INQUIRER Volume 2, Issue 9 September, 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 The Question of the Month: "Does
the bible promote homophobia?" Readers of the Long Island Secular Humanist
Newsletter are encouraged to send in their opinions. Thanks!
1 Boy Scouts & Bigotry
2 Mormon Love
3 'Prayer and Fasting' Resolution Fails in House
4 An Open Letter to Bill Bradley By A.J.T.
5 Americans United for Separation of Church and State
6 Help Wanted! As LISH grows
7 Free Book?
8 Letters to the Editor
9 Funny Stuff Selected by Paul L APB on the Deity!
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.Philo Conference For those interested in philosophy and reason, an unusually strong gathering of the world's leading philosophers will be held September 23rd to 26th in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, hosted by Philo and the Society of Humanist Philosphers. Courses, seminars and debates featuring James Birx, Paul Kurtz, Tim Madigan, Michael Martin, Kai Nelson, Keith Parsons, Theodore Schick, Jr., Vic Stenger, Lewis Vaughn and others will cover a wide range of topics. For more info regarding events, registration and accommodations call 800-458-1366.
Humanist Exchange Students The American Field Service (AFS) wants to hear from humanist households willing to host foreign exchange students. Many of these students find it difficult to find a place when they put "atheist" or "humanist," etc. on their application. For more information please contact Jackie Boismenue @ 1 800 876 2377, ext. 2244, or email to jboismen@afs.org, or visit their website at www.afs.org/usa.
BOY SCOUTS & Bigotry Gerry Dantone
Imagine the following: An organization that meets in your child's school prohibits your son from joining on the basis of his parent's religious beliefs! Why? Because that organization believes that because of his parent's beliefs, the boy would not be able to "grow into the best kind of citizen...."Outrageous! Sure organizations have a right to profess what they please, but should they be given complimentary accommodations and promotion in our public schools when they demean a sizable segment of the school population?
In my district, the Boy Scouts are marketed by public school teachers who send every boy home with brochures advertising that Scouting is open to all of them, an untruth. ("Calling All Boys" is the headline.) Registration sessions are held at the local public schools where one receives an application in which one must be willing to subscribe to their "Declaration of Religious Principle" before the child is admitted. The Declaration states "The Boy Scouts of American maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God...."
Churches often charter the local packs and Scouts must "promise" to love God and admit a duty to God. Does it matter which God is worshipped? Apparently not. If not, then does it matter whether the God worshipped is real, or is it enough to believe in a false God? Are false God-believers able to grow into "the best kind of citizen?" What sense does this all make? What kind of influence is this on the young?
Chartered in 1916 by the US Congress, the nominal Commander in Chief of the BSA is the President of the United States. There is no mention of any religious purpose or test in the charter. The founder of Scouting, Lord Baden-Powell formed the group as an alternative to the only youth programs then available - programs run by churches which enforced specific creeds.
The BSA receives funding directly and indirectly in a number of ways that seems to indicate they are a public institution and therefore not allowed to discriminate. They receive funding though the Combined Federal Campaign; through promotion by public school teachers; though free use of schools for meetings and registration; through free or nominally free use of public lands for activities; through advertisement on postage stamps; from fund raising by local PTAs; and from the United Way, which is not supposed to fund discriminatory groups.*
With all the talk of "values" and how our society does not present the right example for our children, here is an organization that has institutionalized what many would consider a kind of religious bigotry receiving sanctuary in our schools!
If the Boy Scouts were a truly private organization paying their way for all their activities privately, they would not be in the Courts today defending their "right" to discriminate. However, wouldn't it be simpler and healthier for everyone if they did what the Girl Scouts have done? Simply drop the religious and sexual orientation tests and truly become an admirable organization that will help build tolerance and cooperation in our country, not impede it.
*For an in-depth article go to http://www.ffrf.org/issues/bsa.html by Laurie Ann Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion foundation, website http://www.ffrf.org/.
[TOC]Become a Member of LISH Membership in LISH has its benefits! Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library; mailed newsletters; 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 and press releases, including outreach to elected officials and local media. Forming a chapter of Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS), a Secular Singles program, publicizing meetings, developing a youth program, a cable access show and guest speaker costs are other expenses. A long-term goal is the creation of a fund for a Center For Inquiry, Long Island. Let us grow into the humanist voice of Long Island! Only $35 for full family membership for one year, or $10 per year for the newsletter only. Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.
[TOC]MORMON LOVE George T
This is a heart-warming story of how two people, with the help of some determined Mormon elders, sought happiness for time and eternity (the Mormon's way of saying forever). Don't worry if you don't believe in Mormonism or god himself, a love story is a love story and ought to be appreciated, even if it involves pious sanctimony.The names are changed. The details are inferred, not gleaned from firsthand knowledge. Also, the view is obviously from a gentile, as they like to call us. Otherwise the story is true.
Ed and Sarah were married and had been for a long time. All their children were married, and they were grandparents several times over. They had simple tastes and enough money to keep them both comfortable for the rest of their lives. A wonderful retirement lay ahead, except for two things.
Sarah had fallen away from her church and she desperately wanted to get back to it and attain the highest level of sainthood. That couldn't be unless she was married in a Mormon temple where she would get her secret name to be used in heaven and her sacred underwear to be worn until she got there. (Upon marriage in a Mormon temple, and perhaps otherwise, Mormons wear some sort of sacred underwear. I don't understand the significance of the skivvies and am afraid to ask.)
The other fly in the ointment was that Ed wasn't a Mormon and didn't care a whole lot for those who were. He did have a couple of strong beliefs though. He believed two packs of cigarettes each day were just about right, and he usually believed he'd have another beer.
None of this was new to Sarah. He'd been like that for years and she still loved him. But the elders had been after her to come back to the fold for some time. They pointed out that Ed wouldn't even make the bottom rung of Mormon heaven, and she might not either if she stuck around him. God's feelings about those who upset him are clear.
Finally, years after the first blush of youth had passed her by, and after she'd lost her girlish figure, Sarah found the perfect mate to help her squeeze her ample body into the hereafter. His name was Joseph. Joseph had little money, few brains, and no ambition whatsoever, but he did have one redeeming quality. He was a tithing Mormon of the first order!
Sarah divorced Ed and kept geriatric company with her new boy friend long enough to make it respectable. Then, they were married in the temple. Sarah wiggled her way into a pair of size XL holy underwear to complete the sacrament. The marriage meant she would be required to spend time and eternity with Joseph, whom she didn't really like very much. On the other hand he slept so much that wouldn't be a big problem. So Sarah was happy at last. With her secret name and holy skivvies she was on her way to heaven!
First though, they went overseas on a mission. Missionaries get to jump a rung or so on the Mormon ladder. Perhaps Joseph would get a nicer planet to rule when they ascended.
But first off they went to a far off land right here on earth. Sarah had never been far from home and had little interest in traveling, but she didn't want to miss a trick in her quest for heaven. Joseph went along even though he wasn't too sure where he was at any time. An exotic country looked about like Iowa, or maybe Utah, to him. Geography wasn't his strong point, but then nothing was.
Meanwhile, Ed was heartbroken. He truly loved Sarah although she must have been a terrible pain with her pining for a religion that made no sense whatsoever to him. Always quiet, he now became a recluse. Ed stayed in his house, increased his consumption of cigarettes to three packs a day, and filled the garbage bags with beer cans and little else.
His children loved him, but he was, after all, a gentile and an outsider even to his own family. Their efforts to improve his life were mostly confined to urging him to quit his bad habits. And they urged him to consider reaching for that sainthood promised by the clean cut, straight toothed, white skinned elders. None of Ed's kids suggested that he try to get back together with mom though. Although they'd been married nearly 50 years, mom was certainly on the fast track to nirvana. Nothing should derail that!
Sarah and Joseph spent their missionary years in a country trying to add one more True religion to the two already there. Indeed they were lucky the bullets flying between the original warring factions missed them.
Nobody knows how many folks they converted. Indeed, some said their job was a bit mundane. They tended the house that was home base for the young fellows who did the actual praying and carrying on with the heathens. Leastwise, Sarah did the housework. Joseph prepared for a strenuous hereafter by napping practically all the time.
After the happy couple returned to the states, Sarah's daughter arranged a strange reunion. She invited her mom, her stepfather, and her father to dinner, all at the same time. Ed had no idea Sarah and the guy who took his place would be there, but he was gracious nevertheless.
The reunion was touching and sad. Ed kept his distance and was obviously uncomfortable, but he managed to smile and be civil about the whole thing. Sarah must have looked back from her current predilection with "time and eternity" to another promise made earlier, that one about "until death do you part."
Still, she acted like a coquettish high school girl around Ed. She inquired about his health. He lied and told her he was doing fine. She lied and told him she was too. Joseph found a comfortable chair and slept through the whole thing. He missed a great show. His wife and her former husband were making moon eyes at each other all day.
The good health Ed and Sarah claimed to have didn't last them much longer. Ed ended up with emphysema and throat cancer. The doctors found cancer in Sarah's stomach and it spread fast. Ed went first. The doctors tried to remove body parts, as they became more diseased. His larynx and a good bit of his lower jaw were cut off.
When he died, to spend eternity all alone in an unspeakable place, his former wife was by his side. She cried uncontrollably. Were the tears for Ed's soul? Or were they because she lost the man she'd loved so much for so many years? Or were they because his last years, the ones they'd both looked forward to for so long, were spent alone?
Sarah didn't last a lot longer. Her last days were as awful as the hell she imagined Ed to be in. She would lapse into delirium and use words forbidden by her church. Awful words! The kids were sure Satan inspired them.
Despite Medicare, bills spiraled out of control. Both Joseph's and Sarah's families shuffled assets to avoid either of the heaven bound folks from sharing in the other's earthly possessions during their last days.
Sarah's bills were eventually paid by the inheritance left behind by Ed--the guy she got rid of because he couldn't get her into heaven. Sarah divorced Joseph. When she finally died her kids buried her next to Ed. Nobody knows if Joseph will call her name when he gets to Mormon heaven. Or, if she'll bother to answer.
Meanwhile the church that destroyed him ended up with a sizable portion of the money Ed had worked a lifetime to accumulate. The kids inherited it and they were good Mormons who dutifully passed on ten percent to the organization that had wrecked their parents' lives.
(Editor's note: I asked the author of this article how he knew the story was true - he is a relative of the couple described. George T is a pseudonym.)
[TOC]PRAYER AND FASTING BILL PASSES HOUSE As reported by Americans United, a congressional resolution calling on the American people to engage in "prayer, fasting and humiliation" failed in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. H.Con.Res.94 was rejected despite a 275-140 vote in favor of it. Under parliamentary rules in use that day, the measure needed a two-thirds majority to pass.
"While the House was right to reject this grossly inappropriate measure, it never should have been considered in the first place," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "When will the politicians learn that we don't need them telling us when and how to pray?"
Reps. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) opposed the measure on the floor most eloquently.
In addition to the "prayer and fasting" language, the resolution also said "it is the necessary duty of the people of this Nation...to humbly offer up our prayers and needs to Almighty God" and "it is incumbent on all public bodies, as well as private persons, to revere and rely on God Almighty for our day-to-day existence."
For all the details, see the most recent issue of Americans United's Church & State monthly.
[TOC]AN OPEN LETTER TO BILL BRADLEY July 30, 1999
Bill Bradley for President, Inc. 395 Pleasant Valley Way West Orange, NJ 07052Dear Mr. Bradley: In your book, Time Present, Time Past, in the section ( page 422) where you discuss your religious perspective of the world there are a number of statements that I find troubling. My present unease extends from an interview with a reporter with then Vice-President Bush, August 1987, Chicago:
Q: What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are Atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in God is important to me. Q: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists? Bush: No. I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God. Q: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church? Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.
I am an Atheist. I vote at every election. My first vote was for Harry Truman. I need to know what your response is to the above questions. In your book (p. 422) you write: "The certainty and smugness of self proclaimed atheists mirrors the absolutism of fundamentalists." In your subsequent statements I find you omit the answers that are needed as to how you (as President) will deal with the problem you cite - arrogant atheism v. religious fundamentalism?
Which force in the U.S. would you consider is doing the most to destroy our social fabric and how? How many identifiable Atheists are there that have fired guns at innocent people, illegally blocked Medical Treatment Centers, killed medical personnel, killed homosexuals, opposed integration, lynched blacks and other minorities, illegally aggressively proselytized in our public schools, attempted to suppress criticism of religion, or other acts that try to control the thoughts and actions of the public?
Do you see Atheists as being arrogant because they support the theories of science as opposed to irrational belief systems? Am I arrogant when I ask you to please explain what you mean and who or what that entity is when you state, "Man's purpose, I believe, is to glorify God...?" Are you saying that you will be (are) in your decision-making guided by a belief system as opposed to evidence and facts? A kind of an appeal to a "higher authority" above the US Constitution and the laws? And do you expect all the citizens to adhere, or at least, acknowledge a certain kind of validity, in your belief system that legitimizes your decisions as an officer of the government?
What is evident to me in your book is that you know little (next to nothing) about Atheists and Atheism (is this arrogance?) but a great deal about "religion" especially Western Christianity. I would sincerely hope that you would seek out more information with regard to Atheism,
Humanism, religion free systems, critical-thinking groups, and belief-free systems. Sincerely, A.J.T.
[TOC]AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARTION OF CHURCH & STATE
As a non-profit corporation dedicated to fulfilling the needs of secular humanists in the Long Island community, LISH is not ideally suited to lobby on behalf of the First Amendment though the vast majority of members support it fully. Our battlefield is not the Congress; and in fact, by statute, we are only permitted a limited amount of political activity. That is why most of our efforts focus on nurturing a humanist community and influencing the court of Public Opinion.However, for those humanists and others who want to actively work to protect our precious freedoms, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an interesting alternative. Headed by the Rev. Barry Lynn, they are leaders in the fight to keep our religious freedom from being eroded by the zealously religious who may seek to impose their views on the rest of us. They defend everything from the teaching of evolution in schools to the neutrality of all public institutions regarding religion and non-belief. Rev. Barry Lynn, a Baptist, is a heroic figure in this battle and deserves the thanks of the humanist and non-humanist community. To contact AU, email to americansunited@au.org, mail to AU, 1816 Jefferson Pl., NW, Washington D.C., 20036 or call (202) 466-3234 or fax (202) 466-2587.
[TOC]HELP WANTED! As LISH grows, so does the work necessary to keep it going. Two immediate jobs need volunteers to do the dirty work, which is not really too dirty, and another job for future considerations.
First, we need a volunteer to coordinate a Council for Secular Humanism produced TV show for showing on local cable access channels. The coordinator will receive the tapes, make sure the LISH phone number and other info is superimposed, submit the tape with an application to the appropriate cable networks and then return the tape via mail to the CSH. No big deal but it does require some attention to detail. Persons all over the country may use this show for their own cable network.
A bigger job may be the creation of a chapter of Secular Organizations for Sobriety on Long Island. A local treatment program has offered us space for meetings and needed are volunteers to help create and oversee the initial stages of the program. This may involve some effort but should be highly rewarding. Reaching out to other secular groups (Unitarians, Ethical Culture, etc.) may be appropriate.
Finally, forming a secular singles group would be helpful for the humanist community. Anyone interested? Don't be shy!
Email Gerry D at InfidelsRe@aol.com if interested.
[TOC]FREE BOOK, WITH A small STRING ATTACHED A complimentary copy of "God on Trial 2000: The Indictment of God for Crimes Against Job" by Stu Goldberg, is available for one LISH member who then agrees to write a review, if that member decides the book has merit, to be printed in the LISH newsletter. First member to contact LISH via email, mail, phone or fax will get the book, according the author. The book is $10 + $3.95 S&H normally, and can be purchased by going to the website www.GodOnTrial.com.
[TOC]LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
8/24/99 Congratulations to the Long Island Secular Humanists for the excellent set of alternative commandments (recommendations.) Sincerely, Paul Kurtz On behalf of LISH, thank you very much. Many LISH members have learned a great deal from your work, and we hope it's paying off! G.D.
7/26/99 Hello, Gerry. Great Newsletter overall, it's genuinely entertaining and informative. However, there is a section here that I disagree with and want to voice my opinion on.
You wrote in the last newsletter, "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."
Let's start with this part. Here, I think that there is a problem with saying that your beliefs (or lack thereof) are inherently superior to anyone else's beliefs. I don't see what separates you from the Christians you seem to judge. If you are an altruistic and open-minded person, it is my opinion that you will recognize that every person's set of beliefs are equally valid FOR THEM and nobody else. In other words, you and I could be on completely opposite sides of the coin and still be "right" in a sense. I'd be right for me, and you'd be right for you. Can you imagine secular humanism working for Pat Robertson? I cannot, and I don't particularly want everyone in the world to hold my values to be true to him or her. Oscar Wilde once penned a quote that encapsulates this for me, "A truth ceases to be true once more than one person believes in it." His point is this: truth is SO personal that if more than one person believes in the same thing, its truthful value is negated. To me, one of the tenets of freethought is complete respect for other belief systems and the understanding that no one system is superior to another. I understand that you feel yours does more good for humanity, and you may be right...for you. But even just looking at this mailing list, no two people have EXACTLY the same system of beliefs or lack thereof, so is one of them "wrong?" or to take it down a step, is the system put forth by another "worse for humanity" than yours, or mine? I think not. Just something to consider.
You also wrote, "Forgive humanist activists for having the courage of their convictions. It's about time someone told the Emperor (religion) that he's naked."
Once more, I see a problem with this. There is nothing wrong with holding a mirror up to this Emperor and saying "you're naked, man." But to say it contemptuously and in a high-and-mighty way, as though your clothes or better, your nudity is somehow better than the Emperor's lack of clothing, you are being counter-productive. And what will stop you from becoming the next naked Emperor? Nothing. Fred S. P., Los Alamitos, CA
The issue you have brought up is a burning issue in modern philosophy. You have essentially espoused the concept of Post-Modernism and its' consequence of the non-existence of objective reality it often promotes in some of its' forms.
A complete answer might require a book, but a "short" answer here will have to suffice. First, a secular person cannot claim that their beliefs are inherently superior to opposing beliefs. A belief can be argued to be superior only on the basis that there is more evidence for it, or that the consequences are more favorable to humanity. The claim of an inherent superiority of a belief is a strictly religious practice, where faith in a belief might be a virtue regardless of evidence.
Next, the concept of a belief being "equally valid" simply because someone believes it is irrelevant when it comes to deciding how we should live our lives. I personally do not care for example if a racist believes sincerely in their bigotry - is it a justified belief in light of the facts as best can be verified? Am I closed-minded for thinking that being racist is inferior to not being racist and then acting accordingly? If this is a problem, then is there any problem with all of us being racist?
I'm not so concerned, truthfully, if secular humanism "does not work" for Pat Robertson. My concern is whether his concept of the way society should be is to be implemented or not. There is a choice to be made and it must be based on an opinion of what is justified by the evidence. Personally I've decided that the evidence is that, for example, gays should not be stoned to death nor blasphemers burned at the stake. Is this closed-minded?
The concept of two opposing sides being "right" or "true" for each side has no relevance in the real world. What is true in the real world? Is a flat-earther right or not? Though they have the right legally to their beliefs in this country, is it incorrect to claim they are wrong in their beliefs? Should we allow them to ban ocean traffic, for example, in respect to their belief that it is too dangerous?
If all beliefs are "equally valid for them" then how does one condemn a Nazi for their beliefs and actions? If one believes that "tolerance" is not a value, and therefore this becomes true "for them," how does one argue to that person that they should be tolerant? An appeal to the facts becomes pointless.
Here's the telling line in your letter: "...you feel your (belief system) does more good for humanity, and you may be right...for you...." Does it at all matter whether the evidence is in my favor or not? Who cares if it's true for ME; is it true based on the evidence? How are we to live?
To deny the existence of objective truths is a mental dead end leading to impotent philosophies that can say nothing with any weight behind it. Secular humanists acknowledge that their conception of the world and reality is only their perception. However this is precisely why we embrace scientific methods, free inquiry, testing, replication, and the consequences of actions to verify our beliefs. Although a belief is never more than "highly probable," at least it has been subject to the above gauntlet of reality checks. If this kind of validation of humanism is equivalent to arrogance, so be it, but I'd say holding something on faith is the height of arrogance.
All beliefs are as valid as the evidence to support them. Freethought follows the evidence; it is not freethought to consider every remote or foolish possibility equally; - freethought is not a wild goose chase. Freethought is also free of authoritative coercion, including the coercion of feeling restricted from stepping on others' toes when contradicting their beliefs. Freethought is open-minded but that does not mean you are to have NO standards. Evidence, testing, reason and open inquiry drives freethought, not mere belief. G.D.
8/15/99 Forwarded to LISH member Hugh R.: Yup. Looked at some of the other sites that you list. Some of them are really cool. Loved reading the correspondence that Gerry Dantone, who edits the LISH newspaper, has with his members. Hugh responds: Yes, he has an "Oprah" touch when it comes to communication. Hugh R, NYC, NY, via Internet If only I had an "Oprah" touch when it came to money! G.D.
8/19/99 Thanks for plugging NYASk in your newsletter. I especially liked Engel's article. Best thing since the Communist Manifesto (1848). One quibble - NYASk is not associated with CSICOP in any legal sense.
As to your question of the month, when I was a Boy Scout, I was an agnostic (I got better) and I always had to swear the oath that I was "...Brave, Clean and Relevant." Jeff Corey, NYASk President, Huntington, NY
What has being relevant got to do with anything? G.D.8/20/99 Re: Kiss Hank's Ass - "Kiss..." is not anonymous. Rev. Jim Huber is the author. You can read the original on his Web site @ http://www.sonic.net/~jhuger/kisshank.htm. Our pastor, Tim Gorski, M.D. did a spin-off of "Kiss" that is more suitable to a family audience and you can find it on our Web site @ http://church.freethought.org/9903.hank.html Mike S., TX, via Internet Thanks for the info. I was torn between printing it and not because I did not know the source. Upon seeing the website I am relieved to find that it is available for reprint as long as we don't make money off it. Make money? Rev. Huber's home page, well worth visiting, is http://www.sonic.net/jhuger. Thanks to Jim. G.D.
8/20/99 Re: The August Newsletter - Thanks. Very funny stuff. But pathetically true. TKnight via Internet I know what you mean. G.D.
8/21/99 Hi, I was happy to see another stab at a new set of Ten Commandments. As past editor of the Colorado Humanist, I published a different set in our newsletter a couple of years ago. (Abridged:) 1) Seek knowledge & wisdom 2) Lead a life of integrity, humility, fortitude, kindness and love 3) Be slow to anger and quick to forgive 4) Do not censor 5) Respect the privacy of others 6) Care for your parents and nurture your children 7) Help others to help themselves 8) Be productive 9) Be environmentally conscious 10) Enjoy life - Bill Pelton, Colorado Humanist, CO, via Internet, Thanks, Bill. It was a good idea then, it's a good one now. I do believe that it is imperative we develop a secular Ten Commandments for a number of reasons. First, if Congress does pass a law permitting posting of the Commandments, we should have something better than the biblical Commandments to post. Secondly, since the government cannot establish a religion, to deny our Commandments in favor of another for religious reasons alone is clearly unconstitutional. If Rep. Bob Barr needs a Commandment prohibiting coveting oxen, we'll make one up for him. G.D.
8/20/99 Thanks for the newsletter. Are you sending a copy of your 10 Commandments to G.W. Bush? Bernie S via Internet I'm going to try to send it to him, but the chances he'll see it are slim. Will he know these are not the biblical Commandments? G.D.
8/21/99 I'm 85 years old and have been a secular humanist for many years. Your bulletin was the first inkling I had that there was a local group. Enclosed is my membership fee. Walter S, Long Island, NY Thanks. Our program is becoming more ambitious. This really helps. G.D.
8/22/99 I like the Standard Ten Commandments and would support your publicizing them. Howard Pellet, President, Humanists of North Puget Sound, WA Thanks. If enough groups support the effort, we could make the Standard TCs a legitimate alternative to the Oxen Commandments. G.D.
8/23/99 Please keep me on your e-mail list - I find your topics and the people who write them fascinating and thought provoking, Thanx-- Dick C via Internet Glad to hear it. Trust me, one can feel very insecure about how articles will be received. G.D.
8/25/99 Received your August 1999 issue of the Inquirer. Enjoyed every word of it!!! Make me a member - my check is enclosed. Hope to see you on September 17th. John H., Massapequa Park, NY Yeah, I'm the goofy looking guy up in front. G.D.
Re: Question of the month: Are the Boys Scouts a public or private institution and should they be permitted to discriminate against gays & non-believers?
8/20/99 Well, whether we like it or not, private organizations can discriminate against whomever they wish. Look at all the private country clubs out there that probably still deny membership to African-Americans and Jews. ...however, having said that, if the Boy Scouts do receive any public funding, then I would say they are a public organization, and they don't have the right to discriminate against homosexuals and non-believers. Tdoughe via Internet This is a common theme in many letters received. No one wants to force a private group into anything, but discriminating at public expense, even indirect public expense, is outrageous. G.D.
8/21/99 The (Boy Scouts) are just trying to show that they have the legal right to be bigots but they have never explained why they are bigots. Gabriel E, Brooklyn, via Internet I suspect it's on orders from the Big Scout in the Sky. G.D.
8/21/99 Perhaps the BSA should change their name to "The Boy Scouts who like the Girls Scouts (but not each other) of America."
They are a private organization, yes, however teaching young boys a divisive philosophy and hypocrisy will earn them some interesting merit badges later in their lives. I was a scout for years as a boy. I never knew of this prejudice in the organization...it simply never came up. I'll tell you this, my son won't be involved if they continue to breed any judgmental notions in the minds of our children. Scott M, Huntington, NY, via Internet
Actually, religious institutions are allowed to discriminate in many ways that might shock you! The Catholic Church has in the recent past, fired a (Catholic) parochial school teacher in NYC for marrying a divorced Protestant man! Unbelievable! G.D.8/23/99 See our brochure on the topic written by Annie Laurie Gaylor. Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation, www.ffrf.org via Internet Thanks Dan, I used some info and noted the web address in the article in this issue. The above website is another one worth visiting. G.D.
8/20/99 They are or should become private and should be able to choose their members freely. As for homosexuals, I do not agree that they are not "morally straight," but it is a violation of human rights to compel people to share bedrooms, tents, etc. with either persons of the other sex or homosexuals of the same sex. John A., NYC, NY via Internet In many camping situations, the sleeping arrangements are communal yet well monitored. That someone of a different sexual orientation may be in the same communal area may not be a big deal. It is behavior that counts. I can understand your concern, however, if your child, for example, found herself in an embarrassing situation that was too private to be well monitored. However, this is the kind of arrangement that is uncomfortable no matter what the sexual identities are of the campmates and should be avoided by all institutions. Privacy should be accorded all persons in Scouting and camping. GD
[TOC]FUNNY STUFF selected by Paul Lozlowsky
BULLETIN: APB on the Deity!
A couple had two little boys, ages 8 and 10, who were excessively mischievous. The two were always getting into trouble and their parents could be assured that if any mischief occurred in their town their two young sons were in some way involved. The parents were at their wit's end as to what to do about their sons' behavior.The mother had heard that a clergyman in town had been successful in disciplining children in the past, so she asked her husband if he thought they should send the boys to speak with the clergyman. The husband said, "We might as well. We need to do something before I really lose my temper!" The clergyman agreed to speak with the boys, but asked to see them individually.
The 8 year-old went to meet with him first. The clergyman sat the boy down and asked him sternly, "Where is God?" The boy made no response, so the clergyman repeated the question in an even sterner tone, "Where is God?" Again the boy made no attempt to answer, so the clergyman raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face, "WHERE IS GOD?"
At that the boy bolted from the room and ran directly home slamming himself in his closet. His older brother followed him into the closet and said, "What happened?" The younger brother replied, "We are in BIG trouble this time. God is missing and they think we did it!" [TOC]