Atheist Internet Outreach Newsletter
Summer 1999 NEWSLETTER
THE SIN OF SILENCE
by William Edelen
There is a sin among a large segment of the Christian clergy that I find despicable. It is the sin of omission, the sin of silence. It is the sin of promoting falsehoods in order to hold your job. It is the sin of not sharing with a congregation what you know to be true about the bible and Christianity. Those graduating in religious studies from every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure, know certain facts to be true.
They know:
- That the entire bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.
- That the stories of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are known as 'temple legends' to enhance the history of the Hebrew people and are mostly fictional.
- That the gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.
- That the 'Christ' myths and formulas are direct copies of Zoroastrian myths adopted by the Jesus sect.
- That these facts, with others, have been known for years, and taught by internationally respected scholars from major universities world wide.
Religiously educated clergy, through the sin of omission, yet continue to promote superstition. I lost count of the ministerial colleagues who said to me: "For God's sake, Edelen, just play the game."
A woman in my Idaho church met me in the parking lot one day and said: "I don't care what you learned in seminary. I give more money than anyone in this church and I want to hear about my sweet Jesus more or I'm leaving this church." I said to her: "Well, goodbye", and with that, she slapped me so hard across the face you could hear it for a mile... in Christian 'love', no doubt.
The much-loved Senior Minister of the famed City Temple of London, Leslie Weatherhead, wrote: "Not for much longer will the world put up with the lies, distortions and superstitions about Jesus and the bible." My friend, Dr. Gerald Larue, distinguished professor emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Southern California said this: "For clergy who do not know any better, it is simple gross ignorance. For clergy who do know better, it is a disgrace."
For those who know better and yet have chosen, through the sin of omission, the sin of silence, to promote falsehoods, I chose the word 'despicable' to define them. I know of no more accurate word to define those who have been ordained to bring light... to the human spirit... to those who "would keep abreast of the truth."
Top of the Page
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
by Sandra Feroe
July 21, 1999 marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Robert G. Ingersoll (b.1833). Called "The Great Agnostic" by newspapers of the day and, by all accounts, the nation's most oft-heard orator, Ingersoll was an enlightened, humane freethinker, a visionary, an advocate for unpopular causes such as womens', childrens', and minority rights, and a combatant against superstition and hypocrisy.
Greatly admired by the likes of Mark Twain, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Luther Burbank, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Edison and Walt Whitman, his gift for oratory, his wit, common sense and compassion made him one of the most famous people of the 19th century. A Union colonel in the Civil War, an eloquent lawyer, and a politician who... but for his habit of giving speeches mercilessly revealing religion's absurdities... might have been the Republican Party's candidate for Governor of Illinois, Ingersoll's wisdom is still relevant today.
Yet despite the impact he made, he remains a shadow, largely absent from current curricula, excised from history most likely because he denied the existence of gods and shone the light of rationality on religious hypocrisy. In speeches, debates, essays and interviews, he criticized the clergy and exposed their investment in preserving the status quo: "Every minister likes to consider himself as a shepherd leading the lambs through green pastures and defending them at night from Infidel wolves. All this he does for a certain share of the wool." When he intoned, "I am not trying to destroy another world. I am trying to prevent the theologians from destroying this world", the gauntlet was thrown down.
With an almost personal zeal, representatives of organized religion vowed that Ingersoll's name would be unknown to future generations, expunged from an inevitable Christian state. Sadly, their threat has been realized. His opinions were too threatening and religion's benefactors in both church and state were powerful, indeed. Yet many of his views were vindicated. He lived at a time when pleasurable activities like dancing, attending the opera and theatre, roller-skating, playing cards and playing billiards were condemned by theists, and he admonished the church to "keep step with the progress of the world or be trampled under foot." Speaking about racism, he said, "I pity the man who has only to brag that he is white." And he remained hopeful for the future: "Astrology was displaced by astronomy. Alchemy and black art gave way to chemistry. Science is destined to take the place of religion. In my judgement, the religion of the future will be Reason."
Ingersoll's response to his possible nomination as the Republican candidate for Governor of Illinois in 1868 reflects an honesty unfortunately all too rare in politics: "Gentlemen, I am not asking to be Governor. I have in my composition that which I have declared to the world as my views upon religion. My position I would not, under any circumstances, not even my life, seem to renounce. I would rather refuse to be President of the United States than to do so. My religious belief is my own. It belongs to me, not to the state of Illinois. I would not smother one sentiment of my heart to be the emperor of the round globe." Not surprisingly, the Republican Party looked elsewhere for its nominee.
Having learned that higher political office was unobtainable for anyone not willing to compromise his principles, he became even more outspoken, and in demand, as a lecturer. He exhorted his audiences to think for themselves: "No religionist seems capable of comprehending this plain truth. There is this difference between thought and action: for our actions we are responsible to ourselves and to those injuriously affected; for thoughts, there can, in the nature of things, be no responsibility to gods or men, here or hereafter... A believer is a bird in a cage, a Freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."
In an 1881 interview, he was asked if the world would be a better place because of disbelief in the bible. With customary bluntness, he answered, "Yes. If any man really believes that god once upheld slavery; that he commanded soldiers to kill women and babes; that he believed in polygamy; that he persecuted for opinion's sake; that he will punish forever and that he hates an unbeliever, the effect will be bad... This belief built the dungeons of the Inquisition. This belief made the Puritan manacle the Quaker..."
In a landmark 1886 blasphemy trial, Ingersoll defended his client by criticizing a New Jersey state statute which proscribed cursing or reproaching the Scriptures. He asked, "Does it make any difference whether or not you believe that a man was going through town, and his hair was a little short, like mine, and some little children laughed at him, and thereupon two bears came down and tore to pieces about forty of these children?" ...And he dared to say what should be obvious to all but the most indoctrinated: "Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not to stay in it."
Always the champion of freedom of the mind, Ingersoll defined blasphemy for judge and jury, as spectators listened raptly:
"To live on the unpaid labor of others... that is blasphemy. To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his body... that is blasphemy. To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain, padlocks upon the lips... that is blasphemy. To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what you believe to be a lie... that is blasphemy. To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain the applause of the ignorant and superstitious mob... that is blasphemy. To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the ignorant many... that is blasphemy.
To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal pain... That is blasphemy!"
Like most of Ingersoll's audiences, those in the courtroom cheered and shouted approval as the judge banged his gavel for order. Mark Twain described a similar reaction upon hearing Ingersoll speak on a different occasion: " ... it was just the supreme combination of words that was ever put together since the world began... Bob Ingersoll's music will sing through my memory always..."
Referring to womens' position in pre-suffrage America, Ingersoll's opinions about birth control and voluntary parenthood would find more agreement today:
"Science must make woman the owner, the mistress of herself. Science, the only possible saviour of mankind, must put it in the power of woman to decide for herself whether she will or will not become a mother. This is the whole question. This frees woman. The babes that are born will be welcome. They will be clasped with glad hands to happy breasts. They will fill homes with light and joy."
Hoping to rid women of the superstitions that had for so long kept them subordinate, he said: "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame. She is regarded as the property of man." Ingersoll's view that religion was the primary source of woman's oppression was shared by the renowned suffrage leader, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, chief author of "The Woman's Bible". In a letter to Mrs. Stanton in 1894, speaking of his support for women's voting rights, he admitted that he "had other fish to fry... I thought it of more importance to get superstition out of her (woman's) head than to put a ballot in her hand..."
He often wrote sympathetically and affectionately of women: "Nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment of this world by the crime of a woman. What a gallant thing that is. And if it be true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nobody but men."
And, with characteristic wit, Ingersoll used irony and humor to underscore his point:
"The men who declare that woman is the intellectual inferior of man, do not and cannot, by offering themselves in evidence, substantiate their declaration."
When asked to contribute to rebuilding the Baptist church in DeLeon, Texas, blown down in a windstorm, Ingersoll wrote: "My position is this, if the 'Lord God of Israel' wants a Baptist church in DeLeon, let him change the wind and blow the old one back." And when a religious weekly printed a rumor that his only son had been addicted to cheap novels, went mad, was hospitalized in an asylum and died there, Ingersoll wrote in reply:
"1. My only son was not a great novel reader; 2. He did not go insane; 3. He was not sent to an asylum; 4. He did not die; 5. I never had a son."
The St. Charles (Illinois) Leader, remarking on the difference between the man in person and the bogeyman of his religious critics, editorialized in 1876: "For the past five years we have been reading descriptions of him... They told us he was a poor, miserable, whiskey-soaked, tobacco-bedaubed, illiterate, vulgar, blasphemous, red-faced atheist. We had read the descriptions often, and from papers of such pretended respectability, that we supposed there must be some little foundation at least for their black picture. You may judge somewhat then our surprise when we tell you that we saw a gentleman about five feet ten inches in height, over two hundred pounds weight, a big smooth innocent looking, finely chiseled sweet face, and a great large magnificently formed head... in short, a perfect specimen of an elegant, brilliant gentleman..."
But Ingersoll himself had addressed the subject of his critics' incessant mud-slinging: "And here, it may be proper for me to say, that arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse; that there is no logic in slander, and that falsehood in the long run defeats itself. People who love their enemies should, at least, tell the truth about their friends. Should it turn out that I am the worse man in the whole world, the story of the flood will remain just as improbable as before, and the contradictions of the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation... Remembering that only a few years ago men, women, and even children, were imprisoned, tortured and burned for having expressed in an exceedingly mild and gentle way the ideas entertained by me, I congratulate myself that calumny is now the pulpit's last resort."
To their deep dismay, even religionists had to admit that Ingersoll's private life was above reproach. A deeply ethical man, he was a loving husband and the devoted father of two daughters. His own happy home inspired this advice to the religious: "It is of more importance to you that you love your wife than that you love god. It is of far more importance that you love your children than that you love Jesus. He who builds a home erects the holiest altar beneath the stars..." Clergyman Charles Francis Potter said of Ingersoll, "Robert Ingersoll was the apostle of the religion of the unchurched. Had it not been for Ingersoll's anti-Christian views openly expressed, he could have been President of the United States."
Some time ago I was watching "Born Yesterday", a delightful movie made in 1951. A corrupt millionaire hires a journalist, Paul, to tutor his uneducated girlfriend, Billie, so she will be more acceptable to the social elite. Billie and Paul are in a museum, and to my surprise, Billie asks: "You know that little thing you gave me about Napoleon... by Robert G. Ingersoll?"
And Paul quotes Ingersoll to her: "... I said I would rather have been a French peasant and worn wooden shoes. I would rather have lived in a hut with a vine growing over the door, and the grapes growing purple in the kisses of the autumn sun. I would rather have been that poor peasant with my loving wife by my side, knitting as the day dies out of the sky, with my children upon my knee and their arms about me. I would rather have been that man, and gone down to the tongueless silence of the dreamless dust, than to have been that imperial impersonation of force and murder known as Napoleon the Great."
This was the heart of Robert G. Ingersoll's philosophy. He believed in "the democracy of the home", in values like love and liberty and equality that emanated from his rational humanism. When he died on July 21, 1899, and tributes poured in from all over the world, few could deny that "The Great Agnostic" had lived according to his own creed:
"Happiness is the only good, reason the only torch, justice the only worship, humanity the only religion, and love the only priest."
Seeking to quell the inevitable rumors of a deathbed conversion that always seemed to follow the deaths of famous nonbelievers, his wife and family ultimately issued an affidavit recording his last few hours. With a smile for his beloved wife, but neither a word nor a sigh, he quietly slipped away. Of Ingersoll's detractors in the religious establishment, some of whom had spoken against him when they learned of his death, the Trenton American commented: "It is to be said for the credit of the cult that in all this broad land there are very few jackasses engaged in kicking the dead lion."
Of "The Great Agnostic" himself, Thomas Edison said, "Some day, when the veil of superstition is lifted, Ingersoll will stand out as a great man... in my opinion, no finer personality ever existed."
Inscribed upon the bronze vase in which Robert Ingersoll's ashes were placed are the words, "The urn guards the dust... the heart, the memory".
References:
"The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll", New Dresden Edition, 1930
"Robert G. Ingersoll, A Life", by Frank Smith
"The Letters of Robert G. Ingersoll", edited by Eva Ingersoll Wakefield
"The Best of Robert Ingersoll", edited by Roger E. Greeley
These and many other Ingersoll works are available through the Atheist Alliance Freethought Bookshelf at http:/www.AtheistAlliance.org
"Born Yesterday", 1951, Columbia Pictures, directed by George Cukor; from the stage play by Garson Kanin
Top of the Page
WOULD NOT AN ATHEIST, BY ANY OTHER NAME, STILL BELIEVE THE SAME?
by Darrell Shimel
All of my life I've been an atheist. I do not go to church. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a soul, an afterlife, a supernatural creator of the universe, magic, etc. In a word, I'm an atheist. Imagine my surprise when I discovered I'm also an agnostic. More specifically, I'm a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a committed agnostic, an empirical agnostic, among many terms. How can this be? These terms have meanings that are in contradiction. How can I be all these things? Definition! Let's start at the beginning.
Preparation for the Journey:
My parents were raised religious, but somewhere between childhood and parenthood, they scrapped religion for reality. I recall discussions between my parents and grandparents on the topic of religion, and I never heard anything from the grandparent side that fit my observations nor what I knew from science.
Departure:
In a recent news magazine, there was a story about a child that was not permitted to read from the bible in public school. In discussing this with my boss (a devout Christian), he expressed an opinion common among theists. Science is a religion. The theory of evolution is a silly, flawed and false belief, and it must be countered with a healthy dose of truth. By this of course, he means Christianity.
I took offense at his statements, and stated that evolution was not flawed and false. I went so far as to say that there is sufficient evidence in evolution, that it is now considered fact. This set up the favorite trap of theists, and I stepped right into it. He challenged me to provide information supporting evolution, and he would attempt to blow holes in it. I had put myself into the unenviable place of attempting to build an air tight case.
I began by gathering all the information I could on evolution. Most of this information came from scientific web sites. Soon I had large amounts of unorganized information. I began preparing this information for my boss by detailing the differences between the fact of evolution, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Origin of the Species, and the Theory of the Origin of Life. I was going to use definition to get him.
The fact of evolution is simply that by selective breeding the characteristics of a species can be changed. I was then going to define the Theory of Evolution as the concept that natural factors can act as the selector in this process. This means that the species as they exist today are different than those that existed in the past. Pretty simple, and exactly how evolution was presented to me in school. This meets my criteria for fact... observable, verifiable, documentable, repeatable, and not credibly debatable.
Unfortunately, it soon became obvious that the Theory of the Origin of the Species and the Theory of the Origin of Life are considered to be sub-theories under the larger topic of the Theory of Evolution. Those ideas are far from fact. In my mind, evolution is a fact, but only if the definition is made narrow enough.
Warned that the boss would attempt to blow holes in my information, I visited a few "creation science"web pages. It was interesting how these were mostly filled with assaults on evolution, not evidence supporting creation, but that is another topic. The main thing I got was that creationists generally see evolution as one large topic, including the Origin of Life and the Origin of the Species. They reject evolution of any kind. They use unknowns in one portion of the theory as evidence against the entire theory. It became obvious to me that the discussion of evolution was going to degrade into a battle of definitions. Since I was committed to building an air-tight case, I was likely going to come out on the losing end.
The Journey Takes an Unexpected Turn:
After obtaining a list of anti-evolution arguments, I went looking for answers. I visited many "atheist and agnostic"sites, including "The Aaronical Atheists Web Site". They claim aaronical means of or like a high priest, or pontificate. They contend that atheism is the correct world view, and that the message is so important that it should be preached as strongly as the religious preach their beliefs.
However, while reading their discussion on certainty, I read this:
"When someone insists that something has been proven, you know they're not speaking within the bounds of science. What you can take them to mean is that they give the issue status of fact, and in so doing they have shown you: they do not understand science!"
Wow! This was my own people telling me I was full of crap. Worse yet, it sounded as if they were right. It was an epiphany... a moment where my world view changed. Mankind has no real knowledge, but a bunch of beliefs, some of which are more certain than others.
The world view was very interesting, but it did not hold long. It comes down to the definition of fact. Their intention was to say that science does not deal with fact, only theories. Their definition of fact is something that is 100% known for sure, and this can never be in the realm of science. After all, I believe my name is Darrell Shimel, but I could be wrong. I may have been swapped at birth, or this reality may be an incredibly detailed dream. I contend that there is some threshold where knowledge becomes so certain that it becomes fact. Again it's all in the definition.
About 450 years ago, a Polish guy named Copernicus formally stated a preexisting concept that the sun was stationary, and the earth moved around the sun. Though the word had not been created, this was a theory. Do we still call it the Theory of the Heliocentric Universe? No.
One reason is that we've refined the idea by discovering the sun is a star, only one of about 100 billion stars in our galaxy, all of which are moving in a circle around the center of the galaxy. The universe contains many galaxies all of which are moving away from each other at an incredibly fast speed.
Is is possible that this view of the universe is wrong? Sure. Do we call it the Theory of the Heliocentric Solar System? NO! Mankind has come to accept the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system. This is a scientific concept, that was once considered a theory, but has now attained the status of fact. If a credible reason to doubt this fact is discovered, it may revert to theory, but for now, it is a fact.
(This is an interesting one to try the next time a cop pulls you over and asks if you know how fast you were going. Because of the rotation of the Earth, a fixed location on its surface (at sea level) is moving at just over 1100 mph. Our trip around the sun in a year requires the Earth to travel at 84,000 mph in relation to the sun. The sun makes a trip around the galaxy in about 226 million years, give or take 10 million years or so. The approximate distance of 26,000 light years from our sun to the center of the galaxy, makes it a very long trip indeed. This requires a speed of about 486,000 miles an hour. So, if you want to be a smartass, just tell the cop you were doing about a half million miles an hour. Of course, this completely ignores the galaxies movement through the universe, which by all estimates is very fast indeed.)
The New Path
With this unexpected turn on the definition of fact, I set myself on a new path. No longer intent to prove evolution to one who does not want to believe, I set out looking for other possible concepts I'd not considered. I read many more web sites on atheism and agnosticism.
The arguments for and against the existence of God are interesting. Unfortunately, I found most of the discussion pointless because of the lack of consistent definition of God. Many arguments for the existence of God were arguments for the existence of some kind of transcendental, personal, intelligent being that must exist since the universe was created by something. This is not a fixed definition, and certainly not the definition of God subscribed to by most religions. Atheists have been forced to attempt to refute a shapeless, undefined concept.
I read terms like theist, deist, agnostic, atheist... None had a clear and consistent definition. Some view Atheists as simply not believing in God. Others say that Atheist means being sure there is no God. Others define Atheism as a firm belief that there is no God or god(s). Some define an Agnostic as one that is not sure if there is a God or god(s), while others say Agnostics believe there is a God, just that the exact nature is unknowable. The basic problem was still a lack of a firm definition of God or god(s).
There are even terms like Strong Atheist for those that are sure God does not exist, and Weak Atheist for those that do not believe in God but acknowledge the possibility. I also found the term Committed Agnostic for someone that is sure that the existence of God is unknowable, to differentiate from those that aren't sure if God exists or is knowable.
I had a long conversation with an Empirical Agnostic. He claimed to believe only that which there is sufficient proof for. Since there is neither proof for nor against the existence of God or god(s), he neither believes nor disbelieves in a God or god(s). I saw no difference between this and an Atheist, but he refused any implication that he is an Atheist. Huh?
I decided to let Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com) sort it out. Note that in some of the following definitions, I left out some of the potential meanings that did not fit the particular usage.
Atheist. noun (1571): one who denies the existence of God.
God. noun (before 12th century) capitalized: the supreme or ultimate
reality: as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is
worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.
Put the two together, and you come up with one who denies the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, all good creator and ruler of the universe. I acknowledge there is a remote possibility that there is an intelligence external to the universe that may have had a role in its creation. I do not consider this likely.
Even if there is this type of intelligent creator, I do not see it fitting the definition of God. Let's say this creator exists, and that it is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. If it is all knowing and all powerful, it knows I do not worship it and has the power to convince me to worship it. Since it does not, I can only reason it does not want to be worshipped. If it does not wish to be worshipped, it is not God.
If this being rules the universe, it is doing a very poor job. The universe is replete with randomness and chaos. Very little pattern or reason can be found in anything. Good things happen to bad people, while bad things are happening to good people. He does not even fiddle with the Lotto numbers to ensure his followers have a slightly better chance of winning. Should we worship such a poor ruler?
Agnostic. noun (1869): a person who holds the view that any ultimate
reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is
not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence
of God or a god.
I believe that ultimate reality is probably unknowable. There is not likely to be anything within the universe that can leave, nor anything external that could get in.
The part of the definition "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"raised another question for me. What is the difference between God and a god?
god. (not capitalized): a being or object believed to have more than
natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;
specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality; a
person or thing of supreme value; a powerful ruler.
I don't even understand the term "supreme value", so how can I be committed to its existence or non-existence? I certainly believe there are powerful rulers, but I don't think that is the definition of god most theists intend. Many of the gods argued for by theists do not fit these definitions of God or god, because they have no argument for why a transcendental intelligence would require human worship.
This dictionary thing just got more confusing when I entered the next word:
atheism. noun (1546) archaic: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS; a disbelief
in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity.
At least the WICKEDNESS is considered archaic. Notice that the term atheism was around for 25 years before atheist. Were there people that believed atheism who were not atheist? The term deity also threw another kink into the definitions.
deity. noun (14th century): a god or goddess; one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful.
So, a deity is both a god and God. To believe Atheism, one must reject both God and all potential god(s), but an Atheist only rejects god. By strict definition, according to Webster an Atheist need not believe Atheism. Furthermore, one can be an Atheist (rejecting God) and an Agnostic (not sure about god(s)) at the same time.
There were many other words I discovered to describe my beliefs, and they all have esoteric definitions. So, that is the key to any discussion. Win control of the definitions, and you've won the battle.
The Destination
I finally made it where I was going. I intend to present my definition of the "fact of evolution", along with the supporting documentation, to my boss. I'll let it evolve into the definition battle I expect. Once there, I'll acknowledge the unlikely possibility of directed evolution, but maneuver it to the definition of God. Once there, I'll acknowledge the unlikely possibility of a intelligent creator of the universe, and get him to justify why this being must be worshipped. This was the common thread of the definitions of god and God, but not addressed by any of the arguments I've seen. If there is no justification for worshipping a potential creator, then it ain't god.
It has been so liberating to realize I'm a strong atheist, weak atheist, committed empirical agnostic, deist, naturalist, materialist, humanist, rationalist, pagan, heathen, infidel that believes in evolutionary creationism. In one word, an atheist.
Note: Thanks to AO member-subscriber DARRELL SHIMEL of Colorado for his interesting essay. Submissions reflecting an atheist point of view are invited.
Top of the Page
ON THE OTHER HAND:
Superstition runs amok. . .
In early May, eight sixth-grade girls at Panorama Middle School in Colorado Springs, Colorado, were pulled from class and lectured for nearly two hours by a vice principal on the evils of witchcraft, because they were suspected of "casting spells"on their classmates. Their parents have since demanded apologies from the school district, and even contacted the ACLU for guidance.
School officials say they became alarmed after hearing that, during recess, the girls were reading "Salem's Trial", a book about witchcraft they got from the school library. The girls were pulled out of class twice by the vice principal and were questioned with a security guard present about their beliefs and participation in witchcraft. According to one of the girls, the vice principal suggested to one of them that her friends were "garbage", and the incident would go on their permanent records. Several of the twelve-year-olds were reduced to tears.
When she contacted the mother of one of the girls about the incident, the vice principal first asked whether the woman was "aware that her daughter was a witchcraft-oriented person". The principal of the school defended the actions of his staff, saying some students and parents had voiced concern about the girls who, "when they were upset with other students, said that they were going to cast a spell on them. And they were reading books about witchcraft."The school district's director of student services also defended the staff's actions, although he was unsure whether the girls were actually practicing witchcraft, and was unaware whether any of the alleged "spells"actually worked.
And we thought we'd left the Middles Ages far behind ...
Top of the Page
IN THE NEWS. . .
- Earlier this year, Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania man's lawsuit naming "God" as a defendant was thrown out by a court in Syracuse, New York. Donald Drusky blames "God" for failing to bring him justice in his thirty year battle against his former employer, U. S. Steel, which fired him in 1968.
His lawsuit claimed "Defendant God is the sovereign ruler of the universe and took no corrective action against the leaders of His church and His nation for their extremely serious wrongs, which ruined the life" of the plaintiff. He demanded that "God" return his youth and grant him the playing talent of famous guitarists, and he demanded the resurrection of his mother and his pet pigeon. He argued that if "God" failed to appear in court, federal rules of civil procedure hold that "He" must lose by default. U. S. District Court Judge Norman Mordue found the suit, which also named as defendants former Presidents Reagan and Bush, all federal judges, the 100th through 105th congresses, the television networks, and all fifty states, to be frivolous.
(This story could not be verified, but it was just too good to pass up.)
- In early May, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura refused to issue a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer. He stated that he firmly supports the complete separation of state and church, and that such a proclamation would be a violation of the Constitution. The governor was immediately subject to harsh criticism from extreme religious groups; however, he refused to back down. It's heartening to see such a principled and courageous stand taken by a politician, especially given the current social and political climate.
Then, in the latter part of June, Governor Ventura was quoted as saying on a cable television show that he opposes allowing schools to post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. "What about people who are atheists?", he asked. Once again, the governor emphasized his belief in the necessity of the separation of state and church. "Your prayer and your religion is your personal choice.", he said.
Top of the Page
QUOTABLE. . .
- We've heard a lot about this subject in the '90's, but here's what philosopher Bertrand Russell had to say decades ago concerning "Passion in the Kindergarten":
"Another judge has been talking to an audience of church-women on the way the cinema has corrupted our modern youth. He said: "In my early years as a club leader there were no cinemas. Boys did not become sophisticated as they do today when they see the passionate, eternal kisses that are given in films. They now begin to learn about the passions of love and hatred from the age of 5 when they join the Saturday morning cinema clubs. And the girl of today thrusting herself upon the adolescent boy."
It would be interesting to make research into the early environments of some of these moralists or those quarters today in which boys of five learn the passion of love and hatred. Expert observers generally tell us that boys detest love pictures and decidedly prefer thrillers or westerns. The idea that children knew less about sex or were less emotional in the last century is on a par with the idea that their parents were more virtuous."
The Faith of a Rationalist, 1947
- Regarding religion's effect upon human behavior, Albert Ellis wrote:
"Religion, by setting up absolute, god-given standards, must make you self-depreciating and dehumanized when you err; and must lead you to despise and dehumanize others when they act badly. This kind of absolutist, perfectionistic thinking is the prime creator of the two most corroding of human emotions: anxiety and hostility."
The Case Against Religion, A Psychotherapist's View
- When asked why atheists continue to fight against religionists with no victory in sight, the late Isaac Asimov replied:
"Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breasts."
- Eighty-one year old Phyllis Diller, who recently did the voice-over for the Queen of the ant colony in "A Bug's Life", was recently asked whether she is 'spiritual'. Her reply:
"I wouldn't say that. Love is a spirit, being happy is a spirit. I believe in that, but religious spirituality leaves me cold. I think it's a myth."
Top of the Page
IN THE MUSE . . .
The Serpent in the Wilderness
by Edgar Lee Masters (1869-1950)
Jesus predicted that the world would come to an end
Before the generation which he addressed had passed away.
And many believed this would happen,
And looked to see the sky cast its starts as a fig tree casts its fruit;
And to see the sun darkened, and the moon failing of its light,
And the powers of heaven shaken and Jesus descending
In clouds with great power and glory, attended by angels.
Whereupon the dead would come from their graves,
And the good would be caught up into heaven,
And the evil cast into the bottomless pit prepared for the devil and his angels.
Nearly all of the words of Jesus were founded upon fear;
And these prophecies of Jesus filled the world with terror,
and even at last shook the iron heart of Rome.
And for long centuries
After the generation which Jesus said would see the end of the world
Had passed away, still the fear that Jesus had instilled stayed alive,
And has not died to this day, and is used everywhere wherewith to recruit churches,
And to get money for popes, cardinals, priests, and preachers
Of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Campbellite, and other denominations,
Who live in ease off the money gathered by fear,
While scarcely any of them are enlightened or worth anything to civilization.
And it will be some centuries before it becomes an accepted understanding
That Jesus had no mind capable of doing good for the world,
While possessing power to put Socrates and men like him aside
So that they could do little for the world.
That this has been so and is yet so is just as mysterious
As the so-called problem of evil can be to any mind.
For no one can explain why Athens, which was indeed a city set upon a hill,
Did not last forever for the benefit of all climes and peoples;
And why Jerusalem, a village of demons and camel's dung,
Became the shrine of the world
Whereto men still make pilgrimages to see the place where Jesus died for men,
While few are interested in the jail where Socrates gave up his life
Rather than surrender his freedom to think.
(Published 1933)
Top of the Page
LETTERS:
Nathan Jenkins, a history major about to begin his second year at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, (Canada) had this response to the Spring '99 essay, "Why Outreach?":
It is with great disappointment that I write this as I have just read the quotes in the newsletter. I have found in my life, at the age of 18, that my understanding of reality is far stronger than that of my religious friends. While I have no doubt about the scientific realities of the universe, they are constantly questioning, with doubt, their own religious upbringing. We live in an age where, although Christian organizations have immense influence in politics, they are losing that influence with the people. Organized religion is unraveling because the people of this planet are no longer willing to follow the 'divine word' in some book which holds as much significance to their life as common pulp fiction.
Atheists have got to be vocal, and if you offend those around you, do so; they stand and scream their position from the rooftops expecting we will stay silent. I tell you that the letters I read here from the teenagers are true. I had the same problems with teachers and peers, but you must stay true to yourself and the rational and logical ideals which we hold most dear. Most people are not vocal and don't have the courage to be so, but find that strength within yourself and tell everyone you're an atheist, tell them why, explain everything to them, don't always try to be calm, be passionate about your ideas, because if nothing else you may plant that little seed of doubt in their minds that may allow them to think freely, for once, without the chains of ideological dogma that they have been fed.
To all the young atheists out there struggling to fit in... be yourself. Go to a progressive college; you'll find people who understand logical and rational thought. More and more are appearing everyday. Stay true to yourself and be passionate about your ideas, because you're the only one who will be.
Top of the Page
SPOTLIGHT ON AAI MEMBER SOCIETIES:
Rationalist Society of St. Louis
The Rationalist Society of St. Louis was established in 1948. It is dedicated to maintaining absolute separation of state and church, opposing supernaturalism and promoting the study of the sciences.
In 1948, more than thirty people were in attendance at the first official meeting, many of whom were also members of the Ethical Society and the German Freethought society, 'Freien Gemeinde' (free community). Of those early members, a dozen or so were actively involved in holding the RSSL together during its first few years.
In 1950, members participated in the 100th anniversary celebration of the St. Louis Freien Gemeinde, and attended several national conventions in other cities in the Midwest.
In 1951, under the sponsorship of the RSSL, Vashti McCollum presented a program on state-church separation at the Ethical Society.
By 1952, what had begun as an afternoon picnic at the home of Al Meier became an annual social event, and eventually, the society's official anniversary party.
The RSSL published a pamphlet of freethought poems written or collected by member Sam Hill in 1953.
In 1955, James Kaigler, an African-American, was elected president.
In 1956, the publisher of Truthseeker magazine, James Hervey Johnson, spoke at a meeting, and the first issue of The American Rationalist appeared.
1958 brought another first. A woman, Era Hunter, was elected president, and that same year, a book of irreverent jokes entitled "Heavenly Humor"was published.
The tumultuous decade of the 1960's began for the RSSL when we lost our meeting place/office/library. Operations were relocated to the Humanist Center at Washington University, at first, and over the next ten years were held at a variety of locations. Membership and activities declined but a monthly lecture was always held. Topics included "Diderot's Contribution to the History of Freethought" by Walter Hoops; "Why I am an Atheist" by Lee Meriwether, and "A Better Philosophy than Supernaturalism" by James Kaigler.
In 1983, the editor of "Secular Subjects" wrote, "From those early days when expansion was slow, the Rationalist Society progressed through years of gradual change and growth. We continued and expanded our freethought efforts due primarily to the persistence and dedication of our often few in number members. Today the going is somewhat easier because of the firm foundation they built."
Today, the Rationalist Society meets in its own center four times a month. Two are lectures or discussion, a third is usually a video night and the fourth is "La Procope Salon" named after the discussion group of Voltaire. The Rationalist Society of St. Louis joined the Atheist Alliance in 1996.
Thanks to member Valery Countryman for her historical compilation.
Upcoming RSSL programs include:
- August 1, "Respect in Getting and Giving: Nonbelievers as a Minority", Tom Flynn, Dir., Center For Inquiry, senior ed., Free Inquiry magazine.
- August 6, "Are Science and Religion Compatible?", Massimo Pugglichi, Ph.D., Professor of Botany, University of Tennessee.
- August 15, "The Great American Think-off: Which is More Dangerous, Science or Religion?", video presentation and discussion.
- August 21, "What Everyone Should Know About Postmodernism".
- Labor Day: A joint celebration sponsored by RSSL and the Kansas City Eupraxophy Center, with presentations, conversation, camping, hiking and more. Watch for details on the Rationalist Society webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/rssl/rssl.html
Subscription to "Secular Subjects", a monthly newsletter, is $11.00 per year. Contact:
Rationalist Society of St. Louis
P. O. Box 2931
St. Louis, MO 63130
Subscription to "The American Rationalist", a bi-monthly magazine, is $10.00 for one year; $18.00, two years; $25.00 for three years. Back issues and sample copies are $2.00. To subscribe, contact:
The American Rationalist
P. O. Box 994,
St. Louis, MO 63188
For membership or other information, contact Jim Rollins at smiling@infidels.org, Barbara Stocker, RSSLbarb@aol.com and Roy Overmann, reover@juno.com
Top of the Page
ATHEIST ALLIANCE NEWS:
Atheist Alliance Unveiled
If the information age and the internet have taught us anything, it is the fleeting nature of all things electronic. With the continual advances in the web's semi-standard .html programming language, the internet has proven to be more organism than network, expanding and evolving into something greater and more complex then it once was. And so those of us who exist within this digital universe must evolve or be left behind. It is in this spirit that AAI recently unveiled the brand new Atheist Alliance. Marking the culmination of months of work by webmaster Joe Zemel, the old AAI website has been completely overhauled with an eye toward tapping into the almost unlimited potential of the internet.
Zemel started with the desire to upgrade the website's programming to include the conveniences of electronic commerce, discussion groups, ad banners (for AAI revenue), and all the newest trends the internet has to offer... no small job since he was tackling it single-handedly.
Then along came atheist/freelance graphic designer Dave Feroe, who was challenged by our functional but outdated design. He contacted Joe Zemel and volunteered to overhaul the visual components of the web site. With Joe working on the nuts and bolts, and Dave working on the design, the new AAI Web Center soon became a reality.
With more still to come, our web site now features brand new graphics, a clean interface, and a more modern sensibility, with all the conveniences you'd hope for from the Atheist Alliance at the dawn of a new millennium. The new AAI Web Center includes the fully indexed FREETHOUGHT AND ATHEIST BOOKSHELF, which allows you to browse, read reviews and purchase a wide variety of related books, all with the click of your mouse. Also updated is the ATHEISM ON THE INTERNET page, which has grown to more than 200 links, ranging from atheist resources and organizations, skepticism, humanism, science, biblical errancy, humor, merchandise, homepages and web rings, with more being added every week.
You're invited to stop by and check out the Web Center for yourself, and let Joe or Dave know what you think. It's still at the same place: http://www.AtheistAlliance.org/. Bookmark the site so you can return time after time to the informative links, exciting bookstore, and information about the individual member societies. And speaking of member societies, since the webpages for a few of our groups are in need of a makeover, my own Atheists of Colorado page among them, keep checking back to see how we're progressing.
Note: Dave also designed all aspects of Douglas Rankin's newly published "Queen Jane's Version: The Holy Bible for Adults Only", which can also be purchased through AAI's online bookstore.
See the new Web Center for yourself: http://www.AtheistAlliance.org/
Top of the Page
A Letter from Joe Zemel, President of Atheist Outreach
Thanks to all of you, this has been a great year for Atheist Outreach. We are growing at an rapid rate and have connected many of our members with Atheist organizations. One of our key goals now and in the coming months is to start new organizations where there currently are none. If you'd like to be part of starting a new group anywhere in the world, please let us know at AtheistOutreach@atheistalliance.org. We will be happy to assist with advertising your new group to our membership list, and other ideas.
One piece of good news for new organizations is the elimination of Atheist Alliance membership dues. Atheist Alliance invites only organizations to join (not individuals), and the elimination of membership fees will make it even easier for new Atheist organizations to get started. Membership in Atheist Alliance brings such benefits as use of our web site to host your organizations' web pages, financial assistance to new organizations to offset some expenses, advertising, and more. If your organization is interested in joining Atheist Alliance, please let us know.
For those of you who would like to assist us, your help in these areas is welcome:
* Workload Assistance. Atheist Outreach is in need of people who can assist with email inquiries. Correspondence requiring an answer is handled personally.
* Articles. You're invited to send your essays and articles from an atheist point of view for possible inclusion in the Atheist Outreach newsletter. But please be aware that our editor has the right to edit or omit articles when necessary.
* Financial Support. To assist with helping new groups get started, to undertake or expand atheist projects, and handle postal correspondence, financial support is vital. If you'd like to donate in support of these and other causes, please mail to:
Atheist Outreach
c/o Jim Cox
278 Orchard Drive
Oregon, WI 53575
* Professional assistance. Atheist Outreach and Atheist Alliance are in need of legal, financial, and/or other professionals who are willing to volunteer their time for Atheist projects. Please contact us if you fit that description.
The 1999 Atheist Alliance Convention in Austin was a lot of fun, and we had an excellent turnout. Plans are already being made to ensure that the year 2000 convention in Sacramento on easter weekend is an outstanding success, so please join us for the festivities. More to come in future newsletters.
Subscription rates for "Secular Nation", the Atheist Alliance quarterly magazine, are $20.00 for one year, $38.00 for two years, $53.00 for three years. Make payments payable to Atheist Alliance, and send to:
Secular Nation Subscriptions
c/o Atheist Alliance
P.O. Box 234
Pocopson, PA 19366
See http://www.AtheistAlliance.org/secular/ for more details
With Reason,
Joe Zemel, President,
Atheist Outreach, a member organization of the Atheist Alliance
Top of the Page
ABOUT THE ATHEIST OUTREACH NEWSLETTER:
Atheist Outreach Newsletter is an online publication of Atheist Outreach, a member society of Atheist Alliance, Inc. We are an organization of volunteers whose goals are to help isolated atheists around the world communicate with one other, and to support the aims and purposes of the Atheist Alliance and its member organizations. Officers are: Joe Zemel, President; Sandy Feroe, Vice President/Newsletter editor; and Jim Cox, Secretary-Treasurer.
Membership in Atheist Outreach is free. Simply send your name and email address to AtheistOutreach@atheistalliance.org. Should you prefer not to receive future issues, send an "unsubscribe" message to AtheistOutreach@atheistalliance.org.
Unless otherwise noted, all material herein was written by the editor. All subscribers have permission to utilize the articles on thematically-appropriate internet discussion groups, websites, and organizational newsletters. Please give credit to the author and Atheist Outreach Online Newsletter, and provide a link back to Atheist Outreach, when doing so.
Sandra Feroe, Editor
Visit Atheist Outreach at http://www.atheistalliance.org
"A free mind in a free society can still make mistakes, but those errors will never be canonized."
- Jim Cox, Contributing Editor
|
|
