THE

$2.50

AMERICAN ATHEIST
A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

Vol. 24, No.4, April 1982.

*******************************************-.****************.******

~81

~@f1~~

Internal Revenue Service

Instructions for Form 990

Return of Organization
Exempt from Income Tax

C. Otller Forms You M., HaId to PIIa1. SdIecIuII A (Form !MIO)._11ed with
form 990 for. lacticn SOl (c)(3) oraan
tion that I. not a private found.tlon (Including an 0l1laniz8lion described In MC'
tlon SOl (a) or 501(1). AIIo filed with form
990 for a MCtlon 4947(a)(1) trust not
treated a private foundation.
2. Form990-T.-Filed
rately for
org.nizatlon. with gross Incoma of $1.000
or more from bu.ina unrelated to tile
orl[lni.81lon. ex.mpt purpose. For detail.
, MI tha In.tructlon. fo, Form i9O- T 0'

~r~~::=
..~~

~~~~'~~oo,::.~~~::pt
Ilcatlon liB Is .v.nabll frH from IRS,
3. Fo W-Z.nd W-3.-W I.nd T.x
Statement, and Tranomiltal of Income .nd
Tax Statamant .
4. Form W-2P.-Statement
for Reciplints of Periodic Annuitie., P.n.ion R.
(Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, unless otherwise indicated)
tired Pay. or IRA Paymlnta.
5. Form 1096.-Annual
SummarY and
Tr.nsmitt.1 of U.S. Information Retumtl.
6. form lotl.-OIV .. INT. MED, MISC,
010. PATR, R. AND NE..-Infonnation

General Instructions
turn. for raporting dividands, intaraat,
mldlcll and he.lth carl peym.nta, mil-P.perw .k Raductlon Act Notlcl.- The
5. A State Institution who income I,
cellaneoua Incoma. orlllnil IlIue d~nt.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 oays we
excluded from aroas income under section
patronalll dividend.. lump-.um distribu115.
must tell you why we ara collactinll this
tion. from profit-sharina .nd r8llremant
information, how we will use it. Ind
6. An orllanization described in MCtlon
plan nd nonamployee compenaation.
whether you have to give it to us. We ask
501(c)(1). Section 501(c)(1) 0l1laniz8llons
for the information to carry out the Inter7. form 9CO.-Used to rePO<! unemara corporation. ol1lanized undlr an Act of
nal Revenue laws of the United States. We
ployment tax paid by .n employer.
Conar that are:
need it to ensure that you ar. comply
8. Form 94l".-Used
to report IOCI.,
(a) Instrumlntelities
of the Unlted
Inll with the law. You .rl required to
security and income tax withheld by an
ItetH. and
live u. thl. information.
Imployer_
(b)
empt
from
Fedlral
incoml
tex

A. WIIo Mu.t Fill Form 99O.-Except fo,

9. form 5500, 5~,
5!OC).G, Of'
(undlr sucll Acta amended and .upplethose types of organizationl lilted in in
55OO-R..-Used
to raport on employH
minted).
'truclion B. an .nnuII raturn on Form 990
benefit plana.
7. A private found8llon exempt under
10requlr.d from evarY o,.lnlzatlon ampt
Employe whO maintain ......,on. pnIfIto
ctlon S01(c)(3) and described In section .
from tl. und.r section !I01 (.y, Includlnll
sh.rinl. 0' other funded dlfanred compert509(a). (Required to file Form 99(}-PF. R.
for.18" orlanizatlonl and coopet8tlv. I.rvs81ion pI.ne (except Simplified Employllturn
ot
PrivatI
Found8lion
Exlmpt
from
ic. ol1llnlzation. described In sections 501
Plnslon plan.) .re pnlrally
requlNd to
Incoma Tax.)
(e) .nd (f).
file ona of the 5500 rtaa forms specified
For tax years beginning after Decem8. A black lunll benlnt tru81 dlscribed
In the followln. par raph: This requlr.
ber 31. 1980. any nonexempt charitable
In MCtIon S01(c)(21). (Required to file
mant Ipplies reprd'of whetlll, tile
trust (d...:tlbed in MCtion 4947(0)(1 not
Form 99O-BL. Information and Initial Ex
plan is qualified under the Intamll Ratreated as a pfivate .foundation is also reciM T Rum fo, Black Lun. Benefit
nue Code .nd regardl <>fwhltlle, the
quired to file form 990 if Its arDU raceipts
Trusta .nd Certain Rllatad Parson . )
deduction I. claimad for the current tax
are normally more than $10.000. See In
year. The Employee Retirement Incoml
9. A Itock bonu., pen.lon. or pronto
struction CIO for information
about po.
Security Act of 1974 Impose pen.1ty for
ohlrlntl truot whlcll quallfl under MC
sibl. ralief from fitlnll Form 1041.
late fllin. of these forma.
tion 401. (See Form !I!IOO. Annual Ratuml
If your ;,pplication for eXlmption is
Report of Employee Blnlfit Plan.)
The forma required to be filed are:
pendina. wrlta "APPLICATIONPENDING"
10. A rallaiou. or apostolic oraeni,ation
form !I!IOO.-f"or _II plan
at the top of paae 1 Qftha retum and corndescribed
In
Mellon
SOl
(d).
(Required
to
more participants.
pl8I1 the return In the n
file Form 1065. U.S. p.rtne hip R8Iurn of
If you mea
Form !I!IOO-C or
oma.)
strueticn
plan with fewer th
,~

Under section 50 1(c) (except black lung benefit trust

or private foundation) of the Internal Revenue Code
or section 4947(a)(1) trust

;ay

filed.

Form
lion
er

B. Organizations Not Required to

Form 990.---':For State filing purposes. see
instruction D. The following types of organizations exempt from tax under section 501 (a)
do not have to file Form 990 with IRS:
1 . A church. an interchurch organization
of local units of a church. a convention or
association of churches or an integrated
auxiliary of a church (such as a men's or
women's organization, religious school. mission society. or youth group).
2. A school below college level affiliated
with a church or operated by a religious
order.
3. A mission society sponsored by or
affiliated with one or more churches or
church denominations. if more than one-half
of the society's activities are conducted in,
or directed at persons in, foreign countries.
4. An exclusively religious activity of any
religious order.

and a""raaed
.acelpt. for the
'x yea (Includ'
,he raturn _ulel
","Ipt ra $10,000
.r.lraph of In.true

You

If
Intend to UN Form 990 to sati.ty
Stete local fillnl requlramants. such
thole arialn. under S_
cllaritable eoJid
tetlan acts. notI the followlna:
1. You oIIould consult thl approprtate
officials of .n Stetes and other jurtsdictlon.
In which you do bulln to determine
tIlIi, .paclfic fillnll requirements. "Doln,
buslnes." In a ju,iadlctiOll m., Includl any
of the followlnll: (.) solicit/nil oontrlbutlDM
or grants by mail or othlrwlee from IndIvidual., busl_
or other cllerltabla
o<llanozatlons; (b) conductllll pnllrama:
(c) havina employee. witllin that jurlediction; (d) maintain In, a chlckln, .ccount;
or (I) owninll or rantln. property therein.
2. Soma or .11 of. thl doIla, IImit8llon.
applicable to form 990 whan filed with IRS
may not apply when ualn, Form 990 In
place of Stetl or local report form.. Ex
ampl of IRS doIla, limitations th.t do not
meat soma Steta requl_t.
arl till
$10.000
minimum that
11I_ rt to an obll.atIon to fill with 1M
(_
Inlltructlon 811), tile Mort reportln.
-format explained in IMtructIon I for ol1la
nizltion. th81 rePO<! total _UI
of
$28.000 I... on line 12, and the
$30.000 minimum for liltlnll profIMIonaI
f_ in Part " of Schedull A (Form 990).
,.1_ or local filln. naquframants may
requira you to complate additional II
and columns of Form 990 .nd to _ch
to
Form 990 _ or more of tile foIlowtna: (a)
addltlon.1 financial ItetImInts,
such I' a
complete .nalysls of functional Ixpen_
or a 1t8l_nt
of chanaw In financial eeaitlon: (b) not to finlnclal IIIt.mlnts;
(e) .dditiona' finlnclll schedul ; (d) a
PO<!on the fln.ncl.1 atetamant. by an In.
.dlpendant acCount.nt; and (~ an ,. to
additional quntlonl
and othe, Inform.
tlon. Eaell juriadlctlon may require the addltlon.' matari.1 to be praaantecl on forma
they providl. Till addltlon.1 Information
dOlI not IIa"" to be submitted with tile
Form 990 filed with IRS.
4. Even If the Form 990 you fill with IRS
is ICcepted by
:-. complete copy of
tile ma
~~
I St.. will not
fully
, filinll requlramlnt
If
:a not provided, In
.clltlonal InformetlOll
_,'or tha 8t8t1 detlrmlnH
., _
not compl8led In leeord.
n tile appllc.bll Form 990 inllrue'
or suppiement.1 8tatIa Instnuetlon
. -,In th81 event. you may be a.ked to provide
thl mlUin. Information or. to submit an
retum.
5. If you .ubmit supplamental Infor
mation or file an amended Form 990 with
IRS. you must also f~iM I copy of tile In
formation or .mended retum to .ny Bt8le
with which you filed copy of form 990
originally to meet that State'. fillne requlr.
ment.
6. Moot StstH requira that all amounte
be reported based on the accrull m81hod
of accountinl.
7_ The time for filin. Form 990 with IRS
diffe from the time for filinll rePO<ts wltll
.some States.

~=

Ind for _II

_ oenefit plan rd.r of participants.
.. IM1.--Required
of MCtIon
.1(1) trusts that also file Form 990.
._ever. for yea beginnln fter Decamber 31. 1980. any such tru.t may u the
filinll of form 990 to satisfy Its Form 1041
filing requirement under section 6012 If
the trust ha. zero taxable income under
subtitle A of the Code. If this condition Is
mat. check box F on pap 1 of Form 990
.nd -do not fil. form 1041. but complete
form 990 in the normal manne,. A section
4947(a)(1) trust that norm.11y has llross
receipts of not more than $10.000 (see Instnuetion 811) and has zero taxable In
come under subtitle A mult complete only
the following items on Form 990: name. addrass, employer identification numbe" tile
section 4947(8)(1) block In box D. box f.
the first box in the area above Part I. and
lhe .ignature block on page 4.
D. Use of Form 990 to Satisfy
Reporting Requiramenta.--some
litet and
locil government units will accept a copy .
of Form 990 and Schedule A (Form 990) in .
place of all or part of thei, own financial
rePO<!form . ~t thi. time. the subetltution
applies primarily to section SOl(c)(3) or,,"atlon
but ~
01 1M MIler
of
501(c) orpnl .
_ aIao ef
.fected.

-*"

,
I

II...... """IID

",,"nded

8. The Form 990 information made 8""iI'

able for public inspection by IRS may differ
from that made available by the St.t . See
the caution8rY note to tile apaciflc inlt"!c
tiona for line led).
Stew tra:tIon Nurnlllr.-InNrt
the
.ppllcable Stete or local jurledlctlon real
tratlon or Identlflc8llon number In box
(In thl headlnll on pall' 1) for eaell jurt.
diction In.which you file Form 990 In pl.cI
of-the State.or local form. When filina In
.everal jurisdiction..
prapare mltny
copies needed with box B blank. ThIn
enter the applicable reglotra:tion number on
the copy to be filed with each juriedlctlon.
E. Otller Forma PertI.1 SubIItItutee for
form !I!IO._or I.bor orpniz8l1on th81
fll Form LM-Z. Labor Orpnlutlon
Alt

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a nonprofit. nonpolitical. educational organization. dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of state and church.
We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment" to the Constitution of the United States was
meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs,
creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough understanding
of them. their origins and histones;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual sympathy,
understanding
and interdependence
of all people and the corresponding
responsibility of each individual in relation to
society;
to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of strength. progress
and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,
perpetuation
and
ennchment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational. legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to members of Amencan
Atheist's and to society as a whole.
A h .
b d f d
t eisrn may e e me
as the mental attitude which
unreservedly
accepts
the
supremacy
of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook
verifiable by experience and
the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and
creeds.
Materialism declares that
the cosmos
is devoid of
immanent
conscious
purpose: that it is governed by
its own inherent. Immutable
and Impersonal
laws; that
there is no supernatural
interference
in human life;
that man - finding
his
resources within himself can and must create his own
destiny. Materialism restores
to man his dignity and his
intellectual integrity. It teaches
that we must prize our life
on earth and strive always to
improve it. It holds that man
is capable
of creating
a
social system based on reason
r
and justice. Materialism's
"faith" is in man and man's
ability to transform the world
culture by his own efforts.
This is a commitment which
is in every essence life asserting. It considers the struggle
for progress
as a moral
obligation
and impossible
without
noble ideas that
inspire man to bold creative
works. Materialism
holds
that humankind's
potential
()Q\. nfor good and for an outreach
to more fulfilling cultural

I'.
development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

American Atheists
A non-prophet organization!

JOIN
AMERICAN
ATHEISTS

P.o. BOX 2117

AUS,f:lN, TX 78768
.'I ~

"

;.i; ..

Vol. 24, No.4, April 1982.

ARTICLES

ON THE COVER

Atheists in Australia & New Zealand

(Photos)
Origin of Easter - Merrill Holste
On Abortion - John Ward
(Editor's Preface)
Out of The Religious Closet - Mark L. Page
Atheism As The Enemy - Editor
Containment Or Liberation - John Foster Dulles

3
14
18
21
20
23
26
26

AMERICAN ATHEIST

A~

a __

'

REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial: Culture Shock - Jon G. Murray

NEWS AND EVENTS

Summer Solstice Picnic
Dial-An-Atheist

27
28

MEMORIAL POEM
Robert Green Ingersoll - Gerald Tholen

28

It's tax time again, kiddies! that is, of course,

for everyone except the chosen" ones. If you
happen to number among the select ranks of
"blanket exempt" persons or organizations
who need not respond to IRS's annual fund-:
raiser, you are indeed fortunate. However, if
you are a "commoner", who diligently tries to
support our democratic system by contributing
significant quantities of hard-earned cash, you
may feel less than jovial at this particular time.
As you may know, tax exemptions come in
four delicious flavors: Health, Education, Welfare, and Religion. Our esteemed bureaucrats
find it altogether proper and fitting to closely
scrutinize and analyze the income collected
and utilized by American institutions that work
toward better instruction, physical and mental
conditioning, and social aid. They do so by
requiring such institutions to file an IRS form
990 (i.e., our cover). Read closely the magnified
print thereon.
You will find that our health programmers,
educators, and persons concerned with welfare of society. are not necessarily trusted
"souls." It is only the purely religious at heart
who are deemed totally trustworthy by our
kind and understanding tax collectors.
Not only has our Congress found it appropriate to free religion from the bonds of
monetary entanglement - the "righteous few"
don't even have to use "tax loopholes" to ward
off financial collapse. Religion has indeed found
the "promised land;" it is section HBH of IRS
Form 990.
G. Tholen
H

Editor-in-Chief
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Poetry
Robin Murray-O'Hair
Production Staff
Art Brenner
BillKight
Richard Smith
Gerald Tholen
Gloria Tholen
Beverly Walker
Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
Fred Woodworth

Austin Texas

The American Atheist magazine is published monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and 1982 by Society of
Separationists, Inc., a non-profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to
the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. Mailing address: P. O.
Box 2117, Austin, TX 787682117. A free,
subscription is provided as an incident of
membership in the American Atheists organization. Subscriptions are available at
$25. for one year terms only, Manuscripts
submitted must be typed, double-spaced
and accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The editors assume no
responsibility for un solicited manuscripts.
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in
Monthly Periodical Index
ISSN: 0332-4310

April, 1982

Page 1

EDITORIAL

Jon G. Murray

.CULTURE SHOCK

During the past approximate six years The American

Atheist Center has labored to found and intellectually
nuture chapter organizations in the diverse states. The
initial impetus for such chapters had come from members
who felt the need to associate with other Atheists. These
have blossomed into 52 functioning groups in 31 states. In
attempting to organize the unorganizable - independent
thinking Atheists - problems and successes both major
and minor have been met. We have had the good fortune to
uncover some fine, distinguished, Atheist minds, some very
brave people, some warm and personable fellows. There
has been a small scattering of neurotics, opportunists,
theists, persons with other axes to grind and we have
learned a great deal in handling them. But, reviewing the
history of the chapters, the National Office has been much
satisfied with all of the accomplishments, the solved problems, the honest efforts and the good people.
But - then, the Murray-O'Hairs went to Australia in
December, 1981, and there suffered a cultural and intellectual shock.
In this issue an analysis of the Australian historical and
current situation is made. There are many open Atheists in
Australia. The holding of the position is not one of censure.
We met officials, educators, persons in high office, famous
personalities, all of whom wore their Atheism on their
sleeves. Fundamentalism is not rampant in that land as it is
in our own. Little or no notice is paid to religion and few
persons go to church. This is the millenium to which Atheist
groups all over the world have aspired. The formula of
"forget religion - it will wither away in due course" has
been applied in Australia and would seem, on the surface, to
have won the day. Yet, it is in this country where the roman
catholic (principally, but also other) churches have won a
most enormous and significant victory which can change
the entire culture of the nation. In first legislative enactments and then in a judicial showdown the churches have
won the right to have their schools completely and totally
supported by tax dollars. In this they have laid a foundation
to capture the rising generations and through the most
advanced educational techniques to bind the minds of the
children to the insanities of the religious past. We were all
disquieted by the discovery, full of justifiable apprehension
and intellectually uneasy with our new knowledge. It was
then that we went to Sydney and checked into a hotel at
Bondi Beach. But, we were out of the way at that very
beautiful resort beach and the Rationalist Association was
kind enough to find a driver for us so that we would be
accessible each to the other and so that we could also be
shown some of the sights of the area. That driver, a retired
civil servant, A. F. Parkinson, was to change our entire
perspective concerned with our Chapter outreach.
He was an odd man, with thick glasses, slow and
deliberate body movements and a small speech impediment. He was solicitous of our comforts and was kind.
However, he (even though he said he was an Atheist!) was
convinced of reincarnation. He practiced transcendental
meditation two hours every morning and believed that
various small physical ailments of age which had afflicted
him had been cured by his practice of TM. He insisted that
the government of the United States had endorsed TM and
that many governmental officials has testified as to its
beneficial qualities and had lauded "his holiness Maharisha

Mahesh Yogi" for the rehabilitative qualities of his TM

program in American prisons.
Finally, we simply could not take the campaign to convert
us to TM and declined his excellent chauffeuring services.
But, in the course of his remarks in regard to Atheism in
Australia .and the rationalist and humanist organizations
there, he emphasized over and over the magnitude of the
victory that the churches had won in Australia in the
financing of their schools - and in this he was right and we
were in agreement. He went on, then, to point out that
during the entire fight, the Atheist/rationalist/humanist
community continued to meet in little meetings and continued to seek out speakers who could address those
meetings while the Atheists sat passively taking it in. Where
were they, he demanded of us, in the fight? What had they
done? What good was it for a small group of Atheists to
meet month after month for thirty or forty years and listen
to speakers from the unitarian church, the philosophy and
history faculties of colleges, various minority persons who
now and again were in the news? How did this teach the
great mass of persons in Sydney anything about Atheism?
He and his friends had grown old in the meetings and the
group shrank and became less and less effective through
the years. What good was it to read booklets written a
hundred years ago? Why worry about bible contradictions
and the history of the inquisition? No one in Sydney even
knew the Atheists existed. They made no impact. They
were not in the fight against financing of the roman catholic
and other church schools. The most they had ever done
was to listen to someone who was in the fight - but they
didn't
It was on our way back to the United States, as we sat in
that DC-lO for nineteen hours that we came to realize why
our uneasiness. Parkinson was right. It was - basically as simple as that. Instead of Atheists sitting in a small room
calling in speakers, month after month, to educate them
further, they needed to be out educating the general
populace as to what Atheism is. We had been in error in our
own attempted structuring, for our Chapters were doing
exactly the same - and forty years from now the members
would simply be older, but still sitting and still being fed the
pablum of what a "booger" religion is. By that time the
roman catholic and all other churches would be fully
financed by tax money and a hope for a sane world would
be lost.
Our Chapters needed to be centers of learning where
enthusiastic Atheists could acquire knowledge and go out
to tell their communities of the benefits of Atheism. Chapter
Directors should be speaking at lunches or meetings of
fraternal organizations - the Elks, the Moose, the Masons;
of business, union and professional organizations - bankers, teachers, contractors, plumbers; of social cause groups
- women, peace, population control. They should be
speaking at PT A meetings, asking to be permitted to come
into school classrooms, again and again and again knocking
on the doors of the local television, radio, journals and
newspapers.
We know now what we need to do - and we will
implement the necessary changes. The United States
cannot be another Australia. Here, American Atheists will
not permit it. So - stand back! There are going to be some
changes made.

Page 2

April,1982

The American Atheist

ATHEISTS IN AUSTRALIA
AND

:.

._1 __.(

v
~ ~:

NEW ZEALAND

l\:

tit>

,-

To the rest of the world Australia has always meant

convicts, kangaroos and koala bears. This large land mass
in the southern hemisphere which reverses the seasons,
holds dear a national anthem of "Waltzing Matilda," and
speaks with an English accent has been an object more of
wonderment than of curiosity. The tremendous distance
one has to travel to reach it precludes the casual visitor and
the stories of the outback and the aborigines are hardly
enticing. It has, therefore, been almost totally ignored by
historians tracing the rationalist, secularist, freethought and
Atheist traditions, if any, of that great continent. Even
though Joseph McCabe made three successive visits there
in the early 1900's (1910, 1913, 1923) his writings do not
include an analysis of the non-religious situation other than
to challenge the statistics of roman catholic church membership. In reviewing the gathered chronicles, even in those
of David Tribe, a native of Australia, one can find only a
scattered paragraph of vague, almost folklore information
here and there.
Having been in correspondence for some years with
Lawrence Bullock, a determined and hard-core Atheist and
one of the co-founders of United World Atheists, the
Murray-O'Hairs, therefore, determined to spend the month
of December, 1981, in Australia to meet every Atheist,
freethinker and humanist in the cities of Eastern Australia
and New Zealand, if possible. First hand information and
personal inspection was felt to be the only way to uncover
information and to incorporate it in the Charles E. Stevens
American Atheist Library and Archives. lnc., which is the
single largest collection of Atheist literature, history and
writings in the world.
Being guests first at the home of Dr. Ian Bock in a suburb
of Melbourne and traveling from there to Sydney and then
to Auckland, they met with every bonafide leader of
religious dissent within traveling area of those cities. They
met with members at banquets, lectured to groups assembled to meet them, visited the homes of those most
involved, appeared on radio and television and were
reported in both newspapers and journals. They found and
visited every establishment of these dissidents, even driving
far into the country to stand at the small monument of the
last chief of the aborigines erected in an isolated grove.
Around him were buried his people who had been converted to christianity. They asked for any history of Atheism
in the nations of Australia and New Zealand, legal case
histories or copies of any books or magazines written there
and spent one full day in the Melbourne library attempting
to uncover information available. They arrived back in the
United States with a slim folder.
Austin Texas

Australia and New Zealand belonged to England and it

was from England that their heritage first came. Australia,
especially, was the land of transported convicts. At variance
with the dominant (christian) culture, the convict first
settlers were more free of religion than the subsequent
waves of immigrants who came. It is obvious that they
would have no stake in the old social order and not be
anxious to emulate it in the new land where they often had
prison terms to complete before being set free to wrest their
living as they could from this wild land. But there is,
apparently, no record of how they took their stand in
relation to religion and an educated guess is all that can be
taken.
It is to England, therefore, that one needs to look for the
roots of Atheism in Australia. Here, another problem
develops. In England there was one, Charles Southwell,
born in 1814 and it was he, apparently, who first reached
Australia as an open Atheist, but we know little enough
about him. Before we can hope to understand him, we need
to reach behind him to a man who much influenced him. He
was, as were most of the dissidents from religion in England
in that era, caught in the outreach of the Owenites.
Robert Owen, born in 1771, was primarily a social
reformer. His father had had a small business as a saddler
and ironmonger. Robert was educated to age nine only
when he was apprenticed to service in a draper's shop in
Manchester. His success was rapid and by the age of
nineteen he had become the manager of a cotton mill in
which 500 persons were employed. His administrative
intelligence and energy soon made it one of the best
establishements of the kind in England. He made remarkable improvements in the quality of the cotton spun. He
soon became a partner in one of the firms and then found
that certain success which often comes to a male by
marrying the daughter of the proprietor of the firm. He then
convinced his father-in-law to move the mills to New
Lanmark and permit him to manage as well as to co-own
them. The mills employed abut 2.000 persons of whom 500
were children, most of them brought from the poorhouses
and charities of Edinburgh and Glasgow at ages five or six.
The mills habitually were forced to employ the lowest of the
population because of the long hours and demoralizing
drudgery of the factories then. Owen decided that he would
elevate his workers and ameliorate their condition. He
improved their houses and opened a store where he sold
goods of the soundest quality at little more than cost price.
He founded the first infant schools in England and in all of
this had a gratifying success. However, this cut into the
profits at the mills which shareholders cold not counte-

April,1982

Page 3

nance. Owen therefore formed a new firm which provided

that the profit to the owners would be only 5% return on
their capital. From an early age he had lost all belief in the
prevailing forms of religion and had thought outa creed for
himself, which he considered an entirely new and original
discovery. The chief points were that man's character was
not made by him but for him, that it was formed by
circumstances over which he had no control. Therefore he
felt that ifpeople were placed under the proper influences in
their earliest years that they would attain physical, moral
and social assets most beneficial for them in the course of
their lives. His pedagogic system was based on these
premises.
His schemes for the education of his workpeople began
officially in an opening of an educational institution in New
Lanark in 1816. He soon employed lecturers to spread his
doctrine. Other persons became his disciples following his
lead. One or another of these was Charles Southwell who
spread the doctrines in industrial towns in the North and in
large central cities of England. Later, Southwell broke with
the Owenites and the reason for this is not known, but the
break occurred apparently about 1840. Then in 1842
Southwell established the first avowedly Atheistic English
periodical. He named it "The Oracle of Reason." There is
some confusion as to dates for one historian in caustic
reference reports that the fourth issue contained an article
titled "The Jew Book" for which Southwell was charged
with blasphemy, prosecuted, fined 100 and imprisoned for
one year, about 1840. However, as above, another notes
that the periodical was founded in 1842 or 1943. George
Jacob Holyoake took over the journal upon Southwell's
imprisonment, being its second editor. Many free thought
writers, including Joseph McCabe, erroneously credit
Holyoake with having begun the journal and dates are often
confusing.
The only other information passed to us, askance and
often in footnotes, is that Southwell was the youngest of
thirty three children, that he had "some education," and
that, cites J. M. Robertson, he was "an unbalanced and
unstable young man, who had been a soldier and actor and
had a gift for quarrelling. However, he apparently had such
sufficient language skills that he translated a chapter of the
Abrege of Dupuis' Origine de tous les CuItes from the
French and an anti-trinitarian fable, "Fanatical Monkeys"
used extensively in subsequent English free thought journals, from the German. Some mention is made that he later
broke with Atheists on the score that there was no sense in
taking a title from the negation of a hallucination but on his
death bed he informed his employers that he was still an
Atheist.
We do not know what transpired between Southwell and
Holyoake but the latter would not put into his subsequent
journal any information concerned with the activities of the
former. In fact Holyoake once attacked one of Southwell's
pamphlets and in so doing characterized Southwell as an
"inexplicit, ill-worded, disparaging, sarcastic, biting, reproachful, overbearing and disagreeable skeptic."
We next hear about Southwell outside of England.
Apparently he went to Melbourne in 1855 and lectured at
the Mechanics Institute there. His abhorence of religion
however could not be suppressed even in these lectures,
which were apparently against slavery and the land monopoly of the squatters or pastoralists. He attempted to run
Page 4

Apri/,1982

.for the office of Legislative Council in Melbourne on a

Chartist (workingmen's political reform) platform but was
disclosed to be an Atheist by opponents and hence
defeated. In 1856 he went to New Zealand. There, the trail
ends, although it is thought that he died poor and neglected
in that country.
In a cryptic note David Tribe records that his Australian
career was rediscovered by H. H. Pearce writing in the
"New Zealand Rationalist," September, 1957 edition, but
the article apparently is in reference to an attack on
Holyoake by Pearce rather than an explication of Southwell's Australian and New Zealand career.
The next out-and-out Atheist in Australia also had roots
in England. The account of his activity is told by Nigel
Sinnott in a booklet put out by the Atheist Society of
Australist in 1977. This little 29 page mimeographed booklet
is titled Joseph Symes, "The Flower of Atheism. "He was
born in England in 1841 and joined the Wesleyan church at
age 17. He became a local preacher in Dorset at age 20 and
in 1864, then 23 years old, entered Wesleyan College to
train as a minister. Eight years later he refused his ordination and resigned his appointment, setting out now to
organize an Agricultural Labourers' Union and to lecture on
behalf of the Mechanics' Institutes. He had become interested in both astronomy and zoology and writing on these
subjects became the sub-editor of a weekly chronicle.
Later, he taught speech therapy and elocution, a lost young
intellectual searching for a cause. By age 35, in 1875, he had
lost allof his belief in god but had found the National Secular
Society, under the leadership of Charles Bradlaugh. In May
of that year he began to contribute to the "National
Reformer" magazine under a nom-de-plume and on December 17th of that year delivered his first free thought lecture
in Newcastle on "The Biography and Character of Jehouah, the Jewish and Christian God." He had found his
cause.
He was soon appointed as a National Secular Society's
lecturer, and then - citing from Sinnott's work's the
following events occurred.
In January, 1877 Charles Watts was prosecuted for
publishing a pamphlet on birth control, "Fruits of Philosophy," written by the American Atheist Charles Knowlton
in 1832. (See, October, November, December 1980 and
January 1981 issues of The American Atheist magazine,
"Roots of Atheism" four-part series on Charles Knowlton.)
Knowlton had been jailed for the publication in the United
States but it had been published and sold by freethinkers for
many years in England, without prosecution. Now, Watts
faced with a jail sentence decided to enter a plea which
would eliminate that consequence. Bradlaugh and his
cohort, Annie Besant, were appalled at what they regarded
as Watts' faintheartedness and,severing their connections
with him,undertook to republish the "Fruits of Philosophy" as a test case. They were arrested upon its
issuance. The two trials were held, Watts' in February and
Bradlaugh's and Besant's in June and onward. But the issue
caused a rift in the ranks. The "respectable" freethinkers
supported Charles and Kate Watts and the hard core
advocates of birth control went with the Bradlaugh/Besant
team.
Symes opted to go with the latter.
"When I read the 'Fruit of Philosophy,' it opened my eyes
considerably; and although I disagreed with a few things in
. The American Atheist

Charles Bradlaugh, September 26, 1890

(from a photograph by Elliott and Fry, London)

Joseph McCabe
(Australia - 1910)

.r~~./_ ',~

/1

1?fJ!l71

Joseph Symes, the "flower of Atheism"

After an engraving in the "Liberator" - 1877
George Jacob Holyoake (1817)
Austin Texas

April,1982

PageS

it, I could not help thinking that it was written with a

thoroughly good intention, and was well calculated to be a
useful thing. I never for a moment hesitated; and so sprang
into the fight and defended the action of Mr. Bradlaugh and
Mrs. Besant with what ability and earnestness I could
command." He joined the Defence Committee and stumped the country to rally support for the showdown. This was
in the form of a National Secular Society conference to be
held in May, 1877. In a "use any means" effort to deprive
Bradlaugh and Besant of their power base, the Watts
faction proposed that the posts of president and vicepresident of the Society be abolished. Symes spoke in favor
of continuing the presidency but when the issue was put to
the floor pandemonium broke out. Bradlaugh was on the
point of walking out of the meeting, which would have
meant disaster for his cause. Holyoake, in the chair, found it
almost impossible to control the situation.
Symes version of the resolution was that he managed to
make himself heard above the clamor and proposed that
members and delegates should filebetween two chairs to be
counted, with himself as one of the tellers. The vote was 117
to 110 with the Bradlaugh/Besant faction winning by only 7
votes. They were then reelected to both posts, Bradlaugh
as President and not alone Besant as a Vice President, but
Symes also taking a Vice President's chair - a post he
would occupy until his death.
The rift in the ranks was there to stay but the mainstream
of English Atheism was committed to defending fullfreedom
of the press and birth control. At the subsequent trail of
Bradlaugh and Besant they were found guilty of publishing
an "obscene" book, but successfully appealed on a technicality. The publicity was sufficient to assure the widespread distribution of the book to the working class and it is
from this time that the large English Victorian family began
rapidly to dwindle.
It was only three years later that Bradlaugh, elected to the
House of Commons, began his long struggle to take his seat
in the British parliament. As an Atheist, he refused to be
sworn into office, "so help me God," and began a cause
celebre which would echo down to the 1980's in the United
States. Symes was politically astute enough to read the
handwriting on the wall and knew that the freethought
movement would have to enlarge and diversify on the
publishing front.
"In the summer of 1880, I resolved to start a paper on my
own account. I had no fault to find with Mr. Bradlaugh's
paper ... but I saw that, after Mr. Bradlaugh was elected to
parliament, the 'National Reformer' must necessarily be
devoted more exclusively to politics than heretofore ...
Something more sledgehammerish was needed, more jocular, more dashing, more fun-poking. And I was wondering
how to get it started. I mentioned my dream to a few
London friends, and they told me that they had the same
project in view, and would start at once if I would remove
my residence from Birmingham to London and edit the
paper! Agreed! I dropped a note to Mr. Bradlaugh to
apprise him of the scheme, and he very graciously wished
me success, and offered to give me a note respecting the
new paper in the 'National Reformer' as soon as I let him
know I was ready."
Symes and his wife had started a secular boarding school
in Birmingham in 1882 and he did not immediately get to
London. However, by this time, George Foote, who had
Page 6

April,1982

previously fallen out with the leadership returned to the fold

and he was asked by Symes to take over the editorship of
the new journal. Picking it up today, one hundred years
later, one can still see on the masthead of the "Freethinker"
issued out of London, the statement: "Founded 1881 by G.
W. Foote." The first issue in May of that year carried an
essay by Symes on "Bible Biography."
Under Foote's editorship the "Freethinker" became the
literary enfant terrible of the nation. Blasphemy charges
came thick and fast immediately, with prison sentences of
twelve, nine and three months imposed on Foote and some
of the writers. Symes knew that his articles were among
those which had caused the move against the magazine and
expected to move in to the editorial chair when Foote was
imprisoned. However, there is always a weasel available to
edge into such a position and in this situation, one was
there. Symes wrote, "by downright chicanery and most
unblushing lying, (he) diddled me out of it; stepped into the
post; (and) softened down the gallant 'Freethinker' into
gruel and homeopathic medicine." The man, indeed, was a
rogue, even succeeding in conning Bradlaugh, who latter
eventually saw through him.
It was just at this juncture of events that Thomas Walker,
James Donovan and others met in Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia on July 17, 1882 and formed the Australasian
Secular Association. In May, 1883 Bradlaugh received a
letter from them requesting that a reliable lecturer be sent
out from England. Bradlaugh passed the letter to Symes,
who said goodbye to Foote who was still in Holloway jail,
attended a farewell supper given by Bradlaugh, accepted
139 raised by the British freethinkers and on December
23rd, sailed to Australia aboard the Lusitania.
Symes stopped at Adelaid to be entertained by the freethinkers there on the 8th of February, 1884. (Imagine a
seven week winter's ocean voyage!) He finally arrived at his
place of employment, Williamstown, on the 10th and was
immediately escorted to the Hall of Science (Nuggest
Theatre) in Melbourne. With Bradlaugh's parliamentary
struggle making world news and Foote's imprisonment
shaking up the civil libertarians, the new Melbourne organization began a radical clamor for the opening of the Public
Library and the Art Gallery on Sundays. But Symes soon
discovered that Melbourne was controlled by a religious
sabbatarian elite who also banned Sunday excursion trains,
"unseemly" works of art, and who stuck plaster figleaves on
statues in museums and parks.
But Symes arrival was hailed in New Zealand, whose
Premier, John Ballance - a freethinker - was "heartily
pleased" with Bradlaugh's choice.
Although he had been sought as a speaker, and although
his lectures filled the halls, Symes soon decided that
speeches were not enough. He wanted a journal, a literary
mouthpiece to carry the hammer blows of iconoclasm. The
Association's members enthusiastically agreed and subscribed to debentures. A printing press was purchased and
onJune 1st, 1884 - aSunday - the first weekly issue of the
"Liberator" made its appearance. Later in the week the
Victorian authorities, perhaps calculating that Symes needed the material printed therein, seized a batch of the
"Freethinkers" destined for the Symes. But mothing deterred Symes.
In the first issue he announced that the policy of the
journal would be "Republican and Atheist." He reminded
The American Atheist

that it "is started in the interests of freedom, not license, not

lawlessness, but such freedom for everyone as is consistent
for all.... Ifblasphemy is the equivalent of fearless truth and
the exposure of consecrated shams and pious imposture,
our course is clear. We shall crowd our paper with all the
blasphemy its pages can carry .... We mean warfare and
quarter will neither be begged nor granted .... We mean
fighting whether you help or not .... For the sake of truth
and civilisation, help us against the bitter foes of both, viz.,
the christians."
Symes was up to his word: "... I maintain that Jesus
never lived. I am not able to prove that, nor can Iprove that
Jack-the-Giant killer did not. All I maintain is this, that you
have no scrap of evidence that either of them lived, no
contemporary mention of either of them .... Jesus must be
regarded as but one version of the great solar myth, ... the
saviour of the world, the great source of the resurrection or
the annual Spring-time, the creator of the new world, the
everlasting father,the judge of quick and dead. Jesus is
Hercules, and Bacchus turning water into wine .... "
Victoria's staid newspapers burst into howls of anathema: "a cesspool of moral (or immoral) filth ... composed
of the most infamous balderdash ever printed and published
in the colony;" "that leprous-tongued reptile, Mr. Joseph
Symes;" and one which wished "that we had a law which
would consign such ruffians to the hangman's lash."
Symes had also challenged the clergy to debate and of
this the newspapers thought, "To meet one of these
gasconading loose-tongued freethinkers in argument,
would be a descent as deep as to fight a sweep in the gutter."
Symes merely reprinted all of the abuse in extenso in the
"Liberator." From these remarks however, as is often the
case, we obtain a little bit more information concerned with
Atheists of yore. It is frequently that we have our heroes'
remarks or reputations only from the writings of those who
opposed them. Their works are often destroyed but the
theists carefully preserve the charges against them. And so,
the "Australian Christan Watchman" noted that:
"When we say for downright scurrility, and the most
offensive raillery, it surpasses Bradlaugh's Reformer (sic),
Foote's Freethinker, or the late Stockwhip, of Sydney, the
reader who is acquainted with these choice specimens of
infidel literature, will be able to form some idea of its
contents."
And from that we know that an infidel journal titled
"Stockwhip" had been published in Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia.
Some debates were undertaken not alone on Atheism,
but on the merits of socialism, radicalism and Anarchism, all
of which were published in the "Liberator." The rest of its
pages were packed with Symes' latest lectures, overseas
news from other freethought journals, local news about the
misdeeds of the clergy, science notes and advertisements
- and it was always in the free thought journals that birth
control information was available. Apparently artists have
always kept their talents to promote theism, for in this as in
all of the Atheist/free thought/rationalist journals the cartoons and the illustrations were abominable. The poetry,
however, has always been else. After all, we have had Percy
Bysshe Shelley in our ranks and none of our journals have
been without. Nigel Sinnott lists what he calls the Australian
greats: George Black, Thomas Corneille, Horace Paul, C.
J. Rae, Thomas Robinson, Rose Stone, Ernest Truelove
Austin Texas

and Bernard O'Dowd, co-editor of the "Tocsin."

"This ungodly paper," issued weekly, varied from twelve
to eighteen pages, but in its heyday maintained itself at
about twenty pages. Such publications have never reached
great circulation figures and although the maximum is
guessed at 20,000 it is doubtful that any Atheist/free
thought/rationalist publication has ever come near that in
any country in the world. The influence of the journals,
however, have always been considerable and it was the
same in Australia.
Symes, as many editors, made the fatal mistake of airing
his Bradlaughian republicanism and his individual radicalism in the journal. As every Atheist leader from time
immemorial, he had the most radical views on marriage,
divorce, contraception and abortion. He advocated universal suffrage, land nationalisation, political decentralisation,
supported the admission of women students to medical
schools, championed home rule for India and Ireland and
defended primitive people, partricularly the Aborigines. He
stood against corporal and capital punishment and standing
armies. And, as every Atheist leader who has had opinions
on any of these subjects, he opened up the avenues of
attack against him for having them. The pattern is repeated
in every nation, in every age. At first his career as a lecturer
and a journalist brought financial success to the Australasian Secular Association, but always with financial success comes first envy and then greed for control of the
organization usually accompanied with a desire by lesser
minds to step into the shoes of the great. He provided the
members of the Association with "Social Services" on
Sundays, improvement classes in elocution and science and
opportunities for choral singing. He even sponsored a
children's lyceum. Often the Association, with now Symes
soon president of the Victoria Branch, raised money for
outside causes also. All such gatherings, outreaches and
bleeding heart activities eventually become breeding
grounds for discontents
In 1884 Symes was elected president of the Australasian
Freethought Congress and his lecturing took him to
Tasmania, Queensland and New Zealand. With his success,
the delighted English Secular Society sent out another
lecturer in 1885, one William Whitehouse Collins, a Vice
President of the organization. He put out a short-lived
Sydney "Freethinker and New South Wales Reformer" and
later became joint editor with Symes of the "Liberator" in
1886-7.Later he returned to Sydney, started another paper,
"Freedom," then moved to New Zealand and founded the
"Examiner."
Before him, Southwell had - of course - gone to New
Zealand and established the secularist "Auckland Examiner" in 1856, which he had kept going until shortly before his
death in 1860. An actual freethought organization did not
take root until 1876 when a Scottish settlement in Dunedin
began the Dunedin Eclectic Society, which later became the
Freethought Association, which exists today. Three young
men were most active and the editor, Robert Stout, later
became Prime Minister. In 1883 the Auckland Freethought
Association was established and linked with it was the
weekly "Rationalist" which was published for just several
years. Now, in 1890, Collins migrated to New Zealand,
started his journal, ran for parliament and was elected,
entering office in 1893.
Meanwhile, back in Australia Symes was pumping out the

April,1982

Page 7

pamphlets which have always been characteristic of the

Atheists. Unable to compete with the churches in the
financing of book publication, the entry into the market
place has always been with cheaply produced pamphlets or
booklets, made in small lots, with many revised reprints. In
fact, the history of the Symes activity in Australia, from
which a large part of this article is drawn, depends on
Sinnott's scholarly 29 page booklet which is 8Y2" by 11" in
format, mimeographed and issued on cheap paper, by the
Atheist Society of Australia.
Naturally the government in Australia was as unfriendly
to Symes as all governments everywhere were then with
Atheists. In 1885 he was prosecuted for failing to give
securities for his paper against blasphemy and sedition.
Bradlaugh had been charged with the same (type) legislation in England and had brought about the death of the
English Act. Symes, of course, in a pattern of Atheist
behavior, was completely defiant, fighting to the bitter end
and finally receiving a bill for fines and court costs totalling
125, which he refused to pay. But, other usual governmen
tal methods were employed against him also. There was a
six-month boycott against the "Liberator" at the Victorian
post office, the imported English "Freethinker" and his
exported "Liberator" were seized by the Minister of
Customs either coming or going. Radical lecturers were
prevented from holding meetings on the Queen's Wharf in
Melbourne, or prosecuted for holding meetings in a tent.
Although churches could pass the hat for collections on
Sundays, the Attorney General prosecuted Symes for
charging the public to attend his Sunday evening lectures
which were the main souce of the Australasian Secular
Association's income. Managements of institutes and public halls boycotted him or firm bookings of rooms would be
summarily revoked. Outside of Melbourne the Association's speakers contended with strong arm tactics, or were
pelted with stones, eggs, tomatoes or human feces. One
would expect internal sabotage as the next natural development in this successful attempt at Atheism in Australia.
Substituting only the names of the characters, the plot
could be set forward as having been written in every Atheist
group in the world, in every country, in every age. And so it
was with Symmes. In 1888 the "Liberator" began to warn of
plots within the ranks. Property and income is usually the
prize sought. In this case, the Australasian Secular Association was not registered (in the U.S.A. we would say
"incorporated") and therefore its property and funds were
not secure. Symes called a show-down meeting in May and
his trustees, officers and the secretary walked out, held that
Symes was dismissed and took the books, most of the
deeds and the funds with them. Symes claimed that the
meeting was irregularly conducted and that he still held
office but he was left only with the rented hall, the
"Liberator" and a few loyal friends. The causes of the
breakup were multifaceted and although charges and
counter charges flew it is evident in reviewing them that
there was a deliberate and concerted attempt to break up
the Association. Historically, the Atheist leader under
attack, usually lacks guile. He awakens at the last moment
to find webs of intrigue and malice spun around all that he
has built up. Incapable of treachery he cannot understand it
in others and hence is ill prepared to fight it. Symes now
found that he had given one faction generous space for
airing their views in the "Liberator," actually often, inadverPage 8

April,1982

tently, helping his enemies in every way.

Symes in the same year had laid the foundation stone for
a custom-built Hall of Science in Victoria Parade, Fitzroy,
but the land on which the Hall of Science was being built had
been purchased before the schism and the deeds were in
the hands of the anti-Symes trustees. Relying on legal
advice Symes raised enough money, augmented by loans,
to have the hall finished and opened on May 15th, 1889. But
often for an Atheist to go to an attorney who is a part of the
system is the same as committing suicide. Symes was
assured that the renegrade group no longer had lawful claim
to the land, but by the middle of 1890 the anti-Symes faction
started legal action to obtain title to the building, coupled
with a (successful) attempt to seize the Hall by force. Only
by a physical counter attack was the anti-Symes faction
driven out, but they had badly damaged the hall and a
24-hour guard was necessary. Weapons were at hand and
an accidentally discharged pistol propelled a ricochet bullet
which killed one of the pro-Symes men. But, the worst was
yet to come for the court found in favour of the anti-Symes
forces. It could not have been otherwise. The courts of
every land will support any group attacking successful or
thriving Atheists. In May, 1891 Symes and company were
summarily, legally, ejected from the building for which they
had projected, planned, financed and constructed and even
made loans.
Following this, Symes' wife died and the catastrophic
depression of 1893 hit Melbourne. New headquarters in a
smaller building were found and meetings were held outdoors only. By 1895 Symes, himself, resigned as president.
The skilled artisans had been the backbone of the secular
movement and when they retreated en masse from Melbourne roaming the colonies in search of dwindling employment, as the soup kitchens formed, as Symes, under
massive attack struggled to continue, Atheism collapsed in
Australia. Oh, he tried to keep the "Liberator" published,
but there were debt collectors, harrassments, libel actions,
and moving from place to place as finances collapsed. The
typeset showed that it was battered with use. The paper on
which the Journal was printed was cheap and brittle. The
issues became irregular as he needed to wait after each
issue for enough money to come in to go to press with the
next. But, there is a certain dogged determination in all of
the Atheist leaders, who simply refuse to give up - even in
the face of legal assault. For example, in connection with
one court case, in 1895Symes criticized the appointment of
a particular type of jury and the judge promptly sentenced
him to prison for fourteen days for contempt of court.
Meanwhile, it was necessary for him to accept crumbs of
help from England, where the National Secular Society, or
its members, also in the grips of England's depression could
send only token financial assistance.
Meanwhile, the anti-Symes clique lacking leadership was
unable to attract lecturers or attendees to the Hall of
Science and hired it out to a quasi-religious organization.
Even with the rental money, the group could not keep going
and in October, 1897, the Supreme Court gave permission
for its sale. In November, it was bought by an "unknown"
called Mr. Muir, in actuality an agent for Dr. Peacock, who
was an old friend of Symes, who immediately gave it to his
use. Together with a call for a new Melbourne Freethought
Society, the first meeting/lecture was projected for December 5, 1897. About sixty people answered the call for the
The American Atheist

new organization, but by February of 1898 as more and

more persons left Melbourne seeking work elsewhere the
number had dwindled to twelve. Symes kept the name,
Melbourne Freethought Society, but himself, actually, did
all the work. There was no stable nucleus which every
Atheist organization needs, no hard core loyalists, no
steady income from reliable sources.
Australia was changing. The foreign born immigrants
were now being replaced by the Australian born, but the
Roman Catholics coming in from Ireland were gaining more
power. Symes kept apace with it. Now in his late fifties, he
was a sounding board for all of the international issues,
taking his stand thoughtfully on each: the proposed federating of the Australian colonies, the Anglo-Boer War in South
Africa, the Dreyfus affair in France. His lecture hall was
often filled. And, in December, 1899 he was ambushed and
beaten on the way to a meeting, attacked in broad daylight
his hearing was permanently impaired and he was lucky to
escape with his sight and life.
Aided somewhat by paying such nominal rent as to have
the Hall of Science really on a free basis, still enough money
did not come in to keep the" Liberator" going. By 1902, with
Symes in ill health the journal was openy floundering. And
here again we see a repeated phenomenon of the Atheist
movement. In each generation, the charismatic leader is
expected to keep enough money coming in to keep the then
dominant organization going, but the rank and file of
Atheism never thinks in terms of that leader needing either
a home in which to live or food on the table. There is never a
mention of a salary for the leader appropriated out of the
funds that the leader generates. Most often there are bitter
attacks upon him that he may be holding back some of the
funds to pay his own rent. Now, with a second wife and a
child to support, in 1904, Symes made it clear that the
"Liberator" would be suspended without monetary backing. He was then 63 years old and the financial situation was
still nowhere near secure, after his having invested twenty
years in the Atheist movement in Melbourne and in
Australia. After the February 6th, 1904 issue the paper was
suspended. Some small money came in, but he realized that
the next issue, when he could get it out, would be the last.
That issue came on March 12th of the same year. In it he
thanked his loyal supporters who had been "as true as
steel," gave credit to his wife for her work in the printing and
machining office, for the drudgery she had performed and
the little luxuries of being a woman of which she had been
denied, and wound it all up by making certain that his
position was absolutely clear:
"l am advancing in years, and probably some of the fire of
earlier days may be gone; ... but my hate of bible, priests,
christianity and all that goes in the name of religion remains
unabated. l am still an absolute Atheist."
His friends persuaded him to move to a small farm
outside of Melbourne: Rose Cottage, Cheltenham. He
needed some relaxation and physical exercise. It was a
good place to raise both a family and a garden, but within
two years he was full of unrest:
"l could have spent the rest of my days on the farm. [ had
plenty of books, a microscope, and plenty of work. But [felt
like a fish out of water. My brain was ever busy with the old
problems and with new ones of Q kindred nature. . . .
Besides, [felt mean - . Here [was doing work which a man
with half my brains could do so much better! Here l was
Austin Texas

skulking, away out of the free thought battle, while my

comrades were in the thick of the fight .... "
He made one sentimental journey to Sydney, where the
New South Wales freethought movement still had some life
and on June l Oth, 1906 packed a hall for his continuing
thematic lecture that jesus christ was not historical. A week
later he left Melbourne on the liner Runic, arriving in
England on August 5th for it then took about three weeks to
make the sea voyage. He was met at the dock by Foote and
a delegation from the National Secular Society. Within days
he was greeted at a reception with a speech of welcome
made by Chapman Cohen, among others. He was then,
almost immediately, back on the lecture circuit.
But, Symes had been suffering with a heart problem for
some years and on a December 16th lecture, he came down
with bronchitis. This rapidly developed into pneumonia and
he died 13 days later on December 29, 1906. His bodily
remains ended at Golders Green Crematorium, where in
later years they were to be joined by those of other great
twentieth century Atheists such as Chapman Cohen and
Sigmund Freud.
Symes widow and child were in dire financial straits and a
Symes Memorial Fund was established, 302, which his wife
took with her on her return to Melbourne. His daughter,
Stella Bradlaugh Symes, became one of Australia's early
women doctors but was killed in a tragic and vain attempt to
rescue her mother from a burning house.
The next we hear of Australia is that Joseph McCabe was
invited for a lecture tour by the Rationalists in 1910.
McCabe reports this was highly successful and that halls
were filled in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The lectures on the evolution of man, and on Ferrer, the Spanish
Atheist/Anarchist educator, were the most popular, often
with the speeches being given in Trade Union Halls. He was
delighted to find that the Chief Surgeon of Adelaide was an
Atheist as well as the Medical Officer of Health of Melbourne and the Chief Justice in New Zealand. He was asked
to return in 1913 but the success of the tour was so slight
that it was abandoned. He was under an agent then who
insisted that he could not give lectures on either Atheism or
rationalism and his usual stock of science and history was
not so well received. He was still, again, asked to return in
1923 and we can only infer that such talent was lacking in
Australia. This time he demanded $1,000 for the expenses
of the trip and $1,000 for the lectures. McCabe, also, was
one of the leader/writer/lecturers bitterly disappointed with
the non-existent financial support of Atheists. Constantly
called upon to speak or write, he could be assured always
that the Atheists would take from him only. As he also
reached old age, in a precarious financial position, he
became more hard in his bargaining. As an apostate roman
catholic priest he knew how careful that church was to
adequately educate and finance its clergy, to provide food
and lodgings for them, with a parish house being built either
before or along with the church. The Atheists never
provided. And, in writing on the trip he notes that 16
lectures in 14 days in Victoria alone netted $4,000 to the
rationalist cause of which its mentors gave him but $300. His
lectures in Sydney were similarly successful, but "did not
leave me rich." Going on to Auckland, Wellington and the
strong rationalist society at Christchurch, he garnered only
$200. Arguments concerned with these financial arrangements echoed for years, with McCabe, characteristically
April,1982

Page 9

not disclosing his side until he wrote his autobiography.

In
1927a group in Auckland founded the New Zealand "Truth
Seeker" as well as the Auckland Rationalist Association. In
1939 the journal's name was changed to the "New Zealand
Rationalist" and in 1954the organization assumed the name
of an older group and became the New Zealand Rationalist
Association.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the free thought/rationalist
groups managed to survive, even to surface from time to
time. However, a perusal of their publications gives little in
the way of continuous history. Faced with rather chatty and
disjointed ramblings of former officers it appears that for
many years in the 1920's and 1930's the focus of the
rationalist movement in Australia was in book shops,
notably Cole's Book Arcade in Bourke St., Melbourne
where the books of the English National Secualr Society
and the American' 'Little Blue Books" of Haldeman-Julius
were features. Also there was Rawson's shop at 169
Exhibition St., which functioned somewhat as a club or a
meeting place for Atheist intellectuals, a place where
committees were formed. "The Rationalist" magazine was
also issued and sold in both shops. The editor was Jack
Langley who travelled widely, lecturing and debating. Little
else is available. But on this trip in December, 1981, the
Murray-O'Hairs prevailed successfully upon Lawrence Bullock to write his own memoirs and to incorporate into them
a history of the Australian Atheist movement for the last
fiftyyears. One installment has been received and when the
saga is completed it will be presented in this journal.
Meanwhile an event in Rome, Italy, onJuly5, 1977, was to
profoundly injure Australian free education in 1981- while
the Atheists of that land, by and large, stood apart from the
fight. On that date, the Sacred Congregation for Catholic
Education and the vatican issued a 10,000 word document
urging roman catholic bishops all over the wrold to seek
government funds to support roman catholic parochial
school systems. It was a bold political thrust. Confident of
numbers in every country, depending on the concepts of
"democracy" and majority rule, knowing that roman catholies in power are carefully trained to respond to that which
willmost favor their church, the Vatican felt certain enough
of its adherents to take on all of the existing governments in
the so-called "free" world.
The decree spoke openly of those states which already
provide financial support to roman catholic schools -Italy,
Spain, Portugal, West Germany, Canada, all of South
America, Mexico, Poland and Hungary. It noted that these
states" ... guarantee both the preservation of the special
status of the (roman) catholic school. .. and its ability to
perform its function adequately.
"(Roman) catholic schools are thereby more or less
closely associated with the national system(s) and are
assured of an economic and juridical status similar to state
schools.
"These solutions (state financial support of roman catholic schools) are an encouragement to those responsible for
(roman) catholic schools in countries where the (roman)
catholic community must still shoulder a very heavy burden
of cost to educate their own children in their own religion."
All churches have always recognized the importance of
gaining the child early and keeping the child late in order to
instillinto the young mind those patterns of thought that will
preserve the authority of the churches.
Page 10

April,1982

They recognize that this need is more urgent today than

ever before because the general intellectual atmosphere is
rapidly changing as new technological and scientific ideas
shatter old myths everywhere in the expanding world of
knowledge. The ways in which the churches respond to the
changes are quite various. Either they can resist the change
and try to maintain a rigid ideological environment around
the young, such as does the roman catholic church in its
parochial schools or they can modify a few areas of teaching
to meet a changing world as do the old line protestant
denominations, or they can be hysterical in indoctrination
as are the fundamentalist and evangelical churches, or they
can attempt to rationalize or modify their body of ideas to
make them more palatable to the earnest and young
inquiring mind as do the liberal churches.
But, as a matter of most expedient policy and religious
principle, organized religion would prefer to maintain an
unchanging ideological environment, chiefly by boycotting
irreligious "secular humanism," literature, art, "evolution"
and other doubt arousing teachings while at the same time
creating a protective religious atmosphere around the child.
This is the basis of every parochial school, be it roman
catholic, lutheran, baptist or jewish: the child must be
captured and held in religious schools up through that very
dangerous age of rebellion: puberty. To cause the American
taxpayer to assist with the costs of the schools even before
the pope had issued his formal demand the roman catholics,
with the aid of those of the cult who had been elected to
public office and those of other brands of christianity who .
felt that they needed the roman catholic vote, had aid
written into law for their parochial schools at both federal
The American Atheist

and state level. They have, in our nation, received hundreds

of millions of tax dollars for purchases of services, salary
supplements, school maintenance and repair, payments for
testing, payments for record keeping, "loans" of sophisticated equipment and texts, grants for auxiliary services,
grants for health and welfare services, grants for remedial
programs and special tutoring, instructional materials, tax
credits, tuition reimbursements, surplus food, grant assistance for handicapped children, payments for bus and other
transportations to and from parochial schools, busing, The
unending series of demands upon state, city, county and
federal governments - reflecting the insatiable greed of the
churches, particularly the roman catholic church - has
been so flagrant and gross that groups of citizens have filed
legal suit after suit to protect the rapidly crumbling (supposed) wall of separation of state and church. Every suit
was against a governmental agency or the government itself
as being the culprit in a breach of the mandated constitutional guarantee against support of religion by government.
Given the admonition of the pope, the fanatical roman
catholic Senator, Patrick Moynihan (0 - NY), introduced
billafter bill into the United States Senate seeking financial
support of his church's schools. He was joined by vote
hungry Senator, Robert Packwood (R - OR). One of his
perennial tuition tax credit scheme bills which was dumped
in the hopper was written by five roman catholic priests, two
of whom were jesuits.
Thus, intent on our own battles, which also included local
fights 4n state after state as parochiaid legislation was
introduced at that level all over the country, few in the
United States would everhave dreamed of the disastrous
turn of events which had taken place in Australia.
The popes - all of them during the time of the history of
unionization - have always at first completely opposed
unionization efforts of workers until it became obvious that
the union movement would succeed. At that time the
roman catholic church made a decision to favor "vertical"
unionization as opposed to "horizontal" unionization. If
workmen's unions could be organized around skilled specialties, one union could be pitted against another and both
more easily controlled. If the carpenters working on a
building went on strike, the masons working on the same
building could easily be kept in line, receiving wages and
opposing the carpenters' strike as threatening their own
income by a stoppage of work. If the teamsters' union went
on strike but the automobile industry continued to make
cars, the auto workers could be fed a dose of hostility
against the teamsters for not getting the cars to market to
continue assured work for the automobile plant workers.
When the great drive for unionism began, Samuel Gompers
(1850 - 1924) was selected by the vatican to participate in
the emphasis on the need for "vertical" unions in the United
States. The roman catholic church, along with the employers, resisted the unionization of whole industries and the
battle of the c.I.O, a horizontal union concept, against the
A.F.L., a vertical union concept, was intense and bitter for
years. Divide and conquer was the theme. The single most
feared idea was the general strike and one union of all
working people, which the Anarchists proposed with their
I.W.W. (International Workers of the World.)
In the United States the church worked behind the
scenes. In Australia, after World War II particularly, there
was no such effort. The roman catholics openly moved into
Austin Texas

the labor party and by 1947, fifty one of the seventy one
Federal Labor Party members of parliament were roman
catholic. By the fifties the labour movement was split with
the roman catholic archbishop of Melbourne finally forming the Democratic Labour Party after the model of
Europe's Christian Democratic parties - which we now
know were all funded by the C.I.A. as a part of the cold war.
The capture of the labor movement in Australia, or a split
off into a conservative faction, was necessary to control
labor, or to manipulate it, along conservative roman
catholic lines and also to use it as a vehicle to capture not
alone aid for the parochial schools but other assistance for
the roman catholic bloc in the nation. The success story is
phenomenal.
Organized labor, in a nation which is basically Socialistic
- as in Australia, has political clout which is unknown in the
United States. This is a concept foreign to our country. But,
with a large party which could bring "popular support" to an
issue, the politicians handling the matter of aid to parochial
schools could easily be put in fear of election or reelection to
public office ifsuch an organized sector of the populace was
not appeased. Meanwhile with the church heirarchy applying the pressure of that politicized support, it was almost a
foregone conclusion that aid to the churches would be
sustained. Nonetheless a test was necessary. The church
riding roughshod had to be opposed.
Section 116ofthe AustralianConstitution istitledCOMMONWEAL TH NOT TO LEGISLA TE IN RESPECT OF RELIGION and briefly commands: "The Commonwealth shall
not make any law for establishing any religion, or for
imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be
required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth." Of course, the struggle in
Australia did not come just after World War II. It, too, had
long roots into the past. But, it came to disaster in 1981. As
in the United States, a trickle of state aid was first given to
church schools by the Commonwealth in the 1950's. The
trickle increased to a flood by the 1960's and 1970's, usually
in the same categories of financial assistance which have
been given in the United States (see above). Finally
individual citizens who believed in the desirability of strict
state/church separation and who conscientiously objected
to being taxed for the propagation of any religious beliefs
proposed a legal text - a court challenge - of the existing
laws which gave the assistance to the roman catholic
church particularly.
In the United States we have the problem of "standing to
sue" which has been used as a device to keep minorities out
of the court system. In Australia the litigants had a similar
difficulty but it was posited in the guise of "gaining entry to
the court." Before the case could be hear a state attorney
general needed to give fiat (permission) in such a relator
action. That is, when the question deals with a public right
and a private right, such as a constitutional issue, the case
must actually be brought by a state attorney general, who
has absolute discretion as to proceeding or not. But, the
attorneys general are in politically sensitive post ions and
they, too, have religious affiliations.
In July, 1956, a federal program of state aid to church
schools was introduced. Citizens in Canberra wanting to
test the law soon found that the attorney general was one of
the sponsors of the aid in question and a dedicated roman

April,1982

Page 11

catholic active in the campaign of that church for state aid.

In Victoria an application for fiat was refused. In 1960,
Robert Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, opined that he
believed federal aid to church schools to be unconstitutional, but by 1962 in an election campaign he promised science
grants to church schools. When elected he signed legislation empowering such grants in May, 1964. This time a
number of groups reacted in New South Wales and a group
was formed in August, 1964, which took the name of
D.O.G.S. It was the Council for the Defence of Government Schools. By 1966, the Australian Labour Party (NOT

Council for the

Defence of
Government
Schools
!~L&..oT

SO)(
the roman catholic Democratic Labour Party) asked a
committee of legal experts to examine the possibility of a
court challenge. The Australian Labour Party was only in
power in several states and the committee reported back
that most probably the attorneys general of those states
would not issue fiat. A public rally was finally called for
September 21, 1971 and at this an all out campaign for a
court test was launched. But, it took another one and a half
years to solve the problem of obtaining fiat. In all of this,
apparently, the Atheists, the Rationalist, the Humanists, the
Secularists in Australia - as organized bodies - did
nothing. The burden of pushing the case devolved on to one
or two persons, with the protestant religious groups
everywhere in sight. Atheists participating did so only as
individuals. Every attorney general in the commonwealth
was approached. Those in Western Australia, New South
Wales and South Australia simply refused fiat at once in
1972. Tasmania refused in July, 1973. Again they were all
approached, all six Australian states as well as the federal
attorney general. Finally, on November 28, 1973 the
Victorian attorney general granted fiat subject to conditions. Just trying for a right to suit had taken from August,
1964 when D.O.G.S. was formed, to November, 1973 - a
period of nine years. Meanwhile, the church schools
enjoyed their privileges and the tax funds channeled to
them, creating incredible precedent problems to overcome.
During the fight this Victorian attorney general stated
that in "the law of the jungle where the churchmen nearly
reign supreme" there is much difficulty. He went on, " ...
that the failure to get fiat in 1957, 1964-65 and 1972-73
(except for Victoria) can be directly attributable to the
activities of certain churchmen and the politicans fear of an
adverse reaction from roman catholic voters in particular.
Page 12

April,1982

Overt and covert church pressure had clearly made a

mockery of the process of obtaining fiat from an 'independent' attorney general. The rule of law which required the
obtaining of an attorney general's fiat had rewarded and
incited the intimidator and the bully."
The next round was with D.O.G.S. attempting to retain
fiat and the roman catholic hierarchy bringing pressures to
influence the attorney general to reject the fiat issued. In
addition the church proposed that all State governments
intervene in the case against D.O.G.S if the challenge ever
got to the High Court. And, when the case finally came to
that court on March 24,1980 all States did intervene against
D.O.G.S.
But, in the meantime, D.O.G.S. was having difficulty
obtaining and retaining counsel. Attorneys of ability and
repute in the United States are in limited supply and the
situation was no different in Australia. After obtaining a
number of refusals in 1972 , they found one counsel who
later was appointed to a judgeship, in 1974, and they again
found themselves legally stranded. It was then that they
decided to engage three young barristers only to have the
Victorian attorney general advise them that in this matter of
important consideration the "signature of senior counsel"
was necessary. Another attorney found in late (November)
1974 also was appointed to a judgeship and a final senior
counsel was not found until early in 1975.
The worst was yet to come. It took over eight months for
the attorney general to approvement amendments to
incorporate Federal legislation which had been passed
during the period that D.O.G.S. had been trying to obtain
fiat. A plaintiff to the action also was appointed to the
Schools Commission so that she was in a position of conflict
of interests and the problem of removing her name and
substituting another took almost all of 1975. In reading the
record, one can only gain the impression that everyone who
could be bribed out of the action, by promotion to a more
prestigious government position, was. In 1976 futher legislation assisting church schools was passed and the request to
amend to incorporate these was not approved by the High
Court until March 1, 1977.
Meanwhile, the Rationalists, in several curious articles in
their journals had awakened somewhat to the fact that
there was some activity somewhere and opined that in a
"democratic self-governing pluralist" world the state already encouraged parochial school existence by making
school fees tax-deductible for parents and that the State
really ought to provide alternative sets of schools as a moral
obligation. Later a comment is found that the "segregation
of school children, on religious grounds, has a divisive effect
on the communty." In none of the journals is it possible to
find a statement that children should not be taught religion
because religious ideas are insane. Every collateral
attack is made, but never the direct proper and confrontational one. The beating around the bush is a discredit to
every Atheist in Australia. The humanist magazines were
no different. There, after showing that Australia was already
then providing travelling allowances, free transport on state
school buses, concessions on rail fares, state and commonwealth scholarships, science grants, library grants, interest
on loans for school building, exemption from payroll taxes,
income tax deductions, per capita grants at both state and
commonwealth level, free text books or allowances therefore, payment of full capital cost of school buildings,
The American Atheist

guarantees on loans for school buildings and exemptions

from municipal or shire taxes, the writers went on to absurd
conclusions. One concluded that the purpose of nongovernment {curiously avoiding the use of the term "religious" or "parochial"} schools was sectional and private,
and that governmental schools were of general public
interest and that therefore public money should not be
utilized to meet the needs of the former. Written with a
desire not to offend anyone, anywhere, anytime, this article
came off sounding as if a school for typing would be
sectional and private and therefore unworthy of public
money. Another refused to look at the legal fight then in
progress and prognosticated the absorption of children of
roman catholic parents into the state schools.
When the state of Tasmania in 1973 changed the 1932
Tasmanian Education Act there was still no outcry from the
Atheists, rationalists or humanists. The original law had
stipulated that teaching in that state's schools would be
strictly non-sectarian but that once a week a clergyman
could come into the school to instruct children in their
particular religious denominations. That was bad enough
and should have been an object of concern and objection
for many years. Now, in 1973 the new section read:
"Education in matters of religion shall form a part of the
education provided in State schools, but no instruction
shall be given in a State school that is distinctive of any
particular denomination or sect .." This was to fortify an
earlier directive in regard to religious studies which would
aim to "... give the knowledge essential to an understanding of our Christian heritage, of other great religions, and of
the relation between religion and the significant experiences of life." Religious syllabi were approved and teacher
training in religion was begun. One can only shudder to read
it. But, again the Atheists/rationalists/humanists did nothing.
Meanwhile as D.O.G.S. continued in its struggle a "trial
of facts" was proposed. The plaintiffs from D.O.G.S.,
however, were ordinary citizens. They were not wealthy
and did not have access to money such as that of either the
government or the roman catholic church. A "trial of facts"
involved a prolonged and expensive court case and meant
days in courts, weeks - months - even years of hard
research and preparation. It was a war of attrition with
expenses to be incurred for witness, a prolonged trial,
experts to be found. But yet, persistently D.O.G.S. dragged
the case along, even when it often stalled for as long five
months with no action taken despite telegrams, letters and
motions. Finally D.O.G.S. was asked to present a document setting out each and every fact upon which it
proposed to support its case that state aid was unconstititiona!. Using officialchurch school sources they replied with
122 legal sized pages and references to SO church documents. When the court was requested to abide by its own
internal rules and make a determination on this fact
presentation ruling within a certain time frame, it did not.
The stalling continued through May of 1978, with D.O.G.S.
finding out later that the statement of facts had been sent to
the solicitors for the church school interests. In fact, the
judge on the case had accepted a fee from the church
school interests as a retainer for the possible intervention of
the church interests in the hearing. Following this, a new
judge showed up at the next court hearing. By October, the
church school interests openly sought entry into the action,
Austin Texas

the judge directed that they be included as defendants and a

trial was finally set. The defense of the church school
interests was primarily that religious schools are educational schools with {minor} religious appendages, i.e. glorified state schools. D.O.G.S. attempted to show that they
were religious institutions with educational functions. The
trial was set to turn on the point of definition and D.O.G.S.
had to go to trial to prove that the church schools were what
their initiators and promoters had claimed them to be for
over a hundred years while the church school interests
were to go to battle to prove otherwise - using precedents
which the roman catholic church had used successfully in its
court fights for parochaid in the united States. Heretofore it
, has been reported how the roman catholic church will try
legislation in the state of New York, if defeated how it
changes that for new legislation in Ohio, ifstill defeated how
it changes the new legislation for New Mexico and on ad
nauseam. Now, we see how it relies on lessons learned in
one country to fight in another.
The trial was reset for March 6,1979. Any material which
illustrated the basic religious purpose of the schools were
categorised as outdated, narrowed, confined. When teachers introduced religious aspects into secular subjects, it was
to balance a many sided presentation. Heirarchical organizational chains of authority were simply lessened or confused. Since the attorney general was relator, the witnesses
were only for the plaintiffs in theory. In reality they were
committed to the church school defence which was the
existing law of the land. Of forty nine witnesses, only two or
three were friendly. And, the trial lasted 27 days, with the
D.O.G.S. list of evidence documents numbering to 116,
with the church school defense reintroducing the question
of fiat all the way. After having been forced to give a
statement of facts and to go to court to prove them, on
October 10, 1979 as the trial neared its end, the senior
counsel for the church school interest told the court: "We
{church school interest} say that the Facts do not matter at
all." Of course, they did not matter for all six of the states of
Australia had intervened in the case on the side of the
roman catholic church.
On January 9, 1980 the justice who had heard the case
advised that he would make no judgment as to the "facts" or
the "law," and informed D.O.G.S. that he would direct the
case to be argued before the fullcourt. The case was set for
such hearing on March 24th. All of the states of the
commonwealth of Australia supported the state attorney
general's right to be heard, but no one supported the right of
the citizen taxpayers to be heard except the taxpayers
themselves in this small group of courageous persons
taking a stand against insuperable odds. The commonwealth and the church school interests opposed the right of
the citizens to be heard under any circumstances whatever,
as either taxpayers or relators.
The decision was not handed down for eleven more
months. On February 10, 1981 the High Court ruled by a
majority of six to one that "The statutes attacked in the
action are valid laws of the Commonwealth and not in any
wise in breach of Section 116." The dissentient was Mr.
Justice Murphy. That lone voice ruled that on the basis of
the American precedents the taxpayers as such have
standing to sue. But the majority of the court ruled other.
At page 11: "Of course, most church schools give
religious as well as secular instruction and, at least in the

April,1982

Page 13

ATHEISTS

MRS. O'HAIR, RON MARKE, JON

A.F. PARKINSON
AT FREETHOUGHT BOOKSHOP

ROBIN,A.F. PARKr~S6N,JON
AT
FOOT OF SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE

RATIONALIST

MRS. O'HAIR, BLANCHE

BONGARD WINN, JON

RATIONALIST HOUSE
AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

NEW ZEALAND RATIONALIST ASS'N.

DAVID TRIBE, MRS. O'HAIR,

RON MARKE, JON

JON ADDRESSING RATIONALIST

ASS'N OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Page 14

ASS'N OF NEW SOUTH WALES

April, 1982

American Atheist

JON AND MARK PLUMMER

MRS. O'HAIR, ROBIN, JON, ON

EXTINCT VOLCANO
OVERLOOKING AUCKLAND,
NEW ZEALAND

AN AUSTRALIAN "DINGO"
AT MELBOURNE ZOO
JAMES GERRAND, PRESIDENT OF
HUMANIST SOCIETY OF VICTORIA

LAWRENCE
BULLOCK
CO-FOUNDER
UNITED WORLD ATHEISTS
MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA

IN

DEPROGRAMMED MOONIE AND

MR. WARREN
JON
JEAN WARREN
MRS.
O'HAIR
DR. IAN BOCK

AUSTRALIA
Austin, Texas

April, 1982

Page 15

case of schools conducted by some religious denominations, are intended to serve the purpose of inculcating in
their pupils the religious beliefs and values of the church
concerned. It may be accepted that in some cases, if not in
most, church schools are seen by the church as fulfilling a
religious as well as a purely educational purpose: their
functioning is regarded as an integral part of the religion
which supports the schools."
At page 25: "For the reasons I have given, I consider that
the words 'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for
establishing any religion,' where they appear in s. 116,
mean that the Commonwealth Parliament shall not make
any law for conferring on a particular religion or religious
body the position of a state (or national) religion or
church." The judge had to reach back to an argument
posed by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779
-1845) and which Thomas Jefferson vigorously opposed.
This interpretation essentrally holds that all aid to all
churches, alldenominations. all religious organizations are
permissible so long as one is not given precedence over the
other. It is hardly conceivable that our founding fathers had
such an idea in mind. But the judge went even further with
his garbled religious ideas. "If it be assumed that in some
schools religious and secular teachings are so pervasively
intermingled that the giving of aid to the school is an aid to
the religion, and if it be further assumed that some religions,
which conduct more schools than others, will receive more
aid than others, it still does not follow that any religion is
established by the legislation."

challenged Acts to restrict similar use of other property

obtained with moneys given to the churches pursuant to
these Acts. The effect of the G rants Acts is that the wealth
of the churches is increased annually by many millions of
dollars of taxpayers' moneys. As United States Justice
William O. Douglas observed, 'In common understanding
there is no surer way of establishing an institution than by
financing it.' (Wheeler u, Barrera 417 U.S. 402 at 403

argument about the nonapplicability of

and s. 96 grants is
rejected), then the challenged laws are unconstitutional.
Section 116 of the Constitution does not assert or deny the
value of religion (including religious teaching). It secures its
free exercise, but denies that the Commonwealth can
support religion in any way whatsover. The Commonwealth cannot be concerned with religious teaching - that
is entirely private. Section 116 recognises that an essential
condition of religious liberty is that religion be unaided by
the Commonwealth.
"The fact is that under the Commonwealth laws vast
sums of money are being expended for the support of
church schools. The result of the capital grants Acts is that
great and increasing sums are being given to churches to
acquire property, which can then lawfully be used for
religious purposes apart altogether from school .... Eighty
per cent of the cost of the catholic primary school building
at Churchili in the Latrobe Valley, in Victoria was contributed by the payment of Commonwealth grants. The
building is also used as the local parish church. A nearby
street sign indicates that the building is a catholic church.
$127,0000 of the $180,000 cost of construction of the parish
prima;-y school in Corio outside Geelong, was provided out
of Commonwealth grants. Both of these buildings have
been used for celebration of mass for the local parish each
Sunday, and for confessions each Saturday, and occasionally for other religious services. There is nothing in the

1974 )."
The end of the case is really a financial footnote. The
commonwealth
of Australia recommended,
then, that in
1981 of the funds from taxation which are set apart for
schools 48% be provided for private, non-governmental,
schools and that 47.8% be given to State, government,
public schools. In view of the fact that in the year 1981,
77.6% of school childlren attended government schools and
only 22.3% were served by private, non-governmental,
schools the implications are staggering.
When the Murray-O'Hairs
arrived in Australia, they
found the Atheists/rationalists/humanists
to be warm,
welcoming, personable people. They were accepted, wined,
dined, promoted in the media and given every consideration. They met with leaders and led for luncheons, meetings, dinners, breakfasts. They visited in their homes and at
their usual places of gathering. They were given private
transportation,
taken on conducted tours. Beautiful hotel
accommodations
were made for them. Even the weather
stayed superb.
The Murray-O'Hairs
were several days into their visit
before they had an opportunity to meet Mark Plummer.
This young attorney took off from work to acquaint them
then with the parochiaid situation. The loss of the case in
early 1981 had brought a surge of building for the church
schools, which - by the end of that year - were being
totally supported by the state. The church had had plans on
the drawing boards, land purchased, and he drove us to a
number of magnificent school buildings built by the commonwealth of Australia for the roman catholic church. He
cited figures in the millions of dollars for the mounting costs
of the roman catholic school system.
But most pathetic was that the young minds in those
schools would each and everyone be victims of indoctrination with medievalist religious dogma approved and, indeed,
endorsed by one of the advanced states of our century.
They visited with John T. Dunn who had been President
of the D.O.G.S. organization during the fight. And, these
two alone seemed aware of the enormity of the loss.
The Atheist/rationalist/humanist
organizations,
leaders
and members, were still on the level of pumping out little
journals with philosophical discussions,
having monthly
meetings and having a speaker to come in to discuss the
problem that evil presented to religion. Little booklets and
pamphlets written in the 1860's were still being reprinted.
When it was all over, after they had spent almost a month
in Australia and New Zealand the message came through
loud and clear: the Atheist/rationalist/humanist
leaders
were not leaders, they were care takers, or proprietors.
What had been built by Southwell, by Symes, by McCabe,
by others had been slowly dying of attrition. The building in
Melbourne
had been sold and money used for some
expenses; a smaller building had been bought. An income
from rental of the upper floors of that building was so
important to the residual organization that an active part in

April,1982

The American Atheist

The judge dissenting from the majority opinion however

looked to the United States for support. On page 51-52:
"The purpose of our establishment clause is the same as
that in the United States' Constitution. There does not
seem to be any real doubt that if the establishment clause is
construed in Australia as it is in the United States (and if the

Commonwealth's

s. 116 to financial appropriations

Page 16

preserving a secular society and school system was not

attempted. In New Zealand only several rooms of a large
building proudly boasting a sign of "Rationalist House" were
utilized for meeting and work rooms. Here again the rental
income is extremely important, more important than an
active, modern, sophisticated, outreach.
But, this is harsh. In England, in Canada, there has always
been a state supported church. In Australia the experiment
of a constitutional provision for state church separation did
not carry with it the means for implementing it. It is almost
impossible to attempt litigation of such broad social issues
as the attempt of the roman catholic church to capture the
educational system, with complete tax support. Broad
popular based support absolutely must be found for Atheist
judges, Atheist politicians, Atheist educators, Atheist Atheist - Atheist - everything.
An enormous step backwards has just been judicially,
legislatively and executively legitimatized in Australia. The
roman catholic church is well on its way to capturing the
school system - and with that the youth - and with that
the future.
American Atheists have asked Mark Plummer to spend
several months in the United States to see our system here,
to speak to the 1983 (that date is correct; it is next year)
American Atheist Convention (whereever that may be
held) and to take heart. The United States is still a bastion
against roman catholicism but only because we are a nation
of fanatical protestant nuts. Nascent Atheism still in its
formative stages here and throughout the world must rally
and unite. Australia has taught every nation in the world
that "It can happen here."

Australian
Rationalist
........... ......"

~....<I----...._.....__ - I
...J-.,...~.

..

..

RA TIONALIST
THE.........-...-......-.
a---..-..

.I

the

P.SlitM!b\~
..

lII.AUII."

v I .
o. 7 no. S'

i ..

RATIONALIST
NEWS
JOURNAL 01' THE
RATION~
ASSOCIATION OP N.S.W .
. v.~

t5 .

ftlCl 20 <811'I

.-"'I~.U_..
..~.......

~-'-."'''''1J'''''''
11Ma..l . eI ".....
fII 'dill '" ,_ Ia-.
rhe Ute ." cL '''e ,eft! I, PN' ~
J.lta1_
tAt'ln

t..-,tl-tn!

,COUl. lditor

""~tLl"""tu,..
rtw lna.tlna."rtUt, of c".,i.-u_
(hort r.o)
I, b&nn( Vla&rt1l\i1lrt"r
.

Austin Texas

Apri/,1982

,.

':

"
"
"
"

"'h".I&ot~(:~!

26

a-t.

21

lI.t-'l_

Ie

Page 17

Origin of Easter
Merrill Holste

Easter is the chief festival of the christian religion. It is

supposed to commemorate the greatest event in world
history, the resurrection of the son of god after being dead
for three days. There were many historians writing in those
days, and it is strange that such an important event went.
unrecorded, an event accompanied by such spectacular
miracles that must have been known to everyone living at
that time. The only exception is a brief notice in Josephus
and a couple of other writers. But, these are obvious clumsy
interpolations by unknown persons who were trying to
manufacture some evidence for the origin of their new
religion. The christian religion isa mixed up conglomera. tion of elements, a fusion of elements gleaned from the
Pagan religions in the surrounding lands.
In this connection, I found an interesting item in a book
written by Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge with the title of Osiris,
The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection. I quote: "In some
Oriental Christian systems the prophets, Apostles, Martyrs,
and many great Saints occupy in the celestial hierarchy
positions identical with those of the gods in the Egyptian
Religion." There you have a statement by a noted scholar,
the late keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in
the British Museum. This statement supports the position I
have always held, that the christian religion is a mere madeup religion, made up from elements borrowed from other
Pagan religions.
Easter, as an annual festival, is mentioned in only one
place in my King James bible at Acts 12:4where it speaks of
Herod imprisoning Peter, intending to release him to the
people after Easter. But this is an obvious error on the part
of the translator of the K.ing James version because other
bibles such as Smith & Goodspeed, the revised versions, the
Page 18

April,1982

Jehovah Witness and the Roman Catholic Douay all use the
word "passover," at this place for this annual spring festival.
Originally, christians observed no holy days of any kind
- no birth days, no anniversaries. The apostle Paul wrote in
his letter to the Galatians at chapter 4: 10-11, I quote: "Ye
observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid
of you, lest I have bestowed my labors in vain." And to the
Colossians he wrote at Chapter 2:16-17, "Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect to any
holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." He
wrote to the Romans at 14:5 in a similar manner.
So, why is the Easter festival held at the time of the spring
equinox by christians now? Solstice festivals were celebrated
throughout the Pagan world for thousands of years before
the christian era ever began. Our word, Easter, comes from
the Germanic languages, forerunners of our English. It is
Eostre, Eoster or Ostara iri the Anglo Saxon. It is Ostern in
the German where it was the celebration.for the coming of
spring. Why did the christians adapt their 'passover to the
mode of celebration used by the Pagans? The missionaries
and preachers who were trying to convert the Pagans found
that these people insisted upon continuing in celebrating
their joyous spring festival. And, if the missionaries were to
be successful in attracting the Pagans to their rather somber
and joyless religion, they found that they had to adopt these
Pagan festivals in order to gain converts from among the
Pagans. The missionaries felt that by adopting they could
sanctify the Pagan celebration of the vernal equinox by
adding to it their brand of christian verbiage.
The early christians were a sect of the Jewish religion and
celebrated the Easter Passover as the Jews did. This
Passover was an annual religious feast celebrated on the
evening of the 14th of Nisan, the beginning of the Jewish
New Year, and continued to the 22nd of Nisan. The
Passover was an annual festival of the Jewish religion,
instituted according to Exodus XII to commemorate the
sparing of the Israelites in Egypt at the time their god was so
angry with the Egyptians that he decided to kill all the
firstborn of the Egyptians. The Israelite god, via his earthly
agent, the priestly dictator Moses, ordered the Israelites to
make a blood sacrifice. They were ordered to select a
yearling lamb, a male without blemish, from the sheep or
goats on the tenth day of the month Nisan. The order was to
kill this lamb as a sacrifice on the 14th day in the evening.
They were to make this day the beginning of their new year
from that time on. They were to eat this lamb roasted, not
raw or boiled. It was to be roasted with fire, head and legs
with the purtenances thereof, and I quote: "and that which
remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire." "It
is the lord's Passover." Passover for the Jews begins each
year on the required number of days after the vernal
equinox. The Israelites were ordered to mark their doorposts and lintel with the blood of this sacrificial lamb so that
Mose's god could know Israelite houses from Egyptian. The
. The American Atheist

Israelite god's anger was so great that he was going to pass

throughout all Egypt and slay all the firstborn of man and
animals. I note that this supposedly "omniscient" god was
unable to know Israelite houses from the Egyptian. Is that a
sign of omniscience?
Our Easter is derived from the ancient Hebrew and Pagan
solar-lunar spring festival that marked the vernal equinox.
This fact is amply indicated by the manner in which our
Easter day has customarily been arrived at. The date of
Easter has long been determined by the Gregorian system of
calculation. Under this system. Easterday was to be the first
Sunday after the Paschal full moon. That means it was one
week after the first full moon occurring on March 21, or the
first full moon after that date. This method of determining the date of Easter seems to me to be a queer way to
determine the day that is supposed to mark the world's
greatest historical event, an event which could have happened on anyone of the 365 - if it ever did occur. The
movableness of this day is clear indication that the actual
date of the event is known, and that it is tied to ancient
moon-goddess worship combined with sun-god worship.
The adoption of the Pagan celebration of spring in its
present modification as a christian festival came about at a
very late date. The earliest christians celebrated the spring
equinox much as the Jews celebrated their passover. The
early christian crosses were represented with a lamb or a
young sheep as the sacrificial object. The cross arm of their
cross was at an acute angle so that it would represent the
crossing of the equatorial circle by the ecliptical circle as it
was represented then on armillary spheres and still is today.

The early christian cross is illustrated above. This cross was

used by the christians till the year 680. In that year the sixth
ecumenical council was held at Constantinople where it was
decided that from that time on the figure of a man was to be
represented on the cross instead of the customary lamb as
the agency that removes sin from the world. In John 1:29,
John wrote upon seeing Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the world."
There is an astronomical phenomenon going on constantly which the ancients observed but did not understand. It is
known as the precession of the equinoxes. Because the earth
wobbles on its axis like a top running down, the point at
which the sun crosses the equatorial circle at the vernal
equinox precesses, or is slightly behind the point it crossed in
the previous year. In 70 years the precession amounts to one
whole degree. In about 2100 years the sun crosses the
equatorial circle in an entirely different sign of the zodiac.
Many myths grew up that were the result of the ancients'
Austin Texas

attempt to explain this strange occurrence.

Many myths and fables havegrown up ~~o~t the sun ,oci!
by whatever name he was known, having lone down to a
hades, to a prison, to a term of servitude, imprisonment, and
that the object, or sign of the zodiac, whatever it might be,
bull-god, ram-god, fish-god or whatever, was responsible
for rescuing or saving the chief god from his period of
wintertime weakness or servitude. Thus, the fable of the
messiah arose.
Some years before the advent of the new religion called
christianity, the precession of the equinoxes had caused the
sun to begin rising in the zodiacal sign of pisces, the sign of
the two fishes. The people had expected the appearance of a
savior, or "messiah," and such a personage was long
overdue. The Jewish people were under foreign domination
at this time and had fondly and expectantly hoped for such a
leader, or savior to relieve them from Roman domination.
In the book of Daniel at 9:25-26 we read of a prophecy of
the coming of a messiah who would come forth to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem. In the new testament book of John at
I:25-26 and 4:25, we are told that the christians had thought
they had found such a messiah in the person of one Jesus. Of
course, this Jesus was a hypothetical or mythological
personage, one built up by practitioners of priestcraft, a
person who never existed. We have concluded Jesus and all
the other messiahs are figments of the imagination.
The ancients long ago built up a system of fables, stories
and myths to explain the phenomena of the stars. We call
this system of myths astrology. Religions have changed
through the millennia, but astrology has changed very little.
The representation of the Egyptian zodiac is almost exactly
the same as it is today. The permanence of the system the
ancients had built up serves to explain much about the
changes in religion during the past millennia. At the time of
pharaoh Menes in Egypt 4000 and more years ago, the
worship of the bull sign of the zodiac was the domirtant
religion just as the worship of christ is prevalent amongst as
today. At some 2000 years b.c., the precession of the
equinoxes had caused the vernal equinox to occur in the
zodiacal sign of Aries, the ram. The religions' then changed
to that of the Ram-god, or the rescuer. of the sun from his
winter weakness or servitude. It was at this time that the
Hebrews acquired their religious regard for the ram, or the
sheep. It is not because of the mythical incident related in the'
old testament in which god was supposed to have tempted
Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. We
rre told how Abraham prepared for this sacrifice, but was
stopped when god provided a ram as substitute. The
Hebrews had adopted the ram worship long before. They
made up the sacrifice myth at a later time when the real
reason for sheep worship was forgotten.
The christians, being originally a sect of the Jewish
religion, had at first adopted the sheep, or lamb as their
savior image. The lamb was used because of the command in
the bible to use a lamb of the first year that had no blemish
for their sacrifice.
But the vernal equinox had begun occurring in the
zodiacal sign of Pisces, the two fishes, some time before the
supposed time of christ. Christ has been associated with the
fish, which is a universal savior symbol. The Hindus
represented the first avatar of Vishnu as half fish, half man.
In the talmud, the expected messiah is called Dag, the fish.
The Phoenician and Philistinian Dagon, the Chaldean

Apri/,1982

Page 19

Oannes, and the Greek Phoibos were all fish men. The
fisherman's ring is still worn by the pope in Rome. Jesus, like
Jonah! is a fish-man as attested to by the miracles he was
supposed. to have performed. Jesus's miracle of feeding the
multitude was performed by using the two fishes of the
zodiac plus five loaves of bread. Five plus two equals seven,
the number of the gods represented by the sun, moon and
the five planets. The twelve disciples are the twelve signs of
the zodiac, the companions of the sun-god during one year.
The gods of the zodiac were the yearly companions of the
sun-god in other cultures also. The stories of Jesus's miracles
of feeding the multitude all mention that twelve baskets of
remnants were left over from the miraculous feast. See Matt.
41:20, Mark 6:43, Luke 9:12 and John 6:13.
The christian missionaries' were trying at that time to

convert the heathen nations of northern Europe, the Gerroans, the Gauls .the Angles, the Saxons, the Scandinavians,
the Slavic peoples and others. They found that the dark,
semitic looking christ did not appeal to the vigorous
northern tribes, so they made their figure of christ into a
blond north European with fair hair and blue eyes. They
made their dying god figure like that of the heathen god,
Prometheus chained to his rock with the head and face of
Appolonius of Tyana.
I am wondering now that the vernal equinox has moved
into the border between the zodiacal signs of Pisces and
Aquarius, will the "savior-god" take on the figure of a man
with a big water jug? Aquarius is the next sign after Pisces to
be the home of the vernal equinox.

ON ABORTION
John Ward
'*

Preface

The official position of American Atheists has always

been that of absolute, unequivocal, inalterable and irreversible rejection of abortion as a method of birth control,
at this time_ This is based on medical considerations
exclusively since hard, realistic, statistical, long term studies have not as yet yielded sufficient data to understand
what happens to the uterus in the various abortion processes. The abortion issue is heated with emotion, not facts.
Although short term effect studies are available, results of
studies of a sufficiently massive body of long term medical
statistics are not. Often such statistics are not available
because women are still guilt burdened and often provide
them inaccurately or not at all. Should such studies ever
make it into the daylight of non-partisan presentations,
this
position of American Atheists is open to change just as all
scientific positions change when new data make a change

necessary.
Entering into the emotion ridden abortion issue is to play
into the hands of the religious who have seized upon this
"end result" instead of the basic issue. The basic issue is
that of prevention of impregnation by (1) education concerned with human sexuality and following that (2) access to
pregnancy prevention by (A) medication or (B) mechanical
devices. Each time any representative of American Atheists
is interviewed on television, radio or in any speech at
college, university or group, the basic issue is handled first
and it is pointed out that abortion is a "back up" when the
first two methods have [ailed. It is further emphasized that
the first two methods of prevention of impregnation fail
because a group of socially and politically powerful
churches bring about this failure. The roman catholics, the
mormons, certain fundamentals
and evangelicals,
and
almost all of the right wing factions of the jews, baptists,
methodists,
lutherans, ad nauseum actively oppose sex
education, not alone in primary and secondary public
schools and in higher education institutions, but even in
their own homes. This most often includes not only
methods of avoiding impregnation
but also information
about the ordinary functions of those parts of the anatomy
Page

20

April,1982

which have to do with sex, The jews take a peculiar stand,

saying that a surgical sexual assault against all newborn
male infants (circumcision) is necessary since "for health
reasons" a jewish male would not know enough to clean
the smegma from around his glans (or between the glans
and the foreskin) and hence would suffer unending "health
problems. " The roman catholics have a torture regime for
the female designated as "the rhythm system" of birth
control wherein roman catholic women are deprived of
sexual activity only during their heat period when their
bodies are most demanding to engage in the some. Christian and jewish fundamentalists
both see the menstruation
and the birth process as unclean with the latter having
religious rites to purify their women from the processes.
With sex education anathema, the use of birth preventative medications or devices is either unknown or, if discovered either accidentally or illicitly, verboten. Women, deprived of such knowledge, fall into both planned and unplanned
pregnancies,
either of which may be, at the point of
discovery, wanted, or unuianted.
At this point in time the question of abortion becomes a
live one. But the problem antecedes this moment in time.
All abortion clinics gathering information emphasize that
the number of abortions would be dramatically reduced if
sex education or anti-pregnancy
methods were availoble.
No satisfactory, impartial, sociological studies have been
done. Most abortion clinics have counseling
services
available and most of those counseling services provide
education for sexual knowledge and against pregnancy
entrapment
collateral to education concerned with after
effects of the woman's own particular abortion procedure.
Here again, the gathering of information is often random,
often depending on the social consciousness
of persons
employed in the clinic and/or the clinic ou.ner. It is very
infrequently in-depth and scientifically posited. If the clinic
is simply a profitable minor surgery clinic, little or no such
research or education is done.
It is obvious that abortion should not be utilized as a
birth control method unless and until it is absolutely
The American Atheist

certified to be safe by medical and sociological research.

Many abortion clinics have records of as many as six to
eight abortions for one woman. Married women frequent
the clinics, unable to endure the idea of another child in the
family - especially if the family isjust marginally successful
financially. But, again, this may be simply the voiced
justification for an abortion. The question of what to do
concerned with an unwanted pregnancy has only been
approached from a religious viewpoint in the media. There
is a paucity of information in medical journals since the
"ethics" or "morality" of the medical procedure is not
normally handled in those publications. Abortions in clinics
are most often by vacuum curettage; dilatation and
curettage is still in use in hospitals; and intra-amniotic
hypertonic saline injection is used often as a home solution,
as is injection of almost anything into the uterus, including
the famous coat-hanger. There is, then, a question concerned with procedure (the how of it) and a question concerned
with permissibility (the why of it). The end dilemma must
always be: should a human pregnancy be (artificially)
terminated for other than health reasons? If so, under what
conditions would this termination be justified and need it be
justified? This is a (relatively) recent problem for the
efficiency of the procedure is just now being realized and
also made available to the less than affluent in our
population. Also population control considerations now
impinges on the problm . Although the many faceted sides
of this question should be thoroughly reviewed dispassionately, this has not been done. The anti-abortionist religious
community views abortion as contrary to the desires of
their manufactured god and condemns it ex cathedra, for
religious reasons. The pro-abortionists reply only with the
argument of the whim of the impregnated woman.
American Atheists can do nothing but continue with
their position that the focus must be taken from abortion
which will become a very small problem when sex education is universal and when anti-pregnancy medication and
devices are available to all. American Atheists must,
however, not shrink to face the problem as it exists in the
United States today. The artificial interruption of a pregnancy must be based on the ultimate decision of the parties
involved after consideration of allfactors.
The Editor

i II
I I

i'

I.

i: II

l' I

"BUT

poc TOR, s~e. CANT 8E f>REGH.

t4T - - I OloNT LET ~eR
T~E
At-lySEX EOUCATIO'" a...,a..sgos ",

Austin Texas

ON ABORTION
John Ward
Although the 1913 Supreme Court decision may appear to
have solved the abortion question for Americans, there are still
efforts being made to reverse this decision. These may, in time,
become efforts to put through an amendment to the Constitution. While these efforts may all end in failure, they may in the
meantime involve the expenditure of much effort and money
that could be better employed on other more critical problems
in the country. Thus it would seem that a concise statement
regarding the elements of the conflict making evident their
foundations, implications, and logic as they are related to the
First Amendment to the Constitution may be pertinent and
timely.
All anti-abortion arguments, regardless of how they may be
publicized or stated, are based on religious values and assumptions. Essentially all of the arguments arise from: (1) ideas of
the "sanctiy" of human life with or without the attribution of
''immortal soul"; (2) absolute ideas regarding the nature of
."life" as an attribute bestowed by some supreme or otherworldly power; and (3) absolute ideas regarding the moment at
which "life" infuses the fetus or at which "life" is terminated
by the destruction of the fetus.
All anti-abortion arguments stem from the religious scruples
and values of those in opposition. Some who see, even though
dimly, the pitfalls of the religious arguments take their stand
on biological factors which they view as absolute, but which
when analyzed will be found to involve some supernatural attributes that ultimately rest on deep-seated beliefs resting on religious assumptions. All opponents of abortion generally seek
to strengthen their arguments by emotionalizing them through
the use of the term "murder" as contrasted morally and legally
with the term"kill," thus attempting to influence the courts
and the public through an ad hominem approach.
Biological science has not been able to observe or demonstrate any quality in human life that is not present in some degree in all mammalian life. Nor has it been able to observe any
distinct point at which the quality of life is demonstrably
modified or changed by the addition of some unique or distinctly new factor. Metabolism and irritability, the two distinctive
factors that can discriminate all living matter from all nonliving matter, are present at all times in all living matter from
the simple cell of protoplasm to the most complex of mammals,
man.
Qualitative variety in life forms is accomplished, so far as
can be observed, solely through quantitative modifications in
cell organization. The basic cell of protoplasm with its fundamental irritability remains constant. Thus if one wishes to argue for the sanctity or uniqueness of life, one must include all
life forms. If this is so, any destruction of life is abhorrent and
any life is possible only on the basis of mutual cannibalism.
From the earliest times men have sought to explain the
mysteries of birth, life and death by attributing spirits to all
things that lived. In the case of man the spirit was promoted
to the status of "soul," a supposedly unique possession that
was believed to put man in a special relationship with whatever
omnipotent power was thought to exist in order to account
for the otherwise mysterious universe.
This has enabled man to distinguish himself from all other
members of the animal world with whom he otherwise (embarrassingly) shares so many common (and inconvenient) qualities. This belief in a spirit or spirits cannot be proven or disproven by any observations, scientific or otherwise. It can only
be maintained by an act of individual, personal faith. Any argument on it is futile, impossible of any resolution.
Those who oppose abortion by implying that the fetus is

an

April,1982

Page 21

-------

from the moment of conception infused with some "divinely"

bestowed "soul" (or other attribute) are attempting, whether
they know it or not, to impose a religious value or belief on all
citizens of the State. They seek to abridge the freedom granted
by the First Amendment of the Constitution. They overlook
the fact that if the State is prohibited from making any law respecting the establishment of religion it must also be prohibited
from making any law that establishes or implies any particular
religious value, belief, tenet or bias.
If some men are comforted by the thought that they possess a "divinely bestowed soul," they should be permitted that
belief. But they should not be permitted to inflict it on any of
their fellows who do not feel a similar need. If the nation is to
observe the full freedom implied by the First Amendment
with its prohibition against laws with a religious bias, no law
can be written that may claim for an unborn organism 'its infusion by some undemonstrable religious fiction that will endow
it with rights that may infringe the freedoms of actual citizens:
If the religiously inclined person is to be protected in his right
to believe according to his conscience, then the non-believer
must be protected in his right not to believe if that is according to his wish and logic.
The fetus, initiated willingly or unwillingly by the actions
of the mother, lives at, and only at, the physical option of her
body. It is, as far as science can determine, the resultant of
natural processes that occur similarly and equally in all members of the subclass Eutheria. Legal status can be given to the
fetus only by infringing on the rights of the mother. To argue
for legal rights for a developing cellular organism prior to its arrival at that point in its development where it is capable of selfcontrolled metabolism and irritability is illogical. It would be a
ridiculous law based only on an assumption with a religious
bias.
Those who seek to avoid the religious implications by concentrating only on the biological and perceptible aspects of
"life" which because it is designated as human is susceptible to
legal considerations depend, for their arguments, on an absolute interpretation of the term"life." In all of their arguments,
debates and legal actions, they use the term "life" as if the referrent was indeed some concisely defined and precisely perceptible manifestation from a scientific standpoint.
"Irritability'" is the most obvious characteristic of living
forms. Thus whatever has irritability is considered to have "life."
Unfortunately for man's satisfaction and logical peace of mind
the basis for the quality cannot be located. Under one set of
conditions a particular concatenation of chemicals exhibits the
quality. At other times an apparently similar concatenation will
not exhibit it. Because the quality is the only observable difference, men have named the quality "life."
Having named it they have then proceeded to endow it with
a real, actual and separate existence that cannot be substantiated
in any way. "Biologists find," says Dr. Joseph Needham, "their
work is possible only if they define life as a dynamic equilibrium
in a 'polyphasic system consisting of proteins, fats, carbohydrates,sterols, lipoids, cycloses, and water." These terms are
somewhat technical. The statement is admirably lucid and comprehensive. It says that a physical system, made of certain
chemicals, exhibits all that biochemistry finds in life." (Man"
On His Nature by Sir Charles Sherrington)
From a biological standpoint the term has a referent that is
most indefinite, if not elusive. The range between the quality
designated as life exhibited by many primitive forms or entities
and the quality exhibited by the most advanced forms is enormous. The quality of irritability is exhibited in an enormous
variety as they proceed from the moment of birth to the moment of death.
"Life is an example of the way in which an (individual)
energy system in its give-and-take with the general energy system around it can continue to maintain itself for a period of
Page 22

April,1982

as

time
a self-centered, so to say, self-balanced unity. Perhaps
the most striking feature of it is that it acts as though it "desired" to maintain itself. But we cannot say of a spinning top
which resists being upset that it desires to go on spinning. The
very constitution of the living system may compel it to increase: thus a self-fermenting protein system, granted its conditions, must increase. The behavior of the living body is an example of this, and we call it living. The behavior of an atom is
an example of this, and we do not call it living. The behavior
'Of those newly discovered so-called "viruses" is an example of
this, and there is hesitation whether or not to call it "living."
The difference is not one of ultimate nature but of scheme and
degree of complexity." (Man, On His Nature by Sir Charles
Sherrington)
Thus those who seek to establish a specific point at which
the fertilized egg in the womb becomes a viable living thing are
not on firm ground, scientific or otherwise. All that biological
science can affirm is that the human fetus will, when born,
probably be amenable to education and training which may
make the creature substantially similar to other human animals
in its behavior. Until it is actually born and is free from the
mother, it possesses only possibilities and questionable potentialities, not certainties.
Neither life, soul, spirit nor mind can be found or demonstrated in any way. All that can be shown is that certain chemical accumulations gradually evolve increasingly complex irritability which finally becomes the integrated organizational irritability displayed by man. There is no specific demonstrable
point at which "something" extra is added. The quality of life
appears to be a quantitative variable. A qualitative difference is
not essential to explain life.
. The use of the term "murder" implying a moral discrimination as opposed to "kill" introduces difficulties that are ultimately emotional but which stem from semantic causes. Objectively the words describe the same action, namely, the termination of the capacity for irritability of one entity by an action of another entity. The actual differences in the actions as
implied by the terms are subjective, that is, it is not what happens but rather a qualitative difference in the "mind" of the
entity that commits the action.
Any living entity is said to be killed when its quality of life
is terminated by an outside agency, that is, when it does not
cease to exhibit that quality through some internal failure in its
dynamic organization. The term "murder" can only be used
(by definition) when both the object of the action and the instigator of the action are human. The term contains the necessary implication of ''intelligent intention" and a "human" object, and that requires (by definition) that both entities be
human.
However, here the actual limits of the actions are not too
precisely discriminated, because under some conditions one
man may terminate the lives of other men in exactly the same
way, but, because "justification" can be found in some instances, they will be designated as "killing," while those that
cannot be "justified" will be designated as "murder."
Thus an animal never murders a man - he kills him. A man
never murders an animal - he kills it. In the case of man: one
man kills another man when his reasons for the action are accepted by the religious, legal or other value systems of his society. One man murders another man when his reasons for the
action contravene the legal or religious systems of that society.
It is here that we reach the crux of the problem, for society
is not only a theoretical unit, but it is actually composed of
many men, and many men do not necessarily all interpret the
value systems under which they live in the same way. Thus
under the same social system we may find men adhering to different religious beliefs that make distinctions not necessarily
established or recognized by the legal system of the general society and that may, moreover, be more limiting than the legal
The American Atheist

,-

system.
In this way we may find some men prohibited by their religions from committing actions accepted by their legal codes,
while other men may have no reasons within their own value
systems that prevent them from enjoying the full freedom of
action allowed by the law. At this point conflict is inevitable if
one man, or group, insists that the limits established by his (or
their) religion obtain as the final deciding factor in the interpretation of the legal code.
Thus in the case of abortion the Supreme Court has finally,
after many years, recognized the intrusion of religious restrictions into areas of personal freedom supposedly guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights and has re-interpreted the law so as to assure
freedom from those restrictions. There is nothing in that freedom that compels any citizen to practice abortion. The man
who finds comfort in the belief that he has an "immortal soul"
is free to guide his conduct by that belief. The man who does
not feel the need for that belief is, and should be, free to enjoy
the freedom from that belief, if he so wishes.
The fetus is not alive until it is born (by definition); therefore, it cannot be killed, for that which is not alive cannot be
killed. The law cannot recognize the fetus as human until it is
alive. To do so is to assume its infusion with some humanizing

characteristic which cannot be demonstrated but can only be

accepted on the basis of religious beliefs. This violates the First
Amendment. Therefore, if the fetus is neither alive nor human
until it is born, it cannot be murdered.
Until born, the fetus exists at the physical option of the
mother being conceived by her actions (willing or unwilling).
Therefore, the mother, and the mother alone, should have full
choice as to whether she wishes to complete a process that requires the participation of her body.
While on the ,Qther hand, those who do not approve the action should not be compelled either to practice or to participate in it. Thus doctors who oppose the practice should not be
compelled to perform it. But, the State must protect the citizens from tacit compulsion by assuring all citizens access to
the service of willing doctors if they desire.
To be consistent the choice of the mother regarding abortion
should not be restricted in any way up to the final moment at
which the fetus makes its natural appearance into the world
becoming by that action alive (by definition) and a member ot
the society of the State (by definition). Until born.. the fetus
cannot be given rights that take precedence over the mother;
to do so would make the mother a second-class citizen.

Then there is the theological approach to' birth control - 'Oh, god, I hope I'm not pregnant!'

CO)DJ1r CO)IF 1rIHJIE IE IE ILIT(GJITCO)DJ CCIL CO)IE 1r

Mark L. Page
Imagine if you will,a person who is an avowed Atheist; a
person who is firmly rooted in the temporal, secular world;
one who believes that Atheism is the only rational way for
the human race to move forward and reach a better
understanding of who and what we are and where we are
going as a species; one who believes, as Albert Ellis, the
distinguished psychologist, has said, "For that ... is what all
manner of religion is: childish dependency."
Now, imagine that this Atheist is told that he is suffering
from a fatal, terminal illness, and unless the disease is
treated he willmost definitely die from it. He is then told that
the only way he can recover from this fatal illness is to
believe in GOD! THAT is the treatment! That only through
a belief in the supernatural can he be restored to health. Is
this hard to imagine in the 20th century? I found myself in
precisely this position, when in October of 1979 I learned I
was an alcoholic/chemically dependent person. Since I
received that diagnosis I have learned quite a bit about the
myths surrounding the recovery process. It is not my point
here to educate you about the disease, but a few words
might be helpful.
.
For centuries alcoholism was (and to a large extent still is)
considered to be a "moral" problem, a lack of willpower, and
a sure sign of weakness of character, for if the alcoholic
would only either stop or control his/her drinking, the
problem would stop. Research in the life sciences over the
last twenty years, especially into the chemistry of the brain,
has established many of the facts regarding alcoholism,
including the fact that alcoholism or chemical dependency
(actually alcoholism is one form of chemical dependency) is
a disease. It is an addiction. Research is showing that, just as
people react differently to prescription drugs, for instance,
due to a difference in their body chemistry (ranging from no
Austin Texas

effect at all to allergies, mild or severe side effects or even

death) so, too, do people react differently to ethyl alcohol
and other mood altering chemicals due to a difference in
brain chemistry. In short, what they are finding is that the
reaction to ethyl alcohol in the brain of an alcoholic
produces another narcotic-like substance that is highly
addicting and produces an experience quite different from
that of a non-alcoholic. Analysis is further showing that this
difference is most likely hereditary. This research and
knowledge has lifted a great burden from the alcoholics
themselves who did not know or understand what was
happening to them and felt great remorse and guilt at the
loss of control they experienced over alcohol. In fact, one of
the characteristics of the disease is that the urge to repeat
the experience of intoxication becomes stronger than any
other drive, desire, or instinct, including that of selfpreservation. It is a truly debilitating disease that will
eventually result in death. The real hope for people who
suffer is that the disease be can be arrested, not cured, but
arrested. There are thousands of recovering alcoholics who
are testament to the ability of chemically dependent people
to recover by arresting the disease.
Just as prevailing attitudes, misinformation and invalid
beliefs about the nature of alcoholism are hard to change in
the minds of both the public and many professionals who
have a stake in clinging to outdated ideas, so too, are the
methods of treatment outdated and surrounded by myths
and superstitions which are holding back progress and
inhibiting the flow of information.
In October of 1979, I admitted myself to the Hazelden
Foundation in Center City, Minnesota, considered to be
one of the best treatment centers of its kind in the world.
The program used at Hazelden, and most treatment

April,1982

Page 23

centers in the country, is based on the twelve steps of

Alcoholics Anonymous. Of these twelve steps, seven are
dependent on a belief in the supernatural, referred to in the
program, as "God, as you understand
Him", a "Higher
Power", or some other such concept. The program is based
on the belief that this "Higher Power" if sought will somehow
either lift the problem from you, if you believe strongly
enough and get your "spiritual life" in order, or that "He" will
somehow participate in the recovery process and" grant" it
to you, if you do the "footwork". Needless to say, I was a bit
dismayed when told that this was how I would recover!
Further, one of the traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous is,
"For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority,
a loving God as He may express Himself in our group
conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants .... " Some
of you will be familiar with the prayer many alcoholics use,
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
change; the courage to change the things I can, and the
wisdom to know the difference." To be sure, the philosophy
contained in those words will foster a rational approach to
many problems, but "God, grant me ... ?"
What we have here is a very negative and harmful state of
affairs, but not the first one where religious beliefs have
stood in the way of knowledge and just as with other
examples this one too, is causing needless suffering and
creating a huge problem. Great strides are being made by
researchers and scientists in uncovering the biochemistry
involved in chemical dependency, leading to an enlightened
attitude toward the disease. But how can we expect people
to accept this new information, when the recovery process
is a "spiritual prescription"? This "prescription" is based on
the following: "Came to believe that a Power greater than
ourselves could restore us to God as we understood Him;
Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of
character; Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings;
Sought through prayer and medidation to improve our
conscious contact with God, as we understood
Him,
praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power
to carry that out; That probably no human power could
have relieved our alcoholism; that God could and would if
He were sought" and the list goes on.
As long as the treatment process is shrouded in these
kinds of myths and supernaturalisms
it will continue to
mask and obscure the emotional and psychological factors
in recovery. As iong as the "final authority" is a "God, as He
may express Himself" the nature of the effective treatment
modalities will remain mysterious
to those chemically
dependent pepole who need help and not religion, to the
public at large, and to the legislators who must appropriate
funding for many of these programs.
There are many thousands
of people, and not only
Atheists, who are turned off to Alcoholics Anonymous and
treatment by the religious nature of these programs, and
who do not continue to seek help because they can't accept
the Salvation Army tone of many Alcoholics Anonymous
groups and treatment centers around the country. The
U.S. is a world leader in research into the nature of the
disease. But I know from personal experience, that the
religious nature of the recovery is standing in the way of
other countries' being able to accept both the nature of the
disease and recovery. I want to assure my fellow Atheists,
and others, that this belief in supernaturalism
is NOT
necessary for recovery, even though, I'm afraid, these
Page 24

Apri/,1982

programs are still going to contain a heavy dose of it for the

time being. My own experience can perhaps illustrate how
deep this religious preoccupation
runs.
When I entered the treatment center, I expressed my
beliefs, when asked, and was immediately met with a "that's
too bad", or "I was almost that bad once myself" attitude.
Furthermore,
there is a clergy person assigned to each
group of approximately 20 patients and part of the program
is regular interviews, conversations,
and "confessions",
with them. They also participate in group therapy, keeping
the religious view ever present. I was treated with a "wait
and see when he comes around" approach. I recall someone
recommending
that I go to the bookstore
and get the
pamphlet
called Alcoholics
Anonymous
for the Nonbeliever. When I went to purchase it, however, I was told
that it had been "decommissioned"
and they weren't
allowed to carry it any longer. For what other disease do
they censor your reading? In fact, most of the reading there
was directed, and there were no books or articles that
weren't of a spiritual or religious nature when it came to the
Alcoholics Anonymous program. I expressed my dismay
and discontent and was again met with a "he'll eventually
come around" attitude until weeks later, a photocopy of the
pamphlet was mysteriously "found", and I was given it to
read. I think they finally had to admit I wasn't going to" come
around". This attitude followed me through the entire
treatment, along with the "implications" of my Atheism: that
recovery would be much more difficult (if at all possible)
with this kind of roadblock. I remember talking with one
counselor who was concerned with my lack of a "Higher
Power". I explained my Atheism to her, and she expressed
great surprise. She had no idea it was such a life affirming
approach to the affairs of man. She, and the rest of the staff,
had made the assumption that Atheism was automatically a
negative belief system, that it must be life-denying and that it
must be something that needs to be "overcome." They had
made these assumptions,
as so many people do, without
ever asking about it, reading about it, or even wanting to
acknowledge its existence. And this is from people who
pride
themselves
on their
openmindedness!
It is not my purpose to castigate or deride the people.of
Alcoholics Anonymous Their beliefs are sincere (if misguided) and they have helped thousands of alcoholics who
for years had no place else to go for help, since, until
recently, the medical profession continued to ignore the
problem. What I am saying, however, is that this continued
insistence, preoccupation,
and focus on a supernatural
belief is hindering the desperately
needed change in attitudes about chemical dependency.
My concern is for
those people who want help and are then confronted with a
pseudo-religion and a "divine" program, and feel there's no
place to go for help, if they can't believe in "conjuring a cure"
through prayer and meditation. If this is the only information available, it looks pretty hopeless. Alienation, loneliness, and despair are effects of chemical dependency.
Anything that further contributes to that is detrimental to
recovery. What the alcoholic/ chemically dependent person
needs is the assurance that, yes, there is a viable, workable,
realitv- based program of recovery, that can and will work
for a person who wants to recover, and is not dependent on
"Higher Powers."
There is a fear on the part of those who cling to these
irrational beliefs. Fear that they will discover that people are
. The American Atheist

recovering not because of their beliefs, but in many cases in

spite of them (often a person will have been sober for a
number of years before" getting" the program). They do not
want to face the fact that people DO recover without a
"Higher Power". They have a stake in this belief system and,
Ithink, fear that taking god out of the program means taking
away their recovery. They don't want to admit that, rather
than god somehow "lifting" their problem, they are recovering because of a strong desire combined with some
very sound psychological processes, the dynamics of group
therapy, and good mental health practices, of which they
are or choose to be unaware. To admit that ONE person
can recover without this supernaturalism is to admit that
TEN can, and ifTEN can then a THOUSAND can etc., and
the whole religious superstructure becomes unnecessary
and superfluous, and so much dead weight. My contention
is, that if they had never been told that recovery demanded
a "Higher Power", they could have recovered using secular
psychological principles and practices.
Many alcoholics still talk about recovery as a "miracle".
When the program was written and published in 1939, those
people believed they had been" given" these steps by divine
guidance, and many still believe this. When people can
make as dramatic a change in their lives by arresting
alcoholism as happens to many people, it seems like
a miracle, ifyou either don't know what's operating or don't
care to look. The history of science is, of course, littered
with such miracles, until the facts are empirically established, and another miracle becomes an explainable phenomenon, although, I am constantly amazed at how long
people willhang on.
At the risk of oversimplification Iwillsuggest to you what I
and many others, both lay and professional, believe to be
some of the main factors in recovery from chemical
dependency/alcoholism: The first step (and not as obvious
to many people as it may seem) is removal of the chemical
from the body and brain to restore a natural state. A person
who is actively using chemicals, whether it is alcohol or
something else, cannot very easily begin recovery until
those effects are gone. During the active use the chemicals
are affecting the whole thought process of the dependent
person. This is sometimes very noticeable to others but
seldom noticeable to the affected person. Next you must
break the addictive cycle of thinking. Even after the person
has stopped using chemicals, there survives a whole psychology that has evolved to "protect" the use of chemicals.
This psychology of addiction includes denial, justification,
alibis, excuses, anything that will allow the person to have
"reasons" for the continued use of chemicals, even though
in reality they may be literally killing him/her. The key is in
getting the person to understand that they have a disease,
that they cannot control the use of mood altering chemicals,
and getting them in touch with the reality of the effects of
their use on their lives. At this point many other psychological symptoms of the disease can begin to clear, such as
alcohol induced psychosis, paranoia, depressions, suicidal
impulses and others.
Until a person can admit to the problem and then accept
it, there can be no recovery. Once the person has been
detoxified and makes a total commitment, then recovery is
possible, but the commitment must be total-nothing else
will do. Remember that we are fighting an urge to use
chemicals, even though they are not currently being used.
Austin Texas

This urge is unbelievably strong. It will diminish with time

but willalways be present. This is why there is no" cure" for
chemical dependency, only a lifelong recovery process.
When the Alcoholics Anonymous spiritual program talks
about "turning your will and life over to God" it is a way of
masking this commitment process. Without a commitment
that is probably stronger than the person has ever made,
there will, most likely, not be a recovery. But it need not be
shrouded in mysticism.
To the affected person it often seems impossible that they
will ever be able to find a release from this terrible cycle.
They feel trapped and helpless, but with encouragement
and by having examples of people who have recovered,
hope is gradually gained and the belief instilled that it is
possible. "Others have done it, so can I!"This is most often
accomplished by meeting with and being a part of a group of
recovering people. Herein lies one of the biggest contributions of the Alcoholics Anonymous program (one of its
miracles); the bringing together of people who know and
understand each other's problem; who are united by this
common bond. They can share with each other their own
experiences, their own battles with an addiction. The
"older" members (in terms of years of recovery) can provide
examples of healthy, productive lives, and help new members gain hope. It gets the person outside of him/herself,
and involved in a meaningful way with many other people
who are successfully dealing with life without the use of
chemicals. The Alcoholics Anonymous people cannot or
will not recognize that this is an excellent example of what
motivated group therapy can do, without telling people that
they must "Come to believe that a Power greater than
ourselves could restore us to sanity."
Now the work continues on restoring patients to sound
mental health by first, educating them on the disease
aspects of chemical dependency, and helping them to
develop better coping skills. The center that I was at used
Reality Therapy as formulated by Dr. Albert Ellis. It is ironic
that Dr. Ellis is also the author of The Case Against
Religion.
Once people are restored in this manner and have gained
a healthy self-image, and shed much of the guilt associated
with the disease, they must continue to keep the awareness
of their condition high. This is another contribution (miracle) of Alcoholics Anonymous; weekly meetings where
alcoholics can discuss their disease, their problems, their
feelings, and how they are coping. Remember that the
disease is never cured. The desire to use chemicals or drink
willkeep recurring, even ifdiminished, and a vigilance must
be kept high against that" one more time" or "one little slip"
that can start this debilitating cycle all over again.
I have, of course, oversimplified. My intention has not
been to explain the whole process but illustrate that
recovery can be explained in other than supernatural
terms. There are many factors involved, yes, but they are
neurophysiological, educational, emotional, and psychological in nature and riot dispensed at the whim of some
deity.
There are an estimated ten million alcoholic/chemically
dependent people in the U.S. alone. Each year more and
more young people are affected, as drugs and alcohol reach
them even in elementary schools. It saps the strength and
lifefrom people, and costs the U.S. an estimated twenty-five
billion dollars annually. It is time to take this enormous

April,1982

Page 25

national problem, the number one disease in the country,

out of the religious closet. Alcoholics Anonymous-while
the best there was to offer for many years-by its own
estimates, has been able to help less than one-tenth of the
affected people in its entire forty-year history.
One of the most dangerous developments in recent years
is that, as funding has increased, and more treatment
centers are opening, the religious program of Alcoholics
Anonymous is being institutionalized in both public and
private centers. This is a most distressing and harmful
development. It is incumbent on the public, and especially
on the health care professionals, to show some courage and
speak out to stop this from continuing. The attitude on the
part of many has been, "ifit works, leave it alone." I suggest
that it is keeping away more people than it is helping, and
the "leave it alone" attitude must change. Let's come out of
the Middle Ages and state the facts as we know them. Then,

if people choose to make supernaturalism a part of their

recovery, ifthey feel they need it, they are free to do so. But
let us stop insisting both by statement and implication that it
is necessary for recovery, when we know otherwise.
How can we possibly spread the word, here and abroad,
on the advances in understanding this disease, as long as
recovery is connected to mythology? How do we interest
the bright young science writers and editors of newspapers
and magazines to write about these advances if the final
authority remains a "loving God" and the treatment requires the patient to have a "spiritual awakening"? How
many more people willspend additional years suffering their
addiction, because they are told that "probably no human
power" can help them? I am reminded in situations like
these of a quote attributed to George Wallace, "Don't
confuse you with the facts." It's time we started to talk about
the facts.

ATHEISM AS THE ENEMY

In 1953 when President Eisenhower decided on John
Foster Dulles as his secretary of state, Dulles was asked to
testify before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
on the policies he would follow. The following is extracted
from the "Hearing Before The Committee on Foreign
Relations, U. S. Senate, 83rd Congress, 1st Session,
Washington, D. c."
Considering the thesis of Madalyn O'Hair that the
propaganda of the cold war was and the coming hot war
with Russia is based primarly on the emotional issue of
christianity us. Atheism, god us. no god, christian capitalism us. godless communism, instead of the proper
politico/socia/economic issues the statement of John Foster Dulles is instructive. It is brought to attention now
because of the neutron sabre rattling of Secretary of State
Haig who in a congressional hearing of our current policies
in respect to EI Salvador recently pointed out that the
United States must intervene because the oppressive

fascist government is composed of those who "believe in

god" indicating that he felt this to be the sale consideration.
One can only come away from such a presentment with the
opinion that the United States government still continues to
use christianity as a black propaganda tool against Marxism now rising everywhere in the world. Religion is a futile
and insane counterpoint to an issue of economics (capitalism us. communism) with all the social and political
adjuncts thereto. But, as long as it is used as an international policy, just so long will the United States sustain and
support christianity as an internal policy, with money and
privileged position given to religion.
The following testimony was a basic explanation of the
position of the Republican Party, which in the campaign to
elect Eisenhower had posited the idea of Dulles' policy of
"Liberation" as opposed to the Democratic Party's policy
of "Containment" of Russia.
The Editor

CONTAINMENT OR LIBERATION?
John Foster Dulles
There are a number of policy matters which I would
prefer to discuss with the committee in executive session,
but I have no objection to saying in open session what I have
said before: namely, that we shall never have a secure peace
or a happy world so long as Soviet Communism dominates
one-third of all the peoples that there are, and is in the
process of trying at least to extend its rule to many others.
These people who are enslaved are people who deserve
to be free, and who, from our own selfish standpoint, ought
to be free; because if they are the servile instruments of
aggressive despotism, they willeventually be welded into a
force which willbe highly dangerous to ourselves and to all
of the free. Therefore, we must always have in mind the
liberation of these captive peoples.
.
Now, liberation does not mean a war of liberation.
Liberation can be accomplished by processes short of war.
Page 26

April,1982

We have, as one example - not an ideal example, but it

illustrates my point - the defection of Yugoslavia under
Tito from the domination of Soviet Communism. Well, that
rule of Tito is not one which we admire, and it has many
aspects of despotism itself; but at least it illustrates that it is
possible to disintegrate this present monolithic structure
which, as I say, represents approximately one-third of all the
people that there are in the world.
The present tie between China and Moscow is an unholy
arrangement, which is contrary to the traditions, the hopes,
the aspirations of the Chinese people. Certainly we cannot
tolerate a continuance of that, or a welding of the 450 million
people of China into the servile instruments of Soviet
aggression.
Therefore, a policy which only aims at containing Russia
where it now is, in itself, an unsound policy; but it is a policy
The

American

Atheist

The threat of Soviet Communism, in my opinion, is not

which is bound to fail because a purely defensive policy
never wins against an aggressive policy. If our only policy is only the gravest threat that ever faced the United States but
to stay where we are, we will be driven back. It is only by the gravest threat that has ever faced what we call Western
keeping alive the hope of liberation, by taking advantage of civilization, or, indeed, any civilization which was dominated by a spiritual faith.
that wherever opportunity arises, that we will end this
Soviet Communism is atheistic in its philosophy and
terrible peril which dominates the world, which imposes
materialistic. It believes that human beings are nothing
upon us such terrible sacrifices and so-great fears for the
more than somewhat superior animals, that they have no
future. But all of this can be done and must be done in ways
which willnot provoke a general war, or in ways which will soul, no spirit, no right to personal dignity, and that the best
not provoke an insurrection which would be crushed with kind of a world is that world which is organized as a wellmanaged farm is _organized, where certain animals are
bloody violence, such as was the case, for example, when
taken out to pasture, and they are fed and brought back and
the Russians instigated the Polish revolt, under General
milked, and they are given a barn as shelter over their
Bor, and merely sat .bv and watched them when the
Germans exterminated those who were. revolting. heads, and that is a form of society which is most conducive
It must be and can be a peaceful process, but those who - to the material welfare of mankind - that is their opinion.
do not believe that results can be accomplished by moral
That can be made into a persuasive doctrine ifone does not
pressures, by the weight of propaganda, just do not know
believe in the spiritualnature of man.
what they are talking about.
-_'
If you do believe in the spiritual nature of man, it is a
I ask you to recall the fact that Soviet Communism.Itself,
doctrine which is utterly unacceptable and wholly irreconhas spread from controlling 200 milion people some seven
cilable.
years ago to controlling 800 million people today; and it has
I do not see how, as long as Soviet Communism holds
done that by methods of political warfare, psychological
those views, and holds also the belief that its destiny is to
warfare and propaganda, and it has not actually used the
spread those views throughout the world, and to organize
Red Army as an open aggressive force in accomplishing
the whole world on that basis, there can be any permanent
that.
reconciliation.
That does not exclude the possibility of coming to
Surely what they can accomplish, we can accomplish.
Surely ifthey can use moral and psychological force, we can
working agreements of a limited character; but basically,
use it; and to take a negative defeatist attitude is not an
between the doctrine of Soviet Communism and the
approach which is conducive to our own welfare or in doctrine of a Christian or Jewish, or, indeed, any religion, is
an irreconcilable conflict.
conformity with our own historical ideas ....

A CORDIAL INVITATION
THIRD ANNUAL SUMMER SOLSTICE PICNIC
Time:

June 19th 'andJune 20th, 1982

all weekend - any time

Dress:

very casual, western, country, whatever.

Place:

The old rustic American Atheist Museum, adjacent

to Prides Creek Park, Petersburg, Indiana.

Agenda:

comraderie only -- no directors or business meeting.

New video tape exhibits. A report about what happened at the National Convention in Washington, D.C. A chance to
meet casually a a whole group of other Atheists. A personally guided tour of the Museum by the old philosopher, Lloyd
Thoren. Astronomy slide show. Plans for future exhibits, especially for kids - showing inclined planes, wedges, levers,
pulleys and axles which enabled man to build idols, churches and huge historic monuments dedicated to non-existent
gods, but more importantly tools used to construct sensible things like hospitals, safe shelter, better roads, aquaducts and
dams for clean water and many other useful projects.
The American Atheist Museum telephone number is: (812)
354-6608. If you can't make this annual event, all vacationing Atheists always receive a warm welcome all summer long.
Feel free to call Lloyd or Pam Thoren at the Museum for local directions and accommodation suggestions. For airport
pickups at Evansville - call the same number

American Atheist Museum

P.O. Box 55
Petersburg, IN 47567
Austin Texas

April,1982

Page2i

.In _tmorp <9f

Robert Green IngersollHe was just a man

Yet-now in retrospect he seems much more
His life became a promise to resolve
The myths that man contrived so many years
before
Where he walked
He blazed a kind of wisdom's trail
Building towering themes - but yet
With words that seems at times so frail
A ceaseless flare for minds
Where mainly darkness reigned before
His beacon shines
Revealing now religions reefs of ignorance
-evermore
We can't repay his thoughtful kindness here
His life is done
But we can vow to guard
The intellectual treasures that he won
So-in his honor now
We can but lay a wreath upon this wretched
sand
Misplaced by time-we were not there to shake
His gentle hand
Gerald Tholen

This tribute willbe read at the Arlington Cemetary during the 1982 Washington, D.C. American Atheist Convention.

DIAL AN ATHEIST
CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN ATHEISTS
Dial- The=Atheist

(512) 458-5731

St. Louis, Missouri

(314) 771-8894

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Schenectady, New York

(505) 884-7630
(518) 346-1479

Charlotte, North Carolina

(704) 568-5346

Phoenix, Arizona

(602) 899-7411

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

(405) 677-4141

Tucson, Arizona

(602) 623-3861

Portland, Oregon

(503) 287-6461

Sacramento, California

(916) 989-3170

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(412) 734 0509

San Diego, California

(714) 232-6767

Salt Lake City, Utah

(801) 364-4939

San Francisco, California

(415) 974-1750

Alexandria, Virginia

(703) 370-5255

Denver, Colorado

(303) 692-9395

North New Jersey

South Florida

(305) 384-8923

Tampa Bay, Florida

(813) 577-7154

Atlanta, Georgia

(404) 329-9809

Chicago, Illinois

(312) 335-4648

Evansville, Indiana

(812) 425-1949

Lexington, Kentucky

(606) 278-8333

Boston, Massachusetts

(617) 344-2988

Detroit, Michigan

(313) 721-6630

Page 28

April, 1982

(201) 777-0766

IF YOU ARE GAY AND ATHEIST

PLEASE CONTACT:
Gay Atheists League of America
P.O. Box 14142
San Francisco, CA 94114
Membership: $1S.00/year
($lO.00/year for students and senior citizens)
Send to the same address for subscriptions to the GALA
Review. Subscriptions $10.00/year; $ll.50/year in Canada
and PUAS; elsewhere $12.50/year.
. The American Atheist

WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN A 25-MEGATON BOMB !;
IS DETONA TED 3 MILES IN THE AIR?
1 A 200-million degree fireball, 8 miles high, vaporizes everything

within 6 miles.
2 Heat waves incinerate everything flammable within 30 miles.
Blast waves pulverize everything else.
f

3 People suffer fatal injuries, blindness, burns and other injuries for
80 miles. Massive property damage also results within that area.
4 A 30-mile-high cloud of radioactive dust spreads, contaminating
thousands of square miles - possibly resulting in global- and
atmospheric contamination.
5 After-effects of radiation sickness and soil, water, air and food
contamination, etc., will continue for prolonged periods.

ARE YOU PREPARED TO ALLOW

THIS
TO HAPPEN TO YOUR WORLD?

redress of grievances . AMENDi\1ENT

I Congress shall make

...

--

....
c
Cl.i

E
c
...
C1J

>

::J

0'0

Q)

....

("!)

.J::.

:J

IJl

~
~

o
....

0-

....
Q)
c.
o
....

Vi'

zr

I'D

:J

WITH THE MONSTROUS WEAPONS

MAN ALREADY HASty.,HUMANITY IS IN
DANGER OF BEING 1 RAPPED IN THIS
WORLD BY ITS MORAL ADOLESCENTS.

--

o
....,
~

OQ'

,:J

;c

.0
~
C1J

THE WORLD HAS ACHIEVED

BRILLIANCE WITHOUT CONSCIENCE.
OURS IS A WORLD OF NUCLEAR GIANTS
AND ETHICAL INFANTS.

U
to
Q)

C.

Omar N. Bradley

--o

zr

_.:::J

0;::;:

zr

("!)

C.

0'0

Q)

o
Q)
c.
Q)
.s:

o
....,

-a
....,

Address, Armistice Day, 1948.