Editor:

Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language defines atheism as the following: "disbelief in the existence of god or any other deity," or "the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity." Even the word atheism is self-defining. The word atypical means not typical. The word asymmetric means not symmetric, so it follows that the word atheism means non-theism. I would even extend this definition to include disbelief in anything supernatural, mythical, unverifiable, etc. Well that seems simple enough, doesn't it? Apparently not. In the April 8 issue of the Wildcat, an article appeared entitled "Atheists celebrate equinox at site of traditional Easter gatherings." It stated that, "Witches, atheists and followers of the Roman goddess Diana... gathered at 6 a.m. yesterday near a 40-foot, white cross atop Mount Soledad, some jingling tambourines and beating drums while others burned incense..." According to the article, this group of "atheists" were there to celebrate the equinox. One in the group claimed to be a worshipper of Diana, Roman goddess of the hunt. This bothers me in so many ways.

The first is that any one who claims to worship (of all things) a Roman goddess has done legitimate atheists a disservice by calling themselves an atheist or just associating with an atheistic organization. It is simply contradictory and stupid to do this. If you want to worship Satan or Diana, that is your privilege, but don't call yourself an atheist or try to associate yourself with one.

The second is the possibility that anyone truly atheistic in their philosophy and thought processes could beat drums and tambourines to celebrate the equinox. That just seems plain stupid. More to the point, an equinox is nothing more than one of two times a year the sun's path crosses the equator. Why would this sort of thing be significant? I certainly don't think I need to pound drums and rattle bells because the sun rises every morning. An atheist should have more respect for the philosophy and other atheists than this. They are missing the point and dragging the whole group through mud.

The third and most annoying thing about this is the general lack of understanding of the definition of atheism. Whoever wrote the article clearly didn't get it. To refer collectively to atheists and worshippers of anything is insulting. Does this mean that if I tell someone that I am an atheist, an appropriate response would be, "Do you worship the god of the saguaro cactus pixies?"

Apparently, the equinox worshippers got a permit to use the site by applying before a Christian group did. The Christian group was properly upset, but one Christian was quoted as saying, "The atheists are just here to taunt the Christians. It's an evil thing they do today." It does sound like the group was there knowing the offense would be taken by the Christians that had used the site every Easter since 1954. But this group had no atheists. It is important not to villainize atheists for things they haven't done. Understand the group you choose to dislike. We all have to be able to smell the garbage in order to make judgments.

Brian Kelman
aerospace engineering sophomore