American Atheist Magazine April 2009

8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine April 2009

1/32


2/32

A m er i c an A th e i s t s E s s en t i a l R ead in g L i s t

Enjoy the introductory information provided in these books, which are of topics of interests to Atheists. These titles represent only

a fraction of the books available from American Atheist Press, yet collectively they provide a broad overview of Atheist thought.

STOCK# GES

Paperback

PR ICE

Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Free Thinker by David Eller

An anthropologist advances Atheists and

Atheism beyond belief

22 00 4906010

14 00 237

Paperbackhrist ianity before Chr ist

by John

G.

Jackson

Christian doctr ines are traced to their

origins in older religions.

5200

The Case Against Religion by Albert Ellis

A psychotherapist's view of the harmful

aspects of rel igious belief.

57

Stapled

6 00

09 6

Living in the Light by Anne R. Stone

Subtitled Freeing Your Child from the Dark Ages

This book serves as a manual for Atheist parents.

1 2 00

15 7 Paperback

58 8

Our Constitution: The Way It Was by Madalyn O Hair

American Atheist Radio Series episodes about the myth

that our founding fathers created a Christian nation.

6 00

70

Stapled

40 0

18 00 288

Paperbackhat on Earth is an Atheist

by Madalyn O Hair

American Atheist Radio Series episodes on various topics

of Atheist phi losophy and history.

5412

The Bible Handbook by G. W Foote W P Ball et al.

A compilation of biblical absurdities, contradictions,

atrocities, immoralities and obscenities.

1 7 00 372

Paperback

00 8

An Atheist Epic by Madalyn O Hair

The personal story of the batt le to end mandatory prayer

and bible recitation in schools in the United States.

1 8 00 302 Paperback37 6

65 Press Interviews by Robert G. Ingersoll

Ingersoll's 19th-century newspaper interviews

as a Freethinker and opponent of superstit ion.

26 2

Paperback

15 0058 9

An Atheist Looks at Women & Religion by Madalyn O Hair

Why attempts to reconcile religion with civil

rights for women are self-defeating.

[ •. 0=

= = ; : : : : ;

10 00 42

Paperback

41 9

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank R. Zindler

A search of ancient Jewish literature yields no evidence

for the existence of any histor ical Jesus.

20 00 544

Paperback

02 6

it ]

The Great Infidels

by Robert

G.

Ingersoll

How nonbelievers and Atheists have contributed

to civilization and enriched our lives.

7 00

80

Paperback19 7

The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus by Rene Salm

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth

because no one was living there at the time.

2 0 00

40 1

Paperback

6014

Illustrated Stories From The Bible by Paul Farrell

You can bet this book won't ever be used

In Sunday Schools

16 00

17 2 Paperback

6000

Jesus is Dead by Robert M. Price

Not only is there no reason to believe Jesus rose from the

dead, there is no reason to think he ever lived or died at all

18 00 291

Paperback

6005

Please see the order form enclosed with this magazine for member discounts and Shipping details, or consult www.atheists.org.


3/32

A PR IL 2 9

Vol 47, No.4

ISSN 0516-9623 (Pr int)

ISSN 1935-8369 (Online)

AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS

Managing Editor

Frank R. Zindler

[email protected]

AMERICAN ATHEIST

'A Journal of Atheist News and Thought'

General Editor

Bil l Hampl

[email protected]

Design

&

Layout Editor

David Smalley

[email protected]

Cover Design

David Smalley

Cover (Background Photo)

Roger Caldwell/www.monkey.net

Published monthly

(except June & December)

by American Atheists Inc.

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 158

Cranford, NJ 07016

908.276.7300 P

908.276.7402 F

www.atheists.org

©2009 American Atheists Inc.

All rights reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part without

written permission is prohibited.

American Atheist is indexed in the

Alternative Press Index.

American Atheist Magazine

is given free of cost to members of

American Atheists as an incident

of their membership.

Subscription fees for one year of

American Atheist:

Print version only: 45 for 1 subscription

and 30 for each additional gift subscription

Online version only: 35

Sign up at www.atheists.org/aam

Print

&

online: 55

Discounts for multiple-year subscriptions:

10 for two years

20 for three or more years

Additional postage fees

for foreign addresses:

Canada & Mexico: add 15/year

All other countries: add 35/year

Discount for libraries and institutions:

50 on all magazine subscriptions

and book purchases

AMERICAN ATHEIST

CONTENTS

4 From The President

Ed Buckner

5

Great Hera Ideology of the Justice League

Bill Hampl

7

Google As God

Tucker Lieberman & Richard Wassersug

10

How to Respond to Requests to Debate Creationists

Submitted by

P Z

Myers

12

Legal Update

Edwin Kagin

13

The Ancient Atheist and the Fetching Fundy

Tony Pasquarello

18

Baptists and Atheists Together

Dr. Bruce Prescott

20

The Fix Is In

Stephen Goldin

22

Sayid

Sarah Trachtenberg

25 Foxhole Atheist of the Month

Victor Agosto

28

Biblical Morals: The Smalley Debate

David Smalley

30

Aims and Purposes

31 State Directors Listing


4/32

FROMTHE

PRESIDENT

Bash the Bible?

By President Ed Buckner

L

ike many other Atheists, I'm often challenged to

'just read the Bible,' and I've occasionally been

accused of being insensitive or uncivil because

I have dared to criticize the 'Good Book.' This book,

considered sacred by 'peoples of the Book,' as they

sometimes style themselves, has been heavily criticized

by thoughtful Americans since before our nation began.

Raised a Christian, I once memorized the names of

all the books of the bible-c-at least of the King James

Protestant version we used. But I'm no biblical scholar.

(There are true biblical scholars among us Atheists->-

Frank Zindler, for example.) But the overwhelming

majority of the many American Christians I have met

or argued with know even less than I do about the book

they claim is 'God's Word.'

It's worth pointing out to self-assured theists,

perhaps gently, that the bible is one of the most horrible

books (or set of books ) around, even though it does have

beautiful and inspiring parts as well. Just recently I was

given one of those mini-tracts fundamentalist Christians

distribute, this one titled 'A TERRIFYING Thought.'

It was an attempt, quite literally, to get me to accept

Christianity based on terrorism. It cited, accurately I'm

sure, bible verse after bible verse designed to convince

me that the god these people believe in is an evil bastard,

someone who will punish me, writhing in agony,

forever, for daring not to believe in him. The several

pages of viciousness end with citing Hebrews 10:31,

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. The problem for Christians who claim that theirs

is a religion oflove is that this tract did not misquote the

bible or tear stuff out of context, nor does most of the

terroristic hatred come from the 'Old Testament.' This

really is the 'Good' book, the one Christians believe to

AMERICAN ATHEIST - A PRIL 2009

Ed Buckner, PhD

President of

American Atheists

be the 'Word of God.' And it's not just full of crap, it's

also full of hate, venom, and evil that comes directly

from the God they imagine they must cower before.

When arguing with a bible-believer, it may help

to have a few bible verses handy to cite out of the

hundreds that are especially disgusting or horrific. Or

you could just quote Thomas Paine, the man credited

with making up the name 'The United States of

America' and who inspired Revolutionary War patriots

with the words President Obama recently quoted in his

Inaugural Address. Paine wrote, in

The Age of Reason

(1794-1795), Whenever we read the obscene stories,

the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous

executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which

more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more

consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than

the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has

served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

Or you could cite serious scholars of the Bible

like Zindler or

Some Mistakes of Moses,

Robert G.

Ingersoll's great nineteenth-century work. Or A Few

Reasons for Doubting the Inspiration of the Bible,

by Ingersoll, with a Foreword by Frank Zindler. Also

worth consulting is

Asimov

s

Guide to the Bible: The

Old and New Testaments

by Isaac Asimov (1981).

I hope to see members of American Atheists and

other readers of this magazine in Atlanta in April. Dr.

Andy Thomson, Mike Malloy, Nate Phelps, Michelle

Goldberg, and so much more, in a setting chosen with

great care by convention chair Arlene-Marie and

the committee she leads. And Richard Dawkinsl->-

literally the most famous Atheist on our planet=-will

be there. It will be stimulating and great fun. See our

Web-site or elsewhere in this issue for all the details.


5/32

Great Hera

Ideology in Justice League

T

his month, I would like to analyze the role of

Atheism in a popular cartoon series. Just ce

League is a series composed of the followmg

superheroes: Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern,

Wonder Woman, Superman, Flash, and Hawkgirl.

The particular episode I am considering is 'The Terror

Beyond,' Parts 1 and 2: this episode considers whether

society has any need for religious beliefs.

Admittedly, discussions of faith, religion, and gods

are complicated in a cartoon series that regularly features

multiple, conflicting ideologies as well as alien life

forms. One villain in this episode is Solomon Grundy,

he with the propensity to pick up and then to throw

heavy things. However, the philosophical discussions

occur between the two female superheroes, Wonder

Woman ('Diana') and Hawkgirl ('Shayera Hol').

Different belief systems present themselves within

this episode, which references both a god, Ixthultu,

and a goddess, Hera. The episode discusses worship

without ever mentioning Allah or the Judeo-Christian

god. The concept of worshipping a deity occurs when

members of the Justice League attempt to rescue a ship

being attacked by a sea creature with tentacles. At one

point, Wonder Woman finds herself ensnared and cries

out to her people's personal deity: Hera, Give me

strength Upon hearing this, Hawkgirl, also ensnared,

replies, Do you have to say that all the time? Luckily,

the two superheroes and the ship are saved, not by any

cosmic deity, but by a fellow member of the Justice

League. This brief exchange between the two women

foreshadows a longer philosophical discussion that

occurs later.

According to the mythology, Hawkgirl and her

peop leare not from Earth but from the planet Thanagar. In

the past, the Thanagarians worshiped extra-dimensional

beings called 'the old ones,' in particular their leader, a

being named Ixthultu. In return for Ixthultu's favors,

Thanagarians made sacrifices of themselves to him. As

they matured as a people, however, the Thanagarians

stopped believing; in fact, Hawkgirl notes that modem

Thanagarians bow down to no higher power. What is o

interest to Atheists is that Hawkgirl associates worshi

with being a primitive culture, implying that advance

societies have no need for deities or religions.

So far, the Atheist ideology is positive. Hawkgir

does not rely on deities for assistance. She become

annoyed when another Justice League member (h

equal, in terms of intellect and abilities) reaches out

her own respective deity. Later, the episode question

the viability of Atheist principles. The discussion begu

earlier blossoms as the two female superheroes continu

their discourse:

Hawkgirl: Let me ask you something.

Do you really gain strength when you call on your gods

Wonder Woman: Of course I do.

My beliefs sustain me.

Hawkgirl:

That must be comforting.

Wonder Woman: There are times whenfaith

is all

we

have to rely upon. I don't know

how you can bear the weight all alone.

At best, one can applaud the two characters' ope

discussion, attempting to understand how one believe

in a deity whereas the other believes in none. On

notices, though, that Hawkgirl's beliefs seem to b

wavering. The most ironic discussion comes near th

climax, when Hawkgirl is captured and bound at th

wrists and ankles by Ixthultu, the god she no long

worships. She is defiant throughout her conversatio

with her people's former god:

IxthuItu: Speak to me, child of Thanagar

Hawkgirl: I've got nothing to say.

I've got a gesture for you, but my hands are tied

Ixthultu: How I've missed your people s spirit.

Hawkgirl:

We don't miss you.

We outgrew you, thousands of years ago.

Ixthultu:

I gave your people everything.

Why did you forsake me?

Hawkgirl: Forsake? We threw you out.

The price for your favors was too high.

Ixthultu: My treaty was equitable.

I earned your faith.

Hawkgirl: Really? What s a fair price

for the souls of my ancestors?

The ideology here is fascinating: Ixthultu's

actual physical presence demonstrates his existence

APRIL 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIS


6/32


7/32

by Tucker Lieberman

Richard Wassersug

theology o(informationtec~nology

G~O

T

he world's most famous

Internet company has never

claimed to be god. Unlike the

classically understood 'uncreated

creator,' Google's giant brain is

hosted on an estimated half-million

servers, is invented by humans,

and remains contingent upon us.

Its search engine doesn't contain

anything until we feed it text which

it indexes indiscriminately, whether

our claims be false and evil or true

and good. Google doesn't enjoy all

the perks of monotheism but rather

has corporate competitors and

complies with the laws of various

countries. It pleasantly has no

crusaders or jihadists, and one can

utter its true name without being

struck by lightning.

Yet, in other ways, the

Google company oversees its

virtual kingdom with empyreal

exquisiteness. Its stated higher

purpose is to organize the

world's information and make

it universally accessible and

useful. Its followers-Googlers,

if you will-rely on its search

engine as the main directory of all

knowledge and consider any piece

of information not known to Google

to be effectively non-existent or

irrelevant.

Here we examine the behavior of

Googlers in the light of commonly

recognized religious practices and

review Google's qualifications as a

god in the classical mold. We ask

whether Google requires anything

of us morally and how it might lead

us to a better life.

Google as Religion

The typical personal computer

with an Internet connection has

become, for many of us, a household

shrine visited more regularly than

any mosque, church, or synagogue.

Does this activity, in itself, constitute

a religion of Googleism?

Religion is notoriously difficult

to define.: Each major religion

distinguishes itself by unique

devotional rituals and core dogmas

such as the existence of certain

spirits, the need to propitiate those

spirits, or the derivation of laws,

value, and meaning from the spirits.

These beliefs infuse ordinary

human behavior-eating, singing,

studying, procreating-with a layer

of meaning that we call 'religious.'

Finally, a shared identity forms

around the religious culture.

Google has not yet achieved

all of these things. And yet it does

generate the religious feeling of

reverence. The paragon of Interne

search technology attracts those

who revere the furthering of human

knowledge.

For many, 'the search' is more

than just a metaphor for a spiritual

quest. Google's devotees feel they

cannot live without the particular

form of search that gives meaning

to their lives. If a god teaches how

to live, Google teaches us how t

look up the answers to our own

questions. From the altars of ou

computers, we offer up Web-sites

and paid advertisements, and ar

repaid with the intangible reward

of satisfaction, or perhaps more

importantly, of curiosity whetted

anew for another search.

Google as God

The word 'Google' invokes

our eternal quest to discern th

truth. It shares some of the classic

mysterious ambiguity of the word

'god,' as it can be either a proper

name of a company and product,

generic noun, or even (as process

theologians would have it) a verb

Almost overnight, the brand name

Google became a transitive verb

in several languages meaning to

search and find answers to any

imaginable question. It can b

APRIL 2009 - AMERICAN ATHEIST


8/32

used introspectively, as in the title

of a play by Jason Schafer, I Google

Myself.

We are not the first to comment

on the deification of Internet search.

As early as 2001, blogger Steven

Garrity meditated on Google's

classically theistic attributes: it

is genderless, gives quick and

straightforward answers, commits

our words to eternal record, and,

in a loose humanist manner ... is a

reflection of god in ourselves. Two

years later, Alan Cohen, a VP of Wi-

Fi provider Airespace, was quoted

as saying God is wireless ... Now,

for many questions in the world,

you ask Google, and increasingly,

you can do it without wires, too. A

user identified as Martin Espinoza

posted to the computer news and

discussion website Slashdot:

Imagine ...being able to just sort of

ask the air what to do. Talk about

talking to god. Of course, you're

just accessing a network, but what

is God anyway?

Followers of traditional

religions may view such questions

as irreverent, but the proper object

of reverence is the very question at

issue. John Lennon predicted in 1966

that Christianity would vanish and

shrink because the Beatles were

more popular than Jesus now.

The tide has ebbed for the Beatles

but risen for Google. In late 2008,

the word 'Google' trounces 'Jesus'

in a popularity contest based on

Internet search results: on MSN's

search engine, by a factor of 2; on

Technorati's blog index, by a factor

of 4; and on Yahoo 's directory, by

a factor of 8.

What Is Virtue to Google?

Google monitors, reflects, and

records the preoccupations and

questions of mankind, God's finest

creation, Ben McIntyre mused

AMERICAN ATHEIST - APRIL 2009

in 2005 for the London Times.

Assuming that s god's thoughts can

be inferred from humans' thoughts,

as if a god were an amalgamation

of all human beings, he reported

that last week God was thinking,

in order of priority, about Mother's

Day, the Kentucky Derby, Orlando

Bloom, Paula Abdul and the new

Xbox 360. He also thinks about

Himself a great deal, but mostly

He thinks about sex. If indeed

a god can be best understood by

studying humanity, then Internet

search naturally affords a window

into the mind of God. Many so-

called 'netizens' or 'digerati' have

begun, even if only subconsciously,

to conform their own thinking

process to Google's. Web design

advisor Vincent Flanders endorsed

the text-only Web browser Lynx

because that's how Google views

the Web and Google is god. This

represents a growing equivalence

between human aesthetics and the

algorithmic 'mind.' Thus we see not

only Google mirroring humans, but

humans emulating Google.

Does Google impose any

moral structure onto our folly and

frippery? Arguably, yes. Google's

motto 'Don't be evil' sets it apart

from other demi-gods roaming the

corporal (and corporate) world.

Like other ancient, pithy moral

codes, its origins are obscure and

its meaning ambiguous. Yes, the

company complies with the Chinese

government's demand to censor

religious and political search results

for Chinese consumers, but on the

other hand, it promises not to reveal

the private information of users

anywhere in the world-as if in

honor of the sacred confidentiality

of its confessional. The company

deals harshly with those discovered

lying to Google itself. Web-sites

providing alternate content to fool

the search engine are punished wit

excommunication.

Eudaimonia (the Good Life

through Knowledge

Once a military secret, then th

playground of computer experts, th

Internet becomes more egalitarian

every year. Computers, i

Reuters' interpretation, hav

begun to play the confessional rol

once reserved for the local priest, o

psychotherapist. They represent

democratization; there is no priestly

caste in Google's cult.

Part of Googly magic involve

making humans visible to ourselves

Charlatans may publish fals

information about themselves o

their activities, but Google's abilit

to scour the Internet for alternate

sources of information renders u

all unable to hide. Through satellit

images served up by the Googl

Earth program, mortals even hav

the opportunity to see the world from

a heavenly perspective. A mora

view: we have the free will to sa

what we like, but a lie will foreve

stain oUf name on the Internet. A

messianic view: in presenting a

unbarred view of government an

military buildings, Google Earth

might eventually lead to the ultimate

triumph of information over war

making violence obsolete.

Knowledge has long been hel

to be an intrinsic good and wa

defined as part of the good life b

Greek philosophers going back

to Plato and Aristotle. Google

now indexes such a large portion

of human knowledge that is at

critical transition point. It seem

plausible that soon it will be taken

as a pragmatic truism that all forma

knowledge is known to Google

In 2005 Google indeed stated tha

such was its goal, obtainable in bu

three centuries, which is virtually


9/32

instantaneous in celestial time. Two

years later, co-founder Larry Page

publicly stated that the company

was really trying to achieve

artificial intelligence.

Truly meditative microchips

may still be far off. Until Google's

suite of programs is capable of

thinking, feeling, and emoting

in a humanlike fashion, of being

impressed or appalled by our

behavior, of cogently expressing

love or hate for us, it will admittedly

remain an autistic analog of 'God.'

But even with its current limitation,

Google plays the part of deity fairly

well. It's there for us 24 hours a

day, its existence is indubitable,

and it answers us when we talk to it.

What god until today has ever done

that? Insofar as Google's computers

now store most of written human

knowledge and facilitate learning,

which in turn discourages facile

moral judgments and violent culture

clashes, Google may be thought of

as a peaceful, benevolent god who

intends us to be truly happy.

Tucker Lieberman studied

philosophy at Brown University and

journalism at Boston University.

, His essays have appeared in

Fresh

Yam, Zeek,

and several anthologies.

Prof Richard Wassersug teaches

anatomy at Dalhousie University

in Nova Scotia. He is a science

panelist for CBC radio and

previously was a columnist on the

Discovery Channel in Canada. He

has published essays in

Scientific

American, The New York Times,

Natural History, The New Scientist,

and

The Medical Post.

\ rrS~ (5;lF\eIR

ff)J~RNM~NT

~f;Cmt

COM\NF\N1£D

~y -rnf R£U610L6 R\G \-fr :,, '1



10/32

How to Respond to Requests

to Debate Creationists

submitted to

American Atheist

by P.Z. Myers

A

Professor at the University of Vermont,

Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate

one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute.

Here's what they wrote.

Dear Professor Gotelli,

I saw your op-ed in the

Burlington Free Press

and

appreciated your support of free speech at UVM In

light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding

a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about

evolutionary science and intelligent design. The

Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor

in Burlington who is enthusiastic tofind a way to make

this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not

the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest

an alternative.

Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-

handedly represent the I[ntelligentJ D [esign] side. As

you're aware, he s known mainly as an entertainer.

A more appropriate alternative or addition might be

our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer,

respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of

science. I'll copy links to their bios below. Wherever

one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can

all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed

to different views=in precisely the spirit of inviting

controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your

op-ed.

I'm hoping that you would be willing to give a

critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the

debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.

A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might

be Dr. Meyer s book that comes out in June from

HarperCollins,

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the

Evidence for Intelligent Design.

On the other hand, Dr.

Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of

both ID and Darwinian theory. Would it be possible for

us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?

With best wishes,

David Klinghoffer, Discovery Institute

AMERICAN ATHEIST· APRIL 2009

You'll enjoy Dr Gotelli's response.

Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:

Thank you for this interesting and courteous

invitation to set up a debate about evolution and

creationism (which includes its more recent re-labeling

as 'intelligent design ) withaspeakerfrom the Discovery

Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the

sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial

that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute

s

website: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what

the scientific community has come to expect from the

creationists.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine,

but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would

not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the

same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a

flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust

revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and

that is why they have su been discarded by credible

scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why

aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas

in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as

Science,

Nature,

or the

Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences?

If you want to be taken seriously by scientists

and scholars, this is where you need topublish. Academic

publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas

that have credible empirical support are carefully and

thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more

exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific

disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the

existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning

work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the

prominent mainstream journals.

'Conspiracy' is the predictable response by Ben

Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy

theories are a joke, because science places a high

premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical

studies that overturn previously established principles.

Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its


11/32

proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in

books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't

maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-

funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for

a seminar invitation at a little university in northern

New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent

invitations to speak in science departments around

the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If

creationists actually published some legitimate science,

they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your

offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of

creationists in the pages of

Nature

and

Science.

But

until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit

an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for

this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery

Institute Web-site. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't

tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues

will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

FS. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond

to any further e-mails from you orfrom the Discovery

Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes

with my research and teaching.

P Z

Myers is a biologist and

associate professor at the University

of Minnesota, Morris. To access

this exchange on the Pharyngula

Web-site: http://scienceblogs.com/

pharyngula/2009/02/how _to_respond_

to_requests _to.php

T h e F o u n d e r s

FR IENDS

So m any of you he ll ' A m erican A th e is ts w ith don atio ns a no

o th er fin an cia l suppol ; t -and w e w ante d to fin d a w ay to . sa y

''T h ankY ou '' W e a re p le ased to ennoence th c re -es tabl ishm en t o f

a n A m e ric an A th eis t tra ditio n~ . .T he F o .unders 'F ri end s, b egun by

th e M U lJa y O ?H a irfa m ily .

T ho se co ntrih utin g $ 50 o r m ore to A m erican A theis ts

h av e. th eir n am e s a nd a m ou nts e nte re d.i n s ubs equen t iss u es

A m e ri ca n A t he is t. Ju st fil l o ut the b lu e ca rd w ith th e in fo rma t ion

re 9u este d~ in clu de y ou r g ift,a nd m a iL itb ac kto u s ..n th eenc lo se o

enve lop e . B e su re to . check th e a p pro p ri ate

box

au tho riz in g u s

to th an k' y ou b y p rin tin g Y O U i: allle a nd c on trib utio n am oun t

ill

th e m a ga zin e; M a ilin g

a d d r e s s e s w i l l

n ot b e m en tio n ed . T h is .is

o ur w ay o f say ing TH AN K Y O U to a n e xtra ord in ary g ro .U Po f

peopJe - th ose o f y ou w ho . w a n t to d o .m o re l~ a n d ftn a nc ia lly s up~ .

Po .r tt he c ri ti ca l w o r k' o f A m e ric an A t he is ts

A m erican A th eis ts than ks th e fo llo win g perso ns fo r th eir

gene ro .u s c on t ri b u ti o.n s to o u r c au se .

ic kH og an ,T X- $ 20 0

B i s hop Ma rg a r it a S t ra ndx.NJ- .$50

W illiam B arn O R - $50

l{ay : A -$200

Richard .B . H o v e y , CA - $5 0

Pau l K Stu tzm an , CA - $ 50

RQber tA .Henn ing ,

AZ

$ l'7 5

S h a n e W . R o p e r}

AZ

$75

Sco t fWagne r,TX -$100

W i ll a rd W hee l er, CA - $50

S am Pop ow s k:y ,CA - $ 10 0

Raym on d G r ee n bac } {,O R - $ 7 5

M a dy K arn s, A Z ~ $ 50

Eas t B a y A t h ei st s., .CA -$500

A1eckKa ris , CA - $6 ,0 0 0

Leono reR.Sp iJ :Lejl,O ij - $1

n

R O O F R E S C U E F U N D C O N T R f f i U T O R

Hazel Fisher - $35

APRIL 2 9 AMERICAN ATHEIST


12/32

LEG LUPD TE

\Nith Eclvvirt Kagi

Is Circumcision a

Violation of Rights?

An American Atheist reader writes ...

aswondering about the legal merit of

circumcision. Its clearly a religious practice

and I'm angered that without consent,

someone mutilated my body. It's too late for me,

but people should have the right to not have their

body subjected to mutilation before they have

the ability to stop it. If I were to cut off a finger

of my newborn child I would undoubtedly go to

jail, and circumcision is the same principle. You

could argue it's entirely a different degree, but the

degree of the mutilation has nothing to do with it.

As far as health reasons, science shows little if any

justifiable benefits. My brother can offer personal

testimony to the fact that there are no health risks

to not having been circumcised. It amazes me that

in 2009, a child is still not protected against this

atrocity.

-Anonymous

Edwin Kagin - National Legal Director

American Atheists

D

ear Reader, Thank you for writing. While

you are quite ?~rrect that ~ircumcision

is in fact a religious practice of some

religions, both ancient and modem, it would be

most difficult to make a case that all circumcisions

done today are done for religious reasons.

Indeed, most are probably done for what is at

least thought to be reasons of health without any

regard at all to religious doctrine. Further, no

act of the state that I know of compels anyone

to have a child circumcised: To the best of my

knowledge, parents are given an option of having

this procedure done. The matter is not really the

subject for a lawsuit in my opinion, but would be

viable issue to take up with the state legislature.

Regards.

Edwin

AMERICAN ATHEIST - APRIL 2 9


13/32

The Ancient Atheist

and the F etch ing F undy

By Tony Pasquarello

RELATIONSHIPS

G

iven the unfathomable complexity of the

human animal in both body and psyche, all

relationships are problematic; all represent

some degree of compromise; all will harbor a host of

incompatibilities, major and minor. Most of us count

ourselves lucky if we survive them with a bit of sanity,

a modicum of integrity, and a central nervous system

intact.

Before proceeding, a word about the word

'relationship.' I despise the term. Perhaps because the

lady of the last one was fond of charging that I hadn't

the faintest idea of what a relationship entailed. But my

primary objection to the term is that it is another ofthose

monstrous buzzwords whose hip, semantic overtones

are the creation of the gargantuan pop-psychology

industry. 'Relationship' was shanghaied into service for

only one purpose-to salve the consciences of millions

of unmarried women who were having sex. Hordes

of therapists assured them sex was O.K. if they were

involved in a RELATIONSHIP. That lent the requisite

moral gravitas to their copulation: much more serious

than 'dating,' only a little less than 'marriage,' without

the illicit (but thrilling) connotations of 'affair.' The

SCIENCE of psychology had given its imprimatur.

Personally, I find the notion that consenting persons

must secure permission from a psychologist to have

sex as repellent as getting permission (blessings) from

a 'holy man.'

To dramatize my contempt for the term-and, to

save space, I shall, henceforth, use

R

for relationship.

Needless to say, in mixed

R's,

the hazards are

exacerbated. The traditional paradigm of the difficult

R

was the racially mixed marriage, with its multiple

personal and social challenges. It now appears that,

given the social progress of the last half-century, those

difficulties have abated somewhat. Still with us and still

knotty are other types of mixed

R's:

ethnic, cultural,

economic, religious, political ... (Note: see James

Carville, Democratic strategist and wife Mary Matalin,

Republican pundit. How do they do it?)

From film and literature, we do have a standardized

image of the religiously mixed couple: the hardy,

taciturn laborer who 'has no time for religious nonsense'

and his equally hardworking wife, who performs all

her duties with prayers that her spouse will one day

be gifted redeeming grace, see the light, and be saved.

In those earlier scenarios, the man was often a pioneer

farmer, miner, rancher; divorce was not an option. Each

tolerated the other and the

R

such as it was, endured.

THELASTR

Having recently emerged, (unscathed?), from a

two-year

R

with a Republican, conservative, pro-

Bush, pro-life, smoking, Floridian (to my Ohioan),

Christian, creationist fundamentalist-Yes, there were

also

important

differences-perhaps my observations

would be of some interest to my fellow freethinkers.

Obviously, to sustain a two-year

R

we also had

much in common, not the least of which was another

two-year R twenty-five years before. Now, at this

romantic renaissance, I was

'10,

and she, twenty years

my junior. At first, and for some time following, the joy

of having a new (or renewed) partner and the elation

from being wanted and needed-these usually can

overcome most incompatibilities, which mayor may not

subsequently resurface to overcome the

R.

However,

mindful of humanistic concerns for individual dignity

and the right to privacy, no hurtful revelations of 'kiss-

and-tell' expose would be appropriate here. In addition,

there is always such a large element of uncertainty.

One never knows whether that 'trivial' difference

really loomed large, whether that mild disagreement

was really simmering within, and for how long. And,

there are always the unmentionables, those comments

that cannot and dare not be uttered or written. Contrary

to the addiction of therapists for one of their own

buzzword creations, COMMUNICATION is not the

universal solvent. Sweetheart, if only you were black.

Try communicating that

In order to allay some of the dangers inherent in

writing of a close

R,

and to provide a much wider



14/32

and more credible statistical basis for my tentative

generalizations, I thought I might cite, not just the last

R, but all the R's of my dozen post-divorce years. In so

doing, I'm going to somewhat arbitrarily characterize

an R as serious, sustained dating over at least a three-

month period.

THE SEDUCTIVE SEVEN

There were seven, lasting from six years, off and on,

to two years, to several months. Seven. The figure, far

from being braggadocio, is still a source of astonishment

to me. Apparently, those times following divorce can

by halcyon days for a man, even the most repressed,

least aggressive of men. As detailed in my Altar Boy

Chronicles, I was the classic geek/nerd. (How ironic

that, in our latter years, our signature ailment should

be the apt acronym, GERD.) My history: all-boy high

school; first kiss at twenty-two; a handful of pristine,

Platonic dates before marriage; virginity surrendered to

my spouse.

Some seductive seven demographics:

Six of seven were fonner students

in my philosophy classes

One was in my age group; the other six were

from ten to twenty years younger

Five were divorced, with children

Four were exceptionally bright;

three were just very bright

Four were to earn Master's degrees

At the time, one was a secular humanist;

one, an avowed Christian fundamentalist;

the other five ranged from

moderate to nominal Christians.

Wide-eyed romantics and hopeless idealists

might suppose that, given the participants, these R's

comprised a perpetual Socratic feast of dialectic, with

metaphysical profundities and rapier-like witticisms as

plentiful as Hindu deities. Nothing could be further from

the truth ..Actually, I can recall few such discussions.

Those women knew that, as a philosopher, I had spent

my life pondering theological conundrums. They knew

that I had probably already considered and would


have a ready response for any religious point the

could possible make. And, since I stressed clarity an

definition, I would be constantly correcting vaguenes

and ambiguity and noting inconsistency.

For my part, the realization that we were ofte

having an 'apples-oranges' debate mitigated agains

'serious' discussion. Furthermore, emphasizing

differences, religious or not, pushing some crucial poin

to a denouement, forcing one's significant other to e

logical crow-these are hardly conductive to furtherin

a loving R. Even the friendliest of exchanges i

nevertheless, a reminder of a fundamental difference

a rubbing of salt in an open incompatibility. Give

frequent irritating provocations of that sort, a woma

might resort to the LYSISTRATEGY, an ultimat

sanction that no one wants to see imposed.

THE JESUS OBSESSION

Fundys love their 'Jesus is Lord' mantra. I suppos

its original intent was to express Jesus's authority an

supremacy. Yet, it easily morphed into 'Jesus is God

Possibly, early in its evolution, the meaning may hav

been 'Jesus is god'; Jesus is a god, but certainly, neve

in the mind of a contemporary Christian who, if eve

using the small 'g,' would preface it with 'the only

'Jesus is the only god.' Still, one nagging questio

remains, (Bill Clinton was absolutely correct, as an

logician will attest)-is the 'is' one of predication

identity? No doubt, the fundy will reply 'identity'

Jesus is identical to God; Jesus equals God. If so, th

Jesus-fixated must at least be given logical credit fo

taking the equivalence seriously: If Jesus is God, the

God is Jesus.

Thus, in one amazing inferential sweep, not onl

is the need to consider other gods obviated, but eve

the other, adjunct persons of the Trinity-the remote

irascible Father, and the pacific, but inscrutable hol

Spirit-can be safely ignored. Questions about th

Aristotelian Prime Mover, or even about god in his pre

Jesus phrase, become irrelevant. God = Jesus. That

all ye know, and all ye need to know. And surely, th

bizarre tour de force squares with ordinary Christia

practice. The devout believer who focuses on Jesu

alone and never, for a moment, considers or addresse

either the Father or the Holy Spirit, in a lifetime o

worship an prayer ... would she not be an exemplar

Christian, unquestionably saved and redeemed? O

course she would. As Aquinas assures us, no point

attempting to untie the Trinitarian. knot; it transcend

reason. Let sleeping mysteries lie.


15/32

TONY PASQUARELLO

is an emeritus philosophy professor (the Ohio State University) who has successfully pursued

a second career as a pop-jazz-classical musician and popular performer. A Philadelphian, he

studied piano and theory at the Settlement School, the Philadelphia Conservatory, and the

University of Pennsylvania. With over five thousand works in his repertoire, he has concertized

throughout the United States ~Europe ~and Central America. The author of numerous technical

articles on philosophy and the teaching of philosophy, he also has written popular pieces such

as Proving Negatives and the Paranormal, which appeared as afeatured article in the jour-

nal

Skeptical Inquirer.

Once an altar boy and possible candidate for the priesthood, he evolved

into a skeptical philosopher whose delightful-but-trenchant writings are eagerly sought after

by a variety offree-thought publications.

I contend that the dominance of this Christocentric

perspective in the typical Christian fundamentalist

completely changes the normal presuppositions and

context of theological discussion. That may be a polite

way of saying that there can be no rational discussion.

Imagine an exchange between aphilosopher expounding

the Humean attack on miracles, and a believer just

returned from Lourdes, whose cancer is in surprising

remission. As previously noted in other articles, when

the believer's conviction is based on a personal or

mystical experience, or a personal R with Jesus, it can

rarely be shaken or stirred, challenged or disproved by

didactic arguments.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

It so happened that two of the most devastating

cases of natural evil, (for which, no human being could

sensibly be held responsible), occurred during the last

R:

the Asian Tsunami 04 and Hurricane Katrina

05

In

a conversation with

R7

about these disasters, I casually

mentioned that I don't have a problem here. Of

course, I meant that, as an Atheist, I had no need to

concoct an alibi for god, to get him off the hook, and to

absolve him of responsibility. She knew what I meant;

didn't have a problem, but, by virtue of her fervent

theism, she must A real doozy of a problem.

I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence

of her disavowal; she had no problem whatever, she

assured me. And she knew one thing for sure-her god

had not caused, had no hand in these tragedies.

I was dumbfounded. How could this intelligent,

assertive, independent woman be completely oblivious

to the glaring inconsistencies in her position? But, when

I recalled her having told me of the many times Jesus

had helped her out of difficulties, I had my answer.

She wasn't thinking of Big G, the Anselmian perfect,

necessary being, the god of all the 'omni' attributes.

And, she certainly wasn't thinking of vindictive,

sadistic Jahweh, a convicted mass murderer. No, she

had in mind Jesus: gentle, beneficent Jesus, the guy

who wouldn't harm a fly. True, once he had been a bit

short with figs and pigs, and he was positively nasty at

the Temple Currency Exchange. But that was it. He,

in his physical but glorified body, looked down from

Heaven, and was just as saddened and distressed over

these catastrophes as she was. But, he hadn't caused

them. (And, presumably, couldn't do anything about

them ) I must have been confused; Jesus was the one

who stilled the troubled waters, not vice-versa. Thus,

all the damning, unimpeachable indictments of god in

the problem of evil had been reduced to the question of

the character of the Man-god, Jesus. And that character,

for her, was a matter of historical record. He was a good

guy. Period.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

In much the same fashion, the central issue in

philosophical theology, the existence of a god, was

transformed into a wholly unrelated-(so I thought )-

problem, the question of the historicity of Jesus. I

never made a point of my Atheism, but all of the

seductive seven certainly knew of it. Most had heard

my classroom presentations of and-hopefully-my

responsible and careful dissections of all the traditional

proofs. I do remember mentioning to R7 how much I

admired my friend Frank Zindler's recent remarkable

defense of the 'mythological Jesus', thesis, the book

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. Even though I was



16/32

ill-equipped to fully comprehend or evaluate the wealth

of considerations, the incredible scholarship impressed

me.

I

was, at least, convinced that the historicity of

Jesus was a real problem, and the possibility that he

never existed, a credible hypothesis.

But again, in the mind of

R7

given the God esus

equivalence, the denial of Jesus's actual existence had

become the essence of Atheism, rather than the denial

of the reality of the metaphysical First Cause.

I

had to

concede that, although

I

had grave reservations, the

majority of experts agreed that Jesus was a real person.

Hence, since Jesus really existed (and still exists in

Heaven), god exists.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

MORE BRIGHT BELIEVERS

These

R's

provided, after all, more bewildering

cases of the 'Bright Believers,' that phenomenon that

can cause so much distress to rational freethinkers and

cries out for an explanation. (See my articles in this

journal as well as comment from Dawkins and others.)

The ladies herein involved were not only aware of the

numerous deficiencies in all the theistic 'proofs,' both

formal and informal, but most of them knew my friend

and colleague, Tim Berra, well, either as their biology

professor or through me. Berra is one of the world's

distinguished evolutionists and Darwinian authorities.

Despite all these secular influences, four (to my

knowledge) ofthe original seven have severely regressed

to the extent that they presently reject evolution. They

are also scornful of theoretical science and its search

for ultimate explanations, (while fully welcoming-as

do we all-science's practical benefits).

I

can recall

watching a mesmerizing NOVA program on string

theory while R7 scoffing and sneering, occasionally

strolled past the sofa where

I

was seated. Another sign

of regression: while some were more liberal and mildly

sympathetic to Planned Parenthood decades ago, all

four have since become bumper-sticker Right-to-Lifers.

WHAT'S THE POINT?

My experiences might appear to reinforce the stand

of many secular humanists,

viz

that there is little point

in debating or discussing with fundamentalists, since

1) no minds are going to be changed, and 2) this lends

religion an undeserved credibility and status. While

greatly sympathetic to that pessimistic outlook,

I

still

think it vital to keep all lines of communication open

and never fear to discuss when good faith exists on both

sides. Not because minds are likely to be changed, but

because, in a decidedly hostile intellectual environment,


The Altar Boy Chronicles by Tony Pasquarello

$16.00: Stock#

5583

vii +

213

pagesipaperback

See order form for shipping and handling

and member discount.

It IS crucial to declare our existence and decisive

proclaim our presence in America in impressi

numbers.

We are Atheists or agnostics or non-religious,

to 50 millions strong, and we are not going away. W

disagree with the beliefs held by the religious. We thin

those beliefs are false or gibberish or confused and,

most cases, probably so, if we employ the same rul

of thought that religious persons use in all other are

except religion. And, we are the Constitutionalists

staunch supporters of the First Amendment a

conceptual kin to the Founding Fathers. Finally, w

are friends and neighbors, relatives, fellow citizen

and human beings, generally decent persons, not mor

monsters .


17/32

Taking that forthright stance has to create a

small chink in the smugness that characterizes most

believers, the attitude of superiority and unchallenged

correctness that stems from knowing they are part

of an overwhelming majority. Indeed, recognizing

that their own professors and scientists disagree with

them must give some pause, some time. How long can

they continue, e.g. to applaud the gadgets of global

communication but reject reports of global warming,

when precisely the same scientific method has authored

both? Or enjoy the fruits-literally-of scientific

revolutions in biology but deny evolution? Freethinkers

should capitalize on every opportunity to point out

these disconnects in-the typical religious belief system,

thereby producing cognitive dissonance, a kind of

gentle distress. If there is any such thing as civilized

torture, surely this is permitted us, if not administered

in a heavy-handed, boorish fashion.

For our part, it is vital to stress the 'humanism'

segment of our program. The most sacred principles of

secular humanism forbid us from harming anyone or

initiating a new Inquisition, even if we could. False,

superstitious, unscientific concepts comprise the

opposition. Such concepts are hurtful because they

reduce the sum total of happiness and retard the progress

of humanity. E.g., we opposed any suggestion that the

United States should be a theocracy. For the persons

harboring such concepts, there must be respect and

toleration. Why? Well, for one reason, because virtually

all freethinkers were once in the same boat. We know

what it is like to be in thrall to religious delusions, to

lack the tools or capacity for critical analysis, to be

bedazzled and bewitched by the hymnal's siren song ...

THE END

_In all fairness, my judgment must be that the

religious differences between myself and these women

had little impact on the R's and rarely rose to the

level of a small annoyance. None of the women had

any reservations about physical intimacy as early in

the R as seemed natural and desirable to both parties.

None expressed concern nor appeared concerned over

violating biblical injunctions against fornication. None

ever left an embrace in order to attend religious services.

Ultimately, we were all making implicit

judgments on the relative importance of the religious

incompatibilities and, by extension, on the importance

of religion itself. We voted-more to the point-they

voted with their bodies, actions and affections, their time

and energies and monies. And the message of that vote

was unequivocal: the pleasures of shared experiences-

the discovery of a memorable new eatery; the breathless

delight over some scenic vista; the East Coast quest for

the perfect cannoli; the cooperative triumph in solving a

newspaper puzzle; the touching and loving and sense of

belonging ... all these and countless others confirmed

that close, fulfilling human interaction counts for so

much more than religion's cold, fossilized fantasies. No

Atheist could have been more eloquent. Presumably,

millions of religiously mixed couples have come to the

same conclusion.

But, wasn't that hypocrisy? Of course it was. But,

for reasons already given, I would not be emphasizing

that point. Hypocrisy on their part, not mine. I am

unaware of any freethought admonitions concerning

R's with the religiously inclined. But, the converse?

Holy scriptures of all sorts are replete with precepts for

dealing with unbelievers, skeptics, infidels. (The term

that most readily springs to mind is 'slay. ') Obviously,

consorting with the unbeliever is strictly prohibited.

And, when the endings finally came, I doubt that

religious beliefs played any role. Who can say what

sorts of R's-or problems-would have developed if

cohabitation or marriage had been factors? Speaking

of marriage-for perfectly understandable cultural and

evolutionary reasons, many women, religious or not,

see

R's

teleologically, as transitional states that must

'lead somewhere.' This means that even when women

say they don't want to get married, many really do.



18/32

O

nce upon a time, Baptists were strong

advocates for the rights of Atheists. That's

not a fairy tale. It's a fact.

As early as 1524, the German Anabaptist

theologian Balthasar Hubmaier included Atheists in

his appeal for religious liberty. In his tract Concerning tyme, and at all tymes hereafter, freelye an

Heretics and Those Who Burn Them,

he wrote, It is fullye have and enjoye his and theire own

well and good that the secular authority puts to death judgments and consciences, in matters o

the criminals who do physical harm to the defenseless, religious concernments. (3)

Romans l3. But no one may injure the Atheist who To fully appreciate these early Baptists, they need t

wishes nothing for himself other than to forsake the be seen in the context of their times. The acclaime

gospel (1). philosopher John Locke was familiar both wit

Baptists were at the forefront of the struggle for Roger William's appeals for liberty of conscienc

religious liberty-not only for themselves, but for all and with the language of his charter for Rhode Islan

persons. In 1610, Thomas Helwys, founder of the first colony. Yet, unlike Williams who granted thes

Baptist church in England, wrote one of the first books liberties to everye person, the enlightened Lock

Baptists

Atheists

•

Dr. Bruce Prescott

Baptist Minister

ever penned on religious liberty. He had it delivered

to King James I with a personal, handwritten note

that said: Men's religion to God is between God and

themselves; the king shall not answer for it, neither

may the king judge between God and man. Let them

be heretics, Turks, Jews or whatsoever, it appertains

not to the earthly power to punish them in the least

measure (2).

Both Hubmaier and Helwys paid with their lives

for their bold ideas. Hubmaier was burned at the

stake. Helwys was arrested and spent the rest of his

life in prison.

A couple decades later, Roger Williams founded

both the first Baptist church in America and the

colony of Rhode Island. The charter he secured for

the colony was the first ever to provide a full liberty

of conscience for all persons. It said:

Noe person within the sayd colonye, at any

tyme hereafter, shall bee any wise molested,

punished, disquieted, or called in question,

for any differences in opinione in matters of

religion, and doe not actually disturb the civill

peace of our sayd colony; but that all and

everye person and persons may, from tyme to

AMERICANATHEIST· APRIL 2009

explicitly excluded Atheists from his famous appea

for toleration (4).

Outside Williams's Rhode Island, the right

of Atheists were not formally protected until th

adoption of the Bill of Rights and the ratification o

the Constitution of the United States. Instrumenta

in exerting pressure to secure the liberties of th

First Amendment was John Leland, the key leade

of Baptists in Virginia during the revolutionary era

who wrote: Let every man speak freely withou

fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worshi

according to his own faith, either one God, three god

no god, or twenty gods, and let government protec

him in so doing (5).

Dr. Bruce Prescott is the host of Religious

Talk on KREF radio (1400 am) at 10:00 each

Sunday Morning in Norman Oklahoma, and

the Executive Director of Mainstream Okla-

homa Baptists, and President of the Norman,

Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for

Separation of Church and State


19/32

Ina

controversial

move the

American

Atheist

publishes an

article written

by a Baptist

Minister.

Unfortunately, many Baptists lost interest in this

legacy during the 1950s. At that time, confronted

by a cold war against a militaristic 'Atheistic

communism' abroad and influenced by McCarthy's

'red scaremongering' at home, many Baptists felt

threatened. They thought their faith was under attack.

Fears of a militant Atheism produced an

unacknowledged crisis of faith within the Baptist

community. The early Baptists were confident that,

as Balthasar Hubmaier put it, Truth is immortal

(6). So sure were they that their faith was true, that

they would rather die than accept

any faith promoted by force of

law and government. During the

cold war, however, some Baptists

started putting faith in the power

of numbers and in the might of

religious symbolism. Many Baptists

readily enlisted in a political

movement which stamped symbolic

dependence on the majoritarian

deity on our currency and wrote an

acknowledgement of the same into

the pledge of allegiance.

Other Baptists retained a stronger

faith. They remained confident that

truth would prevail without the

endorsement of the government

and the symbolism of civil religion.

Those Baptists resisted the paranoid

style of American politics and

created institutions to protect the

right of everyone-including Atheists-to enjoy

a free conscience. One of those institutions is the

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. This

watchdog agency in Washington, D.C. represents

fourteen different Baptist Conventions and groups

on First Amendment issues (7). The BJC was also

instrumental in launching the organization now

known as Americans United for Separation and

Church and State-an organization with numerous

Atheist members. Today, the two agencies often

write complementary briefs and opinions-one from

a religious perspective, the other from a secular

perspective-on litigation and legislation that could

have an impact on our First Amendment freedoms.

Conscientious Baptists and Atheists could be

doing a lot more work together to preserve separation

of religion and government. One example is opposing

the Supreme Court's rationale for sustaining 'In God

We Trust' on our coinage and 'under God' in the

pledge of allegiance.

The Supreme Court contends that the phrases

have no religious content and denies that they serve

a religious purpose. In the Supreme Court decision

Lynch

v.

Donnelly,

Justice O'Connor stated that

government acknowledgments of religion, such

as printing 'In God We Trust' on coins serve, ..

. the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing

public occasions (8). Justice Brennan agreed with

O'Connor about the secular purposes of such

acknowledgements. He wrote, [S]uch practices as

the designation of 'In God We Trust' as our national

motto, or the references to God

contained in the Pledge of Allegiance

to the flag can best be understood

. . . as a form of 'ceremonial deism'

protected from Establishment Clause

scrutiny chiefly because they have lost

through rote repetition any significant

religious content (9).

Secular argumentation reaches an

impasse when the courts, for political

purposes, resort to defrauding those

of feeble intellect and piety with such

reasoning. The feebly pious presume

that the courts have sustained the

mythology of Christian Nationalism

when, in fact, the courts have stripped

the language of faith of all coherent

meaning. Ironically, in the courthouse,

this gives Atheists and secularists

the appearance of being stronger

advocates for the meaningfulness

of the language of faith than are people of faith

themselves. Meanwhile, on the public square, people

of faith still speak the language of faith, with the

confident intention but erroneous expectation that

their words hold their full connotations and religious

significance.

Only the voice of a discerning piety can speak

with conviction against this circumvention of

the disestablishment clause. Some conscientious

Baptists believe that the court's opinion would be

highly offensive to persons of sincere faith if its

implications were widely known. In effect, the court

has ruled that persons of faith from the Abrahamic

traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) commit

a grave sin every time they recite the pledge of

allegiance. Meaningless recitation of the name of

God is precisely what the second injunction of the

Ten Commandments prohibits (10).



20/32

I doubt that the Supreme Court will reverse

itself on these issues until conscientious people of

faith rise up to challenge the court and reassert the

meaningfulness of our religious language. Before

that happens, however, more Baptists will have to

remember their history and take an active role in

safeguarding the equal right of every Atheist to enjoy

the fullest possible liberty of conscience.

References:

1)

Anabaptist Beginnings J

523-1533):

A Source

Book.

Edited by William R. Estep. Nieuwkoop: B.

De Graff, 1976, p. 5l.

2) Thomas Helwys,

A Short Declaration of the

Mystery of Iniquity

1611-1612. Edited and

Introduced by Richard Groves. Macon, GA:

Mercer Press, 1998.

3) Charter of Rhode Island and Providence

Plantations,

July 15, 1663.

4) John Locke,

A Letter Concerning Toleration.

5) John Leland,

The Writings of the Late Elder John

Leland.

Edited by L.F. Greene. New York: G.W.

Wood, 1845, p. 194.

6) See William R. Estep,

The Anabaptist Story.

Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975, pp. 51-71.

7) Originally the BJC also represented the Southern

Baptist Convention. The SBC pulled out of the

BJC in 1990 over philosophical, theological and

political differences regarding the interpretation of

the First Amendment.

8) Lynch v. Donnelly,

465 U.S. 668 (1984),

p.

693.

9) Ibid.,

pp. 716-717.

10) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God

in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that

taketh his name in vain. Exodus 20:7

KN

TheFixIsIn

By

S tephen Gold in

M

jorleague baseball is in crisis. The game

is suffering from a huge credibility gap.

Some of today's greatest players are

involved in doping scandals, accused of-and in

some cases, admitting to-using steroids to enhance

their performance. The public is aghast. This is

cheating. What kind of example are they setting for

our young people? To borrow a metaphor from a

different s ort baseball is on the ro es.

AMERICAN ATHEIST· APRIL

2 9

But if you think this is bad, wait until you

hear the rest of the story. The situation is worse,

far worse. You see, baseball games are rigged.

Every single one of them. At least, according to

the believers in 'Intelligent Design. '

These are the people who look at the universe

around us and say, This could never have happened

by chance. It all ties together too well. There are

too many patterns. You can't throw a box of Leg os

into the air and expect all the blocks to come down

and form a building. There had to be a designer,

someone who planned it all out. There's too much

order for it to have been random chance.

Their whole argument, then, is based on

probability. There has to be a deliberate design

behind it all because the odds against it being

random are vanishingly small. Okay, let's assume

that's a valid form of argument and see where it

takes us.

Let's look at a perfectly ordinary major league

game. On Thursday, June 12,2008, the Milwaukee

Brewers, playing in Houston, beat the Astros by

a final score of 9-6. Doesn't sound spectacularly

special, does it? But let's look at the odds a little

deeper, shall we?

How likely is it that Milwaukee would have

won by that exact score? Consider: They could

have won 1-0. Or 2-0. Or 2-1. Or 3-0. Or 3-1. Or

3-2. Or ... Well you get the idea. The fact that they

won by exactly nine to exactly six is a statistical

anomaly beyond calculation.

Come to think of it, how likely was it that

Milwaukee would win at all? Isn't it statistically

just as likely that Houston might have won-by

a score of 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 ...? The odds against this

particular outcome are mind-boggling.

But it gets even worse when you look inning

by inning. In the first inning, Milwaukee didn't

score at all, while Houston got a run in the bottom

half. Houston actually started out winning the

game, yet they lost Then, in the second inning,

Milwaukee retaliated with five runs. Five Do you

know how statistically unlikely it is for a team to

score exactly five runs in a single inning? It almost

never happens. The most likely outcome in all of

baseball is to get no runs in an inning. The next

most probable is to get one. Two, or even three, are

unlikely enough. But five? Come on, you've got to

be kidding. Do you really expect me to believe that


21/32

five in one inning is a matter of simple chance?

Houston answered with one more run in the

bottom of the second. One run in an inning is

much more common. Unlike the Brewers, the

Astros are obeying the laws of probability.

The Brewers then quiet down for a bit, scoring

nothing in the third and the fourth, while the

Astros score another one in the third. Milwaukee

then goes on to score two runs in the fifth and two

more in the ninth, while Houston gets two in the

eighth and one in the ninth. How likely is it that

this exact pattern would come about?

Milwaukee played a full nine-inning game and

scored exactly nine runs, an average of one per

inning. That in itself is statistically improbable-

it's way higher than average-but think of this:

In that entire span, there was no inning in which

the Brewers scored exactly one run, the second

most likely total. They scored either zero or they

scored multiple runs, even though it averaged out

to one. Random? I think not.

And the impossibilities just keep on coming.

The Brewers got ten hits, one (intentional) walk,

and one hit batsman. Twelve men reached base,

and nine of them scored. That's an unbelievable

percentage. The two teams hit a total of seven

homers in the game. Seven in nine innings, close

to one an inning. That's enormously higher than

the major league average.

Don't even bother with the individual balls

and strikes. Obviously the umpires were on the

take there. Probably the players, too.

When you look at all these improbabilities

piled one atop another, the conclusion is

inescapable: The game was rigged. It couldn't

possibly have happened by random chance.

Someone, somewhere, must have planned it out

to happen this way. Anything else defies belief.

And this was just one unremarkable game on

one unremarkable day. There were twelve other

games played in the majors that day-and if you

examine them closely, you'll see how improbable

each of them was. They were all rigged. They had

to be. There's simply no other explanation that

makes any sense. The unlikelihoods pile on top

of improbabilities on top of impossibilities.

But now that we've started our investigation,

how can we stop? If one day's worth of games

are all fixed, we can see how the entire season



22/32

S

ix-year-old Sayid saw a parade of Shiites literally

beat themselves out of sorrow and mourning for

Mohammed's family during Ashoura. During

this parade of masochistic piety in Pakistan, the nation

of the boy's birth, one man came up to him beating

himself with a chain covered with blades. It did not

seem right to Sayid. Today, he sites the flagellation

incident as one of the pivotal moments in his growing

skepticism of religion.

Sayid saw a sight that no child ought to see and was

something that he would only have seen in a Muslim

culture. In contemporary times, the violent masochism

he witnessed would be unusual, if not unheard of, in

any other religion. Many Americans would consider his

witnessing such an act to be a form of child abuse.

Later in life, people shunned Sayid because of

his Atheism, and some of his friends broke off their

friendship, but in general, he has

been able to cope with that response.

Once, when he moved to a new home

in Memphis, Tennessee, a neighbor

dropped by to introduce herself. She

asked he which church he went to,

which is a common bit of small talk

inthe Bible Belt. When he responded

that he did not worship, she literally

turned and walked away.

A chemical engineer, Sayid was

born in Karachi, Pakistan. He was

raised as a Shiite Muslim, a sect of Islam smaller than

Sunna, whose members purport that the descendants

of the prophet Mohammed are the best sources of the

Qu'ran. He emigrated to the United States with his

family at age nine. The family moved to Memphis,

Tennessee, where his mother, father, and sister still live.

He moved to Nashua, New Hampshire in 2000 with

his wife and two children, now aged ten and thirteen;

partly, he moved to the Northeast because he was tired

of living in the South.

As a child in Pakistan, Sayid went to mosque with

his family. His uncle was not an Atheist, but he was a

skeptic and taught Sayid from a young age that it was all

right to ask questions. By his mid-teens, Sayid realized

religion did not make sense and he needed science to be

convinced of something.

When Sayid was a kid and a mosque opened in

Memphis, worshipers went on Sundays. While Friday

is the Muslim Sabbath, Sayid says that in the U.S.,

Muslims often attend services on Sundays so that

they will not have to take time off from their jobs. He


points out, This [Qur'an] is a holy book written b

God, and now you interpret it for your convenience.

He noted with irony that God Allah was apparently

understanding about U.S. business hours (in the tracts o

Western religion, the god is rarely understanding. Thi

is the same god that ordered his followers to remembe

the Sabbath day and keep it holy on punishment o

death, the same penalty for breaking any of the te

commandments). Ideas such as this made no sense t

Sayid and he started to see sectarian issues. He foun

religions interesting and was struck that the five percen

of differences between these religions caused so man

enormous problems.

Sayid disengaged from the Muslim community a

he grew more aware of his feelings about the existenc

of god. He went to college at Christian Brother

University, a Catholic university, since it had the bes

•

By

Sarah

Trachtenberg

engineering program in the area and offered the bes

scholarship. He did not hide his Atheism, even i

Memphis, noting that Atheism is usually considered

offensive in a Southern city. If someone asked him

about his religious beliefs, he would tell him, feeling

was nothing to be ashamed of.

By Sayid's twenties, his mother and father knew tha

he was an Atheist, but he didn't exactly' come out'; hi

parents surmised it. When his mother consecrated food

by praying over it, he would not eat those foods. Hi

father noticed and asked about this. Sayid said he didn't

believe in the practice and his father told his mother

who was worried that she hadn't raised him right. Sinc

then, she has grown to accept it, but still worries abou

Sayid's own children's religious upbringing.

Co-workers knew about Sayid's Atheism. Some

were very religious and bombarded him with literature

but he laughed it off. Interestingly, a former boss wa

a born-again Christian and the two could talk abou

religion and had heated debates. They knew they could

not convince each other that the other was wrong. Lik


23/32

nearly all 'out' Atheists, Sayid sometimes talks with

religious people, including fundamentalist Muslims,

born-again Christians, Hindus and Catholics, who

really exhaust him: They have limited information

about the issue, especially in the South. They have a

very limited background and aren't open to listening to

anything else.

Those who believe in a god inevitably ask Atheists

how they can have a moral code if they have no god.

Sayid speaks for many Atheists when he says that he

does have a moral code and it is stronger because he

does not believe in a god; his morality is based on

reasons other than fear, as morality based on a god

often is. Many, if not most, people who steal, kill, rape,

etc. do believe in a god, and certainly not every Atheist

commits those crimes. He notes that the Golden Rule,

treat others as you yourself would want to be treated,

exists everywhere, not just in the Bible.

Both of Sayid's parents, who are very well-

educated, were born in India and had friends who

were Hindus, which was relevant since there has been

enormous conflict between Hindus and Muslims over

the years. He once asked his mother, If you were born

into a Hindu family, would you be Hindu? She, of

course, said yes. He then asked, Would you have gone

to hell? to which she responded that that was a silly

question. People who believe in God are one hundred

percent confident they're right about their religion, but

people of another religion are also sure, he says.

Even ifthere were a god, Sayid wouldn't want him (or

her, it,

etc.).

Cherry-picking from the Bible is common in

Western religion. Abomination of homosexuality, such

as in the famous quote from Leviticus, you shall not

lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination,

is followed a few paragraphs later by Yahweh's order

not to cut one's beard or the hair on the side of one's

head. Sayid cites what Sam Harris, in

A Letter to a

Christian Nation,

wrote: all of Western humanity has

come to believe that slavery is morally wrong, even

though Bible says it is acceptable and even provides

something of an instruction manual (Exodus 21 :2-

6). He says about those who want to follow the Bible

literally, If you're going to do it, be consistent, but if

you're consistent, you're crazy. It is different to him if

someone wants to discuss which biblical passages are

relevant and not relevant; that is a different argument.

Sayid points out that Osama bin Laden thinks he is

a true, honest Muslim, but then so does Sayid's mother

about herself. It goes without saying that their morals

and behavior are very different. She and every Muslim

Sayid knows says that terrorism is horrible and Islam

in no way justifies it. If two very different people of

supposedly the same religion have such completely

different beliefs, how does one know who's right?

Because of his assimilation, Sayid does not feel

that his Muslim origins make Atheism harder for

him than for someone of a Christian, Jewish, or other

background. For someone of Muslim roots who is

less-assimilated, it might be more difficult: Certainly,

it has been harder to stay engaged with the Muslim

community as an Atheist because religion so dominates

the cultural and social network. Sayid believes that

as more Muslims emigrate to the West and are getting

better educated, Atheism will make more sense to them

on an intellectual level.

While most religions would react negatively to

someone who rejects their faith, in contemporary times,

it is only in Islam in which doing so could lead to death.

Ibn Warraq is the Pakistani author of

Why I Am not a

Muslim

and other books criticizing Islam and founder of

the Institution for the Secularization ofIslamic Society.

Ayatollah Kohmeini's fatwa on Salman Rushdie in

1989 inspired Warraq in his work. Rushdie was driven

underground for a decade and the fatwa extended to

publishers and anyone else connected to The Satanic

Verses. Extremists declare fatwas on anyone they

perceive as criticizing Islam. Obviously, not all

Muslims subscribe to this intolerance, but it is only

Muslim extremists who do, as opposed to Christian,

Jewish, Hindu or any others In critical masses.

As to contemporary religious conflicts, like most

Atheists, Sayid is baffled and exasperated that evolution

is still 'controversial': I have a huge problem with

religion when it comes to its dogmatic non-science.

This plays out in the debate on evolution and the role

of 'intelligent design' in the classroom, in the political

discussions regarding stem cell research, environmental

policy, etc. I think that my scientific background has

taught me to respect the scientific method, and to

accept that we will never know everything, but that we

can learn a little more every day. I respect physicists,

biologists, and chemists who perform research to

develop a better understanding of our world, and am

offended that people with no background whatsoever in

the discipline believe their opinions are equally valid as

those of people who have spent their lives in the field.

Sayid staunchly supports the separation of church

and state as a basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution.

Separation of church and state is an ongoing battle in the

U.S. and we see it in many forms, such as in the lawsuit



24/32

against the Boy Scouts of America, a tax-funded group

which refused to admit Atheists. Likewise, it disturbs

him that the religious beliefs of politicians play any role

in their electability. A vast majority of Americans say

they would never vote for an Atheist; it appears that

in most American elections, being a devout Christian

helps a politician's chances.

The war on terror bothers Sayid, who says, Osama

bin Laden and his ilk are lunatics. He does not see how

one can declare war on terrorism, since terrorism is a

American Atheist Magazine April 2009

Documents

Transcript of American Atheist Magazine April 2009