american atheist magazine sep 1986

8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine Sep 1986

1/46

$2.95

r-~

'~~\~~AB'NNER D Y

~~> -~\

F O R G O D

-~,

• O L O R D O TH ISTS

ON

TH E M ARCH


2/46

AMER ICAN ATHE ISTS

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 is organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious

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

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

understanding of them, their origins, and their histories;

to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church;

to advocate, labor for, and promote in alllawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular

system of education available to all;

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 social philosophy

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 stuclY.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 life-style 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 is 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 lifeon 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 its 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.

American Atheist Membership Categories

life $500

Sustaining $l00/year

Couple/Family $50/year

Individual $4O/year

Senior Citizen*/Unemployed $20/year

Student* : $12/year

*Photocopy of 10 required

Allmembership categories receive our monthly Insider's Newsletter, membership cardts), a subscription to

American Atheist magazine for the duration ofthe 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


3/46

September 1986

Vol 28, No.9

A m e r i c a n A t h e i s t

Journal of Atheist News and Thought

Editor's Desk

R. Murray-O'Hair

Director's Briefcase.

Jon G. Murray

Mr. Murray suggests that Burger

the

Bicentennial Commission may be up

to n o good for the nation. It's a shocking

theory that he proposes.

Ask A.A.

A foreign reader asking about the basics

of American Atheism triggers a fulllee-

ture, and a domestic reader who wishes

to see Chapter newsletters finds fun-

damental theories under it all.

From Plato to Reagan:

Just a Little Old-Time Religion

Joe David

It's not lack of religion that is ruining our

schools, it is too much of the religious

basics doing the damage.

News and Comments

A Banner Day for God - A Califor-

nia youth and his father wouldn't stand

for being prayed over at graduation

excercises. - 10

Colorado Atheists on theMarch - A

review of the manyfold activities of the

Colorado Chapter of American Athe-

ists during the first half of 1986. - 21

2

3

7

8

Divine Discontent

John M. Allegro

Were religious rituals primitive man's

Valium? Was the origin of religion

simply a defense mechanism to keep

anxieties under control?

American Atheist Radio Series

Madalyn O'Hair

Protestant Religion and Medicine, a

combustible meeting if ever there was

one.

Historical Notes

.Nature's Way

Gerald Tholen

There's less to the Bible than meets the

eye according to Of Men and Manu-

scripts.

Poetry

Press Conference

Brian Lynch

Mr. Lynch demonstrates The Case

against 'Sanctuary.'

Me Too

Letters to the Editor

Classified Advertisements

Cover Art

by

Christopher Dunne

25

3

33

34

37

38

4

42

44

ARE YOU MOVING?

Please notify us six weeks in advance to ensure uninterrupted delivery. Send us

both

your old and new addresses.

NEW ADDRESS: (Please print) OLD ADDRESS: (Please print)

Name

Address

City _

State _

Effective Date: _

Mail to: American Atheists

Austin, Texas

Zip _

Name

Address

City

-=-----; _

State _

P.O. Box 2117 Austin TX 78768-2117

Zip _

September 1986

Page 1


4/46

m e r i c n t h e i s t

Editor/R. Murray-O'Hair

Editor Emeritus/Dr. Madalyn OHair

Managing Editor/don G. Murray

Assistant Editor/Gerald Tholen

Poetry/Angeline Bennett, Gerald Tholen

Non-Resident Staff/John M.Allegro, Burnham

P. Beckwith, Margaret Bhatty, Nawal ElSaadawi,

Merrill Holste, Lowell Newby, Fred Woodworth,

Frank R. Zindler

Production Staff/Laura Lee Cole, Christina Dit-

ter' Shantha

El luru,

Keith Hailey, Brian J. Lynch,

Jim Mills,John Ragland, Jes Simmons

Officers of the Society of Separationists, Inc.

President/don G. Murray

President Emeritus/Dr. Madalyn O'Hair

Vice-President/Gerald Tholen

Secretary/R. Murray-OHair

Treasurer/Brian J. Lynch

Chairman of the Board/Dr, Madalyn OHair

Members of the Board/Jon G. Murray (Vice

Chairman), August Berkshire, Herman Harris,

Ellen Johnson, Scott Kerns, Minerva Massen,

Robin Murray-O'Hair, Shirley Nelson, Richard C.

OHair, Henry Schmuck, Noel Scott, Gerald

Tholen, Lloyd Thoren, Frank Zindler.

Officers and Directors may be reached at P.O.

Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768.

Honorary Members of the Board/Merrill

Holste, John Marthaler

The American Atheist is published monthly by

American Atheist Press, an affiliate of Society of

Separationists, Inc., d/b/a American Atheists,

2210Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756-2596,a non-

profit, non-political, educational organization ded-

icated to the complete and absolute separation of

state and church. (Non-profit under IRS Code

501(c)(3).)

Copyright 1986by Society ofSeparationists, Inc.

AUrights

reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in

part without written permission is prohibited.

ISSN: 0332-4310.Mailingaddress: P.O. Box 2117,

Austin, TX 78768-2117.

The American

Atheist

isindexed inIBZ

(Interna-

tional Bibliography of Periodical Literature, Os-

nabriick, Germany).

Manuscripts submitted must be typed, double-

spaced, and accompanied by a stamped, self-

addressed envelope. A copy ofAmerican Atheist

Writers' Guidelines isavailable upon request. The

editors assume no responsibility for unsolicited

manuscripts.

The American Atheist Press publishes a variety of

Atheist, agnostic, and freethought material. A

catalog is available free upon request.

The American Atheist isgiven free of cost

to members of American Atheists as an

incident oftheir membership. For a sched-

ule of membership rates, please see the

inside front cover. Subscriptions for the

American Atheist alone are $25a year for

one-year terms only. The library and

institutional discount is 50%. Sustain-

ing subscriptions ($50 a year) are tax-

deductible.

Page 2

ED ITO R S D ESK / R. M urray-O H air

TRIVIALITIES

P

rayers at graduations, town meetings,

and football games; god on our cur-

rency and in our national motto; religious

emblems on city and county seals; creches

on public property; Noels strung across

city streets - all things activist, militant

Atheists have complained about and chal-

lenged in the courts and in public forums.

And all things theists and closet Atheists

have called too trivial for First Amend-

ment advocates to fight.

The legal implications of such activities

are clear. The simplistic argument that

because In God We Trust is on our coins

the United States is a Christian nation has

been used too often in court decisions for

them not to be compelling symbols. But the

layperson either ignores or is ignorant of

such consequences of secular religion.

But there is another, more insidious con-

sequence of this trivial intrusion of the

religious into the public arena. That is the

exclusion of the Atheist from our culture.

The Atheist must remain the outsider while

symbolic affirmations of life, of Americana,

and of our culture transpire. While gradu-

ates are honored, the Atheist parent or stu-

dent is made the freak. When collections of

citizens gather for their common good, the

Atheist is reminded of his or her outsider-

ness. At a time of the year when all people

celebrate and come together for good cheer,

the Atheist's participation is mocked and

discouraged by religious intrusions into pub-

lic life. Through these seemingly trivial

reaffirmations of theism, the Atheist is

denied fullparticipation in our culture. The

Atheist is stripped of role models and

refused acceptance.

Other abused minorities have learned the

importance of symbolism. Remember when

allchildren played with white dolls?When all

leaders were referred to in the masculine

case? The message to Blacks and their

children inthe toy store was clear enough: If

you were Black, you were not truly part of

the culture. The message to women was

plain and simple: Females are followers.

And the message to Atheists when con-

fronted with public acceptances of religion

should be clear enough: Ifyou do not believe

inghosts and goblins, you are not quite right.

Take graduations, for example. The

community gathers at graduations to honor

young persons who have completed a

course of study and to welcome them into a

September 1986

new status, that of adulthood. It is a time for

the young to celebrate as a group. It is an

opportunity for each graduate to be singled

out, congratulated, and rewarded for his or

her work. The graduation is, in its nature, a

communal event. But when the graduation

is begun with a prayer, the Atheist graduate

is excluded from that group celebration. He

or she sits while the others stand to pray.

The Atheist is silently being told that

whether he or she is an honor student or an

athletic star or Joe Average, he or she is

not really part of that graduating class.

In this issue, we feature news concerning

one Atheist parent who was not about to

have his son told that. James Brodhead, a

former American Atheist columnist ( The

Atheist at the Breakfast Table ), had seen

one son insulted at his graduation. When the

time came for his second son to leave high

school, he started a fight to ensure that the

communal event of graduation would in-

clude Atheists by excluding prayer.

The theists of Brodhead's area battled

tooth and nail for the graduation prayer.

That initself should givepause to those who

consider the fight against secular religion

so trivial. One would think that if prayer at

graduation was indeed so meaningless, the

Christians and other theists of the commu-

nity would not fight its removal. If one

doubts the legal or ethical arguments for not

intruding prayer into the graduation exer-

cises, one should consider why the theists

feel so strongly about including it.

Brodhead's struggle did not occur in one

ofthose areas usually called the Bible Belt.

This battle was in an allegedly liberal and

enlightened area, where anything goes:

California.

Brodhead's was not the first such fightby

an American Atheist; we doubt that it willbe

the last.

Sometimes theists try to paint usAtheists

asjoyless logicians who, having opted out of

religion, have opted out of emotion. But

anyone who has attended an old-fashioned

Chapter solstice or equinox party knows

better than that.

Those of you who willbe out doing a little

joy-raising this month willwant to note that

this year's autumnal equinox is on Sep-

tember 23 at 2:59

A.M.

(CST).

American Atheist


5/46

D IRECTOR S BRIEFCASE / Jon

G.

Murray

BURGER

THE

BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION

O

n June 17 of this year Chief Justice

Warren Burger announced his retire-

ment from the Supreme Court ofthe United

States to work full-time as the chairman of

the Commission on the Bicentennial of the

U_S. Constitution. I watched on television,

along with millions of other Americans, the

press conference at which he made that

announcement. I am sure that I am not the

only one who wondered why someone

would step down from a position as impor-

tant and nationally impactful as that of chief

justice of the Supreme Court just to chair a

presidential commission and then be out of

work as soon as the Constitution's bicen-

tennial year was over. The timing of his deci-

sion could not have been worse, either,

because it gave Reagan a golden opportu-

nity to reshape the Supreme Court before

leavingoffice in 1988.Ithought to myself that

there had to be a payoff for Burger somehow

or that all of this had to have been in the

works behind closed doors in the White

House and the Justice Department for some

time now. Burger could not have just gotten

out of bed that morning, looked into the

mirror, and said to himself, I'm stepping

down as chief justice.

Who Are They?

My inquisitive nature took over, and I

tried to find out what I could about this

Bicentennial Commission from the large

clipping files that we maintain here at The

American Atheist Center _Iwas surprised at

how little has actually been made public

about it. The Commission was constituted

by an act of Congress in July of 1985. Its

purpose was to inform the public about the

Constitution and its importance in securing

basic freedoms, according to all the major

wire services. Congress gave the Commis-

sion an initial appropriation of $300,000 to

$331,000, varying according to which press

source you care to read. The Commission is

composed oftwenty-three commissioners in

all. I could not determine who all of them

were from press accounts, so I had to send

an American Atheist Center staff member

down to the federal depository library to

look them up. The following is a complete

list:

Austin, Texas

(1) Chief Justice Warren E. Burger,

chairman

(2) Joseph Phalen, director, Bicentennial

Commission on the U.S. Constitution;

works for the National Endowment for the

Humanities

Appointed by Reagan, 06/26/86:

(3) Frederick E. Biebel, a Connecticut

Gap leader

(4) Betty Southard Murphy, a Washing-

ton, D.C., attorney; J.D., American Univer-

sity, 1958; Episcopalian

(5) Phyllis Schlafly, conservative cause

leader

(6) Bernard Siegen, law professor at the

University of San Diego; J.D., University of

Chicago, 1946-47

(7) Ronald H. Walker, White House aide;

assistant secretary of the Interior, 1969-70;

staff assistant to the president, 1970-72;spe-

cial assistant to the president, 1972-73;

director, National Park

Service, 1973-75;

B.A., University ofArizona, 1960;Methodist

(8) Charles Allen Wright, lawprofessor at

The University of Texas at Austin; LL.B.,

Yale, 1949; prolific legal author with eleven

books on jurisprudence

Appointed by Burger, 06/26/86:

(9) Herbert Brownell, former U.S_Attor-

ney General, 1953-57; LL.B. and LL.D.,

Yale, 1927; Methodist

(10) Cornelia G. Kennedy, U.S. District

Court judge for the Eastern District ofMich-

igan, Detroit, 1970-79; chief judge of that

court, 1977-79;appointed circuit judge, U.S.

Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, 1979;

·J.D., University of Michigan, 1945

(11) Obert C. Tanner, founder and chair-

man of O.C. Tanner Co. of Utah (O.C.

Tanner Co. manufactures emblematic

jewelry and award products.)

(12) Charles Wiggins,

served

as U.S.

Congressman in the 90th through 94th

Congresses, representing 25th district of

California; member, 95th Congress, repre-

senting 39th district of California; former

councilman and then mayor of El Monte,

California, 1960-66; B.S., LL.B., University

ofSouthern California; Reagan appointee to

the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in

October 1984

Appointed by the Senate, 06/26/86:

(13)Harry Lightsey, Jr., dean, University

September 1986

of South Carolina Law School

(14) Edward Pierpoint Morgan, Washing-

ton, D.C., attorney; LL.B., 1939, and LL.M_,

1943, Georgetown University; FBI inspec-

tor, 1939-47;author of the officialreport on

the Pearl Harbor disaster for a congres-

sional investigatory committee in 1946

(15) Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska

Appointed by the House, 06/26/86:

(16) Lynn Ann Vincent Cheney, senior

editor at Washingtonian Magazine, de-

scribed by itself as a monthly lifestyle mag-

azine directed to the residents of the Distict

of Columbia and the surrounding Maryland

and northern Virginia suburbs. It contains

articles and guides on the best entertain-

ment, restaurants, shopping, and things to

do in the area. Major feature articles deal

with social, political, and community issues

that affect Washington - and oftentimes

the nation as a whole.

(17) Representative Philip M. Crane,

R-Illinois

(18)Thomas O'Connor, history professor

at Boston College

Appointed by Reagan:

(19) Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-

Massachusetts (appointed 07/26/85)

(20) William J. Lucas, chairman of the

County Commissioners of Wayne Co.,

Michigan (Wayne Co. encompasses metro

Detroit and most of its suburbs); Mr. Lucas

is an aspirant for governor of Michigan on

the Republican ticket (appointed 09/09/85)

(21)WilliamJ. Green, member ofthe 88th

through 94th Congresses from the 3rd dis-

trict of Pennsylvania; mayor of Philadelphia,

1980-84;Democrat (appointed 09/85)

(22) Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

(23) Senator Strom Thurmond, R-South

Carolina.

Inaddition to these twenty-three commis-

sioners, I was able to uncover the identities

of two staff personnel of the Commission.

The staff director is Mark W. Cannon, who

has been Chief Justice Burger's administra-

tive

assistant at the Supreme Court since

1973. He was appointed to his Commission

post in August of 1985_The Commission's

media specialist is Gene Mater, who is the

former vice-president ofCBS_He was hired

onto the Commission in the second week of

January of this year. Not many of the per-

Page 3


6/46

sons named above are noted as being great,

liberal thinkers. With the exception ofSena-

tor Kennedy, they read like a

Who's Who

of

conservative mainline America. Needless to

say, there are not any Atheists in the ranks,

and only two Democrats. Some of them are

relatively unknown, so I could only provide

what information I could easily obtain about

them.

I must digress here for a moment to say

that on numerous occasions over the past

ten years American Atheists has attempted

to gain permission to testify before congres-

sional committees that have been deliberat-

ing on various state/church separation

issues. We have been turned down more

often than the beds in a brothel. Congres-

sional staff personnel will simply not allow

any significantly opposing viewpoint to be

represented at a committee hearing on a

given subject. Opposition to the prevailing

view on the subject under consideration

must be toned down, soft-pedaled, estab-

lishment opposition, in keeping with the dig-

nity of Congress, of course We saw this

selection process at work with the Meese

Commission on Pornography, and Ihave no

reason to believe that the process has

changed with the Commission on the

Constitution.

What Are They Doing?

The first meeting of the Commission was

held at the Supreme Court building in

Washington, D.C., on July 29 and 30, 1985,

and was closed to the public. The second

meeting was held on August 22, 1985, inSalt

Lake City, Utah, that seat of liberalism and

religious neutrality, and was, as the first

meeting,

closed

to

the public.

Naturally, the

media was immediately up in arms about the

first two meetings of a commission on the

Constitution having closed-door meetings

on how to celebrate the bicentennial of the

very document that champions free speech

and freedom of the press. Chief Justice

Burger confronted the media in Salt Lake

City on August 24, 1985, and cited histori-

cal precedent as the reason for the closed-

door sessions. He said, We're following the

precedent of the original meeting of the

Constitutional Convention in 1787. They

even boarded up the windows in the hall to

discourage eavesdroppers. Our meetings

are entirely consistent with how the consti-

tution was drafted (San Diego Union, 24

August 1985).

The first public meeting of the Commis-

sion, which was actually its third meeting,

was not held until September 16, 1985,at the

conference room of the Supreme Court

building. I n attendance besides the commis-

sioners were representatives of twenty

organizations which had plans to participate

in the bicentennial in some way. Among

them were the American Bar Association,

Page 4

which will back any interpretation of the

Constitution Burger cares to make; the

National Endowment for the Humanities,

which can be counted on to fund almost any

program the Commission desires; the Na-

tional Park Service, which willgive permis-

sion to use federal land on which any kind of

rally or religious ceremony can be held

(shades of the pope ); the Smithsonian Insti-

tution, which will provide the historical

paraphernalia or documentation to back up

any Commission pronouncements, accu-

rate or not; and the Daughters of the Ameri-

can Revolution. The latter was of the most

interest to me because they proposed pro-

ducing lapel pins, place cards, candy dishes,

and commemorative medals for the bicen-

tennial and asking ministers to celebrate the

Sabbath with the Pledge of Allegiance,

patriotic music, and sermons about the

importance of the Constitution. This came

as no shock, however, since my family has

six confirmed veterans of the Revolutionary

War (with only one being the membership

requirement), and yet the Daughters of the

American Revolution have denied member-

ship to my mother, Dr. Madalyn O'Hair,

because of her Atheism.

What Will It Cost?

It was at the time of this first public meet-

ingthat the Commission made its first report

to Reagan and Congress which consisted

essentially of begging for more money. The

Commission asked for authority to issue

commemorative coins and medals to raise

funds and to raise the ceiling on tax-

deductible donations to itself from $25,000 a

year to $250,000 a year for individuals and to

$1 million a year for businesses. In view of

the privatization of the Statue of Liberty

celebration, this is ominous. The Commis-

sion proposed that the bicentennial be cele-

brated over a three-year period beginning in

1987, to mark 1787as the year of the writing

of the Constitution, 1788 as the year of its

ratification by the states, and 1789 as the

year of the establishment of our federal

government. The Commission also pro-

posed that a onetime national holiday be

enacted by Congress on September 17,

1987, called Constitution Day, since the

Constitution was signed on September 17,

1787.

It was not until the congressional Christ-

mas recess of December 1985 that Con-

gress finallyvoted $12 million in funding for

the Bicentennial Commission of the $20 mil-

lion the Commission had sought in Sep-

tember of that year.

The fourth meeting of the Commission

was held February 2 and 3of this year at the

University of San Diego. It was open to the

public, and those commissioners who did

attend heard five hours oftestimony on how

to celebrate the bicentennial. Following that

September 1986

February 1986 meeting, I can find no sub-

stantive press coverage on the Commission

until Chief Justice Burger made his retire-

ment announcement on June 17of t his year.

Then suddenly the media was interested in

the Commission once again.

What's It All About?

Does it not strike you as a little odd that

the

public

knows so little about this Com-

mission that has been assigned the task of

informing the public about the Constitution?

I have gleaned what little information I have

presented about the Commission thus far

from reading stacks of newspaper clippings

from major dailies around the country. Most

of you willonly know about what had trans-

pired if you live in one of the cities in which

the Commission held one of its meetings.

Otherwise, you may have seen nothing at all

in your local papers about it or its activities.

Could it be that those on the Commission

really don't want rank and fileAmericans to

know all that much about the Constitution?

I, for one, am suspect.

After reading what I could about the

Commission, I started to correlate that

against other events of the same time period

while asking the question, Why would a

Commission that is only on the surface in

existence to celebrate the writing of the

Constitution need to have the chief justice of

the Supreme Court as chairman? and I

came up with a frightening theory. While this

Commission is getting geared up for its

campaign, the White House and the Justice

Department are setting up the ideological

underpinnings for an attempted overthrow

of the American republic as post-Civil War

generations have known it. The Commis-

sion may be an integral part of their scheme,

perhaps as a diversion.

At this point I can hear you say, Jon

Murray has finally lost his mind Not so.

Hold on to your hats while I demonstrate

what I mean.

In July of 1985, during the same month

that Congress and Reagan were setting up

the Bicentennial Commission, Attorney

General Meese gave a very important

speech to the American Bar Association

annual convention. It was a speech that will

go down in history as being of equal impor-

tance as the Iron Curtain speech of Sir

Winston Churchill. Meese's speech con-

tained such radical departures from estab-

lished legal precedent that two Supreme

Court justices spoke out against it directly.

What he did in his speech to the Bar Associ-

ation was to publicly announce the plans of

the conservative movement in this country

to challenge the basic way in which our

government now functions. We have all

been privy to the actions of the Reagan

administration, backed by the Fundamental-

ists, in the areas of school prayer, abortion,

American Atheist


7/46

affirmative action, foreign policy, and the

like. But for the first time Meese publicly let

the cat out of the bag that what the conser-

vatives have in mind is something far more

sweeping and fundamental than just brief

skirmishes over particular social issues.

These little battles have just been political

smoke screens to draw public attention

away from the real goal, which isthe funda-

mental reorganization of government.

Original Intent

The main thrust of Meese's remarks to

the Bar Association was that the Bill of

Rights should not be applied to the States.

He wants the entire judicial system to go

back to basic principles. What he means by

that iswhat he calls Jurisprudence ofOrig-

inal Intention, a jurisprudence based on

what he and his conservative think tank col-

leagues deem to be the correct interpreta-

tion of the collective thinking of the Found-

ing Fathers. He put his goal quite simply:

We will endeavor to resurrect the original

meaning of constitutional provisions and

statutes as the only reliable guide for

judgment.

Again I hear you say, So, we have heard

that from the conservatives before. Yes,

you have, but you have not heard that from

conservatives who have held the White

House for two terms with a president who

has appointed over half of the federal judi-

ciary and is now reshaping the Supreme

Court, a conservative force that is now in

control of the U_S. Senate and a growing

number of state executive offices.

States'

Rights

vs.

Federalism

A littlehistory lesson isneeded here to put

Meese's remarks before the ABA in per-

spective. Since the formation of our Consti-

tution, there has been a constant struggle

between the advocates of a strong, central

federal government and those who advocate

states' rights with loose or no federal con-

trols. This dichotomy ofideas so divided our

nation that a war had to be fought over it.

We have the style of federal government

that we have today because those who

advocated a strong, central federal govern-

ment won a physical, military victory over

the states' rights advocates after being

unable to settle the argument intellectually.

Shortly after that war, President Lincoln

sponsored the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution, which contained the fol-

lowing offensive portion for which the

states' rightists have never forgiven him:

No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immuni-

ties ofcitizens ofthe United States; nor shall

any State deprive any person oflife,liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

Austin, Texas

equal protection of the laws (Amendment

XIV, ratified July 9, 1868). It is from that

Fourteenth Amendment that many of the

decisions of the Warren Court of the 1960s

came, those decisions that the conserva-

tives wish most to overturn. Those were

decisions such as Gideon v. Wainwright

(372US 335, 1963),which guaranteed coun-

sel to indigent defendants; Murray v. Curlett

(374US 203, 1963),which removed manda-

tory Biblereading and prayer recitation from

public schools; New York Times Co. v. Sul-

livan

(376 US 254, 1964),which established

free speech as a determining factor inlibel

suits; and Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436,

1966), which established basic rights for

those charged with a crime. None of these

landmark decisions on key civilrights issues

would have been possible without the Four-

teenth Amendment making them applicable

to the states. Through this amendment and

other legislation, the North had imposed its

more liberal city views over the more con-

servative country views of the South. The

South, states' rights advocates, and conser-

vatives have been angry about that ever

since.

The Plot Thickens

This new Republicanism that started with

Lincoln and the founding of the Democratic

party and that is embodied in the due pro-

cess and equal protection clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment must be over-

turned by the Reagan conservatives ifthey

are to succeed in taking over the country.

The philosophical underpinnings of Repub-

licanism on which the civilrights movement

has been based and which isthe only hope of

minorities must be discredited and over-

thrown in order for the conservative forces

to take control.

The game plan is for conservatives to

implant their ideals into the judiciary where

they cannot become subject to vote. That

would put minorities and civil liberties

groups (which have traditionally turned to

the courts as a means of maintaining their

rights) out in the cold. Evangelist and presi-

dential contender Pat Robertson has been

remarking now for some time along with his

conservative associates that the Supreme

Court, and the federal judiciary in general,

has been legislating. He is correct in that

minorities have traditionally found it impos-

sible to successfully influence legislative or

executive branches because they lack fund-

ing and numbers in coordinated voting

blocs. The only legislature to which they

have been able to turn has been the federal

judiciary. With this outlet for redress ofgriev-

ances cut off, the conservatives can easily

muscle their social issue agenda on unwilling

minorities, such as the Gays in the recent

sodomy decision.

The next step is to take over the legislative

September 1986

branch while maintaining a hold on the

executive. The Democratic party is splin-

tered and uncoordinated going into the

upcoming election year. It is traditionally

underfunded and has no populist candi-

date to offer. The conservatives have scores

ofthem, funding, and paramilitary organize-

tion. The political coherence of the conser-

vative movement in this country is at a peak

with a legal establishment network of think

tanks centered close to the nation's capitol.

Once the judiciary is wrapped up, capturing

the legislative and executive branches willbe

a piece of cake.

Meese and his conservative colleagues

base their jurisprudence of original intent on

the supposition that the Founding Fathers

are to be regarded as gods of a sort,

superhuman beings who had some kind of

mystic insight into the future and whose

founding wisdom makes up eternal guide-

linesthat cannot be altered by future events.

They perceive our Constitution as an immu-

table canon ina conservative theology. With

the Founders no longer with us, someone

must interpret their wisdom in terms of

modern day events, and the conservatives

are here to do so, assuming for all practical

purposes the role of the clergy in Roman

Catholicism. They are setting themselves up

as a kind of constitutional clergy that can

impart the true wisdom of the founders to

the laity.

Back To God And The Bible

Does this sound a bit familiar? It should.

The basic concept of Christianity is the

immutable nature of god's word as pre-

sented to man through his son, Jesus Christ.

The entire history of Christianity has been

the act ofgenerations of adherents attempt-

ing to interpret this original wisdom of god

rendered byChrist interms ofday-to-day life

in each age. The Bible is the word, and in it

we can find all the guidance we need by

simply interpreting the words of Christ in

terms of modern developments, according

to the theologians of all major denomina-

tions.

We have, in the conservative assault on

the judiciary, the same pattern. The Found-

ingFathers are the speakers of The Word,

and that word is forever and is to be taken

literally and cannot be altered, but may only

be interpreted in terms of its meaning in

relation to modern events. The Founding

Fathers were spiritually endowed somehow,

making them like Christ and his disciples.

We even had thirteen colonies which rep-

resented Christ and his twelve disciples, and

this continent, as Reagan has repeatedly

pointed out, was placed in its geographical

location by divine providence so that the

Puritans could find it.

Can it be possible that we have a conser-

vative administration that ismade up ofper-

PageS


8/46

sons who really believe in the divine origins

of this nation and that we must return to the

original word of our founders, who were

inspired bya god? Ifear so. Itisnow becom-

ing abundantly clear to me that seeing the

Soviets as an evil empire, states' rights as

modern barbarity, reproductive rights as

murder, and free speech, press, and

assembly as blasphemy by conservative

leaders is no coincidence. What we have

here is a clear and present attempt to re-

structure our civil law after biblical law.

Presidential candidate Pat Robertson, ina

recent interview with The Washington Post,

said,

. Idon't think the Congress ofthe Unit-

ed States issubservient to the courts.

... They can ignore a Supreme Court

ruling if they so choose, . . . A

Supreme Court ruling isnot the lawof

the United States. The lawof the Unit-

ed States is the Constitution and laws

duly enacted by the Congress and

signed by the president. And any of

those things I would uphold totally

with allmy strength, whether I agreed

with them or not (Greeley [CO] Trib-

une, 28 June 1986).

Consider this. What is the difference be-

tween those two statements by Robertson

and the historically consistent Judeo-Chris-

tian position that the laws of man are sub-

servient to the laws of God? The law for a

Christian isthe lawofgod, duly ordained (or

enacted) by god and handed down by

Christ, his son, to be obeyed without ques-

tion, whether the individual Christian agrees

with them or not.

A Christian Republic?

What we have going on in this country is

the attempt to establish a Christian republic

based on biblical precepts. We are well on

our waytoward this concept, and those who

may be in opposition simply have failed to

understand what is happening. One cannot

posit god as the ultimate authority and then

establish a secular government with a secu-

lar constitution and have those two ideolo-

gies coexist. Either the word ofgod ispreem-

inent and you gowithit, or itmust be thrown

aside in favor of the rule of man - both

cannot be true. Our Constitution can either

be viewed as divinelyinspired or as the work

of men and thus a work that can be

reworked interms ofmodern fact situations.

If it is gospel, then it would make sense to

strip away all amendments to the original

where mere morals have defiled it, would it

not? Those amendments would have been

heresy - including the First Amendment.

Now let's review what we have. Only two

processes for change in our Constitution

were included in the pre-amendment docu-

Page 6

ment. The first ispassage ofamendments by

Congress and then ratification by three-

fourths of the state legislatures. That route

has been used twenty-six times. The other

process allows for two-thirds of the state

legislatures to call upon Congress to con-

vene a Constitutional Convention. That

option has never been used successfully.

With fifty states now in the Union, the

required two-thirds of the legislatures would

be thirty-four. In the last eight years, thirty-

two states have issued such a convention

call to Congress to enact an amendment

requiring a balanced budget. That means

only two more are needed to call the first

constitutional convention since the one that

drafted the document itself. The Gramm-

Rudman balanced budget act has just been

shot down by the Supreme Court, with

Chief Justice Burger conveniently remain-

ing on the Court long enough to cast the

tie-breaking vote on that issue. This puts the

state legislators, who have been desirous of

a balanced budget act or amendment, inthe

position ofneeding to come up with only two

more states to call a constitutional conven-

tion for that purpose. The Constitution

prescribes no guidelines for a constitutional

convention. Ifone isconvened, who isto say

that the purpose of the convention shall be

limited to balancing the budget? The entire

Constitution and all the amendments could

be up for grabs. Then there is the issue of

delegate selection. The Constitution offers

no help in that area, either. Who would the

delegates be? What would be the selection

process, as none isprescribed? How conve-

nient would it be if the Commission on the

Bicentennial of the Constitution could sim-

ply enter stage right, having already met

twice, in secret, and present the draft of a

new Constitution already prepared? How

does anyone know what transpired at those

closed-door meetings? Would we end up

with a group of persons such as some of

those on the Commission, Phyllis Schlafly,

for example, presenting a constitutional

convention with an already laid out Chris-

tian Constitution? Could that be an underly-

ing reason for the existence of a Constitu-

tional Commission, and the celebration of

the bicentennial just a front? Our Constitu-

tion was drafted in 1787by thirty-eight dele-

gates plus George Washington, which

makes thirty-nine. With twenty-three mem-

bers on the Constitutional Commission

already and plus, say, the president, vice

president, and the Cabinet, we would be up

to the required count to keep a constitu-

tional convention in line with historical

precedent, in the words of Burger.

(Twenty-three Commission members, four-

teen Cabinet members, the president, and

the vice president comes to thirty-nine.

God, working in mysterious ways, started

our nation with 39 men and may just end the

republic with that same number - 39.)

No, Thanks

These are sobering prospects that Ithink

allofus as Atheists have to keep in mind and

followvery closely with an inquisitive mind. I

am not a conspiracy buff,and Ithink that the

Mae Russell mentality isway out in left field,

but I have come to an understanding of the

extent to which the religious mind will go.

Symbolism and magic numbers have played

a traditionally powerful role in the motiva-

tion of Christian groups. The right-wing reli-

gious zanies in our country are capable of

just about anything for what they perceive as

direction from their god. We may never

make itto the 1988elections. Ifwe do, I think

that we need an Atheist candidate for that

race. The Democrats are finished, and their

cowardice-inspired mediocrity will prevent

them from backing a candidate who issuffi-

ciently distinct from the Republicans to pro-

vide the needed polarization to defeat the

rightists. Perhaps nothing willcome ofallof

these coincidences, but perhaps we

should keep our bags packed, wallets out, or

our guns loaded, depending on one's point

of view, just in case. ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A second generation Atheist,

Mr. Murray has been the Director

of The American Atheist Center

for ten years and is also the Managing

Editor of the American Atheist. He

advocates Aggressive Atheism.

Just between 40u and me ... I don't trust the gU4 ... he's olwous reading

something.

September 1986 American Atheist


9/46

ASK A.A.

In

Letters

to

the Editor, readers give

their opinions, ideas, and information.

But in Ask A.A.

American

Atheists

answers questions regarding its poli-

cies,positions, and

customs, as

well

as

queries of factual and historical sit-

uations.

Thank you for your letter which eceived

shortly. m very grateful for the pamphlets

also. Never on earth did ome across such

first-class and daring articles. would very

much like to be a member but financially

am not well-offto subscribe to your daring

and intelligent magazine.

Please do clarify a fewpoints which ave

listed below. on't understand your setup.

(1 ) Do you believe that a Supreme Being

exists and that he controls the lawsofearth?

(2 ) Why isan organization likeyours being

set up? Do you combat religions, e.g., by

holding debates and lectures against reli-

gions and about religions?

(3 ) Your organization, it seems to me, is

more like an anti-church or anti-Christian

organization. None ofyour articles, books is

written against other religions. Why?

(4 ) Do you believe in inspiration, that

men from time to time and from nation to

nation are inspired to teach good things

about life and also taught to believe in the

existence of the Supreme Being?

(5) I quote this from a theist: Many ideas

have come and gone since men had knowl-

edge. At one time many people believed that

the earth was flat, but now they are proven

wrong. Likewise the idea oftheism (belief in

God) existed very, very long ago and the

idea still prevails and the trend shows it will

prevail still. Atheism is a recent idea which

will not prevail for long, because Atheism

cannot prove or provide a solution for mod-

ern man's problems which are spiritual.

Atheism is more towards materialistic; it

demands reasons and proofs. Itcannot pro-

videanswers for many unexplained things.

Please comment.

M. A. Sahol

Singapore

(1 )

As

individuals,

American

Atheists

have no beliefsystems at all. We do not, for

example, believe in science. We see that

science is a method of accumulating knowl-

edge about the physical world

so

that

we

can base our judgments upon the use of that

information. So, we do not believe inany-

thing at all. We are of the considered opin-

ion that there is no supreme being existing

anywhere, now or at any time in the past.

We do not as yet understand allof the natu-

Austin, Texas

rallaws of the earth, but it is best to work

toward attaining that knowledge than itisto

sit back and say, God does it, which is no

answer at all.

(2)

American

Atheists, the organization,

does not engage in debate with religious

persons for the simple reason that the

debate is always on their playing field, the

rules of the game are theirs, and the tenets

which are debated are those which rein-

force religion. All such debates

do

is to help

to reinforce religion as it attempts to meet

the challenges against its doctrines. Gener-

allythe method isto reinterpret the doctrine

so that it will be more acceptable to

a

new

age. American Atheists ismore interested in

reinforcing the many, many positive aspects

of living in the real world. It has also been

interested in

building a

base

so

that it will

have a foothold inAmerican culture for the

future. That has been attained in just

twenty-three years, and American Atheists

is now an institution which is here to stay.

(3) American Atheists is based inthe Unit-

ed States which is, overwhelmingly, a

Judeo-Christian nation. In fact, the funda-

mentalists of that religion are going ahead

with an attempt to take over the political

system of this nation during the upcoming

presidential elections in 1988.

(4) Inspiration is ninety-nine percent

perspiration. There isnot

a

manifestation of

divinity which occurs now and then in any

culture. As the world continues to expand

its information and knowledge and as more

and more persons become more and more

educated, there will be more who see the

inequities in any given system and attempt

to ameliorate the condition of humankind.

Those persons who do so do not necessarily

need to predicate their love of justice on

acceptance of the idea of a supreme

being. Instead, they willbase iton theories

of equal justice, equal opportunity, and the

greatest good for the greatest number.

(5) The quote from the theist is simply a

tongue-in-cheek rationalization in support

of theism. A similar argument could be used

for slaverY, war, sexism, racism - the other

evils of the world. Our world isfilled with

new and exciting ideas concerned with solu-

tions for modern man's problems, and they

are

eueryumere

around

us.

The world is

fully aware now that hunger can no longer

be tolerated. The health care for eueryone is

necessary.

It is apparent even to

a

theist

that free universal education is

a

needed

major step forward - that illiteracy, for

example, should and must be erased.

Praying to god for these goals willeffectu-

ate nothing; only an analysis of our prob-

lems and a deliberate move toward their

September 1986

solutions willsuffice. Man is the answer, not

god '

~ :

As a twenty-year-old active and con-

cerned lifemember of American Atheists, I

believe have an idea that could possibly

help strengthen membership and involve-

ment in all state chapters.

The

American Atheist

magazine should

dedicate a page, perhaps alongside the Dial-

An-Atheist column, a section listing the

address of each state chapter. Then, new

members could immediately receive their

local chapter's, or even other, or all, state

chapters' newsletters.

John

F.

Oddi

Connecticut

All new members have included in their

new membership kits the address and tele-

phone number through which the local

Chapter can be reached. Therefore, ifthere

is a Chapter inyour area, you know about it

- having been informed by National. Also,

when one originally inquires for information

about the organization, one receives a listof

all Chapter addresses.

But let

us

have a few words about asking

Chapters outside of one's area to send one

newsletters:

Local Chapters really don't want to ser-

vice people outside their area; they do not

have budget enough to send their Chapter

newsletter throughout the land. The Chap-

ters focus on state/church separation is-

sues in their geographical limits.

Most Chapters have

a local

membership

fee in addition to national membership. Na-

tional membership is a requirement for any

local membership, and this has to do with

complicated I.R.S. regulations so that all

contributions to either the Chapters or

National can be tax-exempt.

Usually Chapters are financially over-

burdened attempting to take care of their

own local members. Each Chapter is also

required to send a copy of its monthly news-

letter to all other Chapters - so informa-

tiongenerally concerning what other Chap-

ters are doing is available to

you

if

you

are

attending your own Chapter meetings.

In case you are unaware, unemployment

rolls are mounting; Chapter Eleven bank-

ruptcies are rife; massive lay-offs in

manu-

facturing are reported in everY state; the

economy has slowed to an insignificant

growth rate; and, consequently, the Chap-

ters are having difficulty obtaining the fi-

nances which are needed to operate. So, as

you know, does National.

Page 7


10/46

Joe David

FROM PLATO TO REAGAN

JUST A LITTLE OLD TIME RELIGION

[PJermitting prayer in public class

rooms would be welcoming God back

in

our

schools.

President Ronald Reagan

Chicago Tribune

March

3, 1983

T

he problems faced currently in educa-

tion are not because god was removed

from the public schools, but because god

entered

them,

I know it's fashionable to refer to the

Supreme Court's ruling of some twenty

years ago against prayer in the schools as

the cause for the demise of public education,

but the truth is, that decision had little, if

anything, to do with the deterioration of our

schools,

The problems began much earlier; they

began when thinkers like Plato and his

admirers took over the schools. The crafty

injection (impliedor stated) ofthe concept of

a super being into the curricula has been the

primary cause of the deterioration of schol-

arly learning.

As far back as recorded history, such

thinkers have been waginga lifeor death war

against reason. By educating people to

doubt their perception and to accept god on

faith, they have attempted to prove that the

senses are useless and true knowledge can

only come from within. In

Meno,

for exam-

ple, Plato elaborates on this argument by

givingthe example of an uneducated slave

boy who never was taught and, for that rea-

son, wasn't even aware that he knew a theo-

rem in geometry which Plato was able to

educe from him. Plato concludes from this

that the boy learned it (and forgot at birth he

had learned it) during his previous lifeamong

ideal forms. Coming-to-know, according to

Plato, is the process of remembering what

one has forgotten in another life (anam-

nesis).

Immanuel Kant continues this type ofPla-

tonic reasoning with his dichotomy, a

priori

experiences (knowledge that is prior to

experience) and a

posteriori

experiences

(knowledge that is derived from the senses).

In the

Critique

Kant tries to prove that true

knowledge isn't derived from external sen-

sations (a

posteriori),

which bombard us in

disorderly multitudes, but it is, instead,

Page 8

derived from a

priori

experiences, which are

innate and which create reality out of this

bombardment of confusing sensations. Ac-

cording to Schopenhauer, this separation of

a

priori

and a

posteriori

experiences was

Kant's greatest contribution. Theologians,

anxious to protect religion from the assault

of reason, agreed and found comfort in this

argument which attempted to prove that

real truth was inborn inman.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel takes

Kant's reasoning about external and inde-

pendent reality a step further- According to

Hegel, external reality

doesn't

exist What

seems to be reality when observing the sin-

gular isn't reality at all. Instead, it is only an

aspect

of reality (i.e., the Absolute), True

reality can only be grasped by coming in

contact with the whole. To achieve this

exalted state, he devised a dialectical move-

ment According to Hegel, opposites must

collide to form a union which must collide

with other opposites to form a higher union

and so on, systematically progressing to true

reality (i.e., a non-material dimension

beyond time and space and human sense

perception. -

The Ominous Parallels,

by

Leonard Peikoff, page 26)_What this means,

in summation, is that the

parts

of reality -

which fit to make the whole - are not so

important as the whole and should, conse-

quently, be subjugated to it

Many educationists have eagerly support-

ed this view. Johann Herbart, for example,

who prepared the world for modern educa-

tion, believes that individuality must never

be the aim of education; instead, its aim

must be to teach a student to liveproperly in

the existing order ofwhich he isa part Such

an idea - which is fundamental to totalitar-

ianism - iscertainly in keeping with Hegel's

idea ofthe whole being more important than

the part, or Plato's view, as exemplified in

the

Republic,

that only a select few have the

real wisdom to rule in harmony with the

Divine Plan.

Perhaps Herbart's most popular contri-

bution to current thinking in education was

his definition of apperception, As Herbart

sees it, new knowledge can only be mas-

tered through old knowledge (i.e., tradi-

tions, family values, and the like). This idea,

which resembles Kant's idea of new and old

September 1986

knowledge, places emphasis on drawing out

a

priori

experiences (innate knowledge) in

the Kantian sense, and not educating in the

intellectual sense. Therefore, for learning to

occur, according to Herbart, a teacher must

make knowledge relevant to the student's

unique past A teacher's success willdepend

on how wellhe can integrate the old with the

new, because a student can supposedly only

learn best that which he has already learned.

Such an approach to education is deadly

to the intellectual growth of an individual

because itvenerates status quo and it claims

real knowledge can only be mastered by

mindless drill work (the reasoning behind

the back-to-basics movement?). But most

importantly, such an approach to education

is deadly because it destroys intellectual

inquiry by training the mind blindlyto accept

the traditional and reject the new.

Wilhelm Max Wundt took Herbart's ideas

a step further and claimed that man lacked

self-determinism. Once upon a time, it was

believed that education was to develop the

special talents and abilities of the individual.

This idea changed with Wundt. Now it was

proper to provide students with suitable

stimuli to bring about desired response.

Inherent in this idea is the idea that man isn't

in volitional control (that he hasn't rational

faculty?) and that he must be precondi-

tioned to be useful to society, In the pam-

phlet,

The Leipzig Connection

(page 8), the

author, Lance J. Klass, said,

Wundt's thesis laid the philosophical

basis for the principles ofconditioning

later developed by Pavlov and the

American behavioral psychologists;

for lobotomies and electroconvulsive

therapy; for schools oriented more

toward the socialization of the child

than toward the development of intel-

lect and the continuation of culture;

and for the growth of a society

increasingly devoted to the satisfac-

tion of sensory desires at the expense

of responsibility and achievement

Wundt's ideas spread to America through

a network of trained researchers, profes-

sors, and publicists. One of these men was

Edward Lee Thorndike. LikeWundt, Thorn-

American Atheist


11/46

dike believed that learning rested, not on

some form of reasoning, but on stimulus-

response. Since he was a Darwinist, he

believed studying animals was as instructive

to learning about human behavior as study-

ing humans. Therefore, he would switch

from children to chickens, when humans

were unavailable, and would generously

reward good behavior, which, he believed,

was the key to successful stimulus-response

learning. To absolve teachers from class-

room failure, he claimed that intelligence

was set before a student enters school. This

premise led naturally to the conclusion that

those students deemed unsuitable to learn

must be provided with vocational training at

the earliest possible time. Consequently,

before a student could decide his own direc-

tion and assess his own talents, he was

pushed in the right direction by manipula-

tive educationists.

Another man influenced by Wundt was

his one-time assistant, James McKeen Cat-

tell. While studying inLeipzig, Cattell made

the brilliant discovery that adults recog-

nize words without sounding them. There-

fore, he concluded that there was no advan-

tage in teaching students to sound out

words; instead, they must learn to recognize

them as total word pictures. Inherent in

this reasoning are echoes ofthe mystics who

believe that man is born with innate knowl-

edge which he must only reach inward to

educe. Such silliness of thinking, spread by

the look-say method, led to the reading defi-

ciency which today affects millionsofAmer-

icans. An argument against the look-say

method was advanced in Rudolf Flesch's

book, Why Johnny Can't Read, which

became a best -seller in the fifties,and which

contributed to the return of the phonic

method - an intelligent, succinct, and sys-

tematic method for teaching reading.

Another Wundtian - and perhaps the

most influential - was John Dewey, who

through the Dewey school attempted to join

psychology to education. Like Wundt,

Dewey believed students must be exposed

to experimental rather than intellectual

data. Inthis sense, the teacher was no longer

the educator, but the socializer, who must

condition the child to yield to group pres-

sures. To Dewey, as to Wundt, man was

just another animal, alone with his reactions,

dependent upon experimental data. (The

Leipzig Connection, page 12.)

Perhaps Dewey's most significant con-

tribution to education was his philosophy of

pragmatism. According to pragmatists, chil-

dren learn by doing - by playing out their

instincts with action (which, unfortunately,

can lead to many mindless and criminal

acts). Thinking, to pragmatists, isn't impor-

tant except at times ofcrisis, and then think-

ing only needs to be sufficient to solve the

immediate, not the real, concern leading to

the crisis. This type of problem solving is

very much like treating a disease with an

aspirin rather than an antibiotic. Inherent in

this idea ofallowing children free rein to their

instincts is the idea that there is no such

thing as evil. This immediately suggests the

Hegelian idea that withinallof us isan aspect

of the Ideal; therefore, real truth needn't

correspond to reality, but only to that real-

ity which ultimately works for the whole.

The danger of many of these ideas seem

to be best summed up by Dr. Leonard Peik-

offin a May 20,1974, article in The Ayn Rand

Letter:

From Plato to the present, it has been

the dream ofcertain philosophers and

social planners to ... inject a contro-

Ofl

Y c : A H ? W e L L

JUST

RE.MEf1I8EA:

7 H ER E A R E N O

ItrH~/5T~ IN FOXHOLES.

Austin, Texas September 1986

versial ideology directly into the plas-

tic, unformed minds ofchildren ... by

means of seizing a country's educa-

tional system and turning it into a ve-

hicle for indoctrination. In this way,

one may capture an entire generation,

and thus, shortly, a country, without

intellectual resistance, ina single coup

d'ecole.

John Dewey, who has infuenced Ameri-

can (and Russian) education since the

1920s, and whose ideas have significantly

affected education, seems to grasp in My

Pedagogic Creed an understanding ofwhat

Dr. Peikoff was saying. Through education

society can formulate its own purposes, can

organize its own means and resources, and

thus shape itself with definiteness and econ-

omy in the direction in which it wishes to

move. It is understandable - inview ofthis

- why the government is interested in the

spiritual strengths of our people rather

than the intellectual and moral strengths. By

creating public church schools, our gov-

ernment hopes to hurl us back into the Dark

Ages by taking complete control of the

American mind and freezing it in ignorance.

~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joe David's writings have appeared in

many magazines, newspapers, and

journals. He is the author of the novel

about public education, The Fire

Within. This article is from his latest

book entitled Glad You Asked, which

has been published by Books For

All Times.

SI

Page 9


12/46


13/46


14/46

NEWS AND OMMENTS

editorial, titled ACLU Vs. Free Speech,

which ran inthe May

26

edition of the paper:

Itmust have been another slow day

down at the American CivilLiberties

Union. The public interest group that

once fought tough battles for free

speech and equal rights has been

reduced to challenging invocations

during Los Angeles high school grad·

uation ceremonies. Real injustice

must be hard to find these days.

The ACLU is representing Daniel

Brodhead, a Van Nuys High School

senior who believes that invoking the

name of God during a public cere-

mony violates his constitutional guar-

antee of separation of church and

state. But the ACLU seems to be

stretching the Constitution a bit. The

Founding Fathers never intended to

banish religion or public references to

it; they simplydid not want the state to

promote one faith over others.

The First Amendment makes it

clear: Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment .o f reli-

gion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof .... With those words, the

signers of the Constitution sought to

keep the institutions of religion and

government from joining forces to

establish preferred treatment for

members of a particular faith. But

while ACLU lawyers emphasize the

need to keep church and state sepa-

rate, they seem to have forgotten the

First Amendment guarantees for the

free exercise of religion and freedom

ofspeech.

Preventing someone from making a

religious invocation is arguably an

infringement on the free exercise of

religion;itmost certainly isan infringe-

ment of freedom of speech. Is the

government to say what can or can-

not be said ina public address? And if

reverent references to God are taboo

in public facilities, then wouldn't the

government be placing the establish-

ment of Atheism over other beliefs?

At their most refined, the invoca-

tions at public meetings contain in-

nocuous references to the presence

of a higher authority vis-a-vis the

mundane affairs of the local sewer

[s ic] board. There are times when

members of the clergy get overzeal-

ous in promoting their own particular

viewofthe universe, but one learns to

tolerate such lapses in the same way

that one tolerates expression of con-

Page 12

trary political ideas. Ifspeech is to be

free, we have to listen to all sorts of

things we don't want to hear.

Many public agencies balance out

the invocations by rotating the duty

among representatives of different

religions. We can't work up a great

deal of pity for Atheists who feel

excluded from this activity. After all,

they could still lead the assembled

citizens in reciting the Pledge ofAlle-

giance, if they don't mind the one

nation, under God part. Or they

could arrive late.

We don't think the general public is

apt to get worked up over the invoca-

tion fight. The only complaint we have

heard about invocations is when they

drag on too long. The ACLU is not in

the business of being popular, of

course, but it seems to choose its bat-

tles more with an eye toward needling

authority than with righting a wrong.

A Buddhist monk gave the invoca-

tion during graduation at California

State University, Northridge, this

year. One wonders whose side the

ACLU would have been on if some-

one had tried to stop him from

speaking.

The editorial, ofcourse, set a certain tone

for the community ifitsmembers decided to

complain. The theme was tailor-made for

that. It was the graduate himself who an-

swered on May 29 . His letter, and three oth-

ers, were printed that day in the Daily T im es

under the banner question: Do invocations

abuse free speech?

The editorial ACLU Vs. Free

Speech (Da il y N ews, May

26)

about

our lawsuit against prayers at gradua-

tion appears to be based on two mis-

taken assumptions.

One is that the American Civil Lib-

erties Union decided to needle author-

ity and went looking for a cooperative

plaintiff. On the contrary, we worked

for two years, writing and talking to

school officials, trying to reach a quiet

agreement about my graduation.

When we gave up last month, mypar-

ents drafted a complaint so we could

sue on our own, but we sent the pa-

pers to the ACLU to ask them for

advice. We asked them to represent

us.

The second mistake is to assume

we're suing under the United States

Constitution. Maybe because the

pioneers saw how people were trying

September 1986

to put religion into government 150

years ago, the California state consti-

tution is much more strict about

government promoting religion in any

way.

You talk about freedom of speech

and free exercise of religion. What

about my free exercise of my beliefs,

and my right to be free from religion?

Are constitutional rights for reli-

gious people only and denied to Amer-

ican citizens who have decided they

are Atheists?

That's the way it is in Iran and (the

other way around) in the Soviet

Union. America shouldn't be like that.

Dan Brodhead

Sherman Oaks

The second letter was angry and ended

with:

So, instead of wasting a lot of valu-

able time, here's a solution for Brod-

head. When everyone else at the grad-

uation stands to show their belief, he

and his familycan stay seated to show

they have none.

from Agoura: Hills

Two other letters were supportive of the

Brodheads:

I sympathize and identify with

James Brodhead and his family's law-

suit to forbid prayers at graduation.

As a third generation Atheist, Ihave

been inthe same position many times.

The last two that really bothered me

were at the United Chambers of

Commerce Fernando Awards earlier

this spring and this past week when

my daughter graduated from Pepper-

dine University School of Law at

Malibu.

Just what isthe proper response to:

Shall we bow our heads in prayer?

Unlike Brodhead, I've never had

the nerve to say no. Should I hum a

tune and ignore them or ask for equal

time to expound on the wonders of

logical thinking and rational problem-

solving?

After all, they build these beautiful

churches and temples and chapels in

hospitals and they can pray anytime,

anywhere they want to pray. Isn't this

enough? Do they have to force it on

the rest of us?

I think it is rude in a pluralistic

society such as ours for any faith to

assume that everyone in a captive

American Atheist


15/46

NEWS AND COMMENTS

secular audience wants to pray. Iwish

the ACLU luck in protecting my free-

dom from religion.

from Tarzana, California

The finalletter was short and to the point:

Webster's Dictionary defines in-

vocation as a prayer said at the open-

ing of a ceremony or service.

Your religious beliefs are not the

same as mine and may not sit wellwith

me, and vice versa. Why should I (or

you) be forced to listen to a priest,

rabbi, minister, or monk saying a

prayer that his followers believe in,

but which I may find offensive?

That's what's called for in separa-

tion of church and state. Ifour found-

ing fathers didn't mean it, we should.

from Granada Hills, California

The case had hardly been filed when the

Board ofEducation began negotiations with

the ACLU through a series of telephone

calls. Within just several weeks the legal

The following is the text of an op-ed article which appeared in the Focus

section of the Daily News on June 8, 1986. The author is Carol Sobel, a staff

attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles.

Constitution Exacts Costs For Religious Freedom

The graduation prayer issue at Van

Nuys HighSchool has been settled legally,

but the underlying issues inthe case are far

from resolved.

Much of the debate was predictable:

There we go again, being anti-religion;

what about the rights of those people who

want to pray?

The response is clear. The decision

helps guarantee religious liberty. What

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson

recognized two hundred years ago holds

true today in a world where even more

religions compete for public recognition.

Religious freedom is best protected by

ensuring complete government neutrality.

Only in this manner will believers of any

religion or none at all not feel excluded at

public events.

California's Constitution also contains a

ban on government aid to religious organi-

zations, expanding on the wisdom of the

Founding Fathers by declaring that gov-

ernment may not discriminate against or

show a preference for any religion.

Our state liberties were first authored

barely a century after the drafting ofthe Bill

ofRights and revised just twelve years ago.

After nearly two centuries of experience

with our revolutionary experiment in the

history of governments, these refinements

were seen as critical to ensuring the full

meaning of these fragile rights.

Religion has always been recognized as

a private, personal matter in this country.

Government neutrality toward religion in

public acts and events protects the rights

ofthose who wish to practice their faith. At

the same time no one may demand the

Austin, Texas

government provide a public platform from

which to proselytize or pray.

But how high and solid are we willingto

maintain the Jeffersonian wallof separation

between church and state?

Two themes seem to be chiseling away at

that wall. One is that certain government-

sponsored religious practices are tolera-

ble in our modern world. That argument

usually isattached to a claim that the objects

or observances in question have lost their

sectarian meaning. However, the impas-

sioned religious response these fights evoke

seems to contradict the secularization ar-

gument. Ifit has no religious meaning, why

does it matter that the goverment put up a

nativity scene or the menorah?

Also, by making the issue of what is tol-

erable into a standard, this theme implicitly

recognized that what is being tolerated is

wrong. But the constitutional wrong is only

the most obvious problem. We need more

than mere tolerance for religious liberty to

reach its fullpromise.

The second attack comes from those who

believe that limiting religious practices in a

public school graduation limits free speech.

The reality of the First Amendment is that

the Establishment Clause does limit speech

in certain circumstances.

But itis important to recognize that those

limits exist to ensure both guarantees of the

First Amendment: freedom of speech and

the Establishment Clause. It is a careful

balancing process not served by knee-jerk

reactions on either side. In the setting of a

graduation ceremony, it means that while

speakers may sometimes refer to God or

deliver other

reliqious

references thev may

September 1986

aspect of the situation had been resolved.

The Board of Education capitulated: There

would be no prayers at commencement

exercises.

The agreed terms were given in a letter

written by the legal advisor ofthe Board of

Education and addressed to the attorney for

the ACLU on June 3,1986, and included the

following:

the [Los Angeles Unified

School] District willimmediately noti-

fy the defendants, other District a-

not engage in religious practices such as

prayers. This isespecially true insections of

the program - invocations, inspirational

moments, benedictions - that, by defini-

tion or form, lend themselves to religion.

The tensions represented in this case are

not confined to limits on religious speech

and are not unknown to constitutional law.

Public claims offree speech have frequently

clashed with claims of freedom ofthe press

when access to newspaper and television

space is denied.

In a practical example, the First Amend-

ment rights of antiabortion demonstrators

outside hospitals and clinics come up

against the constitutional rights of women

to choose an abortion. In the broader con-

stitutional spectrum, free press rights fre-

quently have come up against a defendant's

Sixth Amendment rights.

Each situation requires a careful analysis

and balancing of competing claims. That is

what occurred in this case. The Constitu-

tion deserves nothing less.

Shiftingthe focus in the Van Nuys case to

Atheism alone missed the point. This law-

suit is as much about the rights of the

Native American, Jew, Jehovah's Witness,

Buddhist, or anyone else who believes in a

different supreme spirit or being as it is

about the rights of those who share the

same faith as the speaker. Each is guaran-

teed that religion willremain a private mat-

ter protected from government intrusion or

display. That right is just as secure ifone or

one hundred people object to the publicly

sponsored prayer.

Page 13


16/46

NEWS ND OMMENTS

gents, employees and allpersons act-

ing in cooperation with them that, in

an invocation or similar message at a

graduation ceremony of the District

schools, the District willnot permit,

sanction or authorize any language or

other behavior that constitutes a reli-

gious observance or practice and will

so inform all graduation program

speakers in advance.

The District further pledged that it would

make a good faith effort to comply ... with

respect to graduation exercises scheduled

in June. Since these were eminent, there

may be some difficulty in complying fully

but in any event, graduation speakers

scheduled for this year's commencement

exercises at Van Nuys HighSchool willbe so

notified.

Brodhead was ecstatic:

We are very pleased because we

feel now, in the second largest city in

the United States, we have estab-

lished a principle that Atheists have as

much a right to freedom from religion

in a public place as religious people

have to practice it.

But, yet, he added, I think it is good and

fair. I 'm sorry we had to gothrough allthis to

get what should have been common sense.

His son agreed, It was my dad's idea to go

to court, but I supported it because it was

the onlywayto go. Itturned out pretty well.

The Van Nuys High School graduation

ceremonies were duly held on June 18, 1986,

and the new Los Angeles Unified School

District policy was put into effect: The

ceremonies contained no mention of god.

But, overhead, a small plane hired by an

Anaheim minister pulled a banner which

read, GOD BLESS THE GRADUATES

'86. Several hundred students and specta-

tors cheered and applauded the banner as

the plane circled the school's football field

during the ceremony's opening. Outside of

the school a handful of pickets from the

Culver City Bible Church picketed the

ceremony together with some who were

supporting the new policy. Armed security

guards were stationed around the school

and barred some would-be spectators from

entering the graduation without a ticket.

With more than five hundred students

graduating, the senior class vice president

read an inspirational message that made

no mention of god but credited help and

guidance from all sources for the success

of the graduating seniors.

William Brodhead, now age twenty-one,

Page 14

was there to see his younger brother gradu-

ate without the insulting prayers which he

had endured two years earlier.

Finally it was over, and there was Daniel

Brodhead, saying, It's great. His father,

asked about the airplane and the trailing

sign, replied honestly and to the point, It

was a bit tacky. His brother, William,aimed

at the base, As long as it [the plane with its

banner] is not paid for by the school dis-

trict, it is fine. The minister, chairman of a

local group of the national Traditional

Values Coalition, disclosed that his group

had paid $350 for the airplane and banner

because, We feel what is happening here

today is a denial of the free expression of

religion. The roving reporter was there

also, obtaining opinions, as usual, in

twenty-five words or less.

Graduating senior, age eighteen: It [re-

moving religion from the ceremony] is an

extremely important victory for proponents

of the separation of church and state.

A friend of Daniel's, age seventeen: I

would not take the prayer out. If he feels

strongly against religion, he doesn't have to

listen.

Resource specialist for the school: This

campus has many, many religions. We can't

mention all the religions. That would take

three or four hours. So an invocation of

neutrality is the best way.

Teacher, government and history, age

twenty-six: A neutral vote isa vote against

religion. I would have allowed the student

body to decide. It's their graduation.

A religious student, age seventeen: That

banner was a disgrace, and Ibelieve inGod.

Senior Class Pr

american atheist magazine sep 1986

Documents