Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
November, 1983
$2.50
1963
1983
of
AMERICAN ATHEISTS
In 1959, the Murray family started a legal case which was destined to reach the United States Supreme Court
to be decided there on June 17, 1963just twenty years ago. The name of the case was Murray u. Curlett and the
decision of that august body was that bible reading and unison prayer recitation in the public schools of the land
were both unconstitutional exercises vis-a-vis the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The road from 1959 to 1963 was hard and long. Scores of attorneys were contacted to handle the case and
each and all were afraid of it. Indeed the attorney who drafted the original complaint which was filed with the
court quit the case a week thereafter. The Murray family insisted from the beginning that it should be known
that they were opposed to the exercise of bible reading and prayer recitation because they were Atheists, and
no attorney wanted to mention that in the case. But, Madalyn Murray insisted, and finallyone attorney asked
her to draw up a short statement (about 250 words) on what an Atheist was that would be put into their petition
for relief. That statement was written - and became famous as the media across the land reproduced it
everywhere. Now, these twenty years later, we reproduce it here for you:
"Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves
himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for
which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist
accepts that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner
conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.An Atheist
accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find
the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
"Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to 'know' a god. An
Atheist accepts that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist accepts that a
deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in lifeand not
escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life.He accepts that we
cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter. He accepts that we are - in a sense - our brothers' keepers in that we are, first,
keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is
now . "
~*
AMERICAN ATHEISTS
P.O.BOX 2117
AUSTIN, TX 787682117
Send $40 for one year's membership. You will receive our "Insider's Newsletter" monthly,
your membership certificate and card, and a one year subscription to this magazine.
November, 1983
REGULAR FEATURES
Letters to the Editor
Editorial
News and Comments: "Reinstated Insanity"; "The State/Church
Wall Crumbles"; "Better Late Than Never"; "On the
Bright Side/Phoenix Chapter Award"
2
3
On The Cover
7
Emma Goldman
35
Dial-An-Atheist
American Atheist Radio Series: An Earlier (1900s) Effort
to Tax the Church
Convention News
38
39
40
FEATURED COLUMNISTS
Science, Scientism, Scientists - G. Stanley Brown
Doomsday Prophets - Gerald Tholen
Wanted: An Ethic Of Responsibility - Margaret Bhatty
On Tolerance and Illogicality - Michael Battencourt
Facts On The Sunday Funnies - Jeff Frankel
14
29
31
33
34
SPECIAL FEATURES
Psychology Today/Nonsense,
- Jack Catran
Jonestown Remembered
1978-1983
Islam: In The Name of Allah the All-Merciful!
- Stephen Roane
22
Viewpoint Of A Peace Activist Concerning Israel's Foreign Policy
- John Burton
24
What Is To Be Done - Conrad Goeringer.
26
Atheism Abroad: Mouvement Humaniste Athee
37
Editor
Robin Murray-O'Hair
Editor Emeritus
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Assistant Editor
Gerald Tholen
Poetry
Angeline Bennett
Gerald Tholen
Production Staff
Art Brenner
BillKight
Richard M. Smith
Gloria Tholen
Daniel Flores
Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Margaret Bhatty
Fred Woodworth
Clayton Powers
Michael Battencourt
Austin, Texas
The American Atheist magazine is published monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and 1983 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 78768-2117. A free subscription is provided as an incident of membership in the American Atheists organization. Subscriptions are available at $25.00
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 unsolicited manuscripts.
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in
Monthly Periodical Index
ISSN: 0332-4310
Cover Art
Rex Lindsey
November, 1983
Page 1
November, 1983
REPLY TO A
SMALL TOWN ATHEIST
Some months ago the American Atheist organization which
publishes this journal sent out a survey to former members and
former subscribers of American Atheist. The purpose of the mailing
was to ascertain the reasons why a given individual failed to renew
their membership in the organization or their subscription of this
journal. Many replies were received, some positive and some
negative. The majority of the negative replies were for economic
reasons. The individual simply was now out of work and could not
afford any "memberships" or "subscriptions" and had let them lapse
to a number of publications. Of the positive responses one was
received from a small town location here in Texas that was, in a single
reply, a good example of the thinking of many Atheists generally. In
my wide travels both inside and outside this country, it has been my
pleasure to meet a number of Atheists of many varieties. The
particular reply letter of which I speak was so "typical" of most of what
I have heard from individuals across the country that I felt it was of
value to reproduce it here in its entirety and to comment upon each of
its points one by one. What follows is the exact and entire text of this
reply with only the identity of the respondent omitted:
"Mr. Jon Murray, President
"American Atheist Organization
"P.O. Box 2117
"Austin, TX 787682117
"Dear Sir:
"I greatly admire the courage and convictions of you and Dr.
O'Hair. I have thoroughly enjoyed and been tremendously
influenced by your fine magazine and literature.
"However, I decided not to renew my membership when it
expired nearly a year ago for two reasons. I shall attempt to
explain since it occurred to me that others may sometime feel
the same.
"1. Religion - or the lack of it - is just not an important part
of my life. Nor do I see it as a threat to my way of life as the
authors of Holy Terror do. I've come to believe that it's not that
big a deal with most people. Even those who attend church
regularly. In fact, to a great many, church is a SOCIAL
OUTLET - their only form of community contact and
involvement. Many business people are motivated strictly to
make contacts. I'm convinced it's their only incentive to attend.
What better place than a large prosperous congregation to find
insurance clients; sell your wares or services; and find support
for your candidacy!? When a person moves to a new
community, what better place to meet the people of a clannish
town or neighborhood (as most are), and be immediately
accepted? I've lived in this town two years now and I'm as much
an obscure stranger and outsider as the day I arrived. The
praying and worship is a minor and most often a secondary part
of church. A great many take it with a grain of salt. I believe that
most would never admit it, but they don't have any clear,
strong, well-thought-out belief system. Other than a few
irrational fanatics, the only time most give religion serious
thought in a busy lifeis when they are old, sick and preoccupied
with dying. Otherwise, most simply do not have the time or
inclination. My wife is typical. She was born and raised a
catholic. When we met she had little knowledge of the bible and
was totally indifferent on the subject of religion.
"2. Being a non- participating member of your organization
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 3
November, 1983
encouragement and ideas. When the game starts, however, they are
very much preoccupied with making the next first down and cannot
.be bothered with the supporters until the post game party. Those are
simply the realities of the way the game is played. Members of cause
groups just have to be content with helping financially or through
moral support and not being able to play in the game.
Of course, you feel "powerless." You feel powerless because the
logistics of cause groups necessarily limits your involvement to a
sideline support role. Only so many persons can actually be trained
and get out on the field and play at one time. Logistically speaking, it is
only practical to have local chapters or groups of cause organization
primarily in big cities. In a big city there are more members and more
things going on relative to the particular cause. More things to
comment on, more things to protest, more things to march about.
That is why cities like Washington, DC are teeming with cause
groups. All of the persons they hope to influence are there, and all of
the meaningful places to march or hold similar protests are there.
State capitals are also very popular places.
The finances of any given group and the amount of exposure they
are given by the media limits the number of their persons who have
any experience or know-how enough to be active. How many of you
Atheists out there reading this journal have ever been on TV or radio
in your life, for any reason? Very damn few. The media will only
acknowledge and come to a handful of persons from each cause
because there are so many causes. So, only a very limited number of
persons' get the opportunity to have media experience and get the
training to be activist. Should they take that training and use it to try
to train many rank and file members to do the same when the media
willonly acknowledge a couple of them? No, that would be a waste of
time. The few who have the experience must use it to further the ends
of the cause as a whole. In the long run it is desirable for the
continuance and survival of the cause to train others to be activist. In
the short run, however, it hurts the group. Cause organizations are all
stuck in the "short run" mode of operation because of money
problems and because social and political situations in the 20th
century now change very rapidly. It is hard to plan for anything but the
short run in a cause group. Twenty years from now, the situation
socially and politically may make American Atheists, for example,
obsolete as a cause group.
This columnist is involved in many other political and social
organizations in addition to American Atheists. My involvement is,
however, a sideline supportive-type involvement. I get their newsletters and I send them a donation from time to time and I buy one of
their books and read it with interest - just as the letter writer does
with American Atheists and then says "For what??" I think the best
answer to that in both cases, the letter writer and mine, is that it
makes us feel good. That is not a cop-out answer. It gives me
satisfaction to know that I am, in some small way, helping the
furtherance of a point of view that I feel is correct on a particular
subject. It does upset me that I cannot do more. I know that
realistically I must do what I can do and stop at that. Every time I
watch the evening news I get infuriated over a dozen topic areas and
want to jump into activism on behalf of all of them. Then I get up the
next morning and I forget all about those "cause celebres" until I get
home again in the evening and something on the news or in a paper or
in a book rekindles my interest. I am sure that the vast majority of
Atheists and non-Atheists alike do the same thing. My doctor, at the
time of an annual physical, said something to me that I will never
forget and that is appropriate here. I have a lot of gastrointestinal
trouble brought on by too many hours at work and too much stress.
After examining me, he said "It is o.k. to be concerned about many
things, from a health viewpoint, but not o.k. to be worried about
them." All that American Atheists asks with this journal and its other
publications is that Atheists become concerned about various issues.
We don't ask you to be worried about them to the point where you will
drop your concern altogether if you can't get into a real good fight
over them on a personal level.
I have to agree with the writer about the wisdom of having Atheist
laymen be outspoken on his or her convictions. This is to be
encouraged on a one-to-one level among co-workers or peers but not
November, 1983
PageS
November, 1983
IT IS TIME TO
SUBSCRIBE TO
m~~Mt1~m~
MAGAZINE
1Year $25
\.,__
Make checks/money
. .:>.
/
_ -::::f7
I~
_-....
Austin. TX 78768
REINSTATED INSANITY
Last month the entire text of the decision
in the suit Crockett u. Sorenson was printed
in the October (Vol. 25, No. 10) issue-of the
American Atheist magazine, beginning at
page 11. Substantively, the case dealt with
bible classes which had been held in Bristol,
Virginia elementary schools, grades 4 and 5,
for 43 years. The classes had been financed
and taught during that time by religious
zealots who believed that there should be an
intrusion of religion into the public school
system. The classes included bible teaching,
prayers and the singing of hymns. They
were taught by non-certified religious enthusiast teachers. It was found during the
trial that there was pressure on the students
to make an election to enroll in these bible
classes exemplified by the school year of
1982-83. Of the 589 fourth and fifth grade
students in the system during that school
year, only 18 had elected not to take the
bible classes.
A challenge was brought by a member of
the City Council on behalf of his daughter
and the case was heard - after much
publicity - in the Federal District Court for
the Western District of Virginia, Abingdon
Division and the decision reported in the
October issue of this magazine was handed
dnown on July 29th, 1983.
The judge found that the manner of bible
teaching was such that the exercise was
unconstitutional and then, unbelievably, in
his decision gave cautious and deliberate
instructions to the offending School Board
as to how it might circumvent the unconstitutional aspects of the existing program. Federal judges, generally speaking,
are under a burden to strictly apply existing
law to the facts of each case before them.
They are enjoined by legal and judicial ethics
not to undertake speculative or advisory
opinions. That this particular federal judge
did so was a breach of such ethics. Addressing himself to the School Board which
had, improperly and according to his own
evaluation - unconstitutionally, permitted
the intrusion of religion into the public
schools of Bristol, Virginia, he carefully gave
eight specific instructions so that the School
Board could, in his opinion continue to
teach the bible in such a way as to defeat the
United States Supreme Court's definition of
violations of the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The judge's actions were
brash, unethical and dishonest.
Basically, his recommendations
were'
that, first, the administration, financing and,
teaching of the classes should be taken from
the ministers and lay religious persons and
vested in the School Board itself. Just this
Austin, Texas
parents
of the alternative
teachersupervised courses and activities available
for each particular child.
Alternative instructional activities must
be provided for any pupils who do not
choose to participate in the program. These
alternative instructional -activities shall include individualized, small groups, tutorial,
or regular class activities which are teacherdirected. The activities themselves should
correlate closely with or provide additional
instruction in the basic curriculum areas
such as reading, mathematics, social studies, science, music, art, individual research, physical education, band, computer
education, etc.
Alternative instructional activities will be
coordinated by the principal and the regular
classroom teachers.
The principal of each school where bible
classes are offered shall review the course
study outline and shall attend the bible
classes at least twice a year.
The principal also shall review lesson
plans for five class sessions submitted by the
bible course teacher on the first "school"
Monday of each month;
7. The course shall be taught in an
objective manner with no attempt made to
indoctrinate the children as to either the
truth or falsity of the biblical materials.
Prayers and singing of hymns will not be
conducted. However, non-denominational
music may be continued; and
8. The bible teaching position and
course will be contingent upon receipt of
funds from the Bristol Virginia City Council
to operate the program. Contributions from
private organizations for the purpose of
funding any or all costs of a bible class willgo
to the Bristol Virginia City Council, not the
Bristol Virginia School Board. If funds are
not available, the course willnot be offered.
BIBLE CLASS CURRICULUM
The following is a proposed course of
study, developed by the Bristol School
superintendent for the teaching of bible in
fourth- and fifth-grades. The curriculum has
been approved by the school board.
Outline For Fourth Grade
Overview: The course of study for fourth
grade pupils is taken from the narrative
stories in the first five books of the Old
Testament and the Life of Christ as told in
the New Testament Gospels. The study is
divided into seven units, four in the Old
Testament and three in the New Testament.
OLD TEST AMENT STUDIES
Unit 1. The Book of Genesis (Chapters
1-11): Creation of the World and Mankind;
The Garden of Eden; Cain and Abel; Noah
and the Flood; The Tower of Babel.
Unit 2. The Book of Genesis (Chapters
15-20): Abraham's Call and Journey; Abraham's Test of Faith; A Wife for Isaac; Jacob
and Esau; Jacob's Journey and New Name;
Page 9
MEMORY WORK
During the first two-year cycle of study,
students are encouraged to learn the books
of the Bible and memorize the following
passages: Psalm 8, 23,100,121,24; The Ten
Commandments; John 3: 15-18;Luke 2:8-16
(Christmas Season); Matthew 2:1-10; Matthew 28:1-16 (Easter Season); I Corinthians
13; Ephesians 6:8-16; II Timothy 4:6-7;
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Matthew 28:18-20.
TEACHING RESOURCES, AIDS
Resource materials are used throughout
the year to supplement the study of the
bible. Teaching aids used are as follows: The
Bible (King James version); flannelgraphs;
filmstrips; View Masters; records; visual
songs; missionary storybooks; slides - The
Holy Land, Christmas, Easter; Books Bible Atlas, etc.; workbooks for students.
The decision to accept the "Study Outline" and the "Bible Class Curriculum" was
accepted unanimously by the School Board
on August 30th. The classes began immediately. Meanwhile, in Yuma, the Scott
County School Superintendent ordered an
end to the only bible class taught in Scott
County. There, the program was threedecades old. The progam had once proliferated throughout most of Scott county
schools but had been phased out since, the
Superintendent explained, "We just saw the
The decision to accept the "Study Outline" and the "Bible Class Curriculum" was
accepted unanimously by the School Board
on August 30th. The classes began immediately. Meanwhile, in Yuma, the Scott
County School Superintendent ordered an
end to the only bible class taught in Scott
County. There, the program was threedecades old. The program had once proliferated throughout most of Scott county
schools but had been phased out since, the
Superintendent explained, "We just saw the
writing on the wall." However, the last
school to end it was the Yuma Elementary
School where the bible classes were taught
by a minister. The gospel minister had spent
about 30 minutes in each class, kindergarten through the 7th grade, once a month.
Although participation by students was
"voluntary," it was always 100 percent.
In Kingsport bibleclasses began as usual.
However, there the head of the Week Day
Bible Teaching Association announced that
they would be conducted after school
hours. The classes were to be taught to
fifth-graders alone, one day a week for 30
minutes. The School Board reaffirmed its
decision to end the classes and refused to
allow the bible-teaching group to continue
offering the classes during the school day.
Feeling that it had the federal courts behind
them, the religious group rented the classroom for $9.35 an hour and planned to
continue its work in the 1983-4 school year.
This fundamentalist group also sponsors
November, 1983
THE STATE/CHURCH
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
-SENATE
September 22, 1983
AMENDMENT NO. 2189
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
-SENATE
September 22,1983
AMENDMENT NO. 2189
(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of United States diplomatic relations
with the vatican)
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 24, line 20, immediately
following sec. 121, insert the following
new section:
"United States Diplomatic Relations With The Vatican
"Sec. 122. In order to provide for
the establishment of United States
diplomatic relations with the vatican,
the Act entitled "An Act making Appropriations for the Counsular and
Austin, Texas
WALL CRUMBLES
in 1983
Nem
~~~
and Arts Journal
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 13
SCIENCE, SCIENTISM,
SCIENTISTS
Atheists frequently mention science as a preferred source of
many of their ideas. These include evolution, cosmology,
geology, and psychology. The progress of research in these
areas has devastated past theological opinions. Scientific
techniques have proven so powerful that more people than
Atheists are tempted to view science as having weak alternatives, or no alternatives. So it is appropriate to discuss whaf
science can and cannot do. For this we need to know from
where science starts, and how it works. Hopefully we can
become more discriminating in judging when a believer is
risking scientific contradiction. Fortunately, science deals with
most aspects of human experience, and science has influence
with our judicial system. Thus science limits the physical,
practical, and legal scope of theology.
This paper discusses scientific values, assumptions, methods, guidelines, and phenomena. Examples of scientific values
and assumptions are given from daily life, plus their opposites.
A discussion of the limits of science and the personality of
scientists follows.
* * * * *
"Fortunately, science deals with most aspects of human experience, and science has influence
with our judicial system. Thus science limits the physical, practical, and legal scope of theology."
Consistency concentrates on eliminating conflicts in ideas when
they are approached from different starting points. An everyday
Values are usually associated with culture and ethics and people.
example involves the change received when a purchase is paid for.
Science is usually thought to be value neutral, a system for The cashier can count upward from the cost to the amount of money
discovering facts. However, there are values which are implicit in the
received. Or he/she can subtract and then hand out the result.
scientific way of looking at the world. Ifyou share these values but talk
Consistency requires that you receive the same amount of change in
to someone who does not, you may become aware that continued
both cases. In science, consistency requires that determinations of
discussion willlead to disagreement. Values influence us profoundly,
how much there is of something, via different methods, achieve
and it is not always possible to show that one set of values is better
compatible results. In social ethics, it requires that a man not expect
than another. "Better" is itself a value judgment.
one form of behavior in his sister, and another form of behavior in
The scientific values are objectivity, uniformity, consistency, ideas,
women outside his family.
and some others which more people appreciate.
In contrast to this value, the writer Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:
Objectivity concentrates on what is true for allobservers. It ignores
"A foolish consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, adored by little
cultural background, personal bias, vested interest, or inhibition.
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great
Objectivity prefers to concentrate on what can be known without
soul has simply nothing to do." Emerson did not say what was
regard to the characteristics of the observer. In fact, a machine is "foolish." He did not include scientists. He did consider a "great soul."
preferable to a human ifthe information can be obtained by it. A video
His view is popular among people who wish to assert more than one
camera can be more reliable than a human witness to a crime.
opinion and ignore potential for conflict resulting from their opinions.
Lawyers, upon becoming judges, disqualify themselves from hearing . Such people are more interested in the present than in analyzing the
cases they have participated in. There are rules requiring that public future.
officials not have conflict-of-interest. Contests are held in athletics to
Another scientific value is ideas. Emphasis on ideas stresses
provide an objective answer to who is better. Consumer Reports
principles and concepts which can be communicated via the written
exists because of public desire for objective ratings of products.
word. Ideas should be compelling via the cogency of their logic and
Subjectivity is the opposite. Subjectivity places great value on the
care taken in the research which produced them. They should be true
individual reaction of the human observer. People choose music,
regardless of where they are discussed and be understandable by, at a
clothes, food, and home furnishings on the basis of how they feel minimum, the peers of the writer. Scientific ideas have value when
they contain instructions describing how to resolve difficulties or
about them. Friends, lovers, and religion are not so passive, but are
when they explain how something works. Asking perceptive quesselected by the same criterion. Conversations are evaluated for their
content of approval or rejection. There is minimal interest in tions is also a good idea.
understanding different points of view. Speculation on the merits of
Opposite ideas we have emotions. These change with time and are
different values is perceived as a threat requiring avoidance or
more effectively communicated by face to face encounters between
counter-attack. For subjective people feelings, never the situation
people. Emotions motivate people to do things, but do not provide
independent of the way it makes them feel, have the highest value.
detailed instructions necessary to accomplish many tasks. Emotions
VALUES
Page 14
November, 1983
,
\
are enjoyed by all people, but not all people enjoy ideas. There are
parallels between the two. Both can be destructive or beneficial. An
idea can be changed by another idea, and an emotion by another
emotion. But getting an idea to change an emotion is difficult.
Emotions change ideas in most people with ease. But emotions have
no effect on the ideas produced by scientific research.
Other scientific values are intuition, imagination, creativity. Some
people may think that scientific advance proceeds via a plodding
sequence of logical steps. The gathering of data may be plodding; but
the analysis of data, the insight into, its meaning, can make great
strides because of the intuition of the researcher. He creates the idea
of what to look for. His imagination guides his initial plans. If he is very
experienced, he may have a scientific intuition which saves a lot of
time over trial and error methods.
Top scientists are very creative. They constantly think of new
things to investigate and new ways to do it. Lesser lights spend most
of their time following up on the bright people's proposals. Creativity,
intuition, and imagination are valued as much in science as they are in
the arts. And we may add hard work. Even brilliant ideas require work
to verify them, and work to get them into widespread usage. Less
brilliant ideas may require even more work to make them convincing.
Nature reserves her secrets for talented hard workers.
A final value we may mention is respect for precision in verbal and
numerical concepts. Scientists choose their words carefully. Scientists look at numbers, to what the numbers are applied, and they
know whether the numbers are plausible. Exaggeration, superfluous
words, mathematical mistakes, typographical errors - all are
shunned. Perhaps the Internal Revenue Service has a scientific
attitude toward your Form 1040. The bank does the same when you
apply for a loan and describe your ability to pay.
So science has values. And many people stay with their opposites.
Few people evaluate themselves or their loved ones in an objective
manner. The majority does not apply uniform standards to their
friends and strangers. They do not worry about having consistent
ideas. They prefer going by feelings about situations over working
with ideas. On the other hand, some people value objectivity,
uniformity, consistency, and ideas as a part of their daily life.They are
often occupied with trying to figure things out. They gain pleasure by
using their minds to solve problems. They dislike exaggeration.
Is it possible to rate the scientific values versus their opposites?
Suppose we say that scientific values have given us technological
progress and raised the living standard of billions of people. The
opposite view is that technological progress has given us the ability to
destroy the human race. People dying of nuclear war would probably
think they would be better off ifscientific values had not been utilized.
But this makes as much sense as refusing to have fire in a house for
heat and cooking because the house could catch fire. Using scientific
values does not guarantee world destruction. Failing to use scientific
values does guarantee mortality rates like those preceding the
Renaissance, and a lesser quality of life for the living.
Regarding the particular scientific values, a lack of objectivity leads
people into bad marriages. A lack of uniformity makes a bad manager
of people. A lack of consistency confuses children. A lack of ideas
leads to boredom. A lack of intuition, imagination, and creativity
provides a life of "monkey see, monkey do." A lack of precision
wastes time and money. Which of these do you have too much of?
ASSUMPTIONS
In addition to values there are assumptions in science. To those
who have spent years making them, it is difficult to relate to people
who do not make these assumptions. It is helpful to identify them so
that dialogues do not proceed from different starting points.
Science has some common sense assumptions. These include:
there is a real world, other people exist, and objects exist whether or
not they are observed. Some people may doubt these, but few of
them are movers and shapers of life.
The major scientific assumptions are: effects result from causes,
principles are constant, analogies are meaningful, and criticism is
welcome.
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 15
METHOD
November, 1983
PHENOMENA
Observers of scientific work willnotice some characteristics which
are always present. Two are part of the method: abstraction and
observation. A third is very convincing. It is the ability to predict. A
fourth is the tool which is absolutely essential to life as we know it:
mathematics. Two more are results: cumulative knowledge and
demythologizing. The last is idea fertility.
First, scientists try to simplify their investigation, they try to
abstract the essential parts of the problem they are studying. Real life
is very complex; it has many changeable aspects. So the scientist tries
to immobilize as many changes as possible and allow variation only in
what he wants to investigate. One benefit of this isthat it makes the
principles considered context-independent, Different contexts have
many different variations, but ifall but a few variations are fixed, then
those remaining can be studied without reference to all the particular
circumstances. Some people may object that abstraction is avoiding
reality. Actually, abstraction makes reality comprehensible and
manageable. By studying many of the parts of a complex situation,
piece by piece, we can later put the results together and have a
chance of understanding the complex whole.
Another habit of scientists is their continual reference to observetion. They take measurements of things in the observable world, do a
lot of hard work, get results, go back to the world to recheck their
data, or check a prediction about the world implied by their work.
Whenever there is a conflict between the measured world and a
scientific explanation, the latter is the loser. New measurements may
invalidate an old understanding, but that is fine. It gives the scientists a
chance to improve on their predecessors. This use of experiment and
observation is what sets science apart. Science must constantly
measure up to the measurable world. This constant goading has
trained and produced a real competitor (science) for other ways for
thinking.
Mention was made of prediction. This is a really important test of
any system for understanding what is happening: the ability to predict
what will happen. Some astrologers make predictions, but different
astrologers are inconsistent. They make several predictions, but only
one, or none of them, comes true. They may try to smooth this over
with vagueness. NASA scientists are not vague. They announce
when the Shuttle will touch down, with an error of a minute or so.
Architectural engineers decide how much power willbe necessary to
heat a building, and they are proven right after construction. With
supercomputers, meteorologists make better weather forecasts than
were possible before the computer age. This proves that their
understanding of the atmosphere is good.
Mathematics is often seen in the work of physical scientists. It also
shows up in the work of biologists, sociologists, psychologists, and
economists. It is often a barrier to laymen interested in these subjects.
Why is mathematics so popular? First, it is a way of saving time. It is
quicker to write D = ST than to write distance equals speed multiplied
by time. Second, mathematics describes relationships between
things which are not addition or subtraction or multiplication or
division. Words describing these relationships are very cumbersome
and not always specific enough. One example is how bright a light
looks through a fog, if the distance of the light is changed. Multiple
Austin, Texas
SCIENTISM
Scientism is the belief that science can provide the answer to
almost any question and willprovide a "better" answer than any other
system of thought. Also, if science cannot provide an answer, the
question is not worth answering. Scientists are often accused of
practicing scientism. Detractors argue that there are areas of thought
where science is irrelevant. They assert that science never "intended"
to deal with some subjects. These are frequently religious subjects.
This assessment should be considered carefully, in view of the
power already demonstrated by science. Science takes things apart
and measures them and discovers new things to investigate. So
science works with simplifications of measurable things. It is clear that
science can provide indisputable help in matters of food, water,
shelter, and safety. But what about complex unmeasurable experiences that concern people? Psychology provides help with human
emotions. Psychology is steadily improving its explaining power with
regard to people. So what facet of human experience is not covered
by science? It is religion. Religion is like a cat, roaming thither and yon,
safe from that vicious dog, science, which is chained to the
measurable world.
Scientists cannot measure religion. They can only observe people
who claim to be religious. Alternatively they can observe people that a
November, 1983
Page 17
SCIENTISTS
Now that we have some understanding of science, it is relevant to
consider the nature of the few people who are able to make a living
doing science. Their views of themselves and the views of the lay
public of them are not the same. Scientists are far more diverse than
the narrow confines of their disciplines would suggest. Their professionallife is no guarantee of what their personal lives are like.
Much of the difference in views of scientists is due to their work
environment. A researcher may consider him/herself sociable,
approachable, and informative. He thinks this way in terms of his
Page 18
November, 1983
RECOMMENDED READING
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew Dickson White, currently printed by Peter Smith
Publishers in Magnolia, Massachusetts. This is a classic by the first
president of Cornell University. It documents the opposition of
organized religion to the promotion of human happiness prior to
1895. It makes unmistakably clear the fact that our standard of living
today is owed to the victory of science over theology. ~
Jack Catron
PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
Nonsense, Dr-ivel, Babble, and Slobber
To become a perfect person, it is currently the fashion to get in
touch with your feelings. It is also imperative that you scream,
encounter, est, meditate, follow your stars, lay back, let it allhang out,
and desensitize yourself. And on top of it all, you had better keep up
with the endless flow of how-to books that talk down to us like we
were a pack of derelicts.
Two current best sellers topping all the lists are: Marriage - A
Solution to the Divorce Problem by Lassativo Purgante, M.D., the
Howard Cosell of the couch set, who should have hung it up long ago
and preserved what's left of his memory. The other one is something
called All of a Sudden - The Handbook of Social Spontaneity by
Milton Drinnen, Ph.D., an over-the-hill psychotherapist whose first
loyalty was always to his pocketbook.
It is a disservice to hand people who are trapped in a web of
inappropriate behavior a nonsensical load of "shoulds" to help them
to emotional health and happiness. Behavioral problems are not
symptomatic of anything, but are learned responses to specific,
sometimes generalized, stimuli. There are other factors that play
important roles, such as personality, life crises, and genetic endowment, but for the most part, what was once learned can be unlearned.
Our behavior obeys laws, like all else in the universe, and the only way
to change it is to change our controlling environment. To believe
otherwise is to believe in magic.
One of the more celebrated books around these days, which I have
had the misfortune to read, is entitled Ventilating Your Way to
Mental Health by Myron Grepser, Ph.D., an obtuse treatise based on
a flimsy premise.
"We are simply changed by experience, and the only way to change lis again is by new
experience. "
Dr. Grepser informs us, in language easily understood by any
non-professional, that most Americans are suffering from "a manicdepressive psychosis caused by a pseudopsychoanalytical tangential
mania, mainly of the endogenous type, in contrast to the exogenous,
which cannot be mediated, either in its anatomical integrity or in its
pathological alterations. This view is the one generally prevalent."
Confusing? Wouldn't it be wonderful to kick Dr. Motormouth right
square in his behind, Charlie Chaplin style? In the 16th century,
Erasmus called lawyers "a learned class of ignorant men;" the
reaction of the non-scientific public to the mystique of psychological
jargon is similar to its awe of legal language. Such a reaction is based
on the primitive assumption that naming reifies the named, that
words convert hypothetical abstractions into concrete realities.
Years ago scientists assumed that all life was the result of
spontaneous generation. Paul Muni, or Louis Pasteur, whomever you
prefer, demonstrated that the chemical fermentation of buttermilk
was caused by minute organisms present in the atmosphere and not
spontaneously generated in the liquid.
Today the spontaneous generation theory is considered absurd as
it should be, yet the idea of the spontaneous generation of behavior is
still widely held. The use of such terms as "self-motivation," "looking
out for Number 1," and "taking charge of your life" presumes that we
are autonomous and spontaneously-driven, steered through life by a
little man peeping out of our eyeballs who frantically operates our
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 19
JONESTOWN
REMEMBERED
1978-1983
A QUICK REVIEW
here is possibly no better expose of
the methodology of allchurches than
that given by a member (Deanna
Mertle, alias Jeannie Mills) of Jim Jones'
church in her book Six Years with God.
"We were writing letters opposing G.
Harrold Carswell's nomination to the Supreme Court. Jim said that Carswell shouldn't have the post, so he set a goal of 50,000
letters for our church members to write and
mail. The entire church membership was
being asked to write twenty letters a day for
this endeavor. Everyone was instructed to
use Christian (which meant false) names on
their letters. The instruction sheet given to
every member said, 'You can write several
letters to each legislator alternating your
handwriting with printing, typewriting, writing backhand, using different stationery,
etc. This way every politician willthink he is
hearing from hundreds or even thousands
of people.'
"I put the stamps on my fifty letters and
left them unsealed so they could be check-
Page 20
Dan McAleavy
JONESTOWN
REMEMBERED
19781983
INSANITY AS A SACRAMENT
Edited and reprinted from the January, 1979 issue of American Atheist magazine
Page 21
Stephen Roane
ISLAM
November, 1983
is that modern man with modern thought has left that sort of thing far
behind. We no longer burn people at the stake, at least not for
religious reasons. Even the "catholics" and "protestants" of northern
Ireland are not killingeach other on theological grounds. They are not
really concerned with the infallibilityof the pope, or the virginity of the
virgin Mary, but with real economic and political questions. The old
writings would be of historical interest only, except for the attitude of
all the fundamentalists - muslims, christians and jews - who
seriously propose to govern in accordance with their tenets. It is in
that light that they must be studied.
The Koran only sets forth general principles. The nuts and bolts of
islamic law are set forth in a document known as the Shariah which is
a compendium of opinions and interpretations of muslim scholars and
religious committees over the centuries. It bears about the same
relationship to the Koran as the Talmud does to the Torah in judaism,
or the church council decisions to the gospels in christianity. Finding
the Shariah translated into English is no easy task. It is not on the
best -seller list. I started off by looking under "islam" in the Manhattan
telephone directory. Sure enough, I found an islamic society listed on
Riverside Drive. The local imam of the society was very helpful and
was able to rattle off several English versions of the Shariah, or digests
of it. One of them, A Digest of Moohumudan Law by Neil Baillie,
MRAS published in Lahore, I was able to procure, and is the basis for
my understanding of islamic law. Paradoxically, I owe this to the
British raj.1t appears that like all successful empires, the British had a
policy of leaving the customs of their colonials alone as long as they
accepted British overlordship. Ifyou paid your taxes and honored the
queen, you could do your praying, marrying and dying as you had
always done. But this presented a problem for British judges assigned
to muslim areas of India. They had to enforce islamic law between
muslims, but they had no guidelines for this. The work by Baillie was
meant to provide this and indeed became the guide book on islamic
law for the British in India.
The first question to be considered is the islamic attitude toward
non-rnuslirns. It is not particularly tolerant. (Islam was a militant,
evangelistic religion.) The Koran in Sura #9 instructs believers to "slay
the idolators wherever you find them, and take them, and confine
them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush." In the same
Sura it is instructed to "fight such men as practice not the religion of
truth, until they pay the tribute, and have been humbled." The
Shariah codifies this. It divides the world into two spheres, the "Oar ul
Islam," or sphere of islam, and the "Oar ul Hurb," or sphere of enmity.
Residents of the "Oar ul Hurb" are known as "Hurbies," or enemies. If
apprehended within the "Oar ul Islam" they are to be slain or
enslaved. Only if they have what is considered legitimate business in
the "Oar ul Islam" are they given permission to come, and are granted
a "mustamin," or protection, during their stay by the authorities. The
mustamin is supposed to last only as long as it takes the infidel to
conclude his business but as a general rule should not last longer than
1 year. The mustamin may be withdrawn at any time. If it is so
withdrawn, the subject must leave promptly or suffer the fate of a
Hurbie.
Non-muslim residents of the "Oar ul Islam" are considered to fall
into two groups. "People of the book" (i.e. christians, jews, and - in
Iran - zoroastrians) are considered to hold beliefs precursive of
islam (Jesus and Abraham are both considered as prophets by the
Koran, inferior only to Mohammed.) All others are not recognized as
religions at all, but as idolators with no rights in an islamic state.
Members of the first group can, by the payment of a special head tax,
as token of their submission to islam, be considered as "zimmies"
The American Atheist
November,
1983
Page 2:3
John Burton
Begin has joined the Pentagon and the Jerry Falwell evangelists in
promoting this hard-line theme with with the American public. He has
seen the political gains to Israel if he can sell Americans on the belief
that Israel is our mainstay in preventing the U.S.S.R. from taking over
in the Mideast and disrupting this source of petroleum. Of course, this
is contrary to the fact that the U.S.S.R. once showed an even-handed
attitude in the Mideast as when it voted in the U.N. for the
establishment of the state of Israel. But the historical record is ignored
by Begin when he astutely perceives the gains he will make in U.S.
arms and money if he can help to keep up the tensions between the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
3. The Destructive Effect on the U.N. Role in Keeping the
Peace
Israel's supporters have made much of the violent rhetoric in the
U.N. General Assembly against zionism and Israel. But peace
November, 1983
a J.. Uarr
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 25
Conrad Goeringer
WHAT IS TO BE DONE
Let's pretend for a moment. We have (sornehowl) come up with the
absolutely perfect theoretical statement of Atheist ideas. Whatever
happens, there will never be a serious theoretical disagreement
among Atheists again. If you think this would result in a straightforward march to the revolution, better think again.
Now and always, the question remains: what is to be done? The
phrase is famous as an old revolutionary, but the question probably
originated amongst a group of cave-folk tired of the priest hogging the
best part of the kill.
If you've spent much time in political groups, you have a pretty
good idea of how projects are picked. One or two people become
enthusiastic over some possible activity, push hard for the idea over
several meetings, and get at least a lukewarm consensus to go ahead.
There's really no objective standard against which to measure the
potential of a proposed project; instead it's a kind of contest between
enthusiasm and apathy.
My point is that this cycle is not inevitable and call be broken; in
fact, it has been broken in the past many times - most recently in the
1960's. It is something we can learn how to do consistently and
effectively. It is something we had better learn how to do or we are all
simply screwing around!
Objective Conditions
People always bring this up after a project fails, seldom before a
project begins. While enthusiasm runs high, people involved in a
project have this image in their minds of a little snowball becoming an
avalanche. Afterwards, they are reminded that most snowballs just
melt.
When we discuss a potential project, we should be as clear about
the meaning of failure as the meaning of success. We should define as
clearly as we can just what success and failure mean in the context of
this project. Someday someone's project may turn out to be the
beginning of the insurrection; but it's unlikely that such a project is the
one we are discussing today.
Objective conditions are never uniformly favorable. At the present
time (in North America) circumstances are probably slightly more
unfavorable than favorable. This means, as it usually does, that there
are some things we can accomplish without any sustained effort to
speak of, some things we can accomplish with a great deal of hard
work, and.some things we cannot accomplish at all ... no matter what
we do.
November, 1983
Strategy
Strategy means what we expect to be the long-range impact of a
project. Whatever we decide to do, we want to pick something that
willhave the maximum impact. This can be measured in a number of
objective and subjective ways. One very easy way is to simply count:
how many people will this project organize? How many people will
hear about this project and (potentially) be affected by it?
Or one can ask what willbe the effects ifthis project succeeds? Will
some urgently needed reform be achieved? Will people in general
perceive the nature of religious society more clearly? If this project
succeeds, what is the next step?
It is rare enough for people to ask themselves such questions
before a project begins. But even rarer is the question: what is the
educational content of this project? What are we showing people by
our practice (as opposed to the rhetoric that we use)?
Some crude examples: (a) if we tell people that religion is just
another form of tyranny (rhetoric) and participate in a coalition with
religion around some issue (practice), most people willconclude that
religionists are just another kind of group as worthy of support as we
are; (b) ifwe tell people that preaching is phoney (rhetoric) and work
to endorse some particularly "good" preacher (practice), people will
conclude that we should avoid preachers except when they're
serious; (c) if we tell people, "Atheists of the world, unite!" (rhetoric)
and deliberately make it difficult or impossible for new people to join
our group (practice), people will (correctly) conclude we are full of
crap!
Everything we do has an inherent educational content that is
entirely apart from the articulated rhetorical rationale that we use.
Obviously what we are striving for is an ever closer correspondence
between our ideas and the content of our practical activity.
Agitation
Almost every group willbegin its public activity with some form of
agitation-education. Almost everything else we do will inevitably
involve some form of agitation-education. Ifthere's anything we ought
to be good at, it's agitation-education. So why do we do it so poorly?
Look at how religion handles this problem. When they want to
advertise some piece of crap, how do they do it?
They pick out a particular market which they believe will want to
buy this crap. They carefully weigh the language they use to sell it.
They prepare attractive and carefully printed displays. They test
various versions of their ad on portions of the market that they want
to reach. They develop all kinds of ways to measure feed-back, from
polls to skin-tests. When they decide they have a winner, they don't
The American Atheist
Service
Service projects, as the name implies, provide a service to our
group or a portion of our group.
When Atheists set up these kinds of projects, they generally do so
without much explicit educational content. The inherent educational
content (that every project has) is, of course: when you have a
problem, go to an "expert" and do whatever he/she tells you to do ifhe/ she tells you there's nothing that can be done, then just accept it
as part of life.Religionists like this idea justfine, which is probably why
they don't bother to make it explicit.
But, for us, this is a real problem. We want people to draw some
explicit atheistic conclusions from our projects, not just rely on us as
"experts" who willsolve their problem and then everything goes on as
before.
The only solution I can suggest - and I admit it is far from
satisfactory - is that any service-type project we engage in willhave
to include a really heavy dose of Atheist education. You will be
attempting to overwhelm the implicit content of your project with
Atheist messages (in ordinary language, of course!). You willbe trying
to get people to perceive your project as an educational act, not just a
way to get a cheaper service.
This is hard enough to do when the service is being run by your
group. To do it in a coalition of Atheists and religionists strikes me as
being impossible - they willsimply accuse you of "using" the project
for your own Atheist ends (carefully passing over the fact that the
absence of overt educational content serves their tradition-bound
superstitious ends). You will end up unsuccessful and looking bad;
they'll end up running the show and looking good.
.
Some people might say both alternatives are bad: why can't we just
set up a service or whatever and then let all the people involved run it
any way they like? If we did that on a desert island inhabited only by
Atheists, that would work fine. In the real world most people would
accept the project as just another group of fairy-tale idealists while the
people who want to be fairy-tale idealists - like religionists - would
take it over without much difficulty at all. If that is going to be the
.outcome, why do it at all? It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that at
Austin, Texas
this point in history it might well be better for us not to do it at all. But if
you disagree and think that a service-type project would be right for
your group, then go into it with your eyes wide open and realize that
you are going to have to solve these problems or end up doing a lot of
spadework while some group of authoritarian religionists gets the
harvest!
Direct Action
At some point in our group's activities, you will want to stage a
demonstration, sit-in, or some other form of direct action. I use the
word "stage" deliberately, because that's what you are really doing
here (up to the point, of course, of an insurrection - which does not
concern us at the present time).
We should look at a proposed direct action like we would evaluate a
play or movie. Is is imaginative? Or is it just another boring rerun?
Does it make a point in language that people can identify with? Or is it
over people's heads? Is it dramatic and exciting? Or dull and tedious?
Is there lots of color, music, rousing speeches? Will people feel good
afterwards, ready to fight on?
I don't know too much about them, but look how the various
Japanese student groups handle their direct actions. They almost
choreograph them, like elaborate dances. They are performances in
their own right . . . along with being dramatic political actions of
surprising effectiveness. Compare this with the anti-war rituals in the
U.S. during the 1960s - plodding marches, dull speeches that lasted
endlessly, etc., etc.
Of course, we're not prepared to do anything remotely approaching the Japanese at this point. But we can see what we should
be aiming for. Getting rid of religions is not simply a matter of
programming computers with accurate data; we are talking about
human beings who need accurate information presented clearly and
rationally - but who need to be entertained, excited, thrilled ... and
inspired. The idea of liberation of the mind is perhaps the most
exciting and inspirational idea in existence -let's don't send people
away yawning at it.
Some specifics: The one-shot demonstration suffers the same
disadvantage as the one-shot leaflet. No matter how good it is, people
willsoon forget about it. When we decide on some project involving
direct action, we should plan for a series of actions at short intervals.
Non-violence is good theater - provided you are prepared to let
someone kick the daylights out of you. During the civil rights
movement in the American South, a lot of people were impressed by
the sight of peaceful black people being attacked by violent racists.
On the other hand, militant resistance can also be good theater - but
only ifyou win, or at least avoid having to flee in disarray. You should
decide, of course, how you plan to handle this before your action, not
while it's going on.
Any direct action can lead to arrests - don't assume that you
won't get busted because you don't plan to break the law. Have your
bail money ready and your lawyer set to go into court. And, by the
way, most "movement lawyers" are incompetent assholes - try to
get one that can hit the floor with his hat. Be prepared to argue your
own case - your attorney may not show up or show up unprepared.
(This paragraph is based on painful personal experience.)
Be prepared to handle the press and TV. A formal spokesperson is
not necessary, but you should have your most articulate members
ready to rap ifneeded. Make sure some egotistical "liberal" religionist
doesn't step up in front and hog the camera - it's happened, so be
prepared to deal with the possibility. You're not putting on a show so
that some authoritarian weasel can take the bows!
Likewise, be prepared to handle goons, be they from your target or
from various religionist groups. Not long ago during a demonstration
in the Southwest, two people carrying a black flag were attacked and
beaten by a number of religious goons - while "libertarians" looked
on. This was a disgrace and should never be allowed to happen.
Demonstrations and other forms of direct action that involve
coalitions are, as you might imagine, especially difficult. You want to
make sure your ideas get across, but you don't want to look like a
sectarian asshole.
The worst problems of this sort can be avoided by simply avoiding'
November, 1983
Page 27
Issues
It's something of a cliche to remind ourselves that most "issues"
that people are taught to consider "important" are non-issues that
involve absurd or non-existent alternatives. Religious politicians with
help from authoritarian groups spend a lot of time trying to drum up
controversy over non-issues in the obvious hope that no one will
notice what's really going on. Whether or not a few middle class black
students are admitted to white medical schools has no relevance to
the conditions of blacks generally. Whether or not a few women rise
to top management positions has no relevance to the conditions of
women generally. Whether or not people are "free to worship a god"
has no relevance to religion's oppression of everyone when the reality
is plain that to "worship a god" means to "be a god's slave". We do not
even have to take positions on such "issues," much less become
active around them.
Thus the first point: pick an issue with real alternatives, not just any
horse manure on the front page of the daily paper.
.
It is not to be unexpected in our society that most real issues will
either be economic or willhave a strong economic component. Most
Atheists see this and make the immediate mistake of concluding that
our job is to help our group get a bigger slice of the pie. We, of course,
should know better. Our job is to convince Atheists to take over the
culture, not just a little piece.
For example, we can look at trade union struggles. Most leftists
would measure victory by the size of the pay raise. A few would
consider increased time off. They should look for more power in the
hands of the workers on the shop floor, more control of working
conditions, more control of what is produced, more control over
hiring and firing. They want to see them become more sure of
themselves, more self-reliant. It would probably be difficult to get this
idea across, but they shouldn't be discouraged. It's better to take
Page 28
small steps toward their goal than giant steps toward ... well, toward
being a better-paid wage slave, as with trade union goals now.
This point can be extended to other kinds of issues. Lots of people
think that the way to solve problems is to get the government to give
you money. In the U.S., about SO of every welfare dollar goes to
support a bureaucrat. This doesn't bother our religionists all that
much - perhaps because that's how a lot of them "earn" their living.
While it may not make us very popular at the moment, I think we
ought to tell people they should support themselves and tell the
government to screw off. And if that's a little too strong to swallow,
let's at least tell people what they're getting into when the "aid" comes
from the state.
A particularly difficult issue involves the legal defense of our own.
This issue has a stronger appeal to us than virtually any other. We
almost always yield to the impulse to throw ourselves into an all-out
effort to rescue our own from the hands of the religionists. Still, even
on something as close to us as this, we should be able to suspend our
emotions and look at it just as we would look at any other proposed
project. Can we realistically expect to organize a lot of people around
this campaign? Do we have the people and resources to implement
this campaign in a serious way? Can we get our ideas across in this
campaign? Can we keep poeple from drawing easy (and wrong)
conclusions about the nature of legal procedure? I don't really expect
any of this to stop people from going to the assistance of legally
battered Atheists, but let's try to know what we're doing. If you will,
we owe ourselves the best job we can do.
Chapters vary in numbers and abilities. If you can handle it, you
should try to be a multi-issue chapter - having several on-going
projects. Single-issue chapters tend to bog down, even when the
single project is relatively successful. A chapter of 10 or fewer may
only be able to do a good job on one project; larger chapters should be
able to do more. If you do have a small collective, you can avoid
bogging down by setting a time limit on your present project, so that
all your members will understand that at the end of a year or two
you're going to do something else. I say a year or two because that's
often a good period of time to really test a project. In that period of
time, if you recruit a substantial number of new members (the best
sign of a successful project), you may be able to keep that project
going on with your new members while your old members go on to
something new.
November, 1983
is to make sure that we allow that contribution to be made ... and not
let people be intimidated into inactivity by stupid and arbitrary
hierarchies.
The second danger is an obvious product of religious ideas: people
who define leadership in terms of giving orders and who then seek to
"specialize" in this form of "human" activity. Should such an ordergiving"specialist" arise in your group, a kick in the ass is probably the
best response. It is important that you don't let matters slide, thinking
that the "leadership specialist" will get better by himself. Elitism
belongs to all Atheists and has to be struggled with and defeated; in
this society, it is like a contagious and fatal disease demanding the
strongest measures your group is capable of (if ever a matter
deserves a ten-hour meeting, this is it!). If you can convince the
person involved to abandon "leadership specialization", well and
good. Ifyou can't, you should boot that person out of your group. Half
measures won't do.
Evaluation
In one respect the end of a particular project is its most important
point. That's when you decide what you learned from it. Unfortunately, you are the only one who is going to learn anything, given our
present practice. In other words, write it down! Put everything in that
you can, including personal factors. You may have several versions,
written by various people in your group. Alltogether, this information
is more valuable to other Atheist revolutionaries than all the
theoretical works ever written put together. It is priceless!
As I have remarked elsewhere, we all enjoy ipoking fun at the
blunders of religionists. But one thing that's not funny is how serious
Conclusion
This paper was written for a conference. Far from being "the last
word", it is an invitation to all of you to try to formulate practical
conclusions from your activities. Hopefully, it is a challenge to all of us
to take our practical Atheist activity seriously, to try and think
through as clearly as we can what we want to do and why we want to
do it.
What I attempted to do in this paper was abstract some general
conclusions from my own 15 or so years of activity . To other Atheists
who've "been around" for a while, I would like to extend an invitation
to do the same. Revolutionaries in the U.S. (and perhaps Canada as
well, I don't know) have a miserable history of making the same
mistakes over and over again. If we can help in a small way to break
out of some lousy ruts, well, that would be a pretty fair accomplishment. ~
DOOMSDAY PROPHETS
Repent ye! For the day of judgment is at hand! - and with this
profound statement everyone is supposed to immediately get his/her
act together and prepare for the indignities of "divine" evaluation.
Actually, this rather corny idea would have merit - except for one
little drawback: who willdo the" divine" evaluating! There is only one
person that can possibly know every facet of a particular human life.
That person would be the individual himself/herself. No other being
can accurately assess the desires, the capabilities, or the intentions of
another as effectively as can the person in question. Here again,
though, we are confronted with yet another problem - honesty! Can
anyone - coldly and deliberately - totally without bias - analyze
oneself? Probably not! Even ifone were to legitimately attempt such a
"judgment" it is doubtful that the findings would be 100% correct.
There are too many variables involved and too many unknowns. We
can only "generalize" in some areas of assessment. Whether a
particular act or thought was "beneficial" to oneself and/or society is
not always a clear and simple issue. We all know that harm can come
out of the best of intentions. And, who can say, positively, that the
opposite may not be true in some instances.
So you see - the whole idea of repenting is "out the window"
because we don't know whether repenting itself is truly in order. Why,
then, has this concept so dominated the religious history of mankind?
Why the continual dilemma of needing to be "forgiven" - and forgiven by whom?
I have noted for many years now that even non-religious people, at
some point in life, seem to acquire certain "guilt" feelings. I'm not
talking about feelings derived from deliberate anti-social activities.
Obviously, anyone should be a little disturbed ifhe/she had murdered
someone! I'm talking about the grey areas of human activity. For
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 29
November, 1983
WANTED: AN ETHIC
OF RESPONSIBILITY
These are some of the more extreme cases where divine sanction
supports social repression of the worst kind. Clearly there has to be
something badly flawed in the argument that morality derived from
ancient scripture is the divine will of some supreme being if all it
provides is a pious excuse to slaughter those who differ from us. How
can any value-system be described as worthwhile and moral which
inspires its adherents to go into temple, church, mosque and
gurudwara, to fall on one's knees in prayer, and then come out into
the streets and fall on the necks of others with swords and spears?
"But take religion away and there can be no morality," our theists
argue. "All ethical obligation is derived from the scriptures and we
cannot be moral unless we are religious."
And yet our religious ideologies have an equally black record in
their denial of justice, in genocide, torture and tyranny. These are the
most disturbing aspects of the resurgence of obscurantism and
fundamentalism in islam, christianity and hinduism in this country.
Here bigotry urges followers of the faith that the revival'of obsolete
systems of morality willnot only help us retrieve our lost innocence,
but they will help preserve the communal identity of each group
against the other. So our much vaunted Indian tolerance operates on
a 'very short fuse. The smallest unsubstantiated rumor, like the
discovery of what looks like a cow's tail thrown into a hindu temple, or
what appears to be a piece of abhorrent pork found in a muslim
mosque, sparks off an orgy of looting and killing. No remorse is felt
afterwards. Nobody searches their conscience.
November, 1983
Page 31
November, 1983
ON TOLERANCE
AND ILLOGICALITY
A staple tenet of why American democracy works is that it expects,
and gets, tolerance for the differences of others. Full acceptance of
the other person is not necessary, only the recognition that everyone
has the right to be left alone and that no one need suffer for being
different.
Yet this ban against force in the creed of tolerance is most sorely
tested when what has to be tolerated is irrational. And it can well nigh
disappear when what has to be tolerated is not only irrational but
claims the affection of someone one cares about. The cachet of
noble-rnindedness that high-spirited tolerance carries is not so easily
maintained, and the rightness of the principle itself is not so readily
defended, when one's guts are involved, beyond the assent of reason.
My sister-in-law recently moved from a rather secure if not wellpaying job and the closeness of her family to Boston where she will
soon go on staff at the church of scientology. Her officialposition will
be Technical Secretary, or "Tech. Sec." in the assonant jargon of
abbreviation favored by the church; she will be in charge of
"auditing," the church's secular version of confession and psychoanalysis.
It would be an understatement to say that her move has caused
hard feelings, especially with her mother, who sees the move as a
move of desperation and unfinished adolescent rebellion. (My sisterin-law is thirty and a recent divorcee.) My mother-in-law, normally a
rather dowdy Republican in her thoughts, has found not one iota of
tolerance in her heart, not even to the point of saying simply that it is
her daughter's right to mangle her life if she so chooses. The case
strikes too closely to the heart and she will have nothing to do with
high-mindedness. Ifthe church were to disappear tomorrow because
of government harassment, IRS audits, vilification in the press, and
vigilante action, she would have no democratic guilt that civil rights
had been traduced. And many would not think her wrong and would
not think the church's demise a lessening of the pluralism of American
society.
Anyone who knows anything about the church's history, or the
biography of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard ("Ron" to the devotees),
will certainly conclude, even after rounding up the usual humble
demurrals that we mortal human beings don't know one-tenth of one
percent about anything, that the church is the worst science fiction
garbed in the mythology of religion. It claims scientifically to be able to
pinpoint the malaise of the spirit and improve it through scientific
technques. And if anyone has bothered to read about any of the
church's activities - its near subversion of the town of Clearwater,
Florida, its civil suits against writers who dare to publish against the
church, its covert spy activity within the government - will clearly
see that the church has no intention of giving to the rest of the society
in which it lives the same uncontested tolerance accorded it through
the Constitution. It is, by any analysis except that of confirmed
believers, a snake-oil show, a pseudoscientific enterprise buttressing
outrageous religious claims, an organization whose sole purpose
seems to be garnering peoples' money and exercising an abortive
control over their lives both in and out of the church. (Much of the
information collected in the auditing sessions is often used to gag
potential challenges by disaffected members.)
My sister-in-law's response to something like the preceding paragraph is to assert her right to ignorance: How do I know that the news
stories and interviews and other information were not trumped up,
Austin, Texas
are not out-and-out lies to discredit the work of a great man? This is
part of the siege mentality that makes being a member of the church
mean not being a member of the usual community of thinkers. A
person who is fully involved in the church's activities cannot, by
definition, give in to the radical doubt that is the basis for all learning.
They must act from first principles, that certain things are right
without question, and from these principles deduce hermeticallysealed conclusions, conclusions whose internal integrity provides no
ingress for verification from the outside world. They create the world
in their own image and then let the mind atrophy, keeping it nourished
solely on the collected fat of an ersatz theism.
But here's the rub. In a democracy we are supposed to let this sort
of thing go on. If the IRS were harassing the organization with no
apparent motive than to do so because it is the church of scientology,
we would have to ask it to desist if we are as good democrats as we
think we are. We must accord it the right to say what it wants, to
whom it wants, when it wants to, just as we claim the right for
ourselves. Yet it is an apparently shyster organization, and our denial
of interference means that some people willruin their lives and bank
accounts. Do we owe these people some measure of protection, even
ifit means divesting them of some of their rights? Or do we let the free
market of tolerance operate regardless of the results? My mother-inlaw would disagree with the latter point when it concerns her
daughter, agree with it when it relates to people in the abstract. Her
nobility is provisional, and understandably so.
November, 1983
Page 33
_THE
<-
November, 1983
York, and Chicago, and that a southern city isn't found until the
sixteenth position. The Arbitron figures tell quite a different story.
Only Los Angeles and Philadelphia appear in the top five, and a total
of eight southern cities are found before getting to the sixteenth spot.
On an Arbitron chart showing audience percentage by region, it is
revealed that most religious programs draw a disproportionate
percentage of their audiences, in some cases over 50%, from the
South. The televangelists attract a fair amount of viewers in the
Midwest, but have only very sparse followings in the Eastern and
Western regions. Overall, the Arbitron ratings show that those who
view the electronic church are, like those who attend regular church
services, a minority - not an insignificant one, to be sure, but it
certainly isn't a formidable one.
Hadden and Swann did a fine job in researching their project. A
certain amount of mainline religious bias shows through in spots,
especially when the topic of discussion involves fundamentalist
extremists. But that is to be expected. It does not diminish the quality
of the work in any way, nor does it detract from its interest to Atheist
readers. Every avenue of religious broadcasting is explored; its
history, its method of operation, its fund-raising techniques. There is
also an in-depth study of the moral majority, the christian right, and
"born again politics." Any Atheist wishing to be more informed on the
methods used by televangelists and their involvement in the American political scene would profit from reading Prime Time Preachers.
"SHOWBIX'
The American Atheist
November, 1983
Page 35
November,1983
A THEISM ABROAD
I~ N'EXISTE PA,S D'ESPRIT NI D'INTELLIGENCE SANS MATIERE VIVA~TE. AME, POUR EsPRIT, VIE
ETERNELLE, RESURRECTION, NE SONT QUE DES TENTATIVES CHIMERIQUES DE SE CONSOLER DES
PEINES DE LA VIE, QUAND CE NE SONT PAS DES FABLES DESTINEES A PERPETUER LES VIEILLES
DOMINATIONS.
RESPECTEUX DES SENTIMENTS D'AUTRUI, CAR L'ESPRIT HUMAIN EST FAIT DE RAISONMAIS
AUSSI
D'AFFECTIVITE, NOUS YOULONS QUE CHACUN DfFINISSE LES PRINCIPES QUI ,LUI PE~METTENT DE
VIVRE DIGNEMENT, DEGAGE DE TOUTE PEUR MET APHYSIQUE, DE TOUTE CREDULITE, SOU MISSION,
DE TOUT DOGMATISME ET FANATISME.
,
"
CET HUMANISME, BASE SUR LE RESPECT DE L'ETRE HUMAIN, ET ATHEE PUISQUE SANS DIEU, DOlT SE
SUBSTITUER AU PLUS TOT AUX RELIGIONS, A QUIE DES slEcLES D'HISTOIRE ONT DONNE L'HABITUDE
DE REGENTER LES LOIS ET LES MOEURS, DE DIRIGER LES CONSCIENCES ET DE CENSURER LA VIE
PUBLIQUE.
"
DES RELIGION ARROGANTE, SI AVIDES DE PUISSANCE ET DE PROFIT, SONT, AU FOND, DE MEME
NATURE QUE LES SECTES, LA PARAPSYCHOLOGIE, L'ASTROLOGIE, L'OCCULTISME ET AUTRES
SUPERSTITIONS
DEUX OU TROIS slEcLES DE METHOPE SCIENTIFIQUE, NOUS ONT APPRIS SUR LES PHENOMENES
NATURELS, TOUT CE QUE DES MILLENAIRES DE PRATIQUES MAGIQUES, DE RITES RELIGIEUX au
D'AFFIRMATIONS IRRA,.TIONELLES, NOUS INTERDISAIENT DE CQMPRENDRE. TOUTEFOIS, LA SCIENCE,
CONNAISSANCE ET MAITRISED~S FORCES NATURELLES, PEUT-ETRE UTILISEE SOIT AU PROFIT, SOIT
AU DETRIMENT DE L'HUMANITE. IL FAUT DONC Y AJOUTER UNE PRISE DE CONSCIENCE DU DROIT ET
DU DEVOIR DE CHACUN. OR IL EST POSSIBLE DE SE DONNER UNE ETHIQUE, SANS FAIRE REFERENCE
A LA NOTION DE DIVINITE.
LES ATHEES CONSTATENT QUE LES RELIGIONS SE SUCCEDENT, SE CONTREDISENT, ET QU'EN
DIVISANT LES HOMMES ET EN SACRALISANT LEURS CON FLITS, ELLES SONT TO UTES NEFASTES.
AU CONTRAIRE DES CROYANCES QUIE INFANTILIS,ENTET
ALIENENTL'HOMME,
L'ATHEISME EN FAIT
UN ETRE PLEINEMENT RESPONSABLE DE SA VIE, DE L'ORGANISA TION DE LA SOCuhE ET DE L'A VENIR
DE L'HUMANITE.
L'ATHEISME DOlT DONC ETRE RECONNU ET OBTENIR ACCES
A TOUS
A SE REGROUPER
EN ASSOCIATIONS
Those wishing to contact the Mouvement Humaniste Ath~e may do so by writing care of:
The American Atheist Center
P.O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
Austin, Texas
November, 1983
Page 37
A THEISM ABROAD
WHAT IS ATHEISM?
ATHEISM IS THE DENIAL OF ANY ASSERTION WITHOUT
PROOF. THAT IS WHY WE ADMIT NEITHER THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL, NOR OF ANY GOD, NOR OF GOD
WITH A CAPITAL LETTER.
THERE IS NO MIND OR INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT LIVING
SUBSTANCE. THE SOUL, THE PURE MIND, ETERNITY,
RESURRECTION, ARE JUST IDLE DREAMS TO COMFORT
ONESELF FROM THE HARDSHIPS IN LIFE, OR TALES
USED TO PERPETUATE OLD RULING CLASSES.
RESPECTFUL OF EVERYBODY'S FEELING - BECAUSE
THE HUMAN MIND IS NOT ONLY MADE UP OF REASON
BUT ALSO OF EMOTIONS - WE WANT EVERYONE TO
DEFINE THE PRINCIPLES WHICH ALLOW US TO LIVE
WITH DIGNITY, DELIVERED
FROM METAPHYSICAL
FEAR, CREDULITY, SUBMISSION, DOGMA, AND FANATICISM.
FOR CENTURIES OF HISTORY, RELIGIONS' HAVE BEEN
USED TO CONTROL LAWS AND MORALS, MANAGING
CONSCIENCES AND CENSORING PUBLIC LIFE.
THIS IS WHY HUMANISM WHICH IS ATHEIST, FOUNDED
SOLELY ON A RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN BEING, MUST
TAKE OVER FROM RELIGIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
TWO OR THREE HUNDRED YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC METHODSHAVENOWTAUGHTUSABOUTNATURALPHENOMENA, WHICH CENTURIES OF MAGICAL PRACTICES, RELIGIOUS RITES OR IRRATIONAL ASSERTIONS FORBADE US
TO UNDERSTAND.
HOWEVER, THE SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, AND MASTERY
OF NATURAL FORCES CAN BE USED EITHER TO THE
BENEFIT OR TO THE DETRIMENT OF HUMANITY, SO IT IS
NECESSARY TO ADD THAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF
EVERYONE'S RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO EACH OTHER.
WE SA Y IT IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE ONESELF ETHICS, WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE NOTION OF DIVINITY.
THE ATHEISTS OBSERVE THAT RELIGIONS REPLACE
EACH OTHER, CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, AND BY DIVIDING MEN AND CONSECRATING THEIR FIGHTS, THEY
ARE ALL BAD.
RELIGIOUS FAITHS ALIENATE MAN. ON THE CONTRARY,
ATHEISM MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS LIFE, FOR
THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY, AND FOR THE FUTURE
OF HUMANITY.
THIS IS WHY WE MUST AFFILIATE OURSELVES
SPECIFIC ATHEIST ORGANIZATIONS.
~
TO
DIAL-AN-A THEIST
DIAL-THE-ATHEIST
Tucson, Arizona
(512)458-5731
(602) 623-3861
Phoenix, Arizona
(602) 267-0777
Eastern Missouri
Reno, Nevada
Orange, California
(714) 771-0797
(201 ) 777-0766
S. Francisco, California
(415) 974-1750
(505) 884-7630
Denver, Colorado
(303) 692-9395
(518) 346-1479
(305) 584-8923
(704) 568-5346
(813) 577-7154
(405) 677-4141
Atlanta, Georgia
(404) 962-5052
Portland, Oregon
(503) 771-6208
Chicago, Illinois
(312) 772-8822
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(215) 533-1620
Evansville, Indiana
(812) 425-1949
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(412) 734-0509
(515) 266-6133
Houston, Texas
(713) 664-7678
Lexington, Kentucky
(606) 278-8333
Dial-a-Gay-Atheist
(713) 457-6660
(504) 897-9666
(801) 364-4939
Boston, Massachusetts
(617)969-2682
Northern Virginia
(703) 370-5255
Detroit, Michigan
(313) 721-6630
(804) 588-0118
Page 38
November, 1983
(314) 771-8894
(702) 972-8203
some funds in "lieu of' taxes, and twice in the many years of their
ownership have grudgingly given $6,700 ... instead of the $107,000
they ought to pay every year.
But I keep wandering into the present when I did want to tell you
about this old fight to tax the church in the early 19OOs.
This little booklet makes so many good points that I want to repeat
them to you tonight. Here is one quotation:
"Starting from the premise of the equal rights of all men and
women, it necessarily signifies the paramount importance of
the individual, and next to the individual, the rights of the
collective community. It (our government) must protect the
individual to the fullest possible extent in his 'inalienable right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' but when one alleges
that the pursuit of these rights can be used as a pretext for
meddling with the equally fundamental rights of his fellows ...
we fall upon the idea of speical privilege. The antithesis of
democracy is special privilege. This is the extension of certain
powers to one or more individuals, at the expense of one or
more other individuals, without proper compensation and in
'violation of equal jusice. Each should have fullliberty to spread
respective doctrines at its own cost. Whether one or any
particular religion thrives or declines is none of the business of
the state. All the state should do is to give a free field to all, and
then let them succeed or fail in proportion to their own merits
and their ability to convince men and women of their truth, and
of the merits of their claims to monetary support at the hands of
the individuals thus convinced.
"Each religious denomination, at its best, is a rival establishment to another such denomination. Any exemption from
taxation is primarily assistance toward the spreading of the
doctrine of the particular church with the tax exemption.
"There is talk of the educational and ethical attributes
claimed by the church, but this is wholly beside the question. It
is not the business of the state to raise its revenue only from the
'baser elements' of the population. Our great scientists,
inventors and educators are not exempt from taxation on the
ground that they are doing good for the general population or
that they are moral examples. We do not tax private citizens in
relation to their virtuous characteristics, or the lack thereof,
and neither should we give tax relief to a religious institution
upon this premise.
"No amount of sophistry can disguise the fact that the
church is primarily a doctrinal organization. No theories of
supernaturalism are needed in order to teach a pure morality,
founded on the social relations of human beings. If the church
really existed primarily for ethical purposes, as they claim, we
would not have the spectacle of the hundreds of struggling
sects each loudly proclaiming itself as the great repository of
fundamental truth.
"All tax exemptions violate the fundamental doctrine of
democratic neutrality and impartiality by the government. It
favors a portion of the community at the expense of the rest. It
is the worst form of taxation without representation. It places a
premium on dogmatic faith. It is an establishment of religion in
direct defiance of the spirit of the Constitution and the founding
of the nation. It places the state in the position of formally
endorsing the proposition that religion' is a public function and
not an affair of the private conscience. It differs from
November, 1983
Page 39
And, since I live now in Austin, Texas, and since the headquarters
of Atheism of our nation is there with me - I was particularly
interested in seeing what a Texas newspaper had to say way back
then. Those persons who livein Texas are well aware of the capturing
of certain political entities here by one church-affiliated constellation
of ideas or another, and the good baptists who ordinarily have
dominated the state of Texas are struggling with the insurgence of the
roman catholic church here. One of the towns in which that church is
quite powerful is San Antonio, Texas. So, let me read to you what the
San Antonio Express newspaper had to say in respect to taxing of the
church back in 1915 in an editorial in that paper.
"The Express is not antagonistic to the churches. It believes
that many of them are doing a great and noble work; but it does
not believe in exempting sectarian property from taxation in a
land of alleged religious liberty at the expense of men who
regard the church as a brake on the wheels of progress, an
incubus on civilization, the preservator of antique ignorance,
the storehouse of foolish superstition. It does not approve of
the church posing as an almoner while the thin purse of labor is
annually mulct to make it a present of several milions. Let it be
just before it attempts to be generous. Let it assume its due
proportion of the public burdens and perchance there willnot
be so much need of its dole. The church should not profit at the
expense of the poor; it certainly should not fatten at the cost of
those who despise it."
I have time for just a few more gems from the old classic work, here
taken at random:
"The church cannot be heard to claim that it is a public or a
quasi-public institution. It is not in any sense commissioned by
the state or by the people. Why then should it be funded by the
state, or the people in the state through taxation?
"We are making it possible now for hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of property to be insidiously withdrawn from the
community, and from the tax base, and tied up in the hands of
great religious corporations. We estimate that with the present
trend the churches will own as much as $50 billion dollars by
1950."
The estimate was far off - for we see that they now have 103 billion
dollars in property alone, and this does not count business interests.
I close with one last quote, a lament from back in 1915: "Out of the
immense margin of wealth which the churches have, they could well
afford to bear their honest share of civic burden." To which I can only
say, Amen, Amen. ~
14TH ANNUAL
AMERICAN ATHEIST
CONVENTION
April 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1984
(Friday, Saturday & Sunday - Easter weekend)
November, 1983
WRITE:
Gloria Tholen
Convention Coordinator
Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
REGISTRA nON
$20.00
$35.00/ couple
$10.001 student or 65 and over
- with I.D.
All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists with All of the Answers
by Jon Murray and Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [paper, 359 p.]
Freedom under Siege, The Impact of Organized Religion on Your Liberty And Your Pocketbook
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [cloth, 282 p.]
Separation of Religion and Government
by Frank Swancara [cloth, 246 p.]
Why I Am An Atheist, including a history of materialism
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 40 p.]
What on Earth Is An Atheist! (A collection of programs from the American Atheist Radio Series)
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [paper, 287 p.]
The Bible Handbook (All the contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities from the bible)
by G.W. Foote, W.P. Ball, John Bowden, and Richard M. Smith [paper, 364 p.]
The Case against Religion: A Psychotherapist's View
by Dr. Albert Ellis [booklet, 17 p.]
Pagan Origins of The Christ Myth
by John G. Jackson [booklet, 30 p.]
'
Sex Mythology
;.
by Sha Rocco [booklet, 55 p.]
Ingersoll The Magnificent
by Joseph Lewis [paper, 342 p.]
A Few Reasons for Doubting the Inspiration of The Bible
by Co\. Robert G. Ingersoll [booklet, 30 p.]
Atheist Truth vs. Religion's Ghosts
by Co\. Robert G. Ingersoll [booklet, 45 p.]
The Logic and Virtue of Atheism
by Joseph McCabe [booklet, 58 p.]
An Atheist's Bertrand Russell
ed. by Jon G. Murray [booklet, 50 p.]
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. I
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. II
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. III
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. IV
by Chapman Cohen [booklets, 112 p./bklt]
$4 each, or set of four vols:
The Best of Dial-An-Atheist
Edited by Newton Berry [paper, 148 p.]
Nobody Has a Prayer
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 100 p.]
Women and Atheism, The Ultimate Liberation
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 22 p.]
Fruits of Philosophy
by Charles Knowlton, MD [booklet, 58 p.]
History's Greatest Liars
by Joseph McCabe [paper, 179 p.]
The Peril of Faith
by Martin Bard [paper, 151 p.]
:
War in Vietnam - The Religious Connection
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 83 p.]
An Atheist Epic: Bill Murray, The Bible and The Board of Education
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [paper, 316 p.]
Essays of An Atheist Activist
by Jon G. Murray [booklet, 67 p.]
Order from:
$6.95
10.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
6.95
2.00
3.00
3.00
6.95
3.00
3.29
3.29
3.29
12.00
3.95
$3.00
3.00
$4.00
$4.95
3.95
$4.00
3.95
3.29
AMENDMENT I
..,
::t
m
rn
..,
C/)
);>
t:tl
C/)
:r::
~
rn
Z
..,
o
."
:;N
m
r
;,
o
CJ
o
:;N
"1j
:;N
o
::t
--..,
-
t:tl
Z
CJ
-l
:r::
m
.":;N
m
m
rn
rn
:;N
n
C/)
iil
~O ~O 'HJ33dS
~O lAJOa33~~
3H.l
aNIaaI~8V
~O ~~03~3H.l