From ai815@freenet.carleton.caSat Oct 14 12:38:40 1995 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 06:37:17 -0400 From: Greg Erwin To: apabel@prairienet.org, ap818@freenet.buffalo.edu Subject: October 1995 Nullifidian ############################################################ ############################################################ ______ / / / / / /__ __ / / ) (__ / / (__(__ __ |\ ( ) ) / / | \ | / / . _/_ . __ / . __ __ | \ | / / / / ) / ) / / ) __ ) / ) ) \| (__(__(___(__(__(___(__(__(__(__(__(__/ (__ =========================================================== *The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought** =========================================================== ############################################################ ###### Volume II, Number 10 ***A Collector's Item!***##### ################### ISSN 1201-0111 ####################### ####################### OCT 1995 ########################### nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or belief. [f. med. L _nullifidius_ f. L _nullus_ none + _fides_ faith; see -IAN] Concise Oxford Dictionary The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of articles dealing with many aspects of humanism. We are ATHEISTIC as we do not believe in the actual existence of any supernatural beings or any transcendental reality. We are SECULAR because the evidence of history and the daily horrors in the news show the pernicious and destructive consequences of allowing religions to be involved with politics or government. We are HUMANISTS and we focus on what is good for humanity, in the real world. We will not be put off with offers of pie in the sky, bye and bye. Re: navigation. Search for BEG to find the beginning of the next article. Search for the first few words of the title as given in the table of contents to find a specific article. I try to remember to copy the title from the text and then paste it into the ToC, so it should be exact. Search for "crass commercialism:" to see what's for sale. Subscription information, etc is at the end of the magazine, search for END OF TEXTS. ############################################################ ############################################################ ============================================================ /=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. (Part II, reasons forty-first through sixty -first)--R.G. Ingersoll. 2. A Plea to Conservatives by Walter Laffer 3. Foundation documents of the First Church of Zen Orthodox Nullifidianism. 4. Religion and Science by Albert Einstein =========================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =========================================================== A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. (Part II, reasons forty-first through sixty-first) --R.G. Ingersoll. Forty-first. Why should a man, because he has done a bad action, go and kill a sheep? How can man make friends with God by cutting the throats of bullocks and goats? Why should God delight in the shedding of blood? Why should he want his altar sprinkled with blood, and the horns of his altar tipped with blood, and his priests covered with blood? Why should burning flesh be a sweet savor in the nostrils of God? Why did he compel his priests to be butchers, cutters and stabbers? Why should the same God kill a man for eating the fat of an ox, a sheep, or a goat? Forty-second. Could it be a consolation to a man when dying to think that he had always believed that God told Aaron to take two goats and draw cuts to see which goat should be killed and which should be a scapegoat? [Lev. xvi, 8.] And that upon the head of the scapegoat Aaron should lay both his hands and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and put them all on the head of the goat, and send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness; and that the goat should bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into a land not inhabited? [Lev. xvi, 21, 22.] How could a goat carry away a load of iniquities and transgressions? Why should he carry them to a land uninhabited? Were these sins contagious? About how many sins could an average goat carry? Could a man meet such a goat now without laughing? Forty-third. Why should God object to a man wearing a garment made of woolen and linen? Why should he care whether a man rounded the corners of his beard? [Lev. xix, 19, 27.] Why should God prevent a man from offering the sacred bread merely because he had a flat nose, or was lame, or had five fingers on one hand, or had a broken foot, or was a dwarf? If he objected to such people, why did he make them? [Lev. xxi, 18-20.] Forty-fourth. Why should we believe that God insisted upon the sacrifice of human beings? Is it a sin to deny this, and to deny the inspiration of a book that teaches it? Read the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth verses of the last chapter of Leviticus, a book in which there is more folly and cruelty, more stupidity and tyranny, than in any other book in this world except some others in the same Bible. Read the thirty-second chapter of Exodus and you will see how by the most infamous of crimes man becomes reconciled to this God. You will see that he demands of fathers the blood of their sons. Read the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the third chapter of Numbers, "And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel," etc. How, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain curtains of fine linen? How did these absconding slaves make cherubs of gold? Where did they get the skins of badgers, and how did they dye them red? How did they make wreathed chains and spoons, basins and tongs? Where did they get the blue cloth and their purple? Where did they get the sockets of brass? How did they coin the shekel of the sanctuary? How did they overlay boards with gold? Where did they get the numberless instruments and tools necessary to accomplish all these things? Where did they get the fine flour and the oil? Were all these found in the desert of Sinai? Is it a sin to ask these questions? Are all these doubts born of a malignant and depraved heart? Why should God in this desert prohibit priests from drinking wine, and from eating moist grapes? How could these priests get wine? Do not these passages show that these laws were made long after the Jews had left the desert, and that they were not given from Sinai? Can you imagine a God silly enough to tell a horde of wandering savages upon a desert that they must not eat any fruit of the trees they planted until the fourth year? Forty-fifth. Ought a man to be despised and persecuted for denying that God ordered the priests to make women drink dirt and water to test their virtue? [Num. v, 12-31.] Or for denying that over the tabernacle there was a cloud during the day and fire by night, and that the cloud lifted up when God wished the Jews to travel, And that until it was lifted they remained in their tents? [Num. ix, 16-18.] Can it be possible that the "ark of the covenant "traveled on its own account," and that "when the ark set forward" the people followed, as is related in the tenth chapter of the holy book of Numbers? Forty-sixth. Was it reasonable for God to give the Jews manna, and nothing else, year after year? He had infinite power, and could just as easily have given them something good, in reasonable variety, as to have fed them on manna until they loathed the sight of it, and longingly remembered the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of Egypt. And yet when the poor people complained of the diet and asked for a little meat, this loving and merciful God became enraged, sent them millions of quails in his wrath, and while they were eating, while the flesh was yet between their teeth, before it was chewed, this amiable God smote the people with a plague and killed all those that lusted after meat. In a few days after, he made up his mind to kill the rest, but was dissuaded when Moses told him that the Canaanites would laugh at him. [Num. xiv, 15, 16.] No wonder the poor Jews wished they were back in Egypt. No wonder they had rather be the slaves of Pharaoh than the chosen people of God, No wonder they preferred the wrath of Egypt to the love of heaven. In my judgment, the Jews would have fared far better if Jehovah had let them alone, or had he even taken the side of the Egyptians. When the poor Jews were told by their spies that the Canaanites were giants, they, seized with fear, said, "Let us go back to Egypt." For this, their God doomed all except Joshua and Caleb to a wandering death. Hear the words of this most merciful God: "But as for you, your carcasses they shall fall in this wilderness, and your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years and bear your" sins "until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness." [Num. xiv, 32-33.] And yet this same God promised to give unto all these people a land flowing with milk and honey. Forty-seventh. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. "And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. "And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. "And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died." [Num. xv, 32-36.] When the last stone was thrown, and he that was a man was but a mangled, bruised, and broken mass, this God turned, and, touched with pity, said: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband of blue." [Num. xv, 38.] In the next chapter, this Jehovah, whose loving kindness is over all his works, because Korah, Dathan, and Abiram objected to being starved to death in the wilderness, made the earth open and swallow not only them, but their wives and their little ones. Not yet satisfied, he sent a plague and killed fourteen thousand seven hundred more. There never was in the history of the world such a cruel, revengeful, bloody, jealous, fickle, unreasonable, and fiendish ruler, emperor, or king as Jehovah. No wonder the children of Israel cried out, "Behold we die, we perish, we all perish." Forty-eighth. I cannot believe that a dry stick budded, blossomed, and bore almonds; that the ashes of a red heifer are a purification for sin; [Num. xix, 2-10.] that God gave the cities into the hands of the Jews because they solemnly agreed to murder all the inhabitants; that God became enraged and induced snakes to bite his chosen people; that God told Balaam to go with the Princess of Moab, and then got angry because he did go; that an animal ever saw an angel and conversed with a man. I cannot believe that thrusting a spear through the body of a woman ever stayed a plague; [Num. xxv, 8.] that any good man ever ordered his soldiers to slay the men and keep the maidens alive for themselves; that God commanded men not to show mercy to each other; that he induced men to obey his commandments by promising them that he would assist them in murdering the wives and children of their neighbors; or that he ever commanded a man to kill his wife because she differed with him about religion; [Deut. xiii, 6-10.] or that God was mistaken about hares chewing the cud; [Deut. xiv, 7.] or that he objected to the people raising horses; [Deut. xvii, 16.] or that God wanted a camp kept clean because he walked through it at night; [Deut. xxiii, 13, 14.] or that he commanded widows to spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law; [Deut. xxv, 9.] or that he ever threatened to give anybody the itch; [Deut. xxviii, 27.] or that he ever secretly buried a man and allowed the corpse to write an account of the funeral. Forty-ninth. Does it necessarily follow that a man wishes to commit some crime if he refuses to admit that the river Jordan cut itself in two and allowed the lower end to run away? [Josh. iii, 16.] Or that seven priests could blow seven ram's horns loud enough to throw down the walls of a city; [Josh. vi, 20.] or that God, after Achan had confessed that he had secreted a garment and a wedge of gold, became good natured as soon as Achan and his sons and daughters had been stoned to death and their bodies burned? [Josh. vii, 24, 25.] Is it not a virtue to abhor such a God? Must we believe that God sanctioned and commanded all the cruelties and horrors described in the Old Testament; that he waged the most relentless and heartless wars; that he declared mercy a crime; that to spare life was to excite his wrath; that he smiled when maidens were violated, laughed when mothers were ripped open with a sword, and shouted with joy when babes were butchered in their mothers' arms? Read the infamous book of Joshua, and then worship the God who inspired it if you can. Fiftieth. Can any sane man believe that the sun stood still in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day, and that the moon stayed? [Josh. x, 13.] That these miracles were performed in the interest of massacre and bloodshed; that the Jews destroyed men, women, and children by the million, and practiced every cruelty that the ingenuity of their God could suggest? Is it possible that these things really happened? Is it possible that God commanded them to be done? Again I ask you to read the book of Joshua. After reading all its horrors you will feel a grim satisfaction in the dying words of Joshua to the children of Israel: "Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land." [Josh. xiii, 13.] Think of a God who boasted that he gave the Jews a land for which they did not labor, cities which they did not build, and allowed them to eat of olive-yards and vineyards which they did not plant. [Josh. xxiv, 13.] Think of a God who murders some of his children for the benefit of the rest, and then kills the rest because they are not thankful enough. Think of a God who had the power to stop the sun and moon, but could not defeat an army that had iron chariots. [Judges 1, 19.] Fifty-first. Can we blame the Hebrews for getting tired of their God? Never was a people so murdered, starved, stoned, burned, deceived, humiliated, robbed, and outraged. Never was there so little liberty among men. Never did the meanest king so meddle, eavesdrop, spy out, harass, torment, and persecute his people. Never was ruler so jealous, unreasonable, contemptible, exacting, and ignorant as this God of the Jews. Never was such ceremony, such mummery, such staff about bullocks, goats, doves, red heifers, lambs, and unleavened dough -- never was such directions about kidneys and blood, ashes and fat, about curtains, tongs, fringes, ribands, and, brass pins -- never such details for killing of animals and men and the sprinkling of blood and the cutting of clothes. Never were such unjust laws, such punishments, such damned ignorance and infamy! Fifty-second. Is it not wonderful that the creator of all worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold his own against the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange that after he had appeared to his chosen people, delivered them from slavery, fed them by miracles, opened the sea for a path, led them by cloud and fire, and overthrown their pursuers, they still preferred a calf of their own making? Is it not beyond belief that this God, by statutes and commandments, by punishments and penalties, by rewards and promises, by wonders and plagues, by earthquakes and pestilence, could not in the least civilize the Jews -- could not get them beyond a point where they deserved killing? What shall we think of a God who gave his entire time for forty years to the work of converting three millions of people, and succeeded in getting only two men, and not a single woman, decent enough to enter the promised land? Was there ever in the history of man so detestable an administration of public affairs? Is it possible that God sold his children to the king of Mesopotamia; that he sold them to Jabin, king of Canaan, to the Philistines, and to the children of Ammon? Is it possible that an angel of the Lord devoured unleavened cakes and broth with fire that came out of the end of a stick as he sat under an oak-tree? Judges vi, 21.] Can it be true that God made known his will by making dew fall on wool without wetting the ground around it? [Judges vi, 37.] Do you really believe that men who lap water like a dog make the best soldiers? [Judges vii, 5.] Do you think that a man could hold a lamp in his left hand, a trumpet in his right hand, blow his trumpet, shout "the sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and break pitchers at the same time? [Judges vii, 5.] Fifty-third. Read the story of Jephthah and his daughter, and then tell me what you think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to God, and what you think of a God who would receive such a sacrifice. This one story should be enough to make every tender and loving father hold this book in utter abhorrence. Is it necessary, in order to be saved, that one must believe that an angel of God appeared unto Manoah in the absence of her husband; that this angel afterward went up in a flame of fire; that as a result of this visit a child was born whose strength was in his hair? a child that made beehives of lions, incendiaries of foxes, and had a wife that wept seven days to get the answer to his riddle? Will the wrath of God abide forever upon a man for doubting the story that Samson killed a thousand men with a new jawbone? Is there enough in the Bible to save a soul with this story left out? Is hell hungry for those who deny that water gashed from a "hollow place" in a dry bone? Is it evidence of a new heart to believe that one man turned over a house so large that over three thousand people were on the roof? For my part, I cannot believe these things, and if my salvation depends upon my credulity I am as good as damned already. I cannot believe that the Philistines took back the ark with a present of five gold mice, and that thereupon God relented. [1 Sam. vi, 4.] I cannot believe that God killed fifty thousand men for looking into a box. [1 Sam. vi, 19.] It seems incredible, after all the Jews had done, after all their wars and victories, even when Saul was king, that there was not among them one smith who could make a sword or spear, and that they were compelled to go to the Philistines to sharpen every plowshare, coulter, and mattock. [1 Sam.xiii, 19, 20.] Can you believe that God said to Saul, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling"? Can you believe that because Saul took the king alive after killing every other man, woman, and child, the ogre called Jehovah was displeased and made up his mind to hurl Saul from the throne and give his place to another? [1 Sam. xv.] I cannot believe that the Philistines all ran away because one of their number was killed with a stone. I cannot justify the conduct of Abigail, the wife of Nabal, who took presents to David. David hardly did right when he said to this woman, "I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person." It could hardly have been chance that made Nabal so deathly sick next morning and killed him in ten days. All this looks wrong, especially as David married his widow before poor Nabal was fairly cold." Fifty-fourth. Notwithstanding all I have heard of Katie King, I cannot believe that a witch at Endor materialized the ghost of Samuel and caused it to appear with a cloak on. [1 Sam. xxviii.] I cannot believe that God tempted David to take the census, and then gave him his choice of three punishments: First, Seven years of famine; Second, Flying three months before their enemies; Third, A pestilence of three days; that David chose the pestilence, and that God destroyed seventy thousand men. [2 Sam. xxiv.] Why should God kill the people for what David did? Is it a sin to be counted? Can anything more brutally hellish be conceived? Why should man waste prayers upon such a God? Fifty-fifth. Must we admit that Elijah was fed by ravens; that they brought him bread and flesh every morning and evening? Must we believe that this same prophet could create meal and oil, and induce a departed soul to come back and take up its residence once more in the body? That he could get rain by praying for it; that he could cause fire to burn up a sacrifice and altar, together with twelve barrels of water? [1 Kings xviii.] Can we believe that an angel of the Lord turned cook and prepared two suppers in one night for Elijah, and that the prophet ate enough to last him forty days and forty nights? [1 kings xix.] Is it true that when a captain with fifty men went after Elijah, this prophet caused fire to come down from heaven and consume them all? Should God allow such wretches to manage his fire? Is it true that Elijah consumed another captain with fifty men in the same way? [2 kings i.] Is it a fact that a river divided because the water was struck with a cloak? Did a man actually go to heaven in a chariot of fire drawn by horses of fire, or was he carried to Paradise by a whirlwind? Must we believe, in order to be good and tender fathers and mothers, that because some "little children" mocked at an old man with a bald head, God -- the same God who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me" -- sent two she-bears out of the wood and tare forty-two of these babes? Think of the mothers that watched and waited for their children. Think of the wailing when these mangled ones were found, when they were brought back and pressed to the breasts of weeping women. What an amiable gentleman Mr. Elisha must have been. [2 Kings ii.] Fifty-sixth. It is hard to believe that a prophet by lying on a dead body could make it sneeze seven times; [2 Kings iv.] or that being dipped seven times in the Jordan could cure the leprosy. [2 Kings v.] Would a merciful God curse children; and children's children yet unborn, with leprosy for a father's fault? [2 Kings v. 27.] Is it possible to make iron float in water? [2 Kings vi, 6.] Is it reasonable to say that when a corpse touched another corpse it came to life? [2 Kings xiii, 21.] Is it a sign that a man wants to commit a crime because he refuses to believe that a king had a boil and that God caused the sun to go backward in heaven so that the shadow on a sun-dial went back ten degrees as a sign that the aforesaid would get well? [2 Kings xx, 1-2.] Is it true that this globe turned backward, that its motion was reversed as a sign to a Jewish king? If it did not, this story is false, and that part of the Bible is not true even if it is inspired. Fifty-seventh. How did the Bible get lost? [2 Kings xxii, 8.] Where was the precious Pentateuch from Moses to Josiah? How was it possible for the Jews to get along without the directions as to fat and caul and kidney contained in Leviticus? Without that sacred book in his possession a priest might take up ashes and carry them out without changing his pantaloons. Such mistakes kindled the wrath of God. As soon as the Pentateuch was found Josiah began killing wizards and such as had familiar spirits. Fifty-eighth, I cannot believe that God talked to Solomon, that he visited him in the night and asked him what he should give him; I cannot believe that he told ban, "I will give thee riches and wealth and honor, such as none of the kings have had before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like." [2 Kings i, 7, 12.] If Jehovah said this he was mistaken. It is not true that Solomon had fourteen hundred chariots of war in a country without roads. It is not true that he made gold and silver at Jerusalem as plenteous as stones. There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. The Holy Land was and is a wretched country. There are no monuments, no ruins attesting former wealth and greatness. The Jews had no commerce, knew nothing of other nations, had no luxuries, never produced a painter, a sculptor, architect, scientist, or statesman until after the destruction of Jerusalem. As long as Jehovah attended to their affairs they had nothing but civil war, plague, pestilence, and famine. After he abandoned, and the Christians ceased to persecute them, they became the most prosperous of people. Since Jehovah, in anger and disgust, cast them away they have produced painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen, composers, and philosophers. Fifty-ninth. I cannot admit that Hiram, the King of Tyre, wrote a letter to Solomon in which he admitted that the "God of Israel made heaven and earth." [2 Chron. ii, 12.] This King was not a Jew. It seems incredible that Solomon had eighty thousand men hewing timber for the temple, with seventy thousand bearers of burdens, and thirty-six hundred over-seers." [2 Chron. ii, 18.] Sixtieth. I cannot believe that God shuts up heaven and prevents rain, or that he sends locusts to devour a land, or pestilence to destroy the people. [2 Chron. vii, 13.] I cannot believe that God told Solomon that his eyes and heart should perpetually be in the house that Solomon had built. [2 Chron. vii, 16.] Sixty-first. I cannot believe that Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches; that all the kings of the earth sought his presence and brought presents of silver and gold, raiment, harness, spices, and mules -- a rate year by year. [2 Chron. ix, 22-24.] Is it possible that Shishak, a King of Egypt, invaded Palestine with seventy thousand horsemen and twelve hundred chariots of war? [2 Chron. xii, 2, 3.] I cannot believe that in a battle between Jeroboam and Abijah, the army of Abijah actually slew in one day five hundred thousand chosen men. [2 Chron. xiv, 17.] Does anyone believe that Zerah, the Ethiopian, invaded Palestine with a million men? [2 Chron. xiv, 9.] I cannot believe that Jehoshaphat had a standing army of nine hundred and sixty thousand men. [2 Chron. xvii, 14-19.] I cannot believe that God advertised for a liar to act as his messenger. [2 Chron. xviii, 19- 22.] I cannot believe that King Amaziah did right in the sight of the Lord, and that he broke in pieces ten thousand men by casting them from a precipice. [2 Chron. xxv, 12.] I cannot think that God smote a king with leprosy because he tried to burn incense. [2 Chron. xxvi, 19.] I cannot think that Pekah slew one hundred and twenty thousand men in one day. [2 Chron. xxviii, 6.] NOTE: This article was printed from manuscript notes found among Colonel Ingersoll's papers, evidently written in the early 1880's. While much of the argument and criticism will be found embodied in his various lectures, magazine articles and contributions to the press. it was thought to be too valuable In its present form to be left out of a complete edition of his writings. **** **** Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship. The Bank of Wisdom Inc. is a collection of the most thoughtful, scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so that America can again become what its Founders intended -- The Free Market-Place of Ideas. The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old, hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts and information for today. If you have such books please contact us, we need to give them back to America. Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 29 ========================================================= || END OF ARTICLE || ========================================================= "The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known." [John Stuart Mill] =========================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =========================================================== A Plea to Conservatives by Walter Laffer We spend a great deal of our energies on this list deploring the radical religious right's attempts at trying to control our lives and that of society in general. This is as it should be and is of very grave concern to all of us. But, I have a greater premonition of things to come or maybe are already here. This has to do with what I call the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative movement in America today. To me, as a humanist, this is far more threatening in the long run than the inconsistencies in the unalterable inerrancy of the religious fanatics. One of the strengths of our society has always been the debate on political and social policy. But, it seems that today we are debating the efficacy of the scientific method; the right of humans to assemble and organize; the right of children to have a healthy and safe upbringing; the right of over half the population of the world to have political, economic, sexual, equality and self control over their own bodies; and the right of future generations to have a humanly habitable environment. Conservatives seem to take the position that all the scientific research regarding the addictive and carcinogenic effects of tobacco, supported by thirty years of surgeons general from liberal and conservative bases, should be ignored and the drug should be tax payer subsidized. Advertising to the most emotionally and physically vulnerable, the teenager, should be allowed as a First Amendment protected right. This anti-scientific morally bankrupt position is very distressing when one considers it from a humanistic viewpoint. AIDS research is not treated as a serious medical problem, but rather as problem of "improper, disgusting" behavior. Environmental research is being cut back in the Bureau of Mines, the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (which was started by conservative Richard Nixon). The other day a New Republican congressman from Alabama requested that the research by the EPA and the NCI regarding the insecticides, chlordane and Mirax be disregarded, even though the insecticides were found in human mothers' milk. Both the EPA and the NCI seem to think these insecticides are potential carcinogens based on their scientific research. The attempt to not use modern scientific methods for testing the contamination levels of foods such as meat, poultry, and fish is again very ant-scientific. This kind of anti-scientific approach to serious human problems is very frightening. These ant-intellectual, anti-scientific anecdotal arguments are used as testimony to support the passage of deregulation. laws. I think there have been many studies to show that children learn better when thy are healthy and well fed. Yet, we have the conservative position of cutting off school lunches for poor kids. We know the they do not want universal health care. We still have TB in Chicago. Will the private market solve this problem? We need active programs not some misguided 19th century rhetoric about "survival of the fittest" This denigration of science has to reinforce the Religious Right's anti-scientific argument for creationism over evolution. A not so long ago conservative president of the United States said that "Trees cause pollution," and that "evolution was probably not true". Well, the hole in the ozone layer gets bigger while Congress and the President fiddle. I would have hoped that the modern conservatives would be objective and pro the scientific approach. What a tragedy for all of us who are humanists that they are not. As regards the basic political liberties that most of us on this list subscribe to, unfortunately we have the following rhetoric. "He called the delegates at the conference in Beijing 'elitists, Socialists, hard-leftists, and radicals.'" - from a column by Maureen Dowd quoting GOP Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. Who incidentally has become the darling of the Populist Party. You know, the party of "Bo" Gritz and David Duke. Wasn't William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat, also a Populist? Creationism is coming, we had better duck. George Bush sympathized with the tyrants who run China in their having to host an outspoken American feminist and politician. The same man who has said that atheists are not really American citizens. Why would an American conservative sympathize with a tyranny that opposes the right of its citizens to peaceably assemble, speak out against their government, a government where women are routinely forced into abortion, economic and sexual servitude and political conformity? I think that this is a sign of the moral and political bankruptcy of the American conservatives. Consider the following contrasting quotes. Which are/is more in tune with basic humanism? "this misguided conference and its left-wing ideological agenda" of abortion rights and militant feminism, United States Senator and declared Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, Robert Dole attacking the spending of taxpayers' money on the attendance of the United Nations Fourth Women's Conference in Beijing, China. "The only proper American response to the release of Harry Wu is, 'It's about time,' not 'Take my wife - please'" United States Senator and declared candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, Phil Gramm referring to the attendance of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing, China. "What unites this group and thousands of others traveling to Beijing is a desire to focus world attention on issues that matter most to women, children and families: access to health care, education, jobs and credit, and the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political of one's country." excerpt from a column by Hillary Rodham Clinton. I as a humanist must side with the last one. i do not see how opposing forced body mutilation, sexual servitude, enforced illiteracy, denial of health care, and demands for political and economic equality can be even remotely considered as " misguided left-wing ideology" , let alone, "elitist, Socialist, hard-leftist, or radical". When I was growing up the conservatives would have supported these basic human rights. At least they have been considered basic in the America in which I live. How has the modern American conservative ended up sympathizing with the Zhironofsky's (keep the immigrants out of our homeland), the Vatican, the Iranian fundamentalist government, the Chinese tyranny, the Sudanese fundamentalists, et al? Not too long ago these tyrants were referred to as "the evil empire". Now our conservatives feel sorry for them. What happened? Why did the conservatives accept the moral depravity of such regimes? This moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American conservative philosophy and policies is a matter of very great concern to our society. They now control the legislative and judicial arms of our government. This is not to say that the liberals are any better off. They seem to be adrift, almost afraid to have any principles at all. But right at the moment, I would hope that the conservative policy makers and philosophers would shed the yoke of the Catholic Church's no-nothing (Bill Buckley, Father John McLaughlin, Bill Simon, The Coors, The Heritage Foundation, Antonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas, etc., etc., etc.) control of them. This is a plea for the conservatives to come back to the scientific approach to societal problems, come back to the basic political and human rights as expressed in our Constitution and wonderful democratic and liberty loving heritage. Come back and support an intellectual and moral approach to our society. Walter Laffer LafferWBII@aol.com ========================================================= || END OF ARTICLE || ========================================================= "Trying to find God is a good deal like looking for money one has lost in a dream." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays_] =========================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =========================================================== Foundation documents of the First Church of Zen Orthodox Nullifidianism. "First" in the sense that this is the first one. "Church" solely in the sense of a community of like-minded people, voluntarily organized to promote their vision of life, and to work for the common good. "Zen" in the sense that you should be philosophical about common sense and commonsensical about philosophy, and humorous about both. "Orthodox" in the sense that we're pretty sure we're right. "Nullifidian" in that we have no religious faith, as faith is, by definition, about things which cannot be verified, whereas ours can. Yes, we don't mind if you say that we have faith in having no faith. >Sigh< This grew out of a discussion on the secular humanist email discussion group. A challenge was issued by Richard Russell to come up with basic ethics that were required by nature and universally accepted. Of course, nothing is ethically required by nature [if you think so, let me know and we can shoot your proposals down one by one] and nothing is universally accepted. I attempted to come up with ethical "laws" that seem to be hard wired into the human mind. Of course, our intellectual capacity also allows us to evaluate the likely costs and benefits of violating this hypothetical built-in programming, just like we can override our built in requirements and desires to eat (by fasting) breathe (by swimming underwater) or to have sex (commitment to marriage; intellectual appreciation of the likely consequences of sex in certain circumstances). The Nine Strong Recommendations, agreeing with which is mandatory: I. Causing other people and sentient beings unnecessary pain is bad. As a general principle we should attempt to avoid doing this. II Insofar as it is compatible with our own well-being and happiness it is a good idea to "be nice" to others. III Do not lightly undertake obligations. Attempt to fulfil completely those obligations which you undertake. IV Live by the rules. V We should create conditions of maximum freedom for the maximum number of people. VI All people in a society should be considered legally equal. VII Unnecessary waste and destruction are bad and should be avoided. VIII Examine the consequences of actions, and adjust future actions accordingly. IX Make sure that your assumptions about the world are true. NB: Commentary on I and II: However, it works better to prohibit "bad" actions than to try to force people to be nice. That is, as a guiding principle for society, we should not try to force people into doing good, but merely encourage it, while actively discouraging "bad" behaviour. Re: VII: Simply by living in a society, the citizen assumes certain obligations, which can mainly be summed up by the phrase "agrees to live by the rules," or maybe "plays well with others." About VII and III: Fortunately, a "good" society contains a rule that allows its citizens to get together and change the rules. As conditions constantly change, we should maximize the possibilities for free discussion and debate to make necessary change possible. If a citizen wishes to change a rule, he or she must make use of these legal procedures. About IV: There will be a requirement for dealing with the immature judgment of children, for the protection of those permanently or temporarily incapacitated, and provisions for penalizing through due process those who show that they will misuse such equality. That is, for example, one year olds will not vote, other people may have to make decisions for those in a coma, and violent offenders may be prohibited from future weapons ownership, repeatedly negligent drivers may be prohibited from driving, and repeat paedophiliac offenders may be prohibited from frequenting schoolyards. Re IV, VIII and X: I think that these demand that we not whine about injustice, and what victims we all are. The real world is imperfect. Point out its imperfections, work to ameliorate their effects, learn from your mistakes. Do better next time. Let me summarize, to be really basic, we have come down to: 4 recommendations for individuals: 1) avoid causing harm; 2) be nice; 3) let your yea be yea. 4) obey the laws; 2 for society: 5) maximize freedom; 6) treat everybody the same. 3 more which apply to both: 7) don't be wasteful. 8) learn from your mistakes. 9) live in the real world. General commentary about ethical procedures. I used to get heartily sick at hearing the word "process" in the 80s. It was very big in Unitarian Universalist circles, and elsewhere, for all I know. However, I don't know any other way to express the futility of trying to set up ethical laws graven in stone except to say that solving moral problems is a process. The best analogy I can think of (or that I can steal from others who thought of it first) is that of medical diagnosis. All analogies are suspect but diagnosis shares many characteristics that make it worth examining in this context. 1) Often you don't have all the information. 2) You may still be required to make a decision. 3) Taking no action may be worse than taking no action. 4) It is necessary to monitor the results of actions taken. 5) Subsequent actions are based on previous results. 6) Totally new and unexpected things may pop up and change everything. 1-3) A doctor cannot always wait for a "perfect" diagnosis. There is a tension between being right, and waiting too long. So you do the best you can, and monitor the results. In the practical application of ethics, we may not have all the information, yet still have to decide what to do, right at that moment. Fortunately, we rarely have to make life and death decisions. If we decide to vote one way this election, further information can change our minds for the next. However, we still make the decision whether to vote and how to vote. 4-5) Likewise, if you don't have all the information, it may be wise to not rush headlong into big changes. Make small changes and observe the results, then do more. If what you tried previously didn't work, try something else. 6) In medicine it may be a new drug or a new tool, either of which can make all previous methods obsolete. In ethics, it is usually new information, but it may be external circumstances that change. When things change it is not right to ignore them. We cannot worry about the claim that we don't have a perfect ethical system. Such a thing cannot exist. Every such attempt will bog down in internal contradictions and failure to deal with changes in the real world. It is impossible not to make mistakes. We must expect to be imperfect and arrange to deal with it. Being human is not a fault in humanistic ethics, nor should imperfection be considered a sin. Ideologues refuse to admit mistakes or imperfections. This will take either of two forms. Some keep on applying the same techniques despite their obvious failure to produce the desired result: advocates of capital punishment, and harsh punishment in general, fall in this category. Religion is probably the outstanding example of ossified, and obsolete ethical decisions. While christianity's holy books are recommending that we treat slaves kindly and that slaves owe their bodies and work to their masters, the world has somewhat progressed. Other ideologues will change what they are doing without admitting that their has been any change, and without admitting that what they did before was wrong. The Japanese, for whatever cultural reason, have a big problem admitting that their previous imperialist policies were bad and caused a lot of harm. All religions now pretend that they have always held the humanistic values they now preach, never admitting that burning heretics, keeping slaves, killing apostates and non-believers were directly inspired by the same texts that the still consider "holy" and were, in fact, evil. So, if anyone has a moral or ethical problem, that they wish to test out, hypothetical or real, go ahead and send it in, and we'll try to thrash it out. ========================================================= || END OF ARTICLE || ========================================================= They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has been the condition of the Christian church from then until now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not. -- Clarence Darrow =========================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =========================================================== Religion and Science by Albert Einstein Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions--fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of those beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the traditions handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests. The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe of of the human race, or even life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God. The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates. Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events--provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in the world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people. [, November 9, 1930.] IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM; : : Another Text File From: : : : : The Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna : : : :(213) 766-1356 : : : :24 Hours per day 2400-14.4K, v.32/v.42 bis : : : :"The BBS for the information addict! Over 4000 : : : : text files online." : : HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ========================================================= || END OF ARTICLE || ========================================================= "Everywhere in the world there are ignorance and prejudice, but the greatest complex of these, with the most extensive prestige and the most intimate entanglement with traditional institutions, is the Roman Catholic Church.." [H.G. Wells] =========================================================== '...the Bible as we have it contains elements that are scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No amount of "explaining away" can convince us that such passages are the product of Divine Wisdom.' -- Bernard J. Bamberger, _The Story of Judaism_ ========================================================== || END OF TEXTS || ========================================================== Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom, Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness. ATHEISM: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields =><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><== || Begging portion of the Zine || ==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><== There is no charge for receiving this, and there is no charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium. Nor is there a restriction on printing a copy for use in discussion. You may not charge to do so, and you may not do so without attributing it to the proper author and source. If you would like to support our efforts, and help us acquire better equipment to bring you more and better articles, you may send money to Greg Erwin at: 100, Terrasse Eardley / Aylmer, Qc / J9H 6B5 / CANADA. Or buy our atheist quote address labels, and other fine products, see "Shameless advertising and crass commercialism" below. =><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><= || End of Begging portion of the Zine || =><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><= Articles will be welcomed and very likely used IF: ( they are emailed to: ((ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or, godfree@magi.com), or sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in any format that an IBM copy of WordPerfect can read; ) and they don't require huge amounts of editing; and I like them. I will gladly reprint articles from your magazine, local group's newsletter, or original material. There are currently about 140 subscribers, plus each issue is posted in some newsgroups and is archived as noted elsewhere. If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple request to either address, with a clear request for a subscription. It will be assumed that the "Reply to:" address is where it is to be sent. We will automate this process as soon as we know how. Yes, please DO make copies! (*) Please DO send copies of The Nullifidian to anyone who might be interested. The only limitations are: At least clearly indicate the source, and how to subscribe. You do NOT have permission to copy this document for commercial purposes. The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1995, Greg Erwin (insofar as possible) and are on deposit at the National Library of Canada You may find back issues in any place that archives alt.atheism. Currently, all back issues are posted at the Humanist Association of Ottawa's area on the National Capital Freenet. telnet to 134.117.1.22, and enter at the "Your choice==>" prompt. ARCHIVES Arrangements have been made with etext at umich. ftp to etext.umich.edu directory Nullifidian or lucifers-echo. For America On-Line subscribers: To access the Freethought Forum on America Online enter keyword "Capital", scroll down until you find Freethought Forum, double click and you're there. Double click "Files & Truth Seeker Articles" and scroll until you find Nullifidian files. Double click the file name and a window will open giving you the opportunity to display a description of the file or download the file. And thanks to the people at the _Truth Seeker_, who edited, formatted and uploaded the articles to the aol area. /=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\ Shameless advertising and crass commercialism: \_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/ Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting of 210 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 5/8" x 1". This leaves three 49 character lines available for your own address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each sheet is US$2, the entire set of 7 for US$13; 2 sets for US$20. Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly, exactly as desired. Order from address in examples below. Laser printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes. [NOT ACTUAL SIZE] <-------------------2 5/8"----------------------> _________________________________________________ |"Reality is that which, when you stop believing |/\ |in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] | | |Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | 1" |Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada | | | email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | | |________________________________________________|\/ _________________________________________________ |"...and when you tell me that your deity made | |you in his own image, I reply that he must be | |very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] | |Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | |Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 | | email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |________________________________________________| Other quote in between the articles are usually part of the label quote file. Occasionally I throw in one that is too long for a label, but which should be shared. Other stuff for sale: Certificate of Baptism Removal and Renunciation of Religion. Have your baptism removed, renounce religion, and have a neat 8" x 11" fancy certificate, on luxury paper, suitable for framing, to commemorate the event! Instant eligibility for excommunication! For the already baptism-free: Certificate of Freedom from Religion. An official atheistic secular humanist stamp of approval for only $10! Pamphlet on "how to get excommunicated" included FREE with purchase. Poster 8x11: WARNING! This is a religion free zone! All religious vows, codes, and commitments are null & void herein. Please refrain from contaminating the ideosphere with harmful memes through prayer, reverence, holy books, proselytizing, prophesying, faith, speaking in tongues or spirituality. Fight the menace of second-hand faith! Humanity sincerely thanks you! Tastefully arranged in large point Stencil on luxury paper. Order from the same address as above. /=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\ ============================================================ Neat books available from H.H. Waldo, Bookseller! Books by Ingersoll! Heston's 19th Century Freethought Cartoons! Holy Horrors, An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness, by James A. Haught..........................$21.95 Christian Science, by Mark Twain.....................$15.95 (reprint of original attack) Deadly Doctrine, by Wendell W. Watters, MD...........$27.50 (Psychological damage caused by Christianity) Leaving the Fold, Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, by Edward Babinski..................$32.50 and many, many more. Ever changing inventory. Friendly letters and news from Robb Marks, Proprietor. add $2 postage/handling for first book & 0.50 for each additional book. (All prices US$) Send 2 first class stamps for H.H. Waldo's current catalog. (Use international reply coupon, or get hold of US Stamps) TO: H.H Waldo, Bookseller P.O. Box 350 Rockton, IL 61072 or phone 1-800-66WALDO !!! tell 'im: "that nullifidian guy sent me!" Once again: ISSN: 1201-0111 The Nullifidian Volume Two, Number 10: OCTOBER 1995. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The problem with religions that have all the answers is that they don't let you ask the questions. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (*) There is no footnote, and certainly not an endnote. -- Autumn afternoon Greg Erwin ai815@freenet.Carleton.ca Alone walk on fallen gold VP, Humanist Association of Canada Sun shines, warmth fading Man created God, not God, man ---Garibaldi