Date post: | 01-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | american-atheists-inc |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 44
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
1/44
AMERICAN ATHEIST
Fa. 984 Journalof Atheist NewsandThought $2.50
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
2/44
AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States was meant to create a wall of separation between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of them, their origins and histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each
individual in relation to society;
to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of
strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,
perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to
members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method,
independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds. ,
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it i s governed by its own
inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man -
finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his
dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve
it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's faith is in
man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very
essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble
ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an
outreach to more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited .
*
Amer ican Atheist Membership Categories
Life membership $500.00
Sustaining membership $100.00/year
Family/Couple membership $50.00/year
Individual membership $40.00/year
Senior Citizen/Unemployed* membership $20.00/year
Student membership* $12.00/year
*I.D. required
All membership categories receive our monthly Insider's Newsletter, membership card(s), a
subscription to
merican theist
magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional
organizational mailings, i.e. new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.
American Atheists - P.O.Box 2117 - Austin, TX 78768-2117
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
3/44
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
4/44
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Editor,
After reading Art Maier's letter in the
November, '83 issue of American Atheist, I
did some looking around at the religious
propaganda here in
El
Paso. The local
religionists are putting on a pretty con-
vincing (not to me, of course) show of how
good you'll feel to be a part of their religion. I
feel better now than when Ibelieved in santa
claus, the easter bunny, jesuchrist and the
twelve dwarfs I think others share these
good feelings and we should communicate
them in a positive manner. So why not take
some time to make a public service an-
nouncernent (even if it would run at
2
a.m.
just before the national anthem) that shows
Atheists having a good time in various
locations (including, perhaps, sleeping in on
Sunday mornings, heh, heh) without di-
alogue until the end of the spot. Then, have
one of the Atheists stop what they're doing,
look at the camera and say (with a big smile),
Religion? No, thanks. I've got life ) This
would be as effective as those drug abuse
commercials. Religion is the opiate of the
masses, after all. It would also put the
religionists on the defensive. The best
defense of Atheism may be a good offense.
I would also like to know what can be
done to get such television materials as you
have on some of our local stations, since
they all run religious materials from time to
time (I don't know if they are paid or free)
and I'm sick of them. El Paso strikes me as
being a cross between the vatican city and
some place near Waco, Texas (a bible-belt
city), and I would like to shake up this fuzzy
thinking city.
Imay not be able to help financially (since
I'm a graduate student), but I would like to
help in some other way, if possible. You at
the American Atheist Center and others
around the country have come too far to
quit now. Ifwe stop fighting, our children will
end up as members of Der Falwell Jugend
(The Falwell Youth, in German) sent out as
champions for his (Falwell's) greater glory.
I would also like to respond to Jack
Catran's article on psychology since that is
my major. I think that legitimate psychol-
ogists and psychiatrists wince when they
walk past those same bookshelves, filled
with pop psychology. As a student, I have
little time to read other than what is as-
signed, but I have to be careful when I look
for additional material and these weeds
make it harder to find the books that really
do have something to offer. Psychotherapy
in hard or paper back is worthless and no
Page 2
substitute for the office variety with some-
one who uses a technique given some
validity through empirical research. But all
psychotherapy is not worthless, and at-
tacking all of it as being some waste of time
that could be better spent feeding the
world's poor is the same weak argument my
mother used to get me to eat my vegetables.
Stephen B. Thorne,
Texas
Stephen,
We likeyour ideafor (PSA) public service
announcements The Atheist movement
needs more positive, offensive thinking like
that. Currently, our Tucson chapter of
American Atheists is running I-minute
television PSAs on
a
station in its city. Also,
your national office, the American Atheist
Center, is currently inan attempt to obtain
I-minute radio PSAs.
Those interested in having the American
Atheist Television Forum broadcast intheir
area should contact Dan Flores,
c/o
the
A'merican Atheist Center. But remember,
you need to have cable inyour area to have
it shown.
Also, for another perspective on Jack
Catran's Psychology Today (November,
'83) see page 33 for
a
response by Brian
Lynch.
Editor
Editor,
This is a test of the emergency broadcast
system: The x-ians are polluting the minds
of children around the world. Books, food
and medical care all carry the predominant
curse of religion. Foreskins and clitora flesh
still get slashed with the mindless consent of
the majority. The bible and koran are just as
feared as the bomb and the oil barrel. Only
American Atheists propose the abolition of
these cursed institutional nightmares.
You have just heard one of the last
warnings from the emergency broadcast
system. Soon, the cause will become an-
other fad along with cures for carcinogenic
technologies, equitable economic systems
and genuine interest in science. Drugs,
sports and religious escapism will have
dwarfed the American Revolution into
obscurity.
For you would-be parents still conscious
enough to respond to this letter, how long
can you keep to your own and watch a
billion bible and koran believers run amok?
How long before your grandchildren or
greatgrandchildren either adopt theocracy
or succumb to it?
This writer and his female child will not
yield on the question. We are an active
American Atheist family. We care for
human lives - ours and our own kind. We
are the Iowa Organization for World Athe-
ism. If you live within the borders of the
Tallcorn State, plant a little Atheist maize
February, 1984
with a check and/or membership appli
cation. Call us at (515) 266-6133. Write to u
at P.O. Box 'BG', Des Moines, IA 50304.
We return you now to your laughs,
cocktails and your inactivity. You may no
hear this message of reason any more.
Larry Carter,
Iowa
Editor,
It is claimed that christians were respon-
sible for the violent deaths of say, one
hundred million people over the course o
many centuries. However, if we are t
believe what we are told, the communists
have accomplished the same feat in a matter
of decades.
You devote much time and effort t
exposing the crime and immorality of the
christian church historically, but you devote
comparatively few words to the religious
nature of Hitlerism and Stalinism, and as fa
as I am aware, nothing at all about Maoism,
or the relationship of theism or Atheism t
the ethic of genocidal social transformation
in general.
You are not at this moment adequately
answering the claims of your critics in thi
supremely important topic area.
Robert C. Clark,
Texas
Robert,
We concentrate our attacks agains
religion on the christian church because
that sect is the most powerful in the Unite
States. The average American
is
not fa
miliar with nor compelled to deal with othe
religions.
The same goes inthe area of theopolitics
With all the trouble we have in the U.S. with
state/church separation, who has time fo
Europe? Also, your letter implies tha
Hitlerism and Stalinism were religions
This, of course,
is
absurd.
We will, however, make an effort to have
more articles on religion and eurocom-
munism, the catholic church and the Hitle
regime, etc.
Now, are there any writers interested i
these subjects?
Edito
Notice
Letters to The Editor must be either
quest ions or comments of general con
cern to Atheists or Atheism. Submis-
sion should be typed, doublespaced,
brief and to the point. Space limitations
allow that each letter should be 200
words or (preferably) less. Please con
f ine your let ters to a single issue only.
Thank you_
The American Atheist
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
5/44
E DITO RIA L /
Jon
G arth M u rray
~
. ; ~ . ; -
...
c --~
~~R
~~
r \~ ~
AN ATHEIST VIEWS
THE DAY AFTER
O
n the
evening
of Sunday,
November
20th Iwatched, along with
some 100 million other Americans (according to ABC) the
program entitled The Day After which was aired by ABC.
On the two days prior to the national airing of the program Iwas in
Boston for a meeting of the local chapter ofAmerican Atheists in that
city. The Boston area chapter director for American Atheists during
the weeks prior to my visit to that city had contacted a number of the
radio and television talk shows produced there locally. He was told by
allbut one of them that they would have indeed liked to have had me
as a guest for a program on Atheism or separation of state and
church, but that they were booked with panels ofpsychologists and
psychiatrists who would be discussing the ABC program The Day
After to be aired that weekend. The panels of professors were to
center their discussions on the effect that the
viewing
of The Day
After mayor may not have on children and whether or not their
parents should keep them out of the room during its airing. The
discussions in the Boston area (and I assume in other cities ofits size
around the country) were based on previews of the program alone
since none of these experts had seen the production in its entirety
yet.
Having viewed the program myself on Sunday evening after a
return flight from Boston to Texas that morning I could not get the
question of Why would a psychologist suggest that a child should not
have viewed this film? offmy mind. I feel now that every parent inthe
country should have been required to force their children to view
The Day After in its entirety. The violence portrayed in the film
was mild indeed compared to many regular prime-time network
shows and particularly when compared to the
violence level
of
Saturday morning cartoons on any network. The reality ofthe horror
of nuclear war is something that should be firmly implanted into the
minds of young people in this generation so that they may pass on,
when they are grown, an aversion to nuclear warfare as a generic
concept. I hope that all the children who were allowed to
view
the
program were scared to the point ofnot being able to sleep that night.
They needed to be scared. The best possible thing that could
have
happened isthat the program would
have
leftan indelible mark inthe
memory of all who viewed it, child or adult alike.
homes and families. Americans don't know these memories. We sit i
the comfort of our suburban middle class homes and watch Beiru
being shelled on the evening news. What if it was your suburb tha
was being shelled? What ifit was your home and children and friend
dying? The last time any shelling went on in the United States wa
over 118 years ago now during the CivilWar. No one is left alive wit
memories of the
Civil
War, but there are plenty of persons leftaround
with vivid memories of World War II, especially Europeans.
It is obvious that The Day After was designed to try to giv
Americans, intheatrical form, a
very
brief and
very
small taste ofwha
it may be like to have a war in this country. It was a noble effort and
applaud it for that, but it was an attempt to do the impossible. The
only persons who really have any concept of what nuclear war would
be like are the
survivors
ofthe bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
on the 6th and 9th ofAugust, 1945. Some scenes from the Hiroshima
or Nagasaki bomb sights were used in The Day After and perhaps
represented the best reality the program had to offer. When one
talks about all-out nuclear war, one is talking about an unknown
quantity. The atom bombs of 1945 were more like conventional
weapons when compared to the power ofthe nuclear warheads in use
today. No one knows and no one can accurately predict what an
all-out nuclear war mayor may not do to the earth as a whole. We can
only guess. On the basis ofallI
have
read Ifeel that the scenes of The
Day After did not depict the situation after a nuclear war as being
bad enough. The long range effects to the genetic structure of plan
and animal lifeas wellas the atmosphere of the earth as a whole were
not developed in the program to their logical end.
I was appalled by the fact that it was clearly shown in The Day
After that the U.S.S.R. had started the war. It was the
Soviet
Union
who invaded West Germany and it was the Soviet Union who
launched first. Had the thought not occurred to the filmmakers that
the United States could be the first to strike?
I had the opportunity to visit the U.S.S.R. during the months o
June and July of 1983. Iwent with a small group offellowAtheists toa
number ofmajor cities within the U.S.S.R .. One of the most common
questions asked of myself and my fellow
travellers
by
Soviet
tour
guides or
Soviet
people was Why do you want to kill us? I was
speechless. I tried to convince each questioner that I did indeed no
Remembering that the Soviet Union alone had greater casualties during World War IIthan all o
the other Allies combined, I came to know why they were cautious of a people who preach hate
against them with every opportunity.
Americans, by and large, need to have in their memory banks the
kind of memories that those who are old enough to
have
participated
in World War II
have
of the horrors of war. Those of sufficient age in
Europe know all too wellwhat itwas likeafter a nazi bombing raid on
London or an Alliedraid on Germany. Americans
have
no real sense
of the meaning of war. We have not had, in the memory of the
currently livingpopulation, any war fought on top ofAmerica, on our
own soil. America has had the luxury ofsending its boys
overseas
to
fighta war on top ofsomeone else's homes, and cities, and town, and
parks, and schools.
Is it any wonder then why the outcry against the placing of U.S.
missiles inEurope isgreatest from the Europeans? They know what it
islike to have not alone a war but a series ofwars fought on top oftheir
Austin, Texas
wish to harm them in the least. I tried to convince them that most
Americans bore them no illfeelings. As I look back on the situation
now, after returning home to the States, Imust take those statements
back. Most Americans do desire to harm the people of the Soviet
Union. They do wish to kill them. During our tour we bumped into
another American tour group ofmostly teenagers. They were hostile
and untrusting to their Soviet hosts and had the constant attitude that
everything
they were told, by all concerned, was a lie or had been
prepared only for them to see as a diversion of some kind. How
presumptuous of them to think that they were important enough fo
the people of the
Soviet
Union to waste their time trying to fool
them somehow.
Iwas treated, as an American, with cautious politeness while Iwas a
February, 1984
Page 3
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
6/44
guest inthe Soviet Union. Remembering that the Soviet Union alone
had greater casualties during World War IIthan all ofthe other Allies
combined, I came to know why they were cautious of a people who
preach hate against them with every opportunity. Since the time of
their revolution, not unlike ours, they have been one of the most
invaded countries in the world. After having been to the U.S.S.R.
myself I could see why they shot down a foreign airliner that violated
their airspace for hours without identifying itself. The Soviet people
are a trifle paranoid about their borders being violated considering
their memories of the massive destruction of their country during
World War II.
Ifindita sobering thought indeed that Imust reluctantly admit that
itismy country that isthe one most likelyto start a worldwide nuclear
war. The people of the U.S.S.R., unlike the American people, have
had far too much personal, close-up, experience with war to desire
any more of iton or near their homeland ever again. We, on the other
hand, who know not the true taste of war, are willing to take the
chance that it may not be so bad after all.
This point was driven home to me by a recent article from the
Associated Press wire service out of Washington D.C. which was
printed in my local newspaper. In that article it stated that president
Reagan on October 18th had made a phone call to Thomas Dine, the
executive director of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The purpose of the call was for Reagan to thank Mr. Dine for his help
in arriving at a compromise on the War Powers Act issue with
Congress relative to the Marine presence inBeirut. Dine said that the
president had told him that the night before calling
Dine
he had talked
to parents of a Marine killed in the terrorist bombing in Beirut. Dine
recalled that the president then went on to say, You know, I turn
back to your ancient prophets in the old testament and the signs
foretelling armageddon, and I find myself wondering if- ifwe're the
generation that isgoing to see that come about. Idon't know ifyou've
noted any of those prophecies lately, but, believe me, they certainly
describe the times we're going through. Of course, itis the last book
of the new testament, revelations, NOT the old testament that has
the prophecies concerning armageddon. Such a statement by a
president of the United States is nonetheless frightening. As a
commander-in-chief ofthe nation's armed forces, he has the power to
make those biblical prophecies self-fulfilling.
Immediately following the airing of The Day After the ABC news
show Nightline had a special edition airing on November 20th to
discuss with guests and a studio audience the questions brought up
by the program. Some of the guests were secretary of state Schultz,
former secretary of state Kissinger, Carl Sagan, and William F.
Buckley. Toward the end of that Nightline program Mr. Buckley
answer by an overwhelming majority was yes. Since the mass
people in this country consider all communists to be Atheists and
Atheists to be communists, despite facts to the contrary, one c
quickly see why we approach arms negotiations from a standpoin
from which no positive results can emerge. IfIsit down with anyone
work out a disagreement with them and Ioperate on the premise th
everything they tell me is a lie, I willnever agree to anything.
It is also sad that ABC took an apologetic attitude toward the airi
of The Day After. This was evidenced by the disclaimers at t
beginning of the program which were repeated during som
commercial interruptions. A news network need not apologize f
trying to make the American people think about the most importan
topic to face those of us alive today.
Itisalso interesting to note that during the airingof The Day Afte
evangelist Pat Robertson purchased special commercial spots. In t
two 30-second spots seen in46television markets covering about 25
of the homes in the United States, Robertson said the situation is
hopeless and asked for persons to call in for information on t
ultimate hope. Callers were told that the only real hope is found
god through his son Jesus Christ and were urged to watch the 7
Club program hosted by Mr. Robertson. What was thus said
Robertson was that it is o.k. for the world to be nuked becaus
heaven is waiting for us all.
With one of the major tenets of christianity being the spending
one's lifeinthe preparation for death, Idon't know how we can avo
The Day After becoming a reality. Itbecomes even more clear n
than ever why the people of the Soviet Union view us from a simi
perspective as we used to view the kamikaze pilots of the Paci
theater during World War II.Aside from a few of us rational-minde
individuals, most of the population are willing kamikazes for chris
This can be seen clearly by the massive rise in military volunteerism
subsequent to the Beirut bombing of the Marine headquarters ther
As an Atheist I know that I am an animal. All animals are
fin
organisms. Allof our lives end sooner or later. I prefer later. I find
solace inany of the prevailing mythologies concerning death. Death
final. Nuclear war means death for the entire planet, not just a few
am concerned. In fact, my intelligence and my instinct tell me th
preservation of lifeis an ultimate concern. No other concern can
more important than the survival of my species. As an Athei
therefore I stand for complete and unilateral disarmament on
immediate basis if we hope to avoid genocide. No other co
siderations are preeminent. Preservation of the species comes fir
Political, geographical, economic, racial, theological, and all oth
considerations are secondary. Species preservation first; it is th
simple.
Atrue solution to the nuclear arms situation will require an attitudinal change on the part of the
majority of the population of the United States .... Ihave had a small taste of that job in trying to
change the attitude of people concerning Atheists over the past twenty years.
It
is a trying and
thankless task, but one of which I hope others will see the necessity as time goes on.
made the statement that the Russian people were wretched. This
statement typifies the attitude ofmost Americans about the people of
the U.S.S.R .. When American representatives go to the peace tables
in Europe, they sit down with the Soviets with the attitude of Good
morning, we are ready to talk with you about arms control, you
amoral, wretched, untrustworthy, lying, lecherous sons-of-a-
bitches. With that kind of approach how can we avoid the kind of
nuclear holocaust depicted in The Day After ? The answer issimply,
we cannot.
The same kind of attitude that we Americans have about arms
negotiations with the Soviets was exhibited to me, as an Atheist, in a
domestic situation some years ago. I was involved in a legal action
with a jury trial. The jury panel ofprospective jurors was asked during
voir
dire if they felt that the veracity of an Atheist on the whole was
less than that of a christian on the witness stand. That is, Is an
Atheist more likelyto lie on the witness stand than a christian? . The
Page 4 February, 1984
Those of us who understand this must stand firm in the face
adversity and not budge from the task of seeing to it that the means
destroy allthat we know and perhaps alter the genetic basis of life
we know it must be brought under control.
I am grateful for the limited courage exhibited by ABC in airi
The Day After. Iam afraid that itistoo littletoo late. A true solutio
to the nuclear arms situation willrequire an attitudinal change on t
part of the majority of the population of the United States. That w
take some doing. Ihave had a small taste ofthat job in trying to chang
the attitude ofpeople concerning Atheists over the past twenty year
It is a trying and thankless task but one of which Ihope others wills
the necessity as time goes on. ~
The American Athei
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
7/44
NEWS & COMMENTS / February, 1984
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
W SHIN TON POST
STYLE
In Early October the Washington Post
Newspaper announced, by general solici-
tation, that it was going to issue a weekly
national newspaper inover 6,000 counties in
the United States. The first issue was to be
on Monday, November 7th. For the initial
months of publication which would be
November
and December, advertisers were
offered special rates. This was predicated
on low end-of-the-year budgets of po-
tential advertising customers. For the final
eight weeks of the year, a publisher ad-
vertiser could purchase either eight or four
weeks of fullpage advertising for half price.
This was called the '83 Bonus Plan. The
eight week option cost $8,320; the four week
option cost $4,160.
Dan Flores, our media consultant, im-
mediately (on October 20th) reserved - by
a formal insertion order - the four week
plan. Fullpage ads for the American Atheist
Press were to appear on December 5th,
12th, 19th and 26th. A reduced copy of that
ad is displayed on the inside back cover of
this issue of the American Atheist maga-
zine. These arrangements were made with
the New York Advertising Manager, Dana
Frankel. Dan was advised that the ad-
vertisements would need to be approved by
Charles Hollingsworth of the Washington
D.C. office.
Almost immediately telephone calls be-
gan to be received. Ms. Frankel wanted to
bicker. The first obstacle which the Ameri-
can Atheist Press would need to
overcome
was to offer proof that itwas a publisher. Ifit
was NOT a publisher, which the hostile
Washington Post wanted to assume, the
cost for the four week advertising would
escalate to $5,400, an increase of $1,240.
That argument was overcome when Dr.
O'Hair prevailed onthe issue of paperback
book publishing, in which the American
Atheist Press is engaged.
Then it was necessary to submit the full-
page ad, which was done in a timely way.
Again, this generated telephone calls from
Ms. Frankel because the ad was (vaguely)
not ofthe type ofwhich the paper approved.
It would need to be toned down. The art
department of the newspaper planned to
recast it so that it would be acceptable. Dr.
O'Hair declined such censorship, noting
that taste was a subjective evaluation and
that the advertisement suited the needs of
the American Atheist Press exactly as ithad
been constituted by Gerald Tholen, the
American Atheist Press's in-house Art
Director. A standards notification was
requested by Dr. O'Hair.
On November 5th a letter was received
from Ms. Frankel stating that an accep-
tance standards pamphlet was enclosed.
This read as follows:
Article reprinted from Advertising Age, July 6, 1981
SIFTING IT ALL OUT
How one paper keeps a standard for issue advertising.
by Charles Hollingsworth
Advocacy advertising in the Washington
Post
has grown rapidly inrecent years. Last
year it carried some 275 pages with mes-
sages from corporations, associations, u-
nions, consumer groups and individuals
hoping to influence debate on public issues
or attract investors.
Because the Post has high readership
among 'officialWashington' publications, it
naturally attracts advertising concerning
such diverse topics as taxation, pollution
control, defense allocations, abortion fund-
ing, whale and seal protection, energy
policy, public land use and literally hundreds
of other issues.
The
Washington Post
believes that it
should make every effort to accommodate
issue advertising regardless of the popu-
larity of the views expressed or their
compatibility with the newspaper's editorial
position or the personal views of its em-
ployes (sic.)
Issue advertising is submitted to an
advertising acceptance committee for re-
view. The committee is composed of mem-
bers of the advertising department with the
addition of in-house legal counsel.
The committee considers an ad against
three general standards: Is it libelous or
otherwise illegal? Does it contain false
Austin, Texas
assertions of fact? Does it meet acceptable
levels of taste?
The law of libel holds the publisher as
well as the advertiser responsible for a
libelous statement in an advertisement,
although it may be more difficult for a
plaintiff to prove the absence of adequate
care on the part- of the publisher. (Indeed,
Times us. Sulliuan, possibly the most fa-
mous libel case in American history, dealt
with an advertisement.)
Advertising is accepted by the Wash-
ington Post under the condition that the
advertiser and advertising agency assume
liability for the content of advertisements
published and also assume responsibility for
any claims that may arise, including any
costs or judgments resulting from a suit
based on the advertisement. However, it
would not be responsible to public libelous
material just because of this protection.
Furthermore, the degree of protection that
provision gives isquestionable inthe case of
some issue-oriented advertisments since
the advertiser may not be around to meet
that obligation or have the resources to
meet it.
The
Washington Post
does not believe
that persons should be able to buy space in
the newspaper to make false statements of
February, 1984
fact, even if the statements present no libel
or other legal problems. To allow as much
free expression as possible in advertise-
ments, we allow great leeway for rhetoric,
but if advertising copy is offe-red that
appears to make serious false statements of
fact, we ask for substantiation or a change in
text satisfactory to the
Post.
The policy of refusing what may appear
to be false statements of fact frequently
presents a difficult burden of making judg-
ments in gray areas. The Post has assigned
this important responsibility to the Ad-
vertising Acceptance Committee.
The matter of taste is very much a
subjective thing, but any medium would be
delinquent in its responsibilities to its read-
ers if it did not impose some standards of
taste in the advertising it accepts. The
Post,
particularly with issues-oriented advertis-
ing, makes
every
effort to allow advertisers
to deliver their message in the way they
want to deliver it.
The question may be raised as to how
the Washington Post and other newspapers
can reconcile the establishment of adver-
tising acceptance standards for issue ad-
vertising with their support of Constitu-
tional Rights provided in the First Amend-
ment. That amendment
serves
to
prevent
Page 5
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
8/44
N E W S
CO MM EN TS / February 1984
gOlJernment from exercising judgment over
what should be published, not to prevent a
newspaper's judgment. The Post seeks to
publish whatever issue advertising is pre-
sented but must observe its obligation to its
readers to make the best possible judg-
ments concerning taste and truthfulness.
Charles Hollingsworth is sales manager for
corporate and financial advertising of the
Wash-
ington Post.
On the day of the receipt of the Ac-
ceptance Standards for Advocacy Adver-
tising Dr. O'Hair wrote to Ms. Dana
Frankel as follows:
We are totally uninterested in 'Advo-
cacy
Advertising. '
We are book publishers. We sell books.
The ad which we sent to you had to do with
the sale of such books, and of our maga-
zine.
There
isno
expostulation of the position
of Atheism in the ad. There is no adlJocacy
of Atheism in the ad. We do not proslyetize,
convert, or propagandize.
We simply sell books and a magazine.
Your continuing dilly-dallying with the
ad has caused our organization to miss two
deadlines already. This
is
prior restraint.
Please be honest enough to accept or
reject the ad, with reasons, over your
signature. That's good enough for us at this
point.
By November 25th, when this magazine
went to press, there was no response from
Ms. Frankel. This obviously means that the
Washington Post
is NOT publishing the full-
page ad of American Atheist Press.
It is interesting to note that this news-
paper, and others, claim that they must -
as members of the free enterprise system of
the United States - be protected by the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States so that they may publish what
the editors personally desire to publish.
However, advertisers paying heavily for
access to the pages of these newspapers or
magazines are NOT so protected. The hard
media wants to have its cake and eat it.
The exercise should be the subject of a
legal test. If newspapers and magazines
refuse paid advertisements, on standards
which they arbitrarily set, they should also
be subjected to standards arbitrarily set by
government. Ifthe basis of their own tactics
is a desire for prior restraint restriction of
free speech of those who would use their
services, it would not be untoward of the
government to practice prior restraint upon
them. In that case - Reagan was right to
refuse the press access to Grenada. Reagan
is .right in his current campaign to close
access channels of communication which
are used to give information concerned with
government activity.
If the Constitution of the United States is
to be made applicable to one person or
agency, it must be applied to all. This is the
meaning of the phrase ... with liberty and
justice
for all.
In this instance, a publishing house - the
American Atheist Press - submitted a full-
page ad, with completed art work. Nothing
in the advertisement, which sought to sell
paper back books, a magazine, audio and
video cassettes, jewelry and bumper stick-
ers, was either libelous or false. There were
no obscenities, misrepresentations of fact,
tasteless cartoons, ribaldry, raunchy illus-
trations, etc. The ad was absolutely straight
forward. The street address of the Amer-
ican Atheist Press was given, together with a
convenient P.O. Box. Money was tendered
in advance. Reservation for space was
made. The dealings with the
Washington
Post were characterized - on the part of its
agents - by subterfuge and omission,
deceit and misrepresentation. All of this
culminated in the ad not being placed.
Meanwhile, the
ew ork
Times ac-
cepted the ad, without any problem, to
runfor four Sundays in its book review
section.
We ask that those of you who see unfair-
ness in the treatment given to the American
Atheist Press by the Washington Post write
to the following, or call them on the tele-
phone, and air your view:
Katherine Graham, owner, telephone:
(202) 334-6000;
Dana Frankel, New York Advertising
Manager, telephone: (202) 334-4256;
Charles Hollingsworth, Sales Mana-
ger, telephone: (202) 334-7634;
all of the Washington Post newspaper,
1150 15th St., NW.,
Washington, D.C. 2007l.
Itwould appear that the Washington Post
should give the American Atheist Press the
four weeks of advertising for which it con-
tracted, at the rates quoted, using the
advertisement which was submitted. Noth-
ing less would be fair.
FOR AAARG S SAKE
Suit was filed November 7, 1983 in the
U.S. District Court in Denver against the
Veterans Administration Medical Center at
Fort Lyon, Colorado by Vietnam-era vet-
eran John Hanse and AAARG (American
Atheist Addiction Recovery Groups ) ask-
ing for Y 2 million in actual and punitive
damages. The suit claims that Hansen's civil
rights were violated when the staff and
administration of the V.A. Center's Alcohol
Dependency Treatment Program (ADTP)
forced him to attend mandatory prayer
meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. He
was also compelled to be inattendance at
weekly bible reading classes led by a salaried
protestant chaplain or to leave the pro-
gram and the facility. Attorney David
Hofer, a member of American Atheists, is
handling the case. The suit also charges the
tax supported V.A. hospital with malprac-
tice for using religion to treat a progressive
and terminal disease, and with discrimi-
nation against secular after-care progams
Page 6
William Talley
such as the one developed by Atheists and
agnostics - namely AAARG
Attorney Hofer was co-plaintiff and at-
torney pro se in the protracted Denver
nativity scene suit while he was still a law
student at the University of Colorado Law
School
AAARG (a national subsidiary of the
American Atheist Center and publisher of
February, 1984
the nationally distributed newsletter, Re
couery) is also a party to the suit, as is its
founder and director, BillTalley (Director o
the Denver Chapter ofAmerican Atheists).
Talleysaid he hopes to represent allAtheists
and other non-believers who are victims o
addictive disease and who, no matter where
they seek help, are forced into religious
services and meetings. These programs,
usually based on Alcholics Anonymous or
the Palmer Drug Abuse method perpetu-
ate the ancient stigmata attached to ad-
diction and oppose the accepted scientific
position that alcoholism and other addic-
tions are hereditary physiological diseases,
not weaknesses ofmoral or psychological
origins.
Hansen, who is now a self-employed
construction contractor inthe Denver area,
says he was an in-patient in the ADTP
program at Ft. Lyon V.A. Hospital last
spring when he objected to attending the
religious sessions and was given the ul
The American Atheist
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
9/44
N E W S
C O M M EN TS / F ebruary 1984
timatum to either conform or leave. He said
he specifically signed up for the 63day
program, hoping to receive scientific and
positive therapy, only to find the same
negative moralizing which has plagued
addicts and other disease victims through
the centuries, and which has blocked
progress in scientific research and treat-
ment methods.
He had attended a couple of meetings of
the local pilot group, Turning Points in
Sobriety, before he entered the V.A.
hospital. Once there, however, he con-
tacted Talley at approximately the time that
AAARG was in its formative stages as the
world's only network of Atheist self help
recovery groups. Talley contacted the
Denver chapter of the AC.L.U. immedi-
ately, and the executive director expressed
a keen interest in the case. The AC.L.U.
litigation board agreed to sponsor the case
and it was assigned to a local law firm on
June 13th, 1983.
During the ensuing fivemonths, however,
nothing that AAARG knows about was
done in respect to preliminary remedies,
Austin, Texas
negotiations, or filing of a lawsuit. In the
meantime, good friend and member of the
Colorado Chapter of American Atheists,
David Hofer had graudated from the Univer-
sity ofColorado Law School. He passed his
bar exam in the 85th percentile and was
awarded his license to practice on Novem-
ber 1,1983. During the entire period he was
acting as both co-plaintiff and attorney
pro
se in the Denver nativity scene case. He had
a great deal of experience with federal
courts during that particular case where he
won a successful appeal to the Colorado
Supreme Court which remanded the case
back to a state District Court. The lower
court, with a Baptist judge, was told that it
had had no right to dismiss the case before
the plaintiffs had an opportunity to prove
their allegations that the creche (nativity)
displayed annually on the steps of Denver's
city hall violated Colorado's constitutional
prohibition against showing a preference for
one religion over another.
It is extremely difficult, ifnot impossible,
for any Atheist organization to function with
an attorney who is not an Atheist. The
February, 1984
subtleties of deceit used against Atheists or
the Atheist position are not clear enough to
an attorney still steeped in religion. Theist
attorneys
always
hedge at critical times or
where a bold statement of the Atheist
position is needed.
The First Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States has two clauses in
respect to religion, one being the estab-
lishment and the other the free exercise.
Basically, the first isintended to prevent the
government from establishing a religion,
usually by the financing of it or the giving of
special position and favor which will en-
hance the position of any religion. The
second is intended to guarantee that every
person will have the unrestricted oppor-
tunity to exercise his particular brand of
insanity. Hence, there can be no coercion
by government either for or against a
religious exercise. This is all theoretical
since the government does aid religion by
the giving of total tax exemptions to reli-
gious organizations and by aiding them with
funding for various of their programs.
In an establishment case, it is vitally
important for the persons bringing the case
to plead that they have standing as tax-
payers, whose money is used to directly
support the religious enterprise whatever it
may be. The tax-payer approach has been
used to gain standing in this case also. In
addition, the person(s) directly involved
must show direct and immediate damage,
and this Hansen has said was annoyance,
inconvenience, offense to his sensibilities,
mental anguish, laceration of feelings,
shame and degradation.
The V.A. Center had a duty of care
toward Hansen, by reason of physician-
patient relationship. As a part of the injury
he cites, he claims that his subjection to
religion was a breach of that care.
These are difficult, costly and dangerous
suits since reprisals are constantly brought
against Atheists involved in them. Whether
or not citizens of the United States have
freedom
from
religion has not been openly
addressed by the courts. However, in the
case of OHair
v. Paine,
the Fifth Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans,
Louisiana, obliquely indicated that there
was only freedom
of
religion in the nation
and the U.S. Supreme Court refused a
certiorari
(review) to the case.
Since this is a suit against an agency of the
federal government, the attorneys for the
V.A Hospital have until approximately
February 7th to respond. It will be fully
reported in these pages. Meanwhile, those
of you who have interest, or who know o
alcoholic Atheists, please get to AAARG ,
P. O. Box 6120, Denver CO 80206. Mem
bership in the organization is $25.00 a year.
Subscription to its monthly publication,
Recovery,
is $17.75.
Page 7
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
10/44
N E W S
C O M M E N T S / February 1984
In 1977, Kenneth Saladin moved to
Milledgeville to assume a professorship in
biology at Georgia College. Almost im-
mediately he noticed the city seal, bearing
the motto Liberty, Christianity. It took
Ken, along with his family, several years to
settle into his new job, his new town, his new
circumstances. But, in 1980 he brought the
matter of the seal to the attention of the
A.c.L.U. That organization advised him to
wait until he received tenure on his job.
Also, i n 1980he was much involved, both as
a biologist and a state/church separationist
proponent, in the continuing creation-
science issue which was hotly debated in
Georgia.
Early in 1983 he reactivated the seal issue
with the A.c.L.U. He requested a con-
ference with the mayor to try to settle the
issue out of court, but was received in the
mayor's office only with a screaming tirade
that he must be a communist, ete. There
was little to do but file suit.
The original complaint in the action, filed
on May 23rd, named four plaintiffs other
than Ken. They sought an injunction to
enjoin the City of Milledgeville from dis-
playing on its seal anywhere, whether on
stationery, clothes patches, or city vehicles,
the word Christianity. Ken Saladin in his
complaint stated that he daily visits the
City of Milledgeville and frequently en-
counters the City seal on City vehicles. He
believes that the seal thus denigrates his
personal philosophic and religious beliefs
and gives him an ever-present feeling of
second-class citizenship.
The response of the city was the classic
answer that government gave to the Amer-
ican Atheist Center's suit against the con-
tinuance of the phrase In God We Trust
on the nation's currency and coins. Using
the court decision of that case,
O'Hair v.
Blumenthal,
it rejoined that the use of the
motto on its city seal was of patriotic,
ceremonial character which has no theo-
logical or ritualistic impact and is not
violative of the First Amendment.
The city's other rejoinder was with the
appropriating of funds to have the seal
painted on a water tower. The mayor, still
fuming, told the media that the seal carried
the date 1803, the year Milledgeville was
founded as a township. Made a city by
legislative act in 1836, the Baldwin County
community was Georgia's capital from 1803
until after the Civil War. The population is
now 12,000.
Almost immediately, in June, a local
merchant started a petition drive to Save
Our Seal. Before the drive was concluded,
17,710 signatures were obtained. Since
Page 8
MOTTOES
Milledgeville has only a 12,000 population,
the list was examined and found to have
only 6,000 signatures which could be said to
be local area. The remainder were from
elsewhere inGeorgia, out of state and out of
nation, including signatures from England,
Germany, Columbia and Taiwan.
Actually, the local reaction was phe-
nomenal as is always the case in state/
church separation cases_ There were 195
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
etc., from the Milledgeville and Macon
newspapers alone in the period mid-May to
mid-August - just 90 days. State and
national press and electronic media have
been out in force and in August there was a
full story in that esteemed national jour-
nal,
The Moral Majority Report.
The personal retribution that Ken ex-
pected turned out not to be of great
magnitude. It consisted of a few weeks of
ha;assing (but not threatening) telephone
calls, trivial property damage and a lot of
mail-order merchandise falsely ordered in
his family's name. There was one rally inthe
central city by a dozen local charismatics,
then a larger one organized by a baptist
minister and attended by about 12 press
representatives, 15 supporters of Ken's
state/church separation position, 8 police-
men and 180to 200of the faithful. It was very
picturesque, with bibles clutched to the
breast and little American flags waved high.
What H.L. Mencken would have called
the local anthropoid rabble expanded the
issue from the city seal to Ken's well-known
humanist leanings and his opposition to
creationism. A consortium of churches of
christ tried through the editorial pages to
browbeat him into debating the existence of
god and the alleged issue of creation-
evolution with one of their radio preachers
from Tennessee. The challenge was issued
on July 8 byfifteen area congregations of the
church of christ. The actual challenge
proposition was:
Resolved: I know that god does
not exist and that all human beings
now living on. the earth owe their
ultimate origin (as human beings) to
evolution (by purely naturalistic, non-
purposive, nonintelligent, nonliving
materialistic forces) from nonliving
matter.
The challenge was widely distributed in the
form of large poster sheets, published in
three local newspapers and sent to Ken by
registered
mail,
He, of course, declined to waste his time.
He was willing to debate on the matter at
issue: the city seal and its propriety for use in
government, given the First Amendment to
February, 1984
the Constitution of the United States. On
the issue of theism v. Atheism, he re-
sponded by saying that he was no more
qualified to debate theology than his chal-
lenger was to debate biology, which Ken
teaches at the local college.
On July 14th another debate challenge
was issued in which the proposition was
now:
Resolved: that all human beings
now living on the earth owe their
ultimate origin (as human beings) to
evolution (by purely naturalistic, non-
purposive, nonintelligent, nonliving
materialistic forces) from nonliving
matter.
The words, I know that god does not
exist, only, had been removed from the
resolution. The debate time slated was eight
hours and forty minutes.
Central Georgia has not had this much
excitement since the CivilWar. As the case
proceeds, it willbe reported in these pages.
The dust hardly was settled when Amer-
ican Atheists was advised by a young college
student, John R. Cavin, that his college, the
University of Kansas, has a college seal that
depicts Moses praying at some burning
bush. John is trying to mount an assault on
that.
CROSS
Back in August, 1979, American Atheists
became concerned with the cross which
stood on a hillover the Hollywood Bowl and
started legal action to have it removed.
During the process the seal of the County of
Los Angeles, California was discovered.
That seal was designed in 1959 by the
Chairman of the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors. Pictured here, the seal
shows to the right a representation of the
christian cross standing over the Hollywood
Bowl and to the left the standard christian
The American Atheist
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
11/44
N E W S
C OM M E NT S / F ebruary 1984
fish symbol. The central figure is obviously
religious since it sports a representation ofa
flaming halo. At the time, American Atheist
concern was for the highly visible cross on
the hill. The legal counsel for Los Angeles
issued a 19-page opinion that the county
should stop paying the light billon the cross
and that, indeed, the existence of the cross
on county land was probably unconstitu-
tional. Our presumption is that the cross is
no longer lighted. However, the matter of
the county seal was unresolved.
All of this brings the issue back to New
Mexico. There the Bernalillo County official
seal was involved. That seal is a circle
around the edge of which appear the words
County Commissioners - BernalilloCoun-
ty, New Mexico. Within an inner circle, the
words CON ESTA VENCEMOS stand
against a background depicting the sky.
Below these words is a cross centered over
four blue mountains. Beneath the moun-
tains is a green plain against which eight
sheep are imposed. The origin of the seal is
unclear but it has been in official use by the
county since at least 1925. It appears on all
official county documents and county sta-
tionery and is displayed on county property
such as county motor vehicles and on
shoulder patches of the members of the
Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department.
Citizens of that county sued seeking re-
moval of the cross and the motto, CON
ESTA VENCEMOS.
After several years of fighting, the U.S.
District Court of the District ofNew Mexico
Austin, Texas
handed down a decision on December 21st,
1981, in the case of Johnson v. Board of
County
Commissioners
of Bernalillo
Coun-
ty. 528F.Supp.
919. Brieflythe decision held
that separation of state and church is not
possible since some relationship between
government and religion is recognized. The
cross on the county seal was found to have
religious significance but the seal itself
served the secular purpose of authen-
ticating official documents and to facilitate
identification of county property and per-
sonnel. Bernalillo County was found in the
clear since the court held that it could depict
objects with a spiritual content as long as it
did not promote or give its stamp of
approval to such spiritual content.
Since the case was not appealed, it
remains the law of the land in New Mexico.
The Georgia defendants willfind this case in
their research and use it as a precedent.
But in reading the decision by the U.S.
District Court, the bias is obvious. One of
the plaintiffs who appeared at the trial
d~scribed himself as an Atheist, which
was too much for the trial judge to bear to
have him in the courtroom. A rabbi was
brought in for expert testimony, but he
weaseled enough to say that the cross did
not inhibit him in the practice or the
propagation ofhis faith. Another witness, an
ex-county commissioner, said that the
statement CON ESTA VENCEMOS,
although militant as far as he was con-
cerned, presented no problem.
The county commissioner and county
manager swore that the seal was used on
motor vehicles for identification purposes
and that the Latin cross depicted there had
only historical significance. The curator of
history ofthe Albuquerque Museum recited
an historical precedent for allof the symbols
inthe seal. CON ESTA VENCEMOS was
translated by him as with this we conquer
and by other defense witnesses as with this
we overcome or, simply, with this we will
win. The history which was given indicated
that in the mid-1800s Bernalillo County had
been the site of the oldest and most
extensive sheep raising industry in the
United States.
Concerned with the cross, the history
established that' the first incursions into
New Mexico territory by Europeans was
made in 1539 by a roman catholic friar,
Marcos de Niza, who explored New Mexico
including the Bernalillo County area. Fran-
cisco Vasquez Coronado followed and his
party included two priests, friars Escalante
and Padilla. But, the native Pueblo Indians,
not wanting the priests, killedthem. In 1581,
fray Augustine Rodriguez and two assistant
clerics, friars Lopez and Santa Maria,
entered in search of Escalante and Padilla
and they, too, were killed by the Indians.
The admission on the part ofthe defendants
February, 1984
that the Latin cross had of no assistance to
the first two sets of missionaries did not
even strike a note of irony with the court. In
fact, CON EST A NO VENCEMOS was
the real result of the intrusion of the roman
catholic church friars into the county. After
some settlements followingan expedition in
1598 (60 years later ) some farming activity
began. Here, the historian insisted the
roman catholic missionaries played a sin-
gular role in keeping the Spanish colonists
physically and spiritually alive. He saw
roman catholicism as the state church
which was totally integrated into the
heritage of Bernalillo County and the cross
in the seal as symbolic of the long history of
roman catholic exploration, missionary
endeavors, and impact on early Hispanic
life.
A jesuit priest from the University of
Arizona was brought in to state that the
cross in the seal was not a religious symbol
but an historic symbol of the christian and
Spanish heritage of New Mexico.
The District Court made short work of
the tripartite test for determining whether
government activity in respect to religion is
permissible. That test is well known:
First, the (action) must have a
secular legislative purpose; second,
its principal or primary effect must be
one that neither advances nor inhibits
religion; finally, the (action) must not
foster an excessive government en-
tanglement with religion.
The court discussed each of these find
-ings, as above indicated, that the secular
purpose of the seal was to authenticate
official documents and facilitate identifica-
tion of County property and personnel. Of
course, had the offensive cross-and the
words CON ESTA VENCEMOS been
removed, as requested by the plaintiffs, the
seal could still have had the same secular
purpose. That the argument was specious
was shown by the court's injection of the
following comments:
Catholicism cannot be separated
from New Mexico history. Catholi-
cism isas much a part of New Mexico
history as the conquistadors who
explored this area and named the
state capital 'Santa Fe,' which tran-
slated means 'the City of the Holy
Faith,' and named our beautiful moun-
tain range 'Sangre de Cristo,' which
translated means 'the Blood of
Christ.'
Such remarks were gratuitous, having
nothing to do with the case. In fact, such
names themselves should be challenged and
everywhere secularized. Both the city and
the mountain range should be renamed.
Whether or not the cross and the motto
on the seal had a principal or primary effect
of advancing religion, the court again called
Page 9
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
12/44
NEWS & COMMENTS / February, 1984
upon the historical panorama. The cross
and the motto were found to have only a
benign reference to religion, an icono-
graphic illustration of the rich cultural
heritage of Bernalillo County. The Atheist
was identified by name in the decision as a
person whose sensitive perception of a hurt
was to be disregarded.
In respect to entanglement of govern-
ment and religion, the court, noting that it
had no evidence at all upon which to
proceed, decided that the funds provided
for the display 'of the motto and the cross
were minimal and therefore inconsequen-
tial. Also, the court perceiv{ed) no benefit
to be gained by any religious group by the
display of the cross and the motto.
The decision was simply another one in
the long string ofdisasters which have come
to the litigants of state/church issues. James
Madison's cautionary words cannot be
repeated often enough. The Atheists of the
United States did not challenge christian
symbology when first its usage appeared.
The usurped power of the use of those
symbols has been strengthened by exercise
and entangled in precedents. Atheists must
see all of the consequences in the principle
._. and, I play the symbols.
Page 10
itself and avoid the consequences by deny-
ing the principle. It is always the faint of
heart who say, Let them have their sym-
bols and their practices inthe public arena.
And by the faint of heart the civillibertarian
rights of Atheists are continually compro-
mised.
Once legitimatized and. placed in the
government arena, there is no way that
religion cannot be ousted. This is why the
Atheist must continue to fight where and
how possible.
14TH ANNUAL
AMERICAN ATHEIST
CONVENTION
April 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1984
(Friday, Saturday Sunday - Easter weekend)
Radisson Plaza Hotel
Lexington, Kentucky
Featured Speakers:
Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Founder, American Atheists
WRITE:
Gloria Tholen
Convention Coordinator
Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
Ms. Barbara Smoker
President
National Secular Society
London, England
Mr. Alfred Lilienthal
Editor
Middle ast Perspectives
REGISTRATION
$20.00
$35.00/ couple
$10.00/ student or 65 and over
- with l.D.
February, 1984 The American Atheist
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
13/44
M adalyn M urray Q H air
THE POPE
AND THE
PENDULUM
T
he tears of Karol Wojtyla, alias the pope (see cover), are
hypocritical for he has itwithin his own, single power to stop
the nuclear arms race - and he has not and he willnot do it. A
former pope, Eugenio Pacelli (alias pope pius xii), had the power to
stop the slaughter of jews during the 1940s and did not. Other popes
have had such power whilethey sat and watched humankind suffer by
the millions because of their inactivity. Perhaps the most horrible,
immoral and antihuman crime inthe world isthat which occurs when
someone has the power to prevent it. A mother who sees her child
beaten by its father and who does not intervene is a monster. A
spectator to lifewho does not assist the human community, who does
not keep it from harm, should not be permitted to be a part of it.
Itiseven more heinous when an alleged moral leader, one who fains
to use the title, Prince ofPeace, does nothing when he sees that his
inactivity may cause the extinction ofthe human race, the destruction
of all animal and vegetative species and the complete nuclear fouling
of the planet.
The weapon that the pope has at hand is excommunication. Today
- not tomorrow - IF the pope would lay an excommunication on
any roman catholic building nuclear weapons, handling nuclear
weapons, planning with nuclear weapons, transporting nuclear
weapons, tending nuclear weapons, then a freeze, de-escalation and
build down would be upon us. The interdiction should lay also upon
the familyof the single roman catholic engaged in these activities for
that family psychologically supports him in his moral crime. If the
pope would also give intercessory prayers for every roman catholic
who defused, broke down and laid to rest every nuclear weapon,
there would be such immediate pressures upon our government that
peace would be at hand.
Austin, Texas
El papa does not excommunicate because he wants to retain th
war buffs, the nuclear strike proponents and the nuclear man
facturers in his church, along with their wealth and power. Therefore
he mouths what he does not believe: that peace should reign.
In the United States, living with the insanity of Ronald Reaga
whose father was a roman catholic, the bishops of this natio
themselves, felt the need to do what the pope had not done: speak
the issue at last. However, they too did not have the courage of the
convictions and rather than lose the very small number of prowa
person in their church, they could not bring themselves to ask th
pope to excommunicate roman catholics working on antihuma
weapons.
There could be economic results in a number of ways. Thos
persons who have voluntarily associated themselves with dealing
death would then be unemployed and need either temporar
monetary relief or assistance to find other jobs. Whether or not the
would be deserving ofsuch assistance isanother moral question. Th
practical question would be how would they meet their mortgage
rent payments, their food needs, their energy necessities, etc.
major disruption in the economics of our nation might result: w
would lose the projected national deficit for military nuclear defense
Money might be available for human rights, instead of nuclea
munitions manufacturing profits. The difficulty, of course, is that th
roman catholics throughout our legislative, judicial and executiv
system would be required to, quickly, find solutions for the assistanc
and reemployment ofthese familiesin industries or services which a
prohuman instead of antihuman. Apparently this is a task that me
ofgod eschew. They are more comfortable with death than with li
with words rather than with deeds. Words, after all, can be and a
February, 1984 Page 1
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
14/44
frequently meaningless when divorced from the action for which they
call. The' church has always been good in word manufacture and
seldom in outreach to suffering humanity.
The American bishops' trivializing of intent but build-up of words
began about two years ago. At that time a committee was set up, at
the insistence ofarchbishop John R. Roach, president ofthe National
Conference of Catholic Bishops (hereinafter referred to as the
Conference ). The committee was to undertake the drafting of a
pastoral letter, i.e. a letter from the bishops to the clergy and the
communicants of the roman catholic church in the United States. It
was to develop a theology of peace suited to a civilization poised on
the brink of self-destruction. A theology, of course, is a field of
study, thought and analysis which treats of god, his attributes, and
his relations to the universe as well as being the study of divine
things or religious truths. When faced with the threat of nuclear
war over economic differences between two countries, it boggles the
mind that roman catholics would turn to develop a theology of
peace. Perhaps it has never occurred to them that since they posit
an omnibenevolent (all good), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent
(all powerful) god, all that they would have had to do was to pray to
him. Also, having a monopoly on the virgomary as an avenue to
jesuchrist, they could ask for her intercessory prayers to her son so
that god could bring peace on earth - through his agents. But, most
of his agents, and particularly the roman catholic church, have, for
several millenia, been on the side of war. That church, and especially
the Conference, has been known for their largely unstinting support
of the United States military policy. In fact, the war in Vietnam was
known throughout the east coast of our nation as Cardinal
Spellman's War. The roman catholic religious factors of that war
have been set out in a booklet by Dr. O'Hair (War in Vietnam: The
Religious Connection). The church ofJesus christ oflatter day saints,
the mormons, are the next runners-up in gung-ho militarism in the
United States, but the roman catholics have beaten allcomers to the
race since they have been entrenched in the United States. It is
basically the superintolerant branch of christianity in the nation.
Be that as it may, the committee went about its business,
completing two drafts of the letter within two years and meeting in
Chicago, Illinois in May, 1983 to vote on the final, third draft. The
drafting committee was composed of five:
Chairman, cardinal George Bernarding, ofMount Hagen, New
Guinea;
Member, bishop Daniel P. Reillyof Norwich, Connecticut;
Member, bishop George A. Fulcher of Columbus, Ohio;
Member, bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of Detroit, Michigan;
Member, archbishop John O'Connor, auxiliary bishop of the
military vicariate, New York City, New York.
The drafts came repeatedly before the membership of the
Conference. The first draft was strongly opposed to the nuclear
menace. The second draft weakened that position. The third draft
restored it in part. The second draft was debated by the fullbishops'
Conference inNovember, 1982. After this, the committee needed to
hold fivemeetings to adopt revisions. Bishop John J. O'Connor ofthe
military vicariate, which oversees catholics inthe armed forces, tried
to soften some antinuclear positions. Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton
of Detroit strenuously opposed the effort. The committee rejected
some O'Connor proposals and accepted others.
The drafts were also reviewed in international ecclesiastical
gatherings held under vatican auspices. Some changes were made in
response to January, 1983 meetings in Rome between the United
States bishops, vatican officials and European prelates. West
German bishops were critical of the second draft's strong stand
against nuclear deterrence. These meetings were summarized by the
rev. Jan P. Schotte, secretary of the pontifical commission on justice
and peace. The Americans were advised to emphasize general moral
principles that carry the weight of doctrine but were told by vatican
officials to refrain from taking sides on practical military matters on
which roman catholics can honestly, disagree. At that point Agostino
cardinal Casaroli, the vatican secretary ofstate, pointed out that the
pope had given a speech regarding the issues in June, 1982 at the
Page 12 February, 1984
United Nations. In that, he had emphasized:
In current conditions, deterrence based on balance,
certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a
progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally ac-
ceptable.
The intervention of cardinal Casaroli was an implicit papal message
that the American bishops should not go beyond the pope's
statement on nuclear arms. The pope, speaking through cardinal
Casaroli, was actually warning the U.S. bishops of the repercussions
which their statements would have for many other countries and for
the bishops ofthe rest ofthe world. The U.N. papal phrase, naturally,
is found halfa dozen times inthe letter. The pope speaks with a forked
tongue for obviously deterrence based on balance is a guarded
papal acceptance of the American position of escalation, Ronald
Reagan's Peace through Strength charade. The American bishops
did not have the courage themselves to go beyond this guarded
wording of an acceptance of the arms race. This can be seen in the
specific language that they use and the emphasis which they
designate may be put on each part of the pastoral letter.
The first draft had been concerned with a nuclear freeze. But, the
word immediately took on extra controversial importance. Its
proponents meant it as an end to the nuclear arms race. Its
opponents meant it as a concession of permanent superiority for
the Soviet Union. (Why does the radical right always take a classic
idiot positioni') Since the bishops were reluctant to associate
themselves with the liberal meaning of the word freeze, the first
draft came out using the word halt. Even then, many bishops
believed that halt was too severe, too closely allied with the dove
position. In the second draft curb was used. If one goes to any
dictionary the difficulty is apparent.
freeze - to stop suddenly;
halt - to bring to a temporary stop;
curb - to restrain or control.
In the third draft, the bishops swung back to halt. In the general
toughening of the letter's stand, the verb resist (a passive idea)
concerned with Reagan's military policies was changed to oppose
(an action idea). All of the words, suddenly, became very important
since the letter was to to become teaching doctrine for the roman
catholic church in America. In diplomatic communiques, neutral or
ambiguous words are chosen to conceal differences. The roman
catholic church has always relied on double-talk, and to give a
straight, honest, representation of their position was thus quite
difficult. A sample will suffice. American Atheists were once
approached by a middle-aged man who wanted much information
concerned with the organization. His repeated statement was, I am
very interested in Atheism. The smiling countenance caused us to
interpret this as benevolent interest. Later, the man turned out to be a
member the society ofjesus, a jesuit, who was attempting to actively
destabilize a chapter of the American Atheist organization. The
church calls this mental reservation. Roman catholics may
prevaricate at will as long as they have mental reservations. In the
above instance, the jesuit could have said, I am very interested in
Atheism since Iwant to destroy it. The first part of the sentence was
said directly to us; the second part was his mental reservation.
The drafts were discussed at length with senior officials of the
present Reagan and previous Carter administrations. According to
Joseph cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, the chairman of the drafting
committee, two revisions were made to the letter after consultation
with Reagan's staff:
(1) There was an explicit recognition put into the letter that
the Reagan administration is involved in arms reduction talk.
(2) A part of a letter from William P. Clark, then president
Reagan's national security advisor, was included in the second
draft. This outlined the Administration's alleged opposition to
targeting civilian populations with nuclear weapons. However,
on the Monday before the release of the letter (May 2nd) the
statements of Clark and of Caspar Weinberger, the secretary
of defense of the U.S., were downgraded for their place in the
text to the status ofa footnote. Many bishops argued that those
The American Atheist
8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984
15/44
statements, which purported to defend the dubious ad-
ministration policy as moral, did not warrant inclusion in the
text itself.
Still, archbishop John R. Roach (Minneapolis/St. Paul) noted that
there were several conflicts between the positions taken in the draft
and administration policy.
At the base, the pastoral letter was supposed to be a fundamental
rethinking of the role of armed force in the strategy and the moral
philosophy of the modern state, especially our own nation. If one
thinks a little, actually, this paper is the first inquiry conducted into
such ideology by a responsible (if a religious organization can be
responsible), collective body. This isbecause there really is no grass
roots organization, headed by a strong national administration,
affiliated with an international body, in the United States except the
churches. Even in the religious community, the protestant bodies and
the jews have been largely uninterested in approaching the subject.
The jews are too embroiled in supporting Israeli war efforts in the
Middle East to be able to advocate peace anywhere. The protestant
bodies are sliding back into the most bizarre fundamentalism,
recoiling into a fantasy world, unable to face the realities of the world
conditions today. The theopoliticians of the old roman catholic
church onlywere astute enough to understand the need. The political
parties in our nation are, of course, without viable programs of any
sort having to do with any issues of our times: economics, inter-
national relationships, internal sociopathic problems, etc. They drift
aimlessly and without leadership.
The tone and the language of the letter, generally, certainly reflect
the religious earnestness with which the authors approached the
subject. The repetitions, the rewordings of centra] ideas, the same
references reused, the disjointed and substantive style changes
indicate that various of the five priests wrote various parts of the
letter. A week before the third draft was sent to the Conference a
two-day meeting of the committee was held, and a heated exchange
took place because of the differences still between them. However,
Pax Christi, an international roman catholic peace group, had
gathered 269 signatures ofAmerican theologians on a petition which
had backed the second draft, and this was influential.
The final vote favoring the issuance of the letter was 238 to 9. It
signaled more unanimity of opinion than had been expected since
over 500 possible amendments had greeted the Conference gathered
inChicago. The participating bishops were necessarily delighted with
themselves. Cardinal Bernardin stated:
The basic thrust of the document is to set the voice of the
bishops of the United States against the technological dynamic
of the nuclear arms race. The letter calls for stopping the arms
race, reversing its direction, eliminating the most dangerous
weapons systems, and establishing the need for decisive
political action to move world politics away from a fascination
with means of destruction and toward a world order in which
war will be consigned to history as a method of settling
disputes.
Several others wanted to go on the record and the following
statements were made by them to the New York Times religious
editor.
Bishop Maurice J. Dingman, diocese of Des Moines, Iowa:
When Igave a talk at the University of Iowa at Ames some
time ago I used a big blackboard. On one end Iwrote militarism,
on the other pacifism and down the middle the catholic 'just
war' theory. Well, we're now moving on the continuum from
the just war theory over to pacifism, and Ithink that reflects the
general direction of the bishops. Iknow I've become a nuclear
pacifist.
The document reflects this movement. It must now be
approached from three perspectives. It must be scripturally
stated and prophetically stated - we have to be prophets and
be critical of our times. Then it must be pastorally fulfilled,
keeping in mind the conscience ofeach individual and working
within those guidelines. I don't want this document gathering
Austin, Texas
dust; I don't think it will. We've broken our silence and our
people won't let us forget it. I cannot keep silent as the Italian
bishops did withMussolini and the German bishops with Hitler.
We're in a beautiful position now. There is far greater
freedom in the church. Witness this bishops' Conference,
which spoke out in its own voice. And our timing is perfect for
convincing people, not through excommunication or a hard
line, but by addressing specific questions. We don't always
have that. Sometimes we're a little ahead and often we're late,
as during the Vietnam War.
We're setting up a full-time peace ministry in our diocese. I
think we'll see another document coming in three to five years.
We said this country can keep deterrence only if it works
vigorously for arms control. Ifthat isn't achieved, Ibelieve we'll
take a far stronger stand.
Archbishop James
A.
Hickey, archdiocese of Washington,
D.C.
As the archbishop who serves in and around the nation's
capital, the bishops' letter on war and peace poses a unique
personal and pastoral challenge. Washington is the place
where our nuclear policies are made and a principal target in
any nuclear exchange.
Now that the pastoral letter has been adopted, we must
build on it through a program of prayer, study, reflection and
discussion. But peacemaking obviously means more. It means
an ongoing commitment to sharing our teaching. Pastorally, we
must respond with courage, neither evading nor overem-
phasizing the public policy implications of this teaching. We
must respond with competence, with an understanding of what
the church teaches and what the facts are. We must respond
with pastoral skill, recognizing the urgency and complexity of
the issues, understanding that for a significant number of
people these are personal as well as public concerns.
We want to be a peacemaking church. But a peacemaking
church is also a community that raises fundamental moral
questions about policies. We should be building a constituency
of conscience. We should be helping to shape public opinion in
a way that supports genuine efforts to curb the arms race and
obtain peace. This is why our letter is a tremendous
achievement. The issues cannot be left to technicians or to a
few leaders. This document places the moral and ethical
dimensions of nuclear arms in the center of the national
debate.
Archbishop Peter L. Gerety, archbishop of Newark, New
Jersey
For us there has been a developing sea (sic) change, part of
the process initiated by the vatican council opening the church
to the world. We're abandoning our fortress mentality and
opening our minds to the positions the church should have
taken a long time ago.
The Letter, then, is
a
summing up ofwhere we are - really a
dramatic time. I've seen the gradual adaptation of bishops to
the nuclear realities, to the primary problem of survival in this
world. The process (of writing the document) brought this
home to us.
Our first move in the archdiocese will be to discuss the
Letter with advisory boards - priests, sisters and the
archdiocesan pastoral council. We're also going to have to talk
about this with our education people. We've had courses on
issues of justice for a long time, trying to help people
unde