San Francisco Atheists

Winter Solstice Celebration

2010-12-19T11:07:00.001-08:00

San Francisco Atheists | Newsletter December 2010

2010-12-01T13:01:00.001-08:00

This edition: meeting program:

Winter Solstice Celebration

Please click here to read the current newsletter

November meeting program

2010-11-26T12:04:00.001-08:00

Agora

This month we will watch Agora, a beautiful movie about Hypatia of Alexandria and the rising Christianity that murdered her. Afterwards we will briefly discuss the movie.
Those of you who are older will remember Christian movies such as Ben Hur, movies that glorified the Christians as loving victims and demonized the pagans as cruel beasts who found pleasure in watching the lions eat Christians. A few years ago Kingdom of Heaven presented the Crusades from a secular viewpoint, as struggles between two cultures to control the wealth and power of the so-called Holy Land. Now Agora presents the story of the rise of Christianity in Alexandria, the intellectual center of Egypt, and as such a part of the Roman Empire. Christianity, formerly banned in the Empire, has been blessed by the Emperor Constantine, and is spreading even in Alexandria. The city's famous library houses scrolls containing the works of the greatest minds in history; it also serves as a center for pagan worship. Inside the library, Hypatia teaches philosophy, astronomy and mathematics to her young pupils, some of whom are Christian. Pagan fundamentalists become enraged at the blasphemy of the Christians and attack them, against the advice of Hypatia. The Christians fight back, and surround the pagans inside the library gates. The Emperor grants the Christians possession of the library, and safe passage to the pagans. Christian mobs destroy all the vestiges of pagan religion and knowledge, including the remaining scrolls in the library.
A number of years later, the Christians have gained so much power that even the head of Alexandria's government, a former pagan and pupil of Hypatia, has converted. The Christians press their power, finally turning on Hypatia as a sinner. After all, the Bible says that women should not teach men, as women are inferior to them. Meanwhile Hypatia is portrayed as truly challenging dogma in trying to understand the relationship of the earth to the sun. She says:
"What if we dared to look at the world just as it is? Let us shed for a moment every preconceived idea. What shape would it show us?"
So not only does Hypatia sin for teaching men, but she sins by challenging the methodology of the Bible, revealed dogmas considered Absolute Truth. A Christian mob murders her, providing a metaphor for the destruction of science by a virulent Christianity.
Since this is a full length movie, we will begin showing it soon after 4:30. Please arrive promptly so that you won't miss anything.

Saturday November 27 at 4:30,
Schroeder's Restaurant 240 Front St San Francisco, CA 94111
the restaurant is two blocks north of Market Street, between California and Sacramento Streets.
Use California Street cable car, or BART/MUNI Embarcadero stop. Parking on street or at nearby Embarcadero garage.

San Francisco Atheists | Newsletter November 2010

2010-11-14T08:09:00.000-08:00

San Francisco Atheists Newsletter November 2010

San Francisco Atheists October 2010 Newsletter

2010-10-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

Read it

San Francisco Atheists | September 2010 Newsletter

2010-09-10T14:16:00.001-07:00

San Francisco Atheists September 2010 Newsletter

August Newsletter

2010-08-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

Click Here

July Newsletter

2010-07-16T07:32:00.001-07:00

Click here to read it.

Secular witnessing

2010-07-03T14:40:00.000-07:00

I went to a Giants-Red Sox game at AT&T Park (where the good guys won!). Sure enough at the 7th inning stretch a public announcement told us to stand up, take off our hats and sing "God bless America". Without a second thought my friends and I did not move and sat for the entire song. We could not see anyone else sitting and wondered if we would be accosted, verbally or otherwise, but there was no aftermath.

I need not remind you of the dangers of conflating "patriotism" with public expression of belief in the supernatural. I share this small story with you with the thought that many of us take a stand from time to time to express our opinions publicly without much fanfare.

I encourage others to "come out" with their stories of their small acts of civil disobedience, as well as encourage others to begin to take a stand.

Warmly, Dan

Summer Solstice Party 2010

2010-06-21T10:25:00.001-07:00

Click here to see the video

San Francisco Atheists | May 2010 Newsletter

2010-05-14T16:59:00.001-07:00

Click here to read it.

April 2010 Newsletter

2010-04-11T08:26:00.001-07:00

April 2010 Newsletter

Click here

San Francisco Atheists protest against the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling video

2010-03-17T16:13:00.001-07:00

San Francisco Atheists protest against the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling video

Click here to see the video

San Francisco Atheists March 2010 Newsletter

2010-03-13T20:07:00.000-08:00

This edition: March meeting program, Briefing with White House Officials, and much more…

Click here

God Rides BART

2010-03-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

A must read!

The Collected essays by David Fitzgerald:

Click here

Let’s welcome Helen to our Who We Are page on our web

2010-02-26T11:02:00.001-08:00

Click here

February 2010 Newsletter

2010-02-13T18:36:00.001-08:00

February 2010 Newsletter

Who We Are: Welcome Paul Gehrman (Author of Kaleidoscope)

2010-02-03T10:59:00.000-08:00

Hi, my name is Paul Gehrman (Author of Kaleidoscope). I grew up in a fairly religious environment in Texas. I went to protestant church most Sundays and I was a believer into my twenties. Although I knew fairly early on that religion was judgmental, divisive, and extraordinarily hypocritical, I still believed most of the dogma until I began to appreciate the explosive explanatory power of Darwin’s ideas and how religion was ultimately an assault not only on science, but on human knowledge generally. After 9/11, I felt compelled to write about the dangers of religious belief, including its dreadful depiction of humanity as inherently dirty, sinful, etc. I spent four years writing, which resulted in the publication of my novel, Kaleidoscope, in 2009.

Now that I’ve completely extricated myself from the hold of religious dogma, I have great appreciation for how manipulative and vicious religion can be, particularly on children, who are frightened into believing with threats of eternal torture, ostracism, etc. This is unethical to say the least. I think all people of goodwill should vigorously oppose this thought cancer in the hope that we can move humanity past superstition, bigotry, homophobia, etc., and to a place where reason, knowledge, and intellectual honesty are highly valued.

Let’s welcome Julia to the Who We Are page on our web site.

2010-02-02T12:32:00.000-08:00

Hi, my name is Julia Buss and I am an atheist. I call myself an atheist because I think that there is a very low probability that there is any kind of god in the universe. On a personal level, I find that my life is happy and fulfilled without a god or a religion. Therefore I do not feel the need to try to find any evidence for a god. I consider myself lucky because I was raised without religion having any place in my childhood, so I was not indoctrinated or trained from an early age to hold it in any place of importance. I do not care whether others choose to believe in the supernatural, in angels or various mysterious beings. But I do think it is important to identify myself as an atheist because I believe it is harmful to society when irrational beliefs drive government or culture. If religions were merely harmless beliefs and did not promote such things as misogyny, homophobia, and war I would not feel the need to take a stand against the belief in these fantasy worlds and beings.

Who We Are web page.

Walk for Life

2010-02-01T15:58:00.000-08:00

Your San Francisco Atheist’s latest activism

The Jesus Sign by Don Havis 2010

2010-01-30T09:44:00.000-08:00

Here is a story from one of our own. It shows that we can be an opposing force to irrational thought.
The Jesus Sign by Don Havis 2010
Regards,
San Francisco Atheists

Let’s welcome Tommi to our Who We Are page on our web site

2010-01-29T11:23:00.000-08:00

Hi, my name is Tommi Avicolli Mecca, I am a writer and activist who lives in San Francisco. I was raised Roman Catholic in the working-class, Italian/American area of South Philadelphia. I was an altar boy because a nun told me I had to be. My uncle decided I was going to be a priest. At 16, I fell in love with a classmate and realized that I couldn't be gay and catholic. I started reading Sartre after my brother turned me on to No Exit. Then I made the ultimate decision: torn between catholicism and the hot guy I was in love with, I said to hell with the repressive and anti-sex religion that only caused me guilt and made me feel like a hopeless sinner. I declared myself an atheist. Four years later in college, I joined the Gay Liberation Front and became a lifelong unrepentant sinner. I have been an atheist for over 40 years.

Regards,
San Francisco Atheists

Who We Are

Walk for Life photos

2010-01-24T09:03:00.000-08:00

Photos

Newsletter 01/01/2010

2010-01-23T12:57:00.000-08:00

Newsletter

San Francisco Atheists - New Blog

2005-11-22T18:00:00.000-08:00

This is the blog of San Francisco Atheists, a "non-prophet" organization affiliated with American Atheists. Posts are authored by San Francisco Atheists Steering Committee members.

Opinions expressed in the Posts here are solely those of the author, and not always the opinion of San Francisco Atheists or American Atheists.

Dissenting and agreeing Comments are welcome, but preachy, vulgar, or hateful Comments are promptly deleted.

Welcome to our blog!

Atheists in Foxholes Rally

2005-11-11T13:00:00.000-08:00

Washington DC, Veteran’s Day, Nov 11, 2005
Speech by Jim Heldberg
------------

Atheists make America strong.

I served the US Navy as both a sailor and an officer. Yes, I went through 2 boot camps.

I’m proud that I served under President John F. Kennedy. But an hour after I was commissioned, he was assassinated. I still miss him.

I started a war. No, not by myself, but I helped start a war. I was a deck officer on the ship that put the first US troops into Vietnam at the Chu Lai landing in 1964. I came home safe, but the names of some of my shipmates are on that black wall a few blocks away.

I managed a large Navy school. I had 100 instructors and 1,000 students, working 2 shifts day and night, studying topics from mathematics to metallurgy, learning to operate nuclear-powered Navy ships.

Atheists make America strong.

For most of us, the passing years have not dimmed the intensity of our time in uniform. Like you, I worked hard in the military. I worked hard as a veteran, too. I raised children, sent family members to war, worked 3 careers, paid big taxes, took part in government, and voted in every single election. I fly the American flag in front of my home every day, as I’m sure many of you do, too.

No one dare call us unpatriotic. Atheists make American strong.

Terrorism is today’s threat. Terrorism isn’t new. It has been used in every war. (pause) Today’s religious terrorism is different, though. It’s hard to stop people who want to kill to prove who has the best imaginary friend. But the best solution to religious terrorism is on a bumper sticker on my truck. It says, “Atheism cures religious terrorism.”

Atheism has been around much longer than religion. After all, we were here first. Strangely enough, American religion thinks they have Atheists pinned down. They do have us out-numbered, out-spent, out-organized, out-lawyered, out-advertised, and maybe even out-rifled.

That’s what the British thought about the Continental Army, too. General George Washington’s army spent several years ducking and running, learning and training, until they were big enough, strong enough, smart enough, and ready enough to take America away from England. I’m sure the Atheist Army assembled here today won’t let religion take America away from us.

Against the forces of religion, today’s Atheists are like Washington’s army. We’re still mostly Minutemen, dedicated amateurs doing a important jobs, sometimes on only a few minutes’ notice. But, we’re more than just Minutemen. We’re recruiting, we’re building, and we’re training. We now have Special Forces to use for specific battles. Sometimes we win. More important, we’re growing stronger, and we’re learning to fight better.

We’re much more powerful than we appear, because we have the ultimate weapon: the truth. Religion is really afraid of us. One Atheist can scare a thousand religious folks. You know that. So, multiply the number of people here today by 1,000, and that’s how strong we really are. Veteran Madalyn Murray O’Hair scared millions, and she changed American history.

Unfortunately, much of today’s Atheist manpower is still on the reserve list. We know that 30 million Americans are non-religious. But most of them are still waiting to join our fight. We need to mobilize our Atheist reserves. We need to cultivate our allies, too.

We need to get even better organized. Veterans can lead the way. The US military is the most organized group in the world. The military taught us how to organize a fight for land, water, air and space. Let’s use those skills to organize a fight for America’s brains and future.

Atheists make America strong. Stronger Atheists will make a stronger America.

Evolution a religion?

2005-10-12T13:00:00.000-07:00

Letter to Editor, San Ramon Valley Times
By Burt Bogardus

A Sept. 28 letter claims that "evolution is just as much a religion as the belief in God," and its teaching in public schools should therefore be unconstitutional.

I strongly agree with the writer that religious indoctrination has no place in public schools. Sectarian schools can perform that role well enough.

But what is religion? The word derives from the Latin religare--to bind or restrain. Most religions contain the following elements:

(1) A "Holy Book" (e.g. Koran, Bible) delineating specific beliefs and behaviors to which adherents must strictly conform.
(2) Belief in the existence of one or more invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful beings.
(3) Prescribed rituals (e.g. sacrifices, fasts, prayers) to propitiate the gods and curry their favor.
(4) Special intermediaries (e.g. priests, ministers) who claim to intervene on the supplicant's behalf.
(5) Observance of "Holy Days" (holidays).
(6) Belief in a supernatural existence after death, in which rewards or punishments are meted out.

Frankly, I fail to understand how evolution bears any resemblance to the above.

The precepts advanced by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 have withstood scientific scrutiny for almost one and a half centuries. They are controversial in only one sense--they flatly contradict the puerile creation mythology found in the Book of Genesis.

For 2,000 years, religion (specifically Christianity) has been the enemy of scientific advancement. If America is to play a significant role in the future, it must cease binding the developing minds of its youth with the shackles of ancient superstition.

Fundies Fan Flames

2005-07-14T13:00:00.000-07:00

Letter to Editor, San Ramon Valley Times
By Burt Bogardus

The religious right leadership (Robertson, Dobson et al) have gleefully seized the gay rights issue with even more zeal than their other divisive pet topics--abortion, school prayer, vouchers and creationism.

If the Christian fundies would cease fanning the flames of anti-gay bigotry, the widespread prejudice against lesbians and gays would be greatly diminished.

While you or I may not find same-sex unions to be our cup of tea, the decision is not ours to make. It is hard to understand how two gay people committing themselves to one another threatens the relationship or marriage of anyone else.

These Christian busybodies need to redirect their excess energies toward purging their churches of pedophiles and other perverts. I suggest they heed Christ's advice about casting the first stone.

Amending the Constitution should be reserved for matters of importance.

No Saint

2005-04-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

Letter to Editor, The Argus (Fremont, CA)
By David M. Mandell

Well, Pope John Paul II is dead. So what.

After reading about him it's obvious the pope was no saint.

You would think with all the millions of people mourning over him, he was a saint. But he wasn't. The only good thing he did was wave his arms and hands blessing everybody.

I would say as an atheist, he was an excellent public relations man. But what did he do that was so bad?

The worst is that he banned condoms in Africa resulting in millions of babies who would die because their mothers had no milk. Banning condoms also caused thousands of HIV deaths, and left families throughout the world producing so many kids that they have to live in squalor.

Next he ordered bishops in the U.S. to oppose civil rights laws that protect gays and lesbians (including hate-crime laws), leaving them outside the boundaries of legal protection.

Then he told heterosexuals what to do: no contraceptives, no premarital sex, no oral sex, no anal sex, no masturbation, no remarriage, no divorce, no artificial insemination, no three-ways, no swinging, no sterilization, no legal abortion, no stem cell research, no women priests, and no death with dignity because you are forced to live against your wishes.

And let's not forget he didn't stop the priests from sexually abusing thousands of children.

The Pope's New Plan

2005-04-19T13:00:00.000-07:00

By Don Havis
April 19, 2005

Have you heard? The new Catholic Pope, Benedict XVI, AKA ex Hitler Youth, Joseph Ratzinger, vows that he is going to get busy immediately on one of the most critical societal problems that the church faces. Helping the growing poor? Allowing priests to marry? Revising anti-birth control edicts? Cracking down on pedophile priests? Of course not! The greatest threat facing the Catholic Church today is its rapidly decreasing numbers of young men opting to give up the “things of this world” to become priests. The Catholic Church has a huge recruitment problem, not unlike the problem the U.S. federal government has in recruiting more cannon fodder for its latest war on the infidels in Iraq. The prospects in both cases are proving to be a very hard sell.

This situation leads directly to the important “inside information” I have to share with you. According to my secret sources inside the Vatican (Yes, we atheists have our spies too), the new Pope Benedict XVI is making plans to greatly enhance the desirability of the priesthood for young men—well, certain young men. The good Pope is preparing a new encyclical to be announced and implemented very soon. Taking a leaf from one of many of G. W Bush’s successful P.R. campaigns, Pope Benedict XVI has come up with a catchy name for this new bit of canon law. It will be known as the “Leave No Child’s Behind Alone” law. The thinking of the Pope and his advisors is that, unfortunately, the increasingly negative social pressures on pedophiles—the traditional source of recruits for the priesthood—has made that calling less and less attractive. The new conservative but brilliant Pope figures that church punishments such as pulling priests off the job for “pretend rehabilitation” has not been a productive procedure since it only reduces the much needed frontline troops. Taking a page from the U.S. military, where punishment for those military personnel who engage in sexual harassment is almost unheard of, the Pope proposes to take an even bolder approach by increasing the opportunities for the sexually frustrated neophyte priest. “Double your pleasure; double your fun” will be the new advertising mantra as the Pope’s new law calls for at least doubling the number of altar boys at each and every Catholic Church in the world. To sweeten the pot, poor families will be offered a generous stipend for each young male, eight to thirteen years old, that they register to be altar boys. My spies tell me there will be the small matter of a “confidentiality agreement” clause for both the parent(s) and the boy to sign…something about “death by stoning” for squealers, but probably nothing to be concerned about.

My spies tell me that the whole effort will be headed up by one of the former Pope John Paul II’s favorites, Cardinal Bernard Law, of the Boston area Catholic diocese fame. My sources have also told me that Cardinal Law is already working with a Madison Avenue advertising firm to devise a catchy acronym for the worldwide movement to double altar boy stock. Rumor has it that the name of the new Catholic unit to handle both the recruitment effort and to implement the Leave No Child’s Behind Alone law will be the United Priests (space) for a Youth Opportunities Union of Religious Seminarians. Should be a winner!

The author can be emailed at havis@att.net.

Letter to Editor, San Ramon Valley Times

2005-03-31T13:00:00.000-08:00

By Burt Bogardus
------------

George Bush Sr. once told a reporter that he didn't consider Atheists to be citizens. Truly the sins of the father have been visited upon the son, for it would be hard to identify any president in history more hostile to the First Amendment than George W. Bush.

We are already forced to endure numerous unconstitutional offenses: God in our congress, God in our courtrooms, God in our public parks, God on our money, God in our flag salute, God in our national motto, God in our oaths of office -- and yet these religious zealots are forever planning new assaults on Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" between government and religion. They seek to usurp the public school system to indoctrinate other people's children with their pet religion, and strive to add religious amendments to our Constitution. Millions of American tax dollars are being misused to bribe religious businesses favorable to the Bush regime.

George Bush owes his presidency to Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others of their ilk. Anyone who tries to argue that he is a proponent of church/state separation is either deliberately deceitful or grossly ignorant.

Burt Bogardus

Bamboozled

2005-03-12T13:00:00.000-08:00

Letter to Editor, Contra Costa Times
By Burt Bogardus

The following letter was printed with a few modifications in the Contra Costa Times "Saturday Forum" of Saturday, March 12, 2005. The question posed was "Does displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building violate the principle of separation of church and state?"

Religious Right leaders have bamboozled their very gullible followers into believing that the Ten Commandments form the foundation of America's legal system.

This preposterous claim would be instantly dismissed by anyone who actually opened his Bible and read Exodus, Chapter 20.

Only three are in any way relevant to modern American law: The sixth (don't kill), the eighth (don't steal) and the ninth (don't lie). Furthermore, the ancient Hebrews were hardly the first society in history to recognize the wisdom of proscribing murder, theft and perjury.

Seven of the ten are merely moral or religious guidelines: Don't follow other gods, don't make idols, don't insult God, respect the Sabbath, honor your parents, don't commit adultery, don't envy your neighbor. Seventy percent of the Decalogue is irrelevant to our current legal system!

Why are there no commandments condemning wars of aggression? Genocide? Slavery? Torture? False imprisonment? Abuse of women? Child abuse? Aren't these more important than coveting thy neighbor's ox or ass?

The Decalogue, crosses, menorahs and other religious symbols have no place on tax-supported public property, and should be immediately removed.

Burt Bogardus

What Would It Take for Me to Believe in God?

2005-03-10T13:00:00.000-08:00

by Jim Heldberg

At one of those dreary debates about "The Existence of God," a young christian asked me, "What would it take for you to believe in god?" He meant a christian god, of course, not all the others.

It sounded silly, like asking someone, "Who would you be if you weren’t who you are?" I should have asked him, "And what would it take for you NOT to believe in god?" But I suspect he couldn’t have answered, and probably never even thought to ask himself his own question in reverse.

But when I pondered his question days later, it didn’t seem quite so silly. It’s a simple question, and perhaps it deserves a simple answer. After all, I’ve changed my mind before on many things. I’m not really that stubborn. Surely I’d be willing to change my mind on this, if… if… Well, if what?

After more thought, I had the answer. I’d change my mind if there were good reasons, with good data. I’m a realist, a scientist. The answer to "What Would It Take for Me to Believe in God?" is:

EVIDENCE.

The evidence I want is simple. Here is a list of the "godly characteristics" of evidence I’ll need. This is an unusual list, but since I’m answering the question, I get to make the list.

VISIBLE
Christians say their god is "in the image of man (or woman)." That’s fine, and a big improvement over being invisible. So, show me the god. Visibility must be the first piece of EVIDENCE.

SEXLESS
Christians say their god isn’t a man or woman, despite their looks. That’s easy to check. If the god drops its pants for a thorough medical inspection, and has no sex organs, that’s more good EVIDENCE.

IMMORTAL
Christians say their god is immortal. That’s also easy to prove -- Superman did it in the movies. Bullets fired at this god should cause no damage, and many christians have a gun handy. Fire shouldn’t harm it, which can be proved in any kitchen, fireplace, welding shop or furnace room. It won’t drown, which can be verified at any bathtub, beach or bay. It should be immune to all diseases, which the National Center for Disease Control could prove, very carefully. It should be immune from death by old age, which would be hard to verify in one lifetime, but after it lived 2 lifetimes, or 3, or 10, that’s more EVIDENCE.

LANGUAGE SKILLS
Christians say their god knows all human languages. This would take a while to verify, but the number of languages is known, so the god’s language skills wouldn’t be difficult to prove. Oddly, the christian god can’t write, so only spoken language can be used, but that makes it simpler for interviewers to get the EVIDENCE. A good explanation of why a god with great language skills is unable to write, and seldom even speaks, will provide more EVIDENCE.

COMMUNICATION
Christians say their god hears, and answers, multiple prayers simultaneously from remote worldwide locations. A simple 2-step process can verify this, with the naked god locked in a secret bank vault without communication equipment. While a large number of people speak audibly, or pray silently (their choice), to the god at the same time in various languages, the god tells interviewers what the pray-ers said. When the process is reversed, the god talks to pray-ers who tell interviewers what the god said. Since the god can’t write, and usually communicates silently, that would have to be accounted for in the process, but it might still work. Standardized testing could confirm that messages sent both ways were accurately received, contributing to the EVIDENCE. Although prayer communication is commonly thought to be nearly instantaneous, delays measuring several years have been reported by christians. This needs to be explained, but does not need to be demonstrated as EVIDENCE.

CREATION SKILLS
Christians say their god can create universes and even life. In this area, I’d generously award full credit for only partial EVIDENCE. I’d give no credit for creating life, since man has already figured out how to do that, and no credit for creating a parallel universe, since I couldn’t even tell. The god doesn’t have to create something splashy, like a galaxy. Creating another moon around the earth would be EVIDENCE that could be verified by everyone. Creation of a new oil field would be very nice, and verified by geologists. An explanation of how these creations were achieved would earn extra credit toward EVIDENCE.

MIRACLES
Christians say their god can work a wide variety of miracles, from walking on water to moving mountains and restoring life to dead people. I’d score easy on this and not require all purported miracles to be proved. I’d allow the god to choose which miracles to perform, and accept a few samples as sufficient EVIDENCE.

ANSWERS
Christians say their god is all-wise. That’s vague, but being wiser than men is easy to prove. The god could prove this by giving solid answers to major human questions, such as:

COSMOLOGY: What happened at the big bang? What is dark matter and dark energy? What’s inside a black hole? Can the universe expand forever? Is there life elsewhere in the universe? If so, where is it, and what is it like?
BASIC SCIENCE: Is time travel possible? Is there a unified field theory? Is there any truth to string theory? What’s inside the earth? What’s inside a quark? Is there any limit to the number of elements that can be created? Is there a smallest atomic particle? Is the speed of light constant? Is light a particle or a wave? How can life be created quickly, without tedious evolution?
HISTORY: What killed the dinosaurs? What killed the Neanderthals? Who killed JFK?
MATHEMATICS: Does pi ever repeat? What’s the next prime number?
RELIGION: Identify the correct religion, if any, and close down the rest. Is every prayer heard, or only prayers repeated often by large groups? Explain how immaculate conception and resurrection work.

Those are big questions, but not un-godly large. Many other questions could be asked, but these should be sufficient. A god should get them all right, of course, with no partial credit for partial answers. I don’t know how to check the accuracy of any of the answers, but universities could work on it. Probably the god could help verify the answers, in order to add to the EVIDENCE.

SUMMARY
If the evidence showed a god passed these tests -- visible, sexless, immortal, communicated invisibly and simultaneously in all languages, created a moon, worked miracles, and answered major questions -- I would not only believe that it existed, I would probably even consider it a new species. Would I worship this weird new god-thing? Certainly not, but I might want it for a pet, so I could learn from it. Even better, I’d like to be its agent, and use it to make big money. I would give the god a better name than "God" because I wouldn’t name a dog "Dog", or a child "Child." I couldn’t be friends with it, any more than I could be friends with my cat or computer. Since it could never reproduce and was doomed to be alone forever, it might be tempted it to commit suicide, but could it do that? Only it would know. Should I insure it?

"Under God" Press Release

2004-06-15T13:00:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U.S. SUPREME COURT INDECISION ON "UNDER GOD" IN PLEDGE A SETBACK FOR ALL AMERICANS

San Francisco, CA.--"We are very disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Unfortunately, the court majority saw fit to render a decision based on a technicality, not on the merits of the case. They have shirked their responsibility to give lower courts guidance on an important aspect of First Amendment law," said Jim Heldberg, Coordinator of San Francisco Atheists.

The Founding Fathers who drafted the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution intended all Americans to have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. They understood that in order for America to flourish as an open and energetic democracy that government could not mandate religion or religious beliefs. Therefore, when Congress inserted the words under God into the Pledge of Allegiance as a political act in 1954, they did so illegally and with intent to coerce Americans into stating a religious belief. "If the words under God have no religious meaning," said Heldberg, "then why were they put into the Pledge? A Baptist minister wrote the original pledge, and even he did not include those words."

"Bay Area Atheists, the Humanist Community, as well as many others in the community of non-belief, applaud Dr. Michael Newdow, who brought the Pledge suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a courageous man, and we're grateful for his steadfast pursuit of this cause and protection of the First Amendment," said Heldberg.

The Court will not be able to avoid facing the issue indefinitely, as a suit similar to Newdow's is likely to be filed by American Atheists.

American Atheists and other Bay Area groups will rally Tuesday, June 15th in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals building (Seventh and Mission Streets, San Francisco) at 9:00 a.m.
###

An Inquiry into the Mental Health of Jesus: Was He Crazy?

2003-07-01T13:00:00.000-07:00

By Don Havis

The very first thing that should be said about the title and content of this article is that I completely understand that any attempt to make any sort of even reasonably accurate statements about the mental health of a person who may or may not have lived some two thousand years ago is completely absurd! In fact, it is this writer’s opinion that the whole Christian mythology is just that—mythology. Certainly, the divine three-in-one Jesus, born of a virgin, etc. never existed. However, the question of whether or not there ever was a real human being around whom the various Christian legends grew, is still open to some debate. So whose mental health does this paper address, the non-existent mythical Jesus, or the possibly formerly existent human Jesus? The answer is the former, mythical Jesus, not the latter. “But how could this be possible?” you may ask. The answer is that this could be at least a hypothetically possible inquiry if I can persuade the reader to accept one huge and admittedly irrational assumption. What is that assumption? Are you ready? Here it is:

The Christian Holy Bible is the inspired word of God.

Obviously, as the “inspired word of God” it must be entirely true. Would God lie to us in his own book? Hardly! Therefore, we will for the moment, do exactly as the Christians would like us to do. We will accept their word that everything in the Bible is accurate as reported; that all the words that Jesus supposedly said were in fact spoken by Jesus and were accurately recorded and passed down to us without the slightest change.

Additionally, all of the reports of other supposed witnesses to Jesus and his behavior were also accurately recorded in the holy book. We might grant some small “leeway” to this strict provision by allowing that everything that is written down—even something written by a great authority just this morning—may be subject to some “interpretation” by the reader. For example, if it is reported that an angel spoke to or appeared to Jesus, we are at liberty to grant that Jesus thought or imagined that an angel spoke or appeared to him. He reported accurately (or others reported accurately) what he thought to be true. With this one great caveat accepted by the reader, we may now proceed with our inquiry.

. . . .

Fortunately, there is no need for this writer to do “original research” in this area. Several previous writers have examined the question of Jesus’ mental health—including serious questions as to his sanity—in depth. In fact, there seems to have been a veritable outbreak of such research and writing in the latter half of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century. Of course, this was the time of the birth and early intense interest in the new field of psychiatry. Since that time, however, there has been a strange silence on this question. There have been many contemporary psychologists and psychiatrists who have written on the general subject of religion and its effect on mental health; perhaps most prominent among these has been Dr. Albert Ellis. However, I have been unable to find any modern mental health professional who has written specifically about Jesus’ mental health. In fact the most recent article this writer was able to find dealing specifically with the question of the sanity, or mental health, of the biblical Jesus was an article by E. Haldeman-Julius entitled “Crazy Jesus” published in 1925. (1) Indeed, this writer would greatly appreciate “feedback” from any reader who may have discovered more recent writings, particularly by modern psychiatrists, on this subject. My many hours at a local library and doing several “web-searches” have failed to produce any result. There was, however, a fairly recent mention of Jesus’ mental ill health by a modern psychiatrist named Dr. Clifford Allen (Probably Clifford Edward Allen, a British psychiatrist born in 1902) in a pamphlet published by the American Atheist Press. Dr. Allen was quoted as saying that he would “classify Jesus as a paranoid schizophrenic.”(2) Unfortunately, this quote was not footnoted and I was unable to verify it.

. . . .

A thorough review of all the well-known writings on this question is beyond the scope of this paper. However, I will mention a number of the most well know authors who have tackled the question of Jesus’ mental health, and will present, very briefly, a summary of their opinion on this subject.

Probably the most famous critic of Jesus of the past two hundred years was David Friedrich Strauss. In his first book on the life of Jesus, published in 1835, he opined that Jesus was simply a religious “fanatic.” However, in his second Life of Jesus, 1864, he considered Jesus’ fanaticism, “close to madness.” (3.) (Schweitzer. P. 35.)

Another early work on Jesus’ mentality was Oskar Holtzmann, War Jesu Ekstatiker? , 1903. (Was Jesus Ecstatic?) Yes, he felt he was. “Ecstatic” was kind of a nice way of saying that he felt Jesus was not in really strong contact with reality.

Emil Rasmussen wrote in 1904 a book in Danish, which was promptly translated into German in 1905. The book’s title was Jesus—A Comparative Study in Psychopathology.

Rasmussen concluded that Jesus was an epileptic. He points to evidence of both types of epileptic attack, a petit mal in Gethsemane, and a grand mal at the cleansing of the temple. He offers little other evidence, however, and his book is pretty much roundly condemned by most of the other writers on the subject.

Another early writer on the subject was Dr. George de Loosten who published, Jesus Christ from the Standpoint of a Psychiatrist in 1905. De Loosten explains Jesus’ apparent bizarre behavior on a number of occasions as being tainted by a bad heredity which made him a “degenerate” with a “fixed delusional system.” Naturally, Dr. de Loosten was not wildly popular among the Christians of his time, nor of the present time. His ideas were not widely accepted.

Another writer who took up the question of Jesus’ mental heath around the turn of the century was Charles Binet-Sangle. His book, La Folie de Jesus (The Dementia of Jesus) was published in Paris in 1910. The title says it all. Dr. Binet-Sangle diagnoses Jesus as “Demented.” Specifically, he calls Jesus’ illness “religious paranoia.” Dr. Binet-Sangle’s psychiatric study of Jesus placed particular emphasis on the various reported events which the doctor concluded were hallucinations. He specifically identified seven hallucinations. Of these seven, two were, “purely visual and five which are described as both visual and auditory-verbal.” (4)

Two more books on this subject would complete what I earlier referred to as an “outbreak” of sudden interest in Jesus’ mental health in the early part of the 20th century.

The books referred to above were originally published in a language other than English, so they were not at first given much notice in this country.

In 1912, a prominent New York psychiatrist, Dr. William Hirsh published a book entitled, Religion and Civilization—Conclusions of a Psychiatrist. Dr. Hirsh enumerates various incidents of aberrant behavior on Jesus’ part, agrees with Binet-Sangle’s opinions regarding Jesus’ hallucinations, and points to his “megalomania, which mounted ceaselessly and immeasurably.” Dr. Hirsh’s conclusion was quite strong. He said that Jesus was “paranoid”, pure and simple. He added that, “Everything that we know about him (Jesus) conforms so perfectly to the clinical picture of paranoia that it is hardly conceivable that people can even question the accuracy of the diagnosis.” (5) I must add here that I found this statement to be a bit “dogmatic”, especially coming from a psychiatrist. Dr. Hirsh felt very sure of his “conclusion,” and didn’t mince his words.

Just after Dr. Hirsh published his book, the famous Dr. Albert Schweitzer wrote, in German, his book, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus. The book was written primarily to counter what Dr. Schweitzer—ever the apologist for Jesus—felt were, in his opinion, the then several unwarranted and vicious attacks on Jesus’ sanity. He makes some good points, such as it is unfair to take events out of the context of the culture and superstitious times during which these events supposedly took place. However, overall, I found his defense of Jesus’ sanity “strained” to say the least. One valuable part of his book, however, is that he vary fairly summarizes the arguments of all of Jesus’ previous critics mentioned above.

The most recent book that I was able to find on this subject, and one of the most helpful books published after the initial rush of books in the early 20th century, is The Psychic Health of Jesus by Dr. Walter Bundy, 1922. Dr. Bundy, like Albert Schweitzer, turns out to be a very strong apologist for Jesus. However, also like Dr. Schweitzer’s 1913 book, Dr. Bundy’s book is an even better and slightly more recent summary of all of what Dr. Bundy calls the “psychopathology books” written earlier about Jesus. In the end, Dr. Bundy concludes that, “A pathography of Jesus is possible only upon the basis of a lack of acquaintance with the course and conclusions of New Testament criticism and an amateur application of the principles of the science of psychiatry.” (6) (p. 268.) It is interesting that Dr. Bundy accuses several eminent psychiatrists in both Germany and the United States of “amateur” conclusions. Throughout Dr. Bundy’s book one gets the impression that these many other researchers, except Dr. Schweitzer of course, simply were not as smart or aware of the true facts as was Dr. Bundy.

. . . . .

Now it is time to turn to the evidence that is most usually cited by the above authors and others which either supports—or fails to support according to some such as Schweitzer and Bundy—a “diagnosis” of some form of mental pathology in the biblical Jesus. After examining the “evidence” as quoted directly from the inspired word of God, I will leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions as to Jesus’ mental health.

First of all, it must be said that many of the writers mentioned above have pointed to scores of different quotations from the New Testament to substantiate a great variety of observations concerning Jesus’ state of mind at various times during his brief—perhaps three years—ministry. In order to present at least some of this material in an organized manner, it will be necessary to select only a few categories of possible pathological symptoms, and then to list quotations within these categories which may support substantiation or non-substantiation of a diagnosis of mental illness. All biblical quotations are from the KJV translation, and are taken exclusively from the four Gospels, the presumed authoritative accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry.

In a personal communication (1996), Dr. A. J Mattill, Jr. listed 14 categories within which most of the “points” of writers on Jesus’ mental health could be categorized. Dr. Mattill’s categories included Jesus’ “chronic vagabondage” and his “habitual retreat to solitude.” I have omitted these and others of Dr. Mattill’s categories both to save space and because it may be argued that some of these behaviors, although perhaps a bit odd, cannot in and of themselves be considered supportive of mental illness. Therefore, I shall consider only eight categories that seem to be those most frequently mentioned and those that are most closely associated with possible mental health problems. They are, in no particular order, as follows:

1. Jesus’ hallucinations/visions/voices

2. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple

3. Jesus’ cursing of a fig tree

4. Jesus’ vituperative verbal explosions and calls for violence

5. Jesus’ relationship with his own family

6. The belief of Jesus’ family and contemporaries that he was insane/possessed/beside himself.

7. Jesus’ exalted messianic self-consciousness/megalomania

8. Jesus’ call for self-mutilation.

Category 1: Jesus’ hallucinations/visions/voices. The perhaps “grandest” and most frequently sited hallucination (or if not a hallucination, we must believe a true event) is the reference to what is reported when Jesus is baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:16-17 tells us, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighted upon him: And, lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

In Luke 22:43-44 Jesus thought he saw an angel which “strengthened him.” However he was still in agony so he prayed so hard that “sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” In Matthew 4-11 we are told that the devil appeared to Jesus and teleported him into “the holy city and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple.” It occurs to me that this experience might have been a bit painful for Jesus, though from the biblical report Jesus seems to have suffered no ill effects from this experience. Later he was transported to “an exceedingly high mountain,” but Jesus was not tempted to worship the devil, we are told.

In John 12:27-33, when Jesus foretold his own death in Jerusalem, he reportedly hear a “voice from heaven” which promised him that his name would be glorified. Apparently others shared in this hallucination because John 12:29 tells us, “The people therefore that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered. Others said an angel spake to him.”

In Mark 9:2-8 we are told that Peter and James witnessed Jesus being “transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceedingly white as snow. And there appeared unto them Elias, with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.” Incidentally, Schweitzer argues that this incident reported by some of Jesus’ “pathographers” was a hallucination of Peter’s and James’, so it is “unfair” to lay this hallucination on Jesus. Numerous other events and voices speaking to Jesus have been pointed out as being able to be explained only as hallucinations.

It is interesting to note in passing that most fundamentalist Christians accept the situations above as “true”, but refer to them as “visions.” Note that it sounds far “less crazy” to speak of someone—perhaps in a state of great religious fervor—as having a vision rather than speaking of that same person as hallucinating.

Category 2: The cleansing of the temple. This incident refers to Jesus’ emotional outburst when he comes into Jerusalem and enters the main Jewish temple and “overthrew the tables” of the money-changers and the “seats of them that sold doves,” and tossed them all out of the temple. (Matt. 21:12-13.) The story is repeated in John 2: 14-16. In John’s version Jesus carried and apparently used a whip as mentioned in “Category 4” below. This certainly does not seem like the behavior of an entirely rational person.

Category 3: Jesus’ cursing of a fig tree. Even though this category includes only one incident, it has figured so prominently in all the prior inquiries into Jesus’ mental health that it is deserving of this special mention. Interestingly this event is reported only a few verses after the report of Jesus “flip out” at the temple. Apparently, still angry, Jesus got hungry the next morning, and on his walk into the city with some buddies he spotted a fig tree. Matthew 21:19 tells it this way: “And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came upon it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” Apologists have always said that this is just a “parable” to illustrate the power of faith because in the next two verses he explains to his companions that, “Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done.” (Matt. 21:21.) However, it should be pointed out that this “explanation” of the power of faith has to be considered a bit “crazy” too, if it is meant literally. To this date we still have no reports of any Christian whose faith is “deep” or “pure” enough to have performed this bit of telekinesis.

Category 4: Jesus’ vituperative verbal explosions and calls for violence. The most frequently quoted biblical passage in the vituperative words category is Matthew, chapter 23. Nearly all 39 verses of Matthew 23 are devoted to an “upbraiding,” before a general “multitude,” all the “scribes and Pharisees.” He calls them “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “fools,” “whited sepulchres,” “serpents,” and a “generation of vipers.” One gets the idea pretty clearly that he doesn’t like them.

In the area of calls for violence is the oft-quoted Matt. 10:34-35. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Pretty much this same advocacy of family strife is repeated in Luke 12:49-53 where he says, in part, “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” (vs. 51) Seems clear enough to me! At Luke 22: 36, Jesus, knowing that trouble is brewing, tells his disciples, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

In John’s version of the cleansing of the temple Jesus was reported to have made a “scourge (whip) of small cords” which he used to drive the merchants and money-changers out of the temple (John 2:15)

In addition to frequent calls for his followers to smite this or that other group of non-believers, Jesus apparently desires especially malevolent death for his enemies when he says, “But mine enemies, which should not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

Lastly, Jesus seems never to tire of speaking about the horrific and unending torments that non-believers and other “wicked” people will suffer in the Hell. Some of the gospel references are as follows: Matt. 3:12; 5:22,29-30; 8:12; 13:40-42, 49-50; 22:13, 25:41,46; Mark 9:43-44; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27-28; 16:23-26. At Luke 16:19-25 Jesus tells us the parable of the rich man who died unrepentant and a true believer beggar named Lazarus. Seems they both died but the rich guy was sent to Hell. He pleads for just a tiny bit of mercy to ease his unending torment. He asks the Lord to, “send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” “No way,” as Jesus tells the parable, for there is a “great gulf” which prevents such passage. Then the rich man asks again if Lazarus could at least be sent to his five brothers to warn them “least they also come into this place of torment.” The rich man seems convinced that “if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.” The parable continues saying that even this small act of kindness could not be allowed because his brothers had probably had plenty of opportunities in the past to listen to “Moses and the prophets” but no doubt didn’t. Therefore, he says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

Jesus’ persistent habit of speaking approvingly of the unrelenting tortures of Hell may not in itself indicate mental illness; however, it is an attitude that can certainly be pointed to as not particularly supportive of mental health.

Category 5: Jesus’ relationship with his own family. Matthew 10, quoted above shows pretty clearly what he thinks of family life. Verse 36 adds, “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” When one of Jesus’ disciples requested time off for his father’s funeral, Jesus told him no and rebuked him saying, “Let the dead bury their dead.” (Matt. 8:22) To his own mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2: 4) At Luke 14:26 Jesus is perfectly clear that we should hate our family members. He says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” At Luke 12:52-53 we read, “For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

Additionally, there are a number of passages in the Gospels which testify to the idea that Jesus' own family simply did not “believe him”, or “believe in him.” For example, Matt. 13:57-58 states that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were “offended in him.” Therefore, Jesus decided not to do “many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” The same story of his family’s disbelief in his “own country” is retold in Mark 6:3-6. His brother’s disbelief is restated at John 12:37, and again at John 7:5, just in case you did not “get it” the first couple of times around.

Finally, when Jesus is asked directly, “Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?” he indicates, as all good cult leaders do, that his disciples were now his family. (Matt. 12:48-50.) Well, so much for “family values.”

Category 6: The belief of Jesus’ family and contemporaries that he was insane or possessed. When Jesus asked a group of followers why some of them didn’t trust him and went about seeking to “kill me”? they answered, “Thou hast a devil.” (John 7:20) Later they asked him again if he were, “a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” “Jesus answered, I have not a devil.” (John 8:48-49) Then again at John 10:20, “And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?”

His own family even brought his sanity into question. Writer Gene Kashmar details this incident well with references to original Greek word meanings. Mr. Kashmar’s words in this regard are worth the following lengthy quote:

“He was thought to be insane by his own family and neighbors in ‘when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself…And the scribes said, He hath Beelzebub…’ (Mark 3:21-22 –The Greek existemi translated beside himself, actually means insane and witless), The Greek word ho para, translated friends, also means family. On another occasion, the crowd claims “…He hath a devil, and is mad…” (John 10:20). The Greek word mainomai translated mad, also means manic, raving, and insensate” (7)

Category 7: Jesus’ exalted messianic self-consciousness. It is clear in many places in the Bible that Jesus considered himself to be the foretold Messiah and that he fully expected his majestic return on the clouds of heaven. Ironically, in the earlier Gospels Jesus seems to want to keep this a secret as in Mark 3: 12. “And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.” And, again, in Mark 9:9, he tells his followers to “Tell no man what they had seen, till the Son of man (referring to himself) were risen from the dead.” And at Matt 12: 15-16 it is said, “…a great multitude followed him, and he healed them all; and charged them that they should not make him known.” We don’t know how big this “multitude” was, nor how many of them were in need of being “healed”, but how likely do you think it would be that every one of them would keep quiet about this event?

By contrast in the book of John Jesus constantly proclaims his messianic dignity (John 6:29, 35, 38, 40, 47-47; 7:38; 8: 12; 11:25-26; 14:6, and 13-14). Jesus’s megalomania and delusion that he is the “chosen one” who was sent by his father (God) to save his “chosen people” seems to grow and grow. As A.J. Mittill Jr. comments in an article in the book, The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read, “The more trust one puts in the Fourth Gospel’s portrait of Jesus the more difficult it is to defend the sanity of Jesus.” (8) p. 122). Even Albert Schweitzer states that, “Even the most casual reader of the Fourth Gospel must have the impression that here Jesus’ words are exclusively egocentric. The word ‘I’ occurs six times as often in the Gospel as in the Gospel of Matthew. The seven ‘I ams’ of Jesus are found only in the Fourth Gospel.” And later, “In the Synoptics we see Jesus absorbed in the great cause of the kingdom of God, but in the Fourth Gospel he is engrossed in his own ego.” (The Psychic Health of Jesus, (9)

The reader might wonder at this point how Jesus apologist Dr. Schweitzer “gets around” this self-admitted stumbling block to declare Jesus sane. The answer is simple. Dr. Schweitzer simply proclaims the Fourth Gospel “unhistoric.” He states flatly that “…the egocentric words placed in the mouth of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are not words of Jesus at all, but really the christocentric confessions of the fourth evangelist. And as such they cannot be used as pathographic matter for the diagnosis of paranoia.” (10) sanity, one simply dismisses as “unhistoric." Dr. Schweitzer does the same for much of the other Gospels as well. He states, “The Gospel of Luke agrees in the main with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Wherever it goes beyond them it makes a doubtful contribution, which moreover is without any great significance for the criticism of Jesus and so can be left out of consideration.” (10) p. 46) (Emphasis added.) Say, what? Am I reading this correctly? The parts of the holy word of God we don’t agree with we can simply ignore? Incidentally, Mr. Bundy in his book, The Pathology of Jesus makes much the same arguments as does Dr. Schweitzer.

Category 8: Jesus’ call for self-mutilation. Matt. 19: 12 is the usual quotation for this bizarre approval supposedly given by Jesus for men to castrate themselves “for heaven’s sake”, if they’ve got the guts. The quote is, “ …and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Church father Origen, as well as some of the more recent believers involved in the Heaven’s Gate cult apparently took this verse literally.

The other call for self-mutilation is given in Matt. 5: 29-30. Jesus’s followers are encouraged to simply get rid of any body part that offends them. “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” And, “If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast if from thee.” Apparently offending left eyes and hands might be saved from this fate.

Again, at Matt. 18:8 Jesus is quoted as saying, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than, having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.” Does this sound like a rational proposition to you?

In case there is any doubt about Jesus’ call for self-mutilation, these instructions for cutting off appendages and plucking out eyes are repeated again at Mark 9:43-47.

Conclusion:

As mentioned earlier, I will leave it to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions regarding the mental health of the Biblical Jesus. However, in this writer’s opinion, as to the Jesus Christ as reported to us in the “Holy word of God” one can only conjecture—even given the general lack of education and the superstitious nature of the times—that he was at the very least a mentally disturbed religious fanatic. And, if various biblical reports of “visions” can be interpreted as “hallucinations,” and if the egomaniacal claims of missiaship reported to us in the Gospel of John are taken literally, then no less a judgement than a serious psychosis (madness) seems appropriate.

On the other hand, if we allow, as Drs. Schweitzer and Bundy do, that great sections of the Gospels are untrustworthy—“unhistoric” to use Dr. Schweitzer’s word—then, of course, no conclusions at all can be drawn. Clearly, nothing can be vouchsafe if the entire matter of what parts of the bible are authoritative and what parts are not is simply thrown up into the air.

Certainly, a brief query of most any modern mental health professional will suffice to assure one that it would be wise to be extremely suspicious of the “soundness of mind” of anyone who appears to be short-tempered, has auditory and visual hallucinations, and claims a “special connection” to the supernatural. This eminently sensible piece of advice is as sound today as it was some two thousand years ago.

(NOTE: This article was published in the April-June, 2001 issue of The International Atheist Alliance Magazine, Secular Nation.)

Footnotes

1. Haldeman-Julius, E., The Haldeman-Julius Monthly, “Crazy Jesus,” June, 1925. p. 11-18.

2. Maine, Colin, “The Unpleasant Personality of Jesus Christ” (a pamphlet), American

Atheist Press, (No publication date given), p. 12.

3. Schweitzer, Dr. Albert, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, Boston, Beacon Press, 1913, p. 35.

4. Binet-Sangle, C., La Folie de Jesus, (The Dementia of Jesus) Paris, 1910. p. 392.

5. Hirsh, Dr. William, Religion and Civilization—Conclusions of a Psychiatrist, Truth

Seeker, New York, 1912, p. 99.

6. Bundy, Dr. Walter, The Psychic Health of Jesus, New York, The Macmillan Co.,

1922, p. 268.

7. Kashmar, Gene, All the Obscenities in the Bible, Brooklin Center, MN, Kas-Mark

Publishing Co., 1995, p. 157.

8. Mittill, A. J. Jr., The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, Dubuque, IO.

Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1993, p. 122.

9. Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 129.

10. Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 132.

The author can be emailed at havis@att.net.

Jesus Never Was

2003-06-01T13:00:00.000-07:00

By Don Havis

The purpose of this article is to outline what I consider to be the major arguments in support of a “pure-myth” viewpoint or position concerning the question of the historicity of the biblical figure we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. A second purpose is to provide the reader with a selected bibliography of books, generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars, which the author has either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from in the preparation of this paper. The author, himself, makes no pretense of being a “biblical scholar,” only an avid reader of their works.

Before I attempt to present at least “summaries” of arguments in support of the pure-myth point of view, (hereafter referred to as a “position”) I think it would be helpful to make clear the various positions which have traditionally been listed as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John Remsberg’s four different options. The positions listed below are from Remsberg’s 1909 book, The Christ, page 327, with slight additions of mine for clarification.

“Orthodox Christians believe that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.” (This is generally know as the “literalist position.”)

Conservative Rationalists, like Renan and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the super-natural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.” (This is usually referred to as the “historical myth” position.)

Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.” In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical. (This is known as the “philosophical myth” position.) My added comment would be that in the intervening years between 1909 and now, this position would no longer be considered at all “radical,” and the Unitarians referred to in position 2, above, have shifted almost entirely to this third perspective.

“Other [‘more radical’ is implied here] Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.” I would add here that a natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional—made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the “pure-myth” position.)

The Seven Major Arguments
I admit that there may very well be more than “seven major arguments” for the pure-myth position, and that in some instances the arguments presented here partially overlap. Also, many of the same arguments can be used to support position three. However, I have, perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the following seven arguments for the reader’s consideration: (1) No one seemed to have noticed Jesus in his time. (2) The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. (3) The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths. (4) What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time. It was derived from earlier “scripture” and more ancient myths. (5) Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, clearly spoke of a “spiritual” Christ. He knew nothing of a real, live human Jesus. (6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative historical Jesus’ looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness, or even his central message. (7) The “you-can’t-have-it-both-ways” argument.

Again, the combination of all the arguments and opinions outlined in support of the above points will not absolutely “prove” that there was no historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative. It might be possible that there was a “real” William Tell who served as the inspiration for, and may have even engaged in some of the activities ascribed to the legendary Swiss folk hero. However, the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four, described above, is an exact parallel to the pure myth claim for William Tell. The same claim might also be made about any of the long list of crucified saviors that have “visited” earth long before the beginning of the first century of this era. My claim is, in other words, that applying “Ockham’s razor,” (e.g. the simplest, most logical explanation that comports with all the known facts), and considering the tremendous dearth of evidence to the contrary, the most rational conclusion is that there never was an historical Jesus. Further, I contend that he, and consequently all that is said about him, are entirely fictional.

Now that I’ve made that exceedingly clear, let’s get on with the arguments, one by one.

No one noticed Jesus in “his day.”
As most of the readers of this article know, Christian apologists, world-wide, have “pointed with pride” to a handful of early extra-biblical writings which directly mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James the Brother of the Lord as a real first-century historical persons. “Ah ha,” they say. “Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four Gospels are works of fiction, how can you account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote about or referred to Jesus at or very near the time when he was alive?”

Just to mention the one “main gun” that Christian apologist have been firing at us skeptics for the past 1,800 years, (The difficulty of defending the Gospels has been a well-recognized problem for the church since they first where apparently “noticed’ by anyone around the middle of the second century.), I will briefly discuss the famous “Testimonium Flavium.” This Latin phrase refers to a single paragraph of about twelve sentences which appears to most critics to have been inserted awkwardly between two paragraphs which make perfectly good sense without the insertion. The reference is in a book by the well-known first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus [37 – c95 CE]. The reference is contained in his book, The Antiquities of the Jews. This book is—appropriately enough for the reference to be contained in—a book about the early history of the Jews in the area where Jesus is supposed to have preached, and in the time when he was supposedly alive.

As Frank R. Zindler says, “Although Flavius Josephus was born too late to be an eyewitness of the lives of Jesus or John the Baptist nevertheless he was a contemporary of the evangelists [assuming they existed] who wrote of these characters. He should have heard of Paul [if he existed, whom he never mentions]. Furthermore, from his priest-craft father, Matthias [b 6 CE] he should have known about the religious ferment supposedly stirred up by the doings of Jesus.” (Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 35). Yet this well-respected historian mentions none of this with the single exception of the paragraph referred to above. In that paragraph only, he names a man called Jesus. “He was the Christ,” Josephus is made to say. He was a “doer of wonderful works” and that “Pilate condemned him to the cross.” The paragraph concludes that, “The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” “This day” would be about the year 90 CE, approximately when Josephus wrote his history book. This phrase, at the very least, is an obvious later interpolation as there was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’s time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

It is also interesting that the mention of this particular Jesus, “Jesus the Christ,” is divulged by Josephus with no more emphasis than he gives to the other 20 Jesuses he speaks of in his writings. (See Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, p. 19 – 20).

In summary, let me just say that the single paragraph referred to above has been one of the most thoroughly researched and debated topics in all of biblical criticism. Those that want a more detailed analysis can refer to Zindler’s entire chapter on it in the above cited book, (“Faking Flavius”, p. 31 to 73.) Additionally, Earl Doherty’s book supporting the mythical Christ theory, The Jesus Puzzle discusses this and other early likely Christian interpolations in chapter 21, “Flavius Josephus” p. 205 to 222. Referring to another oft-quoted reference to Jesus in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitas [c55CE-c120 CE], Doherty says, “If the silence on Jesus in the earlier works of both Tacitus and Josephus casts doubt on the authenticity of their later references, then we truly have lost every clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human being [emphasis added] before the latter half of the second century.” (p. 222)

Think about that sentence for a minute. Dozens of books of Christian apologists will offer long lists of citations about Jesus from early writings. However, most of these citations refer to either clearly awkwardly done interpolations, whereas others were written by authors who lived anywhere from a century and a half up to several centuries past the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. These quotations referring to Jesus and other Gospel characters simply repeat stories that the writer has heard from other Jesus cult enthusiasts. As such, they are of no value whatsoever.

In addition to the above noted refutation of the most important references to a supposed historical Jesus written near Jesus’ time, I should also mention at least two “deafening silences” by highly regarded writers of the same time period. I am referring to the writings of Philo, an eminent Jewish philosopher and historian who lived during the early first century, and Justus of Tiberias, a native of Galilee who wrote a history covering the period in which Jesus is said to have lived. Neither one of them ever mentioned a “Jesus.” The works of Justus have all perished now. However, we have the writings of a ninth century Christian Bishop and scholar of Constantinople, Photius, who says that he had read Justus’ works. He reports, in utter amazement one might imagine, that, “He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works he did.” (Jackson, J. G., Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth, p. 8.) Personally, I find that quote absolutely jaw-dropping.

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses
Whether one believes that the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are partly fictional elaborations of some core of truth, or whether you believe they are entirely fictional is not the issue at this point. (What I see as a separate issue of their fictional or non-fictional status will be taken up in the next point.) The question here is simply, were the gospels written by human witnesses to the “life and times” of the putative Jesus? This point can be handled quite briefly. The answer is a resounding “No!” There is virtual unanimity of opinion by all un-brainwashed, rational biblical scholars—even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron)—that the gospels were written by now unknown writers anytime between 40 years after Jesus’ time up to about 185 years after his supposed death, depending on what scholar one consults. Most scholars place Mark, the generally recognized first written gospel, at about the year 70 CE, just after the destruction of the Jewish temple of Yahweh. However, Earl Doherty has advanced some closely reasoned arguments that support a time “around the years 85 to 90 CE.” (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 3).

Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G. A Wells summarizes in his 1988 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, “The gospels are usually put between 70 and 110, with Mark at about 70, Matthew and Luke a little later, and John, the latest, at about 100. Acts (written as we shall see, by the author of Luke) and some of the pseudo-Pauline epistles are assigned to the turn of the century. I find all this convincing enough, except in the case of Mark, which I date at about 90 rather than 70. If this is correct, then all four gospels were written soon after 90 and drew some of their material from earlier documents which have not survived and from oral tradition, much of which must have been available from about 80, although it would have taken time for them to have become generally disseminated.” (Wells, op. cit. p. 10 & 11).

There is near unanimous agreement that the very first mention of the existence of what we now call the gospels was by Justin Martyr, in the 150s. Doherty says, however, that he may only have known of Matthew and Luke. “Even at that, he does not refer to them by name, calling the documents he is quoting from ‘memoirs of the Apostles.’ Moreover, his quotations for the most part do not agree with our present texts.” (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 259) So, it seems that the “eyewitness testimony” of the so-called “apostles” was still being sort of “worked out” a century and a half after J.C.’s supposed birth.

The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths
Many large tomes have been entirely devoted to supporting the point that great sections, if not all, of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, are simply a retelling of fabulous tales based on older Jewish, Roman, Greek, Persian, and even more ancient Egyptian stories. Substantiating this point does not advance this paper’s major thesis, except as it applies to the only supposed biblical “evidence” in support of a historic Jesus—that is, that testimony provided by the four gospels. For those readers who might be interested in the spurious origins of not only the gospels, but also the entire bible, the names several entire books devoted to this subject can be found in the bibliography of this paper.

It is interesting to me that a great many freethinkers and rationalists—people who might be reading this article—are very quick to agree that pretty much the entire bible is chock full of misinformation, forgeries, bad history and just plain lies. Not only that, but most rationalists are quite willing to accept the proposition that this mish-mash of prevarication was not simply a naive passing along of old legends, but were written for the express purpose of convincing (i.e. “converting”) the gullible reader into subscribing to the particular fanciful dogma the ancient writers were trying to peddle. However, for some reason or another that entirely escapes me—perhaps just early brainwashing imbedded as deeply as potty training—these same rationalists are reluctant to imagine that the four gospels are completely fictional. Surely, they say, there must have been some sort of demythologized, even perhaps anonymous nobody who was arrested, tried by Roman authorities, then crucified. We can’t be sure of any more details than that, they say. I simply ask, why must this be so? What more tangible evidence can anyone present that the whole story is not simply what it appears to be—a retelling of one or more of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ancient sun-god or sky-god’s traditional, descending then ascending god myths, generally consisting of elements such as of first some tribulations (a trial), conviction, crucifixion, and finally resurrection? One could go on for several paragraphs pointing out the many details of the “passion story” that have parallels not only in more ancient myths, but also in earlier Jewish writings including the Old Testament. See, for example, Zechariah 9: 9, which foreshadows Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on an ass; actually “on an ass and the foal of an ass”—a neat trick, eh?), and the foreshadowing of the whole “passion story” in Psalms 22, the virgin birth in Isaiah 7: 14, his birth in Bethlehem in Micah 5: 2. All of this has been well noted for centuries. Why in the world would any rational person imagine that any of these fables were in any sense true?

It is interesting to speculate on the source material for the first written gospel, the Gospel according to Mark. Perhaps Mark—probably a well educated Greek-speaking member of the Jewish Diaspora—had read the works of “Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher-theologian of Alexandria in Egypt.” (A speculation of Alvar Ellegard, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, p. 5) Or, perhaps he had heard the stories of the so-called “Teacher of Righteousness” of the Essenes who may have lived (mythological or real—who knows?) sometime in the first century BCE. (Ellegard, op. cit., p. 258). Maybe Mark wrote in the second century as scholar Ellegard holds, and had read Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius, whose life almost exactly paralleled the life of the mythical Jesus and who reportedly died in 98 CE. (See Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 9) Surely, he had read of the so-called “Suffering Servant of the Lord” described in Isaiah 52: 13 – 53: 12. (See Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, p. 80). Certainly Mark, and later the other gospel writers, had no shortage of inspiration. What they didn’t have is anyone who was in any sense “real.”

It is important to remain focused on the primary reason why these gospels were written, or perhaps “compiled” would be a better word. They were written for the express purpose of convincing the uneducated and gullible masses that they no longer needed to believe in a sort of mystical, unseen, spiritual Christ—a somewhat difficult concept for the unsophisticated to grasp even though it was familiar to them as I will discuss later. Here, in the gospels, the new Jesus cult offers a “real”, flesh and blood incarnation of god to believe in. (In truth, there was a terrific argument early on between the Gnostic Christians and the main line, later to become the Catholic Christians as to this “flesh and blood” issue.) This savior figure spoke real words (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount, etc.), ate food, performed miracles, visited real places, and spoke to “multitudes.” He was truly crucified, not allegorically crucified in a heavenly realm. Remember “doubting Thomas”? He wanted to stick his fingers into Jesus’ wounds, just to be sure. (John 20: 26-27) I thought that was a "nice touch” for the last gospel fiction writer to add; don’t you? For those of you that might still be unconvinced of the absolute untrustworthiness of the gospels in particular, I offer just one more powerful quotation for your consideration:

“Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works—catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these ‘documents’ were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the ‘Lord and Savior,’ whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would seem to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the ‘infallible Word of God’ was ‘corrected’ again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major ‘revisions’ have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.” (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26). Still think the gospels are about real events? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to talk to you about.

What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time
As with point two above, there is little or no debate among serious scholars that what we now call “Christianity” has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of them. Of course, first of all there is simply Judaism, which had long talked about and predicted a soon-to-arrive “Christ.” Ironically, according to them, he still hasn’t come. The documentation of this claim is the subject of literally hundreds of books. A small number of these books are quoted in this paper. Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a well-recognized scholar of the early 20th century. “The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of ‘holy bibles,’ Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All these sacrosanct things of Christian ‘Revealed Religion,’ were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.” (Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless, p. 17 and 18) All of this is not even “controversial” among knowledgeable secular biblical scholars.

I will quote one more source, a small pamphlet published by The Freedom From Religion Foundation which “zeroes in” on the mythical antecedents of the Jesus Christ figure. The pamphlet—really, a tract—is entitled, “Cookie Cutter Christs.” The sun-god Mithra, who was very popular in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago was “born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought gifts to his birth. His first worshipers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by twelve companions. Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world. His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).” Additionally, the pamphlet continues, “Mithra celebrated a ‘Last Supper’ with his 12 disciples. The Mythraists observed weekly sabbath days and celebrated the Eucharist by eating wafers marked with a cross.” Does any of this sound familiar?

The same pamphlet notes that, “Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nana, in Phrygia sometime before 200 BC. He was hanged on a tree, died, rose again, and was called ‘Father God’.” “Horus was born of the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550 BC. Horus as an infant received gifts from three kings, and was crucified on a cross. There are about 200 close parallels of the careers of Horus and Jesus Christ.” “Adonis (Tammuz) was born of a virgin mother called Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the Virgin Mary with her divine child in her arms. Adonis was regarded as both the son and husband of his mother Ishtar, as God the Father and God the Son.” We could go on and on. Any of the above named books will give the interested reader much more information about ancient gods along this same line. The mythology doesn’t change much, just the name of the current sun-god de jure.

Indeed, the parallels in the cult of Mithraism—perhaps Christianity’s major contemporary and most competitive religion of the first century CE—most especially, are so striking that I have often reflected that had Emperor Constantine not mandated that Christianity be the Empire’s only religion in 325 CE, and had that decree not been brutally enforced by the “firebrand and the sword” for the next 1,700 years by the Catholic Church, then we might see steepled little Mithric Churches dotting the landscape throughout Europe and the United States especially. As part of this same fantasy, I have often wondered if there would now be heated debates as to whether or not the now recognized as mythic Mithra was somehow based on a historic, real flesh-and-blood, human being named Mithra. If the Catholic Mithraist myth enforcers had been equally as successful as have been the Catholic Jesus myth enforcers, I suppose the answer of the masses—and even of some atheists—throughout most of the world would clearly be, “Yes, most likely there was a historic Mithra.” Incredible! What a brainwashing we have all been subjected to!

Most well informed Christian apologists—even back to the early “Church Fathers”—admit that the above parallels are true. Their standard response is that just because there are all of these parallels doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t a real human figure who may have been just doing his best to “fulfill” all the ancient prophesies, and to “fit in” to the familiar legends about him. This counter-point can’t be denied. I only ask the reader which of the two possible explanations seems the most likely?

Paul clearly spoke only of a “spiritual Christ,” not a human one.
It is well recognized by all but the most fanatical fundamentalist bible scholars that Paul, writing between approximately 54 C. E. an 65 C.E., was not a “witness to Jesus.” By his own admission, he saw Jesus “in a vision” while on the road to Damascus. This Jesus was a purely mythical, “spiritual Christ,” not in any sense a human being Christ. Paul “received” this Jesus through a kind of divine revelation. I believe that Doherty explains this sort of “Jesus” best when he says that the message Paul received, “…was about a heavenly Son of God who was both an intermediary between God and the world, and a Savior figure. He was variously called Jesus, or Yeshua (meaning ‘Yahweh Saves’ in Hebrew), the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew “Mashiach,” or Messiah, meaning ‘Anointed One’), and the Son. Some looked upon this new Son of God as a Reveler who bestowed saving knowledge of God, others as one who had undergone a sacrificial death and a resurrection. [In another heavenly realm] All manner of apostles like Paul were going about preaching this divine being and often not agreeing among themselves about him; indeed, they could be at each others’ throats, as certain passages in Paul’s letters revealed. This Son and Savior was not identified with a recent human man or placed in an earthly setting, much less given a ministry of teaching and miracle-working in Galilee.

[Paul knew no details of the yet to be written, gospel ‘historical’ Jesus.] Instead, he was a heavenly deity who had done his redeeming work in the supernatural dimension.” (The Jesus Puzzle p. 5.)

This kind of thinking is very difficult for the modern mind. Remember that since every reader of this paper was born he or she has been constantly bombarded—well, except when you were in your church, synagogue, or mosque—with cause and effect, logical, scientific thinking. For the residents of Galilee two thousand years ago, however, nothing could have been more natural. The whole culture and the entire “civilized world” was saturated with this way of thinking. It was, as Doherty explains, “The view shared by a whole range of pagan salvation cults, each of which had its own savior god who had performed deeds in the mythical world. Like Paul’s Christ, savior gods such as Attis and Osiris had been killed; like Paul’s Christ, Osiris had been buried (after being dismembered); like Christ on the third day, Adonis and Dionysos had been resurrected from death. All these things were not regarded as historical; they had taken place in the world of myth and higher reality.” (Doherty, op cit. p. 16.)

In summary, all of the parts of the New Testament attributed to a probably historical Paul are of no help at all in establishing a “historical” Jesus, since they never speak of such a person.

There is no agreement on any information about this supposedly historical Jesus

By way of amplifying the above point, what I mean is that, normally, a very well-known historical person—even one existing as long as two thousand years ago—would certainly be much better known to historians than is Jesus. For example, we know much more about Alexander the Great, who lived 200 years before the Jesus character is said to have lived.

Let’s examine just a few points of reference that one might reasonably be expected to know about a person whose influence was so great that it literally change the course of history over the next two millenium. (1) Looks? No one in the entire bible gives any definitive description of Jesus whatsoever. He is depicted in artistic works, ranging from the ninth century up to modern times, as everything from being rather short with a “male pattern baldness problem” to the tall, handsome Nordic Jesus with the neatly trimmed beard we all met in Sunday School. Secular scholar, Dr. William Harwood, an advocate of a “historical nobody” who served as a basis of the mythical Jesus, believes that Jesus was, “an odd looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows, and approximately 4 ft 6 in tall” (Mythology’s Last Gods, p. 63). Enough said. (2) Birth date? Biblical scholars of all stripes disagree as to the date of the mythical Jesus’ birth. Dates range from about 4 BCE (the one most often quoted) to about 7 CA. (3) Birthplace? The bible says Bethlehem. However, Jesus is constantly referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth.” Scholars now understand that this was probably a linguistic confusion and perhaps an early mistranslation. Jesus was a “Nazarene,” the title of a sect, not a name having geographical associations. Thus, as G. A. Wells explains, “‘Jesus the Nazarene’ is equivalent to, say, ‘Henry the Quaker’ or ‘George the Methodist.’” (Wells, Did Jesus Exist, p. 147.) Furthermore, modern archeology has established that there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century. Dr. Harwood, mentioned above, argue strongly for the city of Capurnaum as a probable birth city. (4) Personal character and/or moral worthiness? Although we heard all about the loving, compassionate Jesus in church, and how we ought to “turn the other cheek,” we were not given the quotations that urged his followers to bring those that would not have me for their leader and “slay them before me.” (Luke 19: 27.) We were told not to lie. However, we read about how Jesus lied when it suited him. (See Mattill, A. J. Sweet Jesus, p. 103) We remember the part about not stealing, but we heard nothing about Jesus’ habit of stealing pigs, wheat, donkeys, cash, cows, olive oil, and figs. (op. cit. p. 31-33.)

Perhaps more critical than all of the above inconsistencies and silences is the confusion about what, exactly, was J.C.’s central message? The problem of discerning a “central message” is confounded not because there isn’t one, but because there are too many. If one asks the average Christian what was Jesus’ essential message to us, they look at you as if you must be the stupidest person they have ever met. Then, they explain patiently that, “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for us so as to atone for our sins, and that if you would simply believe in him, you could have a sort of second life, ever-lasting, in a place called heaven.” Now, at first you must try to ignore the sheer imbecility of what you just heard, and ask a few follow-up questions. You may ask something like, “Well, how can I ‘believe on him’ as the bible phrases it, when I am not clear about his full message and his teachings?” The Christian has a ready answer. “You can read the bible and there you will learn all about his wonderful message to us.”

“I already did that,” you might say, “ but then I became even more confused.” As mentioned above, there seems to be hundreds of messages, often with conflicting ideas and pronouncements. You might also add that you were a bit confused as to whether you should pay more attention to Peter’s Jewish ‘works-based’ Christianity, or to Paul’s Gentile ‘faith-based’ Christianity. You confess further confusion when you read about the early Gnostic Christian’s ‘knowledge’ (Gnosis) based Christianity. Despite all your reading, you say, you are still “unclear on the concept.” At this point the Christian will generally say something like, “Jesus loves you anyway” and walk away.

The summary point here is that because of the great amount of hopelessly conflicting information and the lack of any definitive information on everything about Jesus—his looks, lineage, biography, nature (three in one; one in three?), character, moral worthiness, message, etc.—it is clear, at least to this writer, that there is simply no one underneath this great pile of b.s. to see.

You can’t have it both ways

This last point can be briefly explained. Despite its simplicity, I think it is a very powerful argument for a completely fictional Jesus. It has been said “many times in many ways,” as the song lyric goes, but Frank Zindler recently stated it quite succinctly.

Zindler notes that many liberal Christian apologists will readily agree that, “While the gospels cannot be taken literally, they are at least evidence of somebody [emphasis in original] extraordinary. But these same apologists miss the irony of Jesus being so obscure that no secular record of him survives. (It is ironic also that despite being a well-known public figure and rabble-rouser, Jesus nevertheless is so colorless and forgettable that the authorities have to bribe Judas to point him out!)” (The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 5) This last point Zindler puts in parenthesis because it assumes that the reader might think that at least some part of the gospel fables might be true. I believe, as does Zindler, that this is extraordinarily unlikely, to the point of a vanishing possibility.

In conclusion, I believe that in this article I have at least “hit the highlights” of the arguments for a purely fictional Jesus with his purely fictional “gospel.”

Clarence Darrow may have summarized the pure-myth position most succinctly when he said, “I don’t believe in Jesus because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.” No, Virginia, I’m afraid that it is time now to grow up. There really isn’t any Santa Claus. And even though there may have been a Christian bishop, born in 270 CE, who was rumored to have secretly shared his inherited wealth with the poor, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the myth of the fat guy in a red suit who, on December 25th, drops down the chimney’s of every world-wide Christian family who has one or more children to deliver presents, with the aide of a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Additionally, there is also no Tooth Fairy, no Mother Goose, and Jesus never was!

Bibliography

Note: Some of the books listed here support a historical myth, or a philosophical myth position (positions 2 or 3, described earlier). Some, like Burton Mack, Robert Price and others seem to adopt an agnostic stance on the historicity matter, although they have often done some of the best research which has lead to a nearly complete destruction of any chance for such a historical Jesus. All the books in this bibliography are highly recommended. I have undoubtedly left out others that by chance I have not read or just didn’t consider for inclusion. For those readers who wish to “zero in” on the pure myth (position 4) supporters, I have indicated these books with an asterisk.

*Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Conspiracy Ever Sold, Klempton, IL, Adventures Unlimited, 1999.

Anonymous, “Cookie Cutter Christs, nontract # 8”, Madison, WI, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. No date.

*Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith, (See Chapter 51, “Jesus: History or Myth”), Madison, WI, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 1992.

*Doherty, Earl, Challenging the Verdict, Ottawa Canada, Age of Reason Publications, 2001.

*_______ , The Jesus Puzzle, Ottawa Canada, Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999.

Ellegard, Alvar, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Woodstock, NY, The Overlook Press, 1999.

*Freke, Timothy & Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries, NY, Harmony Books, 2000.

Harwood, William, Mythology’s Last Gods, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1992.

Helms, Randel, Gospel Fictions, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988.

Jackson, John G., Christianity Before Christ, Austin, TX, American Atheist Press, 1985.

_______ , “Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth,” (a pamphlet), Austin, TX, American Atheist Press, no date given.

Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, Tampa, FL, Survey Books, 1999.

Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote The New Testament? San Francisco, CA, HarperSanFrancisco, 1995.

Mattill Jr., A. J., Sweet Jesus, Gordo, AL, The Flatwoods Free Press, 2002.

McCabe, Joseph, The Forgery of the Old Testament and other essays, Buffalo, NY, Prometheus Books, 1993.

Price, Robert M., Deconstructing Jesus, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2000.

Smith, Homer W., Man And His Gods, Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1956.

*Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist? London, Elek Books, Ltd., 1975.

*_______ , The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988.

Wheless, Joseph, Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of The Christian Religion, New York, Knopf, 1930.

*Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, Cranford, NJ, American Atheist Press, 2003.

The author can be emailed at havis@att.net.

An Atheist's Reaction to War with Iraq

2003-03-19T13:00:00.000-08:00

March 19, 2003
by David Fitzgerald

How does the reaction of Atheists to the prospect of war in Iraq differ from that of the Religious? No matter what Pat Robertson tells you, there is no unified world agenda among the godless, for the simple reason that Atheists, Humanists, Agnostics -call them what you will- are free thinkers. We run the gamut from sweet little feisty grandmas to surprisingly thoughtful punk rockers and everything in between. Sometimes we share nothing more than the lack of belief in gods and other imaginary beings. In fact it might be argued that the majority of Atheists don't even realize that they are Atheists - they simply live religion-free lives. Perhaps they say they consider themselves "spiritual" but they neither worry about gods nor could be bothered to worship any of them.

But I'll risk saying all would agree that Patriotic Atheist Americans cherish life and freedom, and fight fiercely to preserve these values. Yes, there are Atheists in foxholes. There are Atheist Americans in Iraqi foxholes right now. Like most Americans I support our troops, but like many Atheists, I seriously question whether this war is justified, especially in the name of religion.

In our secular democracy it is not appropriate for the President of the United States to call the nation to prayer like a star-spangled muezzin. I am wary of President Bush and our tax-supported chaplains assuring our armed forces that God is with them and that He will grant victory against the fanatics of the Middle East, just as their leaders assure terrorists that God is on their side and will ensure victory against the great Satan of America.

We are bombarded with "God Bless America" bumper stickers. We watch this administration and military officials hard-sell fear & test-market war; create, spin-doctor or bury evidence as it suits them; change their rationales repeatedly; duck questions and bully the press; ignore overwhelming protest; push to curtail the most basic civil rights; alienate our allies; and continue to line up the post-war contracts, all while piously invoking the name of God.

Yet in spite of all this, the question for Atheists remains the same as everyone: Is Bush telling the truth? All the evidence says no. There is neither a connection between Iraq & Al-Qaeda nor are there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And all signs make it clear that Iraq was targeted as future scapegoat long before now, even long before 9-11 if we can believe Jay Bookman's report in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It seems abundantly clear that Bush and his cronies are intent on using the pretext of a war on terrorism to create an Imperial America, sacrificing economic health, international goodwill, peace and security for military hegemony. Bush brings all the Orwellian doublethink to life, American-style: War will be Peace. Ignorance will be Strength. Freedom isn't Free? It isn't even Freedom.

As human beings we need to take responsibility for our own lives, and follow our consciences rather than wait for divine aid or protection. I hope that those who cherish their faith also cherish their reason, such as Missouri GOP Chairman Jack Walters, who recently resigned in protest and gave eloquent & compelling reasons for opposing the Bush administration's hypocritical conniving. Because despite the fundamental disagreements Atheists have with religion, opposition to this unjust war could prove to be what unites believers and nonbelievers alike.

-David Fitzgerald (03/19/2003)
(with tremendous gratitude to Jim Heldberg & Katie Harrar for their editorial expertise)

The author can be emailed at fitz@sfatheists.com.

Faith-Based Initiative Conference Protest

2003-02-18T13:00:00.000-08:00

by Dave Kong
------------

The city of San Diego is known as a bastion of conservative politics. Nevertheless, five bold American Atheists members joined state director Dave Kong outside the San Diego Concourse to demonstrate against the Faith-Based Initiative Conference on February 18.

The conference was the fourth in a series of events set up by the Bush Administration to encourage faith-based and community organizations to apply for federal money to run their social service programs, and to outline the procedures to obtain these funds. Opening with a videotaped message from President Bush, participants were assured that they can apply for federal funds "without losing their religious identity."

"This is a blatant attempt to bring religion into government-funded programs" Mr. Kong told reporters. "It's unconstitutional, and it's outrageous."

Mr. Kong continued. "The phrase 'faith-based' means that religion is at the core of these programs. With the grant rules before Bush began implementing this initiative, religious groups could already apply for funds. They just had to set up a separate nonprofit organization that was completely separate from their religious mission, and could not discriminate in their hiring practices. But these groups are unable or unwilling to separate their religion from the social work - and that's the problem.

"For example, if a drug rehab program says that the only way to live a drug-free, healthy, viable life is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, it's essentially teaching participants that my lifestyle is invalid and unhealthy because, as an Atheist, I can't possibly have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Such groups are certainly entitled to their opinion, but to have my tax dollars support a program that denigrates me is unconscionable."

Mr. Kong and the other protesters handed out flyers at the Concourse entrance to participants and passers-by, and displayed signs and a blue banner that read "Their Religion - Our Money - No Way!" which caught the attention of oncoming B Street traffic.

Reaction to the demonstration was mixed. Some refused to accept the flyer. Some said they supporters the initiative. One woman called the protesters "weirdos." At one point, football legend and minister Rosie Grier stopped and chatted amicably with the protesters. One man, a city worker, blamed "the atheists" for causing the 9/11 tragedy.

However, a surprising number of people fully supported the protest. Those that stopped to learn more about the issue usually concluded that they were against the initiative once they understood its implications. One woman even stopped by on three different occasions to say that she supported the group, would have joined the protest if she had known about it, and plans on becoming a member of American Atheists.

The demonstration was covered by the San Diego Tribune, the local NPR station, Fox News, and ABC affiliate Channel 10. In addition, Channel 10 conducted a follow-up online poll, in which 66 percent were against the initiative because of First Amendment concerns. Perhaps San Diego isn't that conservative after all.

* * *

GODLESS AMERICANS MARCH ON WASHINGTON

2002-11-02T13:00:00.000-08:00

by Jim Heldberg
President, Pacifica Democrats and Coordinator, San Francisco Atheists
------------

It was a beautiful day to make history.

On a crystal clear cool Saturday, Nov. 2, 2002, thousands of non-religious Americans marched into a new future together. Old and young, rich and poor, healthy and frail, locals and travelers from across continents and oceans, we gathered to carry hundreds of signs and bring a single message for a better tomorrow, free from the centuries of foolishness that still threaten American freedoms.

We marched half a mile, from near George Washington's monument to our national Capitol. For the first time, the religionists were on the sidelines heckling us! It was a surprising turn of events, and we loved it.

But the historical day was just beginning.

Speakers from the major American godless organizations united to proclaim the need for unity of effort. Mike Newdow led the crowd in the original Pledge of Allegiance. Atheist veterans were recognized. Candidates past and present spoke. Bands played. Jokes were told. The heartfelt pleas for unity and action were memorable, and the crowd clapped and cheered, almost to exhaustion.

But the brilliant words were eclipsed by the more brilliant image of national godless leaders, standing in front of our Capitol, protected by our national police, speaking to our crowd on our National Mall and on our national TV. It is an image we will treasure the rest of our lives.

The gates had been opened, and the momentum had begun for organized godless activism. The crowd poured out their enthusiasm. They poured money into buckets to back up their enthusiasm with commitment. They poured cards with their names and addresses into more buckets for future actions to bring a godless America to reality.

The day's events came to an end with another surprise. Religionist hecklers, kept in check by police on horseback as they lurked on the sidelines all day, at last turned on their bullhorns, waved their massive signs, and waded into the crowd to provoke fights with departing marchers. But the crowd ignored them and departed for home. We had already won a much more important fight.

It was a shining day of American history.

Jim Heldberg
Coordinator, San Francisco Atheists
National Affiliation Director, American Atheists

“Under God” is Un-American

2002-06-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

by Jim Heldberg, Pacifica, 28 June 2002
President, Pacifica Democrats and Coordinator, San Francisco Atheists
------------

We’re all born as Atheists. Many of us stay Atheists. Some choose Atheism after trying something else.

About 1 in 7 Americans are religion-free, according to the latest and most complete survey. If we were a religion, we’d be one of the largest.

About 6 in 7 Americans choose religion, whether brand C, H, I, J or any other major or off-brand.

That’s American freedom of religion. Our Constitution says our government won’t get involved in religion. It says government will govern, not preach. If we had obeyed our Constitution in 1954, we wouldn’t be arguing about the Pledge of Allegiance today.

In all the distracting smoke, we should remember that the Pledge isn’t a legal document. It is a custom. It is powerful poetry, written by a private citizen to express his dedication and pride. Interestingly, the author didn’t think religion belonged in it. Federal bureaucrats have altered it twice, reducing its poetic and universal value, but it has become an American tradition. Surprisingly, it is both embraced and shunned for religious reasons.

America lived without a Pledge for half its life, surviving a civil war that nearly killed our country. During the first half of the Pledge’s life, before “under god” was added, America survived 2 World Wars and a crushing Depression. Obviously, America doesn’t need to be “under” anything, whether kings or gods, real or imaginary.

Thomas Jefferson and the other American founders wanted a fresh start. They knew from their experiences in Europe and their own colonies how church and state could corrupt each other. They said “NO” to religion in the very first item of the Bill of Rights.

Saying “NO” to religion was also done for a very practical reason. The founders wanted to get the new Constitution adopted quickly so they could prepare for war, and they knew that religious arguments never end. If Maryland had pushed for national Catholicism, Pennsylvania held firm for Lutheranism, and Rhode Island insisted on Quakerism, Great Britain would have us tithing to the Church of England.

Saying “NO” to religion has important practical benefits today, too. It encourages science. It attracts worldwide immigrant talent and energy. And it increases our international influence.

Our religion-free government is respected worldwide. Our religious neutrality gives America the capacity to act for human rights in the world, regardless of religions involved. We are strong when we are neutral, and weak when we choose sides in deadly fights over religion. A good referee doesn’t choose sides.

Unfortunately, our ill-informed president has chosen to take sides in the world’s oldest religious war, weakening both our national strength and worldwide respect.

If our government had stayed out of religion, Muslim maniacs might not have “praised allah” by leveling the World Trade Center. If our government had stayed out of religion, Jews might not have leveled Muslim Palestinian refugee camps. If our government had stayed out of religion, China might not have religiously persecuted its citizens. Even Hitler acted for strong religious reasons. Have we forgotten the horrors of the Inquisition, inflicted by governments controlled by religion? We must do better.

In this world of nuclear dangers, we need to minimize religion’s inherent divisiveness.

America must return to our “religiously neutral” position to regain respect at home and abroad. It is the law. It is our most important law. Anything less is illegal, as the court said.

It takes courage to stand for the law, when the public is filled with mindless religious fervor. But calm in the face of fervor is exactly why we have courts. We should applaud their sensible handling of this old mistake.

Atheists are patriots, too. Our dedication to American values is undiluted by religion. I’m a full-fledged American voter and veteran. I want to pledge allegiance to my country, not to someone else’s religion.

America’s pledge should include all Americans. All Americans, especially our younger people, fervently want us to fix this. Let’s make it legal again. Let’s use this opportunity to quickly return the Pledge of Allegiance to its original full-strength version, so all Americans can pledge proudly. Let’s be One Nation Indivisible, not divided factions fighting over illegal foolishness.

Letter to the Committee on Governmental Organization

2002-06-18T13:00:00.000-07:00

June 18, 2002

Committee on Governmental Organization
California State Assembly
1020 "N" Street, Suite 156
Sacramento, California 95814

RE: SB 1577
Redesignation of State Holiday Tree as a Christmas Tree

American Atheists is opposed to SB 1577, which would redesignate the state's December holiday tree as an official Christmas tree. Such action would be a step backwards in recognizing California's diversity, would marginalize Atheists and other non-Christians who do not celebrate Christmas, and could open the state up to a legal challenge based on both state and federal constitutional provisions.

1. SB 1577 is a Step Backwards in Recognizing California's Diversity. When the state designated the December tree as a "holiday tree," it was a symbolic recognition that the winter holiday season is more than just Christmas, that the state's diverse population celebrates in a variety of ways, including Chanukah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, and the Winter Solstice. The citizens of California recognize and celebrate that diversity, and that spirit of tolerance and acceptance is very much a part of why California is a special place. SB 1577 is insensitive to California's rich diversity, and is simply out of step with the sensibilities of the state's population.

2. An Official State "Christmas Tree" would marginalize and insult Atheists and Others who Celebrate Non-Christian Holidays, particularly the Winter Solstice. As stated previously, the December season is more than just Christmas. Many Californians celebrate with non-Christian holidays, in particular the Winter Solstice.

According to the Julian calendar, December 25th is the Winter Solstice—the shortest day of the year. Pagans considered this day to be the "nativity" of the sun, when light began winning its battle against the increasing darkness. It has been celebrated throughout the history of humanity. While it was adopted by Christians as the birthday of their Christ, the ancient holiday survives to this day.

Many Atheists have embraced the Winter Solstice as a nonreligious celebration of nature and humanity that can be enjoyed by everyone. The Winter Solstice is also celebrated by pagans, Wicca's, Humanists, and others throughout the state.

One Winter Solstice custom dating back to ancient Egyptian and Roman times is the decoration of an evergreen tree, which symbolizes spring's promise to return. The "Solstice tree" was also adopted by Christians, who dubbed it a Christmas tree, but such a display is still recognized by many as a Solstice tree, as it was originally intended.

SB 1577 disregards and disrespects the chosen celebration of millions of Californians. (According to the latest ARIS survey, approximately 17 percent of California's population professes no religious beliefs.)

3. SB 1577 Promotes Christianity in Violation of Federal and State Constitutional Provisions, and Invites Litigation Against the State. Clearly, SB 1577 is intended to promote Christmas and its associated religion Christianity. Such action by the state would lose a legal challenge under both state and federal constitutional provisions.

Renaming the state holiday tree as a Christmas tree creates at a minimum the appearance of preference, and as such would violate the California Constitution's "no preference" clause (Article I, Section IV). Under federal First Amendment provisions, such action would violate at least two of the three prongs of the Supreme Court's Lemon test; such a state action could hardly be construed to have a secular purpose, and it would obviously advance a particular religious creed.

American Atheists is currently involved in two constitutional challenges in federal court, and would consider taking legal action on behalf of our California members if SB 1577 is approved.

For the above reasons, American Atheists is opposed to SB 1577. We strongly urge the Governmental Organization Committee to reject this proposal, which is insensitive to the state's rich diversity, insults celebrants of non-Christian winter holidays, including the winter solstice, and could involve the state in a costly legal challenge.

Sincerely,

Dave Kong, State Director
American Atheists, Inc.

DK/cr

German National Public Radio Transcript

2002-04-08T13:00:00.000-07:00

April 8th, 2002

–The Atheist Movement in America

Vorschlag zur Anmoderation:

In einem so religiösen Land wie den USA haben es Atheisten nicht leicht. Nach dem 11. September fühlten sich viele noch mehr ausgegrenzt, diskriminiert oder sogar dämonisiert als zuvor. Aber aus der Betroffenheit entstand ein politischer Wille, die Situation zu verändern. In Kalifornien haben sich die Anfänge einer "Atheistenbewegung" formiert.

(The Moderator:

In as religious a country as the USA, Atheists do not have it easily. After September 11 many still felt more marginalized, discriminated against or even demonized than ever before. But out of the distress a political will developed to change the situation. In California the start of an "Atheist Movement " was formed)

O-Ton: Atheistentreffen (frei stehenlassen)

Soundbites from an Atheist Meeting

"I thought it was important and interesting and even more so since Jeb Bush, the governor- President Bush's brother and they're pushing this whole religious – crap – crap, that's the word - on everybody.” Applause

Sprecher
Atheisten-Meeting in San Francisco. Im Hinterzimmer eines alteingesessenen deutschen Restaurants in der Innenstadt treffen sich an jedem letzten Samstag im Monat die 'San Francisco Atheists'. Eine bunte Mischung von Schwarzen, Weißen und Asiaten im Alter von etwa 20 bis 80 Jahren kommt da zusammen. Bei Schnitzel, Fischfilet mit Remouladensauce und Apfelc zum Nachtisch debattieren die Anwesenden über "Gott und die Welt". Nach dem Essen gehen sie zur Tagesordnung über. Meist spricht dann ein Gastredner zu einem aktuellen Thema. Roseanne Allen erklärt, warum gesellige Treffen dieser Art sehr wichtig sind.

(Speaker: An Atheist meeting in San Francisco. In the back room of a long-established German restaurant in the city center ' San Francisco Atheists 'meet every last Saturday in the month. A multicolored mixture of Black, White and Asian from the ages of approximately 20 to 80 years gathers there. Over Schnitzel, fishfilets & mayonnaise, and applestrudel for dessert those present debate "God and the World". After the meal they turn to an agenda. Usually then a guest speaker speaks on a current topic. Roseanne Allen explains why informal meetings of this type are very important:)

O-Ton: Roseanne Allen
"Because we have felt so lonely in the United States. I sat by a woman Saturday night and she was from Japan and she said: 'It’s o.k. in Japan saying that you're an Atheist, but here it's not been.' So it gives us the opportunity to be able to see that there is another really nice person out there that is a non-believer that can be our friend or our associate or help us in business or whatever. Human beings are very clannish. We need friendship and if we feel that we are the only Atheists in this little community, we're going to hesitate to speak up."

Übersetzung Roseanne Allen
"Weil wir uns in den USA so alleingelassen fühlen. Ich saß am Samstag neben einer Japanerin, die mir erzählte: 'In Japan ist es o.k. wenn man sagt, man sei Atheist. Hier ist das nicht so.' Bei so einem Treffen haben wir die Möglichkeit, wirklich nette Menschen kennenzulernen, die nicht gläubig sind und mit denen wir uns anfreunden oder zusammenarbeiten können, oder die uns beruflich weiterhelfen können. Wir Menschen müssen uns immer als Teil einer Gruppe fühlen. Wir brauchen Freundschaften. Wenn wir das Gefühl haben, dass wir in unserer kleinen Gemeinschaft die einzigen Atheisten sind, dann halten wir uns gerne mit unserer Meinung zurück."

Sprecher
Stellung zu nehmen, seinen eigenen Standpunkt zu vertreten, sei in diesen Zeiten jedoch wichtiger denn je, meint Roseanne Allen. Die selbstbewusste Frau hat es gelernt, für ihre Überzeugung einzutreten und zu sich selbst zu stehen. Lange Zeit ist ihr das nicht leicht gefallen. Ihrer Mutter zu Liebe, die überzeugt davon ist, dass ihre Tochter für immer in der Hölle brennen wird, wäre sie gerne gläubig gewesen. Aber das war ihr nicht möglich. In ihrem Berufsleben als Managerin im Verkauf hatte sie oft keine andere Wahl, als sich bedeckt zu halten.

(Speaker: Taking a stand to represent one’s own point of view is in these times however, more importantly ever, Roseanne Allen says. The self-confident woman learned to stand for her convictions and be herself. For a long time it wasn’t easy. She would have loved to be a believer for her Mother’s sake, who thinks that her daughter will burn in hell forever. But that was not possible for her. In her working life as a Sales Manager she often had no other choice, than keeping herself undercover.)

O-Ton: Roseanne Allen
"I can go all over the place talking about being a Christian if I wanted to and people would accept it and I wouldn't get fired. But if I had gone around and just casually dropping to my customers that I was not a Christian or I was a non-believer, I wouldn't have made sales. I knew that I had to some degree keep my mouth shut to keep my customers.

There are actually companies where you have to declare yourself a Christian or you can't work there. Businesses where they will have prayer meetings and everything. Even in Washington- Ashcroft has prayer meetings every single morning and everyone has to go. So Washington is becoming - through the Bush administration - as bad as some of these fundamentalist companies around the country."

Übersetzung Roseanne Allen
"Wenn ich wollte, könnte ich überall hingehen und darüber reden, dass ich Christin bin. Die Leute würden das akzeptieren und mich nicht entlassen. Aber wenn ich meinen Kunden gegenüber nebenbei hätte einfließen lassen, dass ich weder Christin noch gläubig bin, dann hätte ich nichts mehr verkauft. Ich wusste, dass ich zu einem gewissen Grad meinen Mund halten musste. Es gibt auch Firmen, wo man sich als Christ bekennen muss, um dort arbeiten zu dürfen. Es gibt Unternehmen, in denen regelmäßig gebetet wird. Sogar in Washington ist das so – Justizminister Ashcroft hält jeden Tag eine Morgenandacht und alle müssen mitmachen. Mit der Bush-Regierung wird Washington so schlimm wie manche dieser fundamentalistischen Firmen im ganzen Land."

Sprecher
Die Terrorattacken vom 11. September waren für Amerikaner ohne Glaubensbekenntnis genauso traumatisch wie für alle anderen. Viele Atheisten fühlten sich jedoch danach noch mehr ausgegrenzt, diskriminiert oder sogar dämonisiert als vorher. Unter den Rufen nach Einheit und dem patriotischen Flaggenschwenken schien für Andersdenkende jeder Art kein Platz mehr zu sein. "God Bless America" – "Gott schütze Amerika"- tönte es aus allen Lautsprechern und an jeder Straßenecke. Immer wieder forderte Präsident Bush zum Beten auf und rief sogar einen ganzen "Tag des Gebets und der Erinnerung" aus. Atheisten wollten ihre Trauer ebenfalls zum Ausdruck bringen, aber nicht in der Kirche. Auch der Französischlehrer Bill Carpmill fühlte sich gesellschaftlich an den Rand gedrängt.

(Speaker: The terrorist attacks on September 11 were just as traumatic for Americans without a professed faith as for the rest. However, because of it many Atheists felt more marginalized, discriminated against or even demonized than before. Under the call for unity and the patriotic flag waving there seemed to be no place for differing opinion anymore. " God Bless America " sounded from all loudspeakers and at every street corner. President Bush called again and again for prayer and even proclaimed a entire "Day of Prayer and Remembrance". Atheists wanted to likewise express their mourning, but not in the church. French Teacher Bill Carpmill also felt pushed to the margin socially. )

O-Ton: Bill Carpmill
"I felt excluded from the dialogue because you were not welcomed as an individual who looks at things from a secular perspective in that group.

I noticed that in the ceremonies and such: the only people that were involved were people from the faith community. They didn't open it up to non-believers. I felt excluded in the sense that there would be no place to hold a ceremony to honor those people who had perished."

Übersetzung Bill Carpmill
"Ich habe mich vom Dialog ausgeschlossen gefühlt, weil man als Mensch, der die Welt von einer säkulären Perspektive aus betrachtet, nicht willkommen war. Ich habe das bei den Feiern und so festgestellt. Die einzigen, die damit zu tun hatten, waren Leute aus den Glaubensgemeinschaften. Für Nicht-Gläubige war da kein Platz. Ich habe mich in dem Sinn ausgeschlossen gefühlt, dass es für mich keinen Ort gab, um diese Menschen, die umgekommen sind, in einer Feier zu ehren."

Sprecher
Atheisten neigen im allgemeinen nicht dazu, sich zu organisieren. Viele sind Individualisten und tragen ihre Nicht-Gläubigkeit keineswegs zur Schau. Je nachdem, welchen Umfragen man Glauben schenken will, machen sie in den USA zwischen fünf und 14 Prozent der Bevölkerung aus. 35 Prozent der Amerikaner geben jedoch zu, dass sie eine sehr schlechte Meinung von Atheisten haben und etwa die Hälfte sagt, dass sie keinen Atheisten zum Präsidenten wählen würden. George Bush der Ältere konnte es sich daher durchaus erlauben, während seiner Kampagne um die Präsidentschaft 1988 zu erklären, dass Atheisten als Bürger oder als Patrioten einzuordnen seien. In einem solchen Klima ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass Nicht-Gläubige es vorziehen, zu schweigen. Sie fürchten um ihren Job und um Freundschaften oder haben Angst, von der Familie verstoßen zu werden. Selbst im liberalen San Francisco war es für den Versicherungsmakler David Fitzgerald nicht immer einfach, mit der Wahrheit herauszurücken.

(Speaker: Atheists are not generally inclined to organize themselves. Many are individuals and do not show off their Unbelief at all. Depending on which studies one wants to give their faith, Atheists make up between 5% and 14% of the U.S. population. However, 35% of Americans admit that they have a very bad opinion of Atheism and about half say that they would not vote for an Atheist for President. During his campaign for the presidency in 1988 George Bush senior could quite casually question if Atheists were to be considered as citizens or Patriots. In such a climate it is not amazing that Unbelievers prefer to be silent. They are afraid for their job and friendships or fear their family to be offended. Even in liberal San Francisco it was not always easy for Insurance Broker David Fitzgerald to come out with the truth. )

O-Ton: David Fitzgerald
"It's actually very difficult to come out and say you're an Atheist in this country. And that's something I'm getting over right now. It's one thing to not be religious but to actually say, you know, not only do I not go to church, but I don't believe there is a god - people are a little taken aback by that still, here. I'm getting to the point where I maybe don’t bring it out overtly but try not to not bring it out, not to avoid the conversation. A lot of people are surprised when I tell them I'm an Atheist and they say things like: “Oh, but you're so happy.” Or they will be shocked and say: “Oh, you're an Atheist.” And you can tell that they have a mindset that Atheism is something very scary and negative and joyless. I think they picture a lot of people dressed in black with berets, reading J.P. Sartre and being very gloomy about it. Or they think it's some communism tie-in."

Übersetzung David Fitzgerald
"Es ist eigentlich in diesem Land sehr schwer zuzugeben, dass man Atheist ist. Ich bin aber dabei, das zu überwinden. Zu sagen, dass man nicht religiös ist, ist eine Sache. Aber es ist noch einmal etwas ganz anderes, zu sagen, ich gehe nicht nur nicht in die Kirche, ich glaube auch nicht an Gott. Die Leute sind bei sowas immer noch entsetzt. Ich bin inzwischen soweit, dass ich es zwar nicht unbedingt anbringen muss, aber ich versuche auch nicht mehr, es zu verheimlichen oder das Thema zu vermeiden. Viele Leute sind überrascht, wenn ich ihnen sage, dass ich ein Atheist bin und sagen dann: Ach, aber du bist ja so glücklich. Oder sie sind schockiert und sagen: Oh, du bist ein Atheist. Und man weiß sofort, dass in ihrem Denken der Atheismus etwas furchteinflößendes, negatives und freudloses ist. Ich glaube, die stellen sich Menschen in schwarz vor, mit Käppis, die Jean Paul Sartre lesen und sehr bedrückt sind. Oder sie glauben, dass es etwas mit Kommunismus zu tun hat."

Sprecher
David Fitzgerald war bis in seine Studentenzeit ein strenggläubiger Baptist. Es fiel ihm nicht leicht, seinen Eltern mitzuteilen, dass er den Glauben verloren hatte. Aber seitdem er diese Hürde genommen hat, versucht er, auch andere Leute vom Atheismus zu überzeugen und sich dafür zu engagieren. Die Bewegung stecke noch in den Kinderschuhen, meint er. Manche vergleichen die Situation mit der der Schwarzen vor fünzig Jahren, zu Beginn der Bürgerrechtsbewegung Dem Direktor der 'American Atheists' in Kalifornien, David Kong, geht dies etwas zu weit.

(Speaker: Up until his college years, David Fitzgerald was a hardcore Baptist. It was not easy for him to tell his parents that he had lost the faith. But since overcoming this hurdle, he tries to convince others about Atheism and has become an activist. The movement still is in its infancy, He says. Some compare the situation with that the Blacks fifty years ago, at the beginning of the civil rights movement. To the director of the ' American Atheists ' in California, David Kong, this goes a bit too far. )

O-Ton: David Kong
"I liken the Atheist movement really more to the gay movement. One, if you're black and walk down the street, you're obviously black. If you're gay or you're an Atheist, you walk down the street and you look like everybody else. I mean who can tell. And also I think with gay people, much of their oppression and struggle comes from opposition by religions. So I think our two causes are actually very closely tied together. And much as we're doing now they first set up a sense of community for themselves. If you're gay and you come out there are now places where you can go, you can talk to other people about your feelings, get counseling. Traditionally for Atheists there hasn't been anything; as I said, as a kid, I thought I was the only one. Now fortunately with the proliferation of the Internet and the proliferation of the local clubs and things there is much more support for people who come out as Atheists."

Übersetzung David Kong
"Ich sehe eher Ähnlichkeiten mit der Schwulenbewegung. Zum einen, weil es jeder sofort sieht, wenn man schwarz ist. Als Schwuler oder Atheist sieht man aus wie jeder andere. Ich will damit sagen, dass man sieht es einem nicht an. Ausserdem hat die Unterdrückung und der Kampf der Schwulen mit der Opposition der Religionen zu tun. Insofern sind unsere Ausgangspunkte sehr eng miteinander verbunden. Und genauso wie wir das im Moment tun, haben die Schwulen zunächst für sich selbst eine community geschaffen. Wenn man schwul ist und sich outet, dann gibt es heute viele Orte, wo man hingehen und mit anderen reden und sich Rat geben lassen kann. Für Atheisten hat es bisher sowas nicht gegeben. Ich dachte als Kind, ich sei der einzige, der so denkt. Glücklicherweise gibt es jetzt mit dem Internet und den vielen Vereinen und Clubs viel mehr Unterstützung für Leute, die sich als Atheisten outen."

Sprecher
Offensichtlich ist gerade nach den Ereignissen vom 11. September für viele Atheisten das Coming out unumgänglich geworden. Nachdem sie sich zunächst ausgegrenzt gefühlt hatten, griff im Großraum San Francisco ein knappes Dutzend unterschiedlicher Atheisten-, Agnostiker-, Freidenker- und säkularer Humanistenorganisationen zur Selbsthife: Sie organisierten ihre eigene, säkulare Gedenkfeier für die Opfer der Terror-Attacken. In den folgenden Wochen und Monaten hatten die verschiedenen Gruppen einen verstärkten Zulauf und ihre Anführer erkannten die Notwendigkeit, gemeinsam aktiv zu werden. In Alameda, einem Vorort von San Francisco, stimmte der Stadtrat im Oktober einem Vorschlag zu, die Invokation Gottes zu Beginn von Versammlungen abzuschaffen – eine Entwicklung, die konträr zu der in Washington steht, wo die christliche Rechte seit Reagan immer mehr an Einfluss gewonnen hat.

(Speaker: Obviously, for many Atheists, the events of September 11 led to the inevitable Coming Out. After they had felt initially marginalized, a scarce dozen of different Atheist, Agnostic, Freethought and Secular Humanist organizations in the region reached out for self-help: They organized their own secular memorial service for the victims of the terrorist attacks. In the following weeks and months the different groups had a strengthened demand and their leaders sensed the need to become active together. In Alameda, a suburb of San Francisco, the Mayor passed in October a suggestion to abolish the Invocation of God at the beginning of meetings - a development contrary to Washington, where ever since Reagan the Christian Right has won more influence.

O-Ton: David Kong
"It's continuing to get worse and so now it's time for the Atheist and the Separationist community to speak up and I think that's what we've just now started to do. I think people are really now starting to voice their opinion. I have to admit that before I started working with the Atheist community sometimes life could seem a bit pessimistic. And now I'm working with so many good, dedicated people, and they're doing it because they want to do it, they love to do it, they have to do it, they're driven to do it. And that's what amazes me. I'm just riding on the wave of enthusiasm of the California Atheist community."

Übersetzung David Kong
"Es wird immer noch schlimmer und deshalb ist es jetzt Zeit für die Atheisten und für diejenigen, die sich für die Trennung von Kirche und Staat engagieren, dazu Stellung zu nehmen. Damit haben wir begonnen. Ich muss zugeben, dass das Leben manchmal etwas traurig erscheinen konnte, bevor ich meine Arbeit mit der Atheistengemeinde begann. Jetzt arbeite ich mit sovielen guten, engagierten Menschen zusammen. Sie wollen es tun, sie lieben es, sie müssen es tun, sie sind innerlich angetrieben. Das finde ich ganz erstaunlich. Ich reite auf dieser Welle des Enthusiasmus der kalifornischen Atheistengemeinde."

Sprecher
In Kalifornien lebt ein Drittel der 2.500 Mitglieder der American Atheists, sagt David Kong. Er ist überzeugt davon, dass sich die positiven Anzeichen, die von Kalifornien ausgehen, langfristig auch auf andere Bundesstaaten ausdehnen werden. Aber bis dahin ist noch ein sehr langer Weg. Erklärtes Ziel der 'American Atheists' ist es, dafür zu sorgen, dass auch Atheisten in diesem Land voll akzeptiert werden und die strikte und absolute Trennung von Kirche und Staat erfolgt. Die ist eigentlich in der amerikanischen Verfassung verankert. Im ersten Zusatz heißt es, der Staat garantiere Religionsfreiheit, sei aber selbst zur Neutralität verpflichtet. Religionsunterricht wie in Deutschland oder das Kruzifix im Schulzimmer wären in den USA undenkbar. Erzkonservative christliche Gruppen versuchen jedoch immer wieder, die Tennung von Kirche und Staat aufzuweichen und zu unterwandern. Mit Justizminister John Ashcroft ist es einem der ihren gelungen, ein sehr hohes Amt zu besetzen. Seine Ernennung war George W. Bushs Geste des Dankes für die Stimmen der christlichen Rechten. John Ashcroft ist ein engagiertes Mitglied der fundamentalistischen Pfingstkirche und setzt alles daran, nicht nur mit seinem täglichen Morgengebet die Positionen der extremen Rechten durchzusetzen.

(Speaker:

A third of the 2,500 members of American Atheists live in California, says David Kong. He is convinced that the positive signs coming out of California will expand over the long term to other states as well. But until then still another very long-term avowed goal of the ' American Atheists ' is to ensure that Atheists in this country are fully accepted and that strict and absolute separation of church and state takes place. This is actually embodied in the American Constitution. In the first Amendment the state guarantees freedom of religion, and is obligated however, to be neutral. Religious education as in Germany or having a crucifix in the classroom would be inconceivable in the USA. However, archconservative Christian groups try again and again to soften and undermine the Tenet of Separation of church and state. With John Ashcroft as Attorney General they have succeeded in filling a very high office with one of their own. His appointment was George W. Bush’s gesture of thanks to the votes of the Christian Right. John Ashcroft is an active member of the fundamentalist Assembly of God church and does everything he can, not only with his daily morning prayer- to foster the positions of the Extreme Right. )

O-Ton: David Kong
"America is one of the most religious countries in the world. I think that's one of the reasons the religionists are kicking up their heels politically these days; they have the freedom to do that and that's part of the American way. But then conversely we Atheists also have to kick up our political heels. The religionists really want to get the kids while they're young suckered into their belief and then it's just so much harder to get out of it at that point. That's why the Creationist battle is a very intense and heated debate. The debate about not only should Evolution be taught, but now should Creationism be brought into schools has been going on ever since the early 20s. These things just have a habit of resurfacing every couple of years just like prayers at city council meetings. So you have to keep vigilant on these things."

Übersetzung David Kong
"Amerika ist eines der frömmsten Länder der Welt. Ich glaube, das ist einer der Gründe, warum die Religiösen dieser Tage politisch ihren Einfluss geltend machen, weil sie die Freiheit haben, es zu tun und das Teil des American way ist. Aber dann müssen wir Atheisten es auch tun. Die Religiösen wollen wirklich die Kinder schnappen und sie in jungen Jahren indoktrinieren, weil es dann viel schwerer ist, wieder davon loszukommen. Aus dem Grund ist auch der Kampf um die Schöpfungslehre im Schulunterricht so erbittert. Die Debatte, ob Evolution und jetzt die Schöpfung unterrichtet werden sollte, wird seit den frühen 20-er Jahren geführt. Diese Dinge kommen alle paar Jahre wieder hoch, genauos wie das Gebet bei Stadtratssitzungen. Deshalb muss man wachsam bleiben."

Sprecher
Die erbitterten Glaubenskriege um Schulgebet und Abtreibung, um die sexuelle Abstinenz von Teenagern, die Stammzellenforschung und die politische Einflussnahme der Kirchen werden auch in den kommenden Jahren ausgetragen werden. David Kong ist auch überzeugt davon, dass sich unter Bush die religiösen Akzente in Washington weiter verstärken werden. Der Tag, an dem Atheisten wirklich anerkannt und nicht mehr diskriminiert werden, liegt in weiter Ferne. David Fitzgerald ist trotzdem zuversichtlich:

(Speaker:

The embittered holy wars around school prayer and abortion, around the sexual abstinence of teenagers, stem cell research and the exertion of political influence

from churches have also arrived in the coming years. David Kong is also convinced of the fact that under Bush the religious timbre in Washington will continue to strengthen. The day when Atheists are truly recognized and are no longer discriminated against is still a long way off. David Fitzgerald is nevertheless confident:)

O-Ton: David Fitzgerad
"I'm optimistic about one thing and that's that over time even though there are just as many religions if not more so and they're mutating as fast as they always have, the secular world is getting gentler and more tolerant. And what I mean by that is that even though we still have religion, we don't have the inquisition, people aren't being burnt at the stake, people aren't losing their lives for disagreeing with somebody else. And that is the hope that I have and that's what keeps me going, is to keep pushing and pushing and pushing against these religions. Not because I want everybody to lose the comfort of their religions, but if we keep pointing out the foibles of religion, maybe we can lose the worst excesses of it."

Übersetzung David Fitzgerald
"Eines macht mich optimistisch: obwohl es so viele Religionen gibt, sogar mehr denn je, und obwohl sie sich so rasant wie immer verändern, wird die säkuläre Welt nachsichtiger und toleranter. Damit will ich sagen, dass wir zwar noch immer Religionen haben, aber es gibt keine Inquisition mehr, die Menschen werden nicht mehr auf dem Scheiterhaufen verbrannt oder verlieren ihr Leben, weil sie anderer Meinung sind. Das ist es, was mir Hoffnung macht und mir die Kraft gibt, weiterzumachen und gegen diese Religionen anzukämpfen und immer weiter zu kämpfen. Nicht, weil mir daran liegt, dass alle den Trost, den sie in der Religion finden, aufgeben, sondern weil ich glaube, dass wir deren schlimmsten Exzesse verhindern können, wenn wir weiterhin auf ihre Schwächen hinweisen."

The Goofiest Sect of All: A Rationalist Looks at Mormonism

2002-02-01T13:00:00.000-08:00

By Don Havis

With the recent focus on Salt Lake City, Utah as the site of the International Winter Olympics of 2002, the world’s attention has once again been drawn to the Mormon religion. Salt Lake City, the “Zion” of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, as the Mormons call their church, has certainly gloried in the world’s spotlight.

With the advent of this newfound LDS marketing tool, I thought it might be of interest to many rational thinkers to find out a bit more than they perhaps already know about Mormonism. In order for this writing to be an article and not a book, its purpose must be severely limited to simply giving a brief overview of how the Mormon Church itself claims that the Book of Mormon came into existence. I will also mention an archeological problem the Book of Mormon seems to have created for the Mormons. Additionally, I will briefly comment on a portion of each of the other two sacred texts of the LDS Church, those being the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In this process, I must of necessity make a few observations about the founder of the Church, Joseph Smith.

The LDS church, at approximately 11.5 million adherents, is the fastest growing of the modern religious sects (those founded after 1800), and it seems, the one with the most books written about it, both apologetic and debunking. Obviously, this article can not even begin to cover such areas as the church’s theology, its long history, Joseph Smith’s colorful biography, nor its many controversies and tragedies. Those interested in exploring any of these and other areas related to Mormonism, or in verifying any of the claims made herein, please contact the author via email (donmtts@rcn.com) for a list of recommended books which include the source material for this article.

The Book of Mormon (hereafter referred to as the BOM) was first published in 1830. Its author was the then 25 year old Joseph Smith Jr. (He dropped the “Jr.” after his father died.) Of course, young Joseph claimed that he did not “author” the book at all. He simply translated it from an ancient text written in an equally ancient language he referred to as “reformed Egyptian.” This text was written or engraved on some golden plates which Joseph claims to have unearthed in a hill called the “hill Chumorah” on September 21, 1823. This hill is near Manchester, New York. How did Joseph know exactly where to dig for these wondrous golden plates the skeptic might ask? Easy! An angel named Moroni came to him in a “vision” as early as 1820 when the then 14 year-old Joseph claims to have received the “First Vision.” In the “Second Vision” in 1823, Moroni informed Joseph of the precise location of some gold plates which contained the sacred history of some ancient Hebrews (Yes, “Hebrews.” That is not a misprint.) who lived in America from about 2200 BCE to about 421 CE. No, I am not making this up. In case you think I am just kidding, let me quote from the introduction to the current edition of the BOM published by the LDS church itself, to wit:

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilzations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 BC, and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

The Introduction continues to explain to the prospective convert how Jesus Christ came over to the Americas (Don’t ask.) and ministered to the Nephrites, “soon after his resurrection.” The Introduction continues to explain that Jesus taught these ancestral Americans how to “gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come” through him—Jesus. This is just a side thought, but since, according to the BOM, the Nephrites were “destroyed” by the Lamanites who became the ancestors of our Native Americans, what exactly did J.C. accomplish with his mission to the Nephites? This is never explained. The BOM story would explain, however, why the native Americans whom the early explorers found here seemed to have been completely ignorant of the biblical Jesus. But, as I said, that is only a side point.

The official Introduction continues: “After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah.” Yes, I assure you, that is an accurate quote from the official, current, BOM Introduction. You can look it up yourself. I just love the phrase, “who added a few words of his own,” don’t you? I can only suppose that the Lord’s original dictation to Mormon was not quite “right” in the angel’s son’s [himself an angel] opinion. Therefore, he took it upon himself to fix it up a bit just as I, as an English teacher, often do with my student’s papers.

In any event, without going into further hilarious detail, the above is the crux of the fabulous tale that young Mormon “missionaries” are peddling in living rooms across America, and indeed throughout dozens of countries over the face of the earth. Freethinkers will probably not be much interested in reading the BOM, even for laughs. It’s dry, King James English style (Isn’t it curious that the ancient “reformed Egyptian” translated into perfect King James style English?) would probably quickly put the active mind to sleep. Mark Twain once aptly described the BOM as “chloroform in print.”

Incidentally, the Mormon Church regards the BOM as a sort of second installment of the Christian Bible—old and new testaments. The BOM is regarded as the document that “restores by God, through Joseph Smith, the only true church.” Therefore, all other Christian churches (Mormon’s refer to their adherents as “gentiles”) are false—no surprise there. It follows, then, that the authenticity of the BOM is no small matter.

To quote Alice while she was in Wonderland, the story gets “curiouser and curiouser.”

When one consults the documents and testimony of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries in the early 1800s as to precisely how the BOM was “translated,” one finds a great deal of agreement from several witnesses that a special “peep stone,” or “seer stone” was used. Now, the modern reader may not be familiar with the use of a “peep stone” to “see” things such as buried treasure, not normally visible to the naked eye. However, their use was apparently well known in the New England states in the early part of the 19th century as a kind of folk conjurer’s device. There was a similar conjurer’s device also commonly used at that time known as a “dowsing rod.” The use of the dowsing rod to magically locate underground water has survived among superstitious peoples to the present time. The “seer stone,” on the other hand, has gone out of fashion. Several acquaintances of the Smith family have testified that Joseph Smith had used a “seer stone”—a small, dark colored, smooth stone with a hole in its center—to seek and dig for buried treasure prior to the angel Moroni’s considerate revelation of the location of the magical golden plates with the Book of Mormon on them. Lucky for Joseph, he already had just the thing for their translation. Many witnesses observed Joseph Smith on several occasions using his seer stone, which he would put into the crown of his hat, then bury his face in the crown. Inside the crown of the hat, he claimed that a sort of luminous “spiritual light” would appear before him enabling him to “see” the golden plates, even though they may not have been right “there” at the time, and to successfully translate them. (Now, stop giggling. This is serious stuff, apparently, to Mormons.) He would normally dictate to a scribe, often seated on the other side of a curtain, who would write down what Smith said. (My research did not reveal whether he sort of hollered through the crown of the hat, or whether he removed his face from time to time to reveal what he had “seen.”)

Joseph’s first scribe was his long suffering first wife, Emma. Later, the gullible Mr. Martin Harris acted as Smith’s scribe. Poor Harris excitedly showed the first 116 pages to his wife who apparently tore them up as the work of the devil. At least to this date, the missing 116 pages have never surfaced. Joseph and Harris had to start all over again. Joseph was furious. Probably out of a feeling of guilt, Harris ended up selling his farm to finance the publication of the BOM. (The Smith family always seemed to have had great difficulty, in the years before Joseph’s church “took off,” in eking out a living.) Thirdly, a Mr. Oliver Cowdry, a young schoolmaster who was boarding with the Smith family, acted as Smith’s secretary/scribe. Despite Mormon claims that the 275,000-word manuscript was completed in a matter of a few months, it probably took about three years to complete.

Interestingly, there is still some controversy among Mormon scholars (Yes, perhaps that phrase is an oxymoron.) concerning exactly how the plates were translated. Despite the testimony alluded to above, Joseph Smith claimed that, actually, he used a special translating device which the angel Moroni was nice enough to leave with the plates—neatly packed in a stone box—in order to successfully reveal their message. This translating device is referred to as the “Urim and Thummin.” What is the “Urim and Thummin” you may ask? Well, no one knows exactly. However, Joseph Smith’s rather suggestible mother was recorded to have said that this device, “consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows.” Of course, the controversy centers on the following question: Did Joseph exclusively use his rather unholy “seer stone” (a conjurer’s device), or the much more holy “Urim and Thummin,” or a combination of both to translate the plates? Do you care? I didn’t think so.

The golden plates as well as the Urim and Thummin were, according to Mormon history, apparently taken back by the angel Moroni, perhaps to be re-buried at some other location. Those same “Mormon scholars” referred to above believe the likely location of at least some artifacts of ancient Nephites, as well as a possible new burial site of the golden plates, may center around Central America. These same “scholars” now claim that the great battles described in the BOM between the Nephites and the Lamanites may not have taken place around New York, despite the golden plates being found there. The BOM mentions a “narrow neck of land” and an apparently tropical climate. For the past 50 years BYU and other Mormon sponsored organizations such as the New World Archeological Foundation have sponsored archeological trips and “digs” in and around Chiapas and the Yucatan. Smith himself speculated that the Maya might have been the “Book of Mormon peoples.” To this date, not a single shred of evidence has been turned up that would back up this theory. Yale University archeologist, Dr. Michael D. Coe, an expert on the Maya, has stated that, “There is not a whit of evidence that the Nephites ever existed. The whole enterprise is complete rot, root and branch. It’s so racist it hurts. It fits right into the nineteenth-century American idea that only a white man could have built cities and temples, that American Indians didn’t have the brains or the wherewithal to create their own civilization.” Seems clear enough to me!

Above, I have briefly discussed the Book of Mormon, its creation, its tale of ancient Hebrew tribes in America, and its “translation,” and dictation by Joseph Smith. Less familiar to most freethinkers is the fact that the prolific Mr. Smith also wrote, for the most part, the two other sacred texts of the Mormon Church. These are the official Doctrine and Covenants of the church, and another book entitled, A Pearl of Great Price.

Strangely, the BOM as well as these above mentioned two texts are freely passed out to this day by the LDS Church to any prospective converts who ask. In fact, if you ask for a copy of the BOM, you will be given this “triple combination” as the Mormons call it. I said “strangely” because there are portions of both the D & C and the Pearl text that have caused and continue to cause more embarrassment to the church than is caused even by the ludicrousness of the BOM yarn. The “embarrassments” I refer to in the D & C are that Joseph Smith’s official, holy doctrines have had to be “corrected” twice since he originally proclaimed them as the “gospel truth.” The first instance occurred in 1890 when it was necessary for the church to reverse the official sanction and blessing by Joseph Smith of “plural marriage.” (See doctrine 132, still—amazing as it may seem—proudly reprinted in every edition of the triple combination.) The church was literally forced to make this change as a condition for statehood. President and prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, made a second embarrassing change in 1978. (Incidentally, each succeeding president of the church is authorized to make such changes since they are considered just as much of a “prophet, seer, and revelator” as was the original president, Joseph Smith.)

This second change allowed, without mentioning African-Americans, that “all worthy male members of the church” would be “eligible for priesthood and temple blessings.”

The document entitled, A Pearl of Great Price includes three sections entitled the “Book of Mathew,” a “Book of Moses,” and the now infamous, “Book of Abraham.” In what would seem to be—but apparently is not—a church-destroying embarrassment, the entire “Book of Abraham” has been thoroughly proven to be an outright fraud by knowledgeable scholars and Egyptologists, over and over again. The problem was and is that, unlike his prudent “return” of the golden plates to the angel Moroni, Joseph Smith actually kept the original papyri that, according to official Mormon history, “came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835.” According to Smith, these papyri were written by the patriarch Abraham himself about 4000 years ago and contained new revelations about God’s will which Smith generously “translated” from the original hieroglyphics and revealed to the world. Obviously Smith was entirely unaware of the discovery in 1799 of the Rosetta Stone, which was not successfully translated until the late 1830’s, and even then was only understood by a few academics. From Smith’s vantage point, it must have seemed perfectly “safe” for him to make up what ever he wanted regarding the “true message” of the ancient hieroglyphics.

In a decision that the LDS church would later surely regret, the church itself put Smith’s “translation” to a scientific test. In 1912, LDS Bishop Spalding submitted facsimiles of the original papyri, made by Smith himself, to a panel of eight recognized expert Egyptologists. Much to the chagrin of the church, the panel’s unanimous opinion was that Smith’s translation had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the material on the copies of the original papyri. At some point the Church announced that Smith’s original papyri conveniently seemed to have “disappeared” and were presumed destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. There must have been many a sigh of relief among the church higher-ups for several years after that. But wait…. Oh no! Joseph Smith’s authenticated original papyri were re-discovered in 1967 by a researcher at the Metropolitan Museum of Art where, apparently, some thoughtless Mormon Church official had stored them for safekeeping. Since that time, virtually every competent Egyptologist (non-Mormon) who has studied the papyri have confirmed the original Egyptologists’ opinions that the “Book of Abraham” is a complete and utter fabrication! Of course, all of this is well known to the LDS hierarchy, although it is certainly not eagerly shared with the general membership.

The reader must be wondering by now, just as I have since I began my research into Mormonism, just how in the world is it possible that the LDS church not only continues to survive, but that, incredibly, it is actually rapidly growing in numbers of adherents and in influence. One might understand how many of the early backwoods, largely illiterate, superstitious original converts might have been duped by the apparently charismatic yarn-spinner Joseph Smith. However, one must ask in these modern times, when people are supposedly better educated, how can this continued survival and even growth be accounted for? I must confess that, frankly, I am at a complete loss for a satisfactory answer to that question. The only explanation that comes close for me was well stated by the inimitable H. L. Mencken when he said, “The curse of man, and the cause of nearly all his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.”

February 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography for
A Rationalist Looks at Mormonism

Brode, Fawn M., No Man Knows My History—the Life of Joseph Smith, Alfred Knopf,
Inc., 1945, Revised Second Edition, 1973.

Persuitte, David, Joseph Smith and the Origin of the Book of Mormon, Second Edition,
McFarland & Co., Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina, 2000.

Peterson, LaMar, The Creation of the Book of Mormon, A Historical Inquiry, Freethinker
Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2000.

Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1969.

Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1977.

Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, Joseph Smith’s Plagiarism of the Bible, Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1998.

Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, Joseph Smith and Money Digging, Utah Lighthouse Ministry,
1970

Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, Why Egyptologists Reject the Book of Abraham. Note: This
Book is simply a photocopy reprint of two other earlier books, as follows:

(1) Joseph Smith Jr. As a Translator, an Inquiry Conducted by Rt. Rev. F.
Spalding D.D, Bidshop of Utah, 1912, and (2) Joseph Smith as an Interpreter
And Translator of Egyptian, by Samuel A. B. Mercer, Ph.D., 1913.
Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, No date given.

Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality, Fifth Edition, Utah
Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987

Note: Jerald and Sandra Tanner and their Utah Lighthouse Ministry—despite their “mission” to convert adherents away from the “false religion” of Mormonism, and to the “true religion” of mainstream Christianity—have done some of the best research available anywhere to support the conclusion that The Book of Mormon and all of the “sacred writings” of Joseph Smith Jr. are simply early nineteenth century fiction, partly created by Joseph and partly plagiarized from the bible and other sources available to Mr. Smith.

Note II: This article is scheduled for publication in the May/June, 2002 issue of The American Rationalist.

The author can be emailed at havis@att.net.

How much Reality do you want?

2002-01-31T13:00:00.000-08:00

by David Fitzgerald

Show of hands - How many people here are going to Hell?

(That was to be my opening, but I decided against it when I gave this speech to my Toastmasters group in San Francisco. Instead, I opened with a confession: that “How much Reality do you want” was NOT the real title of my speech, that I was uncertain that the actual topic was 100% appropriate for this particular venue, and that I was afraid I might offend some people. In fact, I admitted part of me was HOPING to step on people’s toes. “How was that for an opener?” I asked. By now the audience was riveted, and I said “Well now that I’m out on that limb, I might as well go for it. The actual title of my speech is “Why I Am an Atheist.” And I went on to give the best speech I ever gave in my life (so far). Here it is:

Like everyone, I was born an Atheist…

However, as I continued to grow, something happened to that young Atheist. I was raised as a Southern Baptist. Now there are a lot of things about being raised a Southern Baptist (or any kind of Baptist, I suppose) that are really nice: You have an entire community to protect & shelter you, an extended family really. And above that you have an omnipotent all-knowing God who loves you, has got it all under control, and has a plan. A special plan --just for YOU! You just can’t beat that kind of certainty. Oh yeah, and you have ALL the answers – to everything - in this wonderful book, the Bible (King James Version only, natch) that (most of) the Protestants know how to interpret correctly to get God’s say-so on any topic you want.

There IS a down side, however. For one thing, sometimes it seemed the whole world didn’t always fit so nicely in the Baptist paradigm. Armed as we were with the truth (the Gospel truth!), it became very easy – necessary, even - to view anyone & anything outside the little Baptist box with suspicion and scorn. This is because Satan, the master of THIS world (for now) was pretty much everywhere, and was always targeting YOU especially, trying to tempt you into sin. Sin was separation from God’s tender love – the kind of separation that could land you in a lake of fire & accompanying eternal torment.

And did I mention that we are all sinners? Oh yes, we are ALL a bunch of miserable sinners from birth; and even after we’ve accepted Jesus as our Personal Savior™ we still will continue to sin, no matter how hard we try, because no Christian is perfect, and in fact it’s only by the grace of God Almighty himself that we are saved, unlike the overwhelmingly vast majority of people created by him in his image of perfect love who are going straight to an everlasting Hell of constant torment after death.

But I digress. We were also scornful of Science. Not so much the good kind, like that of Doctors & Astronauts, but those arrogant, misguided Biologists who ignored the plain facts laid out in the book of Genesis and poisoned people’s minds with their godless Ee-vo-lution nonsense.

You may be surprised to learn I had some struggles with conformity. But for the most part, I managed to keep myself in a heightened state of close-minded religiosity throughout my youth, and the times I did have serious doctrinal difficulties I managed to pull through with some simple re-interpretation of scripture. And that’s how things stayed up until The Day It All Changed.

Like all of the defining moments of my life, there was a woman involved. On The Day It All Changed, that woman was my friend Wendy the Pagan. Wendy the Pagan was the perfect foil to an uptight Baptist boy. A funky groovy Renaissance-Faire type who smoked, frequented new age occult stores, read tarot cards and believed in all manner of interesting and contradictory beliefs. The way we liked to flirt with each best was to argue Theology. Which is what we were doing on The Day It All Changed.

We were in the middle of a juicy deliberation one afternoon. I had just come up with some brilliant and biblically-approved point, when Wendy came up with a saucy rejoinder: “Well, Dave,” this with a raised eyebrow, ”you KNOW the Hindu religion is like, 4000 years older than Christianity.” Well, this line of reasoning of course had no merit whatsoever, and I started to counter with “No, it’s not-“

But I never finished the sentence. That was when it hit me…That I had no idea whether the next thing to leave my mouth was true or not.

Let me say that again: I had

No idea

Whether the next thing to leave my mouth

Was True

Or NOT!

And it hit me like a bolt from the blue: I was giving a knee–jerk Pavlovian dog reaction –I was just as bad as those Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses!! I swear, in my mind I could literally hear that Talking Heads song:

Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway lead to?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...or am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?

The debate was over. I was in a stunned daze for the rest of the day. And that was just the beginning.

I never looked at anything the same way. I began to question everything. In hindsight, loosing my virginity was a breeze. Loosing my religion took me a whole year to get over!

I felt like a trap door had fallen out beneath me, and instead of plummeting to the ground I was suspended in midair 10,000 feet up with the clouds going by beneath me. For a year I kept wondering “what’s keeping me up?” All those years I thought there was an all-powerful invisible god protecting me, and suddenly that was gone… What was keeping me safe?

Well, somehow I survived…

And not only that, but things actually got better! I began to look at people completely differently; I stopped seeing people as Catholics, as Christians, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. etc. and just saw them as People. People just like me, with their own dreams, problems, and thoughts on the universe. Most importantly, I stopped automatically categorizing people as “Saved” and “Hellbound”!

Suddenly Evolution made a lot more sense.

The Universe seemed much bigger, and at the same time closer and more connected to me than it ever did before.

Cue the upbeat music for the closing credits: Now I’m astounded that I could ever have believed all the ridiculous & hateful nonsense even for a minute. Life is free, really free when your mind is free. Even though Life can be an unpredictable all-bets-are-off scary place sometimes, I couldn’t and wouldn’t go back to the spun-sugar sickly-sweet illusionary comforts of Christianity, or any other religion lurking around for that matter either.

I want to tell every religious person out there that when they have doubts, when what they are being told doesn’t seem fair or make sense, to respect that part of them that gives them that gut feeling.

I’m alive. We’re all alive. Go out there and enjoy Life & Love.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I am an Atheist, Part II: Common Reactions
(with apologies to the many, many freethinkers whose ideas are presented here)

Today it’s interesting to come across the ideas & stereotypes people have about Atheists. People aren’t upset because I’ve lost my religion, they’re upset because I’ve lost THEIR religion. Here are some of the more common reactions:

1. You don’t believe in anything?

You don’t think Buddha or Allah or Vishnu are real, do you? Well, I only believe in one less of those imaginary gods than you do…

2. But you’re so happy!

Well, yeah! People think we’re all gloomy, black beret-wearing Jean-Paul Sarte-reading existentialist types leading gray, empty, meaningless lives… But how happy can you be always kissing up to an angry god?

3. Where do you get your morals from?

Do you really need anyone else to tell you the killing, stealing, and hurting people is wrong? It’s really not that hard to figure out.

4. But look at all the good Religion has done?

To that, I would say really look at what religion has done. It took 300 years for the Roman Catholic Church to pardon Galileo and longer than that to apologize for burning heretics at the stake. Billy Graham (who it turns out is a rabid anti-Semite) has taken in over $35 million from his ministries and refuses to disclose how it is being spent. And he is very respected – not like most of the more infamous televangelists who have been uncovered as out-and-out scoundrels.

Throughout history, more people have been tortured or killed in the name of religion than any other conflict -hands down. Look what it did on 9-11. Look what it’s doing in Bethlehem this morning. If no one challenged religious authority & the scriptures, there would not be democracies, public education, women’s rights, science & medicine, or the abolition of slavery.

5. Atheists are angry at God!

It’s hard to be angry at someone who you think doesn’t exist. But I admit, I do get angry with the Religious Right when they try to force creationism in schools. I get mad when the Roman Catholic Church spends more energy in protecting pedophile priests than in protecting their victims. I get mad when I see how women are treated in Islamic countries. And I get mad when the Israelis treat the Muslims like it was pre-apartheid South Africa.

6. Why take the chance of going to hell –be a Christian just to be safe

What kind of God would want that kind of follower? What kind of god would create hell for that matter. And what if you go to heaven and everyone there is speaking Arabic or Chinese? Who’s going to hell now, smart guy?

7. Atheists are Arrogant / Communists / Tools of Satan /There are no Atheists in foxholes /

Too ridiculous to even go there, though I will say there’s women, crossdressers, homosexuals, and yes, Atheists in foxholes. Always have been.

8. Well, there’s just too much that’s unexplainable…

There’s always going to be the unexplainable; as Einstein said: "One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

9. Well, I know God is real because I have a personal relationship with Jesus and he has done this in my life….

I’m happy for you, I really am. But if I told you what a difference Scientology or Allah or Falun Gong has done in my life, would you believe me?

10. But what happens when you die? Is that it?

Death IS big and scary, and it’s natural to be afraid of it. If we didn’t, our species wouldn’t have survived for millions of years. That’s why the idea is so strong. But honestly, I believe that when we die, we go back to where we came from. There was an eternity before you were born when you didn’t exist, if there’s another is it really so bad?

• If there’s one thing to learn from Atheism, it’s Live Now.

Here’s more:

• Hands that help are better than lips that pray.

• It’s nice, but is it true? How much reality do you choose to accept?

• We’re all in the same boat together.

• Science says We’re all related, even the plants and animals.

• I heard Peter Ustinov once say something like: "Our firm beliefs divide us. It’s our doubts that bring us together."

• Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take anybody’s word for it. Think for yourself. Don’t stop asking questions.

The author can be emailed at fitz@sfatheists.com.

Letter to Diane Feinstein

2001-11-01T13:00:00.000-08:00

by Ferdinanda
------------

Dear Senator:

I am writing with regard to proposed legislation to change the national anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner" to "God Bless America," H.R. 3051. To my knowledge, no action has been taken on this legislation, and I hope it will forever remain so; however, I feel the risk to civil liberty in this nation is too great to leave this matter unexamined.

Senator, given the present climate across the globe, this legislation may seem terribly unimportant, but I assure you that it is essential in these difficult times to remain vigilant and steadfast in the protection of the individual rights and freedoms of the public which are assured by the Constitution.

The 2000 National Census indicates that seven percent of this nation's citizens are either agnostic or atheist. This statistic suggests that several million Americans — including myself — will be placed in a terrible predicament, should the national anthem be changed. How can I proclaim my dedication to this country — my patriotism, that runs as strong in my veins as in any god-fearing citizen — how can I demonstrate my pride in America, without professing a faith that I do not in fact possess? And if, out of personal conviction — indeed, in exercising my freedom of religion — I should refrain from singing "God Bless America" in a public forum, what message do I send to my neighbors, with my silence? What must those standing, and singing, by my side infer? That I am not a patriot, that I do not support my country? How does their singing, their invoking the name of "God," coerce and intimidate the non-believer to do the same?

Our present national anthem is beautiful and appropriate; as literature, it captures a moment of drama, uncertainty, and hope. What poetry, to have our anthem end, not in a statement, but in a poignant question: "oh say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free, and the home of the brave?" If our national anthem is changed to "God Bless America," then the answer to that question, for me and many other patriotic Americans, will be "no."

Some may argue that "at a time like this" such protests as mine are not constructive, they are divisive, they are... un-American. I counter that "a time like this" is indeed the ultimate time for the protection of Constitutionally-granted rights. How can we represent democracy abroad when basic freedoms at home are dismissed as "unfashionably unpatriotic"? I am reminded of the film Dr. Zhivago, in which a shackled man, on his way to forced labor and certain death, proclaims "I am the only free man on this train; the rest of you are cattle." Surely it is freedom of thought and freedom of expression that America must defend, lest we ourselves become a nation of cattle. By keeping the national anthem a secular hymn to America's freedom, we will ensure that this truly remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. I deeply appreciate your consideration of this matter.