regular cycles. If the frequency of the
rains were right, and if the people happened to be hopping,
twitching or twisting about shortly before it rained, they might
have tried the same movements again when they wanted
more rain. After a time of twitching without results, a bob
might be added, then a stamp and a whirl. The rain need not
come immediately after each dance because the behavior is
not contingent on that, but it must come sometimes. The
pigeon experiment showed how the length of the time gaps
influences the amount of superstition: shorter time gaps
between rewards tend to increase superstition and longer
gaps tend to extinguish it. We can visualize how unsuccessful
dances might be rationalized. "Perhaps my twitch was a little
off center." "Maybe I need to add just a bit of hop." Of course,
since these intuitions have no connection with rain, any
speculation is fair game. "The dance isn't sufficient, what we
need to do if we really want rain is to sacrifice somebody."
Imagine what might happen to pigeon culture if pigeons
could talk. Instead of the sacred food dance dying with each
pigeon, the knowledge could be passed down to subsequent
generations. Probably about three-fourths (6 out of 8)* of the
population would intuitively realize the true powers of the
sacred dance. Since pecking orders, which originate in reptiles (presumably in the brain's R-complex) are also strong in
birds and mammals, a few top prophet birds would likely
emerge. Any challenges to the authority of the glorious
prophet birds would be met with violence, and the establishment of religions would be complete. To be sure, many
pigeons would have contradicting experiences (revelations),
but they would be explained away by learned theologians who
know the theoretical intricacies of the sacramental dance.
These learned Doctors would not fail to point out that without
the sacred dance the individual and society at large would be
lost, i.e., that the only possible salvation is through the food
dance. Confronted with fear-inspiring pronouncements, and
with the complexity of interpretations, most pigeons defer to
the prevailing wisdom. A few may strike out on variations of
their own, but Reformations are inevitably bloody. Mean
Page 8
while, the less superstitious quarter, rather than performing

demeaning rituals, go out and find food. Through their secular
efforts useful knowledge develops which benefits not only
themselves, but society as a whole. Eventually, when they find
out that food has nothing to do with the sacred dance, they are
attacked as scientists, Atheists, and pigeonists.
About a hundred years ago Robert G. Ingersoll said, "If
people were more superstitious astrology would flourish; if
they were less so religion would disappear." Today, in an age
of space exploration and heart transplants, people are often
asked their astrological signs at job interviews and in some
states they must believe in a deityto hold public office. How is
it possible that superstition has grown in parallel with
science? Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. might say it's because of division
of labor. He once remarked that technology advances thanks
to relatively few people and that most of us are Technological
Barbarians. We use technology, but don't even know how a
toaster works. Michael Bakunin points out that bad social and
economic conditions are the root of religious acceptance by
the masses. It is not the only factor, but it probably does
contribute to the problem. I think that superstitions of some
sort are likely to remain jn our societies because, like pigeons,
we .are built with the impetus to make casual connections
between unrelated things: rain dances and rain, birth and
phases of the moon, or prayers and cures. While communication technology advances, the widespread scientific illiteracy gives rise to programs by whch superstition and
uncritical thinking influence millions of people. These programs lend credence to the notions of the Bermuda Triangle,
Noah's Ark, ancient astronauts, etc., ad nauseam. Over this
backdrop of superstition, giant tax-exempt theo=businesses
are purchasing American radio and television stations
through which audiences are herded back to a time when
disease was caused by possession, when the air was thick
with goblins, ghosts, devils and angels, back to where the
Iranians have gone - the Dark Ages.
Is there any way out of this dilemma? Are we Atheists
doomed to talk only to ourselves until the political power of
superstitious organizations are consolidated again and we are
burned at the stake? If we act soon we have a chance, through
several avenues, to defeat superstition. We must act soon
because there are fundamentalist Christians, with their fingers on the controls of nuclear weapons, who say the bible
predicts we will end in a fiery war with Russia. Superstition
must be defeated in the sphere of politics. This is no easy task
since religion basically consists of politics and propoganda.
The strategic objectives to break the sway of religion are,
however, clear; break the connection between superstition
and the government (e. g., Tax exemption for churches) and
the connection between superstition and the media. American Atheists is taking up the matter of tax exemptions. The
connection between the media and superstition might be
broken, especially in the area of "healing" because it is false
advertising. "Communist countries," preachers shriek, "have
no religious freedom." Actually, they are perfectly free to
worship any diety they like, only preachers aren't free to use
the media to propagandize. The connection between superstition and the media has been broken there and the preachers
';
American Atheist
are mad. They don't really want to pray. They want to indulge
an insatiable lust for power. They want to rule the world.
The remainder of this article will be devoted to what I believe
is a very important weapon in the battle against superstition.
The weapon is scientific knowledge. One who is scientifically
literate and has a grasp of the scientific method will always
have the advantage in a confrontation with the absurdity of
superstition. Knowledge will be his ally.
Many people have a pretty drab image of science. Jon
Murray's recent editorial characterized it as looking at data
and gradually compiling a giant "data base." The body of
knowledge amassed through science is generally what people
learn about in science courses. They don't learn the really
important part - the method. The scientific method is as
simple as it powerful. By using it, civilization has progressed
immeasurably in its ability and its knowledge. The method
consists of testing causal relationships while using a control.
Most people can figure out how to test an idea, but fail to use a
control. For example, to find out if you are allergic to cats, an
allergist will dissolve a little cat hair in a liquid and scratch you
with it. If the scratch gets big, you might assume you were
allergic to cat hair. But what if you were reacting to the liquid?
The only way to know is to scratch with just the liquid too.
Then you can distinguish between the causes.
Recently, a Christian told me that Atheists are dogmatic and
won't accept evidence. He said that he told an atheist
acquaintance who had a sick wife that he and his group would
pray for her recovery. They prayed, and sure enough she got
better, but the stubborn Atheist was unmoved. This is a classic
example of a pigeon notion. A casual connection is deemed
proved because a first thing happened before a second. I
pointed out to the Christian that according to the American
Medical Association, about half of all diseases will cure
themselves without any treatment. So how could he tell
whether she simply recovered or the prayers worked. He just
knew! He had the faith of a pigeon.
But there are ways to tell. A fun way would be to have a
duplicate copy of yourself. One goes to the healer, the other
one doesn't. If you both get better it was a self-lirnitinqdisease:
if only the one who went to the healer got better .rt was a
healing. But, there aren't two of you, so you might do a
statistical study, or an unambiguous test. The latter would
involve a malady that is not self-limiting, such as a missing
limb. If supernatural healing worked, there should be no more
problem curing this than the less visible apparent "cancers"
and "deafness" that lisping TV healers "cure." Once presented with this dilemma, a grinning Kathryn Kulman told an
uncured amputee that his lost limb awaited him in heaven.
The audience applauded loudly. Presumably there was no
. difficulty in manufacturing the arm, only in getting it to him.
Organized supersitition has always claimed supernatural
powers and claimed knowledge of the unknown. Application
of scientific method has thrown light into the unknown
sometimes causing embarrassment to the charlatans and
unwittingly provoking their ire. For centuries pious fathers
have burned scientists and their works and attacked science
at every opportunity. Scientists have never burned priests 'or
even attacked religion directly, to any great degree. But
indirectly, advances in knowledge delivered severe blows to
superstition. The realization that the earth was not the center
of the uiniverse and that our sun is one of many stars made
untenable the. idea that a god considered us special. Thomas
Paine pointed out that life on many other planets might
necessitate an interstellar savior hopping from planet to
planet only to be killed. The development of physics and
chemistry showed us that matter possesses elegant and
subtle properties capable of producing many phenomena
previously ascribed to gods - such as life. This theft of the
better properties of matter for anthropomorphic gods, once
IN 1881
II
IN 1860
detected, show us "rnere" matter is really a wonderful thing.

By far the greatest blow to religion came from the theory of
evolution or descent with modification of Darwin and Wallace.
This theory undermined not only the biblical story of special
creation, but a whole range of other Christian pronouncements. Death, we find, originated in the phylogenetic transition from asexual to sexual reproduction, not from a "sin."
Evolution applied to other diciplines such as linguistics and to
religion itself had further repercussions. We found that
languages develop and change and were not from a Tower of
Babel. We now know that religions rise and fall, evolve and
adapt and become extinct. Comparative brain studies have
produced the triune brain concept which suggests that ritual
and deceptive behavior are centered in the reptilian portion of
our brains (the R-complex). Since ritual and deception are
major aspects of religion, it would appear that the throne of
religion has been found in our reptilian heritage.
Evolution is so devastating to religion that in the face of
overwhelming evidence not only from fossils, but from biochemistry, immunology, anatomy, embryology, cytology, genetics and population genetics, superstitious agents promote
creationism. They call it "scientific" creationism, but it is not
scientific beyond the jargon because they offer no evidence
beyond a few minor gaps in the fossil record. Evolution was
not accepted by the scientific community until evidence for a
plausable mechanism was given. That is what Darwin and
Wallace provided - natural selection, the favored reproduction of better suited individuals, suggested by animal breeding. Natural selection has been demonstrated in the laboratory with fruit flys and in the wild with hawks and mice. But
what mechanism is proposed for creation? A snap of the
fingers - SHAZAM! And what evidence is there? The bible.
But the bible isn't evidence, it is an appeal to authority. Hence,
the scientific community doesn't accept creationism. You
might say they are not pigeons.
So far, science has been nice; it hasn't turned directly on
-religion.The only instance of which I can think where it almost
happened was when Sir Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin),
who wrote "Statistical Inquiries into The Efficacy of Prayer"2
in which he proposed an investigation of whether prayer
works. He reasoned that if prayers work, vicars should outlive
the rest of us because they are praying more than others and
are prayed for by others, and that everyone prays for health.
Then he compared their lifespan with equivalent positions
accounting for the fact that it requires no work, etc. The vicars
were long-lived, but outdone by the non-working gentry. That
is the only instance of which I know where science was turned
upon religion.
Austin, Texas
..:- DARWIN
Page 9
ON GIVING EQUAL TIME TO THE TEACHING

OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION*
John A. Moore
John A. Moore is-e professor of Biology, University

California, Riverside, California.
*
B.,st'd 0""
Fr.""",,,-o.
1,,<"IUfl'Y'W".11 .l svmposnnn euutled "The Role of Controversy
Ft'hruolfY 1974 Lutvr , pubh-.lu-d lIl"PprsjwClives
in Science." Annual Meeting, American
1Il Biology and Medicine."
Page 10
Association
for the Advancement
of Science, San
Spring 1975 issue. American Atheists thank Dr. Moore for his perm';~sion to republish.
the Holy Bible shall not be defined as a textbook,

but is hereby declared to be a reference work, and
shall not be required to carry the disclaimer above
provided for textbooks ... This A ct shall take effect
upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring
it. I
On April 30,1973, Senate Bill 394, having been passed by

an overwhelming majority of both houses of the General
Assembly of the state of Tennessee, became law. The new
.Iaw. which to some extent replaced the antievolution law that
was repealed only in 1967, reads in part:
Any biology textbook used for teaching in the
public schools, which expresses an opinion of, or
relates to a theory about origins or creation of man
and his world shall be prohibited from being used
as a textbook in such a system unless it specifically states that is a theory as to the origin and
creation of man and his world and is not represented to be scientific fact. Any textbook so used in
the public education system which expresses an
opinion or relates to a theory or theories shall give
in the same text book and under the same subject
commensurate attention to, and an equal amount
of emphasis on, the origins and creation of man
and his world as the same is recorded in other
theories, including, but not limited to, the Genesis
account in the Bible .... The teaching of all occult
or satanical beliefs of human origin is expressly
excluded from this act.... Provided however that
the Holy Bible shall not be defined as a textbook"
but is hereby declared to be a reference 'Work, and
of
Similar bills have been or are being considered by the

legislatures or departments of education of Georgia, Michigan, Washington, California, and Colorado, but only Tennessee's has become law.
- When teachers of science are confronted with a situation of
this sort, a variety of responses might be expected. Some
teachers might welcome the possibility of being able to
present their own religious beliefs to their students. Others
might avoid the problem by omitting all references to scientific
data and hypotheses about the origin and evolution of the
world and its inhabitants. This last course has been widely
adopted in the past; lots of problems never arise if one ignores
the topic. The Tennessee law does not require one toteach the
accounts of creation given in Genesis and elsewhere. It says
only that if you do include the scientific explanations, you have
to include the religious ones as well.
Still another response wou Id be to abide by the law and give
"commensurate attention to" and=an equal amount of em-
American Atheist
ph asis on" the two conflicting points of view. This is the option
that I plan to discuss in this paper.
So let us assume that we will carry out the stipulations of
the Tennessee law as honestly and as competently as we can.
let us assume also that we do this as teachers of science and
not as advocates of some religious doctrine or sect. That is, we
will employ only the canons of scientific and scholarly
procedures in exploring the topic. Statements and hypotheses
will be evaluated solely on the basis of the scientific evidence
in their favor. MarlY accounts of creation, iflcluding Genesis,
are precise enough to be used as wotking hypotheses from
. which various deductions can be made. the deductions can be
tested, again with scientific data and procedures, and from the
results the original hypothesis can be substantiated, made
more probable, made less probable, or rejected.
One might object at this point by saying that what I propose
to do is not what the Tennessee lawmakers had in mind. That
may be, but if I am asked to consider Genesis in a science
course, and to treat it as a scientific theory, how else am I
expected to do it? Furthermore, as I understand them, this is
precisely what the most effective creationists in the country
are requesting. I am referring here to members of the Creation
Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research.
Their campaign in California was for equal time and emphasis
to be given to biological evolution and creationism. Their
theory of creation, which is now more often referred to as the
"creation model," is derived from Genesis. The basis of their
beliefs is given by the credo to which all members of the
Creation Research Socity ascribe. They "are committed to full
belief in the Biblical record of special creation and early history
as opposed to evolution, both of the universe and of the earth
with its complexity of living forms." They believe, further,
"that science should be realigned within the framework of
Biblical creationism." More specificially:
.,'"
All members of the Society subscribe to the

following statement of belief.
1. The Bible is the written Word of God. and
because it is inspired throughout. all its assertions
are historically and scientifically true in all the
original autographs. To the student of nature this
means that the account of origins in Genesis is a
factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. A II basic types of living things, including man,
were made by direct acts of God during the
Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever
biological changes have occurred since Creation
Week have accomplished only changes within the
original created kinds.
3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood. was a
historic event worldwide in its extent and effect ...
. [1]
It is important to note also that all regular voting members of
the Creation Research Society must have an earned postgraduate degree (M.S., Ph.D., or the equivalent) in science.
Thus, for these infl uential creationists, at least, we would be
complying with the Tennessee law if we concentrated on
Genesis as an example of an account of creation. So, for the
purposes of this paper, space being a limiting factor, I will
suggest how the "equal time and emphasis" for creationism
might be devoted to analyzing how adequately Genesis can
account for the origin and diversity of living things.
First it would be necessary to establish what is, in fact. said
in Genesis. This is not a simple matter. There is a serious
problem concerning what was originally written. Some students may need to be reminded that Genesis has not always
.J,..
W,tle/t
Austin, Texas
b lObI"e P
Page 11
existed in the language of the King James Version (KJV). The

ultimate source is the ancient beliefs of the Jewish people, .
which were first written down at various times before the
beginning of the Christian Era. The earliest may date to the
second millennium B.C., though the oldest surviving Hebrew
texts of Genesis are about 1,000 years old. Nevertheless,
there is much evidence that the surviving Hebrew texts are
highly accurate. That is, when it has been possible to compare
the Hebrew Bible with ancient manuscripts, such as the Dead
Sea Scrolls, the two are essentially identical.
A far more substantial problem is the adequacy of translation. Hebrew was almost a dead language even before the
time of Christ. In fact, the sacred texts had become such a
mystery that, in the days of Ptolemy II, the Jewish people of
Alexandria engaged a group of 70 scholars to translate their
sacred texts into Greek. Their product was the Septuagint dating from the third century B.C.lt is the oldest version of the
Old Testament. The Septuagint was the Bible of the early
church in the West and is the Bible of the Eastern church
today. Nevertheless, there were many different versions and
revisions. The difficulty of knowing what was the Word led
Origin (AD. 185-254) to prepare his Hexapla, which survived
only in fragments. This consisted of six parallel columns, each
with a different version of the sacred texts.
Early in the fifth century AD., Jerome completed the
Vulgate, which was to become the official Bible of the Western
church. His was a translation from Hebrew to Latin, using the
best Hebrew manuscripts that could be obtained at the time. It
is to be noted, however, that he provided not a literal but an
idiomatic translation. Jewish scholars continued to work on
the problems of choosing the most accurate versions and the
most probable readings of the ancient Hebrew words. By the
end of the tenth century AD., they completed what was to
become the first official Hebrew text - the Massoretic text.
The Vulgate was translated into English in the fourteenth
century by Nicholas of Hereford and 'John Purvey - their
product generally known as the Wycliffe Bible. Early in the
sixteenth century Tyndale translated much of the Bible from
Hebrew. Various other versions - Coverdale (1535), the
Great Bible (1560), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops'
Bible - appeared in the sixteenth century.
What is often regarded as the Bible, namely the King James
Version, was published in 1611. This was based on the
Bishops' Bible, modified by reference to the best currently
available Hebrew and Greek texts. Other revisions followed.
The New English Bible (NEB)of 1961 and 1970will probably
be the standard for some years. A A Macintosh has this to say
about it: "The importance of the N.E.B. as a translation of the
Old Testament lies in the fact that is based upon the most
up-to-date scholarship and that it is a new translation. This
independence has made possible the maximum utilization of
the results of modern research. The last century or so has
seen a very considerable increase in our knowledge of the
languages, customs and institutions of the ancient Near East,
as well as of the history of the Old Testament text. The"
twentieth-century translators of the Old Testament are therefore able to make use of knowledge which was simply not
available to their predecessors .... " [2]
He goes on to point out that many problems still remain does an unintelligble word represent an ancient copyist's
error, or is it a word for which the meaning is totally lost?
Sometimes the problem can be tentatively resolved by reference to other Semitic languages. For example, a world
thought to mean only "to know" in Hebrew means both "to
know" and "to be tamed" in Arabic, suggesting that Judges
16:9, which is about Samson, should be translated, "And his
strength was not tamed," instead of "So his strength was not
known," as it had been rendered by previous translators.
Sometimes the new information suggests a wording that
Page 12
modifies the beauty of the King James Version. Take the case
of the Twenty-third Psalm, "Yea, though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death." One hearing that statement for
the first time might be very confused as to the possible
meaning. What is the "shadow" of death? Is the speaker at the
point of death? That would be one possibility. Most individuals
familiar with the Twenty-third Psalm have no doubt treasured
the King James translation for its poetic beauty - and have
not worried too much about true meanings. The better
understanding of ancient Hebrew, which has come in recent
years, suggests that the word translated as "shadow of death"
really means "darkest shadow." The modern translation
becomes less ambiguous, therefore, even though possibly it
becomes less beautiful.
Sometimes the results of biblical scholarship suggest changes
that deeply affect church dogma. Consider, for example, the
virginity of Mary. Isaiah 7: 14, as translated from the Septuagint, and which would have been familiar to the compilers of
the New Testament, can be rendered, "Behold a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel"
(KJV). Matthew 1:22-23 refers to this as follows: "Now all this
was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel." However, the official Hebrew Massoretic text
speaks not of a virgin but of a young woman. Thus the NEB
translates Isaiah as, "A young woman is with child, and she
will bear a son, and (you) will call him Immanuel."
One could discuss the evolution of the Bible for a very long
time. The amount of scholarship devoted to gaining a better
understanding of the Bible is simply enormous. Many science
teachers might find this a new and very interesting subject. In
any event, they would soon gain the impression that the Bible
is something more than the King James Version, and that
there still remains great uncertainty in understanding some of
the ancient words and statements.
This problem is avoided by many fundamentalists who hold
that the translators of the Bible were inspired by God and,
therefore, that what they wrote must be correct. If this is so,
we are left with the problem that the many different translators, working in many different places and at ma:f;lydifferent
times, were inspired in many different ways. Since some of
the different versions give conflicting accounts of the same
event or phenomenon, one is left with the problem of which
inspiration is correct. This would be a serious problem for the
science teacher trying to fulfill the mandates of the Tennessee
law. Neither should the teacher sidestep the problem. If the
account of creation being discussed is given in the Bible, one
has to evaluate the source, just as one is bound to evaluate the
date of paleontology, genetics, etc., when dealing with biological evolution.
But let us go on and assume with the members of the
Creation Research Society that "the account of origins in
Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."
Wewill assume, therefore, that the statements in Genesis are
working hypotheses, and we will make deductions from the
hypotheses and test them.
First. what are the statements? Here many individuals are in
for a great surprise. Although the Bible may be the most
widely read of all books for all time, few readers seem aware
that Genesis has two accounts of creation. So the science
class will have to investigate that problem before continuing
the analysis.
The first chapter of Genesis plus the first four verses of the
second chapter give what is genera lIy considered the accou nt
of creation:
On the first day, when the earth was dark, wet and formless,
light was created.
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
Page 13
On the second day the sky (heaven) separated waters above

and below.
On the third day, land and water were separated and plants
created.
On the fourth day, sun, moon, and stars were created.
On the fifth day, aquatic creatures and flying creatures, the
birds, were created.
On the sixth day, terrestrial forms - mammals, reptiles, and
man were created.
On the seventh day God "ceased from all the work he had set
himself to do."
Note the sequence of creation, as far as living creatures are
concerned:
first plants
then aquatic creatures and birds
finally reptiles and mammals, including man.
The second account of creation begins with the fifth verse of
chapter two of Genesis. The order of creation is not described
in days, but there is this sequence:
We begin with a barren earth totally without plant life.
Then the Lord God forms Adam from dust.
Then the Garden of Eden was planted, which contained all the
plants.
Then the Lord God, noting that "It is not good for man to be
alone, " formed all the wild animals and birds out of dust.
Finally, none of the wild animals being a satisfactory partner,
one of Adam's ribs was removed to form woman.
Some theologians have interpreted the Scriptures as saying
that all of this was done instantaneously - not in six days as
before.
How is one to interpret these totally different accounts of
creation? If we are to regard the statements in Genesis as
working hypotheses, we face the problem that thS! two
hypotheses are mutually exclusive. One or the other may be
correct. but both cannot be correct. Remember, we are seeing
how we can discuss creation as a scientific theory, so we are
bound by accepted scientific procedures.
Some fundamentalists insist that there is no conflict whatsoever, but it is beyond my comprehension to understand how
they arrive at their position. And, in my defense, it can be
stated that the fathers of the church regarded this as a nearly
insoluble problem. Andrew Dickson White, the famous historian, diplomat. and first president of Cornell, gives a fascinating account of how the early theologians sought to resolve the
dilemma [3].
In the minds and words of the fathers of the church, and in
the art of the great cathedrals, Genesis was assumed to mean
what was literally said. Creation was the work of God. This
work was more than a moulding of matter: matter was first
created, and then it was formed into the earth and its
inhabitants and into the celestial bodies. Considerable difficulty arose when an attempt was made to understand the
sequence of creation. Most early theologians accepted the
first account of creation - in the first chapter of Genesis.
Others, however, maintained that the account in the second
chapter was more acceptable. Finally, it was agreed that both
accounts must be accepted, since the Bible in its entirety was
the World of God. Saint Augustine, among others, maintained
and encouraged this point of view. As White describes this
problem: "Serious difficulties were found in reconciling these
two views, which to the natural mind seem absolutely
contradictory; but by ingenious manipulation of texts, by
dexterous play upon phrases, and by the abupdant use' of
metaphysics to dissolve away facts, a reconciliation was
Page 14
effected, and men came at least to believe that they believed in

a creation of the universe insta ntaneous and at the same time
extending through six days" [3, vol. 1, p. 6]. I wonder what
would be the effect on a high school student's mind of
recounting this bit of history?
Though Augustine and the other fathers of the church could
not resolve the dilemma, more recent biblical scholarship can.
In fact. the mystery of the two conflicting accounts of creation
in Genesis was cleared up during the nineteenth century, a
period during which the Bible was subjected to searching
analysis.
It was observed, for example, that in the various parts of
Genesis there are great differences in style and vocabulary.
Sometimes the creator is referred to as Yahweh, at other
times as Elohim. This is reflected in the English Bible, where
Elohim is translated as God and Yahweh as Lord God. It so
happens that the creator mentioned in the first Genesis
account is Elohim, or God, whereas in the second account he
is Yahweh, or the Lord God. A huge amount of scholarly
detective work was done before it was clear, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the two accounts of creation included
in Genesis had very different origins. In fact, by the 1880s it
was established that Genesis and the other books of the
Pentateuch represent a compilation' of numerous ancient
documents. As far as the first two chapters of Genesis are
concerned, they are derived from what are called the P and J
documents, but, according to The Interpreter's Bible, "both of
them bear the marks of having been elaborated by writers
other than the original authors" [4, vol. 1, p. 465]. The P (for
Priestly) document is the youngest. It is thought to have been
written after the Jews returned from exile in Babylonia (sixth
century B.C.). The Priestly document refers to the creator as
Elohim. Its account of creation relies heavily on the Babylonian creation myth, which the priests would have learned
about during the exile if it was not already known to them.
The J (for Yahweh) manuscript is much more ancient. It
probably was written about the tenth century B.C., presumably after a long period during which the traditions were
transmitted orally. This manuscript derives from the beliefs of
the southern tribes of Israel, with their fierce god, Yahweh.
The solution to the problem is no longer seriquslv debated
by biblical scholars. There are two conflicting- accounts of
creation in Genesis. One recounts the ancient beliefs of the
nomadic tribes of southern Israel; the other unites some of the
beliefs of the Jews with Babylonian accounts of creation. The
interval between the writing of Pand J is roughly the same as
between the Dark Ages and today. The fact that numerous
conflicting narratives were included in the Pentateuch is
interpreted by biblical 'scholars as an example of political
compromise between conflicting groups of priests - of
Hebron, Shechem, and Jerusalem. If you can't agree on a
single point of view, give all.
Needless to say, this flowering of biblical scholarship in the
nineteenth century produced a profound revolution in scriptural interpretation. Whereas biblical scholars from the time
of Augustine to the Enlightenment might make heroic efforts
to believe two incompatible accounts of creation, scholars of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries accepted neither as "a
factual presentation of simple historical truths." Biblical
scholars, Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, are almost
unanimous in placing the first two chapters of Genesis among
the creation myths that form parts of the sacred traditions of
nearly all primitive peoples. One would, in scholarly honesty,
have to present this point of view to one's students.
It is often maintained that biblical statements, such as the
accounts of creation given in Genesis, cannot be proven or
disproven by scientific procedures. In some sense this is true.
If one accepts an initial supernaturaal phenomenon, there are
no restraints on invoking additional supernatural phenomena
~T--
American Atheist
to explain away difficulties of interpretation. No doubt everyone has heard arguments of the sort that one need not accept
the fossil data for evolution at all. It is conceivable, at least in
metaphysics, that the earth, complete in its present form
(including the fossils), was created 10 minutes ago, etc. But
from the time of Francis Bacon, the approach has not proven to
be a generally acceptable way of gaining an understanding of
the natural world. We and all our works may be an illusion but
it is at least an internally consistent and satisfying illusion to a
lot of people.
But we can agree to examine biblical statements as scientific statements, as the Tennessee law and its advocates are
asking, and to see how they fare. And it must be emphasized
again that, in our procedures, we cannot invoke supernatural
phenomena to explain away the difficulties. That is, when the
time comes to squeeze the creatures of the earth into the ark,
we cannot decide to suspend their heterotrophicity or to
miniaturize them. A scientific hyphothesis must assume an
ark withsufficient
space for the creatures and for their food,
and enough caretakers to control a situation that would make
the Augean stables seem like a rose garden.
The key elements in biblical accounts of creation, which will
be our hypothesis to be tested, are these: First, the earth and
its inhabitants were created in essentially the same form in
which we observe them today. We can ignore the differences
between an instantaneous creation, suggested by J, and a
creation requiring six days, as in P. Well into the nineteenth
century, scholars of all sorts assumed that all forms that could
be created were created, and that all persist today. Ecclesiastes 3: 14 was one basis: "I know that whatever God does
last forever; to add to it or subtract from it is impossible" (NEB).
Even so great an authority as Linnaeus maintained this view
early in his career [5, p. 98]. He believed that all species must
have been created in the beginning; if not, this would imply
that God was inefficient. Furthermore, none could be extinct
- this would imply that God's products were defective.
Second, the time of creation was approximately 6,000 years
ago, Bishop Ussher (James Ussher, 1581-1656, Irish Prelate
- ed.) usually gets credit for having determined this date, but
it was generally believed long before his time. The fifth and
tenth chapters of Genesis give much of the data. Bishop
Ussher was more precise and fixed the beginning of creation
at 4004 B,C., and his dates for all biblical events were included
in the KJV until quite recently, For many they became part of
divine scripture. It was Dr. John Lightfoot, vice-chancellor of
Cambridge and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of
the seventeenth century, who fixed the time of creation more
precisely as 9 A.M" October 23, 4004 B.C. [3, vol. 1, p. 9].
Both of these elements of the Genesis creation hypothesis
suggest deductions. The most obvious one from the hypoth, esis that life has been the same from the moment of creation
to the present is this: If there is a record of past life, then,
barring sampling errors, the records should show essentially
identical faunas and floras throughout the period for which
the record is available. For a test of this deduction one turns to
the data of geology, There is a record going back about 3 billion
years, but useful for this deduction for only about half a billion
years. This record shows that the successive strata of the
earth's crust contain different assemblages of organism - the
differences increasing with the distances between the strata.
With respect to the Genesis hypothesis of a young earth, we
can make this deduction: If there are scientific methods for
determining age, natural objects must be younger than,
roughly, 6,000 years. Again we can turn to the physical
sciences, where we find that various methods of determining
age are available. These are of varying accuracy, all lacking
the precision of Dr. Lightfoot's, but they do demonstrate that,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the earth is extraordinarily old.
These two hypotheses, which can be tested readily by
Austin, Texas
accepted scientific procedures, show that beyond a reasonable doubt the accounts of creation given in Genesis cannot be
scientifically true. They may be of extraordinary religious,
emotional, metaphysical, metaphorical, or literary importance, but they are not useful working hypotheses for science.
A point of even greater importance is that a science teacher
would have to explain to the students why hypotheses based
on the accounts of creation given in Genesis, or from other
religious traditions, can never be useful in science. Natural
phenomena are to be explained by a scientist only in terms of
phenomena that he can observe and stud/"' Supernatural
explanations are not permitted. Thus science must ignore
hypotheses that involve the creation of matter and energy ex
nihilo. Thus, there are valid scientific and procedural grounds
for rejecting the hypotheses of creation based on Genesis.
Yet there are many other statements in Genesis about
events after creation that apparently involve no supernatural
elements, and hence may be treated as hypotheses to be
tested by scientific procedures. A few of these will be
mentioned to illustrate how they might be developed in a
classroom.
The problem Ofthe continuity of human beings is a serious

one if the biblical statements are to be taken literally. Only two
human beings were created - one male and one female,
Their first two children were males (Cain and Abel). Subsequently there were other males (Enoch and Seth). Very much
later other males and females were produced by Adam and
Eve. However, the first members of the F' generation consisted only of males. Current biological theory suggest that there
could have been no P. Yet, according to Genesis, F2 were
produced in abundance.
Following the creation, the flood was by far the most
important event for living creatures. The account given in the
sixth through ninth chapters of Genesis is a combination of
both J and P manuscripts - which accounts for the contradictory statements. Both seem to be based on the Babylonian
story of the flood given in the Gilgamesh Epic. The essential
points of the Genesis account are these:
Brumaire 1BB (11/80)
Page 15
1. Every living thing perished. As Genesis 7:23 gives it,

"God wiped out every living thing that existed on earth"
except for those on the ark.
2. The waters covered the entire earth reaching a height
of 15 cubits (a cubit is the distance from the elbow to the end of
the middle finger), or about 7 meters above the highest
mountain
3. The flood was due to rain water according to J. and to
rainwater plus subterranean water according to P.
4. The duration of the flood was 40 days according to J
and 150 according to P. J and P also differ on the time before
the waters dried up, but, in any event, they did.
Thus, all life subsequent to the flood was descended from
the animals and plants that Noah had taken into the ark. The
ark, therefore, becomes a bottleneck, and numerous biological
questions can be asked about it: how was it filled, and what
was the history of the organism once they were released from
the ark, etc? Once again, these matters must be dealt with in a
scientific manner - that is, we cannot invoke supernatural
phenomena to explain difficulties that may arise. A host of
problems present themselves. Some of the more obvious ones
are (of course these are not new questions - they sorely beset
theologians of earlier times):
1. What was the mechanism that caused the animals to
migrate from their homelands to the Near East? Did the giant
earthworms of Australia have a premonition of the flood and
nervous system complex enough for them to take the necessary precautionary steps?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING WOMAN P...

REMEMBER NOAH'S ARK IS
WAITING FOR US IN TilE "EARtAST!

=- :..=.-:-::::-
?S~J(~~I~
--
Page 16
-~
2. By what route did all the animals, especially those with

very limited means of dispersal, get to the Middle East to board
the ark? This would seem to have been especially difficult for
all organisms of the New World and essentially impossible for
those in Australia (and all remote islands).
3. How did Noah obtain plants or their seeds from areas
distant from the site of the construction of the ark?
4. What so modified the patterns of behavior of the
animals that they were able to exist together for the duration
of the voyage?
5. How could the roughly 2,000,000 species of organism
known to inhabit the earth including terrestrial, fresh-water,
and marine forms, plus food to last for about a year, be
domiciled in an ark which we are told was about 150 meters
long, 25 meters wide, and 15 meters high? (i. e. the ark could
easily fit into any pro football field, such as the Astrodome in
Houston, Texas - ed.)
6. If, as Genesis says, all living things not in the ark were
destroyed, how could the dove sent out in search of dry land
return with a freshly plucked olive leaf?
7. When the ordeal was finally over and the ark door
opened, how did the organisms reach the localities where we
now find them? They would have the same problems as they
did in coming to the ark, except for an additional major
disadvantage: the flood has sterilized the earth of all living
creatures. What would have served as food for the animals?
One could continue this sort of scientific exegesis and
hermeneutics, but more than likely enough has been given to
allow us to reach some obvious, though important, conclusions.
The first is that, if one is to subject Genesis to the sort of
. analysis that the law of Tennessee and some of the more
prominent creationists are demanding, the Genesis account is
demolished from a scientific point of view.
The second point is that if one gets out on the fundamentalist's limb of maintaining that all biblical statements must be
true, and one demonstrates that part cannot be scientifically
true, then the entire opus becomes questionable.
I believe that these are the inevitable conclusions that a
science teacher and his students must reach if.they stick to an
entirely scientific analysis of biblical stateme-nts. Either the
Bible is wrong or science is wrong, and very few educated
persons in the modern world maintain the latter.
Is this what the lawmakers and the creationists desire? I
doubt it. Yet, unless one makes the improbable assumption
that they seek to hold religion up to ridicule or to destroy it, I
cannot imagine that they truly desire a critical and scientific
evaluation of Genesis. During the past century biblical scholars and scientists have independently reached the same
conclusion: the ancient ,Hebrew accounts of creation, as
recorded in Genesis, cannot be accepted as "a factual
presentation of simple historical truths."
Those ancient Hebrews left a rich legacy to the world - but
this legacy was singularly lacking in scientific accomplishments. One looks in vain for a single Hebrew scientist in the
long ages down to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (A. D.
70). I do not know of a single scientific discovery that is
credited to the ancient Hebrews. Seemingly they put little
store in such matters, for how else is one to explain the
inclusion in Genesis of that part of the creation myth that has
light created before there was a sun, or that the race was
continued with only males, or any of the other nmumerous
notions that must have been obviously false to the Hebrews by
the time they finally began to assemble the Bible. It makes far
more sense to me to believe that these ancient scholars simply
were not enough interested in natural or scientific matters to
think it necessary to expunge their ancient traditions of
obvious errors. No doubt all races live happily with intellectual
American Atheist
skeletons. No one today, at a time when genetics has reach

such glorious heights, is upset if we speak of "our blood
relations." Somehow that sounds more comfortable than
"sharing the same genetic code."
I think that the most probable explanation of the creationists' demands is that neither they nor the Tennessee lawmakers have thought out the consequences of those demands. Had they done so, surely they would not wish science
teachers to deal with these questions. To give "equal time and
emphasis" to creation myths and to the biological theory of
evolution must lead to the destruction of the former.
Quite possibly the creationists would say that I have not
developed the topic along the lines that they wish. No doubt
this is so. Their main activity for the past century has been to
advance the creationist point of view, not by developing a
creationist hypothesis, but by attacking the biological theory.
Somehow they seem to work on the supposition that there are
only two explanations, and that if you can cast sufficient doubt
on one, the other is thereby established as true. There were
uncertainties in Darwinian theory in 1859, and there are
uncertainties today. Nevertheless, there has been a steady
progress in understanding what all, with even a partially open
mind, must admit. Creationism, on the other hand, has
become ever more bankrupt as an explanatory hypothesis.
More than a century ago Herbert Spencer remarked: "Those
who cavalierly reject the theory of evolution as not adequately
supported by facts seem quite to forget that their own theory is
supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are
born to a given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of
any adverse belief, but assume that their own needs none"
(quoted in [6, p. 154]).
But we must remember that creationists have a strange
relationship with what everyone else regards as facts. I have
recently surveyed the creationists' arguments of a century ago
and compared them to the present time. For the most part the
same objections are being raised now as then to the biological
theory of evolution. Seemingly the discoveries in the biological and physical sciences of the past century have made no
impression. Each discovery of new evidence of the aqe of the
earth, of fossil remains that give improved understanding of
lineages, and of experiments dealing with the components of
the evolutionary process is ignored or rejected. Seemingly
there is no amount of data that will convince a creationist if he
does not wish to be convinced. Not infrequently they behave
as though they were adhering to the advice of Robert Owen
-"Never argue; repeat your assertion" (quoted in [7]).
But, to a very limited extent, the creationists do more than
argue. Recently the New York Times reported that the Institute
for Creation Research is mounting an expedition to Mount
Ararat to search for remnants of Noah's Ark (report published
in [8]). Previous attempts to secure the approval of the Turkish
government had been unsuccessful, but now, hopefully,
permission will be granted. The eight-man expedition is to be
led by the son of the director of the Institute for Creation
Research. The plan is to search for the remains of the ark near
the 14,500 foot level of the mountain. I should like to offer a
helpful suggestion: even the most elementary computations
will show that, if the ark did what Genesis demands, it must
have been so huge that Mount Ararat could easily rest on it,
rather than it on Mount Ararat. Thus, I suggest that the
expedition should look, not at the 14,5OO-foot level, but
underneath the mountain.
References
1. The quotations are from a leaflet "Creation Research
Society."
2. A.A. Macintosh. In: E. B. Mellor (ed.). The Cambridge Bible
commentary on the New English Bible, introductory vol., The
Austin, Texas
making of the Old Testament. p. 162;. Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1972 ..
3. A. D. White. A history of the warfare of science with
theology. New York: Appleton, 1898.
4. G. A. Buttrick (ed.). The interpreter's Bible. New York:
Abingdon, 1952
5. G. H. Daniels. Science in American society: a social history.
New York: Knopf, 1971.
6. J. R. Tompkins (ed.). D-days at Dayton: reflections on the
Scopes trial. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1965.
7. G. B. S. Saturday Rev., p. 9, April 29, 1950.
8. Riverside Press, January 16, 1974.
Dr. Moore's entry in Who's Who in America, 19801981edition includes the following:
Tutor biology Bklyn Coli., 193941; instr. biology Queens Coli., 1941-43; asst. prof.
zoology Barnard Coll., 194347, assoc. prof, 19471950, prof., 1950-68, chmn. dept.,
194853,5354,6066, asst. zoology Columbia, 193639, chmn. dept. 194952, prof.,
195468; prof biology U. Calif. at Riverside, 1969 to date; research asso. Am. Mus.
Natural History, 1942 . to date; Fullbright research scholar, Australia, 195253;
Walker- Ames prof. U. Wash., 1966; memo Commn. Sci. Edn., 19671972, chmn.
19701972, Guggenheim fellow, 1959, Mem. Marine BioI. Lab., AAAS Genetics Soc.
Am., Am. Soc. Zoologists (pres. 1974), Harvey Soc., Am. Soc. Naturalists (v. p. 1969,
pres. 19762), Soc. Study Evolution (v. p. 1961, pres. 1963). Am. Soc Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists, Am. Acad. Arts and Scis., Nat. Acad. Scis. Club; Cosmos,
Author: Principles of Zoology, 1957; Heredity and Development, 1963,2d edit., 1972;
A Guide Book to Washington, 1963; Readings in Heredity and Development, 1972;
co-author Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life, 3d edit. 1973; Interaction of Man
and The Biosphere, 3d edit., 1979; Editor: Physiology of the Amphibia,
1964; Ideas in Modern Biology, 1965;Ideas in Evolution and Behavior, 1970; editorial
bd. Ecology, 19491952, Jour. Morphology, 195154 (mng. editor 1955-60), Am.
Zoologist 196063.
~~~~~.
Don't Be A Pigeon
~~4
continued from page 9
Then he compared their lifespan with equivalent positions

accounting for the fact that it requires no work, etc. The vicars
were long-lived, but outdone by the non-working gentry. That
is the only instance I know where science was turned upon
religion.
I propose that we do it more. It would not be difficult to
devise an experiment to test if prayers have any effect. A good
catalyst for the experiment could be the recent statement of a
Baptist religious leader that god doesn't listen to Jewish
prayers. We can set up a row of funnels with beakers under
them and a targe ball in each funnel, too large to go through
the hole. Then we bring in the experimental subjects. Pious
representatives of the various sects to be tested; e. g. a Roman
Catholic priest, a Mormon, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Jew, a
Moslem, a Zoroastrian, etc.
As a control have an Atheist participate. With each participant before his funnel, allow them to pray, bow, kneel,
genuflect, etc. but not to touch the ball. The object is to pray
the ball into the beaker. If prayers can move mountains, why
not balls?
If religious people manage to force the religious doctrine of
creationism into schools, let's not stop there. Let's go into the
detailed mechanism of vitgin birth. Parthenogensis, as it's
called, is not unknown in the animal kingom, but only occurs
in lower organisms. It can be induced in a frog with a pin prick
to the female egg. But remember your genetics. In humans,
S!!X is determined by X and Y chromosomes. Males have X and
Y chromosomes, and females have two X's. So if there were
no male genetic material, Mary could not have given any Y
chromosomes to Jesus and he would have had a single X
chromosome, he would have been a female. But since no
known virgin births have occurred in humans, and since the
Bible contradicts itself on the point, I think it is safe and fitting
to conclude that Jesus, if such a person exited, was a bastard.
1 Skinner, B. F., "<Superstition'
in The Pigeon," The Journal
of Experimental Pscychology, 1948, 38, 168-172.
2 Blanshard,
Paul, Classics of Free Thought "Statistical
Inquiries into The Efficacy of Prayer," by Sir Francis Galton.
.~~~~~~~
Page 17
..
UNITED WORLD ATHEISTS

SWITZERLAND
BORN A GAIN ATHEISTS
American Atheist national officers have been attempting to
resurrect interest in Atheism, throughout the world, for the
last ten years. In the quest to find fragments of Atheist groups,
Atheist leaders, they have visited scores of countries in the
world, asking questions at old addresses, attempting to find
names in telephone books or city directories.
If there is an extant freethought or Atheist movement
anywhere, Dr. O'Hair, founder, and Jon Murray, Director, of
the American Atheist Center have made visits to them to
personally encourage the people to either start again, or to
revitalize the fragments of what once was.
On a trip to the Vapaa-Ajattelijat (Freethought) organization
in Finland, information was obtained from the Secretary
there, Erkki Hartikainen, of a remnant group in France, and in
Switzerland. The Murray-O'Hairs, then, detoured on their way
home in order to stop in Paris to find the old WUFT (World
Union of Free Thinkers.)
Lavanam of India, the son of GORA, has been inspired to do
the same and every "clue" found by American Atheists has
been passed on to Lavanam so that he might also, in his world
travels, do the same. Lavanam has been an ardent coordinator. Scores of letters have been sent to old addresses and
even China and Russia have been asked to permit contact with
any organized Atheist group in those countries. Every effort
has been made to bring all the representatives of all the
groups to the Atheist Centre in Vijayawada, Andre Pradesh,
India, on December 23,24,25, 1980, for World Atheist MeetII, sponsored by the American Atheist Center and the Atheist
Centre in India.
It was more than delightful then to receive a letter from P.
Baumann, President and M. Mort, Secretary, of the Libre
Pensee de Geneve, dated 11th October, 1980, to this effect:

Dear fellow Freethinkers,
We are pleased to let you know that on September 17th,
1980 the LlBRE PENSEE DE GENEVE was founded in order to
bring back to life the activities of the "Societe des LibresPenseurs de la Ville de Geneve" (Freethinkers' Society of the
City of Geneva), established on April 1st, 1890.
Our association does, basically, not represent anything
new. It will, however, keep on with the tradition that has
always existed in this town: a critical, undogmatic way of
thinking. Two prominent personalities who adopted such an
attitude were Michael Servet (Miguel Serveto - burnt at the
stake on 27.10.1553 by the order of the reformer Jean Calvin)
and Voltaire.
The City of Geneva has even given the name of a prominent
freethinker and Atheist to one of its boulevards: Carl Vogt
(1817 - 1895) a distinguished German physiologist and
former President of the World Union of Free Thinkers.
For your files, we are sending to you, here enclosed, one
copy of our Declaration of principles. Although we direct our
activities in the first rank to Swiss Affairs, we nevertheless
wish to maintain relations to freethinkers abroad in order to
exchange views and news, for ideas do not know any national
boders.
May we ask you, for this reason, to let us have your
publication?
We are looking forward to hearing from you and remain,
Dear fellow freethinkers,
with our best wishes and regards.
LlBRE PENSEE DE GENEVE
They Have The Whole World in Their Hands

control the Middle East, nor the destructive war between Iran
and Iraq. He cannot alter the Chinese or the Russian outreach.
He has no control of events in Africa. He cannot stop the
aggressice capitalism of Japan. The only issues on which he
can deliver are the pseudo-issues of the Moron Majority. He
can stop busing and save all the little white Christians from
association with Blacks and he can protect their schools from
the IRS. He can aid in returning religious ceremonies to public
schools. He can preside over the killing of the ERA. He can
delight in seeing the Genesis creation theory put into the
science classes of public schools. He can lend his office to the
fight for tax money to parochial schools. He can assist the
passing of a Right to Life amendment to the Constitution. He
can easily speak for the suppression of sex education. All of
these are emotionally satisfying to the Moron Majority.
Reagan embraces the idea of force and will quickly escalate
spending for "military preparedness," The born-againers will
be delighted with the eschatalogical idea of a nuclear holocaust bringing 3V2 billion barbequed souls to the arms of
Christ. These are the Atheists' problems.
We were horrified, then, to see the solution immediately
sought by the "liberals." Norman Lear jumped right in to form
a "People for The American Way" counter group and named
on his board of directors some of the most reactionary and
bigoted religionists in the United States. Theodore Hesburgh,
president of Notre Dame University, Williamt-foward, president of the National Council of Churches, Martin Marty, a
theologian from the U. of Chicago, Charles Bergstrom of the

Lutheran Council, Rabbi Marc H. Tannenbaum of the American Jewish Committee, former U.S. Sen. Harold Hughes, now
an evangelical and, at the head of the group, the Rev. Michael
Mcintyre.
Meanwhile if that was not Vomit-city, the secular human- .
ists comprised of the Humanists, the Ethical Culturists, the
Unitarians, the so-called secular Jews (who still bar mitzvah
and go to synagogue every Saturday) came out with the
answer: a new religion tobe called Secular Humanism. This
group (it says) will protect and enlarge the uncompromising
defense of a "pluralistic" society.
The pluralistic Judeo-Christian power base in the United
States scarcely needs a new such champion to either enlarge
or protect its rights.
..
None of these persons or groups understand one cannot
attack religious politics, based on religious ideas, without
attacking the gods (and their holy books)from whence these
ideas spring. All of which is to say, the Atheists stand alone,
again, as the persons who know the origin or the root, i. e. the
radical of the problem.
If ,the evangelicals can convince the House and Senate,
Reagan and the American public that they were the instruments of the Republican landslide, rather than the state of the
economy being the main factor, they will have the United
States in their hands - and having our nation, they will have
the whole world in their hands .
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 18
Brumaire 188 (11 /80)
[I
continued from page 5
~~
..
American Atheist
Ro ts
of theism
CONTINUED FROM LAS't: ISSUE
YOUNG MEN WITH KNIVES

IN THEIR BRAINS
Mary Lee Esty
Between sessions, Knowlton and four other students worked with a Royalston, Massachusetts, doctor. The group was
strongly suspected of having perpetrated another grave robbing
- referred to by Knowlton as a "resurrection scrape.': Knowlton claims that he had nothing to do with this one, but the
other four students ran off and Knowlton faced trial alone in
April, 1824. While awaiting trial, he completed his degree. His
graduation thesis makes a case for a thorough knowledge of
anatomy, and the importance of morbid anatomy. He felt that
if public prejudice against dissection could not be lessened, the
consequences for education of physicians would be injurious.
Knowlton put the responsibility for changing public opinion
on physicians themselves. The solution he reached in his thesis
was this:
"But, there is little hope of enlightening the people on this
subject, until they are convinced that physicians are willing to
have their own bodies carried to the dissecting room. . .. Let
it but become a general practice for physicians to give their
; own bodies, by will, for dissection and the prejudice existing
on the subject will soon be done away; and it will be as cornmon for persons to request that their bodies may be dissected,
as it now is, for them to beg that their graves may be guarded,
against the resurrectionists."
Knowlton started his medical career, " ... with a horse, an
old sleigh, an old pair of farmer's saddle bags, an electerizing
machine, and ten dollars: only ten dollars, and no medicines,
to seek my fortune." His first location, Poverty Square, was as
successful as its name might suggest. Soon after January 1,
1824, he brought his pregnant wife to their first home, which
"was paid for with promises. The next months were bleak ones
for the young couple. The snow was deep and they lived on
top of a high hill. There were few visitors and no patients.
Knowlton was forced to leave on the brink of Tabitha's first
delivery, to stand trial in Worcester. The result of the Royalston "resurrection scrape" trial was a sentence of two months
in jail for 'dissection, or "aiding and abetting in disposing of
the subject."
This imprisonment allowed Knowlton to ruminate on some
points of anatomy which had interested him, but which he had
not had time to pursue. He was not satisfied with the contention that "some of the passions have their seat in the thoracic
and abdominal viscera." He described this turning point in his
life with these words:
Austin, Texas
Page 19
"At the time of entering the jail, ... I firmly believed in the
existence of souls, and although I supposed them to be formed
by the brain, I believed that they may exist independent of it,
as bile may exist independent of the liver. [Ideas] ... come by
way of the senses; and when they are in the mind, they are real
ideas, ... [and] the passions must have their seat in the nervous system, and that every man would believe so too, if it
could be shown how they influence the action of the heart,
the secretion of bile, & ... "
This germ of an idea started Knowlton down a path which
led him into a life he could never have foreseen. He found the
jail reasonably comfortable, and concluded that he had been
accustomed to eating too much. His description of the situation gives the impression that he was in a more improved state
of health in jail than at home:
"My head was very clear, I used to read and write by day,
and lie and think by night; and it was upon my flea and bedbug couch, which lay on the floor, that I became a materialist,
and conceived some important view of the intellectual operations which I still believe correct, and which I think will in
time be generally acknowledged to be so ....
I soon met with
insurmountable difficulties - the soul appeared to be much in
my way. At last thinks I, as I lay on my couch one night, what
if I should put the soul entirely aside for the present - say
that an action of the brain is a thought, and an action of the
brain and the nerve together, a sensation; and see how we can
explain matters and things upon this supposition? Good
George! how things were altered - everything was now plain
and easy; the very facts which before puzzled me, now helped
me. I lived light and regularly, took no stimulus, my brain was
in excellent thinking condition; and I soon hit upon several of
the more important principles of this work."
Knowlton's hefty book of 448 pages, bears a heavyweight
title - Elements of Modern Materialism: Inculcating the Idea
of a Future State, in Which All Will Be More Happy, under
Whatever Circumstances They May Be Placed, Than if They
Experienced No Misery in This Life.
Charles Knowlton's
Home in Ashfield, Mass.
After he returned home the lack of patients prolonged

Knowlton's freedom to pursue his ideas. Poverty Square had
developed no attractions, but North Adams had a newspaper,
and its printer was amenable to other jobs. Knowlton's sole
purpose was to start selling his book and reap the harvest of inevitable fame. He solicited subscriptions for the printer's fee
and even sold his horse for a small amount of cash and took
the remainder on a note, which was no good. "I now pity myself when I reflect how anxious I was, how hard I tried, and
how much difficulty I found, in obtaining credit and other
means of getting out the book."
[to be continued]
W[][!l~@!lU[] [j@ [j[X][][][S[]W[]~[j[X]

(~@~W[]~[jD@~~
mnmoo lA\ia
SALT LAKE CITY(UTAH)

Germinai"1720, 189 (4/17-20/81)
REGISTER TODAY
$20.00 per person
Send to: John Mays, Convention Coordinator
American Atheist Center
2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756
[or telephone: 512-458-1244]
Page 20
American Atheist
POLEMIC DIVINITY
Ralph B. Shirley
TEACHING MYTHS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
The most famous case dealing indirectly with this subject

was the Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925 in which John T.
Scopes was convicted of teaching the theory of evolution in
violation' of a state criminal statute. The Tennessee Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute in 1927.
A similar law was enacted in Arkansas in 1929. A teacher,
Susan Epperson, brought suit in 1965 to challenge the
constitutionality of the statute and to seek a declaratory
judgment in view of the fact that she had been issued a
textbook which contained the theory that man evolved from a
lower form of animal and she had been instructed to use this
text which would place her in violation of a criminal law. The
State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state
law, but on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States
in 1968, the decision of the state court was reversed. The
Supreme Court held that the statute was in "conflict with the
constitutional prohibition against state laws respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
The court stated that the reason Arkansas had passed such
a law was to prevent a conflict "with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group."
In quoting another Supreme Court decision the Court said
that the First Amendment "does not tolerate laws that cast a
pall of orthodoxy over the classroom." And quoting yet
another decision the Court said that "the state has no
legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views
distasteful to them ... "
The state of Tennessee decided to enact a new law which it
thought would circumvent the prohibitions of the First Amendment and the case of Epperson v. Arkansas. Briefly, the statute
stated that any textbook expressing an opinion about the
origin of man would be prohibited from use unless it also
stated that the opinion was a theory and was not represented
to be scientific fact; that the biblical account of creation and
other theories of creation must be given at the same time with
equal emphasis but that only the biblical account of creation
as set forth in Genesis could be published without any such
disclaimer. Pub. Acts. Tenn. 1973, c. 377, sec. 2
The language of this statute was just as objectionable, if not
more so, as the language of the 19251aw.ln the case of Daniel
v. Waters, the U. S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, declared this
new statute to be unconstitutional in April, 1975, as it violated
the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of religion.
When the U. S. District Court, M. D. Tenn., Nashville Div.
considered this case in August, 1975, on remand for other
reasons, it held that the statute was also unreasonable since it
would be impossible to present every theory of creation and
give them equal space and attention in a textbook. In fact, it
would probably be impossible to determine if one had found
every such theory from all parts of the world.
Today, many so-called "scientists" and organized groups
are urging the legislatures of at least 27 states to enact laws
which would require our schools to teach "scientific creationism." These two words are mutually exclusive and contradictory. There is nothing in creationism that even comes close
to being scientific. Soms of the people who are workinq'to get
Austin, Texas
this nonsense into our public schools may have a degree in

some field of science, but that alone can not make a person a
scientist. Science depends on careful study, observation and
wherever possible, tests and experimentation. Above all,
science requires an open mind, a willingness to learn and a
desire to discover the truth even if that truth may be contrary
to what one now thinks, or even contrary to a theory which one
has personally proposed. The "scientists" who are in favor of
teaching creationism lack all of these qualities and ignore all
of the basic requirements that must be met before any theory
or conclusion can be called scientific. When these people
were children they were taught religious creationism and at
that point their minds were welded shut. They were not
intelligent enough nor sufficiently imaginative or bold enough
to look beyond what they had been told by their parents and
Sunday school teachers. Not only did they lack a spirit of
intellecutal adventure and guts, but they also 'lacked a
sufficiently strong reasoning ability to overcome the primitive
superstition of religion with which they had been indoctrinated as children. Their reasoning ability was not, and is not,
sufficiently strong to overpower the mind-set of religious
superstition with which their parents and teachers have
afflicted them. It makes no difference if such a person studies
some area of science, because the science must always
detour around that closed portion of the brain which is
occupied by superstition.
Now these non-thinking robots, which religion has produced, are being called upon by their masters, the religious sly
rogues, to apply their memorized science rules to justify their
memorized religious myths. Like robots, they are obediently
answering the call and are mechanically trying to put the
square blocks of science into the round holes of religion.
Since the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that
religious myths cannot be forced upon public school children,
the religious fanatics have decided to call their myth "scientific creationism," or in other words, to put a wolf in sheep's
clothing. This, they think, will fool the Supreme Court. An
example of one of their scientific statements is that fossils are
found at different levels.in the ground because they settled at
different rates during the great flood. The justices of the
Supreme Court should roar with laughter when they hear that
one.
These fanatics are getting legal advice, of course. They are
told not to call their myth a religious theory but rather always
say that it is based solely on science. One of their legal
advisers is Wendell R. Bird, a lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia. A
legal strategy that the fanatics can use to attempt to convince
the Supreme Court that these people are not putting religion
in the public schools is contained in an article in the Yale Law
Journal, 87 (vol. 1)pp. 515, 1978 To sum it up, the advice is to
present creationism as science and not as religion. The big lie
must always be forced on people through the power of the
government, because it cannot stand on its own where
intelligent people have a free choice.
Let us work just as hard to keep religious myth out of our
schools as the fanatics are working to put it there.
~J
Page 21
Over a hundred years ago, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was bold enough to make known her arguments with the Bible as it was in those days. This
was a significant, brave, achievement. Reading
her words today they are still amazing for perhaps
as many as the majority of American women
would not have the courage to make these criticisms today. We print Stanton's Women's Bible
each month to encourage you to reason today as
she did over 100 years ago.
THEWOMAN'S
BIBLE
by
et al
Exodus iv.
IX And MO.H.~ \,'en! and returned 10 Jethro his
[ather-in-law. and said unto him. lei me KO. I
pray thrr. urul return unto 1111' brethren which
art' in f.KI'{Jf, andsee whether they he rei alivr,
And Jethro sant t o I'-'fo.~c.\. (;0 in peon'.
IY And thr lord said unto MO\f'~ In Midian

ft'(urn Into EXlfn lor all the men are dead
whit-" sought thy life.
:0 And Most'.'i took his wife ami his .wn.~,
andset them upon on ass. and he returned to the
land of '-XYPf: and Mo.w!.~took the rod of God
in his honcl.
JI And thv I.ord .\(1id unto MIHe.\, when

thou XtWJllO return into f_"xl"jll, see that thou do
alltho.\t' wonder s hefort' Pharaoh, which I havv
put in thine hand: but I "'i/l harden his heart,
that hr shall nOf leI Ih,/It'ojllt, Xu.
:: And thnnshatt .~al" WIIO Pharaoh. Thus
saith thr
firstborn.
(If}
Lord.
Israel
is
ml"
son.
even
nil'
Imy!.."
]4 And it ("ome t o pass bvthe

the inn,
shut 'he Lnrd mt!! him, andsought
to kill him.
_'5 Then /.ipporah took: a sharp slone and
vtrcumcised her SOli.
,!tl So Ill' let him go.
HEN Moses married Zipporah he represented himself as

a stranger who desired nothing better than to adopt
Jethro's mode of life, but now that he desired to see his own
people, his wife has no choice but to accompany him. So
Moses took his wife and his sons and set them on an ass, and
he returned to the land of Egypt.
The reason the Lord met them and sought to kill the son,
was readily divined by Zipporah; her son had not been
circumcised; so with woman's quick intuition and natural
courage to save the life of her husband, she skillfully performed the necessary operation, and the travellers went on
their way rejoicing. The word circumcision seems to have a
very elastic meaning; "uncircumcised lips" is used to describe
that want of power to speak fluently, from which Moses,
suffered and which he so often deplored .
As in every chapter of Jewish history this rite is dwelt upon
it is worthy of remark that its prominence as a religious
observance means a disparagement of all female life, unfit for
offerings, and unfit to take part in religious services, incapable
of consecration. The circumcision of the heart even, which
women might achieve, does not render them fit to take an
active part in any of the holy services of the Lord. They were
permitted to violate the moral code of laws to secure liberty for
their people, but they could not officiate in any of the
sacraments nor eat of the consecrated bread at meals.
Although the Mosaic code and customs so plainly degrade the
female sex, and their position in the church today grows out of
these ancient customs, yet many people insist that our
religion dignifies women. But so long as the Pentateuch is
Page 22
read and accepted as the Word of God, an undefined influence

is felt by each generation that destroys a proper respect for all
womankind.
It is the contempt that the-canon and civil laws alike express
for women that has multiplied their hardships and intensified
man's desire to hold them in subjection. The sentiment that
statesmen and bishops proclaim in their high places are
responsible for the actions of the lower classes on the
highways. We scarce take up a paper that does not herald
some outrage committed on a matron on her way to church, or
the little girl gathering wild flowers on her way to school; yet
you cannot go so lowdown in the scale of being as tofind men
who will enter our churches to desecrate the altars or toss
about the emblems of the sacrament; because they have been
educated with some respect for churches, altars and sacraments. But where are any lessons of respect taught for the
mothers of the human family? And yet as the great factor in
the building of the race, are they not more sacred than
churches, altars, sacraments or the priesthood?
Do our sons in their law schools, who read from the old
common law of England and its commentators, rise from their
studies with higher respect for women? Do our sons in their
American Atheist
theological seminaries rise from their studies

laws and Paul's epistles with higher respect for
Alasl in both cases they may have learned their
disrespect and contempt. They who would
.i;~:;i~"
'
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt

this night. and will
atl tbe firstbom
in ,h,
lando! Egypt. both man and beast: and against
all the gods oj Egypt J will eXt('ule judgment:
I
am 'he Lord,
/8 And the blood shall be to youfor a token
upon the howes where yr are: and when I see
5,";"
of the Mosaic
their mothers?
first lessons of
protect their
0_
the blood I will pass Qvrr you, and Ihe plague
shall not be upon you 10 destroy .rou, when I
smit th, land of Egypt.
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron. This is thr ordinance of the passover:
There shall no stranger eat thereof:
44 But every man S servant that is bought for
Ncommemoration
Iover
their homes
of this promise of the Lord's to pass

in executing vengeance on the Egyptians, and of the prolonged battles between Jehovah and
Moses on the one side, and Pharaoh and his Cabinet on the
other, the Jews held an annual feast to which all circumcised
males were summoned. The point of interest to us is whether
women were disqualified, not being circumcised, or whether
as members of the congregation they could slip in under the
provision in the 47th verse, and enjoy the unleavened bread
and nice roast lamb with the men of their household. It seems
from the above texts that this blessed feast of deliverance from
bondage must have been confined to males, that they only
could express their joy and gratitude. But women were
permitted to perform a subordinate part in the grand hegira,
beside carrying their respective infants they manifested their
patriotism by stealing all the jewels of gold and silver, all the
rich silks and velvets from their Egyptian neighbors, all they
could carry, according to the commands of Moses. And why
should these women take any part in the passover; their
condition remained about the same under all dynasties in all
lands. They were regarded merely as necessary factors in race
building. As Jewish wives or Egyptian concubines, there was
no essential difference in their social status.
As Satan, represented by a male snake, seemed to be
. women's counsellor from the beginning, making her skillful in
cunning and tergiversation, it is fair to suppose thatthey were
destined to commune with the spirit of evil for ever and ever,
that is if women have souls and are immortal. which is
thought to be doubtful by many nations. There is no trace thus
far that the Jews believed in a future state, good or bad. No
promise of immortality is held out to men even. So far the
Exodus xviii.
I When Jethro, the priest of Midian. Moses'
[ather-in-law, heard 0/ all that God had done
for Moses. and for Israel his people, and that
the Lord had brought Israel oul 0/ Egypt;
2 Then Jethro,
Moses' father-in-law,
look
Zipporah.
Moses' wife, after he had sent her
back,
J And her /"'0 sons: of which the name of

one was Gershom: for he said, I have been an
alien in a strange land:
4 And the name of the other was Hierer.for
the God of my/ather,
said he. "'as mine help,
and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh:
5 And Jethro. Moseslather-in-Ia
..
'. come
FTER a long separation the record of the meeting

between Moses and his wife Zipporah is very unsatisfactory to the casual reader. There is some sentiment in the
meeting of Jethro and Moses, they embraced and kissed each
other. How tender and beautiful the seeming relation to a
father-in-law, more fortunate than the mother-in-law in our
time. Zipporah like all the women of her time was hustled
about, sent forward and back by husbands and fathers,
generally transported with their sons and belongings on some
long-suffering jackass. Nothing is said of the daughters, but
the sons, their names and their significance seem of vital
importance. We must smile or heave a sigh at all this
injustice,but different phases of the same guiding principle
block woman's way today to perfect liberty. See the struggle
they have made to gain admittance to the schools and
colleges, the trades and professions, their civil and political
rights. The darkest page in history is the persecutions of
woman.
We take note of these discriminations of sex, and reiterate
Austin, Texas
innocent daughters from the outrages so common today, must

lay anew the foundation stones of law and gospel in justice'
and equality, in a profound respect of the sexes for each other.
mon,y.
when thou hast circumcised
him. then
shall h, eat thereof.
45 A foreigne and a hired servant shall nOI
eat thrreof.
4() In OM howl' shall;t be eaten: thou sluIlt
not corryforth
aU6ht of the fJrsh IIbrOtld out 0/
the house: neilh,.r shall
b".1c II bone tlwrro!
y,.
47 AII,h, congrrgation
.
of /srMI shall kp
it,
48 And when Q sirang"
shall sojourn with
thu. and will keep ,hr passover 10 ,hr Lord.lr,
all his mail'S be circumcised, and th,n let him
come near and Icrep it: and he shalllH 4S one
that if born in 1M land: for no uncircumriMd
person shall rill thereof.
promise to them is a purely material triumph, "their seed shall

not fill the earth."
The firstborn of males both man and beast are claimed by ,
the Lord as his own. From the general sentiment expressed in
the various texts, it is evident that Satan claims the women as
his own. The Hebrew God had very little to say in regard to
them. If the passover, the lamb and the unleavened bread,
were necessary to make the males acceptable in religious
services, the females could find no favor in the eyes of either
God or man.
In most of the sacrifices female animals are not accepted,
nor a male, born after a female by the same parent. Males are
the race, females only the creatures that carry it on. This
arrangement must be providential, as it saves men from many
disabilities. Men never fail to dwell on maternity as a disqulification for the possession of many civil and political rights.
Suggest the idea of women having a voice in making laws and
administering the Government in the halls of legislation, in
Congress, or the British Parliament, and men will declaim at
once on the disabilities of maternity in a sneering contemptuous way, as if the office of motherhood was undignified
and did not comport with the highest public offices in church
and state. It is vain that we point them to Queen Victoria, who
has carefully reared a large family, while considering and
signing all state papers. She has been a pattern wife and
mother, kept a clean court, and used her influence as far as
her position would admit, to keep peace with all nations. Why
should representative American women be incapable of
discharging similar public and private duties ~t the same time
in an equally commendable manner?
..
-ith his .wn .and his ..
'~re unto Moses into thr
wilderness. where he encamped at the mount {~r
God:
6 And he said unto MO.H., Ilhy father-in10..
' Jethro am come unto thee. and thr wife.
and her two son. with her.
7 And Moses "'ent out to meet hi .father-in-
10""', and did ohe' ..

ann'. and kissed him: and
they asked each other oltheir welfare: and they
came into the tent,
X And Mose,\' fOld hl.\ [ather-in-law
all that
thr l.ord had done unto Pharaoh and to the
f.Xl'ptiam lor lsraet s sake. and all the travail
that had come upon them hr the M'O.r, and hOM' .
the l.ord delivered them.
them again and again tocall the attention of women to the real
source of their multiplied disabilities. As long as our religion
teaches woman's subjection and man's right of domination,
we shall have chaos in the world of morals. Women are never
referred to as persons, merely as property, and to see why, you
must read the Bible until you also see how many other
opportunities for the exercise of sex were given to men, and
why the single one of marriage to one husband was allowed to
women.
In all the directions given Moses, for the regulation of the
social and civil life of the children of Israel, and in the
commandments on Mount Sinai, it is rarely that females are
mentioned. The regulations are chiefly for males, the offerings
are male, the transgressions referred to are male.
When the Lord was about the give the ten commandments
to the children of Israel he gave the most minute directions as
to the preparatory duties of the people. It is evident from the
text that males only were to witness Moses' ascent to Mount
Sinai and the coming of the Lord in a cloud of fire.
Page 23
Exodlu six.
11 And thou shalt set bounds
un/o tM
people
round about. saying. Take herd to
yourselves.
that yt' go not up into tht' moun!. or
touch 1M border of it: whosoever toucheth thr

mount slutll be surely put 10 death.
13 There sholl not a hand touch it, but he
shall surely br stoned. or shot through; whether
The children of Israel were to sanctify themselves for this

great event. Besides a thorough cleaning of their persons and
clothes, they were to have no affiliations or conversations
with women for the space of three days. The Hebrew laws
regulating the relations of men and women are never complimentary to the latter.
This feeling was in due time cultivated in the persecutions
women endured under witchcraft and celibacy, when all
..........................
it be beast or man. it shall not live: when the

trumpet soundeth
long, thev shalt come up to
the mourn.
14 And Moses went do .
'n from the mount
unto the people. and sanctified the people: and

they washed their clothes.
16 And he said unto [he people. Be readv
against the third day: come nOI 01 your wi\'es~
women were supposed to be in collusion with the spirit of evil,

and every man was warned that the less he had to do with the
"daughters of men" the more perfect might be his communion
with the Creator. Lecky in his History of Rationalism shows
what women endured when these ideas were prevalent, and
their sufferings were not mitigated until rationalism took the
place of religion, and reason triumphed over superstition.
Exodus Xl'
10 And Miriam Iht' prophetess,
tht' sister of
Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand: and all the

womt'" went out after her with timbrels and
FTER many previous disappointments from Pharaoh,

the children 'of Israel were permitted to start from Egypt
and cross the Red Sea, while Pharaoh and his host in pursuit,
were overwhelmed in the waters.
Then Moses and the children of Israel expressed their
gratitude to the Lord in a song, comprising nineteen verses,
while Miriam and the women expressed theirs in the above
two. Has this proportion any Significance as to the comparative happiness of the men and the women, or is it a poor
attempt by the male historian to make out that though the
women took part in the general rejoicing, they were mutinous
or sulky. We know that Miriam was not altogether satisfied
ExoJus xvi.
13 And he said unto them, This is thai which
thr Lord hath said, Tomorro .
' is the rest of the
holy sabbath unto the t nrd: hoke thai which re
will bake todav. and seethe thai ye will seethe:

and thai which rernainerh (wer lay upfor you to
be kept until the morning.
In these texts we note that the work of men was done on the
sixth day, but the women must work as usual on the seventh.
We see the same thing today, woman's work is neverdone.
What irony to say to them rest on the seventh day. The Puritan
/5 Six d.ys may work be done: but in tht'
srvt'lftlt;s tht' sabbath of rest, holy to tht' Lord:
As the women continued to work and yet seemed to live in

the flesh, it may refer to the death of their civil rights, their
individuality, as nonentities without souls or personal responsibility.
A critical reading of the ten commandments will show that
they are chiefly for men. After purifying themselves by putting
aside their wives and soiled clothes, they assembled at the
foot of Mount Sinai. We have no hint of the presence of a
woman. One commandment speaks of visiting the iniquities of
the fathers upon the children. There is an element of justice in
this, for the talk of children geting iniquities from their
mothers, in a history of males, offathers and sons, would be ali.
ridiculous as getting them from the clothes they wore.
"Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work." With the
majority of women this is impossible. Men of all classes can
make the Sabbath a day of rest, at least a change of
employment, but for women the same monotonous duties
must be performed. In the homes of the rich and poor alike,
most women cook, clean, and take care of children from
morning till night. Men must have good dinners Sundays
above all other days, as then they have plenty of time in which
to eat. If the first born male child lifts up his voice at the
midnight hour, the female attendant takes heed to his dis-
with dances,
11 And Miriam answered
them, Sing ye to
the lordfor he hath triumphed gloriously:

the
horse and his rider harh he thrown into the sea,
with the management of Moses at many points of the expedition, and later on expressed her dissatisfaction. If their
gratitude is to be measured by the length of their expression,
the women were only one-tenth as grateful as the men. It
must always be a wonder to us, that in view of their
degradation, they ever felt like singing or dancing, for what
desirable change was there in their lives - the same hard
work or bondage they suffered in Egypt. There, they were all
slaves together, but now the men, in their respective families
were exalted above their heads. Clarke gives the song in metre
with a chorus, and says the women, led by Miriam, answered
in a chorus by themselves which greatly heightened the
effect.
19 See, lor that the Lord h ath given you the
sabbath. therefore he giveth you on the sixth
day the bread of t wo days; abide ye very man in
his place, lei no man go out of his place on the

seventh day.
30 So the people rested on the seventh day,
fathers would not let the children romp or play, nor give their
wives a drive on Sunday, but they enjoyed a better dinner on
the Sabbath than any other day; yet the xxxi chapter and 15th
verse contains the following warning:
whosoever doeth any work in tht' sabbath
ht' shall surely be put to death.
day,
content; if in the early morning at the cock crowing, or the

eventide, she is there. They who watch and guard the infancy
of men are like faithful sentinels, always on duty.
The fifth commandment will take the reader by surprise. It is
rather remarkable that the young Hebrews should have been
told to honor their mothers, when the whole drift of the
teaching thus far has been to throw contempt on the whole
sex. In what way could they show their mothers honor? All the
laws and customs forbid it: Why should they make any such
manifestations? Scientists claim that the father gives the life,
the spirit, the soul, all there is of most value in existence. Why
honor thy mother, for giving the mere covering of flesh. It was
not her idea, but the father's to start their existence. He
thought of them, he conceived them. You might as well pay the
price of a sack of wheat to the field, instead of the farmer who
sowed it, as to honor the mother for giving life. According to
the Jewish code, the father is the great factor in family life, the
mother of minor consideration. In the midst of such teachings
and examples of the subjection and degradation of all womankind, a mere command to honor the mother has no significance.
~~~~~~~~
Page 24
American Atheist
.lIs~;i~~;s;~i:~]
'nn'nnn'n
"n,mn""n",
EEEEE$EE~EE~$$EmEEEE EE~$Em ~$
ENJOY THE JOKE WHICH IS DIRECTED

. AGAINST ERROR, IGNORANCE AND FOLLY.
-Martial.
~//
~,:sc;.0{.i)I~.''''''t..;I:A.'.A:1of.5
THE LAST DEMOCRAT-Ie LEAF?
,
~
1-
'~~l.41f1
-@ -~t3(~I~
~,,((~
rv==~
~~~J~~
II
Austin, Texas
I DON'T THINK OUR NEW PREACHER

KNOWS IF HE IS COMING OR GOING!.
Page 25
Eisenstein's Que Viva Mexico
(_w:_h_Y_T._h_e_u:_n_to_l_a_H_is_to_r_y
Today the Mexican Constitution is that of 1917, still existing

as originally written and prohibiting religious orders having
primary schools, secondary schools or special schools'. In
spite of this there are hundreds of such' schools, up through
university level, in the hands of all kinds of Roman Catholic
priests, nuns and institutions, Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Salesians, etc.
According to a survey in 182 (1974) one minister of the
Presidential cabinet was a member of an important and
ominous Roman Catholic militant organization, as were the
governors of the States of Jalisco, Durango, Nayarit and
Nuevo Leon.
It is clear to a secular student of Mexican history that the
established leadership of Mexico, in 1979, despite the Constitution and laws of that country, was Karol Wojtyla, alias pope
John Paull,",When he visited Mexico in 1979, he was received
"unofficially" by President Lopez Portillo of Mexico (whose
main responsibility is to enforce the Constitution) with these
words: "I wish you success in your mission of peace and
concord and your .efforts in favor of justice." This is a sad
masquerade by this man who mocked his own constitution to
give special permission to the pope to enter Mexico. .Justas
the United States does not officially recognize the Vatican as a
nation, and hence President Carter had to issue an invitation
to the pope as a man, not as a head of state, the President of
Mexico had no legal right to invite him or to welcome him to
that nation. President Portillo violated a specific article of the
Mexican Constitution: "Chapter III, Art. 89. The Powers and
Duties of The President are as follows: 1- Topromulgate and
execute the laws enacted by the Congress of the Union,
providing for their exact enforcement in the administrative
sphere.
XV - To grant exclusive privileges, for a limited time, in
accordance with the respective law, to discoverers, inventors,
or improvers in any branch of industry. "
Apparently President Portillo distorted and used Article 89
to grant exclusive privileges to the representative of a "religPage 26
o_s_c_ar~J
ious industry!" The masquerade continues - as a insult to all

the Mexicans who once fought to give education and dignity to
the people of this nation.
There was the 'Catholic army' again, in the words of the
New York Times newspaper of Nivose 27, 187 (1/27/1979).
"In the plaza there were echoes of the bitter feud between
church and state that existed here in the 1920's and 1930's,
when Catholics were persecuted for their opposition to the
social reforms that followed the 1910 revolution, Several
groups today held up banners reading, 'Christianity Yes,
Communism No, Socialism No.' Others had posters reading,
'Long live christ the king!' which was the cry of religious
militants who took up arms against the government in 1926."
Again, as usual in the American press, the facts are reversed,
Where the Catholics murdered in their attempts to suppress
reform, now they are reported as heroes who were persecuted.
The same day Karol Wojtyla, in his sermon emphasized that
"The church is not born from the people but from the design of
God." and thousands cheered these self-justifying words of
the church, this self-interest nonsense of a pope who had
been indoctrinated into them. In another insult to the memory
of Benito Juarez, Wojtyla asked the Mexican populace for
"Fidelity to the church ... for a life time," (New York Times,
Nivose 27,187 -1127/79)
American Atheist
The intention of Big Brother Wojtyla was clear when he

decided to visit his Latin American dominions. "In announcing
his plans for the trip, the Pontiff observed that the 'future of
the church' is being played 'in Latin America ... (and that) .
the destiny of Central and South America is tied to the.
destiny of the Church of Christ. '," New York City, Daily News,
of Nivose 26, 187 (1126179)
It is important to remark at the end of this disgraceful history
that Mexico, the southern neighbor of the United States of
America, has experienced a tragic development. The forces of
progress have disappeared but their shells still flourish in the
non-functioning, ignored, Constitution and national laws. But,
why do not the Roman Catholic tyrants, who control 90% of
Mexico's 62.3 million people, cause new laws to be enacted
under which they can function as they desire, in a more
comfortable and legitimate way?
The answer is simple and apparent in Title IX of the
Constitution under the headline, "The Inviolability of The
Constitution." Article 136: This Constitution shall not lose its
force and effect even if its observance is interrupted by
rebellion, in the event that a government whose principles are
contrary to those that are sanctioned herein should become
established through any public disturbance, as soon as the
people recover their liberty, its observance shall be reestablished, and those who have taken part in the government
emanating from the rebellion, as well as those who have
cooperated with such persons, shall be judged in accordance
with this Constitution and the laws that have been enacted by
virtue thereof.
'ROM
THE PAINTING :ZAPATISTAS
Austin, Texas
by .:JOSE CU/IIEIiT'
.. and Zapata's sons are still alive in Mexico, according to a

report of the New York Times newspaper of Germinal 15, 187
(4/15/1979):
"On the anniversary of Zapata's murder on
April 10,1919, the President (of Mexico) flew by helicopter to
Chinameca to stand before the monument to the peasant
revolutionary. A son and daughter of Zapata were on hand."
But, two other sons boycotted the ceremony because they felt
the ideals of the 1910 revolution had been betrayed.
Perhaps all is not lost in Mexico, but the United States must
learn this lesson and become alert.
OIU'Z.CO
Page 27
Chapman Cohen
In one of the volumes of the Golden Bough, Professor Frazer
devotes a number of pages to proving that to the primitive
savage mind names are things - or, at all events, they are the
equivalent of things. A name is so much a part of an individual
that many primitive people fear to disclose it, lest an enemy, by
becoming acquainted with it, should work the owner injury.
Group names are often concealed for the same reason, and
the mention of a deity's name is also fraught with danger.
Professor Frazer quotes with approval the opinion of another
anthropologist that in all probability "the whole Aryan family
believed at one time, not only that his name was a part of the
man, but that it was part of him which is termed the soul, the
breath of life, or whatever you may choose to define it as
beinq."
In some directions a very large number of people are still in
the mental condition betokened by this identification of names
with things, or, at most. they do not look beyond the name to
see what the thing is, and whether the name fits it. Call a thing
bad, and thousands will straightway condemn it. Call it good,
and they will accept it without further examination. Popular
experience crystallizes this in the saying, ""Give a dog a bad
name, and you may as well hang him." Sometimes it Would be
kinder to do the hanging first; and one suspects that the
hanging is often only deferred to make the hangman feel that
he has been engaged in a justifiable work. Formerly, in the
political world, a great many people shunned the name of
Radical because others chose to associate it with all kinds of
disreputable teaching and conduct. When the utilitarian
philosophy was called "piq-philosophv." that quite settled it
so far as many were concerned. And when Atheism received
from the religious world an ornamentation of rascality, thousands shunned the name as though it were the plague. Such a
word as "aqnosticisrn" became quite reputable by contrast.
Not only reputable to religionists, but to many timid Freethinkers likewise. Thus the writer of a booklet on the existence
of god explains that he prefers the term "agnostic" to
"Atheist" because, while descriptive of his own position,
some people misconceive it; and in the same breath points out
that "Aqnostic" is not free from ambiguity. Presumably the
writer knows what he means by both words, and means by
both words the same thing. But he prefers a word inherently
ambiguous to one that is misconceived, stupidly or deliberately. Why? One cannot escape the suspicion that here is
another instance of the fear of a name. Atheism is called
names. Agnosticism has not been so generally complimented.
Turning over the pages of Gleams of Memory by the late
James Payn, I came across the expression that serves as a title
for this article. Having occasion to mention certain of his
acquaintances who were evidently heterodox in opinions,Mr. Payn hastens to add, "lt is not to be supposed, however,
that the friends of whom I speak were Freethinkers of, the
vulgar sort." I do not know whether the caution was written in
Mr. Pavns behalf, or in order to protect the reputation of his
Page28
friends. It may be that the writer did not wish his friends to be
identified with anything so anathema to the respectable world
as Freethinking, or it may be that he wished to protect himself
from the imputation of having vulgar associates. For next to
being a Freethinker oneself, is having Freethought friends. Of
course, if the Freethinking acquaintance happens to be a man
of position or of wealth - the latter is almost as good as the
former in this country - nothing will be said. But if he
happens to be a man of no position and poor, not even to have
had a public school education, then the less said about one's
unfortunate friendship the better. In any case, the expression
is, asIlarn Carve would say, characteristically British. It is
quite English to estimate the value of unpopular opinions in
terms of wealth or social opinion, or even as lackinq the
hall-mark of an expensive education.
The root meaning of "vulgar" is something that is in
common use, or pertains to the crowd or to the common
people. But that does not quite fit Freethought. The mass of
people are not Freethinkers; and although Freethought has
very many more followers today than it has ever before had, it
cannot strictly be said to be common. It is Christianity that is
common; religion that is really vulgar. And, class for class,
whether we take the Freethinker in the higher or the lower
social circles, the one whose parents have been in a position
to give him a costly education, or the one whose-educatlon has
stopped short at the elementary school, one may safely
challenge comparison with others in the same social stratum.
They are usually the pick of their class. Necessarily so, for the
mere movement away from the ruck of accepted opinion
implies a higher level of character. To compare the Freethinker of poor social position with Christians who have had
all the advantages of a costly- if often wasted - education, is
as fair as comparing the blood-and-fire Salvation Army with
Haeckel, Meredith, Metchnikoff, Spencer, or Tylor.
I suspect that what Mr. Payn had in mind was not vulgar
Freethought, either in the original sense of "vulgar" or even in
the sense of Freethought as expressed by poorly educated
people, but plainly spoken Freethought. It is permissible, for
example, to write Freethought in expensive books which only
a few can purchase. It is vulgar to do so in penny pamphlets,
and still more so in tracts that are to be distributed gratuitously. It is quite permissible to attack religion in language
more or less obscure, accompanied by insincere expressions
of respect for the thing attacked, regrets at not being longer
able to support it, and untruthful confessions of the pain
experienced at its rejection. But to say plainly, fearlessly,
honestly, that the whole thing is a lie, that its rejection lifts a
load from the mind, and that the world seems a happier and a
better place without it; all this is unpardonably vulgar, unutterably offensive. You may express this in language of faultless
character, there may not be a single expression to which
exception can be taken - it still remains vulgar and unforgivable. It is not vulgar because it is coarse and brutal; it is vulgar
8rumaire 188 (11/80)
American Atheist
because it is straightforward and uncornprornisinq.

I dare say that Mr. Payne must have come across a number
of Christians who were coarse in speech, brutal in manner,
and offensive in the way they expressed their opinions, and,
from all points of view, genuinely vulgar. But he does not say
"It is not to be supposed, however, that these were Christians
of the vulgar sort." That in itself would be considered
offensive. The Christian who pesters one in the street with
inquiries about one's soul, who offers his impertinent sympathies on one's forlorn state, who pushes his coarse and
ignorant literature through one's letter-box, is never described as vulgar. There is no judicial decision that attacks on
Freethought must be expressed in such a manner that the
chaste mind of a policeman is not affronted thereby. That only
holds with regard to Freethought attacks on religion. It is not
vulgar to morally steal the body of a dead Freethinker and carry
out the farce of a Christian funeral. It is not even vulgar to tell
lies about living Freethinkers. These are only examples of
religious' zeal. And although some Christians are superior to
such actions, few condemn them.
Curiously, this particular fault is not characteristic of the
very religious man. He does not usually discriminate vulgar
Freethought from any other kind of Freethought. He impartially damns all varieties. It belongs more to the one whose
religious beliefs are shaky, and who seeks to guard himself
from suspicision by a free denunciation of other people. It is
manifested with even a certain class of Freethinkers. A large
part of the attractiveness of agnosticism lies in its being
"respectable" when contrasted with Atheism. The use of the
word by Huxley and Spencer - both Freethinkers, but
occupying commanding positions in the worlds of science and
philosophy- provided a useful coverfor timid souls. Genuine
agnosticism was just as "vulgar" as genuine Atheism. No one
has ever been able to indicate any substantital difference
between them. But it was a safer word. It diverted enmity and
allayed suspicion. The agnostic could say, in effect, "It is true I
do not believe in God, but I do not call myself an Atheist, I am
not as bad as he is. I have the redeeming merit of being
ashamed to say what I am in unmistakable language, And if
the religious world wants someone to kick, let it kick him." And
he felt safe so long as the Atheist was there. Of course, if the
Atheist was not there, if all the "vulgar" Atheists decided to
become respectabale agnostics, agnosticism would be no
more a protective term than is Atheism under present conditions. It is a very shallow pretence, this of vulgarity, but it
evidently serves.
After all, the world would have been in a parlous condition
but for these "vulqar" - that is, straightforward Freethinkers. All the Deistic attacks on Christianity were denounced as
"vulgar" by religious ciritics. Paine, and Southwell, and
Hetherington, and Carlisle, and Holyoake, and Bradlaugh
The Case Against Reli~on:

A Psychotherapist's
View
- by Albert Ellis, Ph.D.

Booklet
from
available for $2.00
American
Atheist
Press,
PO Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768
The American Atheist Center is one of the institutions

of the world which is rejecting the use of the names of
gods or the pointing of religious events for the calendar.
Therefore, it utilizes the calendar of the (by and large
Atheistic) French revolution
in respect to names of
months. When a base date can be worked out for the use
of the starting date of a such a calendar the years of
"A.O:' and "B.C," will be abandoned as well. The most
cogent suggestion, to date. has been to utilize a factor of
10,000 and add this to the date when Bruno was burned
at the- stake by the Roman Catholic Church. Since what
we call civilization IS approximately 8,000 years old, this
would eliminate negative numbering and our current year
would then be 19,800. When more adequate names can
be given to week days, the conversion will also be made.
Currently the following use table will assist you:
Austin, Texas
were all "vulgar" Freethinkers. They went to prison - all but

the first and last - because they dared to tell the truth in a
plain, straightforward manner, such as any person of intelligence could appreciate. Their vulgarity lay in their clarity; it
was their honesty that was the offence. In a society of
hypocrites the honest man is a "sport," and every new
variation has to face the hostility of the established form. But
they did their work. They took the truth that was being
whispered and shouted it from the housetops. They unlocked
the truth from expensive volumes and distributed it in cheap
papers and pamphlets. They forced the Churches to throw
overboard doctrine after doctrine, and invited truth to be an
occasional, if always shy, visitor to Christian pulpits. Above all,
they made life easier - perhaps possible - for the "respectable" Freethinker. English freedom owes far more to the
popular propaganda, carried on by men and women of poor
position and limited resources, but unconquerable courage
and incorruptible honesty, than it does to those who have
often reaped profit and a cheap distinction in a field prepared
for harvest by' 'vulgar," and, so far as the world is concerned,
unknown Freethinkers.
Once upon a time, the Freethinker was simply wicked. That
was a plain, straightforward charge, and Christians stuck to it
as long as they could. But.then. Freethinkers became more
numerous and better known. It did not pay to call them wicked.
The charge was refuted by common experience. Then they
became "vulgar." It was permissible to attack religion so long
as it was done with deference, in a mincing manner, and with
an apologetic air, as though you were half ashamed of the
task. That is the stage we are now in. You may believe religion
to be a lie, but don't say so. Suggest that it is a doubtful truth.
You may believe it to be an evil, but don't say that. Saythatthe
Churches have been responsible for much wrong-doing. You
may be a Freethinker yourself, but don't give yurself away.
Point out in what respect you differ from "vulgar" Freethinkers, and suspicion will be allayed. Above all, remember
the great commandment, "Thou shalt love ease and social
distinction with all thy soul; and though they life may be half a
lie, yet will thy days be long and thy name honoured in the
kindgom of public opinion."
,'".
winter months
Nivose (the snowy)
- formerly January
Pluviose (the rainy)
- formerly February
Ventose (the Windy)
- formerly March
spring months
Germinal (the month of buds)
- formerly Arpil
Floreal (the month of flowers)
formerly May
Prairial (the month of meadows]
'- formerly June
summer months
Messidor (the month of reaping)
- formerly July
Thermidor (the month of heat)
- formerly August
Fructidor (the month of frUit)
- formerly September
autumn months
Vendemiare (the month of vintage)
- formerly October
8rumaire (the month of fog)
- formerly November
Frimaire (the month of frost)
- formerty Oecember
Atheists recognize four annual days of celebration:

The Vernal Equinox
The Summer Solstice
The Autumnal EqUinOX
The Winter Solstice
As these are days set by motions of our planet around
the sun of our solar system, they are easrtv Identifiable
and open to all of humankind, transcending the ideas of
race, sex, and national boundaries.
Page 29
ON OUR WAY
Ignatz Sahula- Dycke
OF WHAT USE ATHEISM?
A good questioh this; easy to answer, but representing an answer difficult for most of the Western world's
people to take for a fact, though fact it
is. Most of these folk are religiously so
disoriented they scarcely know black
from white. They represent a problem
of serious proportions, a danger that
today only a small minority of freethinking Atheists and other humanists
take seriously.
Bastcatlv. Atheism is a state of
mind; an awareness of conditions enab
ing the Atheist to distinguish within
the conditions what benefits and what
injures and in this way live in peace
and contentment in Nature's creature
domain. Atheism is also a variety of
knowledge, comparatively rare in a
world of people whose outlook on lifedespite their "civilization" - is in the
main on the level when humans first
appeared on earth, and all were savagely predatory. Now, as long ago, superstitionistic delusions innate in the
religions continue to command humanity's daily life and activities. Every
Atheist is keenly concerned about this
primitive condition, and aware that
changes need to be made in it before
mankind's continuing existence can
be looked forward to with a modicum
of confidence. This, in short. is the
good in Atheism.
But a question much harder to answer is which portion of the world's
existing population (now that most of
its nations are tinkering with nuclear
fission) is most likely to survive in it?
Due to the brain-lag accompanying
biblistic brainwashing, the prevalent
beliefs in god-myths represent the
causes of most of the world's ills,
which the poor world should recognize as its most pressing problem.
Thousands upon thousands of words
upon this subject have been
Page 30
written bythe globe's outstanding thinkers during the centuries antedating

ours - all to but little avail. Their
words expressed similar concerns in
every possible way - in logie, comedy
and humor, sacrasm, agonized rhetoric; in hopes of awakening the reasoning with which Nature has so generously endowed its human progeny.
In view of the efforts on this score
expended by minds such as Rousseau,
Shelley, Mably, Hobbes, Locke, Holbach, Montaigne, Montesquieu, Condorcet. Sieyes, Franklin, Hume, Humboldt, Jefferson, Adams, Saint Simon,
Paine, Hegel and a host of others as
keen, progress has lagged far behind
their expectations. Our current 20th
century I]as been the battle for reasoning carried on as well by the thinking of Ingersoll, Twain, the younger
Mill, Anthony, Stanton, Russell, and
others as concerned. It must go on,
and will persist until the human mind
is unshackled and free to protest and
do away with hatreds, prejudice and
the superstitiously generated, mindparalyzing tyranny of shamanism.
To fully understand the workings of
the religionistic mentality and ambitions, note the results of it wherever in
ascendancy - as presently in the
Near Eastern lands. So, as a breed of
creatures easily hoodwinked and exploited by the priesthoods, can any
factualist justifiably deny that in this
respect we humans are intellectually
deficient? And yet, the Western civilization's masses contain within their
numbers thousands of individuals worthy of a modicum of respect for their
various talents, though even this so
distinguished coterie believes (in matters of religion) the same monumental
rubbish as do their admiring and envious inferiors.
How, in full view of the religionary
duplicity disclosed in the historical
records of our civilization,
anyone
could lend fiscal aid to any propagator

of religious beliefs in this year of 1980,
is something that all Atheists find
extremely difficult to disregard and
stomach. They - we - all understand
that this insanity now still exists because governing authorities have for
weary ages been made distrustful of
Atheism by the religious myth that
docility is most effectively instilled in
the human's breast by softening his
heart with the fear of a god. "Keep
them pliant and obedient with threats
of a vengeful deity" is a motto which in
this modern age no longer works as
dependably as it did in the more or less
recent past. But watch out! Only relax
and the religious cartel will gain political power and you'll see its old habits
revived and vengeance the rule all
over again - and nowadays, with
recourse to radio and television, with
redoubled fury. The politicians don't
discount the power of religion - they
employ it to get votes at every opportunity. House members, and even senators, rarely let religious lobbvists go
begging. Are the billions in religious
properties and contributions to religion each year taxed? What costs us
this coddling of religion? Can't Congress add?
Thomas A. Edisoon once remarked
that "We don't know a millionth of one
fourth of one percent about anything."
Had he ended the remark with the
word "ourselves," it would have been
perfect - and portentously instructive. It already at that time might have
jolted us into reflecting how shamelessly and withal arrogantly the priesthoods have for ages been cuckolding
us. It might - at that time some fifty
years ago - have spurred us to take
legislative steps toward correcting a
condition which on the part of the
religious cartel amounts to nothing
less than foxily flagrant stealing.
American Atheist
If the surveys are correct which

reveal that only 50 million of us attend
church, then, obviously the remaining
number of our total population is making up three-fourths of the expense
involved in it. This inequitable (and
scandalous)
situation,
prevailing
throughout the fifty states of our America deprives the treasuries of our state
and federal governments of a staggering amount in taxes that they're presently failing to collect. And, though
this picks our pockets, it also contravenes the Constitution's First Amendment providing against the establishment of religion, which this omitted
taxation of contributions, real estate
andstockinvestments of religious organizations now gratuitously subsidizes. If
this doesn't work for, support, and
keep oiled and verbose religious organizations which in sundry cases
EDITORIAL
wouldn't exist without it. put me down

for a dysphoric Atheist and forget this
entire paragraph.
What irks me the most about this
existing and long-persisting but extremely critical squabble between Atheism and theism is that I. being an
artist, am kept irritated by it and away
from my paints, easel and canvas. A
good many of my friends tell me that I
should forget Atheism and get with my
daubing. I solemnly affirm that I'll
follow such advice very promptly as
soon as our legislators will take steps
that'll keep the padres, pastors, ministers, preachers, rabbis, and others of
"the cloth" with their noses to their
respective grindstones and from interfering with my particular way of chasing happiness. The above-mentioned
friends also tell me that religion is
here to stay, which, come what may,
continued tr o uu.e
won't make much difference. As I see

this, people should be free to live their
lives as best they can, even though I
might disapprove the hows of it. Nevertheless .
When I hear constantly repeated
that religion is the propagator of moral
force I'm reminded that it's really pretty much a moral farce. Moral ideals
guided human conduct long before the
first of the priests huckstered his hanky-panky. To me, morality is what
hypocritical religionists talk big about
when in a bind - and wear as a mask
- in hopes that it'll make them look
better than they actually are, depending on it for a kind and altruistic but
phony reputation. Take it easy S-D, are
you sure that your"re any better? Let"s
remember that everyone of us is still
embroiled in the cryptic process called
Evolution.
evolution is outside of the laws of nature. By every right. there

should have been the survival of the fittest in the human
community as in the other animal communities.
I do not know why this reversal of the natural order exists.
However, we can no longer permit the reversal.
Why are we militant? We must capture our rightful dominance. We cannot coexist with pre-civilization relics who
threaten to use the eschatalogical Christian concepts as an
ideological base for a nuclear holocaust to destroy our world.
We must turn our existing culture completely inside out. We
must live naturally - i.e. by the use of intelligence. Vie cannot
give over our world to the idiot.
I am uncomfortable in a society which tells me not to think. I
cannot accept the solution of human problems to be in a book
written by illiterate primitives. Prayer gains naught.
Why are we militant? The woman may as well have asked
me, as a lion, why I would track for food the gazelle which
cannot get away from my attack. I fight because it is the right of
the person with brains to be dominant in the human community and that right is mine. I cannot permit solutions to
humankind's problems to be bypassed because there are
those who want to coexist with ignominy.
We understand that what sets us apart from the ape is our
capacity for creative thought. If this is what distinguishes man

from the other primates, then why has certain of the human
community been punished for exercising that ability, the
ability which gives us the prowess to organize a civilization?
But. our civilizations are highly irrational. The wrong value
systems are almost everywhere in ascendance. Everything is
at variance with reality. The cultures are backwards. It is the
Atheist who must set them straight. The scientists, the
thinkers, the educators do not cause pain and human suffering, but the popes have caused more human misery than any
other class. The physician heals, the educator teaches, but the
preacher causes anxiety, a sense of sinning and feelings of
personal inadequacy. What impacts against humankind is an
affront to me. The bell tolls for me.
Why should we fight7 That is not the question. The question
is why has not the Atheist fought more vigorously until now? It
sounds like a battlefield because it is one. We cannot opt for
insanity as a solution to human problems The future is ahead
and I am in it. I cannot yield it without a fight.
My question to the woman then had to be, "Should we enter
tomorrow with the stone age for a lavaliere?" No. We must
confront the Neanderthals.
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I [be
world
I have mad" numv
an.!
irknds
ki",ln es~ ,.1 1eas 1 qual 10 m v own: surmv

jn, ami
IIighls moonlil will. mvsterv
he foun~ a nywhere
. corsets,
prohibitions
save hypocrisy
save
and
and want
ami
ignorance.
01
found
,Iavs of
no fo, I"
no enemy
convenlions,
Ihought.
..
save
no boredom
no God save
my own love of the hlgbest, no devil except my own

appanlng
limitations
in ~rmpalh)
and feeling.
- Fran!'
Austin. Texas
Harris
Page 31
This personal interpretation of the 23rd Psalm is by Dick

Hirsch and is dedicatd to Mr. and Mrs. Truman Green of Eldon,
Missouri.
The Lord is my shepherd;
(Sheep are kind of dumb and smelly)
I shall not want
(Not even in Harlem, Watts or Cambodia?)
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.
(With the ticks, flies, mosquitos and chiggers - not to
mention the sheep manure or cowpies)
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
(The fish and other aquatic life have been killed by
chemical waste - the water is really still!)
He restoreth my soul:
(Thanks for nothingl)
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness
(But he sure let a lot of others stray)
For his name sake
(For god's sake!)
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.
(On second thought maybe I better stay real alert; I hear
you have done some real tricky things.)
Thy rod and thy staff comfort me.
(Like hell - that's the rod they didn't spare on me as a
child)
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine
enemies;
(And I'll bet you put it in the same darn green pasture
with the ticks, flies, mosquitos and chiggers. Why couldn't
we eat at the Holiday Inn!)
.Thou annointest my head with oil;
(I never did like that greasy "kid" stuff.)
My cup runneth over.
(Damn, watch where you are pouring.)
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of
my life;
(And never quite catch up with me.)
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
(No way - the rent is just too high!)
DOGGEREL
We are told to give thanks for whatever we eat
Or becausewe have hands as well as two feet
Or becausewe are living when others are dead
Or that car is black but my car is red
We must cry to a deity that I know doesn't hear
It doesn't drink whiskey it doesn't drink beer
I'm sure when I'm dead there is no more time
There is no more reason to build up a rhyme
There is no tomorrow there is no today
Trillions of years are the same as a day
Life is a nothing it just doesn't count
When we come in or when we go out
We are lessthan a second between endless time
Why worry in casewe're committing a crime
The earth we inhabit will come to an end
There'll be no more country we have to defend
How old is this god to whom I must whine
Is something I asked when younger than nine
If its a he then it must have a she
Whatever made them is quite powerful you see
Then who made their maker is a game we can play
But I would rather not bother to figure this out
That's why I'm one of the complete undevout
Ted Wright
Or Even Poetry
Anqeline Bennett
A LONG WAY, BABY
DENOTES PASSING OF TIME

The moon turned from white to pale yellow
Then deepened to gold as it rose
While you turned from novice to expert
Then rose and put on your close.
Out of the mind, out of the mouth

Opinions flow rugged and rich
In Puritan days I'd have burned at the stake
I would surely have classed as a witch.
EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING

Use faith, do not resort to reason
Do not seek truth of your own volition
Ovinelv follow, and let your mind
Assume a fetal position.
Page 32
American Atheist
NATURE'S WAY
GERALD THOLEN
THE THREE FACES OF EVIL

The public, not satisifed with such a
bizarre initiation, then censors out the
remaining humanistic tendencies of
justice and truth in an effort to further
squelch individual interest of the youthful mind. Truth and normal evolutionary development is displaced by the
powers of insane bigotry and 'customs' of religiosity. Puberty becomes a
nightmarish horror when viewed perspectively. Human sexuality is degraded and the Naturalist's inquisitiveness
is declared 'anti-god.' ... Fear automatically grips the mind of anyone
who would dare to deviate from the
so-called norm ....
Recall your own
memories of adolescence!
What chance has anyone to develop
different personalities in a system that
requires 'rubber stamp' parental control through religiosity? When personal decency is policed by fear it is
understandable that when fear diminishes so will personal decency. Decency should be taught in an honest
and forthright manner and equated to
natural normal existence.
It is not surprising that the 1977
Report from The President's Commission on Mental Health stated, "Almost
all American families are touched by
these problems (psychiatric and psychological,) either themselves or in their
families or among their neighbors and
friends." Irrationality has become a
way of life. When Roman Catholics,
Protestants or Jews can hypocritically
call a "Moonv' a cultist, they have
reached a point where they are totally
unable to accept their own share of
blame for the overall pattern of things.
All religionists should know that they
themselves are the oriqinatorsof 'cultism' in America and they are responsible for establishing the mechanism
for mind control in their own offsprings.
Thus the stage has been set for the
emergence of demogogery. When the
Austin, Texas
young mind becomes disillusioned or

disenchanted with an accepted 'god:
he/she will simply find a new and
better one. The 'wolf cry' of devine
punishment is not entirely adequate to
insure unification of religiosity. When
a capable charismatic evangelical nut
appears upon the scene a large number of human "sheep" quickly ready
themselves to follow .... So has gone
the pattern
of human intellect
throughout history. It will be the pattern of intellect so long as 'parental
privilege: coupled with social pressures, can willfully destroy the normal
creative ability of young minds.
So completely has this system engulfed humanity that acceptance is
viewed as normal. Its profound effect
has been that ALL religionists can be
collectively categorized in three distinct groups of irrational robot-like
conformists .... i.e. Group one may be
referred to as Aesthetic Idealists those who seem to possess idealistic
"Stepford Wife" mentalities. Like ventriloquist dummies they continually
mouth "God is love." or "Turn the
other cheek." .... They are the ones
who live lives of never-ending childishness. Rarely are they capable of
material creativeness but seem to simply add numbers to the populace of a
relatively unproductive sgement of society. Their lack of understanding of
even basicfundamental scientific knowledge is incredible .. -.. Their minds
possessonly the accumulative apathetic nothingness that has been inspired
by generations of undereducateddolts. They can accept fantasy without
question or examination. The paramount danger that such people represent is the they can be wantonly used
by their more dangerous counterparts
in religion .... Group two is comprised
of bigots and fanatics. Here is the most
dangerous group incorporated in religiqsity. Thevare the biblically inspired
sexists, racists, or ethnical separa
tists. They are personified in groups

which spout the poisons of of antihumanistic intercourse. They seek to
destroy individual human rights at
every level. They preach "white supremacy, Black supremacy, male superiority, ethnic superiority" - any
number of biases and isms. They are
adamant in applying their own bigoted
acceptances of "cultural" pureness.
Here is the group that supplied us with
the Hitlers and the McCarthys of our
time and has turned citizen a'gainst
citizen. How can they call America the
"land of the free?" Our current trend
of self-righteous politicians languishes in this arena and feeds upon the
hatreds and fears it establishes. Group
three is perhaps the largest. This is
comprised of the Schizophrenic Religionists, those who are able to alternately qualify in either of the first two
groups. A schizo-religious
mother
may attempt to ernbelllsh her child
with the "goodness of god" at one
moment and then chastise the child
with "divine godly punishment" at
another. They are predictably unpredictable in their manner - being
either friend or foe - depending on
their emotional state at any given
time.
If, you disagree with these facts I
challenge you to consider the qualities
of ANY religious person you have ever
known ....
Friend, family, or just
acquaintance - consider the character and personality of any religionist
to whom you've been exposed I You
will find that any of them may be easily
included in one of the three catagories.
Those persons who do not fit into
these patterns are either NON-religious or are simply not interested in
religion at all. It is quite easy to agree
with the President's Commission on
Mental Health - virtually every American has been affected by the phan-
Page 33
tasms of perpetuated archaic religiosity. The afflication is transmitted primarily from parent to child like a genetic disorder. Only rarely is the more
studious and intelligent child able to
overcome the illness of mind that has
plagued human kind.
I wonder if the panic driven, stampeding American sub-intellectual will
once again be used in an effort to
enhance our recurring religio-political
demagoguery. The Reagan presidential campaign cries (heard by this author as this column goes to press)
sound suspiciously like echoes from
the bygone Eisenhower/Nixon Inquisition that eventually disgorged the
great American Frankenstein called
McCarthyism; 'flagwaving American
patriotism vs. crawling Communist godlessness' .
Hopefully we now know that the
panic was only a ruse used to cause a
freightened public to blindly trample
on the individual Constitutional rights
of all Americans. Its a pity that only a

small number of people seriously attempted to counter the foul and unjust
tactics of 'righteousness-drooling;
bigots in that era. If we could only redo
that infamous period of our history
many innocent people might have been
spared the insults and persecutions
that megalomaniacs employ in their
quests for immortality.
Why does the average American
citizen's brain consistently bear close
resemblances to hapless blobs of putty? It's obvious! Our overall system of
mental (under)development is at fault
- the methodology of our upbringing
in a so-called 'family-oriented' environment where a parent has the 'inalienable right' to transfer bigotry, sexism
and racism to innocent unsuspecting
children .... Isn't it the parents 'right'
to indoctrinate a child's mind with any
fantasy that has been handed down
through the years? Simply because
one human gives birth to another
Where
there's "'
will ...
there's a way to help American Atheists.

The Atheist movement has failed in America over and
over and over again. It began in the early 1800's with
Frances Wright - and failed. It went through the entire
"fr eethouqht" phase - and failed. It had in its ranks the
luminaries of Mark Twain, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Luther Burbank, Robert G. Ingersoll and Joseph Lewis - and it failed. One of the chief
reasons that each effort failed was because the famous
names were afraid to be open in their fight. They gave
some money, but only if their names were in lights as
"reasonable persons," but not necessarily as " Atheists" They fa iled in large part because of timidity and
because they did not start an organization which could
continue its life after they died. As each of these very
wealthy Atheist leaders died, the movement died with
him. There were no leaders trained to take over; there
Page 34
there is a supposed 'right' to be able to

manipulate the mind of the latter because of 'parental privilege' .... The
parents of such unfortunate
offsprings, of course, have already been
mentally manipulated by their own
respective parents, etc., etc., etc., .
Thus there develops an almost total
lack of desire for truth and honest
education. Before a child is old enough
to embark on what could be the greatest and most satisfying educational
journey into the future, his/her mental ability is perverted with all sorts of
fairy tale acceptances. It is therefore
impossible for the young mind to be
able to deal with reality and positive
understanding. He/she has been pre.programmed to accept irrationality as
a way of life. It is then very difficult for
such unfortunate children to ever overcome such disasterous beginnings and
start a personal search for real values.
was no organization. Years elapsed and then someone

tried again. Always with the same results.
American Atheists know better. We have an American Atheist Center Sustaining Trust Fund, American
Atheist Chapters, an American Atheist Press, an American Atheist Speakers' Bureau, the American Atheist
(T.v. and radio) News Forums. We are training new,
young, Atheist leaders. We are organizing a~'network of
Chapters and Regional Centers. We are gathering
together our heritage in the American Atheist Library
and Archives to use as a base for educating America.
We are engaging in law suits. We are projecting a
possible American Atheist University. We already have
an American Atheist Museum. This time, American
Atheism is not going to die.
The future belongs to Atheism - but we need to seize
it.
And, that is where you come in. One way you can help
is to see that the American Atheist Center is included in
your will. Our legal firm can advise you regarding form,
procedure, tax advantages, annuities, guaranteed income contracts, insurance assignments.
Write today:
The American Atheist Center, 2210 Hancock Dr.,
Austin, TX 78756.
If
have the will

we have the wa)J.
)JOU
American Atheist
Chapters,
Arizona
Conrad Goermqer State Director
POBox
26134 Tucson. AZ 85726
American
Atheists
Texas
American Atheist Center
Jon G MIII/,I'. Du evtor
G"'.lld Ttllllt'll Omsbudsm.m
M,l(tatvn
Mur r av
Him
F(llIll(h">f
p
8 II l( 2 1 1 7
A II S I fliT
X 7 8 7 6 8
2210 Hrll1\-od .. Dr Austin
TX 78756
Llhlp
Add/I'sS
ATHEIST AUSTIN
Tt'It'pllorh'
15121458 1244 458 1245 and 458 1246
louisiana
Orleans Chapter
C Burhr - Jl
Ctlallllt'tlt'
LA
New
Ctldrlps
Flagstaff Chapter
Joe Krueger Director
POBox
331 Haqst att. AZ 86002
Dlrt'l'lilf
Phoenix Chapter
Teresa Collins. Director
POBox
28063. Tempe. AZ 85282
DialAnAtheist:
(6021 899 74 11
Massachusetts
Boston Chapter
Pamoa Cook Dtr ector
POBox
721 Stouuruon
MA 02072
Dial-An-Atheist
(61713442988
Clldplt-'f
Duer-tor
DIAL
Tucson Chapter
Larry W. McHolland. Director
PO. Box 36192. Tucson. AZ 85740
DialAn-Atheist,
(6021 623-3861
Michigan
Detroit Chapter
Bob Mangus Du ector
POBox
96 Wavrw MI48184
Diat-An-Atheis t: (31317216630
Arkansas
Shulev Nelson. State Director
POBox
1158
DeQueen. AR 71832
Mississippi
Northern MIssissippI Chapter
Paul Ttr rnenstem Director
POBox
22 New Albany MS 38652
THE
Mary
Austin
TX
Scfm-u-r
P!'~t'fnw
Gf~ral(1
Florida
FL33160
Georgia
Atlanta Chapter
Bob Campbell. Director
P O. Box 7160. Sta C. Atlanta. GA 30357
Dial-An-Atheist:
(4041 329-9808
Central New Jersey Chapter

Try Soos. Director
Jamestown NJ
New Mexico
Merle Holste. State Director
RIO Rancho. NM
Arnold V,,, Sid

(jr()lI.W~ VA
Albuquer.que Chapter
Tim Gilmore Director
POBox
15189 Albuquerque NM 87174
Diet-An-Atheist: (5051 884 7360
Central Virginia Chapter

Ar nold Vld 011i'llOf
P 0 Box 827 GrilliOt ... VA 74441
D'alAnAtheost
(7031370
5255
New York
New York City Chapter
Bill Sykora Director
POBox
3084 Stemwav
Station
New York Clly. NY 11103
Dfal-An-Atheis t: (21217263647
Northern Virginia Chapter

Rt/fus L Vld Du ector
P 0 BO)l 2878 RI'sloll VA 72090
Ptivfhs
For
all
other
mtor
Amencan
Atheist
Austin,
Texas
t ne
IS
listed/or
pubhcetum
mnuon
Center,
PO
80)(
Springfield Chapter
Olin R HOII....
loll
DHI'I lor
VA
Dtal.An.Athers t (703) JOY CLUB
Washington.
D. C.
NIJI'I 5. oil 011I'tlOf
P 0 Bo. 231 18 W,,<,11I1l4101l0 L 70024
Seattle Chapter
With
Director
POriland. OR 97214
(5031287.6461
such
Canada
Society of Prairie Atheists
John Sarvas. Du ector
P 0 Bm 1050. BICj\.icHSilSk;11c1l/~w,ln
CInCldCtSOK OMO
RI 02835
We regretfully
announce
the death
of Eastern
Canadian
Chapter
Director.
Ted Williamson.
of
Oakville. Ontario. who died of a heart attack in late
October.
1980.
Tennessee
Nashville Chapter
'{ar old ChUI(Il
DH~<..Ior
Columtna
T
(I
Austin.
ciJrl{Jft:'r
TX
IfIlt"UIII
nUmhf-'f~
1\
Ih,l
dl
"'II/{i
,haplel
Of
,"JUSe (0 A
{WI',:,O{/
II.,',:, flU'
N",,',:,( It""(/f-"r
dlfl-'e/ul
vt.tt e{Ol plens,'
J{h!rl''>\
lnfor matro n IS given only to AtheIsts
e/t,,/)ff"
78768
I ,>',lft'
(jf
(//(t'(
Brumaire
Box 20213
Wisconsin
Milwaukee Chapter
HatH.p1l DlfP.CIOf
P 0 Bo)( 92205 Mtlwrwk,'"
WI 53202
DialAnAthe'st.
(41414429786
Rhode Island
Providence Chapter
Kevin Beaudin Dtr ector
POBox
111 .Jamustown.
011"1lor
SI!;l"I,
WA 98102
Yo.rkum
AI
Ptttsburgh Chapter
Reynold Bour qum Director
POBox
6637 PrllstJurgh. PA 15212
Drel.An.Atherst
(4121734-0509
chept er a cneore, ctn rctor en

edcnesses Of (t:'h'ph(J"f"
2777.
.:~
Sprmqtu-Id
Pennsylvania
0/ home
concerned
I.,t
Richmond Chapter
St.mtev MIHI{)11 EI"lll OIlI'.IllI
POBox
940 RI. hlll()IHj VA 7370H
C,lfloft;IO
SundQUISI
POBox
14054
D,alAnAtheost
KentUCky
Lexington Chapter
John Crump. Director
POBox
8223 Lexmqton. KY 40533
Dial-An-Athers t. (6061 2788333
no address
Dirt,!
I"
Washington
Iowa
Paul D Dernes. Slate Director
POBox
279. Mar sb atttown. IA 50158
Dial-An-Atheist:
(5151 753 7522
th st we now
90 on
Virginia
Portland Chapter
American Atheist Museum

Curator Pam Thoren
POBox
151 Petersburg. IN 47567
NOTICE: If
KPFTFM.
Utah
Salt Lake City Chapter
Rrchard AIHlrl'W~ Dlrt'! lor
P 0 BO)l 11622 SdlT; .110. (,1\
UI84101
Dtat-An-Athets t (801) 364 4939
Oregon
Indiana
Lloyd Thoren. State Director
Petersburg. IN 47567
such
I X 77:'68
(713) 9354721
LdM(lI(/l1I'
Spring Conroe Chapter

Thorll;l~ W Gurh-v
DIr"! IIII
PO BO)l 1411 SPIIIHI TX 113/3
North Carolina
Charlotte Chapter
Pamc.a Vosw.nkel DIrector
POBox
18684 Cb artotte. NC 28218
Drel-An-Athers t. (7041 568-5346
Illinois
Chicago Chapter
Chrrstopher M Drew. Director
POBox
1814. Brrdqevrew. IL 60454
DialAnAtheist,
(3121 335-4648
Chapter
Duvc-tor
Houston Chapter
Howard K,, ...,nPf Dut'l lor
p 0 BO)l 92008 Hou...,IllIl IX 7720jj
Ctr.um-r It'1t'phonp
49~ !::>!1~7
Dtal-An-Athers r (7131 367 0574
Radio Program
weekly. Tuesdays.
your dial
Schenectady Chapter
Mary Babone Duecror
POBox
299 Schenectady. NY 12301
Diar-An.Atheist:
(51813461479
Idaho
Boise Chapter
Richard Smith. Director
P O. Box 731. Boose. ID 83701
(2141 231 2075
Thul,'J1
0 80 . 307
DialAnAthelst
New Jersey
Northern New Jersey Chapter
Ellen Johnson. DIrector
Mountain Lakes NJ
Dial-An-Atheist:
(20117770766
Colorado
Denver Chapter
Eddie Staples. Director
P. O. Box 6120. Denver. CO 80206
DialAn-Atheist,
(3031233-1278
Miami Chapter
Steve Ruddell. Director
P O. Box 601055. N Mrarm.
Missouri
Slate Director
Eastern Missouri Chapter

Richard Richardson Director
51 LoUIS. MO
San Francisco Chapter

Heinz Weber. Director
POBox
2635. Menlo Park. CA 94025
Dial-An-Atheist:
(4151 969-4477
Dtr ector
Dauas TX
DialAnAtheost,
Western Missouri Chapter

George W Hoech Director
P 0 80x 16837 Ray Town. MO 64133
San Diego Chapter

Ellen Marden. Director
P. O. Box 225. Alpone. CA 92001
Dial-An-Atheist:
(714) 232-6767
Director
Dallas Chapter
Galveston
Sacramento Chapter
Kay Langley, Director
POBox
22806. Sacra menlo. CA 95822
Dial-An-Atheist:
(9161 9893170
puhllsh
p 0 BOll, 15761 Aus nn TX 78761

Chdplt-'I T"It-'phone
458 1246
Southern MississippI Chapter

John A Marthaler Director
Pascagoula. MS
Richard Richardson
St LOUIS MO
IS non
(51214585731
Stille Dm-rtot
Holder
W,nn
Los Angeles Chapter

John R, Edwards, Dtr ector
P O. Box 67B07
Los Angeles. CA 90067
Chapter Telephone 2776769
Dial-An-Atheist,
(2131 277-6770
Du er-t Lllw
Austin Chapter
Gale
California
Don Latimer. State Director
Paramount. CA
ATHEIST
188 (11
/11f'
Vt"1 oiJl,IIf1t"d;,
') "nd
h~!lu.'
[11<1/)1I-'r Cuor(//f1d(m
80)
post
wt" only
"lint"
{Ju/)/Ish
G"rdlrl
luJIt
fllf"
fllolell.
of t ne tn-nst 01Jucteo Ctnrstunntv

IS
(hI" tnotecteet pas! othce
e.taresses
Bu/< 307
l.ntvter que.
TX 77568 or the
11i1IUff'
en t ne may,ulflt'!
P
Page 35
THE;;:::==:::-----------------------=-::....::==-~
AMERICAN ATHEIST RADI~SERIES
..:':':;
SACRIFICE
******
Program 63
******
Hello there. This is Madalyn Murray O'Hair. American

10) They ask that they be given free time on radio and
Atheist, back to talk to you again.
television as a public service to ask for more money, all tax
One of the most prolific writers on Atheism in the United
free, while those who pay for air time must pay more in order
States was a man by the name of D. M. Bennett. As I try to find
that the churches may take free, thus driving your taxes up to
some information on him, his background, it is almost impospay for governmental regulatory bodies, allfrom tax money.
sible to do so.
11) They ask to be free from paying inheritance taxes, payroll
Apparently he followed Robert Ingersoll and established
taxes, state sales taxes, income taxes. When they don't pay,
one of the first Atheist magazines in America, and one of the
your taxes go up, which means they are actually subsidized
from tax money.
first Atheist organizations. It was designated as the four A's:
American Association for the Advancement of Atheism. He
12) Theydemand that members of the clery be put on-military
founded a publishing company and put out a really fantastic
rolls, as commissioned officers, never as privates, and that
number of books both in his name and from the writings of
they be free of paying taxes on their income, all of course taken
famous English Atheists of his era. In 1877 he published An
from tax money.
Analysis of Religious Belief which had been written by one
13) They ask that individual priests and ministers be free from
Viscount Amberley, and I want to look tonight, at some of the
paying income taxes on their salaries, and free from paying
taxes on the free rental in the free homes they receive which
work the Viscount has done. We have looked at sacrifice
they call "parish houses" - and to be free from even reporting
before tonight, actually many times, for sacrifice has taken a
what they do get, all in the end from tax money.
different form in our day and age.
America, to the god of Christianity is money, money, money
14) They freely ask industrial complexes to give them gifts of
and more money. There is the sacrifice of money from
up to 5% of the corporate gross income as a tax evasion deal
individual members of the church and the sacrifice of money
with the corporations, which the corporations "write off" so
from the taxpayers.
that it actua lIy comes from tax money. 15) They ask to be able
Please consider what the churches ask from you in the way
to own stocks and bonds, tax free, and since this makes you
of sacrifice, through taxpayers' money:
pay more taxes on yours, again, their largess comes from tax
money.
1) They ask for free bus transportation to and from religious
16) They ask for reduced rates in air fares, train fares, bus
schools for their children, from tax money.
2) They ask for money so that they can build schools, hospitals
fares, and on prices of goods purchased by Jhem as a
and even religious establishments, from tax money.
"deduction because of religious concern", and you pay higher
3) They ask for money for the salaries of their teachers, in
bills, so it really comes from tax money.
The best estimates
in the land which can be given indicate that the churches now
their parochial schools, from tax money.
own about 20% of all privately owned land - probably as
4) They ask for money for books and special equipment for
much as $200 billion in this time of inflation - and that their
educational needs, from tax money.
income each year is greater than the eight largest corpo5) They ask for money for tuition grants to be given to children
rations in America combined - all tax free.
who go to religious schools, from tax money.
Their estimated income for 1979 was $59 billion!
6) They ask that none of their buildings, none of their real
This is a big sacrifice, but you -the ordinary taxpayer - are
estate be taxed, and because of this they ask that you pay more
the one making it! It is a cheating way of getting money, too.
taxes on your land and buildings in order to make up for the tax
Under no circumstances will the churches reveal their entire
they do not pay, all from tax money.
7) They ask that all their income be tax free, from stocks, . holdings in businesses, in land, in monied interests. They are,
as a group, essentially dishonest - dealing almost completely
bonds, businesses, rents, devisements, wills and contribuunder the table and refusinq to give any kind of accounting at
tions, which increases your taxes on all of these, and hence is
any level even to their own people much less tothe public from
more taken from tax money.
whom theydo take publicly owned money from the general tax
pool.
8) They ask that persons be permitted to deduct from the taxes
So knowing that we pay a considerable sacrifice to god, in
they pay individually the amount of any gift that they give to
America, in the form of MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, let's see
the churches - double tax free money!! - tax free for those
what the point of all of this is. Why sacrifice? Viscount
who give, tax free for the churches which get. All of this means
Amberley discusses this.
more from tax money.
"Sacrifice holds a most important place in all religions. It is
9) They ask that they be permitted to operate businesses, tax
bound with prayer in early religion, and since. Wherever we
free, in competition with businesses which pay taxes, anyfind prayer, we find sacrifice. But the sacrifice is usually found
thing from steel mills, oil refineries, to loan shark credit
under definite organized form and confined to certain specicompanies, banks, and television stations. This amounts to
fied objects. It indicates itself to be from a certain degree of
taking from the tax pool because they pay NOTHING in but
regulation and forethought on the part of religious authorities,
profit from tax money.
.
Page36
American Atheist
which is not met with in the simplest types of prayers.

"Sacrifice probably originally started out as an artless
offering of gifts to being who were regarded with gratitude. It
then developed into a formal presentation of acknowledged
dues, and soon came to be performed under ecclesiastical
supervision.
'The idea which presides over sacrifice is obvious. The
sacrificer argues that if he can make acceptable presents to
the gods, they will smile upon him and be disposed to promote
his ends; whereas if he keeps the whole of his possessions for
worldly purposes, the gods will regard him with indignation
and refuse him their assistance when he may happen to stand
in need of it.
"The self-interest of the priests from beginning times is
immediately apparent. He became the person into whose trust
the sacrifice was put ... and he promptly used it for his own
benefit. for there is no way of transmitting directly to heaven
any earthly thing.
"The objects of sacrifice are very various, but it is noticeable
in all of history, and now, that they are almost invariably things
held in esteem among men, and possessing a considerable
value as commodities, or having a capacity (in their properties)
of ministering to the pleasures of men. For instance meat and
corn or any edibles belong to the class of things which are
valuable to the primitve community, while flowers are esteemed for the pleasures they bring. Domestic animals were
long used, and usually these were eaten by the priest class ...
as was any other edible.
"There appear to be two general rules about sacrifice which
have been followed. The first is that only the best goes to the
gods (or their agents) and second that it will be a real sacrifice
for it must impose some cost or burden on the worshiper who
is giving the sacrifice.
"A noteworthy instance of the first is given in Malachi, in
the Bible of the Christians. (Malachi says, 'And if ye offer the
blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and
sick, is it not evil?') He even explains the sorrow of Jehova at
such insults 'And ye bring that which is robbed, andthe lame,
and the sick, thus ye bring an offering, should I accept this of
your hand? saith the Lord. But cursed be the deceiver, which
hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the
Lord a bad female.' It would be difficult to find anything more
crude than this demand of only the best for the priest or the
soothsayer or the prophet to use for himself.
"The idea seems to be that when one approaches God with
a prayer, it is necessary to show the high importance one
attaches to the request because of one's willingness to part
with some portion of a very prized possession. The gift must be
something with which the person would not part ordinarily (or
which is being used as an bribe by the offering of it.
"However, since all of this was always presided over by a
priestcraft, it was important to the priests themselves always
to get the very best and to see that they would profit from it and
enjoy it themselves.
"In every religion great importance is attached to sacrifice. It
is universally supposed to conciliate, to soften, to appease the
deity in whose honor it is offered. Respect is intended to be
shown to the deity in whose honor the sacrifice is made by
depriving ourselves of some valuable possession, and bestowing it on him."
All of this is well and good provided that the practitioners of
the religion sacrifice from their own storehouse, and that the
Austin, Texas
burden of the sacrifice be on the persons who desire to

approach the god through prayer and sacrifice - but, in
America, today, we all sacrifice TAX MONEY and individual
funds whether we want to do this or not. We all join in paying,
whether we want to do this or not. The concept of democracy
is that in this form of government the most possible personal
individual liberty consistent with the well-being of the total
population is allowed.It one wants to be a nudist, one can be a
nudist and trot around one's house in one's skin, or purchase
or rent land on which one can cavort in one's skin as one
wishes to do so. If one wants to be a vegetarian, one can
purchase only vegetables to eat and ignore the meat and fish
on the market. There is the widest possible discretion. If one is
born into a Jewish home and wants to remain a Jew,
frequensting a Jewish synagogue and going to a Jewish
school, or celebrating Bar Mitzvah, gathering to celebrate
Jewish holidays, eating only kosher food - that is one's
business - and the same with a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Moslem and even an Atheists.
But I don't think anyone has a right to say that he is a nudist
and because he prefers to be a nudist someone should see
that his house is tax free so that he can dance around it in the
nude. If someone thinks that because he is a vegetarian from
thence he should have a tax subsidy in order to support his
taste, then I will fight him about it. And, if someone thinks that
because he was born a Jew I should pay higher taxes on my
home so he can build larger synagogues - forget itl The same
appertains to any Roman Catholic - for I will not pay for their
schools, their tax free position, their churches, or help to bake
their wafers! I am just as angry about the Protestant, be (s)he
Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, or Episcopalian, who thinks I am
going to pay higher income tax because his church should get
money from him which he can take as a tax deduction on his
income statement for income tax return. This is not fair. It is
not democratic. It is coercive and requires me to profess a
belief, through sacrifice of money.
I mean to say by all this that I consider nudism and
vegetarianism just as important to anyone as is religion. All of
these ideas have the same value - well, I guess that is not fair
to nudism and vegetarianism, because really religion has NO
value and both of those ideas have some valve!
Christianity has been so obsessed with the idea of sacrifice
that in it we find the supreme and ultimate sacrifice. It is the
fundamental concept of Christianity itself.
We first find the notion of an angry and exacting deity, who
can only be rendered placable towards mankind by the
surrender to him of some valuable thing. We have consequently the sacrifice of the most valuable thing that can
possibly be offered, namely the life of a human being. We
have, lastly, the belief that this sacrifice was accepted, and
that promises of mercy w.ere in consequence held out to the
human race. Bya peculiar exaltation of the idea, the life thus
given us is declared to be that of god's own son - Jesus Christ
- and he is offered as a sacrifice to god in a particularly
converted form. But the value of the sacrifice and con"
sequently the advantages it is capable of procuring are
indefi nitely heightened.
Think of the irony of it. For years man gave gifts to one god or
another, up to and including human beings - and then one
day the human beings pulled the grand switch - and in the
manipulation of the idea wound up with god offering a
sacrifice instead of mankind doing so and that sacrifice is HIS
OWN SON to be murdered by men, for men to benefit by this,
through god, indefinitely in the future. (That is, if you believe
that story!)
I only wish that we could pull this same switch now and
have the agents of gods give us back all the money we have
been accumulating for so many years in order to benefit
mankind, now, here, on earth.
Page 37
ATHEIST
VIJAYAWAD~A
C01W:~
IN"
CENTRE
520006
A.P., INDIA
..A.N"X
JOIN'"
T~E
"US
SECON'"X
WORLD ATHEIST
CONFERENCE
VIJAYAWADA,
FRIMAIRE'25-28~ 188
INDIA
12/25-28/80
World Atheist Meet - Two will be held at The Atheist Centre. Vijayawada. Andre Pradesh, India in Frimaire, 1980, spansoredjointiy by the
Atheist Center (Director - Jon Murray) and the Atheist Centre of India (Director - Lauanam) in the tradition of international Atheist
cooperation begun by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hoir and Gora. through United World Atheists.
American
Page 38
8rumaire 188 (11/80)
American Atheist
~ BOOK REVIEW ~
(~. __
T_h_e_T_ru_t_h_s_h_a_lI_M_a_k_e_Y_O_u_~_re_e __
While in attendance at the First Annual California State

Convention of American Atheists in Solvang, the Director of
the American Atheist Center, Jon Murray, was delighted with
the performance of magician Robert A. Steiner. While arranging with him to have him perform his magic feats at the
national convention scheduled for April, 1981 in Salt Lake
City, Jon discovered that Bob was also an author. He had with
him some copies of his small book The Truth Shall Make You
Free, An Inquiry into The Legend of God and presented an
autographed copy to Jon. Reading that booklet as he flew back
to Texas, Jon decided that it was of such excellence that it
should be featured as an Atheist selection-of-the-month
in
these columns.
Once again, in order to get into print, an Atheist author had
found it necessary to finance the printing of his words,
himself. The book 8%" x 5%" is just' 37 pages. But the
publishing of such a little jewel is a financial burden on any
ordinary person and in order to recoup costs Bob found it
necessary to price it at $3.95 (plus postage, that comes out to
$4.50). The Atheist author, publisher and purchaser is thus,
always, put at a disadvantage. Small lot quantities cost a great
deal, but a religious zany can get any printer to gut out a
million copies so that the large number can reduce per book
cost. Atheists are not in that game - as yet, but we are trying
to get there.
But, to the book! The first inside sheet reveals the author's
intent immediately since it notes, "The truth shall make you
free. This statement is attributed to a man named Jesus. He is
a leading character in a book of legends entitled The Holy
Bible; author: Unknown." The quote is from John 8:32 and has
to do with a conversation which Jesus had with his fellow
Jews, followers of Abraham. It is a slogan of the Seventh Day
Adventist church. Frankly the titled nettled this reviewer
somewhat, followed with a hesitancy to pick up the book and
read it. But that brought the light! Any young Christian might
..----------- ..
.._---------_.
The Charles E. Stevens

American Atheist Library and Archive. Inc..
Robin Eileen Murray-O'Hair,
Director
2210 Hancock Dr .. Austin. TX 78756
solicits
gifts of Atheist/Freethought/Secularist
IRationalistIRealist/Humanist/lconoclast/Anarchy
books. This
historical Atheist archive is the single largest in the
world. is open to researchers and scholars and is in
need of books journals and memorabilia related to its
purpose. The library and archives functions only
through use of contributions directed to it. Thank you.
Austin, Texas
just as easily pick it up because the title is familiar. And, this is

justthe bookfor a 9, 10 or 11 year oldllf your extended family
is religious, slip one in with your present to the kidsl Your
nieces and nephews, cousins and grandchildren, will love you
for it when they are older. It is just what is needed to plant the
seeds of doubt. In language related to current ordinary daily
events of life, it critically attacks the sheer insanity of religion,
in a sweet and understanding way. It is simple, clear - and
deadly. Your Christian relative will have one helluva time
answering the questions of any child who has this book in
hand.
Order from American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 2117, Austin,
TX 78768, $4.50 the copy.
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
Male, age 41, widower, varied interests.
Looking for intelligent, warm, slender
lady to share life with. Write L.A. 101
Mr. seeks Ms. Interests: Ethics, values,

humane ideas. Write L.A. 102
.1
White, male, mature Atheist, 18, - struggled from Christianity, - desires female
correspondence,
- bright,
imaginative, morally variable. L.A. 103
Atheist, age 26. I have as much to offer an

intelligent woman as she has to offer me .
Object: marriage and children, not necessarily in that order. L.A. 104
Address your reply to (L.A. #). Place
your sealed stamped envelope in a letter
to the A merican A theist Center, P. O.
Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768. Weforward
to keep confidentiality.
Page 39
._CHAPTER
CHATTER
Coast to Coast
American A theists single outfour days each year as limes for
comme il faut celebrations for all mankind. being. as these days
are. the products of natural phenomen.
Dramatically. each rear.
they advise us that all humankind is one and that race. sex. national
boundaries, or ideology mustfade before natural events. The days
are: (I) the vernal equinox. (2) the summer solstice. (3) the
autumnal equinox. (4) the winter solstice. These are all set b v the
earth \' angle of inclination and its motions around the sun. The
equinoxes are those times in March and September when day and
night are exactlv equal. The summer .I'OI.Hiceis the time when the
(June) dav is the longest. The winter solstice is that time when the
(December) dav is the shortest,
These instances [or celebration, recognized even bv primitive
man. have been stolen b v religions throughout
the world /()
commemorate events in the lives of their gods. It is important that
the A theist and scientific communit v of the world restore them as
cornrnc il Iaut celebrations ofnature.
American Atheist chapters are urged 10 havefestivities
at these
limes. As it happens. the most widelv celebrated ofthese events has
alwavs been at the lime when the sun "conquers the darkness and
dun no longer shorten. "L.e. at the winter solstice.
If you are an Atheist we urge you to join in the celebrations:
Virginia - December 20th. at the Holiday Inn. 2460 Eisenhower
Ave.. Alexandria. 2:00 P. M. to 7:00 P.M. with dinner at 5:00 P.M ..
sponsored by t he Northern Virginia and Southern Virginia chapters. Arnold Via in charge
Texas - Austin area. December 21st - the day of solstice - plans
not Iinali/cd contact Gale Schreier (seechapter list p. )5)
Texas - Conroe/Spring area. December !Jth. plans not finalized.
contact Wayne Gurley (see chapter list p. )5).
Texas - Houston area. December 20th. plans not finalized.
contact Howard Krcisncr (see chapter list p. )5)
California - San Francisco. December 21st, plans not finalized.

contact Minerva Massen (seechapter list p. 35)
California - Los Angeles, December 13th. Hollywood-Roosevelt
Hotel. 6:00 P.M. Social and cocktails; 7:00 P.M. Dinner; 8:00
P.M. Review of Year; followed by speechby Dr. John Moore (see
his article on p. 10)1
Illinois - December Zl st, 2:00 P.M., at the home of Chapter
Director Chris Drew in Hazelcrest, (seechapter list p. 35 to contact
Chris)
Utah - December 13th. at the "Clubhouse," in the Park Place
Condo, 1580E. 5600 S., Salt Lake City, party begins at 7:00 P.M.
Sam Porter in charge
Washington - December 18th, 7:30 P.M., Odd Fellows Bldg.,
Room 426, 915 E. Pine, Seattle. Carlotta Yoakum in charge.
Michigan - December 19th, Holiday Inn, Detroit-Hazel Park, 9
Mile Road and 1-75. Detroit, celebrating Fifth Anniversary of the
Chapter. Bob Mangus in charge.
Arizona - Tucson, December 21st, 2:00 P.M. a potluck at the
home of the Director, (see chapter list p. 35 to contact Larry)
McHoliand) blah blah blah
International:
World Atheist
Meet, II is being held on
December 23rd, 24th and 25th at the Atheist Centre, in
Patamata, a suburb of Vijayawada, in the state of Andhra
Pradesh, in India. In the spirit of world Atheist international
cooperation, first advocated by GORA and Madalyn O'Hair. at
the time of the formation of United World Atheists, this World
Atheist Meet, II is jointly sponsored by the Atheist Centre in
India and the American Atheist Center. The coordinators are
Lavanam of India and Jon Murray of the United States. Dr.
O'Hair is the featured speaker at Meet, II.
..................................................................................................
New York: Catherine O'Clar e. ably assisted by Bill Sykora,
Chapter Director, has been working hard on a one-half hour,
once-a-week American Atheist radio program which she is
hoping to establish on radio station WBAX. This has been a
long time project to lay the ground work but if it is as
successful as that in Houston, it will be well worth the effort.
Pennsylvania: What was billed as "Mt. Lebanon's World's
Greatest Garage Sale was a tremendous success and the
Pittsburgh Chapter wound up with $430 in its treasury. Who
said you can't raise money for Atheism?
A new lending library is being established in this Chapter
and the call is out for anyone who has books to give or to loan
to the Chapter to get in touch. The books will be rented out at
$1.00 a month and the Chapter expects the loaning to be lively
enough to be a fund raiser. That is the kind of optimism we all
need!
North Carolina: Sharon Ward came up with an idea to
alternate with the Dial-An-Atheist service in Charlotte. Terming it a "new dimension" she explains that an advertisement
was put into the Charlotte Observernewspaper of a "freethinker's personal discussion service." The ad invited those
who desired to call the Dial-An-Atheist number "most evenings from 7:30to 10:00 P.M." for a personal chat. She and Pat
Voswinkel then man the telephone during that time. This is a
Page 40
personal outreach to those who want to chat, who want more

questions answered, who are timid about writing.
These two charming women also appeared on the WSOC
radio talk show "Reaction" in late summer. But, then again, all
the Chapter Directors are finding it easier and easier to get on
those shows. Bill Sykora scored in New York several times this
summer; Rich Andrews is always on in Salt Lake City; Heinz
Weber has become a cefebritv in San Francisco' from his
appearances. It is just - as Arnold Via puts it over and over
again - "Welcome! to the Wonderful World of American
Atheism." We all have a helluva lot to say and it will take us
f980 years to counter all the religiou B.S. that has been put
out in that time!
California: Heinz Weber, the D(~ector of the San Francisco
Chapter reports that the Dial-An-Atheist
line there overheated the recorder, with 300 calls just overnight (June 30July 1) when it first went into service.
Meanwhile Dan Bravo was speaking out in the "Letters to
The Editor" of the Peninsula Times/Tribune because a religious festival was held at the Foothill Junior College. If
Chapter leaders and members do not complain, no one else
will! Go to it, Dan! let them know there are Atheists out in the
wilds of San Francisco. Whenever you see a situation which is
violative of the doctrine of state/ church separation on which
the nation was founded - Sound off!
American Atheist
1.
To stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry
concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and
practices.
2.
To collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all
religions and promote a more thorough understanding of them, their
origins and histories.
3.
To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways, the
complete and absolute separation of state and church; and the
establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly .secular system of
education available to all.
4.
To encourage the development and public acceptance of a
humane ethical system, stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each, individually, in relation to society.
5.
To develop and propagate a social philosophy in which man is the
central figure who alone must be the source of strength, progress and
ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity
6.
To promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems
affecting the maintenance, perpetuation and enrichment of human
(and other) life .
7.
To engage in such social, educational. legal and cultural activity
as will be useful and beneficial to members of American Atheists and to
society as a whole.
Definitions
1.
Atheism is the lif&philosophy (Weltanschauung) of persons who
are free from theism. It is predicated on the ancient Greek philosophy of
Materialism.
2.
American Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which
unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing
a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience, independent of al'l arbitrary assumptions of authority or creeds.
3.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent
conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable
and impersonal law; that there is no supernatural interfereflce in
human life; that man - finding his resources within himself - can and
must create his own destiny; and that his potential for good and higher
development is for all practical purposes unlimited.
AMERICAN
ATHEISTS
SEND $15DO FOR ONE
YEAR'S MEMBERSHIP AND
YOU WILL RECEIVE THE
FIRST NEWSLETTER, A
MEMBERSHIP CARD
AND A CERTIFICATE
P.O.Box 2117
Austin, Texas 78768
ILlKft 'ii1Hl~
S11lIHf mv; i1JUll
_1lI!IfIllIlIl(;B!
11~~

American Atheist Magazine Nov 1980

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

American Atheist Magazine Nov 1980

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

NINE DEMANDS - ANOTHER HUNDRED YEARS?

now. for our times and for our accomplishing.

We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no

longer be exempt from just taxation.

Volume 22, No. 11 Brumaire, 188

The Whole World in Their Hands

Utah Chapter Triumphs in The Face of Adversity

Teaching Myths in Public Schools The Woman's Bible -

Mary Lee Esty

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Why The Untold History Vulgar Freethinkers -

Of What Use Atheism? -

The Three Faces of Evil -

Madalyn Murray O'Hair

On Giving Equal Time to The

The American Atheist magazine is

Letters to The Editor

The American Atheist magazine is indexed in:

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

LEITERS TO THE EDITOR

1'1orth PO/emembers and they fear their jobs would

JON GARTH MURRA Y

light the kitchen stove I

8rumaire 188 (11/80)

..front ~agt l\tbtttu

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

newspaper printed a short unsigned article in its November

with them." It was fair warning to the new trinity: Paul

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

. anb we won't take it anrmcret

Chris Allen -Assistant

Br urnair e 188 (11 80)

The court upheld the assessor in most.

to aid and subsidize

tax exemption on the basis of

sault upon the constitution

Like many another

not end with the defeat of Proposition

Sartre, to be found in Being and Nothingness, is especially

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

while, the less superstitious quarter, rather than performing

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

detected, show us "rnere" matter is really a wonderful thing.

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

ON GIVING EQUAL TIME TO THE TEACHING

John A. Moore is-e professor of Biology, University

1,,<"IUfl'Y'W".11 .l svmposnnn euutled "The Role of Controversy

Ft'hruolfY 1974 Lutvr , pubh-.lu-d lIl"PprsjwClives

in Science." Annual Meeting, American

1Il Biology and Medicine."

for the Advancement

the Holy Bible shall not be defined as a textbook,

On April 30,1973, Senate Bill 394, having been passed by

Similar bills have been or are being considered by the

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

All members of the Society subscribe to the

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

existed in the language of the King James Version (KJV). The

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

On the second day the sky (heaven) separated waters above

effected, and men came at least to believe that they believed in

Brumaire 188 (11/80)

The problem Ofthe continuity of human beings is a serious