american atheist magazine feb 1984

8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Feb 1984

1/44

AMERICAN ATHEIST

Fa. 984 Journalof Atheist NewsandThought $2.50


2/44

AMERICAN ATHEISTS

is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of

state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the First Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States was meant to create a wall of separation between state and church.

American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning

religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;

to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough

understanding of them, their origins and histories;

to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual

sympathy, understanding and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each

individual in relation to society;

to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of

strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;

to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,

perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;

to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to

members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and

aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method,

independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds. ,

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it i s governed by its own

inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man -

finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his

dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve

it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's faith is in

man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very

essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble

ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an

outreach to more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited .

*

Amer ican Atheist Membership Categories

Life membership $500.00

Sustaining membership $100.00/year

Family/Couple membership $50.00/year

Individual membership $40.00/year

Senior Citizen/Unemployed* membership $20.00/year

Student membership* $12.00/year

*I.D. required

All membership categories receive our monthly Insider's Newsletter, membership card(s), a

subscription to

merican theist

magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional

organizational mailings, i.e. new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.

American Atheists - P.O.Box 2117 - Austin, TX 78768-2117


3/44


4/44

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Editor,

After reading Art Maier's letter in the

November, '83 issue of American Atheist, I

did some looking around at the religious

propaganda here in

El

Paso. The local

religionists are putting on a pretty con-

vincing (not to me, of course) show of how

good you'll feel to be a part of their religion. I

feel better now than when Ibelieved in santa

claus, the easter bunny, jesuchrist and the

twelve dwarfs I think others share these

good feelings and we should communicate

them in a positive manner. So why not take

some time to make a public service an-

nouncernent (even if it would run at

2

a.m.

just before the national anthem) that shows

Atheists having a good time in various

locations (including, perhaps, sleeping in on

Sunday mornings, heh, heh) without di-

alogue until the end of the spot. Then, have

one of the Atheists stop what they're doing,

look at the camera and say (with a big smile),

Religion? No, thanks. I've got life ) This

would be as effective as those drug abuse

commercials. Religion is the opiate of the

masses, after all. It would also put the

religionists on the defensive. The best

defense of Atheism may be a good offense.

I would also like to know what can be

done to get such television materials as you

have on some of our local stations, since

they all run religious materials from time to

time (I don't know if they are paid or free)

and I'm sick of them. El Paso strikes me as

being a cross between the vatican city and

some place near Waco, Texas (a bible-belt

city), and I would like to shake up this fuzzy

thinking city.

Imay not be able to help financially (since

I'm a graduate student), but I would like to

help in some other way, if possible. You at

the American Atheist Center and others

around the country have come too far to

quit now. Ifwe stop fighting, our children will

end up as members of Der Falwell Jugend

(The Falwell Youth, in German) sent out as

champions for his (Falwell's) greater glory.

I would also like to respond to Jack

Catran's article on psychology since that is

my major. I think that legitimate psychol-

ogists and psychiatrists wince when they

walk past those same bookshelves, filled

with pop psychology. As a student, I have

little time to read other than what is as-

signed, but I have to be careful when I look

for additional material and these weeds

make it harder to find the books that really

do have something to offer. Psychotherapy

in hard or paper back is worthless and no

Page 2

substitute for the office variety with some-

one who uses a technique given some

validity through empirical research. But all

psychotherapy is not worthless, and at-

tacking all of it as being some waste of time

that could be better spent feeding the

world's poor is the same weak argument my

mother used to get me to eat my vegetables.

Stephen B. Thorne,

Texas

Stephen,

We likeyour ideafor (PSA) public service

announcements The Atheist movement

needs more positive, offensive thinking like

that. Currently, our Tucson chapter of

American Atheists is running I-minute

television PSAs on

a

station in its city. Also,

your national office, the American Atheist

Center, is currently inan attempt to obtain

I-minute radio PSAs.

Those interested in having the American

Atheist Television Forum broadcast intheir

area should contact Dan Flores,

c/o

the

A'merican Atheist Center. But remember,

you need to have cable inyour area to have

it shown.

Also, for another perspective on Jack

Catran's Psychology Today (November,

'83) see page 33 for

a

response by Brian

Lynch.

Editor

Editor,

This is a test of the emergency broadcast

system: The x-ians are polluting the minds

of children around the world. Books, food

and medical care all carry the predominant

curse of religion. Foreskins and clitora flesh

still get slashed with the mindless consent of

the majority. The bible and koran are just as

feared as the bomb and the oil barrel. Only

American Atheists propose the abolition of

these cursed institutional nightmares.

You have just heard one of the last

warnings from the emergency broadcast

system. Soon, the cause will become an-

other fad along with cures for carcinogenic

technologies, equitable economic systems

and genuine interest in science. Drugs,

sports and religious escapism will have

dwarfed the American Revolution into

obscurity.

For you would-be parents still conscious

enough to respond to this letter, how long

can you keep to your own and watch a

billion bible and koran believers run amok?

How long before your grandchildren or

greatgrandchildren either adopt theocracy

or succumb to it?

This writer and his female child will not

yield on the question. We are an active

American Atheist family. We care for

human lives - ours and our own kind. We

are the Iowa Organization for World Athe-

ism. If you live within the borders of the

Tallcorn State, plant a little Atheist maize

February, 1984

with a check and/or membership appli

cation. Call us at (515) 266-6133. Write to u

at P.O. Box 'BG', Des Moines, IA 50304.

We return you now to your laughs,

cocktails and your inactivity. You may no

hear this message of reason any more.

Larry Carter,

Iowa

Editor,

It is claimed that christians were respon-

sible for the violent deaths of say, one

hundred million people over the course o

many centuries. However, if we are t

believe what we are told, the communists

have accomplished the same feat in a matter

of decades.

You devote much time and effort t

exposing the crime and immorality of the

christian church historically, but you devote

comparatively few words to the religious

nature of Hitlerism and Stalinism, and as fa

as I am aware, nothing at all about Maoism,

or the relationship of theism or Atheism t

the ethic of genocidal social transformation

in general.

You are not at this moment adequately

answering the claims of your critics in thi

supremely important topic area.

Robert C. Clark,

Texas

Robert,

We concentrate our attacks agains

religion on the christian church because

that sect is the most powerful in the Unite

States. The average American

is

not fa

miliar with nor compelled to deal with othe

religions.

The same goes inthe area of theopolitics

With all the trouble we have in the U.S. with

state/church separation, who has time fo

Europe? Also, your letter implies tha

Hitlerism and Stalinism were religions

This, of course,

is

absurd.

We will, however, make an effort to have

more articles on religion and eurocom-

munism, the catholic church and the Hitle

regime, etc.

Now, are there any writers interested i

these subjects?

Edito

Notice

Letters to The Editor must be either

quest ions or comments of general con

cern to Atheists or Atheism. Submis-

sion should be typed, doublespaced,

brief and to the point. Space limitations

allow that each letter should be 200

words or (preferably) less. Please con

f ine your let ters to a single issue only.

Thank you_

The American Atheist


5/44

E DITO RIA L /

Jon

G arth M u rray

~

. ; ~ . ; -

...

c --~

~~R

~~

r \~ ~

AN ATHEIST VIEWS

THE DAY AFTER

O

n the

evening

of Sunday,

November

20th Iwatched, along with

some 100 million other Americans (according to ABC) the

program entitled The Day After which was aired by ABC.

On the two days prior to the national airing of the program Iwas in

Boston for a meeting of the local chapter ofAmerican Atheists in that

city. The Boston area chapter director for American Atheists during

the weeks prior to my visit to that city had contacted a number of the

radio and television talk shows produced there locally. He was told by

allbut one of them that they would have indeed liked to have had me

as a guest for a program on Atheism or separation of state and

church, but that they were booked with panels ofpsychologists and

psychiatrists who would be discussing the ABC program The Day

After to be aired that weekend. The panels of professors were to

center their discussions on the effect that the

viewing

of The Day

After mayor may not have on children and whether or not their

parents should keep them out of the room during its airing. The

discussions in the Boston area (and I assume in other cities ofits size

around the country) were based on previews of the program alone

since none of these experts had seen the production in its entirety

yet.

Having viewed the program myself on Sunday evening after a

return flight from Boston to Texas that morning I could not get the

question of Why would a psychologist suggest that a child should not

have viewed this film? offmy mind. I feel now that every parent inthe

country should have been required to force their children to view

The Day After in its entirety. The violence portrayed in the film

was mild indeed compared to many regular prime-time network

shows and particularly when compared to the

violence level

of

Saturday morning cartoons on any network. The reality ofthe horror

of nuclear war is something that should be firmly implanted into the

minds of young people in this generation so that they may pass on,

when they are grown, an aversion to nuclear warfare as a generic

concept. I hope that all the children who were allowed to

view

the

program were scared to the point ofnot being able to sleep that night.

They needed to be scared. The best possible thing that could

have

happened isthat the program would

have

leftan indelible mark inthe

memory of all who viewed it, child or adult alike.

homes and families. Americans don't know these memories. We sit i

the comfort of our suburban middle class homes and watch Beiru

being shelled on the evening news. What if it was your suburb tha

was being shelled? What ifit was your home and children and friend

dying? The last time any shelling went on in the United States wa

over 118 years ago now during the CivilWar. No one is left alive wit

memories of the

Civil

War, but there are plenty of persons leftaround

with vivid memories of World War II, especially Europeans.

It is obvious that The Day After was designed to try to giv

Americans, intheatrical form, a

very

brief and

very

small taste ofwha

it may be like to have a war in this country. It was a noble effort and

applaud it for that, but it was an attempt to do the impossible. The

only persons who really have any concept of what nuclear war would

be like are the

survivors

ofthe bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

on the 6th and 9th ofAugust, 1945. Some scenes from the Hiroshima

or Nagasaki bomb sights were used in The Day After and perhaps

represented the best reality the program had to offer. When one

talks about all-out nuclear war, one is talking about an unknown

quantity. The atom bombs of 1945 were more like conventional

weapons when compared to the power ofthe nuclear warheads in use

today. No one knows and no one can accurately predict what an

all-out nuclear war mayor may not do to the earth as a whole. We can

only guess. On the basis ofallI

have

read Ifeel that the scenes of The

Day After did not depict the situation after a nuclear war as being

bad enough. The long range effects to the genetic structure of plan

and animal lifeas wellas the atmosphere of the earth as a whole were

not developed in the program to their logical end.

I was appalled by the fact that it was clearly shown in The Day

After that the U.S.S.R. had started the war. It was the

Soviet

Union

who invaded West Germany and it was the Soviet Union who

launched first. Had the thought not occurred to the filmmakers that

the United States could be the first to strike?

I had the opportunity to visit the U.S.S.R. during the months o

June and July of 1983. Iwent with a small group offellowAtheists toa

number ofmajor cities within the U.S.S.R .. One of the most common

questions asked of myself and my fellow

travellers

by

Soviet

tour

guides or

Soviet

people was Why do you want to kill us? I was

speechless. I tried to convince each questioner that I did indeed no

Remembering that the Soviet Union alone had greater casualties during World War IIthan all o

the other Allies combined, I came to know why they were cautious of a people who preach hate

against them with every opportunity.

Americans, by and large, need to have in their memory banks the

kind of memories that those who are old enough to

have

participated

in World War II

have

of the horrors of war. Those of sufficient age in

Europe know all too wellwhat itwas likeafter a nazi bombing raid on

London or an Alliedraid on Germany. Americans

have

no real sense

of the meaning of war. We have not had, in the memory of the

currently livingpopulation, any war fought on top ofAmerica, on our

own soil. America has had the luxury ofsending its boys

overseas

to

fighta war on top ofsomeone else's homes, and cities, and town, and

parks, and schools.

Is it any wonder then why the outcry against the placing of U.S.

missiles inEurope isgreatest from the Europeans? They know what it

islike to have not alone a war but a series ofwars fought on top oftheir

Austin, Texas

wish to harm them in the least. I tried to convince them that most

Americans bore them no illfeelings. As I look back on the situation

now, after returning home to the States, Imust take those statements

back. Most Americans do desire to harm the people of the Soviet

Union. They do wish to kill them. During our tour we bumped into

another American tour group ofmostly teenagers. They were hostile

and untrusting to their Soviet hosts and had the constant attitude that

everything

they were told, by all concerned, was a lie or had been

prepared only for them to see as a diversion of some kind. How

presumptuous of them to think that they were important enough fo

the people of the

Soviet

Union to waste their time trying to fool

them somehow.

Iwas treated, as an American, with cautious politeness while Iwas a

February, 1984

Page 3


6/44

guest inthe Soviet Union. Remembering that the Soviet Union alone

had greater casualties during World War IIthan all ofthe other Allies

combined, I came to know why they were cautious of a people who

preach hate against them with every opportunity. Since the time of

their revolution, not unlike ours, they have been one of the most

invaded countries in the world. After having been to the U.S.S.R.

myself I could see why they shot down a foreign airliner that violated

their airspace for hours without identifying itself. The Soviet people

are a trifle paranoid about their borders being violated considering

their memories of the massive destruction of their country during

World War II.

Ifindita sobering thought indeed that Imust reluctantly admit that

itismy country that isthe one most likelyto start a worldwide nuclear

war. The people of the U.S.S.R., unlike the American people, have

had far too much personal, close-up, experience with war to desire

any more of iton or near their homeland ever again. We, on the other

hand, who know not the true taste of war, are willing to take the

chance that it may not be so bad after all.

This point was driven home to me by a recent article from the

Associated Press wire service out of Washington D.C. which was

printed in my local newspaper. In that article it stated that president

Reagan on October 18th had made a phone call to Thomas Dine, the

executive director of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The purpose of the call was for Reagan to thank Mr. Dine for his help

in arriving at a compromise on the War Powers Act issue with

Congress relative to the Marine presence inBeirut. Dine said that the

president had told him that the night before calling

Dine

he had talked

to parents of a Marine killed in the terrorist bombing in Beirut. Dine

recalled that the president then went on to say, You know, I turn

back to your ancient prophets in the old testament and the signs

foretelling armageddon, and I find myself wondering if- ifwe're the

generation that isgoing to see that come about. Idon't know ifyou've

noted any of those prophecies lately, but, believe me, they certainly

describe the times we're going through. Of course, itis the last book

of the new testament, revelations, NOT the old testament that has

the prophecies concerning armageddon. Such a statement by a

president of the United States is nonetheless frightening. As a

commander-in-chief ofthe nation's armed forces, he has the power to

make those biblical prophecies self-fulfilling.

Immediately following the airing of The Day After the ABC news

show Nightline had a special edition airing on November 20th to

discuss with guests and a studio audience the questions brought up

by the program. Some of the guests were secretary of state Schultz,

former secretary of state Kissinger, Carl Sagan, and William F.

Buckley. Toward the end of that Nightline program Mr. Buckley

answer by an overwhelming majority was yes. Since the mass

people in this country consider all communists to be Atheists and

Atheists to be communists, despite facts to the contrary, one c

quickly see why we approach arms negotiations from a standpoin

from which no positive results can emerge. IfIsit down with anyone

work out a disagreement with them and Ioperate on the premise th

everything they tell me is a lie, I willnever agree to anything.

It is also sad that ABC took an apologetic attitude toward the airi

of The Day After. This was evidenced by the disclaimers at t

beginning of the program which were repeated during som

commercial interruptions. A news network need not apologize f

trying to make the American people think about the most importan

topic to face those of us alive today.

Itisalso interesting to note that during the airingof The Day Afte

evangelist Pat Robertson purchased special commercial spots. In t

two 30-second spots seen in46television markets covering about 25

of the homes in the United States, Robertson said the situation is

hopeless and asked for persons to call in for information on t

ultimate hope. Callers were told that the only real hope is found

god through his son Jesus Christ and were urged to watch the 7

Club program hosted by Mr. Robertson. What was thus said

Robertson was that it is o.k. for the world to be nuked becaus

heaven is waiting for us all.

With one of the major tenets of christianity being the spending

one's lifeinthe preparation for death, Idon't know how we can avo

The Day After becoming a reality. Itbecomes even more clear n

than ever why the people of the Soviet Union view us from a simi

perspective as we used to view the kamikaze pilots of the Paci

theater during World War II.Aside from a few of us rational-minde

individuals, most of the population are willing kamikazes for chris

This can be seen clearly by the massive rise in military volunteerism

subsequent to the Beirut bombing of the Marine headquarters ther

As an Atheist I know that I am an animal. All animals are

fin

organisms. Allof our lives end sooner or later. I prefer later. I find

solace inany of the prevailing mythologies concerning death. Death

final. Nuclear war means death for the entire planet, not just a few

am concerned. In fact, my intelligence and my instinct tell me th

preservation of lifeis an ultimate concern. No other concern can

more important than the survival of my species. As an Athei

therefore I stand for complete and unilateral disarmament on

immediate basis if we hope to avoid genocide. No other co

siderations are preeminent. Preservation of the species comes fir

Political, geographical, economic, racial, theological, and all oth

considerations are secondary. Species preservation first; it is th

simple.

Atrue solution to the nuclear arms situation will require an attitudinal change on the part of the

majority of the population of the United States .... Ihave had a small taste of that job in trying to

change the attitude of people concerning Atheists over the past twenty years.

It

is a trying and

thankless task, but one of which I hope others will see the necessity as time goes on.

made the statement that the Russian people were wretched. This

statement typifies the attitude ofmost Americans about the people of

the U.S.S.R .. When American representatives go to the peace tables

in Europe, they sit down with the Soviets with the attitude of Good

morning, we are ready to talk with you about arms control, you

amoral, wretched, untrustworthy, lying, lecherous sons-of-a-

bitches. With that kind of approach how can we avoid the kind of

nuclear holocaust depicted in The Day After ? The answer issimply,

we cannot.

The same kind of attitude that we Americans have about arms

negotiations with the Soviets was exhibited to me, as an Atheist, in a

domestic situation some years ago. I was involved in a legal action

with a jury trial. The jury panel ofprospective jurors was asked during

voir

dire if they felt that the veracity of an Atheist on the whole was

less than that of a christian on the witness stand. That is, Is an

Atheist more likelyto lie on the witness stand than a christian? . The

Page 4 February, 1984

Those of us who understand this must stand firm in the face

adversity and not budge from the task of seeing to it that the means

destroy allthat we know and perhaps alter the genetic basis of life

we know it must be brought under control.

I am grateful for the limited courage exhibited by ABC in airi

The Day After. Iam afraid that itistoo littletoo late. A true solutio

to the nuclear arms situation willrequire an attitudinal change on t

part of the majority of the population of the United States. That w

take some doing. Ihave had a small taste ofthat job in trying to chang

the attitude ofpeople concerning Atheists over the past twenty year

It is a trying and thankless task but one of which Ihope others wills

the necessity as time goes on. ~

The American Athei


7/44

NEWS & COMMENTS / February, 1984

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

W SHIN TON POST

STYLE

In Early October the Washington Post

Newspaper announced, by general solici-

tation, that it was going to issue a weekly

national newspaper inover 6,000 counties in

the United States. The first issue was to be

on Monday, November 7th. For the initial

months of publication which would be

November

and December, advertisers were

offered special rates. This was predicated

on low end-of-the-year budgets of po-

tential advertising customers. For the final

eight weeks of the year, a publisher ad-

vertiser could purchase either eight or four

weeks of fullpage advertising for half price.

This was called the '83 Bonus Plan. The

eight week option cost $8,320; the four week

option cost $4,160.

Dan Flores, our media consultant, im-

mediately (on October 20th) reserved - by

a formal insertion order - the four week

plan. Fullpage ads for the American Atheist

Press were to appear on December 5th,

12th, 19th and 26th. A reduced copy of that

ad is displayed on the inside back cover of

this issue of the American Atheist maga-

zine. These arrangements were made with

the New York Advertising Manager, Dana

Frankel. Dan was advised that the ad-

vertisements would need to be approved by

Charles Hollingsworth of the Washington

D.C. office.

Almost immediately telephone calls be-

gan to be received. Ms. Frankel wanted to

bicker. The first obstacle which the Ameri-

can Atheist Press would need to

overcome

was to offer proof that itwas a publisher. Ifit

was NOT a publisher, which the hostile

Washington Post wanted to assume, the

cost for the four week advertising would

escalate to $5,400, an increase of $1,240.

That argument was overcome when Dr.

O'Hair prevailed onthe issue of paperback

book publishing, in which the American

Atheist Press is engaged.

Then it was necessary to submit the full-

page ad, which was done in a timely way.

Again, this generated telephone calls from

Ms. Frankel because the ad was (vaguely)

not ofthe type ofwhich the paper approved.

It would need to be toned down. The art

department of the newspaper planned to

recast it so that it would be acceptable. Dr.

O'Hair declined such censorship, noting

that taste was a subjective evaluation and

that the advertisement suited the needs of

the American Atheist Press exactly as ithad

been constituted by Gerald Tholen, the

American Atheist Press's in-house Art

Director. A standards notification was

requested by Dr. O'Hair.

On November 5th a letter was received

from Ms. Frankel stating that an accep-

tance standards pamphlet was enclosed.

This read as follows:

Article reprinted from Advertising Age, July 6, 1981

SIFTING IT ALL OUT

How one paper keeps a standard for issue advertising.

by Charles Hollingsworth

Advocacy advertising in the Washington

Post

has grown rapidly inrecent years. Last

year it carried some 275 pages with mes-

sages from corporations, associations, u-

nions, consumer groups and individuals

hoping to influence debate on public issues

or attract investors.

Because the Post has high readership

among 'officialWashington' publications, it

naturally attracts advertising concerning

such diverse topics as taxation, pollution

control, defense allocations, abortion fund-

ing, whale and seal protection, energy

policy, public land use and literally hundreds

of other issues.

The

Washington Post

believes that it

should make every effort to accommodate

issue advertising regardless of the popu-

larity of the views expressed or their

compatibility with the newspaper's editorial

position or the personal views of its em-

ployes (sic.)

Issue advertising is submitted to an

advertising acceptance committee for re-

view. The committee is composed of mem-

bers of the advertising department with the

addition of in-house legal counsel.

The committee considers an ad against

three general standards: Is it libelous or

otherwise illegal? Does it contain false

Austin, Texas

assertions of fact? Does it meet acceptable

levels of taste?

The law of libel holds the publisher as

well as the advertiser responsible for a

libelous statement in an advertisement,

although it may be more difficult for a

plaintiff to prove the absence of adequate

care on the part- of the publisher. (Indeed,

Times us. Sulliuan, possibly the most fa-

mous libel case in American history, dealt

with an advertisement.)

Advertising is accepted by the Wash-

ington Post under the condition that the

advertiser and advertising agency assume

liability for the content of advertisements

published and also assume responsibility for

any claims that may arise, including any

costs or judgments resulting from a suit

based on the advertisement. However, it

would not be responsible to public libelous

material just because of this protection.

Furthermore, the degree of protection that

provision gives isquestionable inthe case of

some issue-oriented advertisments since

the advertiser may not be around to meet

that obligation or have the resources to

meet it.

The

Washington Post

does not believe

that persons should be able to buy space in

the newspaper to make false statements of

February, 1984

fact, even if the statements present no libel

or other legal problems. To allow as much

free expression as possible in advertise-

ments, we allow great leeway for rhetoric,

but if advertising copy is offe-red that

appears to make serious false statements of

fact, we ask for substantiation or a change in

text satisfactory to the

Post.

The policy of refusing what may appear

to be false statements of fact frequently

presents a difficult burden of making judg-

ments in gray areas. The Post has assigned

this important responsibility to the Ad-

vertising Acceptance Committee.

The matter of taste is very much a

subjective thing, but any medium would be

delinquent in its responsibilities to its read-

ers if it did not impose some standards of

taste in the advertising it accepts. The

Post,

particularly with issues-oriented advertis-

ing, makes

every

effort to allow advertisers

to deliver their message in the way they

want to deliver it.

The question may be raised as to how

the Washington Post and other newspapers

can reconcile the establishment of adver-

tising acceptance standards for issue ad-

vertising with their support of Constitu-

tional Rights provided in the First Amend-

ment. That amendment

serves

to

prevent

Page 5


8/44

N E W S

CO MM EN TS / February 1984

gOlJernment from exercising judgment over

what should be published, not to prevent a

newspaper's judgment. The Post seeks to

publish whatever issue advertising is pre-

sented but must observe its obligation to its

readers to make the best possible judg-

ments concerning taste and truthfulness.

Charles Hollingsworth is sales manager for

corporate and financial advertising of the

Wash-

ington Post.

On the day of the receipt of the Ac-

ceptance Standards for Advocacy Adver-

tising Dr. O'Hair wrote to Ms. Dana

Frankel as follows:

We are totally uninterested in 'Advo-

cacy

Advertising. '

We are book publishers. We sell books.

The ad which we sent to you had to do with

the sale of such books, and of our maga-

zine.

There

isno

expostulation of the position

of Atheism in the ad. There is no adlJocacy

of Atheism in the ad. We do not proslyetize,

convert, or propagandize.

We simply sell books and a magazine.

Your continuing dilly-dallying with the

ad has caused our organization to miss two

deadlines already. This

is

prior restraint.

Please be honest enough to accept or

reject the ad, with reasons, over your

signature. That's good enough for us at this

point.

By November 25th, when this magazine

went to press, there was no response from

Ms. Frankel. This obviously means that the

Washington Post

is NOT publishing the full-

page ad of American Atheist Press.

It is interesting to note that this news-

paper, and others, claim that they must -

as members of the free enterprise system of

the United States - be protected by the

First Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States so that they may publish what

the editors personally desire to publish.

However, advertisers paying heavily for

access to the pages of these newspapers or

magazines are NOT so protected. The hard

media wants to have its cake and eat it.

The exercise should be the subject of a

legal test. If newspapers and magazines

refuse paid advertisements, on standards

which they arbitrarily set, they should also

be subjected to standards arbitrarily set by

government. Ifthe basis of their own tactics

is a desire for prior restraint restriction of

free speech of those who would use their

services, it would not be untoward of the

government to practice prior restraint upon

them. In that case - Reagan was right to

refuse the press access to Grenada. Reagan

is .right in his current campaign to close

access channels of communication which

are used to give information concerned with

government activity.

If the Constitution of the United States is

to be made applicable to one person or

agency, it must be applied to all. This is the

meaning of the phrase ... with liberty and

justice

for all.

In this instance, a publishing house - the

American Atheist Press - submitted a full-

page ad, with completed art work. Nothing

in the advertisement, which sought to sell

paper back books, a magazine, audio and

video cassettes, jewelry and bumper stick-

ers, was either libelous or false. There were

no obscenities, misrepresentations of fact,

tasteless cartoons, ribaldry, raunchy illus-

trations, etc. The ad was absolutely straight

forward. The street address of the Amer-

ican Atheist Press was given, together with a

convenient P.O. Box. Money was tendered

in advance. Reservation for space was

made. The dealings with the

Washington

Post were characterized - on the part of its

agents - by subterfuge and omission,

deceit and misrepresentation. All of this

culminated in the ad not being placed.

Meanwhile, the

ew ork

Times ac-

cepted the ad, without any problem, to

runfor four Sundays in its book review

section.

We ask that those of you who see unfair-

ness in the treatment given to the American

Atheist Press by the Washington Post write

to the following, or call them on the tele-

phone, and air your view:

Katherine Graham, owner, telephone:

(202) 334-6000;

Dana Frankel, New York Advertising

Manager, telephone: (202) 334-4256;

Charles Hollingsworth, Sales Mana-

ger, telephone: (202) 334-7634;

all of the Washington Post newspaper,

1150 15th St., NW.,

Washington, D.C. 2007l.

Itwould appear that the Washington Post

should give the American Atheist Press the

four weeks of advertising for which it con-

tracted, at the rates quoted, using the

advertisement which was submitted. Noth-

ing less would be fair.

FOR AAARG S SAKE

Suit was filed November 7, 1983 in the

U.S. District Court in Denver against the

Veterans Administration Medical Center at

Fort Lyon, Colorado by Vietnam-era vet-

eran John Hanse and AAARG (American

Atheist Addiction Recovery Groups ) ask-

ing for Y 2 million in actual and punitive

damages. The suit claims that Hansen's civil

rights were violated when the staff and

administration of the V.A. Center's Alcohol

Dependency Treatment Program (ADTP)

forced him to attend mandatory prayer

meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. He

was also compelled to be inattendance at

weekly bible reading classes led by a salaried

protestant chaplain or to leave the pro-

gram and the facility. Attorney David

Hofer, a member of American Atheists, is

handling the case. The suit also charges the

tax supported V.A. hospital with malprac-

tice for using religion to treat a progressive

and terminal disease, and with discrimi-

nation against secular after-care progams

Page 6

William Talley

such as the one developed by Atheists and

agnostics - namely AAARG

Attorney Hofer was co-plaintiff and at-

torney pro se in the protracted Denver

nativity scene suit while he was still a law

student at the University of Colorado Law

School

AAARG (a national subsidiary of the

American Atheist Center and publisher of

February, 1984

the nationally distributed newsletter, Re

couery) is also a party to the suit, as is its

founder and director, BillTalley (Director o

the Denver Chapter ofAmerican Atheists).

Talleysaid he hopes to represent allAtheists

and other non-believers who are victims o

addictive disease and who, no matter where

they seek help, are forced into religious

services and meetings. These programs,

usually based on Alcholics Anonymous or

the Palmer Drug Abuse method perpetu-

ate the ancient stigmata attached to ad-

diction and oppose the accepted scientific

position that alcoholism and other addic-

tions are hereditary physiological diseases,

not weaknesses ofmoral or psychological

origins.

Hansen, who is now a self-employed

construction contractor inthe Denver area,

says he was an in-patient in the ADTP

program at Ft. Lyon V.A. Hospital last

spring when he objected to attending the

religious sessions and was given the ul



9/44

N E W S

C O M M EN TS / F ebruary 1984

timatum to either conform or leave. He said

he specifically signed up for the 63day

program, hoping to receive scientific and

positive therapy, only to find the same

negative moralizing which has plagued

addicts and other disease victims through

the centuries, and which has blocked

progress in scientific research and treat-

ment methods.

He had attended a couple of meetings of

the local pilot group, Turning Points in

Sobriety, before he entered the V.A.

hospital. Once there, however, he con-

tacted Talley at approximately the time that

AAARG was in its formative stages as the

world's only network of Atheist self help

recovery groups. Talley contacted the

Denver chapter of the AC.L.U. immedi-

ately, and the executive director expressed

a keen interest in the case. The AC.L.U.

litigation board agreed to sponsor the case

and it was assigned to a local law firm on

June 13th, 1983.

During the ensuing fivemonths, however,

nothing that AAARG knows about was

done in respect to preliminary remedies,

Austin, Texas

negotiations, or filing of a lawsuit. In the

meantime, good friend and member of the

Colorado Chapter of American Atheists,

David Hofer had graudated from the Univer-

sity ofColorado Law School. He passed his

bar exam in the 85th percentile and was

awarded his license to practice on Novem-

ber 1,1983. During the entire period he was

acting as both co-plaintiff and attorney

pro

se in the Denver nativity scene case. He had

a great deal of experience with federal

courts during that particular case where he

won a successful appeal to the Colorado

Supreme Court which remanded the case

back to a state District Court. The lower

court, with a Baptist judge, was told that it

had had no right to dismiss the case before

the plaintiffs had an opportunity to prove

their allegations that the creche (nativity)

displayed annually on the steps of Denver's

city hall violated Colorado's constitutional

prohibition against showing a preference for

one religion over another.

It is extremely difficult, ifnot impossible,

for any Atheist organization to function with

an attorney who is not an Atheist. The

February, 1984

subtleties of deceit used against Atheists or

the Atheist position are not clear enough to

an attorney still steeped in religion. Theist

attorneys

always

hedge at critical times or

where a bold statement of the Atheist

position is needed.

The First Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States has two clauses in

respect to religion, one being the estab-

lishment and the other the free exercise.

Basically, the first isintended to prevent the

government from establishing a religion,

usually by the financing of it or the giving of

special position and favor which will en-

hance the position of any religion. The

second is intended to guarantee that every

person will have the unrestricted oppor-

tunity to exercise his particular brand of

insanity. Hence, there can be no coercion

by government either for or against a

religious exercise. This is all theoretical

since the government does aid religion by

the giving of total tax exemptions to reli-

gious organizations and by aiding them with

funding for various of their programs.

In an establishment case, it is vitally

important for the persons bringing the case

to plead that they have standing as tax-

payers, whose money is used to directly

support the religious enterprise whatever it

may be. The tax-payer approach has been

used to gain standing in this case also. In

addition, the person(s) directly involved

must show direct and immediate damage,

and this Hansen has said was annoyance,

inconvenience, offense to his sensibilities,

mental anguish, laceration of feelings,

shame and degradation.

The V.A. Center had a duty of care

toward Hansen, by reason of physician-

patient relationship. As a part of the injury

he cites, he claims that his subjection to

religion was a breach of that care.

These are difficult, costly and dangerous

suits since reprisals are constantly brought

against Atheists involved in them. Whether

or not citizens of the United States have

freedom

from

religion has not been openly

addressed by the courts. However, in the

case of OHair

v. Paine,

the Fifth Federal

Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans,

Louisiana, obliquely indicated that there

was only freedom

of

religion in the nation

and the U.S. Supreme Court refused a

certiorari

(review) to the case.

Since this is a suit against an agency of the

federal government, the attorneys for the

V.A Hospital have until approximately

February 7th to respond. It will be fully

reported in these pages. Meanwhile, those

of you who have interest, or who know o

alcoholic Atheists, please get to AAARG ,

P. O. Box 6120, Denver CO 80206. Mem

bership in the organization is $25.00 a year.

Subscription to its monthly publication,

Recovery,

is $17.75.

Page 7


10/44

N E W S

C O M M E N T S / February 1984

In 1977, Kenneth Saladin moved to

Milledgeville to assume a professorship in

biology at Georgia College. Almost im-

mediately he noticed the city seal, bearing

the motto Liberty, Christianity. It took

Ken, along with his family, several years to

settle into his new job, his new town, his new

circumstances. But, in 1980 he brought the

matter of the seal to the attention of the

A.c.L.U. That organization advised him to

wait until he received tenure on his job.

Also, i n 1980he was much involved, both as

a biologist and a state/church separationist

proponent, in the continuing creation-

science issue which was hotly debated in

Georgia.

Early in 1983 he reactivated the seal issue

with the A.c.L.U. He requested a con-

ference with the mayor to try to settle the

issue out of court, but was received in the

mayor's office only with a screaming tirade

that he must be a communist, ete. There

was little to do but file suit.

The original complaint in the action, filed

on May 23rd, named four plaintiffs other

than Ken. They sought an injunction to

enjoin the City of Milledgeville from dis-

playing on its seal anywhere, whether on

stationery, clothes patches, or city vehicles,

the word Christianity. Ken Saladin in his

complaint stated that he daily visits the

City of Milledgeville and frequently en-

counters the City seal on City vehicles. He

believes that the seal thus denigrates his

personal philosophic and religious beliefs

and gives him an ever-present feeling of

second-class citizenship.

The response of the city was the classic

answer that government gave to the Amer-

ican Atheist Center's suit against the con-

tinuance of the phrase In God We Trust

on the nation's currency and coins. Using

the court decision of that case,

O'Hair v.

Blumenthal,

it rejoined that the use of the

motto on its city seal was of patriotic,

ceremonial character which has no theo-

logical or ritualistic impact and is not

violative of the First Amendment.

The city's other rejoinder was with the

appropriating of funds to have the seal

painted on a water tower. The mayor, still

fuming, told the media that the seal carried

the date 1803, the year Milledgeville was

founded as a township. Made a city by

legislative act in 1836, the Baldwin County

community was Georgia's capital from 1803

until after the Civil War. The population is

now 12,000.

Almost immediately, in June, a local

merchant started a petition drive to Save

Our Seal. Before the drive was concluded,

17,710 signatures were obtained. Since

Page 8

MOTTOES

Milledgeville has only a 12,000 population,

the list was examined and found to have

only 6,000 signatures which could be said to

be local area. The remainder were from

elsewhere inGeorgia, out of state and out of

nation, including signatures from England,

Germany, Columbia and Taiwan.

Actually, the local reaction was phe-

nomenal as is always the case in state/

church separation cases_ There were 195

newspaper articles, letters to the editor,

etc., from the Milledgeville and Macon

newspapers alone in the period mid-May to

mid-August - just 90 days. State and

national press and electronic media have

been out in force and in August there was a

full story in that esteemed national jour-

nal,

The Moral Majority Report.

The personal retribution that Ken ex-

pected turned out not to be of great

magnitude. It consisted of a few weeks of

ha;assing (but not threatening) telephone

calls, trivial property damage and a lot of

mail-order merchandise falsely ordered in

his family's name. There was one rally inthe

central city by a dozen local charismatics,

then a larger one organized by a baptist

minister and attended by about 12 press

representatives, 15 supporters of Ken's

state/church separation position, 8 police-

men and 180to 200of the faithful. It was very

picturesque, with bibles clutched to the

breast and little American flags waved high.

What H.L. Mencken would have called

the local anthropoid rabble expanded the

issue from the city seal to Ken's well-known

humanist leanings and his opposition to

creationism. A consortium of churches of

christ tried through the editorial pages to

browbeat him into debating the existence of

god and the alleged issue of creation-

evolution with one of their radio preachers

from Tennessee. The challenge was issued

on July 8 byfifteen area congregations of the

church of christ. The actual challenge

proposition was:

Resolved: I know that god does

not exist and that all human beings

now living on. the earth owe their

ultimate origin (as human beings) to

evolution (by purely naturalistic, non-

purposive, nonintelligent, nonliving

materialistic forces) from nonliving

matter.

The challenge was widely distributed in the

form of large poster sheets, published in

three local newspapers and sent to Ken by

registered

mail,

He, of course, declined to waste his time.

He was willing to debate on the matter at

issue: the city seal and its propriety for use in

government, given the First Amendment to

February, 1984

the Constitution of the United States. On

the issue of theism v. Atheism, he re-

sponded by saying that he was no more

qualified to debate theology than his chal-

lenger was to debate biology, which Ken

teaches at the local college.

On July 14th another debate challenge

was issued in which the proposition was

now:

Resolved: that all human beings

now living on the earth owe their

ultimate origin (as human beings) to

evolution (by purely naturalistic, non-

purposive, nonintelligent, nonliving

materialistic forces) from nonliving

matter.

The words, I know that god does not

exist, only, had been removed from the

resolution. The debate time slated was eight

hours and forty minutes.

Central Georgia has not had this much

excitement since the CivilWar. As the case

proceeds, it willbe reported in these pages.

The dust hardly was settled when Amer-

ican Atheists was advised by a young college

student, John R. Cavin, that his college, the

University of Kansas, has a college seal that

depicts Moses praying at some burning

bush. John is trying to mount an assault on

that.

CROSS

Back in August, 1979, American Atheists

became concerned with the cross which

stood on a hillover the Hollywood Bowl and

started legal action to have it removed.

During the process the seal of the County of

Los Angeles, California was discovered.

That seal was designed in 1959 by the

Chairman of the Los Angeles County Board

of Supervisors. Pictured here, the seal

shows to the right a representation of the

christian cross standing over the Hollywood

Bowl and to the left the standard christian



11/44

N E W S

C OM M E NT S / F ebruary 1984

fish symbol. The central figure is obviously

religious since it sports a representation ofa

flaming halo. At the time, American Atheist

concern was for the highly visible cross on

the hill. The legal counsel for Los Angeles

issued a 19-page opinion that the county

should stop paying the light billon the cross

and that, indeed, the existence of the cross

on county land was probably unconstitu-

tional. Our presumption is that the cross is

no longer lighted. However, the matter of

the county seal was unresolved.

All of this brings the issue back to New

Mexico. There the Bernalillo County official

seal was involved. That seal is a circle

around the edge of which appear the words

County Commissioners - BernalilloCoun-

ty, New Mexico. Within an inner circle, the

words CON ESTA VENCEMOS stand

against a background depicting the sky.

Below these words is a cross centered over

four blue mountains. Beneath the moun-

tains is a green plain against which eight

sheep are imposed. The origin of the seal is

unclear but it has been in official use by the

county since at least 1925. It appears on all

official county documents and county sta-

tionery and is displayed on county property

such as county motor vehicles and on

shoulder patches of the members of the

Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department.

Citizens of that county sued seeking re-

moval of the cross and the motto, CON

ESTA VENCEMOS.

After several years of fighting, the U.S.

District Court of the District ofNew Mexico

Austin, Texas

handed down a decision on December 21st,

1981, in the case of Johnson v. Board of

County

Commissioners

of Bernalillo

Coun-

ty. 528F.Supp.

919. Brieflythe decision held

that separation of state and church is not

possible since some relationship between

government and religion is recognized. The

cross on the county seal was found to have

religious significance but the seal itself

served the secular purpose of authen-

ticating official documents and to facilitate

identification of county property and per-

sonnel. Bernalillo County was found in the

clear since the court held that it could depict

objects with a spiritual content as long as it

did not promote or give its stamp of

approval to such spiritual content.

Since the case was not appealed, it

remains the law of the land in New Mexico.

The Georgia defendants willfind this case in

their research and use it as a precedent.

But in reading the decision by the U.S.

District Court, the bias is obvious. One of

the plaintiffs who appeared at the trial

d~scribed himself as an Atheist, which

was too much for the trial judge to bear to

have him in the courtroom. A rabbi was

brought in for expert testimony, but he

weaseled enough to say that the cross did

not inhibit him in the practice or the

propagation ofhis faith. Another witness, an

ex-county commissioner, said that the

statement CON ESTA VENCEMOS,

although militant as far as he was con-

cerned, presented no problem.

The county commissioner and county

manager swore that the seal was used on

motor vehicles for identification purposes

and that the Latin cross depicted there had

only historical significance. The curator of

history ofthe Albuquerque Museum recited

an historical precedent for allof the symbols

inthe seal. CON ESTA VENCEMOS was

translated by him as with this we conquer

and by other defense witnesses as with this

we overcome or, simply, with this we will

win. The history which was given indicated

that in the mid-1800s Bernalillo County had

been the site of the oldest and most

extensive sheep raising industry in the

United States.

Concerned with the cross, the history

established that' the first incursions into

New Mexico territory by Europeans was

made in 1539 by a roman catholic friar,

Marcos de Niza, who explored New Mexico

including the Bernalillo County area. Fran-

cisco Vasquez Coronado followed and his

party included two priests, friars Escalante

and Padilla. But, the native Pueblo Indians,

not wanting the priests, killedthem. In 1581,

fray Augustine Rodriguez and two assistant

clerics, friars Lopez and Santa Maria,

entered in search of Escalante and Padilla

and they, too, were killed by the Indians.

The admission on the part ofthe defendants

February, 1984

that the Latin cross had of no assistance to

the first two sets of missionaries did not

even strike a note of irony with the court. In

fact, CON EST A NO VENCEMOS was

the real result of the intrusion of the roman

catholic church friars into the county. After

some settlements followingan expedition in

1598 (60 years later ) some farming activity

began. Here, the historian insisted the

roman catholic missionaries played a sin-

gular role in keeping the Spanish colonists

physically and spiritually alive. He saw

roman catholicism as the state church

which was totally integrated into the

heritage of Bernalillo County and the cross

in the seal as symbolic of the long history of

roman catholic exploration, missionary

endeavors, and impact on early Hispanic

life.

A jesuit priest from the University of

Arizona was brought in to state that the

cross in the seal was not a religious symbol

but an historic symbol of the christian and

Spanish heritage of New Mexico.

The District Court made short work of

the tripartite test for determining whether

government activity in respect to religion is

permissible. That test is well known:

First, the (action) must have a

secular legislative purpose; second,

its principal or primary effect must be

one that neither advances nor inhibits

religion; finally, the (action) must not

foster an excessive government en-

tanglement with religion.

The court discussed each of these find

-ings, as above indicated, that the secular

purpose of the seal was to authenticate

official documents and facilitate identifica-

tion of County property and personnel. Of

course, had the offensive cross-and the

words CON ESTA VENCEMOS been

removed, as requested by the plaintiffs, the

seal could still have had the same secular

purpose. That the argument was specious

was shown by the court's injection of the

following comments:

Catholicism cannot be separated

from New Mexico history. Catholi-

cism isas much a part of New Mexico

history as the conquistadors who

explored this area and named the

state capital 'Santa Fe,' which tran-

slated means 'the City of the Holy

Faith,' and named our beautiful moun-

tain range 'Sangre de Cristo,' which

translated means 'the Blood of

Christ.'

Such remarks were gratuitous, having

nothing to do with the case. In fact, such

names themselves should be challenged and

everywhere secularized. Both the city and

the mountain range should be renamed.

Whether or not the cross and the motto

on the seal had a principal or primary effect

of advancing religion, the court again called

Page 9


12/44

NEWS & COMMENTS / February, 1984

upon the historical panorama. The cross

and the motto were found to have only a

benign reference to religion, an icono-

graphic illustration of the rich cultural

heritage of Bernalillo County. The Atheist

was identified by name in the decision as a

person whose sensitive perception of a hurt

was to be disregarded.

In respect to entanglement of govern-

ment and religion, the court, noting that it

had no evidence at all upon which to

proceed, decided that the funds provided

for the display 'of the motto and the cross

were minimal and therefore inconsequen-

tial. Also, the court perceiv{ed) no benefit

to be gained by any religious group by the

display of the cross and the motto.

The decision was simply another one in

the long string ofdisasters which have come

to the litigants of state/church issues. James

Madison's cautionary words cannot be

repeated often enough. The Atheists of the

United States did not challenge christian

symbology when first its usage appeared.

The usurped power of the use of those

symbols has been strengthened by exercise

and entangled in precedents. Atheists must

see all of the consequences in the principle

._. and, I play the symbols.

Page 10

itself and avoid the consequences by deny-

ing the principle. It is always the faint of

heart who say, Let them have their sym-

bols and their practices inthe public arena.

And by the faint of heart the civillibertarian

rights of Atheists are continually compro-

mised.

Once legitimatized and. placed in the

government arena, there is no way that

religion cannot be ousted. This is why the

Atheist must continue to fight where and

how possible.

14TH ANNUAL

AMERICAN ATHEIST

CONVENTION

April 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1984

(Friday, Saturday Sunday - Easter weekend)

Radisson Plaza Hotel

Lexington, Kentucky

Featured Speakers:

Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Founder, American Atheists

WRITE:

Gloria Tholen

Convention Coordinator

Box 2117

Austin, TX 78768-2117

Ms. Barbara Smoker

President

National Secular Society

London, England

Mr. Alfred Lilienthal

Editor

Middle ast Perspectives

REGISTRATION

$20.00

$35.00/ couple

$10.00/ student or 65 and over

- with l.D.

February, 1984 The American Atheist


13/44

M adalyn M urray Q H air

THE POPE

AND THE

PENDULUM

T

he tears of Karol Wojtyla, alias the pope (see cover), are

hypocritical for he has itwithin his own, single power to stop

the nuclear arms race - and he has not and he willnot do it. A

former pope, Eugenio Pacelli (alias pope pius xii), had the power to

stop the slaughter of jews during the 1940s and did not. Other popes

have had such power whilethey sat and watched humankind suffer by

the millions because of their inactivity. Perhaps the most horrible,

immoral and antihuman crime inthe world isthat which occurs when

someone has the power to prevent it. A mother who sees her child

beaten by its father and who does not intervene is a monster. A

spectator to lifewho does not assist the human community, who does

not keep it from harm, should not be permitted to be a part of it.

Itiseven more heinous when an alleged moral leader, one who fains

to use the title, Prince ofPeace, does nothing when he sees that his

inactivity may cause the extinction ofthe human race, the destruction

of all animal and vegetative species and the complete nuclear fouling

of the planet.

The weapon that the pope has at hand is excommunication. Today

- not tomorrow - IF the pope would lay an excommunication on

any roman catholic building nuclear weapons, handling nuclear

weapons, planning with nuclear weapons, transporting nuclear

weapons, tending nuclear weapons, then a freeze, de-escalation and

build down would be upon us. The interdiction should lay also upon

the familyof the single roman catholic engaged in these activities for

that family psychologically supports him in his moral crime. If the

pope would also give intercessory prayers for every roman catholic

who defused, broke down and laid to rest every nuclear weapon,

there would be such immediate pressures upon our government that

peace would be at hand.

Austin, Texas

El papa does not excommunicate because he wants to retain th

war buffs, the nuclear strike proponents and the nuclear man

facturers in his church, along with their wealth and power. Therefore

he mouths what he does not believe: that peace should reign.

In the United States, living with the insanity of Ronald Reaga

whose father was a roman catholic, the bishops of this natio

themselves, felt the need to do what the pope had not done: speak

the issue at last. However, they too did not have the courage of the

convictions and rather than lose the very small number of prowa

person in their church, they could not bring themselves to ask th

pope to excommunicate roman catholics working on antihuma

weapons.

There could be economic results in a number of ways. Thos

persons who have voluntarily associated themselves with dealing

death would then be unemployed and need either temporar

monetary relief or assistance to find other jobs. Whether or not the

would be deserving ofsuch assistance isanother moral question. Th

practical question would be how would they meet their mortgage

rent payments, their food needs, their energy necessities, etc.

major disruption in the economics of our nation might result: w

would lose the projected national deficit for military nuclear defense

Money might be available for human rights, instead of nuclea

munitions manufacturing profits. The difficulty, of course, is that th

roman catholics throughout our legislative, judicial and executiv

system would be required to, quickly, find solutions for the assistanc

and reemployment ofthese familiesin industries or services which a

prohuman instead of antihuman. Apparently this is a task that me

ofgod eschew. They are more comfortable with death than with li

with words rather than with deeds. Words, after all, can be and a

February, 1984 Page 1


14/44

frequently meaningless when divorced from the action for which they

call. The' church has always been good in word manufacture and

seldom in outreach to suffering humanity.

The American bishops' trivializing of intent but build-up of words

began about two years ago. At that time a committee was set up, at

the insistence ofarchbishop John R. Roach, president ofthe National

Conference of Catholic Bishops (hereinafter referred to as the

Conference ). The committee was to undertake the drafting of a

pastoral letter, i.e. a letter from the bishops to the clergy and the

communicants of the roman catholic church in the United States. It

was to develop a theology of peace suited to a civilization poised on

the brink of self-destruction. A theology, of course, is a field of

study, thought and analysis which treats of god, his attributes, and

his relations to the universe as well as being the study of divine

things or religious truths. When faced with the threat of nuclear

war over economic differences between two countries, it boggles the

mind that roman catholics would turn to develop a theology of

peace. Perhaps it has never occurred to them that since they posit

an omnibenevolent (all good), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent

(all powerful) god, all that they would have had to do was to pray to

him. Also, having a monopoly on the virgomary as an avenue to

jesuchrist, they could ask for her intercessory prayers to her son so

that god could bring peace on earth - through his agents. But, most

of his agents, and particularly the roman catholic church, have, for

several millenia, been on the side of war. That church, and especially

the Conference, has been known for their largely unstinting support

of the United States military policy. In fact, the war in Vietnam was

known throughout the east coast of our nation as Cardinal

Spellman's War. The roman catholic religious factors of that war

have been set out in a booklet by Dr. O'Hair (War in Vietnam: The

Religious Connection). The church ofJesus christ oflatter day saints,

the mormons, are the next runners-up in gung-ho militarism in the

United States, but the roman catholics have beaten allcomers to the

race since they have been entrenched in the United States. It is

basically the superintolerant branch of christianity in the nation.

Be that as it may, the committee went about its business,

completing two drafts of the letter within two years and meeting in

Chicago, Illinois in May, 1983 to vote on the final, third draft. The

drafting committee was composed of five:

Chairman, cardinal George Bernarding, ofMount Hagen, New

Guinea;

Member, bishop Daniel P. Reillyof Norwich, Connecticut;

Member, bishop George A. Fulcher of Columbus, Ohio;

Member, bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of Detroit, Michigan;

Member, archbishop John O'Connor, auxiliary bishop of the

military vicariate, New York City, New York.

The drafts came repeatedly before the membership of the

Conference. The first draft was strongly opposed to the nuclear

menace. The second draft weakened that position. The third draft

restored it in part. The second draft was debated by the fullbishops'

Conference inNovember, 1982. After this, the committee needed to

hold fivemeetings to adopt revisions. Bishop John J. O'Connor ofthe

military vicariate, which oversees catholics inthe armed forces, tried

to soften some antinuclear positions. Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton

of Detroit strenuously opposed the effort. The committee rejected

some O'Connor proposals and accepted others.

The drafts were also reviewed in international ecclesiastical

gatherings held under vatican auspices. Some changes were made in

response to January, 1983 meetings in Rome between the United

States bishops, vatican officials and European prelates. West

German bishops were critical of the second draft's strong stand

against nuclear deterrence. These meetings were summarized by the

rev. Jan P. Schotte, secretary of the pontifical commission on justice

and peace. The Americans were advised to emphasize general moral

principles that carry the weight of doctrine but were told by vatican

officials to refrain from taking sides on practical military matters on

which roman catholics can honestly, disagree. At that point Agostino

cardinal Casaroli, the vatican secretary ofstate, pointed out that the

pope had given a speech regarding the issues in June, 1982 at the

Page 12 February, 1984

United Nations. In that, he had emphasized:

In current conditions, deterrence based on balance,

certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a

progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally ac-

ceptable.

The intervention of cardinal Casaroli was an implicit papal message

that the American bishops should not go beyond the pope's

statement on nuclear arms. The pope, speaking through cardinal

Casaroli, was actually warning the U.S. bishops of the repercussions

which their statements would have for many other countries and for

the bishops ofthe rest ofthe world. The U.N. papal phrase, naturally,

is found halfa dozen times inthe letter. The pope speaks with a forked

tongue for obviously deterrence based on balance is a guarded

papal acceptance of the American position of escalation, Ronald

Reagan's Peace through Strength charade. The American bishops

did not have the courage themselves to go beyond this guarded

wording of an acceptance of the arms race. This can be seen in the

specific language that they use and the emphasis which they

designate may be put on each part of the pastoral letter.

The first draft had been concerned with a nuclear freeze. But, the

word immediately took on extra controversial importance. Its

proponents meant it as an end to the nuclear arms race. Its

opponents meant it as a concession of permanent superiority for

the Soviet Union. (Why does the radical right always take a classic

idiot positioni') Since the bishops were reluctant to associate

themselves with the liberal meaning of the word freeze, the first

draft came out using the word halt. Even then, many bishops

believed that halt was too severe, too closely allied with the dove

position. In the second draft curb was used. If one goes to any

dictionary the difficulty is apparent.

freeze - to stop suddenly;

halt - to bring to a temporary stop;

curb - to restrain or control.

In the third draft, the bishops swung back to halt. In the general

toughening of the letter's stand, the verb resist (a passive idea)

concerned with Reagan's military policies was changed to oppose

(an action idea). All of the words, suddenly, became very important

since the letter was to to become teaching doctrine for the roman

catholic church in America. In diplomatic communiques, neutral or

ambiguous words are chosen to conceal differences. The roman

catholic church has always relied on double-talk, and to give a

straight, honest, representation of their position was thus quite

difficult. A sample will suffice. American Atheists were once

approached by a middle-aged man who wanted much information

concerned with the organization. His repeated statement was, I am

very interested in Atheism. The smiling countenance caused us to

interpret this as benevolent interest. Later, the man turned out to be a

member the society ofjesus, a jesuit, who was attempting to actively

destabilize a chapter of the American Atheist organization. The

church calls this mental reservation. Roman catholics may

prevaricate at will as long as they have mental reservations. In the

above instance, the jesuit could have said, I am very interested in

Atheism since Iwant to destroy it. The first part of the sentence was

said directly to us; the second part was his mental reservation.

The drafts were discussed at length with senior officials of the

present Reagan and previous Carter administrations. According to

Joseph cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, the chairman of the drafting

committee, two revisions were made to the letter after consultation

with Reagan's staff:

(1) There was an explicit recognition put into the letter that

the Reagan administration is involved in arms reduction talk.

(2) A part of a letter from William P. Clark, then president

Reagan's national security advisor, was included in the second

draft. This outlined the Administration's alleged opposition to

targeting civilian populations with nuclear weapons. However,

on the Monday before the release of the letter (May 2nd) the

statements of Clark and of Caspar Weinberger, the secretary

of defense of the U.S., were downgraded for their place in the

text to the status ofa footnote. Many bishops argued that those



15/44

statements, which purported to defend the dubious ad-

ministration policy as moral, did not warrant inclusion in the

text itself.

Still, archbishop John R. Roach (Minneapolis/St. Paul) noted that

there were several conflicts between the positions taken in the draft

and administration policy.

At the base, the pastoral letter was supposed to be a fundamental

rethinking of the role of armed force in the strategy and the moral

philosophy of the modern state, especially our own nation. If one

thinks a little, actually, this paper is the first inquiry conducted into

such ideology by a responsible (if a religious organization can be

responsible), collective body. This isbecause there really is no grass

roots organization, headed by a strong national administration,

affiliated with an international body, in the United States except the

churches. Even in the religious community, the protestant bodies and

the jews have been largely uninterested in approaching the subject.

The jews are too embroiled in supporting Israeli war efforts in the

Middle East to be able to advocate peace anywhere. The protestant

bodies are sliding back into the most bizarre fundamentalism,

recoiling into a fantasy world, unable to face the realities of the world

conditions today. The theopoliticians of the old roman catholic

church onlywere astute enough to understand the need. The political

parties in our nation are, of course, without viable programs of any

sort having to do with any issues of our times: economics, inter-

national relationships, internal sociopathic problems, etc. They drift

aimlessly and without leadership.

The tone and the language of the letter, generally, certainly reflect

the religious earnestness with which the authors approached the

subject. The repetitions, the rewordings of centra] ideas, the same

references reused, the disjointed and substantive style changes

indicate that various of the five priests wrote various parts of the

letter. A week before the third draft was sent to the Conference a

two-day meeting of the committee was held, and a heated exchange

took place because of the differences still between them. However,

Pax Christi, an international roman catholic peace group, had

gathered 269 signatures ofAmerican theologians on a petition which

had backed the second draft, and this was influential.

The final vote favoring the issuance of the letter was 238 to 9. It

signaled more unanimity of opinion than had been expected since

over 500 possible amendments had greeted the Conference gathered

inChicago. The participating bishops were necessarily delighted with

themselves. Cardinal Bernardin stated:

The basic thrust of the document is to set the voice of the

bishops of the United States against the technological dynamic

of the nuclear arms race. The letter calls for stopping the arms

race, reversing its direction, eliminating the most dangerous

weapons systems, and establishing the need for decisive

political action to move world politics away from a fascination

with means of destruction and toward a world order in which

war will be consigned to history as a method of settling

disputes.

Several others wanted to go on the record and the following

statements were made by them to the New York Times religious

editor.

Bishop Maurice J. Dingman, diocese of Des Moines, Iowa:

When Igave a talk at the University of Iowa at Ames some

time ago I used a big blackboard. On one end Iwrote militarism,

on the other pacifism and down the middle the catholic 'just

war' theory. Well, we're now moving on the continuum from

the just war theory over to pacifism, and Ithink that reflects the

general direction of the bishops. Iknow I've become a nuclear

pacifist.

The document reflects this movement. It must now be

approached from three perspectives. It must be scripturally

stated and prophetically stated - we have to be prophets and

be critical of our times. Then it must be pastorally fulfilled,

keeping in mind the conscience ofeach individual and working

within those guidelines. I don't want this document gathering

Austin, Texas

dust; I don't think it will. We've broken our silence and our

people won't let us forget it. I cannot keep silent as the Italian

bishops did withMussolini and the German bishops with Hitler.

We're in a beautiful position now. There is far greater

freedom in the church. Witness this bishops' Conference,

which spoke out in its own voice. And our timing is perfect for

convincing people, not through excommunication or a hard

line, but by addressing specific questions. We don't always

have that. Sometimes we're a little ahead and often we're late,

as during the Vietnam War.

We're setting up a full-time peace ministry in our diocese. I

think we'll see another document coming in three to five years.

We said this country can keep deterrence only if it works

vigorously for arms control. Ifthat isn't achieved, Ibelieve we'll

take a far stronger stand.

Archbishop James

A.

Hickey, archdiocese of Washington,

D.C.

As the archbishop who serves in and around the nation's

capital, the bishops' letter on war and peace poses a unique

personal and pastoral challenge. Washington is the place

where our nuclear policies are made and a principal target in

any nuclear exchange.

Now that the pastoral letter has been adopted, we must

build on it through a program of prayer, study, reflection and

discussion. But peacemaking obviously means more. It means

an ongoing commitment to sharing our teaching. Pastorally, we

must respond with courage, neither evading nor overem-

phasizing the public policy implications of this teaching. We

must respond with competence, with an understanding of what

the church teaches and what the facts are. We must respond

with pastoral skill, recognizing the urgency and complexity of

the issues, understanding that for a significant number of

people these are personal as well as public concerns.

We want to be a peacemaking church. But a peacemaking

church is also a community that raises fundamental moral

questions about policies. We should be building a constituency

of conscience. We should be helping to shape public opinion in

a way that supports genuine efforts to curb the arms race and

obtain peace. This is why our letter is a tremendous

achievement. The issues cannot be left to technicians or to a

few leaders. This document places the moral and ethical

dimensions of nuclear arms in the center of the national

debate.

Archbishop Peter L. Gerety, archbishop of Newark, New

Jersey

For us there has been a developing sea (sic) change, part of

the process initiated by the vatican council opening the church

to the world. We're abandoning our fortress mentality and

opening our minds to the positions the church should have

taken a long time ago.

The Letter, then, is

a

summing up ofwhere we are - really a

dramatic time. I've seen the gradual adaptation of bishops to

the nuclear realities, to the primary problem of survival in this

world. The process (of writing the document) brought this

home to us.

Our first move in the archdiocese will be to discuss the

Letter with advisory boards - priests, sisters and the

archdiocesan pastoral council. We're also going to have to talk

about this with our education people. We've had courses on

issues of justice for a long time, trying to help people

unde

american atheist magazine feb 1984

Documents