June 1990

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

$2.95
\~

American Atheists, Inc.

is a nonprofit, nonpolitical,educational
organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept the
explanation of Thomas Jefferson
that the "First Amendment" to the
Constitution of the United States
was meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists, Inc. is 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 their histories;
to advocate, labor for, and promote
in all lawful ways the complete and
absolute separation of state and
church;
to advocate, labor for,and promote
in all lawful ways the establishment
and maintenance of a thoroughly
secular system of education available
to all;
to encourage the development

Life
Couple Life*
Sustaining
Couple* /Family
Individual
Senior Citizen**
Student**
*Include partner's name

and public acceptance of a human tions of authority and creeds.

ethical system stressing the mutual
Materialism declares that the cossympathy, understanding, and inter- mos is devoid of immanent conscious
dependence of all people and the purpose; that it is governed by its
corresponding responsibility of each own inherent, immutable, and imindividual in relation to society;
personal laws; that there is no superto develop and propagate a social natural interference in human life;
philosophy in which man is the cen- that man - finding his resources
tral figure, who alone must be the within himself - can and must cresource of strength, progress, and ate his own destiny. Materialism reideals for the well-beingand happiness stores to man his dignity and his inof humanity;
tellectual integrity. It teaches that we
to promote the study of the arts must prize our life on earth and
and sciences and of all problems af- strive always to improve it. It holds
fecting the maintenance, perpetua- that man is capable of creating a
tion, and enrichment of human (and social system based on reason and
other) life;
justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
to engage in such social, educa- man and man's ability to transform
tional, legal, and cultural activity as the world culture by his own efforts.
willbe useful and beneficial to mem- This is a commitment which is in its
bers of American Atheists, Inc. and very essence life-asserting. It conto society as a whole.
siders the struggle for progress as a
moral obligation and impossible
Atheism may be defined as the without noble ideas that inspire man
mental attitude which unreservedly to bold, creative works. Materialism
accepts the supremacy of reason holds that humankind's potential for
and aims at establishing a life-style good and for an outreach to more
and ethical outlook verifiable by ex- fulfillingcultural development is, for
perience and the scientific method, all practical purposes, unlimited.
independent of all arbitrary assump-

American Atheists, Inc. Membership Categories

$750
$1,000
$150/year
$75/year
$50/year
$25/year
$20/year

**Include photocopy of 10

All membership categories receive our monthly Insider's Newsletter, membership card(s}, a subscription to the American
Atheist, and additional organizational mailings (such as new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements).
American Atheists, Inc. P.O. Box 140195 Austin, TX 78714-0195

American Atheist

June 1990

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

American Atheist

Editor's Desk
R. Murray-O'Hair

Director's Briefcase
Jon G. Murray

Looking back at the history of American Atheists conventions and the

special needs of nonbelievers, Jon
Murray tackles the problem of "Assembling the Atheists."

Ask A.A.
Cover art by Ed Golly.

10

On-the-job discrimination - it's a

problem many Atheists may face during their lives. What protection does
the law afford them?

Why an Atheist Ethic Is Superior to

a Religious Ethic - Philosophy professor Albert E. Lyngzeidetson delivers
an easy-to-understand explanation of
why religion is not necessary for good
behavior. - 24
Photo Section - The excitement of
the 1990convention is relived in black
and white. - 25
Atheism and Ethics - Panelists
Christos Tzanetakos and Herman
Harris give the layman's view of the
question of godless ethics. - 36
Abortion: Controversy of the '90s
- BillBaird gives a frank history of his
struggle to place the abortion decision
where it belongs - in the hands of
women, not the church. - 38
The Right to Choose to Die Derek Humphry, founder of The Hemlock Society, furnishes an update on
the difficult struggle for the right for
voluntary euthanasia. - 44

Talking Back

49

In answer to the standard religious demand of "How did you get here?"
Atheists are tempted to talk "Of
Storks; Genes, and Evolution."

Convention 1990 Report

Volume 32, No.6

Austin, Texas

12

One sunny April weekend, hundreds gathered in St. Petersburg,

Florida, for the 1990 Convention
of American Atheists. The story is
captured in this special section of
speeches and photos .:
Fellowship Atheist-style
- R.
Murray-O'Hair recounts the excitement of the convention and lists
1989's award-winning Atheists. - 12
State and Church in France William Bouch describes the history
of state/church relations in his adopted country and the state of its Atheist movement. - 17
June 1990

American Atheist Radio Series

Madalyn O'Hair

50

In "Religion and Insanity, Part 2," both

Roman Catholic and Protestant views
of the mentally ill are examined.

Letters to the Editor

54

Classified Advertisements

56
Page 1

AlDerican Atheist

Membership Application For

American Atheists, Inc.

Editor

R. Murray-O'Hair
Editor Emeritus
Dr. Madalyn O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Poetry
Angeline Bennett
Non-Resident Staff
Margaret Bhatty
Victoria Branden
Merrill Holste
Arthur Frederick Ide
John G. Jackson
Frank R. Zindler

Lastname

First name

Address

City/State/Zip _-----

This is to certify that I am in agreement with the "Aims and Purposes" and
the "Definitions" of American Atheists. I consider myself to be Materialist or
Atheist (i.e., non-theist) and I have, therefore, a particular interest in the
separation of state and church and American Atheists' efforts on behalf of
that principle.
I usually identify myself for public purposes as (check one):

The American Atheist is published monthly

by American Atheist Press.
Copyright 1990 by American Atheist Press.
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole
or in part without written permission is
prohibited. ISSN: 0332-4310.
Mailing address: P. 0. Box 140195,Austin,
TX 78714-0195. Shipping address: 7215
Cameron Road, Austin, TX 78752-2973.
Telephone: (512) 458-1244. FAX: (512) 4679525.
The American Atheist is indexed in IBZ
(International Bibliography of Periodical
Literature, Osnabruck, Germany) and Alternative Press Index.
Manuscripts submitted must be typed,
double-spaced,
and accompanied by a
stamped, self-addressed envelope. A copy
of American Atheist Writers' Guidelines is
available upon request. The editors assume
no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts.
The American Atheist Press publishes a variety of Atheist, agnostic, and freethought
material. A catalog is available for $1.00.
All Christian Bible quotations are from the
King James Version, unless otherwise
noted.

The American Atheist is given free of

cost to members of American Atheists as an incident of their membership. Subscriptions for the American
Atheist alone are $25 a year for oneyear terms only ($35outside the U.S.).
Gift subscriptions are $20 a year ($30
outside the U.S.). The library and institutional discount is 50 percent.
Sustaining subscriptions are $50 a
year.
Page 2

o Atheist
o Freethinker
o Humanist
o Rationalist

o Objectivist
o Ethical Culturalist
o Unitarian

o Secularist

o Agnostic

o Realist
o I evade
o Other:

any reply to a query

_

I am, however, an Atheist and I hereby make application for membership in

American Atheists, said membership being open only to Atheists. (Those not
comfortable with the appellation "Atheist" may not be admitted to membership
but are invited to subscribe to the American Atheist magazine.) Both dues and
contributions are to a tax-exempt organization and I may claim these amounts
as tax deductions on my income tax return. (This application must be dated
and signed by the applicant to be accepted.)
Signature

Date

Membership in American Atheists includes a free subscription to the monthly

journal American Atheist and the free monthly American Atheist Newsletter as
well as all the other rights and privileges of membership. Please indicate your
choice of membership dues:

o Life, $750

o Individual, $50/year

o Couple Life, $1000 (Please give both

o Age

names above.)
o Sustaining, $150/year
o Couple/Family, $75/year (Please give
all names above.)

65 or over, $25/year
(Photocopy of ID required.)
o Student, $20/year (Photocopy of ID required.)

Upon your acceptance into membership, you will receive a handsome goldembossed membership card, a membership certificate personally signed by Jon
G. Murray, president of American Atheists, our special monthly American
Atheist Newsletter to keep you informed of the activities of American Atheists,
and your initial copy of the American Atheist. Life members receive a specially
embossed pen and pencil set; sustaining members receive a commemorative
pen. Your name willbe sent to the Chapter in your local area if there currently
is one, and you will be contacted so you may become a part of the many local
activities. Memberships are nonrefundable.

American Atheists, Inc., P. O. Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195

June'1990

American Atheist

Editor's Desk

The first twenty years

are the hardest
hen the First Annual National
Convention of American Atheists
was held in Austin, Texas, in the
~
spring of 1971,the United States was still
engaged in the war in Vietnam. Fresh
from the McCarthy era, the American
people had the phrase "Atheistic communism" welldrummed into their heads.
The allegedly liberal sixties had done
nothing to restore the careers and good
names of those who had been tarred
with the reputation of political or religious nonconformity during the fifties.
Perhaps a few drug-soaked hippies of
that era were experiencing "personal
freedom," but the ordinary Joe knew
social acceptance was based on conformity. It was a nation in which it was
"better to be dead than red" (as our
boys in 'Nam were sent to prove); Atheism and communism were thought to be
interchangeable; Roe v. Wade was nearly a year in the future; and a boy could
still be thrown out of school for letting
his hair grow past his collar.
How brave those first conventioneers
were! They were less than two dozen in
number, and most hid when television
cameras entered the convention hall.
But still, to come to the heart of Texas,
to a meeting convened by the most outspoken Atheist in the United States,
Madalyn O'Hair, required a unique conviction to freedom of the mind.
I have attended every single convention of American Atheists. I have typed
name tags, manned the bookroom, and
greeted and helped to register generations of American Atheist conventioneers. At this point, I even have the diet
requirements of some "regulars" committed to memory. Yet I consider each
convention of American Atheists to be
as historical as that first one. The fact
that Atheists will gather publicly in this
Christianized nation is amazing enough.
But in addition, together at conventions, we have picketed the White
House (Washington, D.C., 1982) and

R. Murray-D'Hair
Austin, Texas

held the first Atheist Pride March (Denver, Colorado, 1987). We were greeted
by one mayor (Minneapolis, Minnesota,
1988)and had one of our heroes, James
Lick, honored by another (San Francisco, California, 1983). The conventions have welcomed Atheist speakers
from every continent and covered topics
from life extension to Noah's Ark.
In this issue, I have tried to stress the
unique and history-making aspects of
the Twentieth Annual National Convention of American Atheists, held on the
weekend of April 13, 1990, in St. Petersburg, Florida. But looking over the
pages of this journal as it goes to press,
I cannot help but feel that there is one
aspect of the convention over which we
have not made enough of a fuss. For this
was the first time that any of the contents
of a convention of American Atheists
was broadcast by an international media
source.
. As memorable as the actual broadcast is what helped to cause it. In early
1990, at a member's suggestion, American Atheists approached C-SPAN with
the idea that that well-respected cable
network cover the events of the convention weekend. Failing to receive a flat
June 1990

no, American Atheists turned to its

members and supporters, asking that
they write to C-SPAN on the matter. No
one expected C-SPAN to agree to cover
any portion of the event, but it was
thought that at least its programming
directors would then know that Atheists
do indeed exist in these United States.
It was a tremendous milestone in the
struggle for the equal recognition of
Atheism in our country when C-SPAN
did select one speech from the 1990convention to air on cable television. For the
first time, a representative of Atheism
was able to address the nation uninterrupted and uncensored. The broadcast
went to nearly 200 million subscribers,
includingthose overseas. The convention
speaker whom C-SPAN selected for this
historic broadcast was none other than
Madalyn O'Hair, founder of American
Atheists.
That her speech will be prominently
featured in the chronicles of Atheism
there can be no doubt. But as important
are the thousands of letters and telephone
calls which encouraged C-SPAN to cover the event, for they proved that Atheists working together can make a change
in society. 3t
Page 3

Director's Briefcase

Assembling the Atheists

The problem: What to

do at conventions of
American Atheists. The
solution: Your input.

A graduate of the University of Texas

at Austin and a second-generation
Atheist, Mr. Murray is a proponent of
"aggressive Atheism." He is an
anchorman on the "American Atheist
Forum" and the president of American
Atheists.

Jon G. Murray
Page 4

his issue of the American Atheist

is devoted to a report on the
Twentieth Annual National Convention of American Atheists which
took place in April of this year in St.
Petersburg, Florida. It has been a standing policy of this journal to devote one
issue, each year, to the convention of
American Atheists, principally as a way
of bringing the excitement and learning
experience of attending one of these
annual meetings home to all those of
you who were not able to attend. The
holding of periodic conventions, congresses, conferences, conclaves, caucuses, or assemblies is a tradition that
has endured for more than two hundred
years among membership organizations composed of those in dissent to
religion. All of the precursor groups to
American Atheists, under whatever
nomenclature, felt the need to gather together usually at least once a year, but
sometimes more often, for a variety of
reasons.
The foremost of those reasons for
meeting was linked to the nature of being an Atheist (or freethinker, as our
predecessors most often called themselves). Atheism has always been a minority position. It has never been easy to
go against the grain of a culture with a
viewpoint that flies in the face of the very
thought system, myth or not, upon
which the majority believe their daily
way of life to be founded. It is only natural then that an individual who was one
among a very few who ordered their
lives upon a different set of guidelines
would seek out the comfort of companionship with others of like mind. It is true
that with numbers comes strength, security, and peace of mind. It is much less
difficult to hold an opinion with which
seemingly no one else agrees if one can
find at least a few others who share
one's outlook. I must say that it has
been my experience that most Atheists
are "loners," but that they desire in a
burning way to be able to discuss their
ideas with someone who will not think
them prima facie mad. It is this motivaJune 1990

tion, primarily, that has driven every historical movement in dissent to religion
to hold what have often been large and
lengthy conferences.
In days gone by it was not so easy to
assemble as it is today, with our modern
modes of transportation and communication. If one wanted to travel just a few
hundred miles by horse or train, it could
take many days. Yet during the nineteenth century there were many grand
and glorious freethought congresses
mounted both in the United States and
Europe, with attendance that would
dwarf even the largest of American
Atheists' past conventions. That conventioneers of the prior century would
subject themselves to the hardship of
travel, as it was in their times, to gather
for even a few days of companionship
with other "freethinkers" is an adequate
demonstration of just how important it
is for those who disdain religion to have
the opportunity to share that stand with
others.
Another reason for the congresses of
former times was the desire to demonstrate to the general population that
those who were without religion were
just as "good" as churchgoing folk. This
still is the desire of many an individual
Atheist I encounter from time to time.
The Atheist wants his neighbor, his coworker, his classmate, his family to treat
him as they would any other member of
society and not look down on him and
approach him as if he had a contagious
disease. Atheists have felt it important,
given that desire, to gather and to issue
proclamations as to their worth or the
"good deeds" they have done. It has
been psychologically important, in terms
of positive reinforcement, for Atheists to
essentially "parade" themselves at their
congresses for the media and even for
invited religionists to demonstrate that
they did, indeed, not have horns or tails.
The format of these gatherings was
generally uniform. Members of the organizations involved would sit and listen to
one speaker after another extolling the
virtues of the Atheist life-styleand pointAmerican Atheist

Two "firsts" in the history of conventions

of American Atheists: the first Atheist
Pride March in Denver, Colorado, on 18
April 1987 (right) and the first foreign
speaker at one, author Avro Manhattan
(below).

ing out the weaknesses of persons religious to the cheers of those assembled.
The most frequently used vehicle for
attacking religion was biblical criticism.
Many a speaker could hold forth for
hours at the podium. Another favorite
presentation was what I call the "true
confessions" type. This brand of speaker
would rise to the rostrum and give forth
with an emotional rendering of how he
came from the doldrums of religion to
the enlightenment of Atheism. Such
personal testimonies also had the effect
of reinforcement to the listeners who
could identify with one or more of the
experiences recounted in terms of the
events of their own lives.
Man, after all, is a social animal. Standing alone, afield from the pack, is not a
comfortable position for the human animal. It is for that reason that many Atheists desire to seek after some sense of
being "wanted" from time to time, even
if they have to travel a great distance to
fulfillthat desire.

The beginning of our conventions

When American Atheists was founded
in the mid-1960s, there was a longing to
meet among its members as well, but for
the first six or seven years it was simply
not feasible for both monetary and
Austin, Texas

numerical reasons to mount conventions of any kind. Then, starting

in the 1970s, American Atheists
began to hold annual national
meetings. It was not until the fifth
annual convention in April 1976,
which was held in New York City, that
this author became involved in the
arrangements for those meetings. I have
been planning annual conventions of
American Atheists since that time.
The burden of convention planning
has been great, growing with each annual function. The conventions get bigger
and more ambitious each year. It is,
though, for me, a rewarding experience.
Just the expression on the face of an
Atheist member when he or she can sit
down, often for the first time in his or her
life,in the midst of a room of other Atheists and speak freely is well worth the
many hours of preparation that go into
every convention.

The question of content

In the beginning we followed the traditions of the past with regard to convention format and had a variety of
speakers, each presenting essentially
his or her version of how he or she came
to the position of Atheism and why he or
she thought that it was superior to the
life-style of a religionist. This was mixed
with a smattering of biblical criticism,
legal theory, and - of course - entertainment in the form of banquets and
parties. As the conventions progressed,
the idea of having a speaker from an
June 1990

Atheist group outside of the United

States was added, and beginning in 1976
each year American Atheists has sponsored the trip of the leader of a foreign
Atheist group to this country to make a
presentation at the convention. This
year, in St. Petersburg, a representative
of the French Atheist movement continued that annual tradition.
Later on, I had the idea of acquiring
speakers to concentrate on state/church
separation issues in which the rights of
Atheists were being infringed. Those
speakers gave way to others who tackled
the Atheist viewpoint on some of the
"social issues" which were being used
by the right-wing religionists to further
their ends. Other convention speakers
explored the psychology of the believer,
the assaults by religion on education or
on science, and the intrusion of religion
into government. The mixture of the
church into politics was covered, as was
the history of various religious movements - with emphasis on some of the
most bizarre. Atheists were introduced
to the sciences, both pure and theoretical, at various conventions, for it is in
those disciplines that religion shows its
Achilles' heel. And yes, American Atheists even came to hold this century's
first Atheist Pride March at the 1987convention in Denver, Colorado. Throughout the list of presenters those both
from within the organization and those
of the academic arenas were called upon
to share information and evoke thought
and discussion.
Page 5

American Atheists conventions have

included "field trips" to important
sites in the history of Atheism. For instance, at the 1986 convention, a
commemoration was held at the courthouse in Morristown, New Jersey, in
which freethought
lecturer C. B.
Reynolds was convicted of blasphemy
in 1887.Gerald Tholen, vice president
of American Atheists (inset), read a
memorial poem to those assembled.

neously honor the world's best-known

Atheist leader.
It just so happens that the Christian
holiday of Easter more often than not
falls around that same date also. That
coincidence brought about a further
slight alteration in the plan to hold the
The problem of the date
The convention date has been set for convention, each year, on the weekend
spring, almost from the beginning. It was closest to April 13.How could a religious
thought that the annual meeting of an holiday affect the decision of when to
Atheist organization should be held on hold an Atheist convention? Let me exor around a date of historical signifi- plain. It is a matter of statistical fact that
cance. The idea was first advanced of one of the two slowest weekends of the
holding the convention each year at the year for the hotel business happens to
anniversary of the Supreme Court deci- be the Easter weekend. When it was desion in Murray u. Cur/ett, which re- cided to hold the convention in April of
moved compulsory Bible reading and each year, we had no idea of this statisprayer recitation from the public schools. tical reality. When approaching proThat date, however, fell during the spective hotel sites for the annual meetmonth of June. It was argued that a ing, as soon as the month of April was
summer month was not desirable be- mentioned we were asked if we would
cause many members would likelybe on consider Easter weekend. We were
vacation from their employment and amazed to find that we could acquire
desire to spend that time traveling and/ commodious, pleasant, and convenient
or visiting family and friends. The idea meeting space at a greatly reduced cost
was then proposed of holding the con- by choosing to meet over the Easter
weekend and at the same time satisfy
vention around the birthday of Thomas
our object of meeting as close as possiJefferson. This was because Jefferson,
of the Founding Fathers, was the one ble to the historically significant date of
April 13.
most responsible for the secular content
Given that the Easter holiday is a reof the Constitution of the United States
and for the wording of the First Amend- ligious celebration, it was felt that it
ment. Jefferson's birthday falls on April would not be anything that an Atheist
13. When it was discovered that this would be participating in anyway, so
date coincided with the birthday of Dr. why not hold the convention then? In
Madalyn O'Hair, founder of American addition it used to be that many employAtheists, it seemed like a fitting time ers gave employees the Friday or Monaround which to hold an annual meeting day of Easter weekend off. If an Atheist
of an organization dedicated to uphold- was given a day off by an employer for
ing the Jeffersonian concept of separa- a religious holiday, then why not take adtion of state and church and to simulta- vantage of that fact and use the free time
Individual Atheists were honored for
their outspokenness,
their achievements, and their service to the organization. The awards program became a
highlight of each year's convention.

Page 6

June 1990

to attend an Atheist convention, something a great deal more meaningful to

the Atheist? With the state of the economy being what it is, it soon became
more desirable to reap the benefits of
lower meeting costs than to stick too
tenaciously to the April 13 date. The
annual convention of American Atheists, for the foregoing considerations,
has thus been held over Easter weekend
since 1980.
It is not, as some have suggested, an
Atheist conspiracy designed to insult
the .greatest number of religionists by
deciding to hold an Atheist convention
over a religious "holy" day weekend. Although, ifour conventions have the side
effect of rendering such insult, I can say
that I for one look upon that as an added
bonus.

How many days to share?

I want to say also that there has been
another difficulty in planning the conventions of American Atheists in addition to wrestling with date selection. If
we look at the membership of American
Atheists from the standpoint of demography, we find that the vast majority are
what can be called "working people."
That is, they have jobs and employers to
whom they must answer in terms of the
scheduling of their time. They are,
therefore, for the most part, only able to
attend any meetings either in the evening hours or on weekends or other
days on which they are not required to
be at their places of employment. This
makes it difficult to hold a meeting of national scope because of the travel involved. On a national level, most if not
all of the conventioneers need to drive,
fly,or take a bus or train to the convention
site. Travel to the convention normally
accounts for from one-half to a full day.
What this amounts to is that most conventioneers need to ask for, at the minimum, one day off work, that being the
first day of a three-day convention
weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday), or
Friday. Ifthey leave by plane on a Friday
morning, they can get to a given convenAmerican Atheist

tion site from most any of the states of

the Union by the afternoon or evening
of the same day. That is to say, domestic air travel within the contiguous fortyeight states can normally be accomplished within the bounds of a day's
time. Then, in order to get back home
in time to report to work on the following Monday morning, they need to leave
the convention site sometime Sunday
morning or early afternoon. This then
means that Saturday, of a three-day
convention weekend, is the only day
that most of the conventioneers can be
counted upon to be in attendance. As a
consequence the majority of convention events need to be packed into one,
sometimes very long, day on Saturday.

Fulfilling different needs

Now add to this another factor. Conventions of American Atheists need to
accommodate two groups of individuals
on this same three-day weekend. The
first group is made up of the persons
who run the organization on an executive, administrative, and managerial
level. The boards of directors of the various Atheist corporations need to take
advantage of all of the board members
being present for the convention, at the
same time, to have an annual board
meeting. The directors and officers of all
of the local Chapters of American Atheists also need to meet during the course
of the convention, because it is the only
weekend of the year that many of them
are in the same place at the same time.
These two important business meetings
can easily consume the better part of
any day. The second group is the rank
and filemembership of the organization.
They have different concerns than do
the leadership and have, generally
speaking, come to the convention for
more educational, social, and recreational reasons. They do not necessarily
need or desire to attend business and
logistical meetings. Yet time has to be
made for both groups of persons to
meet over the same three-day period of
time. It is for this reason that the business
Austin, Texas

type meetings are usually held on Friday, during the day, while most of the
rank and file conventioneers are traveling toward the convention site. Come
Friday evening, after almost everyone
who has planned to attend has arrived,
there can be a social function of some
kind but not a substantive speech or
presentation that the convention planner
knows that everyone would want to be
present to hear.
This means that any presentations of
substance, and of the type in which
most persons attending would want to
participate, need to be held on Saturday
after the majority of the conventioneers
have arrived on site and settled into the
hotel. Using the same logic, similar
events must be scheduled for presentation after, say, noon on Sunday, because
by that time a goodly number of conventioneers willneed to be leaving to catch
their modes of transportation
back
home.
This then brings up the concern of
needing to have activities for the rank
and fileconventioneers running concurrently with the business meetings in
which only the leadership is involved.
This has been difficult in some locations, depending on what types of leisure time activities were available in the
city in which the convention was taking
place, and particularly near to the meeting site. I have coped with this in a variety of ways with not always the same degrees of success. This is an aspect of the
convention that needs to be worked on
more in future years and requires more
input from the conventioneers. Would
you, as a past or prospective conventioneer, rather pass the time after your
arrival at a convention site on a Friday
in a recreational or an educational way?
That is, would you rather party, relax,
take an outing with fellow Atheists, or
meet for discussions or seminars? Think
about that, please.

The problem of format

I would like to get back to the issue of
convention format though. If we do, we
June 1990

find that American Atheists for most of

the annual meetings which have been
held thus far has stuck to the traditional,
almost universal, model. There are basically two types of events at most conventions: speeches, with other forms of
presentation such as the playing of
video or audio tapes or showing of films
occasionally mixed in between; and entertainment, which usually consists of
socials, parties, receptions, and banquets. There is really not much else that
the average conventioneer can do other
than go on an outing of some kind, or
attend a seminar or class, which in reality is only a "speech" delivered to a
smaller group, in which the opportunity
for question and answer interaction with
the presenter can be greater than with
a large audience. On the other hand,
Atheists, being as independent as they
are, have desired to break away from
that timeworn pattern of conventioneer
behavior.
That is a problem: the desire of the
membership to have an interactive format. It is easy to have discussion or a
lively interchange of questions and answers following a presentation ifthe session involves, say, thirty people or less,
about the size of an average high school
class. That size group is even conducive
to circling chairs or some other device
with the end result of maximizing the
potential for interaction. When the
numbers grow much beyond that it is
simply not possible to do anything but
deliver a straight lecture, after which a
speaker can take a limited number of
questions, each from a different questioner. If one is dealing with a room full
of, say, hundreds of persons, it is not
possible to "circle chairs," as I said, and
simply chat over a particular topic.
Therein lies a principal difficulty with organizing an Atheist convention. Atheists are by their very nature opinionated
and often also stubborn in that regard.
They desire to have the opportunity to
speak their piece, particularly when
they rarely have the occasion to be able
to do so in the course of their daily lives
Page 7

The 1981 convention, held in Salt Lake

City, Utah, included a one-time-only
event: the auction of "temple garments,"
commonly called "Mormon underwear."
Salt Lake City Chapter members modeled the goods for the enjoyment of all
concerned.

as a member of a minority group. When

an Atheist finally gets to a convention
composed only of other Atheists, he or
she wants to render his or her views on
issues of importance. Those of us involved in convention planning understand this. The problem is that the conventions are too big, in terms of numbers, for that kind of interaction except
between sessions, when it can be done
on a person to person basis.

Breaking down into sessions

Let me explain what I mean by our
conventions' being too big. The only
other way in which to make the conventions more interactive would be to split
up the meeting into a large number of
smaller sessions. Those sessions would
then need to run concurrently. If they
ran end to end, all the conventioneers
would be at each one and they would
not be "small" anymore. Not only would
they need to run concurrently, but each
session would need to be repeated, over
the course of the convention weekend,
a number of times equal to the total
number of sessions offered, in order to
give all conventioneers the opportunity
to make their way around to all the sessions. This means that each presenter
would need to chair his or her session as
many times during the three-day weekend as the total number of sessions. If
there were, say, four hundred persons in
attendance (an average number for
American Atheists' conventions), that
would mean about thirteen sessions to
get down to an average size of about
thirty persons per session. To hold, for
Page 8

example, thirteen separate little sessions, or "classes," would require that

many individual rooms that could all be
occupied by about thirty persons each.
That may mean moving out of "hotels"
as a convention site, because I know of
none but the very largest hotels that
might, possibly, have that many of what
the hotel industry refers to as "breakout
rooms." The best place to hold such a
meeting, divided up into a number of
small groups, would be an educational
institution like a college or university
which already has "classrooms" set up
for that very purpose. Really, what we
would be talking about here, after all,
would be a "school" format. Thirteen
"classes" would need to be held for, say,
an hour each and repeated over and
over again for thirteen hours while the
conventioneers shifted between the various classrooms just like students changing classes in a high school. It could perhaps be conceivable to fit thirteen
hours' worth of "classes" into two days
of time. Naturally, by increasing class
size that thirteen could be cut down to
eight (fifty to a class) or four (one hundred to a class) but that would also
diminish the level of interaction within
each class and move us back to square
one. This could be functional in a hotel
setting, with about six or fewer breakout rooms required, but that would get
us back to more than sixty persons per
session - about double what is workable
for true interaction.
I have attended conventions which
were broken up into numbers of concurrent individualsessions on a schedule
in which each session was offered at
several different times during the entire
course of the meeting. Most of the sessions had about thirty to fifty persons in
each, which was workable for an individual interaction format. I must say that all
of that type that I have attended have
been conventions with more than one
thousand persons in attendance and
which were spread out over from three
to six days. The extended length of time
is the rub for applying such a format to
June 1990

an Atheist convention in which so much

has to be confined to essentially a day
and one half. Still, this format seems to
work and could be applied, I suppose, to
an Atheist meeting. In our case, with a
shorter time period in which to work, it
would mean a larger number of persons
per session, making them actually just
smaller lectures and not real discussion
sessions, and again we would not be
achieving the level of interaction that
most Atheists seem to crave.

The "interest level" problem

Another consideration is that each of
the individual sessions, or classes, or
whatever you want to call them, would
need to be of the same interest level to
the average conventioneers, if we, for
example, broke the entire convention
up into quarters. Atheist conventions
are, after all, not like the large business
conventions which I have attended with
many separate sessions. At those conventions, each session was offered for
but a segment of the entire attendance.
There was no anticipation that every
conventioneer would want to attend
every type of session. That is the assumption that the leadership of American Atheists has made for all of its
annual conventions thus far. When
Atheists get together on a national level
but once a year, and only for three days,
they are eager to participate in all they
can during that brief period. Naturally
every conventioneer would want to participate in as many events as possible.
That is what we had assumed, but just
the other day I thought to myself, "What
if that assumption is incorrect?" It may
not necessarily be the case that every
Atheist conventioneer would want to listen to every presentation. They may
each be interested in attending only two
or three of perhaps six or so presentations.
We have always been concerned that
if, for example, Dr. Madalyn O'Hair
would chair one of various concurrent
meetings, virtually every conventioneer
would want to crowd in to hear her preAmerican Atheist

Those who attended the 1982 convention of American Atheists, held in Washington, D.C., not only got a chance to
see our nation's capital in the springtime, they also were able to take part in
the first Atheist picket of the White
House. Their signs let President Reagan
know the Atheist point of view.

sentation, due to her popularity in the

Atheist community, and the other presenters would be left with empty rooms.
This is one of the reasons why the multiple session or "class" type format has
not been tried in a previous Atheist convention. It has also been difficult to line
up competent presenters who were just
willingto make their presentation once,
much less several times. I suppose that
this could be overcome. Speakers of
great overall interest, like Dr. O'Hair,
could give their talks to the entire convention as a whole while other smaller,
say quarter, sessions were chaired by
various individuals of lesser notoriety or
popularity as the case may be.

Panels
The only variation on the straight
speaker format that has been tried has
been the concept of having panels of
more than one person make the presentations, but again to the entire convention at once, operating on the same assumption that everyone would want to
be "in" on everything. That method was
well received, for the first time, at the
1989convention. But it must still be conceded that not every conventioneer is
necessarily interested in every topic presented. That assumption on which past
conventions have been planned could
indeed be wrong. I therefore see no reason why future conventions could not
be in a format of smaller sessions,perhaps a quarter of the convention at a
time (about one hundred persons), during part of the span of the entire meeting and full sessions of all the conventioneers meeting together during the
other portion of the convention weekend.
The prime problem I can see, again, in
shifting to this new format for future
meetings is the ability to round up the
necessary number of qualified presenters. These persons would not necessarily
make their particular presentation more
than once. That consideration had been
a stumbling block before, but perhaps
erroneously. If there were, for example,
four concurrent sessions, each of a difAustin, Texas

ferent topic, during the first quarter of

the day on Saturday, followed by another
four concurrent sessions in the second
quarter of the day, that would mean
eight different topics could be covered
in the first half of the day. Each of those
could have, say, up to about one hundred persons each in attendance, depending upon the level of interest. Then
a lunch break and afterwards the entire
convention would be merged into a
single group, instead of four groups, for
speakers of general interest in the third
and fourth quarters of the day. Such a
format would require eight different presenters in the morning and perhaps
three in the afternoon for a total of
eleven. It would also require that each
conventioneer miss part of the total
convention, since each could only attend
two out of eight possible topical sessions in the first half of the day. The first
half of the day could also be with the
convention divided into thirds instead of
quarters. In that case a given conventioneer could only attend two out of six
topical sessions in the first half of the
day, instead of two out of eight, thus
missing less.

Putting your two cents in

What we need now is your input. The
last time that this office tried to do a survey with regard to conventions the total
percentage return was much less than
satisfactory. Particularly if you have
attended a convention in the past, but
even ifyou have never attended one, we
need to know from you if you would
attend a convention at which you could
not partake of all of the presentations
June 1990

and had to choose between which ones

you desired to attend. What do you, the
membership, think of attending a nontraditional annual convention at which
there were multiple concurrent presentations during part of the convention
that were such that you could not get to
participate in all of them, and other presentations during the other part of the
convention that would be for all conventioneers assembled together? Only you
can determine for us the answer to the
question of whether or not we have been
proceeding on an erroneous assumption.
Until we hear from you, past or future
conventioneers, I can only continue
planning conventions based upon assumptions gleaned from observing
those in attendance each year. Should
those assumptions prove to be wrong,
then the conventions" must change.
Please let me hear from you. Write to:
Jon Murray
Convention Planner
American Atheist General Headquarters
p. O. Box 140195
Austin, Texas 78714-0195
I ask that you please confine your remarks to the topic of convention format. Convention site and date selection
are another" matter that is not up for
discussion at this time. So please don't
write to suggest that the convention be
held next year in your city. What I desire
is your input on what kind of activities
you may desire to participate in and
through which type of format you would
like have them served up to you. ~

to

Page 9

Ask A.A.

Do Atheist employees
have equal rights?
I have enclosed payment for a oneyear subscription to American Atheist.
I am 100 percent an Atheist and 100 percent behind the cause and I would prefer to become a member, but I am hesitating for one reason which I wanted to
ask you about.
I' recently moved to the Bible Belt
from New York and although I felt comfortable being openly Atheist in New
York, I have one concern about it here.
I am still openly Atheist with some people, but I am cautious in relation to my
job. (I am a computer programmer at a
bank.)
How realistic is my fear that if I am
openly Atheist I might lose my job, and
is there any protection under the law
from this? To give you an idea of what
I am up against here, the mayor of Charlotte opens city council meetings with
prayer breakfasts.
Fortunately,
many
people have objected and I have enclosed a letter from the Charlotte Observer that you might find interesting.
In your opinion, will my becoming a
member and participating in local activities possibly jeopardize my job? I look
forward to hearing from you.
Gary Firestone
North Carolina

In "Letters to the Editor," readers give

their opinions, ideas, and information.
But in "Ask A.A.," American Atheists
answers questions regarding its
policies, positions, and customs, as
well-as queries of factual and historical
situations. Please address your
questions to "Ask A.A.," P. O. Box
140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195.

Page 10

In regard to the city council of Charlotte, the mayor does not hold a monopoly on the idea of prayer.
There is no state legislative body,
about which American Atheists knows,
that does not start its sessions with a
prayer. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United
States do so. A very high percentage of
city councils begin their deliberations
with prayers, invocations, or offerings
from an assortment of obliging ministers, priests, and rabbis.
American Atheists filed suits against
such prayers in Arizona, in Michigan, in
Texas, and in New Jersey and lost all of
them. Then Jon Murray challenged the
June 1990

opening of the United States Congress

with prayer and that suit was lost also.
We appealed every case up through
both state and federal courts, finally
asking the Supreme Court of the United
States to review the decisions. That
Court declined to do so and let the
lower court rulings supporting prayers
stand.
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature and a Black Atheist challenged
opening prayers there in 1980. This
case finally did get to the Supreme
Court, and in its decision (Marsh v.
Chambers, 1983) that Court held that
prayers in legislative bodies were not
unconstitutional because of the traditional historic use of the same.
Now, as to your employment and
possible discrimination against you as
an Atheist: From 1959, when American
Atheists was first formulated as an organization,until about 1982 Atheists
could and did lose their employment
when it was discovered that they were
Atheists. American Atheists intervened
in two such cases (DeYoung and Hunter), where qualified teachers were fired
specifically for their Atheism. There
was no hope to win the cases, although
again they were appealed through the
entire federal appellate system.
The situation had begun to ease
somewhat then. During the last five or
six years the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
has
had a number of cases in which employees have declined to be included in onthe-job prayer sessions, and the EEOC
has ruled that they need not be required
to participate. That is a legal decision,
but it does little for one's relationship
with fellow employees and with the
boss. If your supervisor or the president
of the bank is a Christian nut (and there
are many of them in both supervisory
and executive jobs), he can make your
life miserable, make certain you never
get a raise, find another reason to fire
you, give you the donkey work, and
otherwise psychologically abuse you on
the job. When you are finally forced to
American Atheist

Can nonbelievers receive equal justice

from a system that goes out of its way to
venerate a particular branch of religion?
That is the question that must cross the
mind of every Atheist who visits the Supreme Court building only to find the
mythical Moses and Yahweh's Ten Commandments carved in its marble facade.

leave, there won't be a decent reference

given to you as you look for new employment. Remember that religious people
are mean-spirited, vengeful, and vindictive. Their admonition from J.C. is that
"every knee shall bow; every tongue
shall confess," and ifyou don't do it you
can have a lot of trouble on your hands.
If you are tough enough to handle it,
wear your Atheism openly and proudly
on your job - especially ifyou are good
at what you do. If you can't handle it,
wimp out. There is a legal life-style technique that is used extensively in Texas;
it is called the "CYA" [politely, "Cover
Your Anatomy"] syndrome. You need
to save your job. The situation is one
which you must analyze and regarding
which you make your own decision. It
is unlikely that you as a software computer programmer need to get into discussions which will disclose your AtheIsm.

And you can still support American

Atheists financially, even take a membership. Who will know ifyou don't talk
about it where you might receive reprisals? As an Atheist, ifyou find yourself in
with theists, ifwon't matter ifyou are or
are not a member of American Atheists.
What will count is that you are indeed
and in fact an Atheist.

God v. the accused

Is it true? Please check up on this.
Does the Supreme Court of the United States use this opening statement:
"God save the Supreme Court ... and
the United States." That is, is there a
prayer by the Supreme Court to open?
Emroy F. Weber
Wisconsin
It is true. The Supreme Court of the
United States opens each session with
the cry, "Oyez, oyez, God save our nation and this honorable court."
Many of the federal district courts in
the land do the same. The cry in the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, Louisiana, which is the federAustin, Texas

al appellate court for all Texas cases, is,

"Hear ye. Hear ye. Hear ye. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit is now open according to law.
God save the United States and this
honorable court. "
If that isn't bad enough, the Supreme
Court of the United States has carved
on its outer marble facade none other
than Moses holding two tablets on
which are inscribed the Ten Commandments.
American Atheists has had many encounters with the federal courts, refusing to stand for the short prayer, asking
the judges who use the prayer to recuse
themselves for bias when any Atheist
appears before their court, picketing
the court(s) with appropriate signs, demanding - by filing motions, by asking
for injunctions - that the court(s) stop
the prayer, asking the Supreme Court
to order the lower courts to stop the
prayer.
All is in vain so far.
Therefore, we need not alone to continue, but to intensify our efforts.

An Atheist is an Atheist
is an Atheist.
Now that the silly courts have declared secular humanism to be a religion, why don't we just use that ruling to
our advantage? Why can't we just complain that "In God We Trust," "So help
me God," and "One Nation under God"
now clearly discriminate against our
Secular Humanist religion?
"In Christ We Trust" on money
would clearly be unconstitutional, for it
would discriminate against Judaism and
Islam. "In God We Trust" has gotten by
for decades and decades because "god"
was assumed common to all religions.
But since the Secular Humanism ruling
this is no longer true. "In God We
Trust" now clearly favors the godJune 1990

believing religions over the non-godbelieving religions.

How dare the government discriminate against the RELIGION of Secular
Humanism by putting "In God We
Trust" on money, if it dare not discriminate against the religion of Judaism by
putting "In Christ We Trust" thereon?
Has this argument ever been used to
fight the "god" stuff in government?
Ed McCravy
South Carolina
Gawd deliver us from clever Atheists!
American Atheists is totally uninterested in what the courts have to say
about or to "Secular Humanism." We
define what we are - not the courts.
Additionally, the humanists were whining after a religious tax exemption and
filed suits for the same. That is what engaged the courts in such idiotic thinking. Had the humanists not begged to
be considered a religion, the situation
would not be as it is now (Washington
Ethical Society v. District of Columbia
[1958], and Fellowship of Humanity v.
County of Alameda [1957]).
American Atheists want to stand
bold and free, repudiating any identification with any of the irrational elements of any religion. We don't plan a
clever attack on god phrases; they must
all go, for one reason and one reason
alone: religious ideas are psychotic. Not
a one of them can ever be beneficial for
the human community.
We decline your suggestions.
Additionally, Atheism is in no way
associated with religion, or with secular
humanism. We recommend that you
obtain the book, All the Questions You
Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists,
with All the Answers, so that you can
obtain a proper definition of both religion and Atheism. ~
Page 11

CONVENTION

1990 REPORT

Fellowship Atheist-style
R. Murray-O'Hair
theism is a lonely sort of position.
It has neither catechisms nor rit.,
uals, litanies nor canons through
which its proponents can express their
union with the tribe. There are no rhythmic chants in which an Atheist might
join to hear the reassurance of his
voice's mingling with those of others of
likemind. There are no formulaic prayers
to mumble in difficult situations so that
he knows that he is doing what others
would do in the same spot. There is not
even a secret Atheist handshake by
which to identify his fellows.
Instead, each Atheist is on his own intellectually and, ultimately, emotionally.
He must evaluate each situation which
crops up in his lifeas best he can, gather
as much information as he is able, and
then make his own decisions. Relations
with others in his community are not as
easily established as joining in a hymn;
decisions are not as facilely made as following the instructions of a pope or a
book.
But in addition to the duty of intellectual independence which Atheism imposes, the Atheist in America, in these
United States, must also face a cultural
isolation. Our nation has only recently
~

Page 12

evolved from its "believe-or-burn" stage

to its "believe-or-move-out" stage, and
everywhere there is the institutionalization and imposition of religion. The prototypal good citizen rears his young and
buries his dead in the church, and even
eats his dinner "by the grace of god."
And if one should forget this fundamental formula, one is reminded of one's
duty to believe by the god-oaths in the
courtrooms, the god-slogans on the
money, and the god-symbols on the
public buildings. From the crosses in the
city seals to the expenditure of tax funds
for religious needs, the U.S. Atheist is
constantly reminded that no matter
how well-behaved he might be, he will
never be a good citizen or a "member of
the pack" - and Homo sapiens are
pack animals - we call a nation, until he
goes on bended knee.
It is no wonder 'then that Atheists
have such a damn good time at the
Annual National Conventions of American Atheists. No, there are no servings
of wine and wafers for them to share,
but there is an infinitely more refreshing
and strengthening communion in which
they engage - that of forthright intellectual exchange. There at last they can
mingle with others of like mind, tell all of
the pope jokes off limitto their relations,
and make all of the frank observations
June 1990

of our religion-dominated society that

they cannot share at work. And they
soak up all the information regarding
the current status of Atheism, state/
church separation, and religion that can
be packed into one three-day weekend
so that they can return to their communities and use it the best way they can
to make the world a little more free of
religious dogma.

Off to Florida
Those attending the Twentieth Annual
National Convention of American Atheists found that frank intellectual communion mentioned above in full swing.
Held in St. Petersburg, Florida (jokingly
called "Mr." Petersburg by convention
organizers), on April 13, 14,and 15, 1990,
the convention featured speakers on
the most controversial topics of the day.
All of them either experts or innovators
in their fields, they were not at all bashful
to pinpoint organized religion's participation in the various issues. Business
meetings held throughout the weekend
helped leaders of American Atheists at
all levels, both Chapter and National,
plan the strategies which organized
Atheism should use over the next year.
An exhausting round of parties, dinners,
and socials topped off the weekend, as
Atheist met Atheist.
American Atheist

Conventioneers began to arrive at

the St. Petersburg Hilton and Towers,
where the meeting was held, on April 11,
the Wednesday before the convention,
some joining Robin Murray-O'Hair,
editor of the American Atheist, and
Madalyn O'Hair, founder of American
Atheists, for some late night pizza and
speculation on how the convention
weekend would go. The next day, as
more arrived, they began seeking one
another out and trading news, recognizing one another by their proudly worn
Atheist symbols and irreligious T-shirts
and pins. Knowing there was still a lot of
work to be done in setting up the event,
local Chapter volunteers and many of
the "old-timers" who had been to previous conventions of American Atheists
lent a hand in unpacking both the convention's registration desk and the book
and product display room. Once all the
boxes and supplies were moved into the
hotel and all the exhibits assembled,
Chapter and National officers and staff
joined some of the conventioneers for
dinner at a nearby restaurant overlooking Tampa Bay. As the stars shone and
the water sparkled, everyone got a taste
not only of the popular Caribbean cuisine so favored by locals, but also of the
stimulating conversation and camaraderie which would mark the convention
weekend so distinctively.
So it was that the convention got off
to a rousing start the next day, Friday,
April 13. The convention registration
desk was practically snowed under as
soon as it opened for the first time that
weekend, with Atheists lined up and
eager to receive their convention folders,
tickets, and badges and plunge into the
planned activities.
More went on during that first convention day than watching out for black
cats. The first day of the convention
weekend traditionally plays host to first
of all a press conference for the local
media. That event was well attended in
Florida, with several of the convention's
speakers, as well as the organization's
officers, fielding questions from eager
reporters. Following the press conference the national boards of directors of
the various associated Atheist corporations met for one of their usual biannual
meetings. Then it was the Chapter directors' turn to get together and exchange
their experiences in dealing with the
"average" Atheist on his home turf. It is
but once a year that the directors and
officers of all of the Chapters of AmerAustin, Texas

14,to make conventioneers aware of the

upcoming drives to liberalize euthanasia
laws around the United States. His presentation is also included in this issue.
Another controversy which has literally - spread into the streets of the
nation has been that of what is called
"animal rights." Although there is not a
consensus among Atheists about what
are the ethical limits of the human use of
animals, there is certainly agreement
Ifyou think the Florida sun is hot, that humans must maintain a responsible relationship with their environment
wait 'til you see our speakers
The focus of any convention is usually and other animals. In that spirit, Ingrid
its speakers and panelists - but partic- Newkirk, one of the pioneers of today's
ularly so a convention of Atheists, some animal rights movement, was invited to
of the most fact-demanding and infor- address the convention on the topic of
mation-seeking persons who can be as- "Animal Rights - Reason and Religion."
Newkirk, co-founder and national direcsembled. This year, the convention
tor of People for the Ethical Treatment
planner, Jon G. Murray, had attempted
of Animals, presented an Atheist's view
to bring together an array of speakers
of the matter along with an explicit film
on what he described in the convention
of factory farming conditions. In return,
program as "the most controversial
topics in our nation, all with their roots conventioneers gave her the kind of
in the ugly hands of religion which is at- spirited question and answer sessions
tempting to bind the culture into a nar- for which Atheists are so well known.
William Bouch was on hand to reprerow viewpoint of what is 'right' and what
sent France's L'Union des Athees (Union
is 'wrong' along biblical lines."
Abortion rights is, of course, one of of Atheists) and to present an up-to-date
these, and is certainly the one provok- on the special problems which French
ing the most violence in our nation, with Atheists face in a country in which state
reactionary religionists willing to fire- and church are separated by law but not
bomb birth control clinics and risk kill- always in fact. (Wait a minute - that
ing grown women so that the "souls" of sounds a lot like the United States of
potential infants might be saved. Thus it America!) This issue of the American
was fitting that BillBaird, who has been Atheist contains his detailed speech so
called the "father of the abortion move- that readers may gain some historical
ment," reviewed his own twenty-year
insights into the condition of France tostruggle against the laws denying women day. Bouch was invited to the convenaccess to birth control information and tion as part of United World Atheists'
abortion, on Saturday, April 14.Baird is ongoing effort to strengthen the ties of
a pioneer in this area, having taken two the international Atheist community
successful lawsuits against restrictive
and was presented with an honorary life
birth control and abortion laws to the membership in American Atheists following his presentation.
Supreme Court of the United States.
His presentation is reprinted in this
One of the banners under which religion is trying to intrude itself into public
issue of the American Atheist.
Religion is never comfortable when education and policy is that of "morals."
people have the means to control their What Atheist has not heard the arguown lives - or their own deaths. The ment that without the straightjacket of
religion ours would be a nation of drugRoman Catholic and other churches
have been particularly active in the Unit- pushing, grandmother-murdering, cokeed States in the effort to prevent and snorting, child-molesting rapists? Bepunish both active and passive euthanacause religion is specifically trying to sell
sia. It is therefore appropriate that an itself as an all-purpose solution (kind of
Atheist, Derek Humphry, has been in like "Mr. Clean") to the drug and crime
the forefront of the battle for individuals problems of our nation, convention
to be able to die with dignity, using their planner Jon Murray felt it was crucial to
own ethics - and not an institution's address the question of "Why an Atheist
as a guide. Humphry, the British-born Ethic is Superior to a Religious Ethic" at
founder of The Hemlock Society, em- this convention. Albert E. Lyngzeidetployed his timeslot on Saturday, April son, a professor of philosophy at the
ican Atheists get the opportunity to assemble, sometimes meeting one another
for the first time, to get direction from
the National office and exchange ideas
for outreach on the local level. This
year's Chapter directors' meeting was
well attended, productive, and conducted under the capable leadership of National Chapter Coordinator Don Sanders
from Houston, Texas.

June 1990

Page 13

The heroes among us

It isn't that often that we, as Atheists,
have a chance to say to one of our fellows, "Thank you for a job well done."
For an Atheist to speak out in today's
climate of hostility is courageous. There
is no other word to describe any such
"speak out" activity: it is courageous.
Yet we know that hundreds of you do
it. You stand mute through prayers and
Pledges of Allegiance; you refuse to bow
your head for grace; you write pointed
"Letters to the Editor"; you call up your
school's principal to demand that religious recognition or practices stop.
You write that extra-check; you pass
on that Atheist book; you are one of the
voices on the telephone to commend
your local cable company for airing the
"American Atheist Forum."
As a parent, you keep thefuzzy ideas
of religion from capturing the minds of
your children.
(!. ; You are heroes all.
And American Atheists should spread
~
~~~ awards and honors among you. What to
~
do, then, when we have only one day at
~
the convention, with time only between
~1 speakers to give, at least, a few awards?
Well,we do what we usually do: what we
~, can. And, considering all nominations,
~
we present those very few awards which
could be given this year.
J

i~

~
"'"
: .' r~~~~~'
rM
~. ~-?1f1ii1n~

Atheist Youth Award

Carin Rae Freedsma, for conceiving
and developing The Kid's Korner, the
only Atheist periodical for youngsters,
to bring the message of Atheism to kids
in our nation.
Atheist Spokesman of the Year
Frank R. Zindler, for "his representation of Atheism in his own Weltanschauung before the world and his formal presentation of Atheism to the
nation." Mr. Zindler is a frequent guest
on radio call-in shows as a spokesperson for the Atheist position. He is a
well-known public advocate of Atheism
and separation of state and church in
Ohio.
Most Hated Atheist of the Year
Don Sanders, for maintaining a vocal
and forthright Atheist life-style despite
what others would say is a dual handicap

"'~'---.- ~~~~

~11Jitlj'~ ~~~~

University of Miami, easily answered

that question in his speech on Saturday,
April 14. Dr. Lyngzeidetson was joined
by Christos Tzanetakos, director of the
Miami Chapter of American Atheists;
Herman Harris, board member of the
American Atheist General Headquarters
from Kentucky; and Robert Pidgeon,
codirector of the Tampa Bay Chapter of
American Atheists, in a panel discussion
of the question after his presentation.
Lyngzeidetson's remarks, as well as
those of Messrs. Tzanetakos and Harris,
are reproduced in this issue.
At any movement's convention, it is
essential that the leadership of the
movement put in its two cents' worth at
some point to provide direction for the
coming year of work and struggle. Thus
Jon G. Murray, president of American
Atheists, took the podium on the morning of Sunday, April 15. He tried to give
those assembled a sense of what it was
like to try to approach the legislative
branch of government, as an open activPage 14

Atheist of the Year

Don Sanders, who has placed his
concern for Atheism above all other interests and as a volunteer is now the
National Chapter Coordinator. He has
been active in protests of separation of
state and church violations in Houston,
Texas, both with and without litigation.

ist Atheist, with the aim of broadening

the civil rights of Atheists in general. A
more literary version of his extemporaneous convention remarks was published
in the "Director's Briefcase" column of
the March 1990 American Atheist. Mr.
Murray was originally scheduled to
speak during the Members' Banquet the
evening before, but the combination of
the alluring Florida weather and prolonged question and answer sessions by
curious Atheist conventioneers had
caused the prior day's sessions .to run
too long, making it impossible for himto
speak at the announced time.
Fittingly, the keynote speaker at this
convention of American Atheists was
the first lady of American Atheism:
Madalyn O'Hair. Beginning by reviewing
what the basic positions of Atheism are,
on Saturday, April 14,she gave a rousing
survey of the government -sponsored
repression under which American Atheists suffer today in the "land of the free."
Her speech, "Atheists: The Last MiJune 1990

.. '.,

. ..'

11~~
I

_~&

of being both Gay and Atheist. Mr. San- .

ders is certainly hated by those of reli-I
gionist mentality who would have all
,
believe as they do despite the Constitu- .
tion.
. ,II
Pioneer Atheist Award
Toivo V.Helin, for his advocacy of the
Atheist perspective for more than half a
century in Minnesota and Wisconsin,
and for his generous support of American Atheists.
Outstanding Chapter Award
American Atheists desires to honor
yearly one of its Chapters for its outreach
efforts in a given geographical area.
Each year it is a very difficult task indeed
to select a recipient of this award because
every Chapter does a fine job of representing Atheism each in its own way.
This year the Phoenix Chapter was selected because it sustained an outstanding and consistent level of public awareness on issues of concern to Atheists in
Arizona.

~~
~

~I"~'~
~
tl'

",

',I,

~,
~
~.

14

I~!

Most Hated Chapter of the Year ",

The Puget Sound (Seattle), Washing- ~~
ton, Chapter of American Atheists, for
organizing and implementing the dis- ,.~
play of "Dial-An-Atheist?" advertise'.

.~."

-,

~~~~.~

.t'~~

nority," has been reprinted in booklet

form and is available from the American
Atheist Press.

Atheism on the air for all

the world to see
It was, in fact, Dr. O'Hair's speech
which was the most precedent -setting
one of the convention.
Several months before the convention took place, longtime member of
American Atheists Arlene Gamer suggested that the organization approach
C-SPAN with the idea that it broadcast
the Twentieth Annual National Convention of American Atheists. C-SPAN is a
cooperative cable channel that airs (without comment) proceedings of the U.S.
Congress and Britain's parliament and
other events of public interest. American Atheists followed the suggestion and
found C-SPAN amenable to the idea and letters from thousands of supporters of American Atheists encouraged
the cable network to act upon it. C-SPAN,
American Atheist

-~.

t
.-

'IDI"'~~~~
ments on city buses in its area. (An articleon this successful endeavor appeared
in the June 1989 issue of the American
Atheist.)
Outstanding Chapter Director
Chris Allen, director of the Utah
Chapter of American Atheists, because
"his steady hand and common sense
has maintained a solid chapter in a most
hostile religious state." Most Atheists
cannot even imagine livingin a theocracy
such as the one which exists in the state
of Utah, much less directing a Chapter
of American Atheists in such a place.
Chris Allen has done an admirable job of
leading a small, stalwart band of Athe_ ists against the power of the Mormon
:;,." church.
~

Outstanding Chapter Worker Award

Monica C. Madden of the Tampa Bay
~ Chapter of American Atheists.
~.
In every Chapter there are a few in, dividuals who give many hours of their
personal leisure time in volunteer labor.
Often these persons do so unobtrusive!.J ly, in the background and out of the lime~: light of the media. It is the efforts of just
~ such a Chapter worker that keeps a
given group going in the long haul. Ms.
" .a: Madden has been a prime example of
I

rr~

t;~.. -~...
,~r.
I

t#

this type of quietly dedicated Atheist

activist.
Outreach Award
The Minnesota Chapter of American
Atheists, in recognition of its work in
informing its community about Atheism
by its continual efforts in placing the
national edition of the "American Atheist
Forum" on local cable stations and by its
production of a local edition of that
series.
Outreach Award
Given jointly to John B. Massen,
director of the San Francisco Chapter
of American Atheists, and R. A. Freedsma, board member of the Phoenix
Chapter, for their courageous work with
textbook selection in America's public
schools. The public school textbook selection process, in many states, has developed into a battleground between
rationalism and science and fundamentalism. These gentlemen provided a
valuable service in both California and
Arizona through their input into that selection process on behalf of rational
thinking.

.".~

~ ~~~
.~ ..~.

.1'.[

"P_

;<..r,'~

M:i'.l...:_~.:...:c'~

and Jerry Rosenthal received this award

in recognition of their loyal and continuous cheerful service in their Chapters
(Miami, Philadelphia, and New York, respectively) and at the Annual National
Conventions of American Atheists.
These three Atheist sisters are always
ready to lend a hand toward the promotion of Atheism whenever and wherever
they may be called upon to do so, and
with an exuberant enthusiasm.

Austin, Texas

They came, they saw, and

they convened
The conventioneers found, however,
that they were by no means limited to
listening to lecturers to gain their fill of
new information. On the afternoon of
Friday, April 13, American Atheist Veterans met to discuss ways to obtain
equal recognition of their contributions
to the United States. Led by Californian
Stephen Thorne and Virginian Arnold
Via, the veterans were particularly concerned by President Bush's remarks
that Atheists should not be considered
as either citizens or patriots since this is
"one Nation under God." Also that afJune 1990

JI
~
1

"
.

~:c.

~m

Dedication Award
Reynold D. Bourquin, for his many ~
years of unflinching advocacy of separa-~
tion of state and church and the civil
rights of Atheists in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- ~
vania. Mr. Bourquin has been a long- .
time board member of American Athe-I"
ists and has, at times, virtually singlehandedly represented Atheism in Pitts;
burgh. His contributions of books to the
"
Charles E. Stevens American Atheist
:
Library and Archives, Inc. have been ~
invaluable. ~

Outstanding Members
Sisters Celia Glantz, Freda Kernes,

on the delegation from the Atlanta

Chapter of American Atheists, interviewing several of the convention speakers and national officers of American
Atheists in the course of their filming.
Local newspaper coverage was extensive, with a two-page article appearing in
one paper on the following weekend.

is

i~1

''fI .

which has more than 200,000,000 subscribers around the world, put its toes in
the water, so to speak, by agreeing to
broadcast the presentation of Madalyn
O'Hair at the convention. First aired on
Saturday, April 21 (11:00 P.M. E.s.T), the
coverage was the first time an Atheist
leader was able to address the nation and the world - and calmly explain the
Atheist position without interruption or
censorship. Even though C-SPAN neglected to broadcast the address of the
organization sponsoring her presentation, many thrilled Atheists managed to
find the group and join it.
The convention received a great deal
of other favorable media coverage, both
local and national. Dr. O'Hair appeared
on several local television and radio talk
shows before the convention in order to
draw attention to it, and convention luminaries such as Bill Baird and Derek
Humphry also received much media attention. An Atlanta, Georgia, television
station sent a film crew to do a special

~:
'"

ternoon, members of American Gay

Atheists conferred on the special challenges they face from the religion community in their attempts to achieve
equal civil rights. The meeting was
chaired by Mark Franceschini, secretary
of the Houston-based organization.
On Saturday, April 14, Jon Murray,
together with Ed Golly and Robert
Pidgeon, codirectors of the Tampa Bay
Chapter of American Atheists, officially
opened the convention and welcomed
conventioneers. Immediately afterwards,
the podium was given to the "Atheist
Community Activism Panel," chaired by
Robert I. Sherman, Midwest media and
litigation coordinator of American Atheists. Sherman and his fellow panelists
Joe Zemel (director of the Philadelphia
Chapter of American Atheists), Stephen
Thorne (director of the San Diego
Chapter), and Chris Allen (director of
the Utah Chapter) gave step-by-step
examples of how to make an impact for
Atheism in their communities on specific
Page 15

issues. Chris Allen, for example, outlined

how the Utah Chapter is challenging
local requirements that voters enter
churches to exercise the franchise.
Two panels were scheduled for the
afternoon of Sunday, April 15. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen events both
panels turned into solo presentations.
Frank R. Zindler found himself explaining "The Origins of the Bible" alone, and
Kevin Beaudin's co-panelist on the topic
of "State/Church Litigation Theories
for the '90s" was unable to attend because of a recent heart attack. Both
rose more than ably to the occasion and
delivered interesting discussions of their
topics, givinglisteners many new insights
into them.
Convention proceedings were punctuated by the presentation of the annual
awards given by American Atheists (see
"The Heroes Among Us" for the listing
of this year's well-earned honors). Of
special note was the presentation of Life
Memberships in American Atheists to
Frank and Ann Zindler.Known to readers
of the American Atheist for his regular
column "The Probing Mind," Frank is
also a tireless media representative for
American Atheists. His wife Ann puts in
countless hours of typesetting and editing on the Columbus, Ohio Chapter's
outstanding monthly newsletter as well
as managing the bulk of this large Chapter's clerical duties.
It was fitting that these two wellknown and -loved members of the
American Atheist community achieved
this long overdue recognition of their
efforts at this convention, as one distinctive feature of it was that more persons
became Life Members at this convention than at any other single event sponsored by American Atheists. All together,
twelve persons came to the registration
desk over the weekend to join the ranks
of "Lifers."

Time for work - and

time for play
Whenever members of American
Atheists have been surveyed on their
opinions on convention activities, they
have placed top priority on speeches
and educational seminars. But whenever
two or more Atheists gather together,
one quickly finds out that they also
place great importance on overcoming
the loneliness of Atheism by some plain,
old-fashioned socializing. Accordingly,
the schedule of the Twentieth Annual
National Convention of American AthePage 16

up for the Brunch Buffet the next mornists was packed with many opportunities
ing. And who wouldn't want to come to
for Atheists to shake hands, break
bread, toast one another, talk the night that? Not only was it the last chance
many conventioneers would have to soaway, and dance up a storm.
The Atheist social season, as it is, cialize during the convention, it was also
started with a bang as Life Members of the time that "Most Hated Atheist of
American Atheists boarded buses and 1989"was unmasked. (See "The Heroes
cars to travel to an excursion ship for Among Us.")
Atheists aren't rule-bound people,
the LifeMembers' Dinner Cruise. "Lifers,"
as they are affectionately known, were however, and in addition to the many
joined by national board members and official social events of the convention,
officers of American Atheists, as well as they made a few of their own. The piano
many of the convention speakers, for a in the hotel lobby was rarely without a
volunteer pianist as one Atheist after anromantic dinner on the Tampa Bay.
By the time the Lifers got off the boat other delighted his fellows with a few
and back to the convention hotel, the well-rendered tunes.
Founder's Birthday Party was in full
swing. The room was decorated with Books, videos, and more ...
Conventioneers were also often found
balloons in the convention's official
colors, grey and aquamarine, and soon in the book and product display room.
Each year this room includes all of the
after the Lifers and Dr. O'Hair entered
it, a cheer went up for the birthdays of books, booklets, pamphlets, Tshirts,
Thomas Jefferson (his 247th) and Mad- bumper stickers, pins, and jewelry
alyn O'Hair (her 71st). There was birth- which American Atheists sells, some of
day cake for all, and since Tom wasn't which is never offered by mail because
present for the occasion, the two Flor- of short supply. Chapters of American
ida Chapters of American Atheists gave Atheists are also invited to bring their
Dr. O'Hair several presents in honor of products for sale, as usually these items
the events. First and foremost was an are only available to their local memberarchitectural rendering of the American ship. There was a larger selection of
Atheist General Headquarters in Aus- Chapter products than usual this year,
tin, Texas, by Ed Golly, codirector of the as Ohio brought transcripts of its popular
Tampa Bay Chapter of American Athe- Dial-An-Atheisre messages, Phoenix
ists. Christ os Tzanetakos, director of brought stamps to get the god off of
the Miami Chapter, and Ed Golly gave money, Tucson had an array of Tshirts,
and San Diego offered cassettes from its
her a case of fine red wines.
Dial-An-Atheist service.
The lectures and panels on Saturday,
Chapters were also featured in the
April 14,were pleasantly interrupted by
a poolside picnic. Hamburgers, hot convention's video room. Throughout
dogs, made to order fudge brownie sun- the weekend, the video room offered
daes, and Florida sunshine proved to be conventioneers a chance to rest and to
a delightful combination, though it may catch a glimpse of the national "Amerihave been the conversation that was en- can Atheist Forum" as well as the local
joyed more than the excellent food. editions produced by the Central Ohio
Atheists revelled in the chance to leave and Minnesota Chapters.
There was a special feature of the
coats and ties behind for swimsuits and
convention of the year before, which
splash in the pool with their fellows.
A more formal tone was taken, how- had involved the Chapters, which was
ever, for the Members Reception and missed this year. That was what should
Banquet on Saturday night. There suits have been the Second Annual Question
and cocktail dresses were the order of Bee. What is a Question Bee? Well, it
the evening; after all, it's not often that works this way. Typical questions that
Atheists have the chance to dress up an Atheist spokesperson may find hurled
without having to button up their opin- at him by the general public when apions. The banquet was followed by a pearing on radio, television, or at a pubdance at which conventioneers boogied lic lecture, are collected on index cards.
on into the night. Music was provided by Those cards are drawn by a volunteer
The Jack Golly Band. A veteran of from the audience and given to one
Spike Jones' orchestra, Jack Golly is Chapter director or officer at a time.
Each person questioned has a time limit
also the father of Ed Golly.
Despite the good dancing music, con- under which to give his best answer to
(See "Fellowship"on page 56)
ventioneers didn't stay up too late to get
June 1990

American Atheist

-----------------------------~~---------------------------

State and church in France

William Bouch
Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, in
1941, William Bouch began to question the Christian beliefs of his family at the young age of eighteen. He
did not, however, become involved
in the Atheist movement until 1983,
at the time of a controversy over
publicly funded religious schools in
France, where he works as a translator and interpreter. He has been
an active member of the French organization L'Union des Athees since
that time.
In his presentation to the convention, Mr. Bouch examined the origins
of state/church separation in France
as well as the current challenges to
it, bringing his American audience
an overview of what challenges face
the Union in the coming years.

Il

am going to try to explain the church!

state situation in France today, and
the response of the Union des Athees,
which is the organisation which I represent today.
.
In order to clarify the situation as
much as possible, I am going to start
with a brief historical survey of church/
state relations from the earliest times
until the Billof Separation of 1905,which
gives us the base for the present relationship.

Austin, Texas

June 1990

Page 17

First of all, it is necessary to bear in

mind that when we speak of the church
in France, we mean the Roman Catholic
church. This is probably the oldest continuous organisation in the world. It has
a huge amount of power, wealth, and
prestige, and despite changes in organisation, doctrine, and propaganda, its
basic aim has never changed. This aim
is the spiritual and physical domination
of humankind. To further this aim, it has
fomented wars, practised torture and
assassination, supported dictators, carried out spiritual blackmail, done whatever was necessary to retain its power.
At the moment it seems to be in decline
in Europe, and this decline may be permanent, but there is no place for complacency. Its great strength in the past
was to be able to attract able people
from all sections of the population people who had no other career open to
them. Since the rise of the industrial
society, and above all the spread of education and opportunity to all classes,
this has been less and less true. At the
moment there is a crisis in vocation. Not
enough young men are coming forward
for the priesthood, and since the church
recruits its leaders from its own ranks,
this should in due course lead to a
, severe lack of executive ability. We can
only hope that this proves to be the
case, and, as Atheists, do all in our
power to hasten the process.
In France we must go back to the
ninth century. In the year 800 Charlemagne,' already king of France and having conquered Italy and Germany, was
anointed Holy Roman Emperor by the
pope. According to feudal theory, he
thus became a vassal of the church,
holding the empire in return for the recognition of the church as his overlord.
The pope was henceforth able to exercise real physical authority over a large
part of Europe. This power waxed and
waned through the centuries. The pope
was able to call crusades, stamp out different beliefs, which he designated as
heresies, raise taxes, appoint church administrators, interfere in dynastic marriages. The stranglehold of the church
on education ensured that the only
source of trained administrators was
the church itself. The threat of excommunication served to keep kings and
nobles in line. This temporal power de-

open warfare, which, although less

severe than the religious wars in Germany, nevertheless caused a great deal
of hardship. In 1572 the Protestant leadership, gathered in Paris to celebrate a
royal marriage, were massacred on St.
Bartholomew's Eve. Three thousand

lCharlemagne (742-814), Frankish king

(768-814), emperor of the West (800-814).

2Benedetto Caetani (ca. 1235 or 1240-1303),

as Boniface VIIIpope (1294-1303).

Page 18

clined through the ages, but as late as

the fourteenth century, Pope Boniface
VIII2was able to declare, "It is necessary
to salvation that every human creature
be subject to the Roman pontiff."
Protestantism arrived in France about
1520, and, given the corruption of the
church, quickly gained a large number
of adherents, especially in the south and
west. The next hundred years saw a
struggle between the two forms of
Christianity, sometimes breaking into

Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, in

754 (or 756) gave the pope all of Italy but
the lands north of the Po and the cities
of Calabria and Naples. His son Charles
(Charlemagne), shown above, affirmed
the gift in Rome in 774 and in return was
crowned by the pope as the Holy Roman
Emperor. He reigned over his ecclesiastical empire until his death.

June 1990

people were murdered and their bodies

thrown into the Seine. This was followed
by further massacres in the provinces.
In Rome the pope had bonfires lit to celebrate the event. The Edict of Nantes in
1598 granted a slight degree of tolerance
to the Protestants, but this was revoked
in 1685. Their religion was forbidden,
their churches destroyed, their children
were forcibly baptised, and they were
constrained from leaving the country.
Nevertheless, two hundred thousand of
them escaped to various European
countries, among them large numbers
of skilled artisans, small-business men,
teachers, and other extremely valuable
members of the community, thus causing great economic damage to France.
For the next century the king was an
absolute monarch, and Roman Catholicism was the official and only legal religion within the kingdom.
The mid-eighteenth century saw the
rise of the philosophical movement
which some decades later helped give
rise to the Revolution. Of these philosophers, who included Voltaire and
Rousseau, only Diderot seems to have
been an Atheist. Nevertheless, the privileges and even the existence of the
church were called into question. Freemasonry and anticlerical ism were on
the increase. This did not prevent the
execution, after various tortures including the tearing out of his tongue, of the
Chevalier de la Barre, a young noble
who had "insulted" a religious procession. This took place in 1766. The chevalier was rehabilitated during the Revolution, and has become a symbol of
church persecution to Atheists and
other nonbelievers. This is probably the
last judicial murder instigated by the
church in France.
The Revolution itself was in no way
Atheist. Although it granted liberty of
conscience to follow a religion, several
of which, such as the cult of the Supreme
Being, were actively promulgated by the
new state, Atheism was specifically
banned. However, at this period the
church was disendowed of its huge
property holdings. These, supposedly
to be held in trust for the nation, were
in fact sold off to pay for the war in which
France was by this time engaged. The
clergy were required to swear an oath to
the constitution, and thus became functionaries paid by the state, and at one
stage were to be elected by their parishes. This was resisted by a large number of the clergy, who later were responAmerican Atheist

sible for instigating various rebellions.

In 1801 Napoleon concluded a concordat with the pope, in which Roman
Catholicism was recognised as the religion of the great majority of the French
people, but which ended for all time the
idea of the temporal power of the pope.
He retained the privilege of investing the
higher clergy, but these were now chosen and paid by the state. The church
thus became established on something
like the English model and this state of
affairs remained for more than half a
century despite very strong efforts by
French Ultramontane- Roman Catholics to restore the supremacy of the
pope.
The Third Republic saw increasing
alarm at the power of the church, especiallyas far as its stranglehold on education was concerned. Many republican
politicians were Atheists or freethinkers
of one or another persuasion, while
others, although believers, did not wish
a powerful church looking towards
Rome. The Roman Catholics, and especially the Jesuits, were suspected, with
good reason, of wishing to restore the
monarchy and the supremacy of the
pope.
Accordingly, in 1880an education act
was passed, which remains the basis for
secular education today. Among the
measures of this bill were:

Within ten years the religious orders

held less than four thousand out of
sixty-eight thousand public primary
schools, and fifteen thousand private
schools, giving them a 25 percent share
of primary education. Their proportion
of secondary education was much higher,
but successive acts and greater public
investment in the secondary sector
redressed the balance. Today 17percent
of French children are in private schools,
mostly of a confessional nature.

Only the university had the

right to grant degrees.
The religious orders were forbidden to teach without state
authorisation.
The Jesuits, who were the most
feared of the orders, were expelled from France.
The bill provided free, secular, and
obligatory primary education. Religious
instruction and observance of any kind
was forbidden within school precincts,
although provision was made for a free
weekday during which parents, if they
so wished, could have their children given religious instruction. This provision is
still in force and I shall be coming back
to it later.
At the same time, high schools for
girls, hitherto unknown, were set up.

3"Atthe other side of the mountains (Alps),"

referring to a Roman Catholic movement to
restore the supremacy of the church over
the nation.
Austin, Texas

It must be remembered that Napoleon

crowned himself emperor at his coronation in the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
During his wars in Italy, he abolished the
temporal power of the pope (Pius VII)on
17 May 1809, annexed the lands of the
papal state, and ultimately arrested the
pope on 6 July 1809.

Mounting tension between the state

and the church, because of the militant
anticlericalism of the government which
was trying to finish religious education
entirely, led in 1902to a complete breach
with the church, and in 1905gave rise to
the Bill of Separation of Church and
State. It is on this bill, which has been
called the most radical separation of
church and state, that present -day religious freedom, including the freedom
June 1990

not to believe, is founded.

Some of its clauses are:
1. The Republic guarantees freedom
of conscience and freedom to exercise a
religion, under restrictions in the interest
of public order.
2. The Republic does not recognise,
subsidise, or pay salaries to any religion.
28. No religious emblem may be displayed in any public building or place except those used for the exercise of religion.
31.Fines or imprisonment may be imposed on anyone who by threats or violence to an individual, or by making him
fear losing his job, or any prejudice to his
person, his family or his fortune, forces
him to exercise or not to exercise a religion, to belong or not to belong to a cultural association, to contribute or not to
the expenses of a religion.
32. The same penalties may be imposed on any person preventing, delaying or interrupting a religious service by
sowing disorder in the premises serving
this use.
35. If a speech is made or a notice
fixed or distributed in the place where a
religion is exercised, which contains a
direct provocation to resist the law or
legal acts of public authority, or if it
tends to pit one section of the population against another, then any minister
of religion who is guilty shall be imprisoned for between three months and two
years, without prejudice to penalties for
complicity in the case that the provocation is followed by sedition, revolt, or
civil war.
The bill left the church with its property, which had to be inventoried, but
provided that its management be taken
over by cultural associations. It also provided for buildings and works of art to
be classified and put restrictions on
their sale or transfer, notably that they
might in no case be taken out of the
country. The pope refused the organisation of cultural associations, preferring
church property to be forfeited to the
Republic, rather than lose administrative
control.
This, then, is the legal situation today,
although certain modifications have
been made in the past eighty-five years.
The question to be asked is: how far
does the legal situation correspond to
the reality, and what secular and Atheist activity is taking place in this context?
On the whole, but with glaring excepPage 19

tions, reality and legality correspond.

The worst of these exceptions is the
situation of publicly funded confessional
schools. These at present educate 17
percent of French children but receive
23 percent of the national education
budget (1983). They also escape from
state control and are not accountable.
When the first socialist government
came into power in 1981,one of its election promises was to create a unified,
secular national education, in other
words, to put an end to publicly funded
confessional schools.
To begin, these are inefficient on the
educational level. Their results at primary and early secondary stages seem
to be better than the public sector, but
this is not in fact true. Many parents who
are otherwise secular send their children to these schools because of their
stricter discipline and their reputation.
These parents are, however, those who
are by definition most interested in their
children's education. This, added to the
fact that these schools are better funded
from the public purse and have more
possibilities of private financing, with
smaller classes, should give much better
results than it does. In the pre-university
years the current is reversed. Examination results at this level in the public sector are better than those in the confessional sector. It is also noticeable that in
certain regions such as Brittany, where
the confessional school has a quasimonopoly in some parts, the results at
all levels are far below the national average.
Also, although they are funded from
the national education budget, the minister of education has almost no control
over them as to staff qualifications, pedagogic methods, contents of courses,
and the like.
Therefore, in 1983 the government
tried to bring in mild measures which
would have made the schools accountable to some degree. The result was disastrous. The church, aided by many
politicians of the right, rose against
these measures. In one of the most brilliant, it must be said, propaganda campaigns ever seen, it managed to persuade the French that this was an attack
on the freedom of the parents to have
their children educated according to
their wishes. This campaign, culminating in a single demonstration of over a
million people, bussed in from all over
France, persuaded the government to
drop the proposed measures, despite
Page 20

their promises, and despite the fact that

demonstrations supporting it assembled
many more people. Those demonstrating for the government measures did so
in separate demonstrations all over
France, and the publicity impact was, of
course, much less.
I was not at that time a member of the
Union des Athees. It was in fact this
which led me to join. It seems that opinion was somewhat divided on the matter,
as many members do not wish to see a

;-.

The 1983demonstration in Paris against

state supervision of private schools was
widely reported in media in the United
States. It was a significant and major
coup of the Roman Catholic church,
since media attention was focused on
the one city and was enhanced by student participation in it ("Suffer the little
children to come unto me"). The real
issues were obscured by the emotional.

state monopoly of education. It seems

reasonable to many French people of all
political and religious persuasions that
parents should have choices in the
matter, and although most approved
private schools are confessional, not all
of them are. In the same way, it seems
reasonable that parents should not pay
for a national education system which
they are not using. Nevertheless, the
proportion of funds received by the
June 1990

private schools is far too high, and the

schools receiving public funds should be
accountable. This logical approach,
however, was turned into an unfounded
emotional issue, and the situation remains
what it was in 1981.
The second great exception to this is
the use of the public media for the
broadcasting of religious services. This
clearly contravenes the second clause
of the act, which states that the Republic
does not recognise any religion and that
it may not subsidise any religion. Since
the programmes are financed by the
public through the payment of licence
fees, and through advertising for which
the public pays indirectly, religious programmes are clearly subsidised and
therefore illegal. They are justified on
the grounds that some people, especially
the old and the sick, who cannot attend
services are still entitled to the free exercise of their religion. However, the programmes themselves are predominantly Roman Catholic, with sops thrown to
Protestants, Jews, and the large and
growing Muslim minority. No other religious or philosophical beliefs are represented.
The third anomaly is the free weekday in schools, to which I referred earlier. This was set up in order to allow
those parents who so wished to have
their children given religious instruction.
Thursday, later changed to Wednesday,
was set aside for this, and school was
held on Saturday morning instead. At
the time, this caused no problems.
France was largely a rural and smalltown society. School on Saturday was
no problem, since this was before the
idea of the weekend and most people
worked on Saturday. Those children
who did not attend religious instruction
could play outside or stay at home. Incidentally, the idea of children's rights had
not evolved. We can imagine the feelings
of at least some of those children forced
on a beautiful day in early summer to listen to the meandering irrationalities of
the priest while their classmates were at
play. This probably made quite a contribution to the rise of apostasy. The situation today, however, is very different.
France is an urban society, many women
work, and the weekend has become a
French tradition. The result is a high
rate of absenteeism on Saturday, as
families leave for the weekend. Efforts
are being made to stop this anomaly, but
the church refuses any modification.
Some time ago, the city of Rouen experAmerican Atheist

imented with replacing Saturday with

Wednesday as the free day. The result
was that absenteeism became no different for Wednesday than for the rest of
the week, whereas it had been reaching
70 percent on Saturday morning. The
bishop took the matter to court and
won. Saturday school was reinstituted,
and although of course this decision is
being appealed, it will take a long time
before both parties have exhausted
their legal remedies. The church knows
that religious instruction is falling off
drastically, although many parents send
their children to catechism merely to
keep them off the streets. It also knows
that if children have Saturday free, catechism classes willpractically disappear.
Thus, in order to keep some kind of hold
on the minds of the nation's youth, it
condemns parents, children, and teachers
to stay at home on Saturday, or let the
children miss school. This situation
cannot remain for many more years. It
is being contested more and more, but
the church, in its reaction and obscurantism, will fight to the last ditch to
keep this privilege.
These then are the three principal exceptions to the separation of church
and state. This of course does not mean
that we are living in a secular paradise.
The church hierarchy are extremely
media conscious, and their reaction to
any ethical question is always widely
publicised, very often without any balancing view. The travels of Wojtyla, aka
Pope John Paul II, the peripatetic pope,
are always well covered. The church, as
Iremarked earlier, has never given up its
principal aim, which is the spiritual domination of mankind. Whatever efforts of
concealment it may make, whatever lip
service it may pay to human rights,
whatever pretensions it may make to
tolerance of other religions, the church
has not changed and will not change.
This criminal organisation, like the
Mafia, has changed its methods. It can
no longer killits enemies, but it can prevent them from speaking. It has huge
economic and charismatic resources
which it uses to the full. It can sometimes influence elections, and often it
can influence legislation. France, which
has the greatest degree of legal religious
freedom in the Occident, must be its
principal enemy, whether or not it admits it, whether or not any priest hearing this passage would dismiss it as paranoia.
Nevertheless, secular forces in France
Austin, Texas

are also very strong. The teachers'

unions are extremely powerful and absolutely dedicated to secular education.
As one example, several months ago
some fundamentalist Muslims sent their
daughters to school wearing the chador,
the Muslim veil. The teachers refused to
allow them into the classroom, the
headmaster supported the teachers,
and a huge polemic ensued. The headmaster received death threats, but refused to budge from his position. The

/.~
...

Charles de Gaulle was the first president

of France to be elected by universal suffrage since Louis Napoleon Bonaparte
won the office in 1848. In 1958 De Gaulle
was selected by an electoral college. On
19 December 1965 he was reelected to a
second seven-year term.

Socialist government, torn between its

secularity and its traditional defence of
minority rights, could find no solution
and left the question to individual headmasters. The church, as has become
normal, supported the parents. L'Union
des Athees issued a statement, which
was ignored. After several weeks, during which the girls came to school every
morning and were sent into the library,
the last of them gave up. But the constiJune 1990

tutional situation is not absolutely clear.

In its wider aspects this affair is quite important. Allowing the wearing of the
chador could lead to other manifestations of religion, for example, the Judaic
yarmulke. At the moment the church is
trying to bring religion back into the
public schools by the back door, in asking for classes in the history of religion.
Religious symbols worn by children
could easily become object lessons in
this case, and once it begins we cannot
tell where it ends. For over a century no
prayer, service, or other religious observance has been allowed in French public
schools, and we do not. want to start.
This is one case where secular, not
specifically Atheist, forces made themselves felt.
The church fought birth control clinics for many years. France has traditionally followed a high-birth policy since the
First World War, so the pressures did
not emanate solely from the church.
Nevertheless, it is widely believed that
legislation was delayed through the influence of Mme de Gaulle, the president's wife and a notorious reactionary
Roman Catholic bigot. Only after de
Gaulle's retirement from public affairs
were birth control advisory clinics set
up.
The same is true of abortion. Only in
1974was abortion finally legalised, and
this under the most restrictive limits in
Western Europe. Again the church
fought this tooth and nail. But human
rights once more prevailed. In 1983
abortion became reimbursable by Social
Security, again after demonstrations
and polemics.
In 1989 a French pharmaceutical
company which had developed, tested,
and had accepted for sale an abortive
pill, RU-486, withdrew it from the market. The reason, it said, and this publicly,
was that American religious antiabortion groups had threatened a boycott of
all its products. The church welcomed
this, on the grounds that abortion should
remain a significant experience, i.e., that
there should be pain, worry, shame, etc.
The answer to this came very soon. The
French health ministry ordered the
company to market the pill on pain of
forfeiting its patent; it is thought that the
company's original statement had this
development in mind.
The battle against religious reaction
goes on. We do not always win. In 1988
we had the affair of the Last Temptation
of Christ, and the story is interesting. In
Page 21

the beginning there was the possibility

of a grant from the minister of culture
for the making of the film. This came to
nothing because the since hierarchy argued, quite reasonably, that under the
act of separation the government had
no right to use public funds for something that would strike against the religious sentiments of a large number of
citizens. The film, however, was made,
and was to be distributed in France from
September 1988.The hierarchy sought
an injunction in an attempt to block distribution. The injunction was quite properly refused. Some days before the beginning of distribution the archbishop of
Paris made a provocative statement to
the press, saying that the church had exhausted its legal remedies and appealing
to the faithful to remain calm. There was
at this moment no indication that Roman
Catholics would react. When the film
came out the Integrists, the most backward-looking, reactionary section of the
Roman Catholics, started demonstrations, smoke bombs, teargas bombs,
fire bombs, and death threats to cinema
managers. This culminated in the death,
by heart attack, of a cinema-goer in a
cinema which was smoke bombed. At
no time did the authorities protect the
right of citizens to see a film of their
choice. Several brainwashed Integrist
youngsters who were caught received
derisory sentences and the film disappeared from the screens. The archbishop of Paris made another statement,
condemning the violence, not without
qualification, but with the implication
that the cinemas and their customers
had brought it upon themselves.
It is interesting to note that Muslims
and Jews joined with the church in condemning the film.On this occasion, as in
the incident of the Islamic veil - and
that of The Satanic Verses, which publication was delayed in France for several months because of completely illegal
threats from sections of the Muslim
community - the religions seem to perceive that an attack of any sort on one
is an attack on all, and they are willing
to cooperate in attempting to stifle free
thought and free debate.
It is also noticeable that the state
made no attempt to prosecute under
any of the clauses of the Billof Separation.
We see then that the situation in
France today is poised between strong
religious and secular forces, each of
them seeking to direct the Republic in
Page 22

the direction they wish. What of specifically Atheist action?

Opinion polls for several years have
indicated that the majority of French
people do not believe in god. There are
indications that about 15 percent, i.e.,
six million people of voting age, declare
themselves to be Atheist or agnostic.
The Union des Athees has a membership
of under three thousand. Where then
are the others?
A typical answer came at the French

In September 1988, the Viking Penguin

press of London, England, published a
novel titled The Satanic Verses, written
by a well-known author, Salman Rushdie.
There were two immediate results: (1) in
England the book won Britain's respected
Whit bread Award ($36,000) and (2) in
Iran the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
ordered its author killed for affronting
Islam by writing the book.

presidential election. The Union sent a

letter to all candidates, asking them to
declare their position on Atheism. None
of them said that it was bullshit, contrary
to your experience in America. Most did
not answer. One of the few who did was
Arlette Laguiller, who was the candidate
of a small extreme-left party. She replied
that as a Marxist she was of course
Atheist, but that she considered that the
Atheist cause was best placed in the
June 1990

context of the social revolution, and that

all her energies were directed to that
end. Very large numbers of people who
are active in politics, of all political views
or in the community, are Atheist, but
see no reason to be active on an issue
which should be, and in France is, a
purely private matter. They will fight to
keep a secular state, but see no reason
to organise specifically as Atheists.
We in the Union of Atheists at this
moment see ourselves as an organisation to promote Atheist thought within
the context of freedom of conscience.
To this end we are fighting for equal
access to the media and are fighting
practices which discriminate against
Atheists or in favour of religion.
On the first issue we are having an
uphill struggle. Until a few years ago the
electronic media were all government
controlled. At one stage the Union had
a fifteen-minute television programme
once a year. This stopped several years
ago. No reason was given. Since 1985
some television stations have been privatised. Again, we are not allowed access. The Union as an organisation and
members individually keep up a continuallobbying for access. Several deputes
(congressmen) are sympathisers and
ask questions in parliament. At each
election we write to candidates - all,
until this moment, to no avail. Still we
continue, and given the inequity of the
situation, we will succeed.
Apart from specifically Atheist programmes, we are barred from discussion programmes (called "talk shows"
here in the United States). Typically,
several months ago a programme on
belief and unbelief was scheduled. Our
president, M. Beaughon, wrote to ask if
he could take part. He was refused. The
station said that the Atheist position was
adequately represented
by another
member of the panel. This person
turned out to be a Freemason, who
stated categorically that he was not
Atheist. So much for the representation
of all points of view.
The national press have the same attitude. They operate a de facto censorship on everything to do with us, unless
they have the occasion to write a hostile
or derisory article. This happened several years ago, when a revisionist historian joined the Union. This caused a
wide dispute in our ranks, and the press
got wind of it. Several papers wrote very
hostile articles, and a statement issued
by M. Beaughon, to explain various
American Atheist

things which he had been misrepresented as saying, was ignored, as were

letters to the editors of several newspapers written spontaneously by various members, including myself.
Another example was at the moment
of the religious terrorism in the cinemas,
In Paris we produced and distributed a
thousand copies of a leaflet after the
death of a cinema-goer. This was the
first organised reaction, preceding by
two days a demonstration called by the
cinema unions. The leaflet was also
used as a press statement and was duly
registered at the Association Francaise
de la Presse, an-important press agency.
This then is our difficulty. Without
saying that there is a concerted conspiracy, it is clear that all the media are practising censorship as far as organised
Atheism is concerned. This makes recruitment difficult, simply because people do not know that we exist. This in
turn affects our means of action, which
in turn allows the media to imply that
since we are so small, we are not representative. We are, however, the oldest,
biggest, and most active of Atheist organisations in France and possibly in Europe. Despite all these handicaps we
continue to grow, and each newsletter
gives news of a dozen new members.
In the field of discrimination, we are at
present fighting two cases, both of
which have gone through the entire
French system and are now before the
European Human Rights Commission.
The first concerns our status as an
association under French law. In order
to be able to receive legacies (that is,
have people willmoney to L'Union des
Athees), we must have the status of an
association in the public interest. 4 Up till
this moment this has been refused us,
again causing us some harm, as members wishing to willproperty to us must
do so by willingit to a designated person
who then gives it to the organisation,
thus bringing about difficult legal and
fiscal situations.
The other case is of discrimination in
favour of religion. There are a good
number of public holidays in France,

4Under French law, in order to benefit under

a will, a corporation or association must be
declared to be "in the public interest." This
measure was originally brought in to prevent
people leaving money to the church, as
opposed to charitable organisations administered by religious groups.
Austin, Texas

some such as Easter being religious,

others such as Bastille Day being secular. Some years ago civil servants of
Judaic and Armenian Orthodox religions were granted extra days with full
pay for certain of their important feast
days. One of our members, seeing that
this was quite clearly discriminatory,
told her superiors that she was taking
the anniversary of the execution of the
Chevalier de la Barre as an Atheist holiday, and did so. She, of course, was not

Rousseau was basically an exponent

rather than an originator of ideas. He
emotionally described the passions of
the human heart and of the beauties of
nature. He saw that under the French
monarchy the actual result was the
greatest misery for the greatest number.
His eloquence of presentation carried
the multitudes with him to the same or
similar conclusions.

paid, and she is suing for the money she

lost and for the right of Atheists to have
special days on a basis of equality with
religions.
. Our other activities are those of any
association of this type. The most important is a quarterly newsletter, giving
news of new members, members' activities, extracts from interesting newspaper articles, and a book list. This is of
great help in keeping members in conJune 1990

tact, and in the case of some, breaking

the solitude which can surround them.
We hold an annual congress in Paris,
usually at Pentecost. This normally attracts 100-150 members to listen to and
take part in the debates following lectures on various subjects. Last year, we
had as guests members of the Bunte
Liste Freiburg.t who told us about the
medieval persecution now taking place
in Germany.
A tradition which is more specifically
French is the awarding of a literary prize
to the best book concerned with Atheist
subjects. This year it went to De l'Horrible
danger de la Lecture (The Horrible Danger of Reading), a book of extracts from
Atheist and anticlerical writings which
had been kept in the National Library
(equivalent to the United States Library
of Congress) under severe restriction of
eccess.s
To end, France is a secular state and
is going to remain so. We do not face the
same problems that you do in the United States, and I am very glad of it. The
state - any state - however, finds religion useful, and in France, I think, the
government does not wish the status
quo to be disturbed by too much Atheist
activity. Our problem is how to shake
the complacency of those Atheists who
think that all the battles have been won,
that the church has been defeated, that
religion will disappear without further
effort. This is not the case even in
France, and the problem of religious
persecution, brainwashing, and terrorism is worldwide. I am most pleased to
have had this opportunity of talking to
you, and, I hope, of sowing the seeds of
a fruitful international cooperation.
To paraphrase Rousseau, Man is born
Atheist, but everywhere there are priests.
Let us look forward to the day when
everyone has the right to think as he or
she wishes without constraint or penalty,
and let us do our utmost to bring this
day about. ~

5The Bunte Liste Freiburg is an Atheist

group active in state/church separation and
free-speech matters in Germany. Since 1985
it has published the periodical KetzerbrieJe.
6Freedom of the press was not instituted in
France until 1881. Until then all publications
were submitted to the Public Censor, who
might forbid publication. Those forbidden of
publication were kept in a special annexe of
the Bibliotheque Nationale known as "l'enfer"
(Hell), and were available for consultation on
a restricted basis.
Page 23

-----------------------------~~----------------------~----

Why an Atheist ethic is

superior to a religious ethic
Albert E. Lyngzeidetson
Albert E. Lyngzeidetson is a professor of philosophy at the University of Miami and Florida Atlantic
University. His special interests include psychology, Zen, and existentialism, and he has had the opportunity to reside in Canada, France,
Germany, and Switzerland.
In his presentation to the Twentieth Annual National Convention of
American Atheists, Professor Lyngzeidetson simply and succinctly demolished the religious arguments
that good behavior must come from
god.
f all the invectives that are hurled
at Atheists, probably none is more
popular than the assertion that if
you are an Atheist then necessarily you
cannot be moral. The argument for this,
though simplistic, has had an amazing
influence upon even moderately enlightened people. The argument, briefly,
goes something like this: without some
divine revelation as to what is good and
bad humans would all be moral ignoramuses; and the Atheist rejecting such divine edicts is necessarily lost in a moral
desert. Alternatively, it is sometimes argued that humans are intrinsically bad

t+J

(See "Ethics" on page 33)

Page 24

June 1990

American Atheist

.D

vi

ro
ro
c

.D

ro

3ro

co

-0

.D

:>

""

""0

0
.c

ro
c
.s:

0..

..."0
.D

""

0
.c
0..

Monica C. Madden (left) of Tampa and R. Murray-O'Hair staff the registration

booth.

Dr. O'Hair after a photo opportunity

member.

with a

American Atheists
Convention 1990
This year's Annual National Convention
of American Atheists
proved not only to be jovial and educational,
but photogenic as well.

.D
.D

ro

Robert I. Sherman, National Media

Spokesperson, programs the "scanvertiser" electronic billboard used
at registration.

co
.D

""

.c
0..

vi

ro
ro
c

3ro
-0

:>
""0

c
ro
c
s:
o

..."

.D

""
o

..c
0..

John A. Marthaler (Pascagoula, MS), in

wheelchair, stops for a chat with President
Jon Murray.
Austin, Texas

Freda Kernes and Reynold Bourquin (center) meet over a book/product

room table.

June 1990

display

Page 25

.D

.D

..0

..0

<0

<0

C)

C)

d5

d5

..0

..0

:>,

:>,

0
.c

0
.c

0..

0..

Members gather around the hotel lobby piano for a song with Thomas A.
Comeau (Topanga, CA), .right-center, leading the way.

Tampa Director Ed Golly and Monica Madden pose

for a photo.

The Saturday poolside lunch was a sunny Florida favorite .

.D
..0
<0

C)

Conventioneers
lunch buffet.

partake

of the Saturday

d5

:>,

..0

o
.c

0..

An elder member
restaurant.

Page 26

breakfasts

in hotel

Ricky Sherman gets a lift from his dad

Robert.

June 1990

Stephen Thorne's oldest boy (left).

takes to the dance floor.

American Atheist

..D

..D
.D

.D

o'"

o'"

as;:.,

as;:.,

.D

.D

0
.c

.s:

0..

0..

Arpad Toth, New Hampshire Chapter Director.

Conrad Goeringer of Tucson addresses the Chapter

Directors' meeting .

..D

..D

.D

.D

'"
C

o'"

as;:.,

as;:.,

.D

.D

0
.c

.s:

0..

0..

Joe Zemel, Philadelphia Chapter Director, participates in a panel.

PETA founder Ingrid E. Newkirk

talks about animal rights.

..D

Attorney Kevin F. Beaudin addresses the convention on Sunday, 15 April 1990.

{l

as;:.,
.D

..D

..c
0..

.D
'"

as;:.,
.D

..c
0..

The Chapter Directors' meeting.

Mark Franceschini chairs the American Gay

Atheists meeting.

Austin, Texas

June 1990

Page 27

.D

.D

..0
<IJ

..0
<IJ

i:i5

i:i5

:>,

:>,

..0

..0

0
.c

0
.c

0..

0..

AMERlQ

rf\1\l\~
Frank R. and Ann Zindler (Columbus,
memberships from President Murray.

OH), accept

honorary

Life

Toivo V. Helin (Duluth, MN) proclaimed a Pioneer Atheist b~

Dr.O'Hair.

AMERIC\;~ATHB
CONVENTION)
Chris Allen (SLC, UT) was 1990's Outstanding Chapter Director .

.D

Don Sanders (Houston, TX), Most Hated ~

Atheist of the Year, by the religious, that o
~

i:i5
:>,

..0

Don Sanders (left) accepts Atheist of the Vi

.D

..c

..0
<IJ

0..

o
i:i5
:>,

..0

.c
0..

,\\f[
( '()'
Walter G. Wilkinson, Phoenix Chapter
Director, accepts Outstanding Chapter
Award.
Page 28

Monica C. Madden, Outstanding Chapter Worker, displays her award.

June 1990

R. A. Freedsma (Phoenix, AZ), Outreach

Award corecipient.

American Atheist

Frank I
Spokesr

.D

.D

.D

.D
III

III

<.:J

i:i5

d5

.D

.D

-0

0
.c

..c
0..

0..

(Left to right) Jerry Rosenthal (New York City, NY), Freda Kernes (Trenton, NJ), and
Celia Glantz (Miami, FL) Outstanding Member Award sisters sing for the crowd.

Conventioneers listen to a presentation.

-D

-D
a:

.D
III

<.:J

<.:J

i:i5

i:i5

.D

.D

-0

-0

.c

.c

0..

0..

Barbara Jo Sutton, former Puget Sound

(WA)Chapter Director (now Detroit Chapter
Director), accepts Puget Sound's Most
Hated Chapter award.
-D

Reynold D. Bourquin (Pittsburgh, PA), Dedication Award recipient, is a familiar convention face.

.D
III

;\ fT"1

zar honors from President Murray.

.D

-0

.5:

A~tl

CO

, Zindler proudly displays

an of the Year award.

Austin, Texas

his Atheist

Lloyd H. Thoren (San Francisco, CA) accepts

Outreach Award on behalf of John B. Massen,
who could not attend.
June 1990

Shirley R. Moll, Twin Cities (Minnesota)

Chapter Director, accepts an "American
Atheist [TV] Forum" Outreach Award.
Page 29

..ci

..ci

.D

.D

'"
C

o'"
i:i:i

i:i:i

:>,

.D

:>,

.D

0
.c

0
.c

0..

0..

A line forms to board the Life Members' Dinner Cruise.

Founder Dr. O'Hair rests with the sea breeze during the
Dinner Cruise .

..ci
.D

'"
C
i:i:i
:>,

.D

.c
0..

G.H.Q. staffer Derek Nalls (front left), William Bouch of Paris, France (front right),
Raymond Matustik (Richfield, MN), and Irving Yablon (Bronx, NY), and another
Lifer enjoy the Cruise .
..ci

..ci

The Lifers' Dinner Cruise buffet meets a ~

hungry Rob Sherman.
C

'"
C

.D

i:i:i

i:i:i

:>,

:>,

.D

.D

~
.D

o
0
..c

o
.c

'"

0..

0..

i:i:i
:>,

.D

..c

0..

Ellen Johnson (left front), New Jersey Chapter Director, chats with the Zindlers aboard
the Lifers' Cruise.
Page 30

Life Members board the bus to the boat.

June 1990

Life member Mack D. Quinn, left

(Houston, TX), and a fellow Lifer
enjoy the Cruise.
American Atheist

..ci

..ci

.D

..D

ro

ro

CJ

CJ

d5

d5

.D

..D

:>,

:>,

0
.c

0
.c

0..

Dr. O'Hair's birthday present from Ed Golly of the Tampa Chapter

- a rendering of the G.H.Q.

0..

Deborah E. Clark, center (Silver Spring, MD), listens to

Arnold Via (Virginia) at the birthday party.

..ci
.D

ro

CJ

d5

:>,

.D

0
.c
0..

Dr. O'Hair accepts a birthday case of wine from Christos Tzanetakos

Miami Chapter Director.

(right),
Ed Golly, Tampa Director, gets a hug from
Dr. O'Hair for his rendering of the G.H.Q.

The birthday cake for Dr. O'Hair and Thomas Jefferson, who share April 13th as
their special day.

Austin, Texas

June 1990

Stephen Thorne, San Diego Chapter Director (center), shares a laugh at a reception.
Page 31

..ci

..ci

.D

.D

I1l

ro

C)

C)

as:>,

as:>,
.D

.D

0
.c

0
.c
0..

0..

John A. Marthaler (foreground) and Arnold Via,

in his World War II uniform, join the Atheist
Veterans' meeting.

Conventioneers sit down to brunch. Dave Kong (San Francisco, CA), of rock
band "Sin," sports a shirt with what he thinks of religion.

Robert I. Sherman auctions off some "Atheist" money at the Sunday

Brunch.

Cameraman David Evans (Portland, OR) records the

event for history.

Brian P. and Rheda McNamara (Davie, FL), married just before the
convention by Frank Zindler, stand for recognition.

June 1990

Page 32

..

A Tampa Chapter member poses with Dr. O'Hair and his

autographed convention program.

American Atheist

Ethics
(Continued from page 24)

by temperament and hence without the

moral sanctions of some divine lawgiver
we would all be naughty and do bad
things. In sum, even ifthere were no god,
we would have to invent one in order to
keep people on the straight and narrow.
It is truly fascinating as to how many
otherwise seemingly intelligent, enlightened persons are duped by this most
pernicious argument. What makes all
this even more amazing is the fact that
this argument was utterly refuted some
two thousand years ago by Plato, and
every attempt to resuscitate it has met
with failure ever since. In what follows
some of these attempts shall be summarized.
The aforementioned theory regarding the necessity of divine guidance for
moral knowledge is usually termed the
Divine Command Theory - hereafter
simply referred to as OCT. In the Euthyphro, Plato confronted the OCT headon. He argued that we seem to have two
possible avenues of explanation if we
adopt the OCT, which are as follows: let
X be any action deserving of moral
praise, then either

interpretation, arbitrary and capricious

depending upon the moral whim of the
deity. This is clearly unacceptable, for
even the OCT advocate does not want
to make of morals a capricious business
without justification. Finally, what must
not be overlooked is that such hypothetical speculations as the preceding
are absolutely necessary in order to test
the credibility of the presuppositions involved in (1). Ifthe moral goodness of an

1. X is good, because god com-

mands 'X is good'; or

2. god commands 'X is good', because X is good.

Plato demonstrated
that neither of
these alternatives is morally acceptable
to the theistic advocate of OCT. Suppose you adopt (1) as the justification
for OCT, then what makes any act right
or good is that it is commanded by god.
This seems un controversial in many
cases; for example, if god commands
you to be nice to other people, or tell the
truth, or to help the less fortunate. However, it is all too easy to conjure up counterexamples to this, for suppose god
were to command that you kill anyone
who is a Christian, or to steal, cheat, or
lie. In these instances OCT advocates
vehemently retort that god would never
command us to do such bad things, but
this entirely misses the point. The point
is that were god to command such
atrocities, then, given (1), we cannot
help but affirm that they would be good
things to do.
In sum, what is good becomes, on this
Austin, Texas

~
In the Socratic dialogue reported by
Plato, Euthyphro is taught that a particular example does not constitute a definition of a general concept; that cause
and effect are not coterminous, and that
terms may be defined by referring a species to a genus.

act is utterly predicated upon god's

whim, then anything - no matter how
morally repugnant it may appear to us
- must be admitted as good if god
commands it.
The only other alternative the OCT
advocate can have is to adopt interpretation (2); but once this is done drastic
and unacceptable consequences follow.
Once (2) is adopted the claim becomes
that god affirms the goodness of someJune 1990

thing because that something is good.

Hence, the goodness of this thing is
there independently of god's command,
and god merely affirms that goodness
which is already there for reasons independent of his commanding it. Consequently, the necessary connection which
the OCT advocate wishes to establish
between goodness and god's commandments is utterly and irretrievably severed. In brief, this second alternative
completely repudiates the basis of the
OCT.
Interpretation (1) gives us further
insurmountable difficulties. It makes
ethics as a discipline impossible, for rational justification for ethical imperatives now becomes pointless. If we look
for reasons as to why something is
wrong or right we are wasting our time,
for all we can say is "because god says
so." Indeed, any rational discourse on
morality becomes impossible. Lastly, (1)
should be utterly unacceptable to the
devout theist; the reason for this IS particularly ironic since the goodness he
wishes to ascribe to god now becomes
vacuous. Consider, the theist wants to
believe that god is good, but on interpretation (1) what more can this mean than
"god is good, because god commands of
him/herself 'I am good.' " A more selfserving and vacuous statement can
scarcely be imagined.
Taking the preceding as our point of
departure, we may ask "what does it
mean to say that 'god is good'?" Once
again, we have two possible interpretations available:
3. By definition 'god is good'; i.e.,
'god' means 'good'; or
4. 'god is good' is contingently true;
i.e., goodness is an attribute/
property that god happens to
possess.
Statement (3) is clearly false. If the word
'god' meant the same thing as the word
'good', then anything you say of one you
could say of the other. For example, if
you say "Percival is good" then you
should equally well be able to assent to
"Percival is god." Clearly, this is unacceptable - just because someone is
good does not thereby make him god. In
fact, such an assertion is the height of
blasphemy according to many theists.
Yet, on interpretation (3) the words
'good' and 'god' should be interchangeable; that is, you should be able to substitute one for the other and preserve
Page 33

ongms of moral obligation, duty, and

rightness comes from David Hume.
Hume was a Scottish philosopher (171176) who argued that the origin of our
moral sentiments should be sought for
in our passions and emotions. This position may be aptly described as moral
sentimentalism. The theory, briefly,
maintains the following: humans are all
born egoists. That is, we are born as
self-centered beings who are solely preoccupied with our own selfish gratification. (Indeed, developmental psychologists have termed the early stages of
moral development in infants the egocentric stage.) However, we do not develop in a social vacuum; for indeed,
were we to do so the concept of moral-ity as such would be nonexistent. A sentient creature that were to develop in a
moralj social solitude would have no
concepts of duty, obligation, and rightness. These last all pertain to relations
we have to others - namely, our fellow
humans. Thus, as we mature the world
comes to impinge upon our emotive life
and we soon learn that if we are to survive we must take into consideration the
feelings and interests of others besides
ourselves. Initially,the significant others
are the parents and siblings. Gradually,
however, the scope of our sympathetic
identification with the feelings, needs,
and interests of others becomes ever
greater.
For Hume morality becomes the sympathetic identification with - or empathy for - the feelings, needs, and interests of our fellow humans. As a result of
socialization and the sheer need to successfully interact in social relationships
within our human milieu we learn to encompass more people within the scope
of our empathy. Hence, by school age
the child develops rudimentary feelings
of obligation toward not only her immediate family but also her peers. By adolescence, the primary bond of obligation
In his work Concerning the Principles 0/ Morals, David Hume (1711-76)wrote, "Sentiment can be no other than a feeling for the happiness of mankind, and a resentis oftentimes transferred (much to the
ment of their misery; since these are the different ends which virtue and vice have
chagrin of parents) from the family to
a tendency to promote."
friends and potential mates. In sumwe know what blue is independently of that is your prerogative; but please note mary, the successfully socialized adult
observing a blue sky; we know what that if that is your position then you will feel a sense of moral obligation and
green is independently of observing a cannot justify it; for its very justification duty most strongly toward her immedigreen lawn; and likewise we know what requires the use of that which it rejects ate family - i.e., spouse and childrengoodness is independently of acquain- - the ability and capacity to argue and the intensity of these feelings of emtance with the idea of god. Indeed, it rationally. In sum, we can safely say that pathy fades as the persons affected bemay be of some consolation that god we have disposed of the OCT. Next, vie= tome more and more remote from the
happens to be good, but we certainly do must ask ourselves what then are we to center of familiarity for the individual. It
not need to know this in order to know base morality on if not upon divine rev- is sometimes argued that a few exceptional individuals for hitherto unclear
what is good. So much for this argu- elation.
ment.
One plausible explanation as to the reasons can expand the scope of this
the truth of the original sentence. Obviously this does not occur. Hence, we
must reject (3).
Our last remaining alternative is (4).
Essentially (4) tells us that goodness is a
property of god in the same way that
flatness is a property of a table, or greenness is a property of the color of grass;
or blueness is a property of the color of
the sky. This alternative also completely undermines the OCT. For note that

Page 34

To conclude this portion of our analysis we must admit that the so-called
OCT is morally bankrupt, vacuous, and
utterly unacceptable even on theistic
grounds. Indeed, we find that the OCT
must be rejected as a hopelessly useless
theory given the edicts of practical reason that ordinary thinking humans utilize. Of course, if you choose to be a
non thinking human who does not wish
to use his capacity for cogent thought,

June 1990

American Atheist

empathy
to include not only close
friends and family but also the rest of hurnanity, Examples might be the Buddha
or Gandhi.
The important thing to note is that the
above is a perfectly plausible explanation
of how we develop and maintain our
moral notions. Morality, it turns out, is
a process of de-egocentrization
through
a process of empathy for the needs, feelings, and interests of others. Indeed, oft
cited examples of quintessential moral
imperatives reflect this; for instance,
"Treat others as you would wish them to
treat you," and "Act so that you can will
the maxim of your action to be at the
same time a universal law." So it seems
as though our inclinations
to treat
others with respect, kindness, and compassion are born of a process of socialization which is at work in order to insure the harmonious interaction of the
various members of society. As may be
noted, all this is a question of degree:
whether and to what extent one behaves
in a morally exemplary fashion is very
much a matter of the kind of socialization one has experienced.
One thing
seems to be manifest though: the sensitive individual is more likely to be moral;
for indeed such an individual will have a
greater responsiveness to the feelings of
others.
When we consider the views of most
fundamental theists in the context of the
above, it immediately becomes evident
that they are working with conceptions
of morality which are vulgar and banal.
Consider the sorts of things that such
persons contend. They claim that without the hope for afterworldly salvation
or the threat of damnation people would
be incapable of moral actions - indeed
they would have no reason to be moral
at all. In saying these sorts of things such
people are saying something quite extraordinary
not about humanity but
about themselves. They are telling us
that they only act morally in order to obtain some heavenly reward, that the
sight of the suffering, the needs, or the
joys of their fellow creatures is insufficient reason for moving them to morally
righteous action. They are telling us that
they are egocentric and only see selfserving rewards in an afterlife as sufficient reason to act with kindness, compassion, and caring toward other humans.
In fact, they can be accused of being
morally insensitive, for they lack those
very qualities which have exalted the
human spirit to its highest moral point:
Austin, Texas

Allrnlrt
sensitivity, kindness, gentleness, compassion, and the ability to forsake the
shackles of egocentric selfishness for
the benefit and cultivation of one's community, It seems as though it is the individual who espouses the OCT who is
the moral imbecile and ignoramus who
sees fit to reside at the animalistic lowest
stage of moral evolution.
In culmination of the preceding what
conclusions can we recommend?
For
one, we have demonstrated
that the
OCT is a morally bankrupt
theory
which is vacuous and unacceptable
even by the theists' own standard. Furthermore, we can note that the views of
most theists are grossly inconsistent,
given the misinterpretation
they have of
their own position. For instance, they
constantly exhort us to altruism and an
attitude of beneficence
to our fellow
humans, yet they can only conceive of
blatant egoism as a sufficient reason for
these actions. In saying this they make
a mockery of their own theory as well as
degrade their own value as responsible,
caring, moral people. What all this illustrates, with the utmost of poignancy, is
that it is the OCT theist who becomes
precisely what he accuses the Atheist of
being: a moral imbecile with no capacity
to apprehend the edicts of morality except at the most abysmally vulgar and
banal level.
In conclusion, we come to see that it
is the Atheist who bases her morality
upon a keen sensitivity to the aspirations, interests, needs, and feelings of
her social milieu who is the morally superior agent. She is doing the most exJune 1990

A"~T ATITrTC'TC1

alted thing the human spirit can be

called upon to do: to do good for its own
sake. In this she demonstrates
her immeasurable moral superiority to the vulgar and animalistic motives of the OCT
theist. And in this we come to see why
an Atheist ethic is indeed superior to a
religious ethic: the Atheist, unlike the
theist, in acting morally elevates her actions to a level of sentiment and sensitivity which makes the action morally selfjustifying in her eyes. The OCT theist,
imprisoned in the bubble of her egocentrism, can never apprehend such motives
and as such is deprived of those very experiences which enrich an individual
and make her morally valuable.
As moral Atheists we should develop
an attitude of compassion,
kindness,
and beneficence toward our morally inferior theistic peers. Insofar as we can
we should help them realize the error of
their ways. Most of all, in the spirit of
human kindness we should aid them in
overcoming the stunting and degrading
effects of their unfortunate morally infantile position. Most of all, we should be
good to them and with gentleness and
kindness help them overcome the limitations of their myopic moral egocentrism so that they too may experience
the value of acting rightly for the most
noble of reasons - sympathy. We must
not be bitter toward them, or acrimonious, for in such an attitude we would
become as inferior as they are; indeed,
let us cultivate the attitude of one they
so obsessively revere and so little understand: Let us forgive them, for they

know not what they do! ~

Page 35

--------------------------~~~----------------------------

Atheism and ethics

Following his presentation

on
"Why an Atheist Ethic Is Superior to
a Religious Ethic" on April 14 at the
1990 American Atheists Convention, Dr. Lyngzeidetson was joined
for a panel discussion of the topic by
Christos Tzanetakos, director of the
Miami Chapter of American Atheists; Robert Pidgeon, codirector of
the Tampa Bay Chapter; and Herman Harris, board member of American Atheists GHQ. Transcripts of
Messrs. Tzanetakos'
and Harris'
comments follow; unfortunately,
Mr. Pidgeon's were not available.
Mr. Tzanetakos began the discussion with these remarks:
think I will try to give a different in[] terpretation, ifI may, and I would like
to give an explanation from a more
scientific point of view rather than a philosophical point of view such as Dr.
Lyngzeidetson gave us.
For an Atheist convention, J have
heard the word of god so many times
that I don't believe it. But, anyway, when
the intellectual capacity of a person
comes to a point to ask ifthere is a god,
who created that god? That obliterates
the idea of god. After we do that, I would
like to say something about evolution.
We have heard a lot of things about
animal rights and cruelty to animals
from the previous speaker, and I, my
wife, and my daughter are all sympathetic, are members of many organizations, and feel compassion. Now we
know through science today that all
forms of lifeon this planet evolved from
the same primordial cell and therefore,
not only animals but plants, as the lady
[Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETAl
pointed out, came from the same source
- the first primordial cell. Therefore we
can say about animal and plant life on
Page 36

CHR.IS70~ TZANE"TAKOS

June 1990

American Atheist

this planet, we are brothers and sisters.

Now, after having said that, I would
like to connect morality and ethics with
something more scientific because of
my background as an engineer. As you
know, in science we use units to measure everything. For example, to measure distances we use for the system a
foot or a yard. In Europe we have the
metric system; we use the meter. But,
years back, many thousands of years,
men did not have the meter or the yard,
and they used to measure everything by
paces. The problem with the paces is
that my pace would be half of Stephen
Thome, for example, because he is double my size. It took many years, many
centuries, to establish a unified system
of measuring distances. Now in every
part of the planet, we have a system and
measure exactly the same distance with
the same unit, and nobody is cheated as
when we had different measurements
for other entities. I think the same thing
applies to morality and ethics.
When we realize that we are all brothers and sisters - and I am emphasizing
animal and plant life - then we can go
ahead and construct a set of ethics or
morality inspired by this idea of brotherhood. This set of ethics would be inspired
by the love of life in general and guided
by knowledge. I think this is the Atheistic way that we are supposed to go, and
I would like and hope that eventually
this is what will become the dominant
way of ethics and morality on this planet
if we are to survive.
Herman Harris contributed these
observations:
I'm not a public speaker and certainly
no philosopher, and I really am not prepared to quote any philosophers. I am
merely an observer, I. guess. The first
two speakers mentioned some words
that I had in mind. One was survival. We
talked about plant life, animal life, and
just love of life.I think having people talk
about morality and ethics is just about
as difficult as having four economists
talk about something, because there
would be some disagreement, Iam sure.
But in looking at the matter of humanity
and the matter of morality and ethics, I
think the subject is very, very confusing
to everyone, and it is very difficult to figure out the difference between morality
and ethics, and I would like to try to
make a distinction between the two.
First off, I would like to just say that
ethics is a device by which we enhance
Austin, Texas

our survival, and I think we can go on to

say that all living things; whether they
are plants or animals, seek survival.
That is the primary interest and purpose
of everything that is alive - to survive
and have the next generation of its species survive. This need to survive and
the ethics that are brought about by it
operate on both a personal level - that
is, each person or individual animal
would like to survive - and also works
on the social level in that everyone has
a built-in drive to keep their species
alive, too, and not just themselves.

Tampa Bay Chapter Codirector Robert

Pidgeon also participated in the panel
discussion of "Atheism and Ethics."

The way people ordinarily seek to

survive is through cooperation and nonconflict, and we call that cooperation
and nonconflict ethics. Human ethics
generally deals with three categories of
behavior, and I think if one looks at the
range of humanity over the planet and
over the past sixty thousand years or so
and thinks about the basic things that
people do and how they behave, one
sees that there is one category of behavior that deals with mating - people decide how to do that so there will be no
conflict about that; one category deals
with the ownership of property; and one
category deals with the conditions by
which persons may lose their individual
freedom or their lives. Alldifferent types
of societies have different rules and regulations concerning these three things,
but nonetheless, they all deal with the
three things in one way or another. I
would have to say that morality, then, is
adulterated ethics. It is ethics that has
been adulterated and modified by the
religion industry.
The religion industry combines common behavior with its business propaganda. I think someone talked about
June 1990

murderers, rapists, and so forth. If one

looks at the variety of civilizations, I do
not think one will find one anyplace
where murder and rape and theft are
the accepted way of life and everybody
does it. Actually, if one talks about the
basic rules of the way people live, one
could not identify any society, in any
century, any time period, or any place
on the planet in which they are.
So what happens, then, is that the religion business picks up common, ordinary human behavior, picks a few good
things out of it that we are going to do
anyhow, and combines them with a
bunch of embellishments and strange
rules and regulations.
An example of that might be - I
always try to use an example that relates
to vision and light waves - if one were
to look at that movie screen over there,
one would see the light waves coming
directly from the screen and one would
see it the way it is. That is like ethics; it
is natural; it works the way it works. But
what if there was a fun house over here
in between us - one of those funny,
warped fun-house mirrors where the
image comes back slightly distorted and
strange and doesn't look quite the
same, but is still there. If one looked in
the fun-house mirror, one would still see
the screen, but it would be a little different, a little warped, and so forth. And
that's what the religion business does: It
takes ethics, warps it, adds to it, puts in
propaganda, entangles people in religion, and gives one a distorted view, and
we call that view morality.
The problem with morality is the entanglement in religion, and it seems to
be that people really want to survive or
to be good. The big problem is that the
religion business always claims to be the
source of goodness, and people get
trapped in doing what they are going to
do anyhow, just basic human behavior,
and then subscribe to some religion and
get caught up in that.
I have to say, then, that ethics is fairly
easy to conceive, but it is very difficult
to comprehend, and that is generally because of the interplay between ethics on
a personal level, where each person has
a need to survive individually, and on the
social level, where everybody has a
drive to keep their own species alive.
But the key is survival, and we do what
we do to survive. We always have and
we always will, and that's good. So I
think ethics can be summed up in four
little words: To Be Is Good. ~
Page 37

----------------------------~~r-----------------------------

Abortion: controversy of the '90s

Bill Baird
"The Father of the Abortion Movement," Bill Baird for the past twenty
years has challenged restrictive
birth control and abortion laws
throughout the United States. He
established the nation's first birth
control and abortion center on a
college campus in 1965 and instigated
two landmark Supreme Court cases
(Baird v. Eisenstadt and Baird v. Bellotti which liberalized abortion laws
in our country. But along the way he
has been jailed eight times in five
different states because of his birth
control activities.
In this transcript of his speech on
April 14, 1990, to the Twentieth Annual National Convention of American Atheists, Mr. Baird reviewed
the difficulties which the birth control rights movement faces as a result of the challenges mounted by
established -religion, particularly
the Roman Catholic church.

Ii

irst of all, let me start off on a less

serious note. As I told Madalyn
O'Hair, last night at six o'clock
was my anniversary. Exactly twenty
years ago, on Good Friday if you will, I
was released from the Charles Street
prison after serving a three-month term
as a convicted felon. In fact, for the
younger people here, I brought you a
few clippings to document this.
The headline reads, "Vice squad nabs
B[oston] U[niversity] birth control speaker." For any younger reporter here, to
help you be aware, there was a law
called "Crimes Against Chastity," maintained, in that state, by the Roman
Catholic faith. What the law said was if
one "prints, publishes, or exhibits" -listen to these words - "any means of
birth control or abortion," it was a feloPage 38

l
June 1990

.. :....,.. " ...'~;;"

f
I

American Atheist

ny, which means one would lose one's

right to vote, and one's right to hold
public office.
So about eight hundred young people
wrote a letter to me from Boston University saying, "Would you come to
Massachusetts to Boston University
and challenge this law?"
And I said, "Are you crazy? Why in
the world" - I live in New York - "do
I want to go all the way up to Massachusetts?" Just prior to that, in the liberal
community of Freehold, New Jersey, in
1%6, I had come out of prison, where I
was put for twenty days for "indecent
exposure of obscene objects" - that
was the charge - publicly showing a
diaphragm.
In 1965, in Hempstead, where I live on
Long Island, the police were waiting _
for me. I had a mobile van. Remember those old United Parcel trucks? I
fixed it up like a living room: birch
wood walls, a little fireplace. I drove
from Harlem to Bedford Stuyvesant,
where a lot of poor people were, and
then I came to Hempstead. Before I
could move, the van was surrounded
by police. I was dragged out of the
van, handcuffed, and charged again
with indecent exposure: publicly
showing a diaphragm to poor people.
So I thought about all these crazy
laws that existed - in the state of
Florida, by the way - and across the
United States; and I read the law and
I said, "IfI could somehow tackle that
bi\l, that law that they had in Massachusetts, maybe by good luck the
Supreme Court would hear me and
would knock out every law across
the country."
Now that was the dreamer's viewpoint. As dear Madalyn would tell you,
98 percent of all cases appealed are rejected by the Supreme Court. So I had
a 2 percent chance of being heard and
in being heard, would the Court hear
the arguments I really wanted to present
and would I get all the help that was
promised me?
Again, the first thing I did was to go to
Boston University. I figured that was
where the students were and those
were the ones who would give me the
support. I stood before two thousand
people. You could feel the electricity of
that audience. They knew as I did that
history was going to be made, one way
or another. The police were there; the
antiabortion people were there; the religious fanatics were there. So the first
Austin, Texas

thing I did was to pick up the Bible. I

thought I would defuse them, and I read
Gen. 38:9-11. Remember what that
says: god told Onan to enter his brother's
wife and to have intercourse, and then
Onan spi\led his seed on the ground.
This is called onanism, or withdrawal.
Now, if the law said one could not
print, publish, or exhibit any means of
birth control, every Bible broke the law,
right? I thought that was pretty clever. I
would get every rabbi in there, every
priest in there. The police did nothing.
So the next thing I did was to hold up
Time magazine. I lost the copy. If any of
you ever find a copy of the April 6, 1967,
on the cover was a photograph of the
birth control pi\l.
So what I did was to paste the real

birth control pi\l and St. Joseph's baby

aspirin that looked like the pi\l.The cops
were in the front row, and I held it up and
said, Wi\l you arrest me for showing the
real pill, the pi\lthat looks like the pill St. Joseph's aspirin - or a photograph
of the pi\l?I figured that ifI could confuse
them, the law would be declared unconstitutional because it would be vague.
They just stood there and they laughed.
Now comes the heavy-duty stuff.
What would you do next if you were I?
I had no advisers. I had gone to a department store called Zayre's, and I purchased one condom and one package of
foam - I used to be clinical director for
a drug company called Emco - and I
gave out the one package of foam to a
nineteen-year-old student. Why nineJune 1990

teen? In those days, if you were under

twenty-one, you were a minor. So I
wanted to have a minor single female
help me challenge the law. Does she
have the same legal right of privacy as
married people do? The moment I gave
her that package of foam, thinking I was
smart, I attached a sales receipt. It said
three dollars with nine cents sales tax.
So ifyou were going to arrest me for giving out the package of foam, I said to the
police, you have to arrest the attorney
general for collecting an i\legal sales tax
on an i\legal sale, right?
Well, it did not quite work out that
way, because the police dragged me off
the stage, handcuffed me on the floor I would have walked - charged I was a
menace to society. The two major
charges were indecent exposure of
obscene objects - showing the diaphragm - and giving an indecent
article away.
The judge ruled, on October 17,
1967, that, Bill Baird, you are a menace to this nation - a menace - and
you will be sentenced to prison for
three months as a felon. That was
only a part of the nightmare. They did
put me in that Charles Street prison.
If any of you are from Boston, you
know that that prison has been condemned as cruel and unusual punishment. I literally had to chase rats out
of my cell; I had to pick bugs out
of ... I am pretty solid - I used to
be a boxer - at 175 pounds. I went
from that to 142 pounds in those
three months. This is really, I guess,
the first couple of years I can talk
about this. I was stripped naked. I am
pretty shy, by the way, for me. I was
stripped naked by prison guards
every other day. This was an effort in
effect to crush my spirit so I would not
fight back.
I would not give in to them. Some
inner force said you can take all your
Bible-thumping and all your morality. I
will always believe to my dying breath
that every American has a right of privacy, every American has a right to continue or interrupt a pregnancy, to have
intercourse or not have intercourse,
based on her own morality, not the business of the government or any church.
The most incredible part of it all, and
this is the most painful, was that the people who were closest to me fled. It was
stupid on my part. I learned a bitter lesson. The students at Boston University,
the eight hundred who signed a petition
Page 39

they would back me - I thought they

meant they would back me until the trial
was over. They graduated the next
semester and they took off. So that
hardcore group I thought I had disappeared. Incredible as it may sound
now, the National Organization for
Women said, If William Baird's name
was Wilhelmina Baird, we would have
backed him. NOW walked away. Planned
Parenthood - the documentation is up
here - I always have to get it off my
chest; that multimillion-dollar organization said, "There is nothing to be gained
by the Bill Baird case. It has no value,"
and it walked away from the case.
I would like you to know that on
March 22, 1972,the Supreme Court of
United States said some very powerful
words to everyone of you in this room
and across this nation. The Supreme
Court ruled that "If the right of privacy
means anything, it is the right of the individual to be free to decide whether to
bear or beget a child." That case, called
Eisenstadt v. Baird (405 US 438 [1972]),
established for the nation the right of
privacy for single people. So for all my
critics who said, "You're too radical;
you're too aggressive; there's nothing to
be gained by your case," that case not
only legalized birth control for single
people, but the following year, Roe v.
Wade (410 US 113 [1973]), the famous
Supreme Court decision, quoted my
case six different times, saying that the
American woman indeed has that right
of privacy.
A few years later, teenagers came
under attack with another Supreme
Court case, Bellotti v. Baird (428US 132
[1975]).Incredibly stupid as our legislators are, they passed a law that said if
you are under eighteen, you need the
written permission of both your mother
and your father or a judge of the superior court to obtain an abortion.
Level with me, how many of you in
this room know where, if I asked you
today, to go to a superior court in your
neighborhood? Do you even know
where they are? But here is what the
court said. Go to a superior court, bring
your mother and father into a courtroom, sue them for good cause, and this
willbring the family unit closer together.
That was their argument.
So a renegade freethinker like Bill
Baird said, Wait a minute, if a teenager
wants to have a baby, does she need her
mother's permission? She does not. If a
teenager wants to put her baby up for
Page 40

adoption, she does not need your per- and a right to an abortion. I am outraged
mission. In fact, as most of you know, in by these moralists such as the Roman
all fifty states, if that teenager wants to Catholic church who think they have a
be treated for venereal disease, drug right to say to people who are freeaddiction, or AIDS for that matter, she thinkers that they should not have
does not need anyone's permission.
access to abortion, birth control, or sex
On October 2,1979, the United States
education.
Supreme Court said these words: "The
We have got a nutty man in New
Billof Rights is not for adults only. Young York, and I say nutty because I honestly
adults do have constitutional rights of believe he is nuts - Cardinal O'Connor.
privacy" and we won that case. Incred- Cardinal O'Connor, this great noble
ible as that may be, there is a new wave warrior, came out two weeks ago and
across this nation, a type of law that talked about hard rock being the work
basically says this: If you are a mature
of the devil. He was not humiliated and
minor, you do not need your parents'
embarrassed to say on national telepermission. How many of you know vision that his church has performed exwhat a mature adult is? If you are a orcisms twice this past year. This is a
mature minor, whatever that means,
man who says that a fertilized egg is a
you can get the abortion. But if you are person, a man who has the arrogance to
say that he gives his blessings to Oper. ~~ ation Rescue - a group of religious
fanatics who blockade abortion clinics
- and has also said on public record
that he is considering being arrested
blockading abortion clinics.
When I saw that story, I sent a letter,
to which he has not responded yet, in
which I wrote, Dear Cardinal, If you
come to my facility, I promise you I will
drag you by the back of your neck and
make a citizen's arrest right on the spot.
I think it is long overdue that religion
was put in its proper place, which is in
a time capsule sent to outer space. I
really do. I am a fighter for freedom. But
I am irritated and annoyed when we see
good-thinking Americans who walk
around like lobotomized zombies saying fertilized eggs are people, who will
say they are pro-life and then walk into
Cardinal John O'Connor would allow
my clinic with a gallon of gasoline and a
exorcisms - but not abortions - in his
flaming
torch, with fifty patients being
archbishopric.
processed (or counseled) and several
an immature minor, you have a child. . actually undergoing abortions, and say,
Now listen to this brainpower: Im- "Bill Baird, in the name of Jesus Christ,
mature minors have a child, but once I'm going to cleanse by fire," and before
you have a child, you are emancipated.
anybody could move, threw the gasoline
That means you do not need anyone's
through the torch and burned the clinic
permission to get the abortion once you to the ground.
There have been 137clinicsfirebombed
have had a baby. Are we nuts?
We rank number one in the world for across this nation. A few years ago, I
teenage pregnancy among the industri- was on a television show called "Face
alized countries. We have got this in- the Nation," with a man who was then
credible hang-up in this nation that ifwe the head of the FBI, Mr. Webster, if you
teach people about birth control or how remember him. I challenged him on the
their bodies work, it is going to give air, challenged this scoundrel right on
them sexual ideas. I have got news for the air, and I said, Why won't the FBI
you. We have had those sexual ideas classify the firebombing of clinics as
way before you ever heard about Bill terrorism? His answer was, BillBaird, if
Baird or ever saw a diaphragm.
you firebomb a post office or a federal
People have a right to their sexual ex- bank, that is terrorism, but firebombing
pression, and a right to birth control,
an abortion clinic is not terrorism. As of

_~:O-

June 1990

American Atheist

thisyear it is still not regarded as terrorism by the FBI. The reason to me why
it is so imperative that it be so recognized is that I honestly believe, when the
dust settles, that you willfind that there
has been indeed a national religious conspiracy behind these firebombings.
Every terrorist caught who firebombed
a clinic was connected with either a
group called the Army of God or some
Christian organization; everyone of
them has been connected with some religiousgroup. And yet we are being told
this is not an organized conspiracy.
My appeal to you is to make you be
aware that we are talking about an organized conspiracy. This is a religion that
tells you that a soul enters the egg at
conception. I say to them when I debate
them, "Use the power of reason with
me. If the soul enters at conception,
what do you do with the term called
'twinning,' where the egg divides in half
ten days later? Does each half get half a
soul? Or one twin get the whole soul and
the other get none? Or how many
angels dance on the head of a pin?" And
they will argue with me and say, "Well,
Bill Baird, you're a heathen; you don't
know better." Heathen or otherwise, I
know how to think. I do not need Rome
telling me what is right.
I saw a headline just this past week
that the Roman Catholic church has
come out and condemned sexism. This
is the most chauvinistic, sexist organization in the world, and it is now telling
people it is opposed to sexism. But this
last week this incredible man, this Cardinal O'Connor, issued a decree that he
is going to spend $5,000,000 - five
million dollars - on a public relations
campaign to try to convince Americans
that abortion is murder.
Now, think with me. How many people
will go to bed hungry in our nation
tonight who could have been fed with
that five million dollars? How many of
the homeless there are; how many people who are ill; how many are on the
public dole or welfare because they are
not being supported by the church; and
this man is going to spend $5,000,000 to
advance his religious dogma. If I could
put a pencil dot on that wall - think
with me, a human egg is the quarter the
size of a pencil dot - to call that a person would make as much sense as if I
whipped out of my pocket and showed
you an acorn and said, "Look at this
fantastic oak tree. I am going to go to
Austin, Texas. I am going to build an
Austin, Texas

extension to Madalyn O'Hair's home

and say, 'Look at this beautiful room I
built with this oak tree.' " What would
you say to me?
Or tomorrow, for those of you who
want to celebrate with Easter eggs, if I
said, "Hey," as we passed an Easter egg
around, "be careful. This chicken is going to bite you," what would you say to
me? Think with me, use the power of
this logic of our mind. If an acorn is not
an oak tree, and a chicken egg is not a
chicken, how in the world do we get a
president, Bush, who says, "We all
know fertilized eggs are people." "We
want a kinder, gentler nation," says this
president, except when Congress overwhelmingly voted to allow our poor people on welfare the right to an abortion in
cases of pregnancies from incest and
from rape - just those two isolated
cases. He vetoed it, this kinder and
gentler president.
I deal a lot with rape. My clinic is in
Hempstead. It is a Black, poor community. I have had women come to me who
have been raped anally, orally, vaginally.
I had a patient I will never forget, who
was sliced across her breasts deliberately by that male so the scar would be a reminder of that man's power over that
woman. Of course, most of you know
that rape is not sex; it is really power
over a person. Who would go to that
poor woman and say, Dear woman, you
have got to go through that pregnancy
because a kinder and gentler president
says you have got to go through with it
and that beloved cardinal in New York
has said [direct words], "If a woman
goes through the rape experience, as
hard as it might be, if she has a baby,
would it not be a kinder experience?"
Really.
What bothers me is how the rest of
this nation is so insensitive to the bigotry
of these people, who are telling women
how to live and what is right. I say to
you, look at the medical profession the AMA supports abortion, as do the
American Public Health Service, the
Academy of Science, and the Academy
of Pediatrics. You could not name one
scientific medical body which supports
the incredible, stupid concept that a
fertilized egg is a person.
One-third of all women miscarry one-third. When I debate religionists,
they say, BillBaird, don't you know that
was god's will. And I say to them, You
know, you're right. I never thought of
that. That was god's will that you misJune 1990

carry. Then does it follow logically that

god is the biggest abortionist of all mankind? Well?They generally flipout when
I say that to them.
But the bottom line is that we certainly know that fertilized eggs are not
people. We certainly know that this is
the year of the census. Can you imagine
if you are pregnant, somebody knocking on your door and saying, Oh, you
are pregnant; I will count you as two
people. Can you name one single state
- think of this now - one single state,
not this year, not last year, not the year
before, in over two hundred years, in
which an embryo counted as a person?
There are none.
I will give you another thought. Most
of us have birth certificates. Can Y0\.J
name a state that issued a conception
certificate? Can you name a state where
a baby when it is born is nine months
old? [From audience: "China."] In this
country. Now, you said China. Let me
give you a thought. Belgium, just now, of
all countries, has come out in favor of
abortion rights. China supports abortion, as does Canada, Italy, where the
pope lives, Portugal, Spain, England.
Are all these countries made up of bad,
evil people? Or could it be that they are
progressive enough to realize that the
issue is not whether an egg a person?
You know what the argument really is,
in my judgment? Can you force a woman
to go through a pregnancy against her
will? Can you make her body a ward of
the state? Even if that woman disagrees
with you?
Perhaps you saw me on a television
show last week called the Mort Downey
show. You know that nutty guy is back
now, on cable television, on NBC cable.
Oh that broadcast I said to him, "Mort,
if abortion is murder, what punishment
do you give to those involved?" He has
not grown one inch. He stillsays what he
said to me ten years ago. He said he
would execute the doctor. Wait a minute.
You laughed. Wait a second.
Let's see. Some of us voted for a guy
called Bush. What did Bush say about
this? You remember during the presidential race he said he would punish the
doctor but not the woman, because the
woman does not know any better. What
a put-down of woman. You are so dumb
that you do not really know what an
abortion is, right? Think this through
with me. If you and I robbed a bank and
dear Madalyn had a getaway car, if we
killed a policeman in the bank, what
Page 41

would Madalyn be charged with? Being

a co-conspirator in murder.
What ifthis young woman in the front
row were my wife, and we went to a doctor for the abortion? If you charged the
doctor with murder, with what must the
husband and wife be charged? Murder.
You cannot be conned by antiabortion
people, who in the various states are
saying, We're not going to punish the
woman; she doesn't know any better;
we're just punishing the doctor.
If abortion is murder, you must
punish all of us involved. In fact,
let me show you something, if I
may.
Those of you who remember
birth control devices. By the
way, this that I am showing you
is what I - would you believe
this - this is the identical board
I showed over twenty years ago
at Boston University when the
police said that showing this
board would give the public
sexual ideas. So if any woman is turned
on by looking at this, raise your hand.
This board went up to the Supreme
Court of the United States.
In fact, I willtell you a quick story. Is
anyone here from Wisconsin? Ilove that
state. Would you believe in 1%9 that
state put me in prison for showing this
same board? I was arrested at a little airport called the Oshkosh airport. But I
outfoxed them all, with all their money
and alltheir power - and the newspapers
were hostile until I pulled this trick. I got
arrested at the airport, and on my tie I
put an IUD,a little piece of plastic. Wait,
follow me. With a tiepin, a paper clip, I
had it on. So when I was arrested me,
the newspaper photographs also showed
this IUD. Remember I told you what the
law said anyone who "prints, publishes,
or exhibits any means of birth control"
is subject to punishment. The newspapers
broke the same law that I did by showing this. That is how I got the newspapers
to come out with editorial support backing me, because they would have faced
the same prison term.
But this little piece of plastic, the IUD,
you insert inside the uterus. You leave it
in place. Most of you know the outer
third of the fallopian tube is where conception takes place. Remember I told
you the egg is smaller than a pencil dot;
it goes down the fallopian tube and tries
to attach to the wall of the uterus. Ifyou
have the IUD present, the egg willcome
right out. Medically, that is called what?
Page 42

An abortifacient. Wait a second.

The birth control pill and the mini-pill
do the same thing. They prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of
the uterus. There is a pill from France
called the RU-486. I wish I could have
grabbed that speaker from France. I
wish we could have smuggled that into
this country. Here is a pillthat could help
solve this problem. Basically what the
pill does is prevent the fertilized egg

from attaching. But follow my lead: Ifthe

egg is a person, not only is abortion murder, but various abortion devices such as the pill,the IUD, RU-486 - are.
In fact, Judy Brown, who is a leader of
a group called the American Life Lobby
I have debated many times on television
and radio, has said its goal is to make
birth control a crime; it is not legal, in her
judgment, under the eyes of god "for
married or single people."
If I flipthis side [turning board], this is
what changed my whole lifeway back in
1963.I was just now interviewed by your
Saint Petersburg Times. I do not know
if the reporter is in the room. She said
to me, Why, isn't this kind of shocking?
I said to her right back, Dear young reporter, isn't this what you've got in your
home? Everything that you see here? In
fact, do you know what this is called?
[from audience: "A douche bag."] Thank
you for saying that. When I go to a college campus; they look at me like I am
from Mars; they don't know that it is a
douching bag. Since a lot of you are my
age, remember twenty years ago if you
wanted to buy Kotex, how it used to be
wrapped up in brown paper bags or hidden under the counter. Well, nobody
had periods twenty years ago, right?
Well, women would take a douching
bag and take a bar of Ivory soap chopped
into little pieces; mixed with warm water
and forced into the uterus, it might
abort them. But in a couple of hours that
woman would die. What could kill her
June 1990

from a soapy solution? There is not

enough lye in that soap to do it; what
would kill her was that her body could
absorb the fat from the soap and she
could die from a fat embolism.
You have here a baster. You have a
saltwater solution, where somebody will
fill that with a saltwater solution and
force it into the uterus. Might abort you.
Within maybe ninety seconds, a woman
could die. The reason for that is - remember when you go to a physician and you are given an injection? He presses the plunger
so that liquid squirts out of the
top; why is that done? If you
take this and you squeeze this
hard, you force not only liquid
but air into a major blood vessel,
and you could die right where
you are.
Most of you know the coat
hanger, the knitting needle. You
know what this is called? Some
of you heard me five years ago
at a previous convention of American
Atheists. This is called a catheter. That
was a $400 abortion. You insert that inside you. But a lot of kids did not have
$400 - so for twenty-nine cents, if you
look underneath, there is a plain piece of
plastic tubing. Those of you who have
tropical fish at home know the piece of
tubing that makes the bubbles in the.
water. You need good eyes for this:
There is a piece of copper wire running
through the length of this to give it
stability. You insert that inside the uterus; you put on a sanitary napkin belt, the
kind you use for Kotex or Modess; leave
it in place for forty-eight hours; the uterus willcontract; you might abort. Think
with me now: what happens to the plastic tubing? It will push its way through
the wall of the uterus and very often the
woman willhemorrhage to death where
she is.
So when antiabortion people say that
they are "pro-life," I will walk off a television set. I am pro-life. I know if my life
ended today, I have saved the lives of
women. That I know. You cannot prove
to me anywhere in this nation that an
embryo is a person.
Ninety-three point two percent of all
abortions are in the first twelve weeks.
Please know those figures. Better than
nine of every ten are in the first twelve
weeks. How safe is abortion compared
to childbirth? It is nine times safer to
have a first trimester abortion than to go
through childbirth. They con you and
American Atheist

they tell you how dangerous it is, there

is a risk. Aspirin, penicillin - anyone of
us can go into anaphylactic shock and
die from even the most simple of substances. There is a risk to any procedure. But abortions are nine times safer
than childbirth.
The rage that I feel toward men in this
nation who are in positions of power!
Male churches, male legislators who dictate to you women what is morally right
- this is inexcusable. When
reporters ask, including yesterday, what my position on
abortion is, you will never
hear it. I will never get an
abortion; I will never get
pregnant. For centuries we
men have been telling you
women what is right. It is
long overdue for women to
be recognized as being moral,
thinking people, capable of
making decisions over their
own lives. I hear across this
nation that men willsay how
immoral you women are, but
we men have done such a
great job, haven't we, across
the world - the needless wars we have
fought, the macho, chauvinistic characteristics so many of us have. And even
after saying that to you, you would think
that my strongest ally would be the
women's movement, and I have got to
say this to you: Some of you were with
me in that march in Washington last
April 9. I was given a huge plaque by
Molly Yard, the head of NOW None of
you heard me speak, because I was ordered not to speak. NOW in Boston
refuses to allow me to speak.
There is a famous writer by the name
of Robin Morgan. She used to be the coeditor of Ms. magazine. She wrote a
book called Going Too Far. In that book
she said, "Men like BillBaird are in this
movement because women will come
across easier and quicker." If you think
that I am in this for almost thirty years,
eight times in prison, $200,000 in debt
for three Supreme Court cases, so I can
take you to bed with me, sure as hell,
there is got to be an easier way than
that, okay?
But nevertheless, that is part of why
I am asking your help with this. I really
do think there is an important message
to give. I am very grateful to Madalyn
that she let me come and speak before
you. You would be amazed; I speak all
over the United States, and where I
Austin, Texas

have the most resistance now is not

from the right-to-lifers, but, believe it or
not, from the women's groups on college
campuses who are saying, We want
Gloria Steinem; we want Betty Friedan.
With due respect, Iwould like to honestly ask you, how many laws has Gloria
Steinem changed, or MollyYard, or any
of the so-called national women's -feminists? I would take what I have done and
run circles around any women in this

room and across this country. For my

thirty years of commitment, I think it is
outrageous that I am boxed in now, being $200jOOOin debt. If it was not for
Madalyn's friendship in paying my airplane ticket, I could not be here with
you. To take a national leader and let
him be boxed in - by the antiabortion
people! Then when I turn to my supporters and say, Will you take my hand,
willyou help me fight, I hear, Bill Baird,
you are a has-been; we do not want to
know you; we will let you march for
abortion and birth control rights, but
you may not speak.
So my final plea to you is this: I am a
fighter. I told this to Madalyn yesterday
on a television show - perhaps I should
not have said it publicly - that anyone
of us can be broken. She said I cannot.
I am not so sure. A dear friend of mine,
Abbie Hoffman, took his life. I saw him
only two months before he died, and I
grieve. I am wise enough to know there
is not one of us who cannot be broken.
But when you are broken, you do not
know you are broken. You either do as
Abbie did, you commit suicide, or you
withdraw. My hope is this: I reach out to
you and say I am a good fighter; I need
your help. I need you to stand not behind me but alongside me. I need you to
say, Bill Baird, I will help you get: (1) a
June 1990

speaking engagement in my community,

(2) legislation passed that calls for a fiftyfoot demilitarized zone in front of every
clinic, where anybody can walk in or out
without anybody harassing or arresting
them, a 500-foot quiet zone, where patients can be treated, where nobody can
scream murderer or killer. As I said to
one male reporter yesterday, I will give
you a free $500 vasectomy if you lie on
that examining table, let us put a scalpel
right next to your scrotum,
but let people yell murderer
outside the door. And if you
do not jump before we remove the scalpel, you tell me
that is free speech. And yet
we do that to women across
the nation with a curette
made of steel inside her uterus. The last step we ask for
is the concept of federal
marshals being assigned to
the state of Florida and across
this country to safely escort
women inside abortion clinics - the same principle of
law when Blacks were escorted in the 1960s when
their civil rights were being deprived.
For those of you brave enough to join
me on this, we are calling for every cardinal and every bishop to register as a
foreign lobbyist. We think - in fact,
think about it - that if we appoint an
ambassador to the Vatican, who heads
the Vatican except a dictator appointed
for life called the pope? The pope appoints each cardinal and each bishop.
They must obey the Vatican; if they do
not, they are no longer cardinals or
bishops. You and I both know that. The
Foreign Lobbying Act of 1938says anyone who lobbies for a foreign power
must (1) register as a lobbyist, (2) open
up its financial records, and (3) have all
of its literature marked Propaganda.
Would I love that!
My plea to you is to make you aware
of all this when you say you are only one
person, you cannot make a difference.
As dear Madalyn would tell you, I have
no power, I have no organization behind
me, even though we have a small taxexempt group, but nobody really backs
me. I am the most stubborn man you will
ever meet in your life. I think Madalyn
and I are the most stubborn people you
will ever meet in your life on this same
stage. So I want to thank you for letting
me share today with you, and I hope I
can talk to you all later. Thank you. ~
Page 43

-------------------i~r----------------

The right to choose to die

Derek Humphry

~'~~

In 1980, Derek Humphry helped

found the Hemlock Society, the first
organization in the United States to
tackle the issue of voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill through
assisted suicide .
In this transcript of his speech
given on April 14, 1990, to the Twentieth Annual National Convention
of American Atheists Mr. Humphry
summarized the current attempt to
achieve the right to die with dignity.

r"
.(.":'~Wt'lIf'.
~
.

~'If

ood

evening, ladies and gentle-

Thank you for hanging on

G men.
to hear me speak. In the enter-

tainment world, top of the bill is supposed to be the prime position, but you
have sat here since 9:00 AM., and the
topic you are about to hear is of course
not the most popular one. We do not
want to die, but yet we do. The issue has
become very problematical in Western
society, very hot in America, in particular, but also in Europe. Hardly a day
goes by without, in the daily newspapers,

Page 44

June 1990

American Atheist

there being another issue of the right to

die coming forward.
Madalyn O'Hair, of course, said [in
her introduction] she wanted the plug
pulled on her if she got into a terrible
state and was just hanging on pointlessly. But the message of The Hemlock
Society is that is only half the battle.
What ifyou are dying slowly,painfully,in
an unbearable manner and you are not
on a life support system? There is no
plug to pull. That is the problem. Too
many people think, Well, I willjust have
the plug pulled; I willhave my son do it;
I willhave a living will,and it willbe done.
Well, yes, if that is the way to do it, then
so be it. But a lot of us go to our deaths
not supported by life support systems.
What do we do ifwe are suffering intractable pain or our bodies are falling
apart?
The Hemlock Society, which I started
in 1980and which has grown into a considerable movement by the very force of
the need for something to address this,
says that you ought to be able to get lawful assistance in suicide. We call it selfdeliverance when we are not using legal
terms, but the law calls it suicide and
assisted suicide.
Like so many things that I have heard
here today, we fight entrenched traditional, old-fashioned religion, and our
main opponents in the euthanasia movement are the Roman Catholic church
and the fundamentalist churches. The
Hemlock Society is roughly speaking 50
percent Christian people and 50 percent nonbelievers - Atheists, agnostics, indifferents, and so forth. That is a
very interesting breakdown. We try to
be very nonsectarian. There are a great
many Roman Catholics in The Hemlock
Society, I can assure you - even a few
Roman Catholic priests, a few renegades. Our fight is to say a doctor ought
to be able to help a person to die with an
injection or an oral cup of drugs, if that
person makes a decent request and it is
justified. The opposition we are meeting
from those entrenched religions and
old-fashioned societies is enormous.
But we willwin, because this is clearly a
concept whose time has come.
The Hemlock Society has thirty-two
thousand members and many more
thousands of local members, separately. But our main strength is in that we
have sixty chapters, some of them very
small, some of them quite big. There is
a growing movement, particularly on
the West Coast, in Washington state, in
Austin, Texas

Oregon, in California, and here in Florida, becoming quite a considerable power. So we have sixty little Hemlock societies, and we have even progressed this
far, ladies and gentlemen: On February
1, our Death with Dignity Act was introduced into the Washington state legislature, which act would permit physicianassisted suicide for the terminally ill.
Four very courageous legislators in
Washington introduced it. That is as far

as they got, but the Hemlock movement

in Washington state, mainly in the Seattle area, has filed an initiative to the legislature. Under the initiative system in
Washington state, if we get 150,000 signatures by the end of this year, then.the
legislature in Washington must either
pass it or give it back to the voters and
say, Do you want to vote it into law? So
there is a huge effort and it looks very
healthy. It needs all the help everybody
can give it, though, to get the 150,000
signatures to force the legislature to
make a decision.
But what happened on Monday of
this week? The Roman Catholic church
filed an objection to the initiative. The
hearing is next week, and so that church
willdo its damnedest to hold us up as it
did in Oregon. Last year we filed an initiative in Oregon, and immediately the
Roman Catholic church filed against us
andheld us up for three or four months.
But we got round it. Its objection to the
wording of our initiative had to go to the
supreme court of Oregon, but to our
great pleasure and surprise, four legislators in Oregon said, We'll introduce
your bill, They can't do it this year beJune 1990

cause they're having a year off. Oregon

is a nice, lazy, quiet place to live, thank
goodness, and there is not a lot of politica~business there, and they have the
common sense to meet one year on and
one year off. But next year in Washington, we have the promise of four legislators to introduce our Death with Dignity Act there.
Interestingly, the main proponent in
Oregon is a very senior state senator,
and he has a very severe case of bone
cancer and obviously has not too long to
live. It often takes this personal experience to get up and do something about
the dying question, because it is a question that many people want to avoid.
In California, we tried in 1988to get an
initiative tabled there. We got 150,000
signatures, but the gaining of 400,000
signatures was more than we could do.
It is an enormous state in mere mileage
that we have to cover, and we did not
make it. The Roman Catholic church
danced on our failure, but we knew it
was merely through weak organization
and lack of money, and it was our first
stab into this field. We are coming back
again in California in 1992with another
initiative if no politician willpick it up.
Here in Florida, we shall come in 1994
when we are well organized. We should
not have to go into this expensive, protracted initiative procedure, but politicians are afraid of it. There is a change.
A few months ago, I was back in my
native country of England, and I noticed
that the term of office of the president
of the World Federation of Right to Die
Societies expires in June. I was asked to
go into the British houses of parliament
and help them lobby, and I was very
pleasantly surprised that we got sixteen
signatures on an early-day motion in favor of active voluntary euthanasia. The
signers were all smart-suited, thirty- to
forty-year-old young men. There are not
many women in the British parliament
- remarkably few,at any rate - and we
did not get any of them, but we got
sixteen comparatively young men, members of the British parliament, to put
their names down to say, This is what we
want. That was a tremendous start.
It has always been an amusing negation of democracy, in my view, that the
modern euthanasia movement was
started in England in 1935 by Bernard
Shaw, H. G. Wells, Harold Laski, and
other notable people. There had been
five attempts in the British parliament
over the last thirty years to change the
Page 45

law and to permit assisted suicide of the

terminally ill. They have never got past
first base. The evidence has been overwhelming for years in England that 70
percent of the British people want this in
position, and 30 to 40 percent of the British medical profession wants such a law.
Yet in the mother of parliaments, the
home of democracy, you cannot get it
in. The bishops bring enormous pressure; the moralists, the right-to-lifers,
and the parliamentarians in England
bow to the pressures of the old-fashioned
religious groups, and it is the same here.
But we think we can see light at the
end of the tunnel. There is a big, popular demand for this. We have the advantage of the abortion movement, our
allies in morality and in campaigning, because of course everybody is going to
die, and as the previous speaker said, so
few of us have abortions. I heard him so
clearly and well on that matter, but we
are all going to die, and how are we going to die? That is what we do not know.
The law we seek to introduce is this:
pure common sense. It is already in application in the Netherlands. It has been
in application there since 1984, so we
have learned a lot from what the Dutch
- a very bold people - have done. The
Death with Dignity Act when passed
would merely say the following:A person
likely to die within six months could
make a written request to his physician
to be helped to die, in which he would
basically take the responsibility for this
request - the legal and moral responsibility for it - and it would be a legal
document which would be witnessed by
two people, just witnessed as to signature, like any other legal document. The
doctor receiving this request to help the
patient to die would have to call in another doctor, and those two would have
to agree that this patient was suffering,
was in an unbearable position, and was
likelyto die within six months. Then the
treating doctor could negotiate with the
patient as to when and how the patient
should die. It would be either by injection or by oral overdose. Our goal says
very specifically,"at the time and manner
of the patient's desire." Absolutely, we
are talking about death by request. We
are not talking about killing;we are not
talking about murder; we are not talking
about doctors' playing god. Ifthe doctor
did help the patient to die, the doctor
could not be prosecuted, could not be
sued, could not be attacked by his medical profession. He would be in the clear
Page 46

so long as he obeyed the letter of the

law.
Equally, doctors are free people.
Some of them are religious; some of
them are nonreligious. Our law clearly
says if the doctor does not want to help
the patient to die, he does not have to
do so, and he does not have to state a
reason why he does not want to do so.
It may be he does not feel it is justified,
or it may offend his personal ethics.

Equally, we say that private hospitals

should not have to do this if they do not
want to, but public hospitals would have
to do it.
In Holland, where self-deliverance
mostly but not exclusively happens at
home, it happens in hospitals as well. A
great many doctors in the Netherlands
do carry out active euthanasia. About
eight thousand people a year die from
active euthanasia, it is thought, in Holland. There are no actual figures. A
great many doctors do carry it out. It depends on the nature of their practice.
Some doctors have got an elderly practice of people who are more likely to
want it, and some have a younger practice, so they would not. Euthanasia is actually taught in the best medical schools
in Holland. Those doctors who practice
it go in and lecture, not just about the
drugs that are used, but about the psychology of the .doctor, how he or she
should approach it, how to be comfortable with it, how to go through it, and
how to handle it. Euthanasia is a fairly
difficult thing; it needs thinking through.
That is the essence of our proposed
law, ladies and gentlemen; surely it is
June 1990

common sense. The day willcome when

the right to choose to die or be helped
to die willbe just part of good medicine.
I think by the end of this decade, this
subject will be over and gone. We do
need to do something about it. We need
to get out; public opinion is changing,
and we in The Hemlock Society are going to lead public opinion and say, Here
is our model law; let's work on that; if it
is not quite what you want, let's improve
it, and so forth. We need to do something about it, because elderly suicide is
increasing; it is double the rate of youth
suicide. It does not seem to matter to
the media in general that old people are
committing suicide at double the rate of
young people and so forth. It is a fearsome figure. Double suicide - elderly
couples ending their lives together has become extremely frequent in America. The sad thing is that often one of the
couple that dies is not dying and could
live on, but they are so afraid that they
will lose control of their lives, that their
partner will have gone on and that they
willhave nobody to help them, because
there is no law under which they can
act, that often a healthy spouse in an
elderly stage of life will choose to die as
well, and that is very sad.
Mercy killing,particularly in this state,
is appalling. At the end of thirty, forty,
fifty years of married life, far too many
people are choosing to kill their loved
ones, in the belief that this is the compassionate, the only thing to do. It is a
grave condemnation of our society.
Even more disturbing is the fact that
some people go to prison for twenty-five
years for it. Others do exactly the same
thing and do not go to prison for a day.
It just depends on whom one meets in
the legal system, and so forth.
The biggest cry against The Hemlock
Society's model law is from people who
say, Let the doctors decide each case on
its merits. But when you look at the sentencing policies on assisted suicide and
mercy killing, they are so rampantly
wrong, ranging from nothing to twentyfive years. You cannot leave it in the
hands of district attorneys and doctors.
There must be a national standard and
a national law, stating what society
wants in the right to die issue and marking the criteria, the benchmarks by
which society wishes to work. We
cannot leave it to individual choice, because there are terrible discrepancies.
Take, for example, Roswell Gilbert,
merely fiftymiles from here: He won't be
American Atheist

out of prison till he is 105, if he lives to prosecuting lawyer and say, I've got a
that grand age. His wife was thrown out signed release from the dead person;
of hospital the day before he shot her. don't sue. Nobody has ever sued on
The hospital said, We cannot manage this, because if the doctor has got a
her; she is too difficult; take her away. signed release from the dead person, he
He had nursed her for seven years at cannot be sued. So it protects the dochome. The hospital would not take her tor and gives him more scope to make
in. The poor man snapped and shot her. a good decision. But it is up to us the
Those are the sorts of things that are people, and the right to die movement,
going on. Hundreds of people are com- to impress on doctors, hospital managemitting a crime every year in this coun- ments in particular, to respect the living
try by helping their spouses to die, be- . will.We as the people want it respected.
Even better is a power of attorney for
cause assisted suicide is a crime, punhealth care. In The Hemlock Society's.
ishable by up to murder.
Here in Saint Petersburg last year I version, we put the two together, because
attended the six-week-long trial of Dr. we say do both, cover all your bases. A
Peter Rosier. His wife, in her forties, was power of attorney for health care has
dying of cancer, a very crucially and crit- nothing to do with money, though it is
icallyillwoman, and he tried to help her drawn from the power of attorney with
to die. He injected, I forget what drug it which your monetary affairs can be
was, into her backside, and he was looked after. You give to somebody else
charged with murder, conspiracy to the right to make medical decisions if
murder, and attempted murder. They there is a point at which you cannot. Too
threw the book at him. He would get often, families are distraught or quarreltwenty-five years in this state, in a man- some and the doctor cannot get any
dated sentence, for any of those convic- clear guidelines: what do I do with this
tions. To our great joy, the jury threw it person who is in this state? The doctor
out, lock, stock, and barrel. He was is looking for guidance, so he can make
guilty! He was certainly guilty of at- his ethical and his legal decision about
tempted murder, in the legal sense of the what he will do with this patient: will he
word. A jury of lawyers would have con- pull the plug or not?
If he notices a divided family, or even
victed him in ten minutes. They would
say the fact is he admits it, he put this in- one member of the family, saying, No,
jection into his wife, so he must be guilty. no, keep Mother alive, I cannot bear to
But the jury came in with the common see her die - and yet she is in the most
sense verdict of compassion, threw out appalling condition, on ventilators, and
the facts and said, No, no, no. Peter nutrition and hydration tubes in and
Rosier walked free, to everybody's de- out, and all the rest of it - the doctor
light. This shows the nonsense and the willdo nothing if he sees family discord.
If he fears that, he will do nothing. But
need to do something about it.
What can we do in the meantime? Let ifone member of the family can step forme give you some practical advice, if ward and say, I have the power of attorney for health care, it is enforceable, the
you need it - I do not know whether
you do. What do we do in the meantime doctor must obey the power of attorney
before we get the Death with Dignity for health care. He does not have to
Act into position? What do we do about obey the living will, but he has to obey
passive euthanasia, the pulling the plug the power of attorney for health care
issue? Well, I hope you have all signed a under the laws of informed consent. We
living will. They are not perfect. They suggest that you appoint two powers of
range from state to state in many cases. attorney, just in case one is out of town,
This is what we call our generic living out of state, in the event of any crisis.
will.The livingwillis a request from you You can appoint an alternative one. This
to the doctor which says, If ever I get is by far the most useful document you
into a vegetative state, where I am being can sign at the moment.
Ifonly poor Nancy Cruzan had signed
maintained by life support systems,
please, Doctor, I give you legal permis- one, her case would not be before the
sion to disconnect. It is not a demand Supreme Court now. Even Everett
you cannot demand that the doctor dis- Koop has said that; he would havedisconnect - but it is a request. The pow- connected Nancy Cruzan seven years
ago. He is not exactly on our side; he is
er of the living will is that if somebody
an intelligent, compassionate man, but
thought to sue the doctor afterwards,
the doctor willwave this in front of the he is not on our side. He said if he had
Austin, Texas

June 1990

had the directions, he would have disconnected her. So I beg of you to do

something about it: a livingwill,a power
of attorney, if you can. I know there are
quite a sprinkling of Hemlock members
here. Let's get up and do something
about this issue. The time has come.
There is grave public disquiet over this.
Too many good, decent people are
breaking the law daily in helping others
to die. Far too many doctors are risking
their careers. There are a lot of good
doctors out there, ladies and gentlemen. There are some bad ones as well,
purely venal doctors; but there are a lot
of caring, human doctors who daily take
the risk of prosecution by ending the
lives of their patients in certain conditions. I know about it. They tell me
about it, but they would not tell the average person. They need our protection.
There should be a decent way to do this.
What we are saying in the euthanasia
movement is that in fact our movemen:t
is life-affirmingand life-sustaining. Again
and again, people take my book, Let Me
Die Before I Wake - which is a book on
how to kill yourself if you are terminally
ill - when they are often in great depression; they are terrified of what is
happening to their bodies and certain
death coming in. And then frequently
they write or phone back or call back a
couple of weeks later. We say, How are
you, and they say, Fine. Well, you were
rather ill a couple of weeks ago; you
were really feeling like leaving, we ask.
No; now that I know how to end my life;
now that I have got another benefit of
acceptance of dying and of belief in euthanasia, I have another chance to say
goodbye. Far too many people leave this
earth without saying goodbye, without
hearing their loved ones say, You are a
good person, and what a good life we
have had together, and what good
things we have done together. If you
know that you are going to die, if you
accept that your death is coming and
that you are going to do something
about it, it is a wonderful way to say
goodbye to each other and pay tribute
to each other, as the last stages come,
so there is no unfinished business.
There are no unresolved difficulties.
You can share these things.
The slippery slope, of course, is
thrown at us all the time, that we are going back to Nazi Germany, and so forth.
We dismiss that argument as nonsense.
Yes, the Germans, in 1940-42,murdered
about a hundred thousand people, their
Page 47

own people, who were mentally or physically handicapped. This was part of
their racial purity campaign: clean up
Germany, get rid of the Jews, the homosexuals, the Gypsies, and the handicapped, and Germany willbe strong and
can conquer the world - that barbarous nonsense. That was their reason
for it, but Goebbels very shrewdly called
it euthanasia, the right to die, mercy
death, and so forth. That was their excuse for it. But these people were murdered. They did not know they were going to. die. Nobody was asked permission, family or not. And, of course, how
could we compare modern Western
society to Germany, a nation that lost
control of itself through terrible historical reasons.
It is up to us to make sure that euthanasia is never abused. We must police
our laws; we must vote in the right people. We must make sure that it is only for
those who want it: that it is death by request. It must never descend into murder. Ifit does, we are disgraced as a people. Ifever the slippery slope does come
about, then we willall have to hang our
heads in shame. One of the attacks is
that we are always doing things in the
right to die movement. Well, things are
always happening. Seven or eight years
ago, we did not have AIDS, for instance.
Ten or fifteen years ago, you could not
keep a person alive on nutrition and
hydration. The artificial food technique
was not developed. Now we have ten
thousand people in permanent comas
kept alive by machinery, who would,
before ten to fifteen years ago, all have
died. So many of them are poor young
men who have crashed on motorcycles
or been in car crashes when their brains
are terribly damaged.
We are facing a different situation,
and the right to die movement says,
Let's attack it one position at a time. We
shall keep moving forward in this, and to
hell with what the opponents say of the
slippery slope. We have the support of
the medical profession; let nobody deny
that. There are ample surveys to show
that 60 percent of the medical profession in America is behind us on this, so
long as it is lawful. This is something
worth fighting for, ladies and gentlemen.
We willall die one day. We have to look
after our loved ones and help them cope
with their deaths. What we are talking
about here is the ultimate civil liberty:
the right at life's end to die in a manner
and means of your own choice. ~
Page 48

Dial A Minister Dial A Pastor - __

Dial A Prayer .

<>,.hp.r

DIAL-AN-ATHEIST
The telephone listings below are the various services where you may
listen to short comments on state/church separation issues and viewpoints originated by the Atheist community.
Anchorage, Alaska
Phoenix, Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
Sonoma County, California
San Jose, California
God Speaks

Greater DC
Denver, Colorado
Southern Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Northern Illinois
Dial-a-Gay-Atheist

Detroit, Michigan
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
Northern New Jersey
Keene, New Hampshire
New York, New York

-\(907) 344-3086
(602) 273-1336
(602) 623-3861
(619) 497-0926
(415) 647-8481
(707) 792-2207
(408) 377-8485
(408) 257-1486
(703) 280-4321
(303) 252-0711
(305) 474-6728
(404) 662-6606
(708) 506-9200
(708) 255-2960
(313) 272-1981
(612) 776-6163
(201) 777-0766
(603) 352-0116

Columbus, Ohio
Findlay (Toledo), Ohio
Mansfield, Ohio
Portland, Oregon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(718) 899-1737
(614) 294-0300
(419) 423-4090
(419) 522-2686
(503) 230-0553
(215) 533-1620

DIAL-THE-ATHEIST
Austin, Texas

(512) 458-5731

Dial-a-Gay-Atheist

Dallas, Texas
Ft. Worth, Texas
Houston, Texas
Dial-a-Gay-Atheist

Salt Lake City, Utah

Seattle, Washington

June 1990

(214)
(817)
(713)
(713)
(801)
(206)

824-5800
499-8832
776-3309
880-4242
364-4939
859-4668

American Atheist

Talking Back

Of storks, genes,
and evolution

This month's question:

How did you get here?

Mark Spencer, a Life Member of

American Atheists, explains:
I "got here" through a complexly
evolved biochemical process involving
the division of cells containing specialized chromosomes. My cat "got here"
the same way. So did the tree in my front
yard. The atoms which make up those
cells are the result of the natural fission/
fusion process that went on in earlier
stars and was distributed throughout
the physical universe.
Robert Bandonis, a writer and schoolteacher from Pennsylvania, replies:
I've got a cute little red Ford. Great
gas mileage. Need a lift anywhere?

So you're having a hard time dealing

with the religious zanies who bug you
with what you feel are stupid
questions? Talk back. Send the question you hate most and American
Atheists will provide scholarly, tart, humorous, short, belligerent, or funpoking answers. Get into the verbal
fray; it's time to "talk back" to religion.

Austin, Texas

Steve Thorne, former director of the

San Diego Chapter of American
Atheists, retorts:
I walked, drove, whatever. Do you
mean how did my body arrive on Earth?
I was squeezed through a vagina at 4:02
P.M. on 6 September 1954 at Oakland
Naval Hospital in Oakland, California.
I'm told it was a rough trip.

know every detail about reality to be

able to tell that your god is a fantasy.
Jim Steamer, an amateur photographer living in Texas, adds:
My parents engaged in sexual intercourse thirty-two years ago. Cell replication and differentiation into a full
human being, while not completely understood yet, is most certainly a verifiable phenomenon.
David Kent, Life Member of the Virginia Chapter of American Atheists,
rejoins:
Stork definitely brought me. Passed
the Tooth Fairy, Mother Goose, Santa
Claus, and Jesus Christ on the way what a trip! Hearsay evidence could
really blow your mind, eh, Christian?
Ralph B. Shirley, a retired attorney,
responds:
Like all other animals, I am a product
of millions of years of evolution from
other forms of life, which began as
amino acids formed from chemicals and
gases acted on by electrical charges
from lightning and heat. Man is a less
complicated creature than any fictionally described character called a "god".
So if you think that man is so complicated that he must have been made by
a previously existing creature, then you
certainly must think the same about any
of the various gods that you have been
told about but have never seen.

Gipson Arnold, assistant director of

the Houston Chapter of American
Atheists, has this to say:
I drove (or walked). I don't have time
to completely describe how the universe developed and how life resulted
from the environment. I don't need to
June 1990

Page 49

American Atheist Radio Series

Religion and insanity, part 2

ast week I was discussing the
treatment of the insane and how
that has been affected by Christian
theology, which treated insanity as the
result of demoniacal possession of the
body.
In the first very few years of Christianity, the insane were permitted to attend
church, but at the Synod of Ancyra,' in
314A.D., their expulsion was commanded. The Visigothic Christians whipped
them and Charlemagne- imprisoned
them. The people already mentally ill
were subjected to noxious medicines
and brutality, as the hope continued by
the Christian ideology that Satan, possessing the insane, could be driven from
inhabiting their bodies by such treatment. Some simply became a prey to
ridicule and aimless brutality, but the
vast numbers were punished actively as
being tabernacles of Satan.
The most common punishment was
by scourging demons out of the bodies
of so-called lunatics. But if the disease
continued, as it naturally would after
such treatment, the Christian authorities felt justified in driving out the demons by torture. In Europe yet are to be
seen "witch towers," where the witches
and demoniacs were tortured, and "fool
towers," where the more gentle lunatics
were imprisoned. The horror of demons,
imps, and Satan was everywhere impressed upon the popular mind, in representations on churches, in paintings,
glass stainings, popular dramas, stories,
song, and particularly in miracle plays.
The Lives of the Saints abounded in
these stories. Sermons enforced them
from every pulpit. When there was even
mild questioning of this idea, the questioning was summarily repudiated. Example: one suggestion was that the
madness may have been caused by the
moon and this was answered that the

madness was not caused by the moon,

but by the devil, who availed himself of
the moon for his work.
One mode of cure was undertaken
which caused only an aggravation and
spread of disordered persons. This was
the promotion of great religious processions. Troops of men and women, crying, howling, imploring saints, beating
themselves with whips, visited various
sacred shrines, images, and places of
religious power and fetish, in the hopes
of driving off the powers of evil. We read
now of convents, villages, and even
large districts ravaged by epidemics of
diabolical possession.
The idea arose that devils entered
into animals and animals were accordingly exorcised, tried, tortured, convicted, and executed. St. Ambrose- told
that a priest, while saying mass, was
troubled by the croaking of frogs in a
neighboring marsh. He exorcised them
and so stopped their noise. St. Bernard"
once mounted the pulpit to preach in his
abbey and was interrupted by a cloud of
flies. The saint uttered the sacred formula of excommunication and the flies
fell dead upon the pavement in heaps
and were cast out with shovels. One
exorcism formula which remained in use
until the late 1800s, developed by a saint
in the ninth century, declared insects injurious to crops to be possessed of evil
spirits and exorcised and excommunicated insects, mice, moles, caterpillars,
and grasshoppers. In the thirteenth century, the bishop of Lausanne exorcised
eels in Lake Leman because they troubled the fishermen. In the fifteenth century, another bishop of Lausanne excommunicated all the May-bugs in the diocese. In 1731the following entry appears
on the Municipal Register of Thonon,

IModern Ankara, Turkey.

2Charlemagne (742-814), king of the Franks
(768-814) and emperor of the West (800814).

3Ambrose (339-397), a Roman prelate, converted Augustine to Christianity.

4Bernard (1090~1l53), French ecclesiastic
politician.

[!

In the Christian church,

Roman Catholic and
Protestant, reactionary
and "reformer" agreed:
the devil was
everywhere, but
particularly in the ill.

When the first installment of a

regularly scheduled, fifteen-minute,
weekly American Atheist radio series
on KLBJ radio (a station in Austin,
Texas, owned by then-President
Lyndon Baines Johnson) hit the
airwaves on 3 June 1968, the nation
was shocked. The programs had to be
submitted weeks in advance and were
heavily censored. The regular production of the series ended in September
1977, when no further funding was
available.
The following is the text of "American
Atheist Radio Series" program No. 94,
first broadcast on 27 April 1970.

Modalvn Q'Hair
Page 50

June 1990

Resolved: That this town join with

'<

American Atheist

Below left: From Martin Luther to Cardinal O'Connor, Christianity's leaders

have used the New Testament's stories
of Jesus' encounters with Satan and
devils to back their claims that individuals
may be possessed by demons.
Below: A fifteenth-century
German
work depicts a story of an attack of a
werewolf. Tales of such transformed humans were a logical result of a belief in
demonic possession.

other parishes of this province in

obtaining from Rome an excommunication against the insects,
and that it willcontribute pro rata
to the expenses of the same.

sure, was caused by Satan, and he exorcised insane persons. His horror of idiocy, as resulting from Satanic influence,
was so great that on one occasion he
appears to have advised the killingof an
idiot child, as being the direct offspring
of Satan. In enforcing his ideas regarding insanity he laid stress especially
upon the question of St. Paul as to the
bewitching of the Galatians in the account in the New Testament, Gal. 3:1.
He insisted that Jesus Christ went to
hell in his famous descent in order to
conquer Satan in a hand-to-hand struggle. The idea of diabolic influence pervaded his conversation, his preaching,
his writings and spread thence to the
Lutheran church in general.
Calvin> held to the same theory and
carried it out with yet greater harshness.
6Jean Cauvin (1509-1564), French founder
of Protestantism.

Beze? was especially severe against anyone who believed insanity to be a natural
malady. So that, from the influence of
the old church and the zeal of the new
church, the idea was developed more
and more into cruelty. Did not the devil
tempt Jesus Christ and carry him through
the air, placing him upon the pinnacle of
the temple? When the devil would dare
to entice Jesus Christ himself, what
could he not do to a lowly peasant?
The theologians constantly developed
new theories as to the modes of diabolic
entrance into the possessed. One such
theory was that Satan could be taken
into the mouth with one's food. Another
theory was that Satan entered the body
when the mouth was opened to breathe,
and there are well-authenticated cases
of doctors and divines who, when cast"Theodore Beze (1519-1605), French theologian and Cauvin's successor.

When anyone ventured to deny that

animals could be possessed of the devil,
he was shown that in the Old Testament
Satan had entered into a snake's body
to tempt Eve and in the New Testament
Jesus Christ cast devils out of men and
into swine.
With the advent of Protestant Christianity the idea was only further developed. No one urged the fundamental
idea of demon possession more fully
than did Martin Luther.> The flies which
lighted on his book, the rats which kept
him awake at night, his dreams, were
the influence of devils. The resistance of
the archbishop of Mayence to his ideas
he attributed literally to Satan working
in that prelate's heart. He told stories of
men who had been killed by rashly resisting the devil. Insanity, he was quite

5Martin Luther (1483-1546), German religious reformer.

Austin, Texas

June 1990

Page 51

Left: "Beating the devil out" of a person

was once a quite literal prescription for
mental illness and simple heresy. These
are a few of the methods of torture in
use in Germany during the sixteenth
century.
Below: Medieval Christians were fascinated by the tales of saints tortured by
devils. Here St. Anthony of Egypt resists
the fires of lust as they are fanned by
demons.

unhappy objects of their treatment and

the insane were in high demand. Each
side denied the efficacy of the adversary's
efforts and each urged that a seeming
victory of running a devil out of the victim was actually only collusion between
the devil and the other church. More
than one poor victim was exorcised alternately by the Lutherans, the Roman
Catholics, and the Calvinists.
With all of this, however, the science
of medicine was taking another look at
antiquity and in doing so was rediscovering the old idea of mental illness
being a natural illness and not a visitation of Satan into the body of the possessed. There were the usual contemptible creatures in all those centuries,
those physicians who took sides with
religious orthodoxy, the troop of eminently respectable doctors mixing scriptures, metaphysics and pretended observations to support the "safe side" of religion and to deprecate interference with
ing out evil spirits, took especial care
lest the imp might jump into their own
mouths from the mouth of the patient.
Another theory was that the devilentered
human beings during sleep.
Monasteries and convents were particularly plagued with persons demonpossessed. Large numbers of women
and girls were forced into monastic seclusion against their will, for the reason
that their families could not give them
dower. Hysterical excitement in nunneries was very common.
In the first half of the seventeenth century, the cruelties arising under this doctrine were more numerous and severe
than ever before. In Spain, Sweden,
Italy, and above all in Germany, there
was every effort to suppress the reawakening of the medical appreciation
of what insanity really was. We see in
our "horror" movies a modified version
of what was once a serious part of this
idea of demon possession, and the part
animals played in this. This particular
idea was most tenaciously held. It was
the belief that a human being could be
transformed into one of the so-called
'Page 52

"lower" animals. The most dreadful of

predatory animals in Europe through
the Middle Ages and later, were the
wolves. Driven often from the hills and
forests in winter by hunger, they not
alone devoured the flocks, but sometimes came into the villages. Some of
the persons who were mentally disordered were obsessed with the fear of
wolves, and in some manner it came to
be believed that human beings could
transmute into wolves. And the theory
of werewolves was then born, with
many attendant evils and many unnecessary deaths.
When the Reformation came, the
new Christian creeds vied with the old
in this area of thought, and one way to
show supremacy of doctrines was to
visibly cast out demons. The methods
began to vary. The Roman Catholics
used holy water and consecrated wax.
The Protestants were content with texts
of scripture and importunate prayer.
But the supplementary physical annoyance of the indwelling demon did not
greatly vary with either. The two factions
became sharp in competition for the
June 1990

'.

:"I

American Atheist

Often religious "reformers" come not to

destroy old myths but to perpetuate
them. In the eighteenth century, for example, John Wesley taught that physical
and mental ill health was the work of
devils.

the existing idea of demon possession.

Everything was neatly supported and
sanctioned by orthodox churchmen
and standard treatises at the major universities, sanctified by the laws, courts,
jurists, and legal theoreticians. We see
often a reference that the idea of Satan
possessing a man was "a very safe belief
to be held by the common people," those
persons in whose name so much has
been done, so often in human history.
Against one form of insanity both
Roman Catholics and Protestants were
especially cruel. Strange personal hallucinations are often a feature of mental
derangement, and in this there is the belief by someone that he is a divine person, or a person of note. To have proclaimed oneself a divine person was to
invite murder of oneself through application of the cure by the Christian community. Sometimes, when this form of
mental illness took a milder hysterical
character, the subject of it was treated
with reverence, and even elevated to
sainthood if this helped the church. St.
Francis of Assisi," St. Catherine of
Siena? in Italy, St. Bridget'? in Sweden,
St. Theresa'! in Spain, St. Mary Alacoquc" in France, and Louise Lateau's
in Belgium are typical. But more frequently such cases shocked public feeling and were treated with especial rigor.
An example is Simon Marin, who in his
insanity believed himself to be the son of
god, and was on that account burned
alive at Paris and his ashes scattered to
the winds.

on the authority of the Old Testament,

that bodily diseases are caused by
devils, and upon the authority of the
New Testament that the gods of the
heathen are demons. He cited a physician to prove that "most lunatics are
really demoniacs," and in one of his
greatest sermons "Evil Angels," he
dwelt upon this point especially. In Germany, in Prussia, the old monarch,
Frederick William 1,18attempted to nullifythe efforts of the zealous clergy and
the orthodox jurists to keep the idea of
demonic possession going.
In Austria the government set Dr.
Antonio Haen to careful researches into
the causes of diabolic possession. He
did not think it best, in view of the power
of the Christian church, to dispute the
theory and simply decided after thorough
investigation that out of the many cases
which had been brought to him, not one
supported the belief in demoniacal possession.
The German men of science moved
slowly and certainly, recovering the old
scientific fact established in pagan
Greece and Rome that madness is simply a natural disease of man.
But the inevitable conservatism in
Christian theology caused old abuses to
be continued for years after the theological base for them had been discredited.
There still lingered a feeling of dislike for
the insane, buttressed often by the diehards in the church, and this sufficed to
prevent for many, many, many years
any practical reforms in their treatment.
Today our mental hospitals are little
more than "holding" institutions, as we
hypocritically vote salary enough for
one psychiatrist for every two hundred
patients - and I wonder how much of
this is a cultural lag to those old days of
hatred and despising of mental patients
fostered by the Christian church. ~

The battle against it was very hard,

and when no less a personage than St.
Andre, a court physician in France,
dared to publish a work virtually showing "demoniacal possession" to be simple lunacy, and this in 1725, a breakthrough was in the making. The writings
of Montesquieu 14and Voltaire 15had naturally strengthened the movement of
reason. And then postmortem examinations of the brains of the "possessed"
confirmed it. In 1768 we see it take form
in a declaration by the parliament of
Paris that possessed persons were to be
considered as simply diseased.
In England the warfare went on. John
Locke's had asserted the truth, but the
theological view continued to control
8Francescodi Pietro di Bernardone (1181 or public opinion. Most prominent among
1182-1226), Italianfriar.
those who exercised great power in its
9CaterinaBenincasa (1347-1380), Italianreli- behalf was John Wesley." He insisted,
giousvisionary.
IOBirgitta(ca. 1303-1373), Swedishreligious
visionary.
14Charles-Louis Secondat (1689-1755),
llTeresade Cepeda yAhumada (1515-1582), French politicalphilosopher.
Spanish religiousvisionary.
ISFran<;ois-Marie
Arouet (1694-1778), French
12Marguerite-MarieAlacoque (1647-1690),
satirist, philosopher.
French religiousvisionary.
16JohnLocke (1632-1704), Englishphiloso13LouiseLateau (1850-1883), Belgianvision- pher.
ary who developed stigmata but left the 17JohnWesley (1703-1791), Englishfounder 18FriedrichWilhelm I (1688-1740), king of
Roman Catholicchurch.
Prussia (1713-40).
of Methodism.
Austin,Texas

June 1990

Page 53

Letters to the Editor

Keeping their act up

. The Puget Sound Chapter of Amarican Atheists would like to thank Arnold
Via and American Atheists for once
again recognizing our efforts. Being
named "Most Hated Chapter" of the
year is something we are all quite proud
of. We are working to keep that title and
be a burr under several saddles again
this year.
We are currently challenging the city
of Everett, Washington, to remove a
stone monument inscribed with the Ten
Commandments from in front of City
Hall. We willkeep you informed through
our Chapter newsletter. We are also
working out details to rent a prominently placed billboard on which we will advertise our Dial-An-Atheist number.
Thanks again for the extra motivation!
Lori L. McClain, Director
Puget Sound, Washington, Chapter
of American Atheists

subject to his will. The episode ended

with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy revealing Landru to be a computer with the memory of the dead leader
called Landru.
I thought the episode of "Star Trek"
very useful as to its Atheist theme. The
theme current in the late 1960s was that
computers would gain enough knowledge to run and even dominate human
society. But if a computer functions as
a god, then is the god itself a mere manmade theological machine, as was Landru? It was a very useful episode concerning Atheism. I doubt ifGene Roddenberry would have guessed what he revealed about the human origin of a god
as Landru. Willnot Paramount Pictures
allow the American Atheists to show the
episode "The Return of the Archons" at
an American Atheist convention?
Henning Fernstrom
Texas

Dates, dates, and more dates

Trekkies for Atheism

"Letters to the Editor" should be either questions or comments of general

concern to Atheists or to the Atheist
community. Submissions should be
brief and to the point. Space
limitations allow that each letter
should be three hundred words or,
preferably, less. Please confine your
letters to a single issue only. Mail them
to: American Atheist, P. O. Box
140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195.

Page 54

I met Madalyn O'Hair and her daughter Robin at the eleventh open house of
the Houston Chapter of the American
Atheists this last January 1990. I am
quite pleased I could meet her, while she
lives, for she is slightly below my own
mother's age of eighty!
I believe in one of your newsletters
that you once referred to the Wizard of
Oz as an Atheist novel. I saw the point
about the wizard as a man-made theological machine who awed Dorothy and
her friends concerning his powers. But
I don't know if you recall the old "Star
Trek" series of the late 1960s. It plays in
Houston on channel 39, UHF, every
weeknight at 11:30 P.M. Last Friday, 12
March, the episode was entitled "The
Return of the Archons." This episode
concerned the inhabitants of a planet
called "Beta-3000." They worshipped
their leader Landru who was almost a
god with godlike powers of reducing his
worshippers and his enemies (termed
the Archons) to religious automatons
June 1990

S. Thomas asked about an alternative

dating system in the February 1990
issue ("Letters to the Editor"). How
about the Julian period - no relation to
the calendar of the same name - that
was first proposed in 1582? In that year
the French scholar J. J. Scaliger suggested that astronomical events could
be more easily kept track of by counting
the days from a date in the remote past.
He selected January 1,4713 s.c. as the
starting point because three different
calendar cycles began in phase in that
year (the cycle takes 7980 years to complete). So if 4713 a.c. were designated
Year Zero, chronology would be both
cured of cultural bias and simplified in
that all events in written history would
have a "positive" date. 1990 AD. becomes
just plain 6702 (there is no year 0 between 1 s.c. and 1 AD. remember probably thanks to some mathematically retarded religious historian). Until
this reform becomes reality, though, we
could always change "AD." to "ADJ." for
"Anno Domini Imaginarii."
American Atheist

As additional food for thought, doesn't

it seem odd that the year officiallybegins
just eleven days after the logical starting
point of the winter solstice? Does anyone
know how this happened?
Jeff Wells
California
I have a date for S. Thomas. We number the years to mark the passage of
time and for a common reference point
so that we all know which year we are
talking about.
Since you must start counting from a
reference point, there are several to
choose from. How about 497 C.D. Columbus's Discovery - but that leaves
out most of the world, as would 213 FA
- Founding of America. 408 C.c. sounds
good, as Pope Gregory XIn introduced
the Current Calendar in 1582, but there
we go with the religious element again.
To get the whole world involved, you
could have fun with 45 F.U.N. - Founding of the United Nations.
I use what a lot of scientists use: C.E.
or B.C.E. - Common Era or Before
Common Era. Most Christians know
what it means and they are usually sorry
if they ask me why I use it.
David Vorous
California
I've noticed that there has been a lot
of talk in American Atheist recently
over the issue of our current Christian
dating system. Not only, very wisely

pointed out, is the B.C./ A.D. system

based on highly questionable historical
claims and biased, it also is very much
Imperialistic. Even though other dating
systems exist (the Jewish and Chinese
calendars, for example), the strongest
and most powerful calendar will dominate the whole world in order to avoid
confusion.
In order to correct this numerical injustice, there must arise an international consensus to replace this bias system
with a better, fully objective one. But
start where? One possibility might be to
have the world community declare
some year in the near future to be the
Year One S.E.Y. (Standard Earth Year),
and all dates in the past and future
would be altered accordingly.
Anthony Scarlata
Illinois
S. Thomas asked a question which I
had never pondered.
As of reading this letter, I have begun
using only the last two digits of the
Common Era year date. For common
use, this is sufficient, as I expect little of
what I do to persist a hundred years. If
it does, even the dimmest of historians
can reference it to the years of my life.
For documents of monumental longevity, I suppose they could be dated,
"Thursday, the Twenty-second day of
March, Ninety. In the Two Hundred
Fourteenth year of the Independence of
the United States" or something else
equally pompous. All that is required is

a marker which is known to both the

reader and the writer.
Incidentally, "Gesundheit" (geh ZUNT
height) is a perfectly secular response to
sneezes, whose translation is "Good
Health," no god attached.
Douglas Campbell
Ohio

Mental illness and religion

As a schizophrenic I must protest
that much of your writing contains implicit negative statements about "crazy"
people. This is due, no doubt, to your
preoccupation with the fringe of fanatical religion.
.
Schizophrenics are not always religious and religious people are not often
schizophrenic although in their group
enthusiasms they would seem so. Often
schizophrenics are religious from a narrow upbringing, and peculiar experiences due to brain disease contribute to
this religiosity.
Mainstream psychiatrists often urge
the schizophrenic to return to his original religion so that there will be a congruence between the illness and socially
acceptable religion. This was not my
way. I took a harder route and I can say
that a schizophrenic who ventures out
of theism, and his peculiar experiences,
into Atheism has achieved a lot. Atheism was not given to him, nor was it natural to him. It was struggled for.
David Barrera
Florida

Are You Moving?

Please notify us six weeks in advance to ensure uninterrupted delivery. Send us both your old and new addresses.

New Address: (Please print)

Old Address: (Please print)

Name
Address
City
State
Effective Date:

Name
_
Zip

Address

City
_

Mail to: American J\theists,

Austin, Texas

_
_

State

P.o. Box

Zip

140195,Austin, TX 78714-0195

June 1990

Page 55

American Atheist
reader

Idon't

want to miss anything. Sign me

up for the following:

One-year subscription to the American Atheist. ($25/year; $35/year outside the U.S.)
D

D A gift subscription for a friend (address below). ($20/year; $30/year outside the U.S.)
D Please send informational brochures
on American Atheists, free of charge.

Please send a catalog of American

Atheist Press publications. I am enclosing $1.00 for postage.
D

I am enclosing a check or money

order or authorize American Atheists
to charge my VISA or MasterCard for
the above which totals $
_
D

Please enter your name and address

here:
. Name:
_
Address:

---'-

City:

_
_

Zip:

If you are placing a gift subscription,

please place the name and address of
the recipient here:
Name:
_
Address:

City:

State:
Card #
Bank No./Letters
Expiration Date
Signature

Zip:

_
_
_
_
_

Return form to:

AAG.H.Q., P. O. Box 140195, .
Austin, TX 78714-0195
Page 56

Ads

service

Subscription. Renew or begin a

subscription to American Atheist
for only $25 per year. ($35 outside
the U.S.)
Gift subscriptions. You can send
aspecial gift subscription of the
American Atheist for just $20. ($30
outside the U.S.) That's a $5 savings. Enter the name and address
of the recipient below.
Library subscriptions.
Library
and institutional subscriptions are
just $12.50 a year.

State:

Classified

Notice: The American Atheist willno longer

accept paid display or classified advertising
of any kind. All advertisements received
before this notice will be run until the expirations of their contracts.
The American Atheist willcontinue to run
free advertisements for nonprofit educational
and charitable organizations as a public
service.
.

Services
AMERIKIDS, foreign study program,
seeks people interested in supervising foreign students while they attend American
High Schools. Although considered a volunteer, you would receive remuneration for
each student supervised. Write - 407 Delaware Avenue, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061
or CALL (301) 761-8817.

Publications

~anizations

Sacrilegious, Religious Joke Book. Hilarious caricatures of god, Moses, Jesus, etc.
Divided into Old and New Testaments. Too
hot for the book stores. Mail $5 to: Hugh
Manist, P.O. Box 2471, Longmont, CO
80502-2471.

American Gay Atheists: P. O. Box 66711,

Houston, TX 77266-6711.Serving the Gay &
Lesbian Community. Dial-A-Gay-Atheist,
Houston: (713)880-4242;Dial-A-Gay-Atheist,
New York: (718)899-1737;Dial-A-Gay-Atheist,
Chicago: (312)255-2960.

Fellowship
(Continued from page 16)

the question propounded to him. The

answers are scored by a panel of three
judges. Whoever has the highest score
when the supply of questions runs out
wins a trophy. The first Question Bee
was a lot of fun, but at the same time a
great learning experience last year in
San Diego at Convention XIX in 1989.'It
was too bad that time simply did not
permit this event in St. Petersburg. The
convention had simply run over so far
by the end of the day on Saturday that
the Sunday holding of the second annual
Question Bee had to be called off. There
is always next year though.
There was just enough time made,
however, during the Sunday morning
Brunch Buffet for a quick raffle of
"Atheist Money." National Media Spokesperson Robert Sherman auctioned off
U.S. currency which had been printed
prior to 1955, the year in which the
offensive "religious graffiti" (as Sherman
calls it) of "In God We Trust" was first
mandated to appear thereon. Mr. Sherman began the auction of this secular
tender for a little more than face value
and in no time had raised a respectable
amount of money for the Society of Separationists, Inc. Legal Fund.

June 1990

The end
Allin all, the Twentieth Annual National Convention of American Atheists
proved that Atheists not only don't have
a prayer - they don't need one. This
and many other observations, from the
astute to the comical to the ridiculous,
were bandied about at the Sunday evening farewell festivities. A feature of
many past conventions, and certainly
many conventions to come, is a cocktail
party on the last evening of the weekend
for those who still remain in the convention hotel to loosen their ties, take off
their heels, and just relax with friends
both old and newly made. And so it was
in St. Petersburg at the Hilton to wind
Convention XX to an end.

Epilogue
For those stalwart Atheists who stayed
over through Monday, the day after the
convention's official end, there was a
group trip to Disney's Epcot Center on
the other side of the Florida peninsula.
Although many of us on that trip were
still "recovering" from the rigors of the
weekend, we all had a good time in this
theme park for children of all ages. ~

American Atheist

suggested

American Atheist
introductory reading list
Literature on Atheism is very hard to find in most public
and university libraries in the United States - and most of
the time when you do find a book catalogued under the
word Atheism it is a work against the Atheist position.
Therefore we suggest the following publications which are
available from American Atheist Press as an introduction
into the multifaceted areas of Atheism and state/ church separation. To achieve the best understanding of thought in
these areas the featured publications should be read in the
order listed. These by no means represent our entire collection of Atheist and separationist materials.

12. History's Greatest Liars by Joseph McCabe. Paperback. 176 pp. #5524
$6.50
13. Atheist Truth vs. Religions Ghosts by Col. Robert G.
Ingersoll. Stapled. 57 pp. #5156
$4.00

1. All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American

Atheists with All of the Answers by Jon Murray and
Madalyn O'Hair. Paperback. 248 pp. #5356
$9.00

17. Fourteen Leading Cases on Education, Religion, and

Financing Schools. Paperback. 273 pp. #5500
$5.00

2. The Case Against Religion: A Psychotherapist s View

by Dr. Albert Ellis. Stapled. 57 pp. #5096
$4.00
3. What on Earth Is an Atheist! by Madalyn O'Hair.
Paperback. 288 pp. #5412
$8.00
4. An Atheist Speaks by Madalyn O'Hair. Paperback. 321
pp. #5098
$8.00
5. All about Atheists by Madalyn O'Hair. Paperback. 407
pp. #5097
$8.00
6. Ingersoll the Magnificent by Joseph Lewis. Paperback.
342 pp. #5216
$10.00
7. Essays on American Atheism, vol. I by Jon G. Murray.
Paperback. 349 pp. #5349
$10.00
8. Essays on American Atheism, vol. II by Jon G. Murray. Paperback. 284 pp. #5350
$10.00
9. Essays in Freethinking, vol. I by Chapman Cohen.
Paperback. 229 pp. #5052
$9.00 .
10. Essays in Freethinking, vol. II by Chapman Cohen.
Paperback. 240 pp. #5056
$9.00
II. Life Story of Auguste Comte by F. J. Gould. Paperback. 179 pp. #5132
$6.50

14. Some Reasons I Am a Freethinker by Robert G. Ingersoll. Stapled. 37 pp. #5184

$4.00
15. Our Constitution - The Way It Was by Madalyn
O'Hair. Stapled. 70 pp. #5400
$4.00
16. Religion and Marx by Rick B. A. Wise. Paperback. 267
pp. #5521
$12.00

18. Sex Mythology

#5440

by Sha Rocco.

Stapled.

55 pp.
$4.00

19. Women and Atheism, The Ultimate Liberation by

Madalyn O'Hair. Stapled. 21 pp. #5420
$3.50
20. Christianity Before Christ by John G. Jackson. Paperback. 238 pp. #5200
$9.00
21. The Bible Handbook (All the contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities from the Bible) by G.W. Foote, W.P.
Ball, John Bowden, and Richard M. Smith. Paperback.
372 pp. #5008
$9.00
22. The X-Rated Bible by Ben Edward Akerley. Paperback. 428 pp. #5000
$10.00
All of the above publications are available at a special set
price of $130.00 - a savings of $32.50 off the listed price.
Postage and handling is $1.50 for orders under $20.00;
$3.00 for orders over $20.00. Texas residents please add 7%
percent sales tax.
Payment may be made by check, money order, or VISA
or MasterCard.
Telephone and FAX credit card orders are accepted; just
call our automated ordering service at (512) 467-9525. It is
open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

American Atheist Press

P.O. Box 140195
Austin, TX 78714-0195

U.S.A.

"Atheists are here now to stay. We are ready to

take over the culture and to move it ahead for the
benefit of all humankind. Religion has ever been
anti-human, anti-woman, anti-life, anti-peace,
anti-reason, and anti-science. The god idea has
been detrimental not only to humankind but to the
earth. It is time now for reason, education, and
science to take over."
- Madalyn O'Hair

Atheists: The Last Minority

Speech before the Twentieth Annual National
Convention of American Atheists