Archive for Tuesday, January 5, 1993


January 5, 1993


To the editor:

I thank George Kaull for coming forward unashamedly as a card-carrying atheist to be a spokesman for his cause. Mr. Kaull claimed in his letter here Dec. 30 that atheism is not a religion and suggested, since I think otherwise, that I consult my dictionary.

My dictionary defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Further, it defines faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Thus, for a belief to be properly called religious, it is sufficient that it be ardently and firmly held without proof. It follows that for Mr. Kaull to rationally deny that atheism is a religion, he must be able to categorically prove that his belief in the non-existence of God is true. He must be able to show that atheistic belief is a matter of knowledge, not faith. Until that is done, atheism is properly called a religion.

Mr. Kaull's letter was notable for its sarcasm and its insults against monotheists. Why is that? My guess is that Mr. Kaull is among those who think we should disregard the moral absolutes taught by monotheistic religions that protect the weak, be they weak in terms of money, health, genetic makeup or age. Those who aim to undermine our moral tradition of protecting the weak cannot be forthright about their intent; hence, they attempt to silence their opponents with sarcasm and personal insult.

Joe Gilman,

2908 Stratford Rd.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.