INQUIRER Volume 3, Issue 5, May, 2000  A Thumbs Up Publication Editor: Gerald Dantone Art Design: John R. Wilmarth Copyright LISH 2000 (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.)
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.com

Please feel free to contribute articles to Long Island Secular Humanists that may be of interest to humanists! Topics encouraged include the The Question of the Month: "Should bookstores sell the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" Readers of the Long Island Secular Humanist Newsletter are encouraged to send in their opinions Email InfidelsRe@aol.com or mail to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.  Thanks!

LISH extends its condolences to our Roman Catholic neighbors and others who admired, loved, and respected Cardinal O'Connor, who passed away May 3, 2000.

1)  Adam and Eve According to the Roman Catholic Church
2)  Anti-Humanist Law Passed in Kentucky Over Governor's Veto
3)  A Boy and His Dad
4)  Letters to the Editor
5)  Reform Rabbis Ok Gay Unions

LISH ANNUAL PICNIC
        The Second Annual LISH Picnic is scheduled for Sunday July 23, noon to 6 PM @ Elwood Park in Huntington, and if you and your family would like to meet other humanist families, please respond ASAP! All food, beverages and entertainment will be provided! (Bring your own beer or wine however.) Order tickets on the membership form! Non-members welcome! Prices: $15/person 18 yrs.+; $10/person ages 10 to 17; $5/person ages 5 to 9; under 5 yrs. old, free. Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.

Adam and Eve According to the Roman Catholic Church    Gerry Dantone
        The LISH INQUIRER reported in November 1999 that the late Cardinal O'Connor of NY had once made a startling pronouncement that should have shaken Christianity to the foundations! Adam and Eve may not have been human when "God breathed life into them," Cardinal John O'Connor told worshippers at St. Patrick's Cathedral back in November 1996. O'Connor said it was a "scientific question" as to whether Adam and Eve, described in the Bible as the first people on Earth, were perhaps created "in some other form." To clarify this important issue, I wrote a letter to His Eminence:

ORIGINAL LETTER: 10/30/99 Dear Cardinal O'Connor, I hope you are feeling better and that you will be able to continue in your work as long as you would wish.

I am writing to you about a different matter however. Back in November 1996 you mentioned at Mass that Adam and Eve might not have been human. This comes as quite a surprise and not at all what I learned from my Catechism. I'm now wondering that if they were not human, what were they? And if they were not human, why do humans have Original Sin?

I think you also mentioned that other animals may have souls, but I may be incorrect on this. Do other higher primates also have Original Sin and must they be saved as well?

I know you are busy, but I am concerned about the animals. A self-addressed stamp envelope is included to help you or an assistant answer this letter. Thank you. Very truly yours, Gerry Dantone

RESPONSE: 11/12/99 Dear Mr. Dantone, on behalf of His Eminence, I acknowledge receipt of thank you for your letter. In reference to your questions concerning the Cardinal's statements on Adam and the soul, please allow me to clarify his statements for you.

Adam and Eve were certainly human beings as is revealed to us in the book of Genesis. However, their status as human beings was very different from our own. God created Adam and Eve without the stain of original sin. Unlike anyone else - save Our Lord and His Blessed Mother - Adam and Eve were born in total innocence. They were, therefore, unlike us before the Fall in a number of ways. Adam and Eve were created in a state of sanctifying grace and with preternatural gifts, that is, they were without concupiscence and not subject to death. After their act of disobedience, in the eating of the forbidden fruit, they brought sin into humanity. That sin is passed down to all men through human generation resulting in our own imperfect state after the Fall. Thus, Adam and Eve were human beings, perfect human beings, in that they were unsullied until they sullied themselves. We, however, are imperfect human beings, who suffer disintegration from birth. That is why, God in his goodness, sent His Son into the world: to redeem us and restore us to God.

In reference to the soul, the Cardinal, was merely repeating the truth so aptly articulated by Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others that there are three different types of soul: human, animal and vegetable. Philosophically speaking, souls (forms) animate bodies (matter). Each human being has an individual soul, created by God in His image and likeness, and possesses a soul which perdures individually after death (the separation of the soul from the body). Because human beings, since Adam and Eve, participate in God's creative act through procreation, they pass on original sin to their children. All animals and vegetables have souls in that they are animated, alive, and therefore share in the common soul of their respective species. At the death of animal or a plant, the collective souls of the animal or plant perdure only in the other living animals and plants and not in the individual plant or animal which has died. Animals and plants are incapable of original sin, because they are incapable of any sin. Sin is an act of disobedience against God's law (natural or divine), which can only be made by a human individual.

I hope that all of this is helpful to you. With best wishes and sincerely, the Reverend Gregory Mustaciuolo, Secretary to the Cardinal.

FOLLOW-UP LETTER: 11/29/99 Dear Reverend Mustaciuolo, I must thank you for your detailed and considerate answer to my letter to His Eminence, Cardinal O'Connor, copies enclosed. I believe the Cardinal may have been misunderstood or unclear when he spoke about Adam and Eve possibly being something other than human. I suppose the problem came up because of His Eminence John Paul II's statements about evolution being more than theory shortly before Cardinal O'Connor's talk with parishioners.

If humans were descended from some previous form of primate, when did they start having individual souls and become capable of sin? I think that is the question Cardinal O'Connor was trying to address. It would seem that he is saying that the first ones to have individual souls would have been Adam and Eve, and would be saying that they might not have been completely human just yet. I was concerned that descendents, branches on the evolutionary tree other than humans, would be born with Original Sin. Perhaps there are no other descendents besides humans. Your explanation that since only humans can disobey, that only they are subject to sin was very helpful.

However, some other things in your letter have led me to other questions. If Adam and Eve were perfect human beings, how did they come to disobey God, an obvious imperfection? If it is because they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and did not know it was wrong to disobey God, how then can they be blamed for this act, as well as their descendents? If Adam and Eve were not born subject to death, how come they died? If they died, isn't it true they were always subject to death if God were to decide to let them die for eating of the Forbidden Fruit? Wouldn't it be clearer to say they would never die if they had obeyed God? Did God omnisciently know all this was going to happen?

In our lives we are taught that it is not fair to place blame on a child for their parents' sins. Why would we be born with a sin caused by Adam and Eve, and why would we be made with concupiscence? Why couldn't we be made without it? Couldn't we be allowed a better life without Original Sin and concupiscence? What would we be like if we did not have concupiscence?

I'm sorry to be asking so many questions. I do appreciate the attention you have already given this matter and I thank you once again for your letter. Very truly yours, Gerry Dantone

SECOND RESPONSE FROM THE CARDINAL'S OFFICE: 12/10/99 Dear Mr. Dantone, thank you for your response to my letter. As I indicated to you in that letter, your questions regarding Adam & Eve, original sin and concupiscence, the entrance of death into the world, and the generation of sin by means of procreation, touch on some of the most profound theological questions confronting man.

Throughout her long history the Church has grappled with these realities and with our understanding thereof. However, as you surely know, such profound theological questions hardly admit of an answer by letter. May I direct you then, to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? A brief glance to the index of the Catechism will direct you to the Church's teaching(s) on all of the aforementioned matters. Therein, you will find complete answers far better than those I could provide via letter. With prayers and best wishes, I remain Sincerely, Reverend Gregory Mustaciuolo, Secretary to the Cardinal. (End of letter.)

The impression received is that the Rev. Mustaciuolo is sincere in his statement that the Catechism is better suited in answering the questions. After all, if every question was answered in the requested detail, they would never be able to do anything else most likely. So it's off to the Catechism again!

How did perfect beings come to sin? Answer: By using a definition of perfect that is not consistent with the usual use, that's how! Before Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good an Evil, they were holy, or in the Church's usage, "perfect." To most people, perfect implies an incorruptibility of sorts, but whatever.

How does a God blame a being without knowledge of good and evil for doing something that is wrong? The Catechism merely states that Man was tempted by the devil (although the bible is translated "serpent") and in abusing his "freedom," disobeys God. Of course, in the Catechism's logic, freedom denotes choosing the path of obedience to God's commands as the church defines it, not doing whatever one pleases to do. And as for the basis of Adam or Eve being culpable for a moral act before knowing the difference between good and evil and presumably right and wrong, this is never addressed.

Why punish the human descendents of Adam and Eve? According to the Catechism, since Adam and Eve lose their holiness, and thanks to "original justice" the harmony they had is destroyed. Who destroyed it? Can Adam and Eve destroy this harmony, or is this consequence of the "fall" something that God intended as punishment for their unknowing disobedience? Since God is the Creator, supposedly, this entire disharmony must be His intent. If all humanity henceforth is cursed with original sin, it is because this is the way God intended it to be. "All men are implicated in Adam's sin" the Catechism claims. Nowhere is it explained why this is just in a manner understandable to mortal humans. It simply is the way God intended it to be.

If Adam and Eve were born not subject to death, how come they died? This is just another example of the church saying one thing and defining it in a way contrary to everyone else's understanding. Get used to it.

The Catechism tries to lay the blame for death entering humanity on the devil, even though the original translations do not involve that character. Still, God would have created the devil and being omniscient would have known what would happen and being omnipotent could have prevented it.

If God is indeed omniscient, was this fall from the Garden of Eden a charade of sorts? God's omniscience is called into use when it is needed. At this point it is a nuisance and is to be overlooked. Why put humanity through the business of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil if the outcome were known to God? Well, the answer is … whatever!

Why must humans have concupiscence? Why must we be inclined to sin? The Catechism blames this tendency on Adam. His sin affected human nature itself, although obviously he didn't do it voluntarily. What does it mean to change human nature? Whatever it means it can't be something Adam physically or deliberately did, can it? It's something that the Creator did as a result of Adam's ignorant disobedience and knew all along that he would do in His omniscience. In other words God made humans with a tendency to sin as a consequence of Adam's sin.

Concupiscence serves as a mythical problem that belief in another myth, Jesus' resurrection, solves. To lay the blame on every person born, whether they have done anything seriously wrong or not, is unjust in every meaning of the word as best we can understand it. There may be great harm in teaching this kind of self-loathing. And the very teaching of it creates the need for the religion preaching it. The Catechism does not address why concupiscence is necessary other than to claim it is a consequence of Adam's sin, a consequence an omnipotent God could, presumably, alter if He chose.

Whatever!      [TOC]

Field Report, Battle of Kentucky, American Religious Civil War (ARCW)    Edward Kagin
      April 14, 2000 To all who are aware of the freedoms we have and who know how easily those freedoms can be lost: It is my unhappy duty to inform you that today, Friday, April 14, 2000, in Frankfort, Kentucky, the people of Kentucky lost an important freedom that had been won for them at the high cost of the blood of our forefathers.

It was not taken from us by force. The Kentucky Legislature gave it away. You may know a little bit about how it happened. A group of Baptists in Northern Kentucky got a member of the legislature to propose a change in the law to the House of Representatives. This bill was called HB 70. Kentucky has a Civil Rights law, which, like federal law, protects citizens from being discriminated against because of things like their race, their sex, their national origins, or their religious beliefs. If any person, or organization, offers to rent his, hers, or its property to members of the public, and then refuses to rent that property, for no reason other than a dislike for the religious beliefs of the prospective renter or renters, then that person or organization has violated the law. The law doesn't force any person, or any entity, to offer property for rent at all. But if they do, they cannot refuse to rent, i.e., to discriminate, on the basis of religious beliefs.

HB 70 sought to change this "Golden Rule" made law, so that churches would not have to rent to any person or organization that did not share the tenets of their religious beliefs.

The stated impetus for this request to be put above the law was that, in 1996, these Baptists had been "forced," by the law they want to avoid, to rent their camp ground to the Free Inquiry Group (FIG), a secular humanist organization that wanted to use the camp ground to conduct "Camp Quest," the nation's first residential summer camp for the children of secular humanists. And they rented the camp to Camp Quest again in 1997. In the year 2000, they beseeched to change the law that thus compelled them, recalling the anxiety, the horror, and the shame of having to rent property dedicated to a God of Love to the little boys and girls, ages 8 to 13, who they felt did not share the tenets of their religious beliefs.

In making their self-righteous plea to the legislature to change Kentucky law to give acquiescence to bigotry forbidden by law, and condemned by Jesus, they stated that the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights approved of their request. In a letter by Beverly L. Watts, Executive Director of this commission, published in "The Kentucky Post," on April 12, 2000, this assurance was proved to be a lie. Ms. Watts said, "Under the current public accommodation law, religious expression is protected, but if House Bill 70 passed, religious organizations would be able to discriminate in the commercial sector. They would be able to discriminate based on religion...Any organization operating as a business must obey existing laws, including civil rights laws...Equal access to the commercial sector for all people is imperative if we are to call ourselves a free country...Any attempt to change the current law is a step backwards."

The Baptists wanted special rights to discriminate against their fellow humans on the basis of religion. That's not what they said, of course, for they may have been familiar with "The Sermon on the Mount" and the parable of the Good Samaritan, that harshly condemned those thus motivated. So they argued rather that HB 70 would merely restore their "freedom" of "religious expression." That phrase, if allowed to be defined by those who want to employ it as a license to commit crimes or to otherwise avoid the law, can mean anything one wants it to mean. It can encompass any witch-hunt, any inquisition, any heresy trial, and justify any outrage that those wanting "freedom of religious expression" want to engage in. That's all the Nazis were doing, after all-just killing Jews as a matter of right, as a legal "expression" of their "religious freedom." (Editor's note: That was sarcasm for the intellectually feeble.)

HB 70 was designed to put the church above the law. The church wanted to be free from the restraints of the state that apply, in their view, to everyone but them. As scary as this is, it has happened before. Our Bill of Rights stopped that sort of thing. Until now.

Section 59 of the Constitution of Kentucky prohibits "special legislation," and Section 5 guarantees, as one of our most basic freedoms, that "...the civil rights...of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished ...on account of his ...disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching."

Once again, we learn too late that when we elect religious fanatics to public office, we get religious fanatics in public office.

HB 70 was passed overwhelmingly by the Kentucky House of Representatives. It was then passed overwhelmingly by the Kentucky Senate. On March 8, 2000, Paul E. Patton, Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, vetoed this law. In so doing, he said, "House Bill 70 . . . violates both the spirit and meaning of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act by permitting discrimination on the basis of religion, the free exercise and non-establishment of which were among the fundamental principles in the founding of our state and country." We thanked Governor Patton, and praised him as a statesman. He had gotten it right.

We praised our governor, and we relaxed to draw a fresh breath of our once again rescued air of freedom.

The entire disgusting matter, and the victory for freedom, was detailed on the Internet at: http://www.edwinkagin.com/documents/bullittsburg/

Today, on April 14, 2000, the last day of this legislative session, our governor's veto was overridden by the legislature the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky had elected, so that it could become the law despite the veto. The vote to override was 82 to 16 in the House. The vote was 26 to 8 in the Senate.

HB 70 (The Camp Quest Law) is now the law in Kentucky. The law goes into effect on July 15, 2000. We will do something about it before then.

(Edwin Kagin is Camp Director of Camp Quest, P.O. Box 264, Union, KY 41091, Tel: (859) 384-2324, Fax: (859) 384-7324, E-mail: CampQuest2@aol.com, Web site: http://www.edwinkagin.com/campquest/ )       [TOC]

A Boy and His Dad    Gerry D
      One would think that upon being rescued after floating adrift in the open sea and losing his mother, everyone would be anxious to return a young boy to his waiting father. One would be wrong.

As the whole world knows by now, a young Cuban child was rescued but not immediately returned to his father. Apparently the father's crime is living in a country where Castro is the ruler. Of course, all of the father's countrymen and women are equally guilty of this crime and so ideally, it would seem, all of their children should be taken away and adopted by strangers in other countries. Why should it matter whether or not they are found at sea? I dunno! To reason it out even further, any child in any country that does not have freedom enough to satisfy every last person in the US, should have their children take away as well!

Of course, if persons in other countries believe that American children are not as free as they should be, then logically American children should be taken from their parents too!

Ridiculous you say? It was not that long ago that many minorities in this country did not even have a legal basis for equal treatment under the law. Jim Crow is not that distant a memory. To this day the US is one of the few countries in the world that allows corporal punishment of children, sometimes, even in school, as well as by parents! Imagine all of the American children that could have been and still be subject to forced asylum!

There is more! Many in the Cuban community in South Florida have come to believe that the child is a "savior" of sorts. Of course his rescue is viewed as a "miracle" though it is not certain how to view the death of his mother. Images of the Virgin Mary or Jesus are popping up everywhere including the boy's Miami home, and a bank building in Miami. Typically the images seem to disappear when they are rubbed - but they were there, they swear it!

"(The boy's) life is not his own, it's God's" says one believer. "Fidel knows he is divine and wants to destroy him," says another according to the NY Daily News.

Somehow religion is everywhere in this situation. The two rescuers of the child, cousins to each other, have had a theological split. One, Sam Ciancio, met with the father and believes that "this man truly loves his son." The other rescuer, Donato Dalrymple a former Pentecostal minister, seeks some kind of deal with the father and the Miami relatives the boy is staying with. Ciancio, the NY Daily News reports, claims that Dalrymple is "carrying this out to extremes." He adds "If that's how he's supposed to be as a born-again, then I don't want to be known as a Christian."

The treatment that the boy's father is receiving is reminiscent of the manner the religious right treats those Christians that run afoul of their "way." They believe that God is on the side of the Miami relatives and that the other side is Godless (Ed.'s note: this was written before the Miami mayor's slurs against atheists.) - ignoring the fact that the father is himself a Roman Catholic, though a communist, and that the boy has been brought up in the Catholic tradition in communist Cuba.

Ultimately, there was no reason for the resistance the relatives in Miami displayed over handing the child over to his father, particularly when the father came to the US and agreed to abide by the court order granting a hearing for the boy. There was no question that Elian was not going to being placed in danger or punished. What was happening was that the child was being influenced by the Miami family to be against the idea of his father's custody.

Ultimately the takeover by the government was heavy handed, though extremely short in duration with no injuries. One could argue that a less direct confrontation should have been tried first. If someone had volunteered to go in unarmed to take the boy peaceably back, then that should have been the initial route. If that had failed or that person met with resistance or violence, then brute force would have been better justified. None of this changes the facts of the custody battle though.

The final point to be made is that if the young boy's life is going to be so terrible in Cuba, isn't this an admission of the failure of US policy towards Cuba all these years? If in fact things are that bad in Cuba, is the US policy to blame in part? If Cuba had been engaged instead of embargoed, would they be freer or less free? The idea that Catholics can be communists in Cuba and that people in Cuba love their children should inform us that we don't really understand Cuba, and it is time that we should make the effort to find the truth. Perhaps this episode can be something on which to build a more reasonable understanding with a country just off the coast of Florida.       [TOC]

Letters to the Editor:

3/14/00 May I suggest as, gently and politely as possible, that the LISH Inquirer ought not to be a Gary (sic) D one man band? Surely there are many other sources of humanist materials, Free Inquiry Magazine, our new library and Hope Magazine for examples. No offense intended, Lee D., Glen Cove

Response: None taken at all, except please be aware that my name is Gerry! Rather than recycle material from other sources, I thought it would be best if the Inquirer were as original (and local) as possible. Inquirer articles are often reprinted elsewhere, including in the Secular Humanist Bulletin. I have always sought and encouraged members to contribute, as Edwin Wicksel did in March, and hope that more would do so in the future. The diversity of writers is truly a function of what is contributed. Believe me, I would prefer to write less and edit more! G.D.

3/31/00 Hi from Judy and John. We enjoyed the last meeting, and hope to attend in the future. We would like to share this with you as we find it rather disturbing. Amazon.com is selling the notoriously anti-Semitic book PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION. This hoax, which was hatched in Czarist Russia (plagiarized from an early work of fiction), purports the detailing of a Zionist-Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. This book was one of the pillars of the anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. We understand that the book can be bought, sold and read in a democracy. However, we also have the ethical and humanistic obligation to condemn it, and to condemn Amazon for selling it. Below is a copy of an e-mail that we sent to Amazon. As you are more eloquent than we are, perhaps you might add your voice. John L. & Judy S., Long Island via Internet

Response: This is an interesting situation and it has inspired this month's question to LISH readers! G.D.

4/15/00 The LISH newsletter said: "According to Anne Gayler, FFRF president, stories such as mine are very common." The Gaylors spell their name with an "o." Carol in Milwaukee Via Internet

Response: Oh! G.D.

4/17/00 Re: "A Memorial in Alabama" in the April issue: It read in part, "Indeed the governor stated he would call out the Alabama National Guard to protect a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in the judge's courtroom."

Maybe we could complain that the judge has the wrong "Ten Commandments" hanging on the wall. Some people may be partial to these others, designated in the Bible as "the Ten Commandments":

Here I will have to summarize each of the following ten Orders from "God" (Ex. 34:15-26):

1. Be careful not to make treaties with the people against which you're going, and fall into their worship, but totally destroy their religious edifices.
2. Do not intermarry with them and fall into their practices [note that this is almost the same as the first].
3. Don't cast metal gods for yourselves.
4. Observe the Pilgrim-feast of Unleavened Bread.
5. Every first birth of the womb belongs to me [how could they keep track of their animals' births?]
6. Keep the Sabbath.
7. You shall observe the Pilgrim-feast of Weeks, the First of the Fruit Harvest, and of the In-gathering.
8. You shall not sacrifice blood at the same time as anything leavened, nor keep any part of the victim overnight.
9. You must bring the best of your harvest to the Holy Place.
10. Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

Moving on to verse 27-28: "God said to Moses, 'write these words down, because they contain the covenant I make with you and Israel in them.' So Moses stayed there with God forty days and nights, taking no food nor drinking, and wrote down the words of the covenant, the TEN COMMANDMENTS, on the tablets." Barring that, maybe someone could ask the judge for his permission to own slaves, implicitly allowed in two of the more commonly posted "Ten Commandments". Neil S via Internet

Response: Judge Moore ignorant of the facts and background pertaining to the "Ten Commandments"? I'm shocked! G.D.

4/18/00 I loved your piece on PoMo Witnesses! Barry Loberfeld, Liberty Coalition, Long Island, NY via Internet

Response: I'm glad it was good - for you. G.D.

Re: LISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Does the Second Amendment protect the right of an individual to possess guns and upon what evidence is your opinion based upon?

4/15/00 A reading of the Second Amendment indicates the presence of an introductory clause, which is deliberately omitted by the NRA and gun fans. The amendment begins, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The introductory clause refers to a State militia, an organization that has evolved into what we call the National Guard. Thus, the amendment refers to the ownership of weapons by a National Guard, not individual citizens. Hank K via Internet

Response: It IS interesting how the "well regulated Militia" part seems to recede into the background. G.D.

4/15/00 The Second Amendment guarantees possession of flintlocks - if you are a member of a well-organized militia. Charles Sumner, Past-president Rochester Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State, via Internet

Response: Does anyone propose that it allows for individual possession of hand held nuclear weapons when and if they are invented? G.D.

4/16/00 Yes, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the individual right to bear arms. The only reasonable way to determine what the founders of this country intended would be to read what they had to say about it, rather than the convoluted interpretations of present day politicians. There are hundreds of statements from Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Geo. Washington and practically all the other founders to make the matter perfectly clear. They intended that American citizens arm themselves against the possibility of a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." He also said, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Also, the founders meaning for the word militia is perfectly clear and can be summed up by a quote from Richard Henry Lee. "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

Now that I have stated the simple facts, I will add my personal opinion, and that is that people who think modern technology will protect us from the machinations of politicians, lawyers and other power seekers are complete idiots. Human nature is the same now as it was thousands of years ago, and it will never change until we are all turned into robot clones. Sadly enough, our hi-tech tools make it altogether too easy for tyrants to gain control and dictate how we should live and think, including what religion we should follow. The electoral process is already a joke, and will be even worse with electronic control. If we do nothing to protect our rights, we will inevitably have no rights at all. When that time comes, there will be only one way to restore our freedom, and that would be to fight for it. As Thomas Jefferson implied, if we retain our freedom, then there is no need to fight. But if the anti-gunners have their way, and power seekers continue to steal our rights, then we all face a grim future. JW via Internet

Response: I'm always amazed when faced with the above reasoning that nowhere is the possibility broached that it is the "people" who are the ones who are advocating tyranny. After all, if it is individuals who are supposedly guaranteed arms, they need not answer to anyone and need not have democratic ideals in mind. One person, equipped with "modern technology" can kill many others - can you say "Timothy McVeigh?" Who elected him? If the Amendment secures the right of the people of a State, in the form of the National Guard, as most jurists interpret the Amendment, at least the government controlling the Guard was duly elected by a significant segment of the population. Otherwise what we would have is the tyranny of any individual "idiot" with enough firepower and possession of enough cruelty to use it. G.D.

4/17/00 Absolutely not! According to legal interpretations I've heard, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for militias - the equivalent of today's National Guard - NOT for individual citizens. I further understand that U.S. Supreme Court precedents on the subject have been sufficiently vague to allow LaPierre, Heston, Nugent, and other gun nuts to run around saying that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee individuals' rights to bear arms. Personally, I think the NRA and their chattel congresspersons are being so assertive and obnoxious in order to prompt a landmark suit which would eventually be heard by our right-wing Supreme Court, thus asserting individual rights Madison and the other framers of the Bill of Rights never envisioned. Reid J via Internet

Response: In my opinion, the issue of gun control boils down to two issues, both important. Is controlling guns constitutional, and is it good for us. The constitutional question has been easy, so far - gun control has always been constitutional in regards to the 2nd Amendment. If it's good for us is another question. G.D.      [TOC]

Reform Rabbis Ok Gay Unions     Gerry D
        The Central Conference of American Rabbis, a Reform Judaism group, voted to allow rabbis to preside over gay unions. They stated that the relationship between two same-gender Jewish persons is worthy of affirmation through Jewish ritual. Reform Judaism's rabbinate bases its position on a modern understanding of homosexuality and their commitment to the values of human dignity and justice. It is no longer considered "sinful" to be actively gay or lesbian.

The Torah condemns specifically male homosexual intercourse, and that hasn't changed, but Reform Jews do not interpret the bible literally. Although one could then challenge the factual basis for either their Judaism or on the other hand, their humanistic attitudes, they should be applauded for their compassionate step.
_________________