-Caveat Lector-
from: AMERICAN ATHEISTS
subject: AANEWS for July 17, 1999
A M E R I C A N A T H E I S T S
#611 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7/17/99
http://www.atheists.org
ftp.atheists.org/pub/atheists/
http://www.americanatheist.org
---------------------------------------------
A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS
"Leading The Way For Atheist Civil Rights
And The Separation Of State and Church"
----------------------------------------------
THE WORLD CHURCH OF THE CREATOR: IS IT AN "ATHEIST GROUP"?
Discussion continues in Atheist circles about whether or not the World
Church of the Creator is, as some -- including the Washington Post --
say, is an "atheist group." The WCC has been peripherally linked to a
series of hate crimes, including a shooting spree by a former church
member who over the July 4th weekend went on a racially motivated
killing spree in Indiana and Illinois. The reported gunman, Benjamin
Nathaniel Smith, committed suicide following a police chase. The WCC
denies any responsibility or role in these tragedies, of course, but
some insist that the literature and teachings of the church motivated
those who carried out these horrific acts.
The World Church of the Creator is headed by a the self-proclaimed
"Pontifex Maximus," Matthew Hale. Media coverage of the WCC -- fueled
mostly by Smith's rampage -- focused mainly on the group's racist
ideology which teaches that Jews, Hispanics, Blacks and others (the
"mud people") are inferior to the White race. Last Monday, July 12,
however, Los Angeles Times staff writer Rena Sanchez described the
World Church of the Creator as an "atheist group," an observation
based on the church's somewhat cryptic writings about religion, and
the claim that it is an "anti-Christian" movement.
American Atheists promptly issued a press release noting that Hale's
church (the term "church" meaning "house of the Lord" and "a place of
worship") was not involved in promoting atheist and related issues,
such as the separation of church and state, and was "doing the
bidding" of America's fundamentalist right-wing Christians. AANEWS
excavated the background of the World Church of the Creator and its
founder, Ben Klassen, who was heavily influenced by the Christian
Identity theology. It is our position that aside from a Church being
no place for atheists, the World Church of the Creator seems to
espouse a vague form of deism, rants against anything vaguely
connected with the Jewish or Christian beliefs -- not because they are
necessarily wrong but because they happen to be Jewish or Christian --
and, not being involved in atheist activism, is not an "atheist
group."
It should be noted, too, that while we disagree with the odious
opinions of Mr. Hale, "hateful" speech is not and should not be an
excuse to invoke government censorship. Indeed, those who would ban,
censor and attempt other ruses to shut down the World Church of the
Creator (civil liability suits are one example of this danger) or
censor its publications or site on the internet, may well expand their
net in an ever-widening circle. As a First Amendment voluptuary (a
term borrowed from writer Jeff Smith), your editor enthusiastically
embraces the notion that "the best answer to bad speech is more -- not
less -- speech."
The clash of opinions on this subject of the World Church of the
Creator continues to rage on, though. AANEWS asked Cliff Walker,
Editor of Positive Atheism magazine for his thoughts on this subject.
Walker has investigated the background of Hale, and has even contacted
the "Pontifex Maximus" about his views. We want to share Mr. Walker's
thoughts on this important topic with our readers. Cliff Walker's article
is
now also up at the American Atheist Magazine web site. A special
discussion section for exchanges about this article will be at the web
site later this evening for those wishing to make comments. Visit the
magazine at http://www.americanatheist.org for more. You may also visit
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/, the page for Positive Atheism.
OUR IDENTITY AS ATHEIST ORGANIZATIONS
The "Washington Post" and its use of the "A"-word
by Cliff Walker
Much heated discussion has revolved around the July 12, 1999, article
in "The Washington Post" that called the racist World Church of the
Creator an "atheist" group. Other articles, particularly those in
"The New York Times" and "U.S. News and World Report," fell short of
using the word "atheist." Both journals chose simply to describe the
situation, saying that the group "does not worship any God" ("Times"
[1]) and "doesn't believe in God" ("U.S. News" [2]).
American Atheists' president Ellen Johnson quickly responded to the
"Post" article, saying that its "characterization of the World Church
of the Creator as an 'atheist group' was 'a cheap shot.' " The
"Washington Post" religion editor, Jo Rector, who was responsible for
the wording, staunchly defends her use of the word, insisting that
they are atheists. My attempts to discuss various uses of the word
"atheist" and to ask if this usage was proper were met with the
accusation that I was "splitting hairs." Rather than discuss my
concerns with me, she asked to end the conversation.
Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between the positions of Ms. Johnson
and Ms. Rector. I will explore the nature of the World Church of the
Creator and discuss why I think the "Washington Post's" use of the
word "atheist" was technically accurate yet patently irresponsible.
Finally, I will explain why I think atheist groups could harm
atheism's reputation by denying that this group is, from all
appearances, atheistic in its outlook.
Journalism and its use of the "A"-word
When the "Post" ombudsman returned my call, I asked if this was
responsible use of the word "atheist." According to Wendy Kaminer's
"New Republic" article, "The Last Taboo," more Americans think it is
okay to discriminate against atheists than think it is okay to
discriminate against homosexuals. I don't think the "Post" sees much
validity in this point -- although continued public misunderstanding
about the nature of atheism could lead to more of the very hate crimes
with which this story deals. Almost every major Holy Book denounces
atheists. Sects that agree on nothing else have been known to join
forces in combating atheism -- and, at times, atheists. Theocratic
states have executed atheists for their atheism throughout history.
We err if we think that the current generations are any more
enlightened than those of the past.
American writers usually use "Mirriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate
Dictionary" as their reference. The "Washington Post" used one of the
"Random House" dictionaries for this story. This is fortunate only
because "Mirriam-Webster's" has, as a synonym for "atheism" the word
"wickedness." They say this is an archaic use of the word, but that
does not mean that anybody has stopped the habit of equating atheism
-- and atheists -- with wickedness. Journalists cannot be faulted for
using the accepted reference books; however, they can and should be
faulted for refusing to listen to a member of a subculture that is
described by a word in question.
Nevertheless, the "Random House" dictionary that Ms. Rector read to me
says that an atheist is one who lacks a belief in God. Excuse me?
Doesn't this definition presuppose the existence of God? Would not
"one who lacks a god-belief" or "one who lacks theism" be more
accurate? Ms. Rector did not even let me finish this question. I was
reminded of Lavanam, who told me that the encyclopedia article on
"atheism" is usually written by a preacher. Microsoft "Encarta" is
the lone exception that I know of; the well-known atheist philosopher
Michael Martin contributed a wonderful article on atheism. [3]
True, the World Church of the Creator arguably fits one dictionary's
definition of "atheist," but there's more to this group than what we
ordinarily think of when we hear the term "atheist group." It
certainly is not the main purpose of this group to propagate atheism
or to advocate for social issues such as atheist dignity and
state-church separation. This "Church" is unique, and its atheism --
rather, its lack of a god-belief, is, at best, a side issue. If
nothing else, their peculiar use of religious terms such as "Church"
and "Creator" should tip people off that this is a group to which
ordinary buzzwords do not apply. Descriptive language, such as "he
drinks all day long," always speaks more precisely than a malediction
such as "alcoholic" -- which stigmatizes without actually saying a
thing.
Furthermore, we "regular" atheists aren't the only ones whose opinions
should be considered when deciding whether to call this group
"atheist" or simply to describe it. The church itself disdains the
word "atheist." When asked, "Aren't you afraid of being called an
Atheist?" Matthew Hale replies: "Not at all. We recognize the term
'Atheist' for the derogatory smear word that it is." So, when the
group itself says, "We don't believe in any gods," shouldn't precise
reporting go no further than that statement?
The "A"-word, awareness, and dignity
In researching this group, I came across the websites of several
anti-hate organizations. I noticed that a new buzzword seems to have
come in vogue: "antireligious." What!? For being, in some respects,
antireligious, are we now a hate group? Is this what the activists
and the public see when we criticize religion and oppose its
intrusions into our public life? We need to think long and hard on
this one. This cannot be taken lightly. Atheism does not have a very
good reputation with the public. If we want people, especially the
press, to use sensitivity when discussing atheism and atheists, we
need first to discuss the word among ourselves and agree to agree on
what the word does and does not mean. Then we must push for awareness
and continue to insist that this word be used only after much thought
has been given to its use.
In this case, I think "U.S. News" and "The New York Times" were wise
in sticking to the description rather than using the word. These
journals, and any others that refrained from using the "A"-word should
be thanked and lauded for practicing sensitivity, even if it turns out
that avoidance of the word "atheist" was merely an "oversight" on
their part. Just pointing out that the word has been misused in
covering this story could make quite an impact. Add to this the fact
that the story is about groups that we atheists rightly fear, and we
could make quite a stride toward our goal of atheist dignity.
We also need to stop and think before we react to having something in
common with a group we abhor. Thinking that they can't possibly be
atheists -- that they secretly believe, or that the press is entirely
mistaken (rather than only slightly mistaken) -- cannot but impair our
goal of being accepted into the mainstream of American culture. I
will admit that this realization hit me like a ton of brick. At one
point, the anxiety prompted part of me to want to throw in the towel
when it came to my activism.
Facing the fact that this group uses many of the same arguments
against theism that I do, helped me, ultimately, to strengthen my
resolve to continue my work. It also helped to remember that the
Truth Seekers was, according to one former member, composed of many
racists. Yes. Atheists are atheists because they lack a god-belief
and the similarity ends there. Humanists have more to their common
philosophy than just their atheism, and thus run a lower risk of
"having strange bedfellows." At "Positive Atheism," we advocate
self-consistency as being the ultimate ethical or moral value. One's
rejection of theism as falsehood can be the first step toward a
respect for truthfulness and, ultimately, the habit of insisting upon
truthfulness in all one's dealings.
And as Kevin Courcey, of Eugene, Oregon, told me: "We're going to have
to get used to this as more and more people admit their disbelief and
then go on to commit crimes. Just like the fact that being a
Christian doesn't keep you from committing crimes, being an atheist
doesn't either." We are all people. Kevin continues, "Most of us are
decent human beings, some of us are [jerks and worse]. Oh well. The
distinctions to be made are in what we say we stand for."
World Church of the Creator and atheism
Having digested some of the material put out by Matthew Hale, leader
of the World Church of the Creator, I can see why it is "Number One
with a bullet" in the world of white supremacist groups. Matthew Hale
has mastered techniques of both Minister Louis Farrakhan and an
offbeat collection of "religions" known collectively as Discordianism.
Like Farrakhan, Matthew Hale deftly mixes fact with fiction, and
ultimately uses (abuses) truth to make his case for falsehood. Both
have some very important and compelling things to say, and both know
precisely what their target audience wants to hear. These "truths,"
however, are used as "hooks" to bring the mark over to a view that is
based entirely in falsehood. I haven't studied enough of the material
to say which is the more skilled at doing this, but I have read enough
to see that both are very good at what they do.
Hale's use of the "Church" motif probably has its roots in the mostly
liberal-minded Discordian movement. Discordianism began in the late
1950s, shortly after Rev. Kirby Hensley began ordaining anybody and
anyone (and their dogs and cats) as ministers of the Universal Life
Church. The Internal Revenue Service has had its hands full trying to
track down people using Kirby's ordinations as tax dodges, though the
IRS has been mostly unsuccessful. Freethinking College Students used
Hensley's ordination ruse to create "groves" of Druids in order to
avoid chapel and, instead, romp in the woods and drink Irish Mist.
The schools couldn't touch them because they were a bona fide
religion.
In several cases involving Hensley's ordainees, it has been firmly
established that the U.S. Government has no business determining what
is and what is not a religion. Matthew Hale knows this, and exploits
this fact to the hilt. It looks like all the religious talk is just
that: talk. I'm sure Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard played a passive
role in inspiring Hale to use the "Church" angle. Hale is no dummy:
he has a law degree, but has been thus far thwarted in his attempts to
get a license to practice.
Are they atheists? Only they know for sure, and only they have the
right to use this word to describe themselves. The atheistic elements
of their rhetoric (sans the racism) sound like what you'd hear at any
meeting of a local atheistic group.
What strikes me as odd is their use of white supremacist terminology
that necessarily has a religious base. One example is their use of
the term "mud people" to describe nonwhites. The "mud people" myth
says that several "races" existed before Adam and Eve, and are rightly
seen as animals. Cain, who slew Abel, was the first Jew. The World
Church of the Creator has altered the myth to make the "mud people"
missing links in the chain of evolution -- but they still use the
phrase "mud people." Whether this is just another case of Hale
absconding with religious terminology is anyone's guess.
They will prosper if they learn to walk on both sides of the fence.
Hitler did this as expertly as anyone ever has. I can pull page after
page of quotations from "Mein Kampf" and show, conclusively, that
Hitler was a Christian. A theist can pull many, many quotes out of
the same book and show, equally conclusively, that he was an
evolutionist. The truth is that Hitler bastardized and exploited both
Christianity and the theory of evolution -- and any other concepts he
felt might do the job. This, to me, is probably the most important
thing to remember when studying or commenting on Matthew Hale and the
World Church of the Creator.
Conclusion
It is important to remember that having one thing in common with this
group is not cause for alarm. This is a cause for action.
I am arguing that we describe them the way they describe themselves --
they "don't believe in God" -- and that we go no further than that.
Crucial to this are two things: (1) Hale seems to want the press to
use the epithet "atheist" against his group; (2) "Atheist group" is
most likely to conjure imagery of an organization that propagates
atheism and struggles for atheist dignity and separationism.
As more and more people shed their theistic cocoons, we see more and
more people who talk like atheists out of one side of the mouth yet
have a deadly agenda. Christianity has had its share of losers and
exploiters. I'm sure atheists are among the first to point out that
Rev. David Trosch (who advocates killing abortion providers) is a
Roman Catholic priest. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
We still have to deal with the responsible use of the word "atheist"
in the press. To this I say that a few carefully worded letters of
praise to the journals that fell short of using the "A"-word will do
much more than ten thousand angry letters to the "Post." This didn't
stop me, however, from letting the "Post" know what I think.
Notes:
1. This article is "Suspect in Shooting Rampage Killed Himself,
F.B.I. Says" by Bill Dedman, dated July 5, 1999. "Positive Atheism"
has posted an unlinked copy at:
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/temp/nytimes.txt
2. At the time of this writing, the article "The Church of the
Almighty White Man" by Angie Cannon and Warren Cohen, dated July 19,
1999, lives at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990719/whites.htm
"Positive Atheism" has mirrored an unlinked copy at:
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/temp/usnews.txt
3. A copy of this article lives at:
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/writ/martin.htm
**
RESOURCES FROM AMERICAN ATHEISTS...
* For information about American Atheists, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please include your name and postal mailing
address.
* For a free catalogue of American Atheist Press books, videos and
other products, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kindly include
your postal mailing address.
* The American Atheist Magazine is now on the web! Check out select
articles from the current or back issues, as well as special web-only
features. Visit us at http://www.americanatheist.org
* If you are a current member of American Atheists, sign up for our
e-mail discussion group, aachat. We have over 120 participants who
discuss topics such as Atheism, religion, First Amendment issues and
lots more! Contact Margie Wait, the Moderator, through
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ABOUT THIS LIST...
AANEWS is a free service from American Atheists, a nationwide movement
founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair for the advancement of Atheism, and
the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
You may forward, post or quote from this dispatch, provided that
appropriate credit is given to AANEWS and American Atheists. Edited
by Conrad Goeringer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Representative for
American Atheists is Margie Wait, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
