“...once one realizes the Bible is not the word of God, one should go on to establish a positive philosophy of life and not worry much about that book. That approach is obviously outside the scope of BE's calling. I'm finding the goals of (several groups are mentioned--Ed.)...of much more interest than debating fundamentalists. But I wish you good luck at freeing more minds from the myths of Biblical inerrancy, and I'll keep reading BE to see what luck you are having.”

You have touched upon one of the most divisive issues in the freethought movement, DW. Do we directly confront and challenge the supporters of religion and the Bible or do we go our own way by setting a good example and developing a positive philosophy and let them go theirs? The approach of the freethought organizations you mentioned is contrary to that of BE's.

This [country] is composed of millions of people whose support for the Bible ranges all the way from lukewarm to fanatical. In numbers and wealth their dominance is overwhelming and easily proven. One of their spokesmen alone, Jimmy Swaggart, has a yearly budget far in excess of that of all freethought groups and publications combined.

The disproportionate relationship between the forces is tremendous and that's why television exudes so many people who belong in the Middle Ages. We are told to turn off the set or change the channel if we don't like the program, but isn't it about time they started changing the TV, not us. Even the government buttresses them. If I was told I would no longer be taxed or subject to financial audits while my neighbor continued as before, that would be positive assistance, not just hands off.

Atheist, humanist, and other freethought publications have provided more than enough proof to show the partition between church and state more closely resembles a back door screen than a wall. This situation must be altered. Establishing a positive philosophy of life is commendable, but what follows? What do you do with it? Do you rest on your laurels and hope religionists will follow your example? How could that happen when they don't even know you are an atheist? In effect, the status quo would remain as before with biblicists dominating the scene.

Two crucial questions must be faced by all freethought organizations: (1) Why should religionists, biblicists, and apologists come to the freethought movement when they are convinced they already have the truth and (2) why should these same groups listen to anything the freethought movement has to offer when they have been taught from infancy that atheism, humanism, agnosticism, etc. are works of evil? To some they are the devil incarnate.

The only way to dispel people of these illusions is to go on the offensive, which few freethought organizations and publications are willing to do. Some even admit their reluctance. But, the fact is that a major reason the Bible is so all-pervasive is that millions of its supporters have taken their case to others. Missionaries have traveled the world and converted millions as Christian dominance is Latin America domonstrates. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have not become rapidly growing sects by sitting at home praying the world will see the wisdom of their ways and beat a path to their door. Aggressive proselytization is their hallmark.

Your tactics of adopting a "positive philosophy of life" actually amounts to nothing more than assuming a defensive posture, i.e., accepting conditions as they are, and is doomed from the beginning. You don't win on the defensive. Most freethought organizations and publications are not significantly converting people to their point-of-view but only picking up those who have rejected religion and/or the Bible for reasons of their own. Members of the religious/biblical community must be re-educated from the ground up. Most have been programmed from birth and it's up to us to deprogram.

Although important, battles over prayer in the schools, nativity scenes, "In God We Trust" on the currency, etc. are essentially secondary. As long as people believe the Bible is God's word, conflicts of this kind will continue unabated and remain an understandable by-product. Once people no longer believe the Bible or have their allegiance to it dramatically shaken, their interest in these secondary issues will naturally fade. That's why BE teaches a kind of Sunday-School-in-Reverse. Our program is one of going back to the basics, starting over, and exposing all the facts that should have been heard in Sunday School but weren't. But we can't do it alone.

You mentioned "luck," but that's not what matters. Thousands of knowledgeable people willing to put in the needed time and effort are what count. Serious and intense effort over many years in a protracted struggle are mandatory. Anti-religious humor, denunciations of the religious mentality, exposures of corrupt ministers or popes, and comparable tactics are subordinate, [if] not superficial, and easily countered.

Your statement with respect to fundamentalism missed the mark, DW. BE merely seeks to debate those most supportive of the Book while all others observe, so views can be sharply delineated and many may be moved further from the Bible by having their faith weakened. Converting a fundamentalist in a dialogue is of far less importance than influencing the audience.

BE doesn't exist to debate fundamentalists. Millions of people in this [country] are not fundamentalists or atheists but lie somewhere on the long spectrum [in between]. The common denominator is that nearly all support the Bible to some degree.
Many people have no strong views one way or the other but are just listening. Your poignant letter deserved an extended reply.