Thank you very much for including my letter in the July/ August issue and for your comments to it. I am deceived [sic] to learn that, in spite of that categorical affirmation by Lenin, you are still awaiting for further proofs to admit that there is a close relationship between communism and atheism. However, I am to supply you with plenty of these proofs.
The following sentences are from the book The Scientifical Atheism, by the Institute of Scientifical Atheism of the Academy of Social Sciences of the USSR, adjoint to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR. It has been used for years as a handbook for the Marxist formation of University students. Its Czech translation became a textbook for the Marxist formation of the members of the Czech Communist Party. According to the Spanish translation of it, all this "shows until what a point atheism and struggle against religion are considered a constitutive element of the formation and activity of a good communist" ( p. 7 ). "Marxist atheism is a combative atheism it is a consequent doctrine of party" (remarked in the original, p. 16). "The Central Committee of the CPSU approved in the latest years several resolutions in which there were shown practical measures for the improvement of the system of atheist education" ( p. 23 ).
"Lenin explained that the sentence by Marx that `religion is the opium of the people' constituted the cornerstone of the whole Marxist conception of religious question" ( p. 40 ). "The founders of historical and dialectical Marxism... in their works... formulated the fundamental principles of proletarian atheism as an inseparable part of the scientifical world outlook of the party of the working- class" ( p. 179 ).
In his article 'The Attitude of the Workers' Party towards Religion," May 1909, Lenin showed that the atheism of Marxists is the "direct and unavoidable conclusion of dialectic materialism." And, later: "The Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion." In his article "The Meaning of Militant Materialism," Lenin wrote, "It is necessary to supply such masses with the most varied material of atheist propaganda... to plan more scientifically the struggle against religion" (p. 1 88). Lenin determined patently the place of scientifical atheism and atheist propaganda in the activity of the Communist Party: "Our propaganda includes obligatorily the propaganda of atheism" ( p. 184 ).
"The history of more than fifty years of Soviet society confirmed in a concrete way the irremovable principles of atheist Marxist- Leninist doctrine" ( p. 191 ). "During the period of Socialist construction (in the Soviet Union), it actively realized the propaganda of atheism, which was an integral part of the ideological labour of the Communist Party anti-religious books and booklets were published by millions.... A great labour with people was developed by anti-religious museums " ( p. 276 ).
"The Communist Party is the organizer of atheist education (remarked in the original ). The matter of the struggle against religion was the object of debates in the plenary of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party in 1921. The plenum underlined the need to follow rigorously the requirements of the Party program relating to that, every member made an energetic and militant anti-religious propaganda. The matters of ideological fight against religion was also considered in XII and XIII Congresses, in the conferences and plena [sic]of the Central Committee of the Party. In the approved documents, the Party paid attention to the improvement of the forms and methods of anti-religious propaganda" ( p. 310 ).
The Central Committee of the CPSU approved a series of important resolutions relating to the ideological labour, including the atheist education of workers. In the decisions of the CC of the CPSU of 7th July 1954, "On the great defects of the scientific-atheist propaganda and on the measures to improve it," and of the 10th November 1954, "On the errors in the realization of scientifical-atheist propaganda among population" and in "Measures to reinforce the atheist education of people," were defined neatly and clearly the tasks of the atheist education of masses ( p. 311- 312 ). In the XII, XIII and XIV Congresses of CPSU, the Communist Party raised the demand to establish a rational system of scientifical-atheist education of masses ( p. 313 ).
The first paragraph of the chapter entitled "Conclusions," in this official Communist handbook, reads as follows: "The study of scientific atheism proves that it is an undetachable aspect of Marxist world outlook" ( remarked in the original). That is, exactly the contrary of what Mr.Till stated ("Communism is an economic/ political ideology that has nothing to do with (a)theism" ).
In An Atheist History of Religions by A. Kryvelev, from the same publishers, we can read, "Marxism-Leninism [is] opposed to religion, and particularly to Christianism, a harmonious and consequent system of scientific- materialistic opinions, totally atheist and without shady compromises with religion" ( p. 125 ).
On page 54 of Program of the Communist International, we read: "One of the most important tasks of the cultural revolution, which affects the masses, is the way to combat systematically and implacably religion, the opium of people.... While the proletarian estate grants the liberty of cults, abolishes the privileged position of the formerly commanding religion, continues the antirreligious propaganda with all means, and rebuilds the whole of its educational enterprise on the basis of a scientifical Materialism."
"At the time (by 1939) the official postulate was proclaimed: `The USSR is a country of mass atheism,' and harassment of believers was encouraged. A popular slogan was `The struggle against religion is the struggle for socialism.'" ( L. W. Mitrokhin, in Free Inquiry , Winter 1990/91 ).
I hope Mr. Till will now be aware that Communism has very much to do with (a)theism, that atheism is an undetachable aspect of Communism, a doctrine of the Party, and according to his promise, he will admit that he was mistaken on this matter. It will be no demerit on his part but on the contrary, a proof of his intellectual honesty.
Many thanks again for your good work.
(Antonio Casao-Ibanez, Apartado 882, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain)
Editor's Note: I reluctantly devoted a whole page to Mr. Casao's letter so that I could not be accused of having censored anything that he said. Following in the wake of Everette Hatcher's almost endless strings of quotations, this was probably an unwise editorial decision.
Mr. Casao seems determined to prove that atheism is an inseparable aspect of communism, and I suppose he will accuse me of intransigence, but I just can't see that anything in his extensive quotations from Soviet documents proves that communism necessarily entails atheism. He spoke about "a close relationship between communism and atheism," but I have never denied that the main countries that have experimented with communism also promoted atheism, but that would in no way prove that atheism is a necessary element of communism, any more than a socialist country's promotion of Christianity would mean that Christianity is a necessary aspect of socialism.
His sources show that the Soviet system promoted atheism, but I don't know of anyone who would dispute that. To say that atheism is necessarily an aspect of communism because the Soviet system promoted atheism would be comparable to arguing that because the Republican party in the United States promotes many conservative Christian causes, Christian conservatism is therefore an aspect of Republicanism. In reality, Republicanism wasn't founded for any such reason but has simply been dominated in recent years by members who promote those causes. There have been many religious communes organized according to principles of communism, as was the early church (Acts 4:32ff), but they certainly weren't atheistic in their religious philosophy. Until Mr. Casao can show that the philosophy of atheism was incorporated into the doctrines of communism as formulated by its founders, I will still maintain my position that communism is an economic and not a religious philosophy.
A Surprising Admission... Enclosed is a two-year subscription renewal. The Skeptical Review continues to be informative and thought-provoking.
I recently received a booklet Questions and Answers about Islam by Larry Spargimino from Southwest Radio Church Ministeries, and thought you might enjoy the following passage. The author, in showing that the Koran is not inerrant, made a surprising admission about the Bible.
Spargimino started this passage by quoting claims by Muammar Qadaffi, the leader of Libya, that Jews and Christians deliberately edited out references to Muhammad from the Bible. Qadaffi was quoted as saying, "This story has not reached us clearly either through the Torah or the Bible, because the current copies of the Old and New Testaments have been forged and distorted and the name of the prophet Muhammad and many other things have been intentionally dropped from them."
To this, Spargimino responded: "Of course, we can readily understand why the name of the prophet Muhammad is not to be found in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Both of these testaments were written down many years before Muhammad was even born. Just as you do not find the name George Washington in the Bible, you would not find the name Muhammad in the Bible for the same reason."
In other words, when people or events are described in books of the Bible, it is because the people lived and the events occurred before the book was written down. That seems like a reasonable principle. And it would seem reasonable to apply it not only to Islamic claims but to Christian claims as well. So when books such as Isaiah and Daniel name names and describe events, it should be easy to "readily understand" that this is because those parts of the books were written during or after the time of the people and events described.
Sadly, many people find this easy to understand when examining the claims of other people's religions but hard to accept when examining their own.
(Nova Land, 292 Haydenburg, Whitleyville, TN 38588)
Editor's Note: Those who study the apologetic works of those who seek to prove that other religions like Islam and Mormonism are "true religions" will find that the same kind of defenses are made for these religions as those used by biblical apologists in defense of the Bible. Likewise, apologists who seek to discredit nonbiblical religions will use arguments like the one that Ms. Land quoted above, but they are apparently unable to see that the same kind of argumentation would disprove the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Who can explain why religious beliefs so often make people put their brains on hold?
A farewell from Hatcher...
I want to thank Farrell Till for the opportunity to participate in this lengthy discussion on the book of Daniel (March/April 1998 to September-October 2001). I firmly believe no skeptic on the face of the earth has more biblical knowledge than Mr. Till, and I want to thank him for allowing other skeptics to email me directly concerning this too. I hope to continue to discuss these issues with anyone who wishes to contact me at everetteiii@aristotle.net. I have put the papers by Dr. Stephen Miller and me on the internet here, and I have given information to help others subscribe to TSR in order to get these past issues concerning the Daniel debate. Farrell Till and I did debate on the internet list ii_errancy@topica.com for the last three months of 2001, but we couldn't make a lot of progress. However, we did write over 100 emails during that period, and we did discuss a few issues in a very extensive way. Now it is time to move on, and I wish Till continued success with his publication. I have always been a reader of skeptical publications such as The Skeptical Review, The Humanist, The Skeptical Inquirer, The American Rationalist, The Skeptic, and Free Inquiry, and I have been impressed with the dialogue between skeptics and believers that takes place in these magazines. Unlike Christian magazines, which tend not to publish letters from skeptics, I must say that The Skeptical Review does have more interaction between believers and skeptics than any other publication I have seen today, and for that I want to thank Farrell Till, and I hope Till keeps up the good dialogue.
(Everette Hatcher III, P. O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221 e-mail, everetteiii@aristotle.net)
Editor's Note: Those who check the web site on which Hatcher has posted the article that he "co-authored" with Stephen Miller will see that it contains more of the same. There can be no end to quoting books that agree with one's religious position, and that is the reason why I have not published his article "co-authored" with Stephen Miller. This article that Hatcher seems so proud of has also been posted on the Errancy site here, so anyone who wants to can access it and see that Hatcher has again tried to prove his position by mainly quoting writers who agree with him. The article itself, however, contains very little effort to prove that what Hatcher's "scholars" say is true. Hatcher knows that I have told him that I will gladly reply to this article as soon as he replies to arguments of mine that he has been evading in the Daniel debate in progress on the Errancy list. As I write this, I have on hold in my computer the first four parts of my reply, which I will post as soon as Hatcher meets his obligation to reply to affirmative arguments that I have posted in defense of my position on the dating of Daniel.
Hatcher's letter above sounded like his swan song, so the lull in our debate on the internet will probably turn into a permanent one.
Saul and Harry Potter...
Recently I was reading the January/February issue of Good News, a magazine published by the United Church of God. It had an article entitled "The Bible and Harry Potter: Occult Fantasy in Perspective." An hour after finishing this article, I picked up my mail and there was your January/February TSR with its lead article, "Harry Potter and the Witch of Endor."
The story of King Saul is interesting. According to the version in 1 Samuel 28, he feared an upcoming battle with the Philistines, so he "inquired of the Lord" (v:6) about the future but got no answer. Then he sent his servants to find a seer, and they led him (in disguise) to the witch of Endor. Apparently, Saul had banished witches from the kingdom, so when he asked the witch to call up a dead spirit, she refused, suspecting a sting operation. Saul promised there would be no punishment, and she called up Samuel. This spirit basically told Saul, "If the Lord won't answer you, why should I?" But Saul persisted, and Samuel gave him the bad news. Sure enough, in the foreseen battle, Saul was hit by an arrow and chose to kill himself rather than suffer abuse from the Philistines.
Now, it is tempting to suggest that the witch of Endor had better intelligence than the Lord, so it is no surprise that the Good News magazine uses this story with a different spin. Easy to do, they just go a couple of books farther into the Bible, to 1 Chronicles10. Here is the Saul story again, but with two extra verses (13-14). These verses say that the reason Saul died was because he asked "counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it. And inquired not of the Lord therefore he slew him." This makes a strong fundamentalist argument for avoiding witches, seers, psychics, and spirit-consulters of all kinds (Good News’ intent, I'm sure).
There is a point that both your TSR article and the Good News article have brought to my attention. Comparing 1 Samuel 28 with 1 Chronicles10... did Saul inquire of the Lord, or didn't he?
(Carl Nye, P. O. Box 175, Cottonwood, AZ 86326-0175 e-mail, c_nye99@yahoo.com)
Editor's Note: As often happened in parallel accounts in the Bible, inconsistencies resulted from telling the same story from two different perspectives. First Samuel 28:6 clearly says that "Saul inquired of Yahweh," but "Yahweh answered him not." The account in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, however, says that Saul "died for his unfaithfulness," because "he had consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from Yahweh." Clearly, there is an inconsistency here.
After writing the Harry Potter article, I learned that there had been even more radical opposition to the movie and books in other parts of the country. In Alamagordo, NM, a local preacher even organized a book-burning ceremony. The tragedy in such events as this is that the gullible who follow their preachers are so uninformed that they don't realize that almost everything they protest can be found in the Bible, which they rarely read.
Missing the Mark...
Thank you for mentioning that the David Rice supporting Hatcher's odd fantasies is not I. It saves me from having to tell people that, no, I have not suffered a massive trauma to my head.
Attached is a cartoon I made the day after the World Trade Center towers fell. It occurred to me, as I watched the smoke and flames belch from the towers, that just as the people on the ground were praying to "the one true god" while the rubble fell, just minutes earlier the hijackers of the passenger jets had also been praying to the "one true god." Hutchinson and Till have both missed the mark on the issue, I think. It is not religion per se that is the "culprit." The actual culprit is the belief that one's culture is superior to all others. Religion merely provides the excuses used by madmen to inflict evil upon those "inferior cultures" and still allow those madmen to sleep smugly and contentedly at night. How can any act be evil if "the one true god" approves? The culprit is xenophobia, not religion. While I have a real fondness for Mr. Hutchinson, when he wrote that Till is the "real culprit" in the terrorist attack against the USA, I wondered if that fondness is due to the fact that I always pick the ugliest, most cross-eyed runt of the litter to cherish.
(David Rice, 723 Calla Casita, San Clemente, CA 92673-2708 e-mail, drumbeat@infostations.com)
Editor's Note: The cartoon that Mr. Rice sent as an attachment with his e-mail letter could not be opened by my e-mail service, but I can imagine what it depicted. We have all seen TV news reports in which American officials chimed their obligatory "God bless America" only to be followed by coverage of Muslims in Afghanistan or Pakistan claiming that Allah was with them.
Scenes like these indicate to me that Rice is the one missing the mark. It is no doubt true that cultural fanaticism is a factor in the present turmoil that terrorism has recently caused, but as noted in my replies to the article by Tim Simmons, the concept of separation of religion and state was completely foreign to people living in biblical times, so religion was a deeply imbedded part of national cultures. That attitude still seems to prevail in that part of the world. Although we have at least tried to separate religion and state in this country, we haven't been entirely successful. The continued efforts of Christian fundamentalism to gain legislative advantage show just how far we still have to go, and even those who are not religious fundamentalists still retain a feeling that God is on our side. That is testified to by every politician who ends a speech with, "God bless American," and I don't have to comment on how often that is done. The situation, then, is that western culture thinks that it is superior to eastern culture and vice versa, and each side thinks that its god is on its side. That makes religion more of a culprit than Rice seems to think.
A second swan song....
Thank you for your reply. Please do not waste our time by adding me to the "Errancy List." If you re-read all of my comments recently submitted by e-mail, it will be self-evident that I did not submit "articles" to TSR, but personal e-mails to you. But maybe in your world there is no difference. I have no intent on writing any "articles" to TSR, nor reading any more for that matter. In this regard, please save yourself the time and expense of sending future issues of TSR to my residential address. Your response conveys your annoyance with me. Why invest so much of your time in making personal attacks against those who disagree with you? The central issue of Christianity is Jesus Christ, not Michael Bradford, nor anyone else. You can "nail my hide to the wall" as often as you enjoy it, but it still does nothing to the claims of Christianity. You are fighting a "war" that you cannot win (obviously you disagree).
You know well the claims of the Christian Gospel: That there is one God, who reconciled all who will believe to Himself through the death and resurrection of His Son, Christ Jesus that all who repent and believe in Him are saved and are born to eternal life, while for those who reject the Son, the wrath of God abides on them. You have chosen personally to reject the claim of the Christian Gospel. If it's false, then your decision doesn't matter (in an eternal sense). If it's true, and, yes, I believe that the Gospel is true in an absolute sense, then your decision does matter (both now and in an eternal sense). But you already know that. So, why bother continuing the discussion/debate?
(Michael Bradford, 9 Essex Street, Reading, MA 01867)
Editor's Note: I will respect Bradford's request and remove him from the TSR mailing list, although I'm not at all sure this is the last time I will hear from him. The very last sentence in his article published in the September/October issue (p. 10) indicated that I would not be hearing from him again, but I have found in my correspondence file at least two e-mails that he has sent since then.
Bradford said that if I would reread all of his recently submitted e-mail comments, I would see that he was not submitting "articles" to TSR but just "personal e-mails" to me. I have gone back through his correspondence, which I have kept on file, and I found that "Futility," published in the September/October issue, came with this statement affixed at the beginning: "A final manuscript entitled `Futility' is enclosed herein for your review. Please consider it for immediate publication in the next issue of TSR.." If he didn't intend for me to publish this, I trust that he will understand why I thought that he did want it published.
Instead of the letter above, I had intended to publish in
this space a letter that Bradford sent on December 3, 2001, in which he
issued a call for either Dave Matson or me to write an article for TSR
in
which we give the reasons why we don't think that Jesus of Nazareth
does not satisfy criteria needed to establish his historical existence,
but when I received his latest letter, I decided to publish it instead.
I suspect that Mr. Bradford's frustration at being unable to defend his
belief with logical argumentation has affected his memory of what he
has said in his e-mails to me. At no time did I think that he was just
writing to me personally.
