INQUIRER Volume 2, Issue 7 July, 1999 A Thumbs Up Publication
Editor: Gerald Dantone Art Design: John R. Wilmarth Copyright LISH 1999 (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.)
Please feel free to contribute articles to Long Island Secular
Humanists Email InfidelsRe@aol.com that may be of
interest to humanists! Topics encouraged include the "Ten Commandments"
legislation now in Congress, and other freedom of religion issues. Also articles on
humanistic ethics and values would be great! Thanks!
1 Dogma Kills
2 Letters to the Editor
3 Elton John does the right thing
4 Celebrating Ingersoll
5 Ingersoll's Vow
6 Why Be Ethical?
7 I've Fought for Freedom, but Few Defend My Atheist BeliefsDOGMA KILLS by Gerry Dantone
A recent article in the New York Post detailed a story of the FBI building a case against five members, including one Long Islander, of the Church of the Ku Klux Klan, suspected of arson and other crimes. The church leader, Rev. Jeffrey Berry, claims there are 17 klaverns in the metropolitan area. Berry depicts this group as a Christian based, civil rights group that is non-violent and denied they "beat up people."Whatever the guilt or innocence of this particular group of men, the fact is the vast majority of Klan organizations and other racist groups in this country have been Christian in orientation. It is therefore confounding though instructive to examine the details of another infamous church organization that recently made headlines: The World Church of the Creator. An "ex"-member of this church recently went on a rampage killing two persons, both non-whites, perhaps due to the (most likely unconstitutional) denial of a license to practice law of the church's leader. One may think that this is just another Christian Klan type church or perhaps a Christian Identity type group, but one would be completely in error. The WCOTC is atheistic and anti-Christian. As a comparison, please note that according to Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the WCOTC has 126 members, while the Christian Identity religion has approximately 30,000 to 40,000 members, including Timothy McVeigh.
Despite the aberrational nature of the WCOTC, to be honest, if one were to omit their racist portrayals of history and science, they may be seen as some kind of objectivists or libertarians, no offence intended. They do not value altruism and they see survival of "their kind" (e.g.: white people) as the ultimate value. Other oddities of this group's beliefs, as I understand it, are beliefs in racial "holy war" and "sin," though apparently not in the supernatural sense and faith in that they will prevail. However, their historical and scientific viewpoint, while claiming to be skeptical and rational, are extreme and unsupported by the vast weight of the scientific knowledge of biology, sociology and history as most of us understand it.
For example, they take as fact that the Jewish people invented Christianity for the specific purpose of corrupting white people. While it is possible that some religions have been deliberately invented to vex other peoples it would seem that no such evidence exists for Christianity. The claim is also seemingly made from what I understand that no groups, other than white persons, have ever contributed to society. Such a claim could never be supported, if indeed this is an accurate portrayal of their beliefs.
Imagine a group claiming skepticism, rationality, and science being one's worst nightmare? It is a sobering thought on the value of professing reasoned beliefs!
Though there may be some significant anti-atheist or non-believer backlash once the religious right gets wind of the bizarre nature of this "church's" beliefs, there is much to learn on the part of humanists. It has been mentioned before in this newsletter that the danger of a religion or philosophy lies in dogmatism. When one ceases to question their beliefs, dangerous beliefs can become "holy" and "sacred" and resistant to change.
It is an article of faith to those who adhere to dogmatic religions or philosophies such as the WCOTC that their beliefs are unquestionably true. Professing to be scientific, rational and skeptical are not enough, obviously. Such claims are cheap. Their claims must be put to the test, and quite simply, the WCOTC hasn't proved anything.
Consider where at one time there may have been a survival value in caring only for one's tribe, those days are past. Those biological imperatives that divide humans no longer promote human happiness and wellbeing, but instead promote misery for all. Denial of compassion for all others based on skin color is also unnatural, since most of us do care for the welfare of others, regardless of their "tribe." Indeed, if all persons cared only for "their own kind" to the point of callousness and even hatred of others as supposedly espoused by the WCOTC, wouldn't even "their own kind" suffer greatly from the universal ill will between the peoples of the world? What recipe for misery could be created that would generate more suffering than this kind of value system?
The position of the WCOTC is an easy target for those who claim that without God, there is no compelling reason for ethics. They could argue that any such position, such as concern for whites only, or persons with brown eyes only or tall persons only or even concern for everyone are equally arbitrary and pointless. What is the answer to this argument?
The answer lies in the biological nature of most human beings. Do we really prefer a world that the WCOTC envisions? Or are we more comfortable, happy and better off with a circle of concern that encompasses everyone, regardless or skin color, language, height, national origin, etc.? The answer for most of us is simple -- we prefer the largest circle of concern possible. Most of us prefer that all of humanity cooperate and co-exist happily and well. The killings in Illinois and Indiana horrified most of us; did they horrify you? The members of the WCOTC are exceptions to this attitude, but exceptions are to be expected. Perfection is not in the cards. This does not invalidate the principles of humanism regarding rational inquiry, science and skepticism. It does indicate that perfection will not result from mere claims of rationality, and that the values of benevolence and fairness are indispensable values to create a world we would want to live in. It also demonstrates, as if we needed any reminders after the lessons of communism, that even secular dogma kills.
As humanists we must remember to always question our beliefs, and nurture the kind of character in our children and others, that makes embracing a hateful creed, even a secular hateful creed, less likely. No amount of philosophical expertise or religious belief can replace a loving and considerate nature. Science and reason can only help us to discover and serve our common values and common decencies, not create them. Our values arise from human aspiration and need, and we are quite capable of deciding to give value to an idea that runs counter from our biological imperatives; this ability to choose is humanity's ultimate ability to shape our own ethical future. (For more on this subject, see John Hodges "Why Be Ethical," in this issue.) Become a Member of LISH
Membership entitles one to use of the LISH Freethought library, mailed newsletters and invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well! Only members may vote at upcoming elections of LISH officers. Dues will go to defray the costs of creating and mailing the newsletter, publicizing meetings, developing a youth program, guest speaker expenses and contribute to the beginning of a fund for a Center For Inquiry, Long Island.
Your membership donation also enables us to reach local elected officials and the local media so that they know we exist, and have reasonable point of views. Only $35 for full family membership for one year, or $10 per year for the newsletter only, the first 6 months free. Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
6/19/99 Just a thought. Now that the House has voted to "allow" (i.e., mandate) the posting of the Ten Commandments in public institutions, shouldn't we also post -- or better yet, enact into law -- Old Testament prescriptions of the death penalty for such violations as idolatry, blasphemy, adultery and Sabbath breaking? Barry Loberfeld, LI Liberty Coalition, LI, NY (We could even enforce Jesus' admonition that everyone prays in his or her closet, in private. But that's another topic.) One wonders how the zealously religious reconcile all this stuff in their minds. If the Commandments are the Commandments, aren't the punishments in the bible also binding? Guess not! G.D.
6/21/99 I feel bad about missing the June 25th meeting; population growth is one of the most important problems in the world. As we look long range the excessive number of people to feed & house, etc., will ruin the earth and will be a prime cause of political unrest.
We belong to the Worldwatch Institute, which publishes yearbooks, including topics such as population, water resources, food production, transportation, pollution of the environment, etc.
We also belong to every possible population control group: ZPG, Population Council, Planned Parenthood, and several others.
With some one billion people going to bed hungry right now, oceans becoming barren due to over fishing, and fresh water getting scarcer for many reasons, if we don't actively encourage people all over the earth to have not more than 2 children, the quality of life is going to go seriously downhill. Turmoil will result from lack of land, food, water, energy, etc. for many people of the earth.
I'm sorry we got scheduled into a group gathering of which we have been members for many years. I'm sure you will have a great discussion, and convert anyone who is not already convinced of the need to scale back the growing population. Dave F., Garden City, NY
It was a great discussion and we wish we had your input. Amy Sauer of Planned Parenthood covered a lot of ground on this immense subject. New inquirer Lisa pointed out that the problem was not simply one of the third world, which the video presentation seemed to emphasize. Since Americans use more natural resources than others, one could easily argue that there are too many of us as well. We may not be starving but we are exhausting the planet, ultimately at the expense of other peoples. Overpopulation is everyone's concern! G.D.6/21/99 I see nothing wrong with gay couples adopting. The gays I know are as, if not more loving, intelligent, and talented as the average person. They are all gentle and nurturing. Why not? They'd make fine parents. Beth P.
There are too many children needing adoption to waste opportunities because of bigotry and prejudice. Prospective adopters should all be treated equally and according to their ability to provide a loving, good and stable home. G.D.6/21/99 I am highly offending by your squid bashing. Fineāyou don't like squid. Calling it "sewage" however, takes it to anther realmāthat of "labeling." As you know "labeling" can be very divisive.
As a Merchant Marine Ships Master, I've learned to love the little whimsical squid. Judging an entire species as "sewage" based only on their culinary properties is a highly dubious thing coming from someone who is supposed to be so open-minded. Not only have you effectively pissed off the entire Italian community (calimariāya know) but you have enraged the core of the commercial fishing industry. You better watch your back DantoneāYou may wind up sleeping with the squidiesāI for my part will try to calm those who would wish you ill for your faux pas. Capt. Scott B M., Huntington, NY
If you really cared about squid, you wouldn't eat them either. What would you prefer: to be called sewage or deep-fried in hot oil? G.D.6/21/99 I must disagree with whoever wrote that Springfield, Oregon is not overwhelmingly religious. When our daughter moved to Eugene 5 years ago, one of the first things she noticed was the contrast between Eugene and Springfield. Eugene is the home of the University of Oregon and has the reputation for non-belief the author of that letter referred to. Indeed, it is probably truly where "all the hippies have gone."
Springfield seems to have developed it's population in direct opposition to Eugene. Springfield is known as a bed of right wing activity and is "overwhelmingly religious." M., via internet.
Thanks for the information. Actually, to be precise, the previous letter writer stated that he had no reason to believe there was much difference between Springfield and other Oregon towns. Now there may a reason to suspect otherwise. Now none of this is an attempt to "blame" religion for school violence. It is an attempt to show that non-belief has nothing to do with it. G.D.6/22/99 Another great newsletter that I have forwarded to many friends. Norris R., Rockford, IL Send money. We'll make this a pyramid thing yet. G.D.
6/25/99You have sent me six or seven of your "Inquirers." I have yet to detect even a half smile in any of them. In two meetings I have attended there were no laughs, only superior snorts at the ignorant unwashed.
You are right. It is difficult to respond to assertions, particularly when they are caused by a general aura of all-knowingness, of contempt for those who disagree.
From the length of your response (to my previous letter) it seems I touched a sensitive nerve. But face it, the content is basically an aside diverting attention by pointing out the faults of those "others." Come on. We know all about the sins of the Church and Congress, and on and on. To clearly and simply (and humorously) point them out is more than OK. But to do it from a superiority stance in the way that you do, in both print and meetings, is to claim that Secular Humanists are always and invariably error free. And if you persist in doing that, you'll turn out to be, in the long run, no better than 'them.'
So, again, Righteousness killsāpeople, of course, but even the very definition of humanism itself. Obviously that bothers me. Lee D., Glen Cove, NY
As before, it remains difficult to respond to assertions without examples. It can only be repeated that for secular humanists, there are no absolute truths revealed to us, and we have no pretext of infallibility.
However as for our stance of superiority, there may be a qualified guilty plea for us in certain regard. In no way can secular humanists claim to automatically have a "superior" character to non-humanists. However, if we did not believe humanism was indeed superior to other belief systems in accuracy and usefulness to humanity, we would not endorse or promote humanism. Yes, I do assert, as my opinion, that humanism lays a foundation for society that will promote the general well being of humanity better than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, communism, libertarianism, objectivism, existentialism, fascism, nazism or nihilism. Indeed, one the ways humanism proposes to do this is to allow the free practice of all of the above, so long as no others are harmed or coerced!
Forgive humanist activists for having the courage of their convictions. It's about time someone told the Emperor (religion) that he's naked.7/1/99 First, the Inquirer is looking great! You've done wonders with LISH. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you. Jo Ann Mooney, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst, NY Thanks. You KNOW I'll do that! G.D.
7/10/99 Gerry, your letter to Newsday re: gays and religion was outstanding. You said it the way it is. I have been taught that being gay is not a choice to be made by the individual. It is part of your chromosomes, genes and therefore not a way of life that is open for choice.
The second thing: Your special FAQs on Secular Humanism, it certainly answers just about any question that is put to me about humanism and the many manmade gods. Regards, keep up your good work. You are doing a superior job. Paul L., Long Island
Thanks very much. Hopefully the idea of a humanist group and network will inspire many to contribute to the community as you already do. G.D. [TOC]ELTONJOHN DOES THE RIGHT THING By Gerry D
"Like millions of other people, my heart was broken; I felt it was my duty as a gay man to do what Dylan Thomas said, 'Do not go gentle into that good night.'" So Sir Elton John, popular songwriter and performer made his first-ever visit to Wyoming to perform June 1, 1999 before an appreciative crowd of approximately 15,000 in Laramie, where Matthew Shepard was murdered for being gay. The fund raising event, "Solving Hate and Prejudice Across America," succeeded in raising money for a half-dozen groups trying to do exactly that.
"I wanted to do a concert in his memory in Laramie, where he should still be living and being a student at the University of Wyoming," John said. Before the show, he met not only with Shepard's parents Dennis and Judy, but also with some of the police and prosecutors involved in the murder case. Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer was also in attendance.
"When I fly over America on my broomstick, as I often do a lot, I get to physically see and experience what a big country this is -- it's big enough for everyone, which is what this concert is about. This concert is about ending hate. And despite all the progress that has been made in rights and tolerance, we are still living in a world of hate," John said. "I have traveled over the United States today in an airplane from England and people that live in this country should all care about each other regardless of their race, their sex, their religious beliefs, or their lifestyles."
Since Elton John is not a U.S. citizen, he has stated it would not be appropriate for him to take a position on political issues. Kudos all around for Sir Elton John. (From various press reports.) [TOC]
CELEBRATING INGERSOLL by Gerry Dantone
July is the 100th anniversary of the untimely death of perhaps America's greatest humanist philosopher and orator, Robert Green Ingersoll, 1833-1899. His credits are too many to list here but if one would like to find out about this great and influential American, one can begin with "The Best of Ingersoll," by Greely available from Prometheus Books. Though he did not write many books, the collections of his essays and transcribed speeches fill volumes, and comprise a complete philosophy that is relevant and useful even today. In fact, his points of view are so modern and undated generally, one would not guess that these ideas existed over 100 years ago!
For a taste, here are two gems of his, followed by his brilliant "vow." [TOC]INGERSOLL'S VOW
(On Life): "I want to live - I get great happiness out of life. I enjoy the company of my friends. I enjoy seeing the faces of the ones I love. I enjoy art and music. I love Shakespeare and Burns; love to hear the music of Wagner; love to see a good play. I take pleasure in eating and sleeping. The fact is, I like to breathe. I want to get all the happiness out of life that I can. I want to suck the orange dry, so that when death comes, nothing but the peelings will be left."
(On Love): "It is a splendid thing to think that the woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really love her, you will always see the face you've loved and won. And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he grows old; he is not decrepit to her; he does not tremble; he is not old; she always sees the same gallant gentleman who won her hand and heart. I like to think that love is eternal." Ingersoll's Vow By Robert Green Ingersoll
When I became convinced that the universe is natural - that all ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the world - not even in infinite space. I was free - free to think, to express my thoughts - free to live in my own ideal - free to live for myself and those I loved - free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings - free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope - free to judge and determine for myself - free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past - free from popes and priests - free from all the "called" and "set apart" - free from sanctified mistakes and "holy" lies - free from the fear of eternal pain - free from the winged monsters of the night - free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought - no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings - no chains for my limbs - no lashes for my back - no fires for my flesh - no master's frown or threat - no following another's steps - no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers, who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain - for the freedom of labor and thought - to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains - to those who proudly mounted the scaffold's stairs - to those by fire consumed - to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they have held, and hold it high, that light may conquer darkness still. [TOC]
WHY BE ETHICAL? by Gerry Dantone
How does one address the question of "Why be ethical?" Why care about other people, why work to make the world a better place? There is a collection of reasons."What IS ethical?" and "Why BE ethical?" are two DIFFERENT questions, but the answers are related. Different answers to the first make the second a different question. If a theory of ethics does not answer the second, its answer to the first is less believable.
In this essay, I will give a condensed and summary answer to the first, then try to answer the second. My answer to the first is my own assembled theory, combining the social-contract approach with the Aristotelian; I make no claims of originality, uniqueness or finality for it.
There is a built-in goal of biological life, genetic reproductive success, also called "inclusive fitness" by biologists. For non-human life, this goal could be described as "promote the health of your family", where "health" is defined as "survival ability" and "family" is "all that share your genes, to the degree that they share your genes." Human beings are a special case in at least two ways. First, our self-awareness and free will give us the ability to choose our goals; inclusive fitness is only the "default option," toward which our nature will incline us unless we consciously choose to pursue something else. Second, humans are more than carriers of genes; we have original thoughts, we create, receive, modify, and transmit culture. Therefore, for human beings, "inclusive fitness" would as legitimately include our cultural kin as our genetic kin. A goal that many people adopt, unconsciously (and the goal I advocate adopting consciously) is "promote the health of your circle." The boundaries of your circle are your choice, but it would be entirely natural to include yourself, your genetic kin and descendants, your cultural kin and descendants. (Near kin commonly receive more concern than distant kin.)
Ethics is a tool for living in groups. Humans are social animals, we have been living in groups for longer than we have been human. We have evolved instincts and attitudes that facilitate our individual genetic reproductive success, and more broadly the health of our circle, in a social setting.
Answering "What is ethical?": at a minimum, ethics is about maintaining peaceful and cooperative relations with your neighbors, the other members of your social group. If you want to maintain peaceful relations, don't kill, steal, lie, or break agreements. As Shakespeare wrote: "It needs no ghost, Milord, come from the grave, to tell us this."
Beyond this minimum, their neighbors may judge a person as a "better" or "worse" neighbor, more or less desirable AS a neighbor. (John Rawls, A Theory Of Justice, P. 437: "A good person has the features of moral character that it is rational for members of a well-ordered society to want in their associates.") If you adopt "promoting the health of your circle" as your goal, you then have an objective standard by which to judge what kind of society is a better one to live in, and what kind of people make better neighbors.
So: Why go beyond the minimum ethics necessary for individual survival? Why be a "good neighbor"? Why care about other people, and work to make the world a better place?
Kinship is one reason: Natural selection has favored organisms that act to promote the health of their kin, because kin share genes; genes that promote caring among kin would reproduce more successfully. Kinship has no sharp boundaries. When resources are very tight, when starvation and freezing and violence are common, bonds of kinship are known to break down. When times are more prosperous and secure, kin-feeling spreads wider; the circle of concern widens, and more distant relations get help when in trouble. Other humans share 99.6% of your genes, just by being human; chimps share 98.4%, oak trees and bacteria share at least some.
Reciprocity is another reason: If you value anything in this life, in this world, you had better value other humans, for there is no one else who can help you. They are the most powerful beings around; for your self-interest, you should look for friends and allies among them, and avoid making enemies unnecessarily. When you act ethically, you are making a bid for future cooperation.
Setting an example is a third reason: If "being ethical" includes "being a desirable neighbor", then it is clearly in your self-interest for OTHER people to be ethical. Setting an example, cultivating in yourself the kind of character you desire in others, is an effective strategy. It has been an effective strategy for so long that it has sunk into our instinctive attitudes, to at least some degree. All who see your behavior (not just those directly affected) will judge your character accordingly. Including you. Nobody likes a phony, even (or especially) when it is yourself.
Combining the first and third reasons - to set an example for your children: Whatever the boundaries of your concern for your kinfolk in the present generation, your kinship will likely spread out in the future, you will become related to more people spread more widely. For the health of your kin, you would not wish them to fight each other, or treat each other unjustly, or fail to help each other in times of need. If you draw your circle of concern more widely in the present, and persuade your children to do so in the future, future benefits may outweigh present costs.
Finally, to preserve the meaning of your life: This reason will take some explaining. Humans are storytelling animals. For most people, "the meaning of life" is what larger story they think their life fits into. They get great satisfaction from having a larger meaning for their lives. A philosopher named Braithwaite described religion as "morals helped out by mythology." People want a "good" story to include heroes with goals, ideals, aspirations; to identify obstacles and challenges against which the heroes must struggle; to offer a real hope of victory. To provide meaning for their lives, people must regard the story as true, or potentially true, in its essentials. You must have good reason to hope that, if you live by the morals taught, the goals, ideals, aspirations will be achieved in reality.
What stories are true, or could be true, to the best of current knowledge? How would these stories "help out" morals? For true stories, first, there is natural history, the story of the evolution of the universe from the beginning, the development of life on Earth, and the evolution of the human species. This would help people understand their origins and genetic kinship. Then there is human history, the story of civilization, with its cultural changes, wars, rises and declines, triumphs and collapses. This would help people understand cultural kinship. These stories are grand and dramatic, and everyone's life can fit into them, and in fact does. Thirdly there is "hard" science fiction, the kind that speculates on future possibilities, keeping strictly within the bounds of current science. These are where goals, ideals, and aspirations can be articulated.
Given that we have our choice, what goal shall we choose? As individuals, we can choose "life-goals" and "legacy-goals". Life-goals are whatever would be a satisfying life for you. This will vary according to talent and temperament. Legacy-goals are the net effect you want your life to have on the world. They are the last goals at which you have any chance to succeed. Considering that accident, crime, disease, etc. leave all of us uncertain as to our time of death, if you want your personal story to end in victory, you will choose your actions at all times in your life to be compatible with your desired legacy. In this way, your legacy-goal may set limits on what you would be willing to do to achieve your life-goals.
The ultimate source of fear and despair is death. Death is the ultimate failure, the ultimate loss. If you want your personal story to end in victory, what could be your response to this prospect? The antithesis of death is health, defined as the ability to survive. Though as individuals we shall inevitably die sooner or later, we can survive through our genes (families) and through our communicated thoughts (culture).
To the extent that you identify with your body, you will survive death through your family of the body, i.e. those that share your genes. To the extent that you identify with your mind, you will survive death through your family of the mind, i.e. all those with whom you share culture, with whom you could share your thoughts. Fitting into the true story of biological evolution, we can seek to contribute to the health of our families. Fitting into the true story of cultural evolution, we can seek to contribute to the health of our society.
What are the effects of cultural evolution on moral boundaries? The human species' development of comparatively high intelligence, the development of language, the development of writing, of new tools and methods, and in recent times of the scientific method of understanding the world, has led to a great increase in the potential value of reciprocity. "Reciprocity" here refers to the whole network of trading relationships that are peaceful, cooperative, and mutually beneficial. By discovering new ways of producing desired things, other than hunting and gathering, we discovered new forms of valuable cooperation.
It is a classic principle of economics, articulated by Adam Smith, that "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market." In other words, for producing desired things by cooperative action, there are advantages to having larger groups rather than smaller. There are "economies of scale" that can be obtained only by larger groups. Larger groups can support having a greater variety of different products available, higher levels of specialized skill, and new types of production that are not possible at all on smaller scales. Other things equal, a larger group also has the advantage in inter-group conflict. Cultural evolution has come to wholly overshadow biological evolution. With the continuing development of culture, the power of the human race has multiplied and multiplied again. Peace has gotten a whole lot better, and war has gotten a whole lot worse. It has become vastly more advantageous to avoid conflict and maintain peaceful cooperation, in ever-larger and more inclusive groups.
So - the fact that humans are not only social but also intelligent, not only carriers of genes but also carriers of culture, tends to make it advantageous to push out the boundaries of moral concern, beyond the reach supported by instinct. I think the natural limit of this process is to include all carriers of culture, all potential cooperators, all persons, in one society. 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. [TOC]
I'VE FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM, BUT FEW DEFEND MY ATHEIST BELIEFS by Keith Taylor
Reprinted with permission from the Navy Times, a Gannet weeklyOnce again someone called me evil and nobody seems to give a big hoot. That irks the bejabbers out of me.
Evil? I served in the Navy for 23 years. I was president of a national veteran's organization. I belonged to one of our major civic organizations - was outstanding member one year, too. I am president of a group dedicated to science and reason, a group composed of some of the best scientific brains in the country. I am a loving husband, father, and grandfather.
So who said I'm evil? Rabbi Daniel Lapin. That's who. Speaking at a bipartisan prayer breakfast opening the 106th Congress, he said, "This is to remind us that nothing has the ability to unify people as much as common devotion to (god), except perhaps hatred of him, as seen in the evil doctrines of socialism and atheism." Not one congressperson defended me, or the 20 million or so like me. Nary a peep in the press either.
Maybe I can help them out a bit. To start with, I don't hate God. I just don't think he exists. If I did, I might ask why some of his followers do so many wacko things. How about folks who think ethnic cleansing is a part of God's will? Or those folks in Oregon who filled a graveyard with their children because they thought prayer would work in place of scientific medical care?
And what about my Navy, the one I served for so long? A while back, a retired chaplain wasn't so sure the service should even have let me wear those gold stripes. In an interview, I asked him what he thought about the statement of a former superintendent of the Naval Academy who said a Navy officer had to believe in God. The chaplain not only agreed with the Annapolis admiral, he added that an officer who was an atheist was a liar. He wasn't as sure about enlisted folks, or whether atheism should be grounds for conscientious objection.
Well, the padre wouldn't get much of an argument from our military and civilian leaders. Our warships are launched with a blessing and go into battle on the wings of prayers led by chaplains. Then they generally face ships from other nations that have been blessed and manned by crews inspired by prayers of their own.
In 1988, we nonbelievers got it from a future commander in chief. On Aug. 27, then Vice President George Bush said, "No. I don't think that atheists should be considered as citizens. Nor should they be considered patriots." Nobody bothered to report it except for one small paper in Colorado and the secular press. After Bush moved into the White House he was given a chance to retract the statement. He refused.
Bush's successor knew who could be bashed too. Early in is presidency our current commander in chief told a Baptist group, "Sometimes I think the environment we operate in is entirely too secular. The fact that we have freedom of religion doesn't mean that we need to try to have freedom from religion."
Mr. President, we do not have that freedom, take it from me!
I wrote my two senators and my congressman and asked what they would say if Rabbi Lapin had called any religion evil. My representative, Bob Filner, answered that he didn't think I was evil. That was a relief - I twice worked for his election.
As for the senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer waited several months, then each sent me one of those "thank you. I value your opinion" notes. I guess they don't feel that it mattered that a loyal (former) supporter was called evil in front of their colleagues without a lick of proof.
My wife says I fuss too much about things like that. Likely that's so. It would be a lot easier to just write nice, warm, fuzzy, nostalgic stories. On the other hand, what is the point of fighting for freedom of speech unless we intend to use it?
Thus, I'd like to use the First Amendment to point out the 20 million of us who are willing to admit to being atheists are reduced for no reason other than what we do not believe. It would be wonderful if my grandkids could know that the media, elected representatives and the Navy their grandpa served so long would stand up for him when he is called unworthy or evil. They would do that for a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew, or any of the other thousands folks of faith.
But not for the likes of me. [TOC]