Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail:
j
Introduction
If in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion or acquired a new one, check your pulse, you may be dead.
- Gelett (Frank) Burgess
1866-1951
American humorist and illustrator
A Christian friend of mine phoned me one evening with a request regarding a friend of his. He explained that because of Pat Swindall’s perjury trial regarding money laundering, his friend harbored suspicions about Swindall’s honesty. His friend figured Swindall as a "phony who got caught." I found this interesting. It brought to mind the average response I hear when I mention the Pat Swindall Show to non-Christians and Christians. I am continually amazed at how many people think Pat faced conviction for money laundering, embezzlement, or even bribery. He never faced such charges. I do not have a problem with someone’s having an opinion. I am concerned when someone has an opinion without facts.
My friend requested I (because of my "above average knowledge" of Pat’s story) phone his friend to correct misconceptions. I always enjoy correcting misconceptions of the Pat Swindall Saga, so I complied. After consenting, I became curious as to how I would have above average knowledge of this Christian fundamentalist, and always enjoy correcting misconceptions about him, for my friend called me, an atheist, to defend Christian fundamentalist, Pat Swindall.
I, as an adult, developed no need to attend
church. In fact, I actively opposed Christianity, and any other theism.
Therefore, why would I, a person who thinks freely from established beliefs,
doctrines, and dogmatism (freethinker); one who believes it is unknowable
whether a god or gods exist (philosophical agnostic); and one who believes no
god or gods exists, and lives free of theistic dogma (practicing atheist) be
called upon to defend the integrity of a Christian? I spent years highlighting
centuries-old criticisms of Christianity to friends, neighbors, co-workers and
anyone else who would listen. I valued my heartfelt commitment to join other
atheists at protest rallies. For example, in
As I pondered, my eyes drifted to a portrait of my mother, who throughout my life’s most formative stages exhibited the finest display of courage a child could ever hope to witness. That is another story for another place. They drifted on to my living room’s "wedding corner" wall of memorabilia representing my first true experience of commitment. My eyes then drifted above my personal computer where hangs another special possession: a picture of me shaking hands with Pat Swindall. My wife, Vickie, took the photo after a lunch to which Pat invited us. He extended the invitation after receiving a letter from me commending him on his show. Though Pat is a high-profile individual, he saw fit to reach out to me simply because I rejected Christ but respected him. He drove halfway across our metropolis to meet with me. I had nothing to offer him. I possessed no political clout, or wealth. He did not convince me of a God’s existence; however, he demonstrated true Christian outreach. To this picture I inserted a caption, "Where Freethought and Religion Converged" (a twist on Pat’s radio slogan "Where Politics and Religion Converge"). I inserted this caption because I had a visceral feeling Pat and I would know each other in an unusual way for many years. Despite our disparate theological perspectives, I enjoyed an affinity with him that eluded my relationships with most "freethinkers."
When my eyes settled on that picture, I remembered Pat’s courage and commitment is what earned my admiration, a place on my wall, and a desire to know his whole story. I admire his courage taking heat while in office from Christians demanding he vote according to their preferences (e.g., mandatory school prayer and teaching creationism over evolution theory), instead of constitutional principles and fairness. I also admire his commitment to truth even when truth means upsetting his listeners with cross-cultural enlightenment by presenting guests whose lifestyles represent what he and his listeners oppose.
Why would I have even been listening to his show to begin with? Chance had it that I scanned the radio dial while driving as a courier. I listened to the radio a great deal back then. Being an atheist, I enjoyed intrigue when I caught a good old-fashioned argument between an atheist and a Jesus freak. I felt amazed by the polite, cordial, patient and respectful manner Swindall extended his opponent. He presented his perspective in a manner I had never experienced from a Christian proselytizer. Actually, he demonstrated grace and charm the caller should have envied. I made it a point to tune in again. When it came to religious liberty, he could set straight the theist as well as the atheist. After listening to his show, it became clear to me for the first time in my 10 to 15 years of atheist activism, that we, too, could be fanatical. I arrived at home many a day shaking my head and telling my wife, "You wouldn’t believe what that Swindall fellow covered today." I one day surmised I had been guilty of the very things I had charged religionists with—religious tyranny, non-theistic religious tyranny. We, too, would impose governmental sanction, endorsement, coercion and force upon the American populace to comply with our non-theistic values.
Shortly after I gained this insight, I met
with, Dr. Edward Buckner, Vice president for Internal Communication of the AFS.
He inquired as to my dissension. After I explained, he asked me to put it in
writing and submit it to the Atlanta Freethought News, the
society’s monthly publication. He presented that, though he disagreed
with me, it exhibited freethought. I had doubts it would ever see printed
pages. My doubts proved accurate. After Ed reviewed it and submitted it to Jim Wilson,
the AFS editor,
In the AFS’s defense, Ed Buckner, board member Ray Knisely, and president Kimberly Lyle-Wilson, also wife of AFS editor, Jim Wilson, though in complete opposition to my view, thought it should have been published.
When Ray Knisely read it, he commented it
upset him, not at me, but at himself. To use his words, "Damn it,
A Jim Wilson Pat Swindall is not. Pat rolls up his sleeves, loosens his collar, and takes the heat from those in his camp as well as outside. I greatly admire a firmly principled position, strength of character, and integrity in an individual, even when my opinion differs.
In Pat’s case the old saying, "No
good deed goes unpunished" proved true. He got "caught" being
true to his convictions. His virtue caused his political downfall. Upon his
arrival in
Considering Pat and I subscribe to different theological perspectives, my view of his activism does not necessarily reflect his. Also, politically, he is not the constitutional conservative I am. He is moderately tolerant of taxpayer-funded government-owned/regulated/ operated public schools. I am completely opposed to them. However, what makes him special to me is his quality of fairness.
This writing exceeds Pat’s innocence. If at the end, I (the freethinking atheist) have achieved my goal, you will rethink Swindall’s Christian veracity and his culpability. Specifically:
1. He is not only innocent, but purposely framed.
2. He, if guilty, would confess to his constituents and to his God, and ask forgiveness.
3. He is one of the most important men ever
sent to
4. Our government evilly intercepted Pat’s potential path to the oval office.
This writing is in no way meant to substitute
for, or short-cut Pat’s current writing. Instead, I intend to give you an
overview of his innocence in the perjury case, his political substance, his
religiosity, and what he offered the public as a radio talk show host and,
ideally, what he will offer when he is returned to his rightful address--
Perjurer or Saint is for the Christian doubting Pat’s integrity, atheists fearing theistic politicians, "liberals" desiring to help the unfortunate, "conservatives" conserving too far or quickly when reducing government, and Swindall’s supporters wanting to learn more about him. All can strike a victory for their cause by practicing his politics. It is also written for me; the more I try to understand him, the more I alter my views. Last, it is for Pat Swindall. He possesses a never-ending thirst for truth, understanding, troubleshooting, and solutions. The following pages offer criticism for Pat as well as praise. However, more important, this is not about Swindall. It is about the values he represents.
I will research articles regarding Swindall’s perjury case. I will reference his 1986 publication, A House Divided depicting his political position while in Congress. I will offer highlights from his work in progress as chapters unfold. I will demonstrate he is a man of convictions, and is not "money launderer" or perjurer material.
This is not a Swindall biography. It is not a
romance novel, nor is it a candidate for a best seller list. It is a book for
the layman. If you find yourself bored with technicalities and details lacking
Indeed, I am alive with a pulse, for over the years of hearing his show, I have discarded and acquired major opinions. So has Pat from doing the show. So can you from reading about him. I present to you an atheistic equivalent to Christian blasphemy of the Holy Spirit via, Perjurer or Saint (A Freethinker Introduces Pat Swindall).
Left:
e-mail:
j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster