THE PLANET IN WAITING FOR THE LAST MESSAGE

THE ATHEISTIC PROPAGANDIST

Continuing to try out the churches throughout the country, benefiting from a job where he had sufficient free time, being liked by his bosses and colleagues, Ionel strived to work conscientiously. He fulfilled the personal obligations that came to him at work, and working diligently he usually resolved not only the difficult problems of his bosses, but also his colleagues‟ problems, helping them in their professional formation. In the free hours that resulted from the energy crisis that interrupted the production process, usually on the afternoon shift, people put lots of questions to him, creating a pleasant and communicative atmosphere. In the mechanical energy section there was a specialist technician who was very passionate in fighting religion. It pleased him greatly to talk evilly about Christians, leaving the impression that he is convinced about the ideas that he propagated so insistently. Following his affirmation of the personalities by showing his knowledge and by using it with great ability, he permanently tried to put his point of view to bring his cultural level into evidence.

One day, during a break he provoked Ionel, opening a discussion about religion. Conceited and sure of his knowledge, the atheist put the following question:

“Listen to me, sir! Do you truly believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Is it possible for Him to still be alive now? Doesn‟t it seem to you that these legends and oriental myths are the result of the imaginative inventions of the Rabbis and Jewish priests, taken up later by the Christian priests who made use of them, becoming rich without working? Let‟s be serious! I don‟t believe that you wander through the countryside making religious propaganda, preaching at the churches, without anyone paying you. What do you think? I have studied the materialistic concept about the world and I am convinced of its reality. In conclusion, religion isn‟t any thing more than a spring from which to gain off the backs of people who are lacking culture. It is a permanent source of conflict that culminates sometimes in the most heinous murders. Haven‟t I read about the 400 year war between the Catholics and Protestants? About the Spanish inquisitions, about scientists being burned at the stake and about all the other murders committed by the church? I don‟t know with what sort of cheek they still dare today, in a civilized world, in the middle of the twentieth century, to still poison people with such ravings, promising them happiness in the other world, when they live off the fat of the land in richness and luxury, without scorning the pleasures of the flesh in the present. Who do you think they can still lead into error and for how long? The lies of the priests and preachers will finish once and forever. The people have woken up and can no longer be deceived. It‟s enough! … We‟ve had enough. We don‟t need words. We want action, man. Where are the facts? Because those who preach holiness shamelessly live in the basest form of sin.” He was thinking of a few corrupt priests and also a few preachers who had committed some grace offenses that they wrote about in the newspaper Scanteia, being condemned to goal. The authors of these articles proved to be very humanist, trying to throw these grave accusations onto religion. The perpetrators belonged to some sects, proving in the end to not be exponents of the truth, but only tools of sin who had infiltrated into Christian communities, compromising not only God‟s honor, but also the prestige of the people of good faith. The final conclusion that came out of the articles, being heavily underlined, was put in the following question: “You see where religion is headed and what damage it does?” After this monologue on the subject, the atheistic propagandist concluded: “Answer me, sir, if you have the courage. If there is even one word that is not true from all I‟ve said, I give up, but if all that I have said is true, it would be best for you to finish with all that nonsense.” “Do you have anything else to add?” asked Ionel. “No!” said the propagandist, “now it‟s your turn to reply.” “I don‟t think it is the case, nor the right moment, to engage in a contentious discussion, whatever, we are at work and the problems that you raised have worried people for two thousand years. They require a much greater attention than can be clarified in the few minutes that we have at our disposal. I would like to know if, when you put the first questions you would have wanted a discussion or if you had decided from the beginning that just you would speak.” “A dialogue, sir!” replied the propagandist, feeling self-conscious. “Conventionally speaking, in a dialogue it is not indicated to put ten consecutive questions, without offering the partner the opportunity to reply to each question in order. If you have broken this rule of dialogue, transforming it into a monologue, I am going to ask your permission to reply to each question with the request that you not interrupt me. If you have an objection about the response that I‟ll give you, you will be given the right to make it at the end. Do you agree?” “I await your reply” chimed in the propagandist, assuming the right to speak for all.