Hutchinson's complete Letter...
Translating from one language to another can be difficult for any number of reasons. As a result, translators will often provide what they think the author meant to say. In the case of the Bible, the overall translation may be quite good but parts may not. An example is a recent translation, The Message. Reviews indicate that it is competent in some parts but atrocious in others.
In the translations cited by Matson, the translators have actually inserted their understanding of the verse in lieu of providing the reader with a straight word for word translation. In effect, their translations have become commentaries on the verse. Skeptics, like Matson, can fail to grasp the difference between what a verse actually states and what the translator wants the reader to think it says.
In the case of Genesis 36:31, the word for word translation is easy enough to obtain even if the result is difficult to understand. Some translators then feel obligated to make the verse less difficult to understand. Since some people think the verse is a prophetic utterance about future Israelite kings, certain translators have expanded their translations to accommodate that view.
No translation is right or wrong on its own merit, as a rule. Context is generally the final factor leading to the correct understanding of a verse. We are having a good interchange on Genesis 36:31 because it has focused on context. Matson's citation of a few translations has not really added anything constructive to that discussion. Matson, like Van Eck, seems to be pursuing an agenda rather than seeking to help people to understand the context of the verse.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20902; e-mail, RHutchin@AOL.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Most of this letter was published in my reply to Hutchinson in the May/June issue, but I wanted readers to see it in its entirety so that I could reemphasize Hutchinson's colossal hypocrisy. When he wrote this letter, he knew that he had already sent to me a reply to Stephen Van Eck in which he obviously had searched for a version that had "translated" into Jeremiah 7:22-23 the same distorted meaning that he was trying to give it. I searched through various translations but found none that gave the passage in Jeremiah the same meaning that the NIV gave to it by inserting the word "just," which had no equivalent in the Hebrew text. Hypocrisy is the only word I know to describe accurately Hutchinson's conduct in this matter, because he has obviously done the very thing that he accused Matson of doing. Most translations convey the same meaning in Genesis 36:31 as the versions that Matson quoted, so I don't think that he shopped around until he had found some that agreed with him. He was simply quoting some modern translations to show that if Hutchinson could pull himself away from his beloved KJV, he might actually find some versions that would clarify the meaning of this verse. Hutchinson, on the other hand, quoted a version that virtually stands alone in its rendition of the Jeremiah passage, so he obviously went out of his way to find a translation that put into the passage what he wants it to mean. Indeed, hypocrisy is an appropriate label for Hutchinson's "apologetic" style. He thinks he has the right to do what he demands that his opponents not do.
Genea in the New Testament...
Thank you for publishing The Skeptical Review. I find your material very helpful in my continuing quest to arrive at a frame of reference that I can live with. Please renew my subscription for another year for which I have enclosed the appropriate payment.
In regard to the recent article on the use of genea in the New Testament, it should be obvious from an examination of how this word is used in the New Testament that Christ was not referring to some generation 2000 years into the future. In order to arrive at an understanding of what Christ meant by "this generation," let us first look at the Greek work genea, which is translated "generation" in Matthew 24:34 and many other New Testament scriptures. In the Arndt, Gingrich and Bauer Greek Lexicon, genea is shown to have the general meaning of "the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time." The meaning can apply to all those descended from a common ancestor.
Thayer's Greek lexicon provides similar meaning by defining genea as that which has been begotten of the same stock, all having similar characteristics. Genea can also refer to a particular age or time.
It is interesting to note that genea is not defined as a specific number of years but instead relates to a group of people living at the same time, whereas our English usage tends more toward assigning a more specific number of years to the word. Webster shows it to be around 30 years or the period of time between the birth of one generation and the birth of another generation.
Now let's look at how genea is used in context in the New Testament scriptures involving the sayings of Christ. in Matthew 23:36, speaking to the Pharisees, Christ said that all the righteous blood that has been shed on the earth would "come upon this generation," referring to the generation of Pharisees he was addressing. In Matthew 16:1-4, the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Christ and asked for a sign. Christ addressed them as a wicked and adulterous generation (genea). In Matthew 11:11-19, Christ was speaking about himself and John the Baptist in relation to their generation (same Greek word). In Luke 17:25, Christ spoke of having to suffer many things of "this generation," referring to the generation of his time (same Greek word).
In every place where the authors of the New Testament showed Christ using the word genea, the context shows Christ using this word to refer to the people he was addressing at the time. Therefore, there is no scriptural justification to say that Christ was using genea in some other way in Matthew 24:34. Christ did not say that generation or some other generation; he said this generation. To try to make this saying of Christ apply to a generation far out into the future is totally inconsistent and incompatible with all other usage of genea in the New Testament. It may be helpful to look at a few other translations of Matthew 24:34.
New English Bible: I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all.
Today's English Version: Remember this! All these things will happen before people living now have all died.
Weymouth's Translation: I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation will not pass away, till all this happens.
It should be apparent from the foregoing that the generation that Christ was addressing applied to those living in the first century and, therefore, his return, which in many other scriptures is also tied to the establishment of the kingdom, the judgment, and the resurrection, was prophesied by Christ to occur in the first century. If it can't be demonstrated that Christ actually returned in the first century, we have a real problem with scriptural credibility.
(David Kroll, 6865 North Burbank, Milwaukee,WI 53224; e-mail, DAKBJK@AOL.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mark Smith's article on pages 6-9 of this issue should give the coup de grace to Hutchinson's attempt to make Matthew 24:34 refer to whatever generation will be living when Jesus returns. Besides begging the question of whether Jesus will return, Hutchinson's "interpretation" of this verse is patently ridiculous, but we have seen in his past articles that no interpretation of scripture can be too absurd for him to defend when biblical inerrancy is at stake. When we see him defend absurdity after absurdity, we eventually reach a point when we have to wonder about his sincerity. Does he really believe all of this stuff? Can he possibly believe that the kings who reigned over the Israelites in Genesis 36:31 were the pharaohs of the Egyptian bondage and that the "generation" that would not die until "all these things be accomplished" was not the generation of Jesus's time but a generation that would live at some time in the distant future, a future that had to be at least 20 centuries away? I doubt it. There has to be a limit to the number of absurd apologetic scenarios that even a biblical inerrantist can believe.
Contemporary articles...
I wish you were more contemporary and current. Why not discuss the Jesus Seminar? The theological articles in The Commonwealth and Christianity Today and The Christian Century? Why not attack Billy Graham's misinterpretations of the Bible? Why spend so much time on obscure biblical questions and unimportant correspondents? Discuss biblical bestsellers.
(Dexter Martin, 629 Sixth Avenue, Brookings, SD 57006)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Martin's questions are easy to answer. The editorial purpose of The Skeptical Review, which was announced in its first issue back in January 1990 and which has been maintained ever since, is to debunk the biblical inerrancy doctrine. The biblical inerrancy doctrine is admittedly absurd, but there is a vociferous minority in the country who believe this doctrine and use it as an excuse to try to impose their beliefs on the entire country through political activities. Unfortunately, few people are equipped to confront them, because most skeptics have the same attitude as Mr. Martin's, i. e., these issues are unimportant. I happen to disagree, so when I saw the undue influence that the likes of the "Moral Majority," and now the "Christian Coalition," were having on government policy, I decided that it was time for an informed opposition to confront them. I began The Skeptical Review in order to expose the absurdity of the biblical inerrancy doctrine and to educate as many as possible in ways to confront its proponents. If I followed Mr. Martin's suggestion, no one would be happier than biblical inerrantists, who love to wave aside the opinions of the Jesus Seminar and the articles in publications like those that he cited as just "liberalism" that doesn't warrant the attention of faithful Christians.
Culture Shock...
My name is Johan Grahn and I moved to the United States about a year ago from Sweden. Since Sweden is a very secular country (only one to two percent go to church regularly) I was shocked by the immense presence of religion here. After being attacked by street preachers one time too many, I decided that enough was enough and began studying religion in general and Christianity in particular. I had always been an atheist and so had almost all of my friends. There had never been a reason for me to study Christianity before. I became appalled by the inconsistencies and logical holes in the Christian doctrine. Your publication played no small part in my education.
I just wrote you to thank you for your excellent publication, and I wanted to tell you that your readers are probably much more numerous than you think, thanks to the Internet Infidels. Judging from the chat groups I have been involved with, your material is used extensively. I especially favor your letter section and your twilight zone series. You can be very funny when you try to, you know.
I also had two questions that I'd like to hear your opinion about. First, why is the United States so very, very religious? Some people think that the Jefferson wall is to blame for this. What is your opinion?
Secondly, I recently became involved in a written discussion about whether all religions were harmful to society, and I argued that they were. If people place their trust in superstition instead of reason, even the most benign belief turns sinister with time. I later realized that I could be accused of the slippery-slope fallacy, what do you think?
Once again, thank you very much and good luck in the future. Since I'm a Swede, usually speaking Swedish, I trust that you'll not be too hard on my spelling and grammatical errors.
(Johan Grahn, Suite 407, 55 West Chestnut, Chicago, IL 60610; e-mail, jgrahn@elcamino.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm always glad to hear that TSR has been of help to those who try to do their bit in opposing Christian fundamentalism. I intentionally put Mr. Grahn's letter right after Dexter Martin's so that it could serve as sort of an answer to his questions. I feel that there is a need for a forum that can educate people on how to oppose Christian fundamentalists, who, unfortunately, receive far more attention from public officials than their numbers justify. Unless their fervor and dedication are matched by those who can see the insidiousness of their belief system, we stand to see Christian fundamentalism make legislative gains that the majority would probably not like to see. I had always found it easy to send door-to-door missionaries on their way. Rather than telling them that I had no interest in talking to them, as some do, I would invite them in and within minutes have them squirming uncomfortably as they tried to comment on biblical discrepancies that I would point out in rapid-fire succession. Most people can't do that, because they simply don't know the Bible well enough, so I undertook to publish a journal that would give detailed examples of discrepancies that cast serious doubts on the fundamentalist claim that the Bible is "the word of God" and should therefore be accepted as an authoritative moral guide. Over the years, I have had many readers say, as Mr. Grahn did above, that they have found the articles to be helpful in their conversations with Christian fundamentalists. I doubt if they would have found much use for articles that discussed the Jesus Seminar and other more modern theological views, because these are too easy for biblical fundamentalists to wave aside as "liberalism." In saying this, I don't intend to denigrate these modern theological studies. I think they serve a useful purpose, but Christian fundamentalists just aren't going to pay attention to what they so readily call "liberals." Success in combating them is much more likely when one takes the Bible and points out that what is said in passage X cannot be reconciled with what is said in passages Y and Z. This approach turns their own "inspired word of God" against them. The other approach will simply be regarded as attempts by liberals to gut the Bible and discredit Christian beliefs.
As for the questions Mr. Grahn asked, some do think that the separation of church and state has actually helped fundamentalist Christianity by turning the Christian right into radicals bent on undoing what was done by the so-called founding fathers when they adopted a religiously neutral constitution. The neutrality of the constitution gave fundamentalists a cause that they wouldn't have had if Christianity had been made the official state religion as it was in some European countries. I've seen internet postings from Europeans who say the same thing that Mr. Grahn did about the state of Christianity in Sweden. European states subsidize Christianity, but only a fraction of the populations pay it any serious attention.
I have sometimes thought that it would be ironic if the Christian right succeeded in getting prayers and devotional periods into our schools and other public institutions. What would they say when the adoption of their agenda did nothing to bring about the reversal of moral trends after they had simplistic declared for years that morality took a nosedive when the supreme court "took God out of the schools"?
As for whether religion does more harm than good, I personally think that religion does far more harm than good. I don't have space to discuss all of my reasons for thinking this, so I'll mention just two. How much farther along would the world be scientifically and technologically, if the years from 10,000 B. C. to A. D. 1700 had been spent in scientific inquiry rather than in blind acceptance of religious superstitions as the explanations for things that were not understood? How much does religion contribute to the success of con artists who prey on the gullibility of those who have grown up without being taught the importance of healthy skepticism? When people grow up being taught as children to believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny and then later are taught to believe in religious mysticism that includes tales about virgin births, resurrections, prayers to invisible entities, and other outlandish superstitions, is it any wonder that they fall easy prey to those who scheme to strip them of their money through psychic hotlines, tarot cards, astrology, and outright confidence schemes that thrive on gullibility? I can't help believing that religion prepares people to become victims of such schemes.
Twenty-Four Hours in Time...
I just want to point something out about the article, "Twenty-Four Hours in Time" in TSR, November/December 1998. What no one seemed to realize is that the verse says: "And the sun stood still, and moon stopped, until the nation took vengence on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? And the sun stood still, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day" (Josh. 10:13).
Joshua apparently didn't know that the sun doesn't set, and if the sun moves or not, that has nothing to do with a long day. What makes a day is the earth's rotation on its axis. The Oxford Paperback Dictionary defines a day as: 2. "The time for one rotation of the earth; a period of 24 hours." Thus, if the sun had stopped, this would not have had anything to do with day and night. It is only an idiomatic expression that the sun sets, but, of course, the sun does not set or stop or do anything; it is the earth turning on its axis that causes day and night.
Viewing this verse in history, we can trace it back to Copernicus's time. Copernicus wrote "The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, which was withheld from publication by the Church until May 24, 1543. In this book, Copernicus said that the sun is the centre of the solar system and that the earth and other planets revolve around it. The Roman Church instantly denounced the work as heresy. Father Luther wrote, "This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth!" (qtd. by Joseph Wheless, Is It God's Word? Kessinger Publishers: Montana, USA, 1992, p. 268). This is clear evidence that this passage in Joshua is inaccurate when compared to science.
(Gavin Steingo, P. O. Box 784496, Sandton 2146, South Africa; e-mail, gostein@iafrica.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: As hard as it is to believe, there are geocentric believers even today, who think that the earth is the center of our solar system and that the sun and other planets orbit the earth. They will quote Joshua 10:13 and other passage in support of their belief, just as Wheless said that Luther did. More sensible Christians, however, including even biblical inerrantists, will argue that passages like Joshua 10:13 were using accommodative language and that the Bible really doesn't teach geocentrism. No matter how firmly a biblical belief may be entrenched, whenever science comes forth with undeniable evidence that the belief is wrong, all but the most radical of Bible believers will simply reinterpret the relevant passages to show that the writers knew all along what science has just recently discovered. This has caused flat-earth belief to be abandoned (except for a few ignorant holdouts) and to be replaced with the correct scientific view. Passages like Isaiah 40:22, which were once quoted by diehard flat-earthers, are now quoted by biblical inerrantists as proof that biblical writers knew all along that the earth was a sphere. The same thing will happen in the creation/evolution controversy. After science has presented evidence for evolution that cannot be reasonably disputed--and we have almost reached that point--fundamentalists will go back to the drawing board and reinterpret Genesis 1 to show that the writer had known all along that evolution had caused speciation.
Basic Nature...
As I read the convoluted letter of Frank P. Calderon (January/February 2000), my mouth fairly dropped open in amazement. I jotted down some notes of things I wanted to address in his lame, rehashed notions, but then I read Farrell Till's response, and he had already answered Calderon in his usual, superb fashion. However, I'd still like to comment on a few of the particularly absurd points of Mr. Calderon.
Calderon's same old, same old theme of "natural order" always makes me wonder why, if this god who is so omnipotent, controls the planets in their orbits, the infinity of the universe, the speed of light, etc., he is so incompetent concerning the well-being of mankind? Why is it today, and every single day, 40,000 children on earth will die of starvation, disease, neglect, and abuse? And, if he is so omniscient, as the Bible teaches, then why does he want millions to be born who, after suffering through this life, will then suffer eternally in the fires of hell? Geez! Don't Christians ever wonder about these primitive, awful, gruesome, hideous fictions that are taught in every church to helpless children? As Buddha said, "If god permits such misery to exist, he cannot be god, and if he is powerless to prevent it, he cannot be god."
Mr. Calderon also opined that "we as humans aren't self-sufficient." He said man has been unable to conquer illnesses, stop aging, or prevent death. Wrong! The accomplishments of those things are evolving and ongoing. One by one, horrible illnesses have been conquered in all but the most primitive places on earth. And even there, with education on cleanliness, population control, and access to nutrition, vaccinations and antibiotics, those diseases could be conquered.
Once people suffered and died from the horrors of bubonic plague, leprosy, cholera, and smallpox. When I was a child, over sixty years ago, people in America were still dying from tuberculosis, polio, and numerous infections like diphtheria. Those things are practically unheard of now in the civilized world. Did god do it? Did he just perform a few miracles, like on Touched by an Angel? No! Science did it. Science always does it. And religion has always fought scientific discoveries, from birth control and pain relief, to astronomy. When Copernicus proved the earth orbited the sun, not the other way around, he had to keep that knowledge quiet or suffer torture and death. When Bruno openly agreed about the planets, he was burned, and Galileo recanted after suffering torture at the age of 72.
One more thing, Mr. Calderon, and that is your misstatement that man has not been able to prevent death. My death has been prevented several times by science and medicine, and that is true of most people, if one stops to think about it. Thanks to Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, I didn't die in 1950 from a monstrous infection. As a matter of fact, penicillin saved me more than once, and so did tetanus shots.
Twice I was saved from dying in childbirth by caesarian-section operations; I once had emergency surgery for incarcerated hernia. Without that medical procedure, I would have died in a matter of hours. Once my gall bladder poisoned my pancreas, and the only thing that stood between me and death was medical science. A tumor was removed from my brain twenty years ago. I'm disabled but not dead, thanks to neurosurgery. No thanks to "God."
Of course, we'll all die one day, Mr. Calderon, but without science, it would happen much sooner. Lifespans have been lengthened significantly during the past one hundred yeats. Medicine can now control diabetes, heart problems, and many cancers. Simple nutrition does amazing things for the quality of life As my poem says, knowledge of basic nature, learned by the human mind, brings about the quality of life. My poem, "The Wonders of the Earth Are Not Divine," written several years ago, says it in a nutshell.
The world is full of nature's lavish gifts. No miracles have made these joys sublime. Mother Eearth provides them to uplift.
The nutrients to keep us whole and sound. The fruits, the herbs that make us well and strong. The basic elements of life abound. We need not pray or sing a begging song.
And, if we're sick, our body heals itself. With help, sometimes, from scientific skill. No marvels from an angel, god, or elf, But human brain combined with chlorophyll.
(Dorothy B. Thompson, Ph. D., P. O. Box 562, Bandon, OR 97411)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I can't improve on what Dr. Thompson said about Mr. Calderon's appalling logic. How anyone could believe that appeals to "natural order" and intelligent design could convince skeptics to believe in a kind, merciful, and loving god defies comprehension. In the time that it takes me to write this one sentence millions of sentient creatures, both human and nonhuman, will have died agonizing deaths from disease and the attacks of predators who must prey upon them in order to ensure their own survival. A few months ago, I read a letter in an area newspaper written by a woman who thought that evidence of "God" is seen in his marvelous creation. I sent a reply that made the same observation I stated above but with many more details about diseases, predators, and natural disasters that cause inestimable suffering in creatures that feel pain when injured or wounded. I asked the woman who saw so much evidence for "God" in the natural order of things to describe how the world would be if this god of hers did not exist. She never answered.
I suspect we have heard the last of Mr. Calderon too.
Stranger Than Science...
Thank you for publishing my letter about the modern-day Jonah legend in the March/April 2000 issue of TSR. In my letter I said that Frank Edwards included the modern Jonah story in his book Stranger Than Science, but in TSR his book was entitled Stranger Than Fiction. I obtained my information from the 1973 Bantam paperback edition, and the title is indeed Stranger Than Science. Do you have information that the Lyle Stuart hardback editions were entitled Stranger Than Fiction, or did you make a mistake in changing the title?
The reason for my concern is this: If any TSR readers want to get a copy of Edwards' book to research the modern Jonah story, they need to know the correct title.
(Don Robertson, 644 Walnut Street, Rock Hill, SC 29730)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I have looked for Mr. Robertson's original letter, but I can't find it in the mess that my filing system has become. I'm sure that I made an error in typing the title, because "stranger than fiction" is a fairly common expression, which I probably had on my mind at the time. I'm glad to publish the correction. Mr. Robertson sends interesting and useful information to me, and I hope he will continue to do so.
Has Till ever conceded defeat?
Over the past several months, I have had the privilege to share my thoughts with readers regarding some issues that have been addressed in TSR. In the most recent issue (March/April 2000, page 16), you indicated that, in my comments to date, you have yet to identify anything that resembles a "clear resolution" to any "apparent contradiction." One example is our difference in the identification of the four kingdoms present in the visions within the book of Daniel (see Bradford, TSR, January/ February 2000, p. 2 and Till, TSR, March/April 2000, p. 2). While "space (didn't) allow (you) to show how that scholarly consensus agrees with (your) interpretation," neither space nor time permit me to show you how scholarly consensus agrees with my interpretation. Truth itself, as you are well aware, is independent of "scholarly consensus." That is, in any investigative endeavor, it is possible and in many cases probable that all scholars at any given time are wrong in their interpretation of available evidence. Nevertheless, regarding the book of Daniel, you must concur in honesty that there are two dominant interpretations of the four kingdoms in this text among academic scholars; those that share your view, and those that share mine. Regardless, the resolution of this nuance is not the purpose of this letter.
Rather, I would like to probe your aforementioned statement that you have yet to identify anything that resembles a "clear resolution." Have you ever, while either debating or discussing an "apparent contradiction" in the Bible, decided that the argument presented by the "fundamentalist" was of sufficient merit that you changed your interpretation, or at least conceded that your interpretation was possibly erroneous? That is, have you ever personally accepted a proposed "clear resolution" to any "apparent contradiction"? In a world where "only he who does nothing makes no mistakes," I wonder: have you ever conceded defeat?
(Michael Bradford, 9 Essex Street, Reading, MA 01867)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Readers should notice Mr. Bradford's change of address and that he no longer has an e-mail address. A message from him informed me that he was closing his account, and he has not sent me notice of a new address.
Bradford's letter contained a familiar insinuation that I see all of the time on the internet boards where I engage in debates on biblical inerrancy issues. It is the same insinuation that we have seen Roger Hutchinson repeating in his articles, which is that skeptics are so bullheaded and close-minded that they will never admit they are wrong. In reply to this accusation, I point out that I spent 12 years as a fundamentalist preacher and missionary proclaiming that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, but when my personal studies in the Bible led me to see that this position is untenable, I renounced it. I seriously doubt that Bradford or Hutchinson or any other biblicist who constantly parrots this accusation can point to anything in their lives that shows they will admit error when confronted with evidence that deeply held beliefs are wrong.
To answer Bradford's question more directly, yes, I have conceded not defeat-- because I see no reason at all to think that I am wrong about Bible errancy--but that I have been wrong about specific points of errancy. I have already run beyond the four pages allotted to this column, so if Bradford will send me an e-mail address, I will be glad to send him some examples.
On the matter of whose scholars are right in the dating of Daniel, I'm reminded of a quotation attributed to Nick Cardell, a Unitarian minister in Syracuse, NY, at the time: "There are Bible scholars, and there are fundamentalists." When I say that scholarly consensus dates the book of Daniel much later than the 6th century B. C., I am referring to scholars who have spent a lifetime studying ancient languages of the Near East and poring over documents of that period. I'm not talking about people educated in fundamentalist Bible colleges, who graduate and recycle in books published in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the propaganda they were indoctrinated in. To put such "scholars as these on the level of such notables as H. H. Rowley and Norman Porteous hardly deserves serious comment. As Cardell said, "There are Bible scholars, and there are fundamentalists." There's a difference.
A comment on Bradford's scholars...
TSR may not be devoted to humour, but it nevertheless contains an occassional chuckle. The January/February 2000 issue contained one courtesy of Michael Bradford. He cited a Time-Life Books publication in support of his biblical inerrantist stance. If a more smug, self-satisfied bunch of biblical-religion biased, ahhh, people (I am struggling to keep my language within acceptable bounds) exists, I have not met them. It would be interesting to know how much of their bias is motivated by actual belief and how much is lip service dictated by the circulation dept. I personally take them for a flock of sanctimonious hypocrites.
Concerning atheists in fox holes, I have met a few and am sure there were many who kept it to themselves. I know for a fact that there was at least one atheist on a destroyer. I have met him, and he is me.
(David L. Nelson, 3944 Chickory Road, Racine, WI 53403;
e-mail, dnel@execpc.com)
