INQUIRER (LISH newsletter) Editor: Gerald Dantone, Thumbs Up Inquirer Print
Publication Design: John Wilmarth
Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH) Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740, 516 742 1662, Email: InfidelsRe@aol.com
Volume 2, Issue 5, May 1999 [Thanks to David Miller for his help in designing this newsletter, including the cool header and logo. Ideas are always welcome! I promise it will get better with age. J. W.] [Also emailed, Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:41:18 EDT to undisclosed-recipients with the comment: If you would prefer to be removed from this mailing list, please email and it shall be done. Sorry for any inconveniences. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the newsletter, complete with photos and graphics, see the section on membership and subscriptions below.]
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism with a reciprocating reprinting agreement with LISH, so long as the article is used in full and with complete crediting. Edited versions can be used with written permission.
1 Children, Guns, Murder, Scapegoats and Solutions
2 Letters to the editor
3 Then & Now
4 Paul Kurtz Threatened
5 Atheists "Rejoice" Over School KillingsCHILDREN, GUNS, MURDER, SCAPEGOATS AND SOLUTIONS Gerry Dantone
Like the vast majority of Americans, secular humanists were sickened and frightened for their own children's safety when they heard the news of the tragic killings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Just like almost everyone else, we too searched for reasons and remedies to this awful occurrence that can only be described as every parent and student's nightmare. Almost everyone sought to understand, but not, sadly, everyone.Unfortunately, rather than seeking to minimize the chances of this happening again, some persons did seek to place blame inordinately or unjustly on favorite scapegoats, shirk any contributing responsibility or even exploit the situation for gain.
For example, Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy's rather ineffective son, was everywhere blaming the murder on the absence of prayer in the classroom, as if all prayer had been banned, an untruth. Exactly, then, what evidence has led to the implied conclusion that the prohibition of state-sanctioned prayer leads to increased murders? Nowhere did the Rev. Graham present any evidence that the young killers were raised non-religiously; in fact one of the killer's funeral was presided by the family's Lutheran pastor. It is pure slander to conclude that non-belief was at the root of the problem. Is there a shred of evidence the perpetrators had any knowledge of atheism or humanism? If so, from whom did they learn this information; from a humanist or from a believer such as the Rev. Graham?
Presidential candidate Gary Bauer also tried to use the tragedy for political gain. "You can't even mention God in public schools today" Bauer lied on CNN. Of course one can and many do all the time. There are prayer groups that meet legally on school grounds, has he forgotten? The Boy scouts, a discriminating religious organization, often meet on school grounds around the country. Anyone can pray privately at anytime on school grounds, period. What cannot be done is have the school organize such prayers in anyway.
Before Bauer and the Rev. Graham make claims such as they have made, they should investigate the facts just a little bit. They run the risk of becoming as ignorant as CBN, which, as noted in last month's newsletter, openly blamed school murders on secular humanism despite the absence of any such evidence. In fact, it should be noted that these killings continue to occur in the most religious areas of the country, in particular, in fundamentalist strongholds.
On the other hand, there are also the Teflon targets - nothing seems to stick on them. It has become known that the two outcasts-turned-killers were often accused and harassed by the "jocks" for being gay. There is no evidence that they were indeed gay, and one of them apparently had a girlfriend. Yet the accusation and treatment apparently tormented them greatly. According to Salon magazine, being called "gay is one of the worst epithets to use against a high school student in Littleton." A Columbine student said, "Picture a 17 or 18 year old going through hell. The hell of their life for four straight years. They felt there was nothing else they could do." Indeed, at the funerals of the killers, protestors carried signs saying "Trench Coat Fags" and "Fags Killed Them." Imagine -- homophobia may have contributed to the outburst and there were no gays involved. Also consider the usual source of homophobia -- organized religion.
Still, children have been tormented forever in schools, and though that is an issue that has been neglected over the years, is mass murder on its account a new idea gaining frightening acceptance? I don't think so. The truth of the matter may be that we have indeed neglected to create a kinder societal atmosphere for our children; we have too much anger and too little kindness; but the easy availability of hi-tech guns adds an element that has been missing over the years. Perhaps this would have been happening for many years if assault weapons were always commonplace.
Ultimately, there is no simple answer. We should have all realized that immediately. But instead of prayer to a God who seemingly never listens, we can take action ourselves. Though we are not all experts on child rearing, many of us have the responsibility to raise children just the same. It is therefore imperative that we ask questions on our children's behalf. Here are some issues to ponder:
1. Monitor and understand what your children are listening, watching and playing. Get involved! Do you know the difference between Rob Zombie(possibly a harmless goof) and Marilyn Manson (possibly a cynical pseudo-nihilist profiteer)?
Encourage the arts by example, don't leave them to their own devices entirely. Do you play their video games and determine if the games make a mockery of the value of human life?
Know what your kids are doing on the Internet. Knowing where they surf and controlling it is not child abuse, it's part of a person's parental duty. A balance must be struck between giving children room to grow and adult guidance.2. Do your kids watch Millennium or the WWF on TV? Are your very young children watching "Beast Wars?" Are you sure this is OK? I don't think so, particularly for the very young. Don't the parents own the remote control?
What movies are they renting? Is "Natural Born Killers" appropriate for a teen? Consider renting and watching movies with them, such as"Shakespeare in Love," "Contact" or "Pleasantville" for example. Non-explicit romantic love is far less a bad influence on them than seeing someone gleefully get blown away in slow motion. Is "Star Wars" a glorification of war? It sure can be argued as such, and makes no apology for violence being a favored method for settling differences. Just because the killing is sanitized does not make it a healthy influence.3. Have a gun in the house? Lock it up or consider giving it up. Does it disturb anyone to know that murders, suicides and accidents dramatically increase in households with guns? You may want a gun and believe you are safer but if that endangers your kids, why have it?
Consider contacting your local government officials regardingreasonable gun control laws. Does registering guns and licensing owners really threaten gun owners? Do we need the market flooded by hand held assault weapons that can be used by 10 years olds?4. Do your children receive religious instruction? Are they taught that others are damned and deserving of it for being gay? Or for being non-believers? Or for some other offense to a god and no one else? Consider that this kind of training only makes the world a more difficult place for all of us to co-exist respectfully and peacefully in and that a humanistic ethic would be more compatible with human well being and cooperation.
5. Set an example for your kids. Do you deal with others in your life politely and with kindness and integrity? We all know that this kind of civility isn't happening enough!
6. As a nation, are we exploring all of the reasoned solutions to international problems? Do we resort to brute force too quickly and then the vilification and de-humanizing of our enemies when we need public support and justification? Absolutely! The example must be set not only from the bottom up but the top down as well.
7. Sometimes the only explanations for aberrant behavior are some kind of biological malfunction of a person's brain or drug abuse. Has there been a change in their personality or behavior? Do you set a good example regarding abuse of drugs, alcohol and even cigarettes? Do your children receive routine medical checkups?
8. Is the media reporting responsibly or sensationally? Are they making "stars" out of criminals or persons whose claim to fame is a negative achievement? We can demand more responsibility on the part of the media who publicize and make notorious many young killers. Some disturbed youngsters who watch the news only value the notoriety. Make the killers anonymous to the public - their names are irrelevant. In their race for ratings, they unwittingly, or perhaps not so unwittingly, create copycats. To many children with immature value systems, killers are heroes for no other reason than getting their 15 minutes of fame.
9. Are there conflict resolution programs in your schools? Become involved to insure that they work. It is not OK for bullying to exist, for girls to be harassed sexually, and for gays or nerds to be beaten. The phrase "boys will be boys" cannot justify inaction when dealing with adolescent anguish. The studious should not feel as if they are committing a crime against the rest of the student population. There should be no double standard for jocks or other favored groups over other students. Children spend a great deal of time involved in their school. It is of utmost importance to them. This is their life!
10. Have you made sure your children know you love them? Perhaps actions more than words are needed to convince them. Take the time to tell them and then prove it.
It may be ultimately, that we cannot create a perfect world. Still we have much we can do, and we should do it. We should also remember that despite the easy availability of guns, these tragedies are still rare. Thickets who kill are the extremely rare exception. Let us not condemn them all or whole generations. But let's not deceive ourselves into thinking, "it cannot happen here." We all have work to do. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(To the N.Y. Daily News) I received an e-mail recently from Mr. Gerry D., concerning an editorial that appeared on 4/4/99 about the American Atheists Inc. moving to NJ. The editorial made the remark "Hey dummies, it's the Garden State, not the godless state." Now, I am an atheist and I do have a sense of humor, but I definitely do not think that such statements are appropriate for a newspaper. Not only are you insulting all the atheists out there (who are not all freaks, but also include intelligent, decent people),but you are also insulting your readers. I think that you owe all atheists and your readers an apology, and yourselves some spine. If that is the only way you can express a disapproval of a certain group of people, you should not be writing for a newspaper that is reputable. A.M. Georgetown University student, cc: LISH Thanks for taking the time to let the N.Y. Daily News know that non-believers are people too. G.D.
(Re: N.Y. Daily News, "Hey dummies à") Good letter. Here's betting they won't respond to you. Dan Barker, Freedom from Religion Foundation You win. G.D.
(To the N.Y. Daily News) Re: "Hey, dummies, it's the Garden State, not the Godless State." Well now, you certainly live up to God's expectations don't you? Think before you type. If you do, then you won't. D.A. cc: LISH But they didn't, so they did. G.D.
The writer of the editorial recently published by your newspaper dramatically underscored the need for American Atheists in today's society. Not only is this editorial -- calling Atheists "Dummies" openly bigoted against a group of people 25 million strong, but more importantly, this trash was actually was published by your paper. I'm sure you would never publish something so openly insulting to gays or Jews.
In this way, the bigotry was two-sided, and NYDN has an apology to make.
Atheists, unlike some of our religious counterparts, never try to force our way on anyone, nor do we launch blanket insults at the believing community. We ask -- in fact we demand -- nothing more than our right to be free from religion in our lives, and that religious organizations receive equal treatment to Secular institutions. Is that so unreasonable, considering it's in the Constitution?
Editorials like the one you published show we still have a lot of work to do.
We can't change the way every bigot thinks. However, with some hard work and a lot of civil communication, we will hopefully achieve the status where openly bigoted diatribes like this one are treated by the media the same as the ones that say "N----rs go home." Hopefully, it will be soon. David Silverman, NJ State Director, American Atheists, Piscataway, NJ. cc: LISH I'm sure you agree that this will not happen unless many of us who value tolerance of belief make some noise! G.D.(To the N.Y. Daily News) I understand you ran an editorial on April 4 regarding the move of American Atheists to Cranford, which declared "Hey, dummies, it's the Garden State, not the Godless State." Being the parent of a child with multiple severe disabilities, I have to ask myself: if United Cerebral Palsy or the Head Injury Foundation or The Association for Retarded Citizens moved to your state, would your paper find it appropriate to print the following? "Hey, dummies, it's the Garden State, not the Crip-Retard State." I think not. I trust my point is clear, and that the "Retard" who decided to trash American Atheists simply because they don't share Retards' particular belief set, will be taken out behind the woodshed and paddled. Sincerely, E. R. A. cc: LISH I suspect a good portion of America thinks freedom of religion equates to freedom of the religious to dominate the non-religious. G.D.
(To the N.Y. Daily News) It is not often that I take the time to respond to something I read in the papers. But your 4.4.99 editorial comment following the news that American Atheists Inc. would be dedicating a building in Cranford, N.J., is absolutely beneath the standards of any reputable publication. It is one thing to become accustomed to the intolerance and bigotry of your common-Joe-on-the-street and quite another to find it, legitimized, in a paper such as the NY Daily News. One expects a higher level of understanding of matters such as religious beliefs - or lack of them. Of those who have enjoyed more educational opportunities more is expected.
What community will you insult next? The Hindus, for being polytheist? The Orthodox Jews, for their criticism of their liberal brothers? The Latin American Catholics for their unquestioning trust in the Pope? Or the common American citizen for what is perceived as their general lack of commitment to any cause?
One point you must not miss: Your lack of sensitivity, your intolerance towards others engenders and identical response from them towards you. And that kind of behavior only escalates -- making the breach between humans wider. Think about it -- I wouldn't call it smart.
Although I do not subscribe to any particular group, I call myself an atheist. But I am also a "pragmatist". That means I am able to learn from the mistakes of the past. I study human history and work for a better world- a world that belongs to all people who inhabit this wonderful Planet Earth. Believe it or not, it is big enough for all of us. I would sincerely appreciate a formal, public apology for that unfortunate editorial comment. Sincerely, L.E.T. cc: LISH Thanks for sending such a thoughtful letter. G.D.Lived in NYC for about 10 years. Used to buy the Daily News every week. Had some parakeets and it was just right for the bottom of their cage. P., North Carolina Did the birds mind? G.D.
(Re: "Hey dummies à") Bravo. S.M., Huntington, NY Getting charged by the word? Just kidding! G.D.
(To the N.Y. Daily News) Is this what you consider an 'editorial'.Sounds like a simply, blatant statement of hate and bigotry to me. Are we to imply from this that the NY Daily News feels that New Jersey isn't big enough to include people who don't believe in God? Or that New Jersey shouldn't have to be 'sullied' with nonbelievers? I cannot believe that your paper would allow such a thing to be printed under auspices of an editorial. I'm sure your paper would never allow such a blatant attack against gays, much less Jews or Hispanics or African-Americans. But in this land where every one is supposed to be free to hold whatever religious beliefs or non-beliefs that are dictated by their own personal conscience to follow, it's ok with you to make such a verbal attack against atheists? Glad I'm staying in Texas. S.M., Texas cc: LISH The Metro N.Y. area could use you though. G.D.
(To the N.Y. Daily News) Did you really publish the following comment on your editorial page: "Hey, dummies, it's the Garden State, not the Godless State." (End of editorial.) Didn't noted atheist Albert Einstein live in New Jersey for a while? Am I to understand that, at least in the opinion of the New York Daily News, were he alive today he would no longer find a welcome there? Wait a second! Didn't Nobel Prize winning atheist, Richard Feynman take his doctorate at Princeton, N.J.? Are you sure New Jersey isn't really a hotbed of atheism, so much so that it even exports atheism to such benighted regions as California (Feynman, after leaving New Jersey, spent most of his professional career at Cal Tech.)
This editorial raises another question: Do you consider Nobel Prize laureates, Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman to be dummies? If they're dummies, who, in the opinion of the NY Daily News is smart? Rupert Murdoch? All I can say is that if Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman are dummies maybe we should all try to get a little stupid. W.G.S., Attorney at Law
You left out another famous dopey atheistic New Jerseyan, Thomas Edison. G.D.
I have the Inquirer in front of me with the Teletubbie picture, great piece of work. Continue your outstanding effort and we need you. Regards, P. L. The picture of Tinky-Winky was a John Wilmarth contribution. We almost used, by mistake, a picture of his separated at birth twin, Rev. Falwell. G.D.
Joseph Campbell once said of Christians, "the bigger fool has said in his heart, "there is no God but mine." R.T. Here is yet another corrupting problem at the core of many religions--the teaching that non-believers are evil. A religion must be rejected if it demands belief. This would be proof that reasonable argument is insufficient to make the religion's case. G.D.(To the N.Y. Daily News) In reference to "Holy Moses" editorial of 5/5/99, when it comes to protecting my freedoms, I trust "civil-libertarian geeks" over your editorial writers any day. J.L., Flushing, NY, cc: LISH You mean they didn't call them those "dummy civil-libertarian geeks?" This is progress. G.D.
Hi, I am currently receiving your newsletter by email, and enjoy the articles very much, especially the one by Collen H., which I can relate to having been raised a Catholic myself, including Catholic Schools, the whole bit. I was slower to question the church, I was about 18 when the light turned on and it took years to rid myself of the guilt I kept feeling. Today I call myself an atheist, and I am raising my son of ten years religion free, and I teach him morals and ethics, influenced by my life experiences and a love of all people.
I am interested in finding out more about Humanism and possibly join a group close to my home in Southern California. Please give me any information that will help me to find similar minded people as myself, and keep sending me your wonderful newsletters. Thanks, P.O. You are indeed welcome. To locate a group near you, may I suggest the Secular Web run by the Internet Infidels, or perhaps check the back pages of Free Inquiry magazine or the Humanist, which can be purchased at good bookstores. You can also find these magazines on the web as well. The Council for Secular Humanism, which we are affiliated with, also has a website. A quick check indicates Humanists of San Diego, (619) 280-8595;Orange County, 949 425 0425; Santa Barbara, 805 687 8619; and L.A., 310 3058135. If there is no group in your area, start one! G.D.About your proposed "end of the world dinner this winter (which maybe held before or after the end of the world) ... I definitely recommend having it "after." That will save a lot on the purchase of charcoal. Perhaps even on meat. C. S., Milwaukee, WI Are you suggesting we have leftovers? G.D.
Regarding the 700 Club TV show of 5/4/99, is this the height or hypocrisy, or what? This show had a segment which criticized our society as being too concerned with money. This was preceded and followed by shameless fund raising appeals for his organization. J. L, Flushing, NY Geez, Pat Robertson must be down to his last billion dollars or so. On the other hand, I hope to have an annual budget of maybe $1000+ per year for LISH unless we go for the Center for Inquiry. I must be thinking small. So here goes a new LISH program: Send your money in and we WON'T pray for you. G.D. [TOC]
THEN & NOW Paul Lozowsky
Adlai Stevenson, in an essay in 1956, wrote of the difference in knowledge gained from life's experience, as opposed to knowledge gained in other ways. This knowledge was not from words, formulas, parables, philosophies, or readings. This knowledge came from human experiences --growing, raising families, fighting wars, winning some, losing it all at the peace table, memories of the laughter of a child, the joy of new life, the sick and suffering and the end -- death.In this spirit, the question might be asked, "What would you do differently if you knew then what you know now?" I might say happiness is everything; now is the time to be happy; and the way to be happy is to try and make other people happy. I would ask my mother not to send me to religious school at a tender age of six or seven. At such a tender age when my budding mind was captured by religion through its rituals and its indoctrination's, I would say, "mother, I am too young to make even the most simple intellectual evaluation. I believe everything they tell me, I do not know enough to question anything, I accept anything from the church as the truth."
I might also ask to be taught the views of others, and wonder why there are so many different religions. I would remind my mother of the Jesuits saying, "Give me a child until he is eight, and we have him for life."
I remember mother saying, "Pray, a little prayer never hurt anyone."I did not have any answer in my tender youth, so I prayed. To this day, there is no evidence of any prayer being answered, or will there ever be.
My mother, I should bring to your attention, was born in Minsk, Russia. She believed in the Catholic Religion, as was taught to her in Russia. She believed in the creation, the Virgin Birth, that the Bible is the inspired word of god, Adam and Eve, that sickness was caused by the devil; she believed in a soul. All these ideas are in doubt now, but still are believed by many people.
I do not wish to blame anyone for the errors in my life; in life you do the best you can with what you know and what you have at hand. But now I would say, as many educators do, that no child under the age of 14 should receive instruction in subjects that may possibly be the vehicle of serious error, such as philosophy, religion, or any other branch of knowledge where it is necessary to take large views. This is primarily because wrong notions imbedded early in life can seldom be rooted out. Of all the intellectual qualities, judgment is the last to arrive at maturity.
There is no absurdity so palpable that it cannot be firmly implanted into the brain if one begins to inculcate it before the age of eight, and by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity. To take advantage of the natural gullibility and naivete of the young for the purpose of instilling religious or political philosophies is one of the most thoughtless and unforgiving actions committed by society against a child.
Children at a young age are learning to perceive the world. They believe what they are told as being true. They are learning for future thought. It is into these receptive, uncritical minds that loving parents tell the untruthful "facts" about religion. Many of the parents themselves do not believe these myths -- but they think it is good for the child to believe in something.
Today, in my senior years, knowing now what I did not then, I believe I would say this to my mother and teachers of the past: "Mother and teachers shouldn't you have taught me the scientific method of thought -- in short, rejecting all non-observational and non-verifiable evidence? Shouldn't you have made it an important point by telling me to always ask for evidence, no matter who makes a pronouncement on any subject?"
And finally, I would say "teach me about veracity, make my life a devotion to the truth, to question with boldness every fact. Teach me how to think rationally, logically and to pay no attention to books of dreams, voices, and revelations made hundreds of years ago -- but instead to ask, how did it get that way? Teach me the idea of mental honesty."
To take advantage of the natural gullibility and naivete of the young for the purpose of instilling religious or political philosophies is one of the most thoughtless and unforgiving actions committed by society against a child. A Personal Journey By Wesley J
I would like to share with the readers a few things that have happened to me along the rocky, thorny, sometimes muddy, sometimes arid path I had to travel from the "sacred" city of Christianity to the "sinful" city of agnosticism.
In days gone by, I sought to please. I basked in the approval of home, work associates and community. I was anxious to "do the right thing."Doubts started when I was a Deacon in the Presbyterian Church. I started to wonder why downing a half jigger of grape juice and nibbling on a bit of soda cracker was a "holy" thing to do -- just a minor worry. Being a Deacon awarded me more respect than was given to the average Joe Blow in the pew and I liked that.
Things started getting tougher when I became an Elder. I have never taken responsibilities lightly. Being an Elder made me a member of the Session. The Session, consisting of the Minister and the Elders handed down"Supreme Court" decisions on controversial matters pertaining to the congregation. I didn't feel very qualified to do that and tried to study so that I would become more qualified.
I started by studying passages that I had heard most frequently used as subjects of sermons, then branched out into ones I hadn't heard much about. What I learned was not the most comforting thing that had ever happened to me. I began to think I understood why some passages were selected more frequently than others. I found many contradictions, passages condoning violence, even some commanding violent acts. Soon I could no longer be an Elder in good faith. I wrote a letter to the church requesting that I be relieved of my responsibilities as an Elder.
Treading the rocky, thorny road to get here has not been easy. I think that the atlas that had the sometimes seldom, sometimes never traveled roads I took was given to me by my First Grade Sunday school teacher.
She told the class how the giant Goliath came at David with a vengeance, but how the slightly built David, under God's guidance took careful aim, hitting the evil Goliath in the eye, killing him. Boy it sounded great. If that little kid could do it, all of us little kids could do it; I better get in God's graces right now.
That was just the start of my schooling. I hadn't studied any of the nobler arts or sciences or anything about law. I didn't know that Dr. Einstein had coined the phrase "Reverence for Life."
Today I would say to her; "MURDER, you told those little kids what a virtue MURDER is if it is commanded by God. You think that if God commands it, that killing is not murder but a sacred duty." I doubt that many judges today, or even Pat Robertson worshippers, would accept that as a defense. [TOC]
PAUL KURTZ THREATENED Gerry D
Council for Secular Humanism founder and leader Paul Kurtz apparently received death threats coinciding with protests in the Buffalo area by the Operation Rescue organization. This group, which seeks to outlaw abortion, held a poorly attended reunion of a Spring 1992 rally in Buffalo. Coincidentally, the Buffalo suburb of Amherst is where Dr. Slepian, a doctor who performed abortions, was recently shot and killed in his home, presumably by an anti-abortion extremist.Paul Kurtz said in an interview that he's "been forewarned for sometime. Our staff is worried. My family is worried particularly since Dr. Slepian lived not too far from where I live."
It is probably too complex a thought for these protesters and their more violent counterparts to understand that most Americans share the same opinion of abortion rights as Dr. Kurtz. Although one may consider an abortion a moral wrong, most Americans believe that the decision on abortion should be left to the pregnant woman herself. Does this make the vast majority of Americans a target of protest or worse for anti-abortion radicals?
Why then, target Dr. Kurtz at all when his position is rather ordinary and commonplace on the topic of abortion? Consider also that there is no humanist dogma requiring being pro-choice, only a requirement that the decision be reasoned and based on common human values.
The answer is that this is not about abortion - it is about the ethical responsibilities of individual persons. The religious radical sees such personal responsibilities as a threat to "God's rule." Dr. Kurtz' championing of personal moral responsibility and humanistic ethics is a clear threat to religious dogma and obedience. The religious radical can not tolerate this on any issue. That is why a Dr. Kurtz is targeted: he promotes a rational alternative to religion and this represents the greatest of all threats to the extreme followers of "Gods." This is not about saving"babies" - it's about religious domination, as usual. [TOC]
ATHEISTS "REJOICE" OVER SCHOOL KILLINGS Gerry D
The following letter appeared in the April 25th edition of the Birmingham (AL) News:"I'll bet the American atheists are having a ball now. Most likely they are dancing and singing with uplifted praises to their non-religious convictions and court winnings.
After all, they don't believe in a God, don't want anyone else to believe or even mention Jehovah's name in public and much less in schools and government buildings or on public grounds. It is OK to be highly enlightened, be freethinking, and to hate religion. To them this means don't teach right and wrong, for it doesn't exist except in the minds of crazy people who teach morals and especially Hebrews and Christians. This they get from that mythology book they call the Bible. To them it is a bunch of bunk written by idiots
Atheists love living in America and enjoying the blessings of our forebears and can claim there is no God, but they want fairness and justice; they want the protection from the men and women who have given their lives to protect the few freedoms we have left; they seek total destruction of allgood. The Denver school killings surely are something atheists rejoice in. MWB, Midfield."
It is unbelievable that any US newspaper saw fit to print such vicious hatred in its letters to the editor space. Is there any other way to describe the above? How many Americans share these ideas and beliefs? I'm afraid that it's more than a rare few.
To think that someone else believes non-believers might be rejoicing somehow is all the more depressing and is an indication of the kind of hatred that apparently has as its source, some kind of religious basis for the author of that letter and those who would agree.
Consider that in all of the recent killings, there has not come to light a shred of evidence that the perpetrators were raised as atheists or humanists; that there is no evidence that any of the perpetrators were atheists or humanists; that hatred of God makes sense only if one believes there is a God to hate; and that all the children were raised in areas one might classify as overwhelmingly religious. Yet somehow these killings are blamed on non-belief as if these young killers have ever even heard of humanism or understood what atheism is!
If there is one disservice to the nation and our children that many religious persons such as MWB can be charged with, it is the lie that with out a God or religion, that there are no reasons for anyone to do right instead of wrong. What could be more irresponsible than to spread the lie that unless one believes in a supernatural being, one cannot or should not be moral? If one understands that it is inevitable that many will not buy into the prevailing religious myths, one should then encourage and nurture kindness, honesty, tolerance, integrity and the other common decencies we all cherish, believer and non-believer alike, for no other reason than their own intrinsic value.
Is there truly any dispute that we should all value kindness for its own sake? Is someone truly going to claim that if God was not commanding kindness, we would not or should not be kind to our own children? I pity the children of a person who would claim that. It is the sad fact that if we attach the requirement of belief in some supernatural scenario to morality that it cheapens the value of morality itself. Being commanded by a deity to behave in a certain manner removes the standard of human well being when making a moral judgement. There are no standards in such a system, only obedience. And it would seem that tolerance is not one of the values that MWB's God encourages. [TOC]