I have enclosed a money order for another year of The Skeptical Review with the January/February issue. I would also like to know if you have the answer to a question that has been on my mind for the past three or four years. I would like to know when the doctrine of "having a personal relationship with Jesus" started. It does not seem to have been taught until recently. Can it be considered an authentic Christian teaching if it was not taught by the early church? If it's not, then how can the biblicists get away with promulgating idiotic nonsense like this? I'd sure like to know. Keep up the good work.
(Patrick Shiflett, 1521 Charrington Drive, Midlothian, VA 23113.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: When I was growing up in the 30s and 40s and preaching in the 50s, I don't recall ever hearing this expression. As Mr. Shiflett stated, it seems to be a recent "doctrine." The words "personal" and "relationship" don't even appear in the Bible. There are some New Testament passages that speak of "knowing" certain things about Jesus, such as Philippians 3:10 where Paul said that he had "suffered the loss of all things" that he might "be found in him [Christ]" and "know him and the power of his resurrection," but this certainly doesn't echo the maudlin strains of modern Christians who flaunt their claims of having a "personal relationship with Jesus." Anyone who has talked to personal-relationship-with-Jesus Christians knows that they use the term as if Jesus was a visible buddy who walked and talked with them every moment of the day, and I know of no scripture that teaches that this is an aspect of Christianity that the "saved" can expect to experience. One could make a much better scriptural case for having a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit.
My experience has been that Christians who parrot this expression do so as a defensive maneuver when they are confronted with arguments against their beliefs that they can't respond to, so they retreat to their personal-relationship-with-Jesus bastion. "Well, I know that I have a personal relationship with Jesus," they will say, "and you can't tell me that I don't know what I know I know." This is merely a resort to emotionalism when they cannot logically defend their beliefs. All religionists are emotionally convinced that theirs is the true religion, and all of the fanatical ones I have ever talked to simply turn deaf ears to any attempts to show them that their emotional apologetics can be used to show the "truth" of any religion. This situation simply underscores the insidiousness of religion. People are going to believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe, no matter how compelling the evidence against it may be. So when confronted with facts, Christians can always whine about having a personal relationship with Jesus.
I saw this add [sic] in the Blackstone paper, and find it hard to believe that someone would go to such extremes to defy the word of God. I doubt very seriously that you can show me any real contradictions or errors in the old 1611 King James Bible that cannot be explained with a little study and common horse sense. But then of course this thing of spiritual dicernment [sic] that is the most needful of must play the largest role.
But then again, if you are using some of the new versions taken out of the corrupt Hort & Westcott Greek Text, than [sic] I can understand to the fullest why you would think as you do. All these new modern man translations of the Word of God are absurdities within themselves.
As you have probably figured out by now, I am a Born again, fundamentalest [sic], and a BIBLE BELIEVER. But never-the-less [sic], I do want to take advantage of this "The Skeptical Review" (First year FREE). Who knows it just may cause me to dig deeper into the Word of God, for I have found everywhere there appears to be a contradiction, is where most of the Golden Nuggets are found.
I hope there will be no problem in you standing true to your add [sic], seeing there are a lot of my neighbors have brought this to my attention, and the penalties of false advertising is [sic] devastating.
Looking forward to see what you can come up with.
(Rev. Garry L. Creed, Route 2, Box 925, Crewe, VA 23930-9639.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The add [sic] the Reverend Creed referred to was a classified ad that a subscriber to The Skeptical Review ran in his local newspaper. The first issue of Reverend Creed's subscription was sent to him the day his envelope was opened. For some reason, he seemed to think that the ad wasn't legitimate, but his fears were unfounded. Since neither I nor the subscriber who ran the ad is a Christian, he need not fear that there was any intention to lie or in any way mislead or deceive anyone. The offer is exactly what the ad stated: a free first-year subscription to The Skeptical Review. Literally thousands of people can testify to the legitimacy of this offer, because in the seven years of its publication, almost every subscriber has been introduced to it through this offer. A lawyer once sent us a subscription request with a cynical note saying that nothing is free, and so he would have to see it to believe it. Well, he saw it, so I guess he believed it, although he never sent an apology.
Why do I make this offer? Because the majority of the people who request the free subscription become paid subscribers after their first year. Some have been with us from the beginning, and many who heard about us after we began publication have ordered all back issues to read what was published before they became subscribers. If Reverend Creed would send us the names of his neighbors who called the ad to his attention, I will gladly put their names on the mailing list, but since he has now seen one issue, I don't expect him to do that. Neither do I expect him to become a paid subscriber.
When he has seen enough to realize that claims of biblical discrepancies are not as superficial as he imagines, he will undoubtedly try to climb as gracefully as possible out of the hole he has dug himself into, but I don't intend to make it easy for him. In the past, I have admitted to having a personality flaw. When a biblical inerrantist sticks his foot into his mouth, I can't seem to resist the temptation to shove it in a little farther. If the reverend is so certain that "Golden Nuggets" are to be found in the very places where biblical contradictions appear to be, I am going to offer him the opportunity to mine enough nuggets to make him a millionaire. Under separate cover, I am mailing to him a complete set of all back issues (FREE). If he will read them and "dig deeper into the Word of God," I will publish for him any "Golden Nuggets" that he finds if he wishes to respond to any of those articles. The penalty, of course, is that my reply to his response will be published simultaneously. As always, however, he will have the opportunity to respond to my reply, if he wishes. In other words, I am giving the reverend a chance to put his faith where his mouth is. If he thinks that there is no contradiction in the King James Bible "that cannot be explained with a little study and common horse sense," he should have no objection to accepting my offer. I would think that this is an opportunity he can't refuse, because TSR would give him a worldwide audience that he would otherwise have no chance to reach. It has subscribers in every state in the union, including Alaska and Hawaii, several Canadian provinces, and many foreign countries: China, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Lebanon, Israel, South Africa, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, England, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and probably others I can't recall without checking the mailing list.
I'll even give Reverend Creed an opportunity to embarrass me publicly before all of his neighbors who brought the ad to his attention. I usually conduct two or more public debates each year, at my own expense, so I am challenging Reverend Creed to defend the inerrancy of the Bible in a public debate at Crewe, Virginia, or some community nearby. If he will agree to do so, I will come to Virginia (at my own expense) to meet him at a time and date convenient to him. Since I am now retired, scheduling would be no problem for me. An ideal location for the debate would be right in the very church building where he preaches to his congregation. This would give him the opportunity to show to his congregation some of the "Golden Nuggets" that can be found when one "digs deeper into the Word of God." If, however, that would not be an acceptable location, we could conduct the debate in a neutral setting. I will pay half of the rental fee on such a location.
And I'm still not through shoving on the reverend's foot. If he refuses this offer, I will send money to the TSR subscriber in that area of Virginia to pay for publishing in the Blackstone paper a notice that Reverend Creed was challenged to defend the integrity of the Bible in public debate and declined the opportunity. It's going to be hard for him to climb out of his hole gracefully.
Do you want to know what I'm skeptical about? Well, I'll tell you anyway! I'm skeptical about an offer for a free one-year subscription to The Skeptical Review I saw in the internet. This puts you in a dilly. If I do get the free subscription, I will lose my skepticism and will take up flower sniffing, and if I do not, I will be skeptical about skeptics. That's a double-edged sword if I've ever struck one in someone's figurative gut; I recommend you mail me the subscription, because that way at least I'll be happy. (I love flower sniffing!)
(Michael "Jubal" Gardner, 39273 Sutter Drive, Fremont, CA 94538.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: By the time this is published, Mr. Gardner will be sniffing flowers, because his subscription started with the March/April issue. As I said in commenting on the preacher's letter above, there is no catch or fine print in our offer of a free subscription. We have been offering it ever since our first issue was published in January 1990. Thousands of free subscriptions have been given over that time. By the way, I hope Mr. Gardner sticks to flower-sniffing and doesn't try to give comedy a try.
I want you to know that I very much appreciate having had the opportunity to read your Skeptical Review. It has been a difficult experience and I have been very dismayed by the approaches your critics take to explain away the contradictions you have addressed.
What I appreciate is the care and effort you have devoted in your study, when it seems that the natural thing would have been to just dismiss the Bible wholesale. As I understand it, you were yourself engaged in missionary work. What a shock it must have been for you to make these discoveries.
I am a mental health professional and daily see people whose spiritual beliefs are literally "spoon fed" to them by family or clergy. They never even think-- and are prohibited--to question any of it. I can understand why.
I recently wrote the pastor of the church my wife and I attend for a meeting regarding some of these bothersome contradictions. He keeps apologizing for being so busy or for having forgotten to schedule some time.
With so many contradictions, I cannot foresee anyone explaining them away. When apologists attempt to do so, I find myself filled with disgust. In my heart of hearts, I long for these discrepancies to just go away. The more I read, the more discrepancies are apparent.
As a mental health professional I must say that religion seems to be associated in some way with so many of my clients' difficulties. Yet, they are stuck. I think of one dear fundamentalist woman who is lonely after divorcing an abusive husband, yet who could not have a husband as she would be committing adultery if she did so. Her family and church would disown her. She is attractive and in her 30s with normal needs and desires, but is denied fulfillment of those because of this belief.
I have counseled gay clients who desired some religious faith and human contact, but felt the coldness of Christian persons after revealing themselves. I see many adult clients who were abused as children, yet feel ostracized by their respective religious faiths and feel that others somehow blame them for what happened to them as children. Not infrequently, I struggle by telephone with these clients in a suicidal crisis and am dismayed that so many local churches do not understand the long-term effects of child abuse, and typically tell my clients to "forget the past," go to their knees in prayer, get a life, and everything will be okay. What my clients are needing is some human contact in the present by someone who accepts, listens, and understands. For several years, I have been quite bitter about this.
I am rambling on. Again, I appreciate your efforts and your integrity.
(Dan Dunlap, 1925 Melrose, Apt. 35, Walla Walla, WA 99362, e-mail dunlapd@wwics.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I remember reading once in a source that I can't recall that the Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung once said that in the majority of patients he had treated, he had found that their mental illnesses had been caused by their religious beliefs. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't speak with any authority on the subject, but it does seem to me that religion, which is supposed to bring comfort and happiness, leaves in its wake wrecked lives and deep psychological wounds. How many times do we see in the news stories about violence and self-mutilation committed by those who heard voices or thought that their victims were the devil or demons? Even churches deplore the existence of Satanism in our society (which has probably been greatly exaggerated), but if Satanism does exist, who is responsible for it? Certainly not skeptics and atheists, who advocate rational approaches to life and its problems. The fault must lie with the religious institutions that instill in children lifelong superstitious beliefs in spirits and demons.
Thank you very much for the sample copy of The Skeptical Review. I love it! Enclosed is a check for two years of issues.
The Skeptical Review is just the type of material I read all the time. I constantly read books, magazines, and other literature covering biblical criticism, rationalism, philosophy, etc. I refer to myself as an "evangelical atheist." I "witness" to people all the time, but I preach against the gospel and against Christianity.
This certainly doesn't mean that I hate God, or the gods, or the Goddess or goddesses, or whatever deities may exist. It means I despise the imaginary God of the Bible, because he is a bloodthirsty butcher and a mass murdered, and a liar who broke his own commandments and promises, and did other beastly things.
I am currently working on my own book on religion (Christianity mainly). I also will be attending the March 24-25 Till-Lockwood debate in Oklahoma City. The Skeptical Review will bolster my "career" as a student of religion. Thank you very much for adding me to your mailing list.
(Christopher Edsall, 555 North Council Road, Apt. F, Oklahoma City, OK 73127.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Edsall at the Oklahoma City debate. After the first session, six of us gathered in a motel room and talked until 2:00 A. M. In addition to these five, I met three other TSR subscribers for the first time. Some preachers complain that they won't debate skeptics, because they don't want to give them an audience. The attendance at this debate, however, easily showed that an atheistic opponent will draw an audience above the proportion of skeptics in the general population.
Enclosed is a check for another year's subscription to The Skeptical Review. I enjoy the letters more than the articles most of the time. The articles for debating the Church of Christ cronies get bogged down with minutia of details that really aren't necessary for refuting their religious claims. Expounding on your major points of difference, to a degree, is understandable, but your freethought readership can fill in the microscopic blanks themselves. I realize that your goal for all the exhaustive analyses is to leave your "opponents" no room to quibble. Unfortunately, this goal is not achieved, due to the fact that the religionists continue to quibble. I feel you owe it to your freethinking readership (which in my opinion is the majority and most loyal of TSR subscribers) to cover more ground per issue or maybe print more of the submitted articles (which I enjoy more than the debating articles). Covering more topics would create a salvo that religionists could never argue with, without revealing the depravity of their irrational thought processes. Committing so much printed space for the religionists' articles is usually an exercise in redundancy, because the same old lame assertions and "explanations" are used.
I just finished watching the NFL playoffs and regurgitating from my mind are all the idiotic religious babbling of the athletic superstars for Jesus. This country is inundated with superstition, mostly propagated through the Christian religion's official and unofficial spokespersons that seem always to give "glory to the Lord" at every opportunity. They are on the offensive, and the media are catering to them. When was the last time you heard an interviewer scoff at the notion that god helped them win or saved them from death, etc.? It is unpopular (and therefore rarely done) to attack religion. The amalgamation of mythologies called Christianity in America have been with us since the founding of our nation, and so is deeply entrenched in our culture. Even though in our more scientific day, emphasis on religion in our public schools, criminal justice system, and other institutions had declined (the religionists call it secularization), most people still cling to the basics of religion, i. e., god/devil, heaven/hell, life after death, miracles, etc....
(Jeff Schmura, 808 Apple Lane, Shoemakersville, PA 19555.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Schmura's letter gives me an opportunity to restate the editorial policy of The Skeptical Review. In our very first issue in January 1990, this policy was stated in the front-page article: "Our purpose will be to promote critical examination of the Bible inerrancy doctrine." The article further stated that we would not even get involved in the "theism-atheism controversy." In a word, our policy from the beginning has been to expose fallacies and absurdities in the biblical inerrancy doctrine. The reason for this policy is rooted in the present socio-political climate in the United States. Conservative Christian organizations are working feverishly to promote their claim that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God on which our civil laws should be based. Some freethought organizations choose to oppose these movements in our courts and have won some significant victories, but I personally think that these legal battles will have to be fought as long as a significant percentage of our population believes the ridiculous claim that what the Bible says is actually what God has said. If that premise can be proven false, the Christian Right will lose the cornerstone of its political agenda. In the battle against the Christian Right, then, our strategy at TSR has been to put the axe to the root of the tree and attack the cause of the problems rather than trying to pick off its fruit one at a time. Some who have not understood our editorial policy have sent to us some interesting articles on the broader subject of religion, but they do not relate directly to the biblical inerrancy doctrine. Hence, we have not published them.
As for the attention to minutia, I'm sure that those who have never been under its influence don't understand the extent to which Christian fundamentalism is preoccupied with minutia. Details that are considered trivial to anyone else are often magnified by fundamentalists to supreme importance. Whereas rational people would not think that singing hymns to the accompaniment of a musical instrument would matter to an omnibenevolent deity, some fundamentalists make this a test of fellowship. Examples like this that I could cite would fill an entire page, so obviously "minutia" is important to Christian fundamentalists. Anyone who hopes to make headway in reasoning with them must understand this.
This is one reason why articles in TSR are so thorough in their examination of inerrancy issues. If no stones are left unturned, then, as Mr. Schmura noted, inerrantists will be left with little room to quibble. Another reason for the thoroughness is that it benefits skeptics on the subscription list by arming them with information they can use when discussing the Bible with fundamentalist acquaintances. I get many letters, phone calls, and e-mail messages from people who ask for help in dealing with biblicists that they are having private discussions with. They tell me what their contacts say to explain certain biblical discrepancies that have been brought up during these discussions, and then ask me what could be said in response to these "explanations." Good advice for everyone who engages is such discussions is not to bring up an issue until it has been thoroughly studied. What may appear to be an unresolvable discrepancy to a skeptic will most assuredly not be considered unresolvable to a Christian fundamentalist. One should always bear in mind that there is no such thing as an "unanswerable" argument for biblical errancy, because a skilled inerrantist will always know about how-it-could-have-been scenarios that have been used to "explain" the major biblical discrepancies. So skeptics who intend to discuss biblical errancy with Christian fundamentalists should make sure that they understand the issues and know in advance what "explanations" their opposition will probably give. One way to prepare for these discussions is to become familiar with the explanations that apologists like Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler have given to the discrepancies that will probably be brought up in discussions with fundamentalist associates. If an "explanation" is encountered in these books that may not seem convincing to the skeptic but, nevertheless, cannot be rebutted by the skeptic, it would be best not to bring the issue up. It makes an unfavorable impression if one has to say, "I'll check into that and get back to you." The fundamentalist will leave the discussion thinking he has won.
Most subscribers are indeed freethinkers, although there are many Bible believers who receive TSR and renew their subscriptions each year. Articles that examine biblical discrepancies in detail, then, serve as double-edged swords. They show inerrantist subscribers that their position is really indefensible, and they help skeptics to understand the issues well enough to talk to their fundamentalist friends about them. At any rate, the purpose of TSR has always been to refute the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and to do this, we have to meet inerrantists on their own turf. This requires giving attention to "minutia."
What is a miracle? Is it not, in its fullest sense, a violation of scientific law? What is a scientific law? Is it not a description, within an appropriate range, of what physically happens under certain conditions? Has it not been established by the most careful observations again and again without fail? Which is more likely, therefore, a miracle reported secondhand, the circumstances of its observation being unknown, or the failure of an established scientific law?
The answer to that question should be obvious to anyone acquainted with reason, and that is why biblical miracles are rejected. It is far more likely that the reporter of a miracle has either lied, been deceived, hallucinated, misunderstood, reported erroneous information, or incorrectly conveyed the event in question than that scientific law failed.
Where prejudice is involved, group sightings are no better. One occasionally reads about them in the papers and discovers just how credulous people can be within a supporting group. Even the agreement of a long list of respectable observers with impeccable credentials, who are not members of a supporting group, mean nothing if a selective factor is involved. If one thousand people see something in the night sky, and if 73 of them (all respectable) believe they saw an alien craft, that does not constitute a favorable testimony. What do we do with the other 927 people (equally respectable) who reached a different conclusion? Thus, a simple list of respectable observers is never enough. We must have a representative sampling, which is never easy to obtain since those who see nothing unusual report nothing. Consequently, scientists are not impressed with group sightings of what are supposed to be miracles. Group prejudices and selective reporting must be weighed before any weight can be attached to a group sighting. For events that occurred 2000 years ago, that is clearly an impossible task. Consequently, the number of people in the Bible, who supposedly witnessed a miracle, add little in the way of credibility.
The skeptic need not be pig-headed and flatly reject all miracles out of hand. However, he is clearly within the bounds of reason to ask that the evidence in support of a miracle be at least as good as the evidence supporting the scientific law that was supposedly violated. In other words, extraordinary claims must be accompanied by extraordinary proof if they are to be taken seriously. That means good documentation, which is clearly impossible for biblical miracles that have been handed down for generations, whose original circumstances are beyond any kind of reconstruction.
Thus, you have the reason for our skepticism concerning biblical miracles. There is nothing unfair or illogical about it. Indeed, when Bible-believers get away from their Bibles, so that their brains can air out a bit, they instinctively apply the same reasoning in rejecting the miracles of other religions. Therefore, we skeptics don't need this whining about presuppositional bias. We do acknowledge that our rejection of biblical miracles is based on the lack of proper evidence and not on a certain knowledge of their falsehood. We have applied the best standards of reasoning and reached the most rational conclusion that can be reached concerning biblical miracles, namely that they should be rejected in general. (In a few rare cases, there might actually exist a physical explanation for the "miracle" in question. It is known, for instance, that the flow of the Jordan River is occasionally interrupted by landslides or what have you. In those cases no scientific law has been violated.)
Why do so many people go to such pains to establish a scientific basis for the miracles of the Bible? It is because they sense (or understand) that miracles need extraordinary evidence to be rationally believed, evidence that is lacking. What better strategy is there than making the "miracle" scientific so that no scientific law has been violated? In one stroke a plausible explanation is offered and the standards for admission greatly lowered. The drawback, of course, is that one must deny that supernatural events play a role in the Bible, and the Bible clearly calls for violations of scientific law.
The skeptic's rejection of biblical miracles is based on solid reason and not some unfair bias against all things supernatural. The best reasoning has been applied and the best conclusions reached. The rational mind must reject biblical miracles for the same reason that it rejects the miracles of other cults and religions. They are rejected for lack of adequate evidence.
(Dave Matson, P. O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
EDITOR'S NOTES: As usual, Dave Matson makes some excellent comments. His letter was particularly timely for inclusion in this issue, because it is an excellent supplement to my rebuttal of Dr. Price's claim that it is unreasonable to question prophecy on the grounds that miraculous events are unlikely.
Dave, who owns the Oak Hill Free Press, announces that he will shortly have a new booklet in print (The Bible, Common Sense and the American Way), which will have about 72 pages and sell for $4.95. He states that it is based on powerful, common-sense observations, which reject the Bible as a divine product, and that each of the common-sense arguments will be fully developed with special emphasis on the usual apologetics.
I read with interest the debate [Horner-Till] about Christ's resurrection. I make no claim to a great knowledge of debates but I was interested in your argument that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The "Elvis legend" is a good point. Mr. Horner stated that you used circular reasoning with this argument, and I suppose it is possible he is right.
Would it be possible to use a correlation between the resurrection and the flight of the Wright brothers? In 1903, they made the extraordinary claim of the capability of heavier than air flight, yet there was very little belief among the so-called experts and the general public. For years there were reports of their flights yet few took them seriously. What was needed was extraordinary evidence. When their flights became commonplace after 1908, the people received the extraordinary evidence. They saw an airplane with their own eyes, and reporters documented this extraordinary evidence. Of course, today nobody considers flight extraordinary so I'm sure this couldn't be circular reasoning. The only fault I can see in this argument is that an apologist might compare the former non-believers of flight to the "Doubting Thomas."
(Jim Bragge, 612 Christopher Drive, Clovis, NM 88101; e-mail jimb@3lefties.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I recall a childhood experience that illustrates Mr. Bragge's point. A friend told me that his family had just bought a console radio that had a place to install a new invention that would enable people to see the people speaking as well as hearing them. Everyone laughed at him, but several years later, when I was a freshman in college, I went downtown and saw television for the first time through the display window of an appliance store.
Waging war against obscurantism is a rather thankless task, so please accept my thanks for your latest incisive and lucid attack on the forces of darkness ("The Nature of the Claim" March/ April 1997).
It seems to me that one of the Christian apologists' greatest blunders is the insistence that faith is a virtue and doubt is a vice. If all humanity had clung to this tenet, we would still be padding about in caves wearing loincloths. It is precisely our natural curiosity, probing of alternatives, skepticism of received "truths," and question of conventional wisdom that makes us humans rather than robots. Inventors, scientists, and scholars thrive on doubt. It's the mother's milk of democracy and progress.
I'm reminded of the propaganda (quite appropriately, the word derives from congregatio de propaganda fide) TV programs of the Catholic Church called Eternal Word Television Network, which, among other things, features a segment called "Visionaries, Mystics, and Stigmatists." The hosts, Polly and Jim Lord, spend most of their time illustrating and peddling their book of the same name. The pair, with an IQ of about 120 (combined), breathlessly recount levitations, incantations, flagelations, apparitions and, inevitably, canonizations of their favorite saints, most of whom would be considered certified psychotic whackos by an unbiased panel. Any doubt of these wonders is dismissed as arrant rationalism and flat-out heresy. Polly seems to parrot hagiographics that have actually become an embarrassment for some thinking Catholics since Vatican II.
Near my home is a Presbyterian Church whose marquee features a slogan du jour. The current one reads, "Faith can move mountains. Doubt can create mountains." Rally around the altar, boys!
In closing today's homiletic, brothers and sisters, let me quote from the poet Robert Browning: "Rather I prize the doubt/Low forms exist without/Finished and finite clods/Untroubled by a spark."
(Fred L. Ehrstein, 9 Westwood Drive, Belleville, IL 62226.)
