INQUIRER Volume 3, Issue 7, July, 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.comTABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Congress to Honor Pope for Battling the "Godless"
2) My Dogma is Better Than Yours
3) Expanded Letters to the Editor
4) Making the Rounds with Norm
5) Supreme Court Rules Against State-sponsored "Football" Prayer.LISH MEETING INFORMATION
Become a Member of LISH
LISH members, our monthly meetings are your chance not only to see and hear a stimulating discussion on an exciting subject, but also to meet with your fellow secular humanists on Long Island. The June meeting featured an overflow crowd who came to see Ann Amideo of Pflag, a passionate advocate for fair treatment of gays, lesbians and others from the unique point of view of a theologian who happens to be a lesbian. Once again, it was difficult to end the meeting!
The next regular meeting of the Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH) will be Friday, September 15, 2000, and as always @ 7:15 PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview. The September meeting will be on the topic "The Faces of Humanism on Long Island" and will feature representatives from the various local humanist groups.
No library meetings will be held in July or August.
Membership in LISH has its benefits! Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library; voting rights; mailed newsletters; invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well!
Dues will go to defray the costs of creating and mailing the newsletter and press releases, including outreach to elected officials and media. 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 $40 for membership for one year, $5 more for each extra family member who seeks voting rights, or $12 per year for the newsletter only. Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.Book Discussion Club Forming! For all LISH members and others who can read, LISH Vice-President Bill W has volunteered to form a book discussion club! Meetings could take place at member homes, Public Libraries or Borders or other local bookstores, depending on the logistics. If you are interested email LISecHum@aol.com
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.comCongress to Honor Pope for Battling the "Godless" Gerry D
The above statement, of course, is bigoted in that it emphasizes the "godless" aspect of communist regimes, as if it were that aspect that was central or relevant in their despotism. Have all the Congresspersons forgotten that we have a "Godless" government and constitution right here in the US? (The statement also makes it seem that the Pope was not so concerned about God-fearing totalitarian regimes, or that such things do not exist.) In fact, a reason the Soviet Union was able to shed its chains after only 70 or so years of non-religious dictatorship may have been because it could not be claimed that its mandate was divine. Mikhail Gorbachev, a humanist, was largely responsible for the freedoms Russia gained, nearly at a cost of his life. Humanistic concerns were the driving force toward the overthrow of communism, not religious concerns. No miracles occurred, just the fruits of human courage and vision. Now, the resurgence of religious rivalries in Russia and the other former Soviet states threatens the freedom that had been won at such great cost.
News Item: WASHINGTON, DC (CWNews.com) - The US House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to grant the Congressional Gold Medal, the nation's highest civilian honor, to Pope John Paul II. The proposal passed 416-1 to honor the Holy Father who has used his office as leader of the world's one billion Catholics to promote "the freedom and dignity of every individual human being" and "using his moral authority to hasten the fall of godless totalitarian regimes." (Bill H.R. 3544)When Nelson Mandela triumphed over the Christian backed government of apartheid in South Africa, was he hailed as a champion over a "god-filled totalitarian" regime? When Hitler was vanquished, did the US and its allies consider themselves victors over a "god-fearing" dictatorship whose motto was "God with us"? What will we call all the heroes who have fought the religious tyrannies of history, which would include just about every monarchy - "infidels who have hastened the fall of religious totalitarian regimes"? I don't think so.
The non-religious are the easiest targets on earth it would seem, and an attack on them passed a Congress representing all citizens of the US by a vote of 416 to 1, with the one naysayer more likely voting in that way for some reason other than sensitivity. It should not be surprising, since the key lesson of many religions is "believe and be saved," and for those who do not believe, a deserving eternal damnation awaits. What lesson could be more poisonous to the community of humanity? [TOC]
My Dogma is Better Than Your Dogma Gerry D
You may recall the furor over the child who is the center of controversy regarding the Miami Cuban community. Should he stay or should he go? As if on cue, to keep the issues burning hot, the father foolishly allowed his son to be photographed in a uniform not uncommon for Cuban children of that age to wear. The uniform bore a likeness of a communist hero and critics pointed to the present and future "brainwashing" that this child faces back home in Cuba.Can it be denied that this child does indeed face some form or amount of brainwashing on behalf of the communist regime? No, it cannot. However, can it be denied that the average child in the US is also subject to intense brainwashing as well?
The average child in this country is taught to believe in many religious "truths" that are to be taken on "faith." They are "brainwashed" into a dogmatic system of belief that relies on the indoctrination of the young for survival. Not every parent, including the religious, allows this to happen, but it is the norm.
Evidence? Here is an excerpt from my "brainwashing" book, the famous Catholic Baltimore Catechism: "I believe that there are three Persons in one God because God said so. I have God's word for it. God cannot tell a lie."
The Catechism goes on to say "Disobedience to God's law is sin" and also that "The Catholic Church is God's church" and of course the old standby "If we die with a big sin, we have to go to hell forever and forever... We will have to suffer with bad people and devils forever and forever."
What could this poor young child be taught that is more egregious than the above? The shame is that for all the uproar over the child's indoctrination into communism, most people cannot acknowledge the indoctrination of the average child into such an abominable system of beliefs. Can someone actually defend teaching seven-year-olds the above dogma? If that is not indoctrination, what is?
It is pointless to argue that it is ok to teach children these unprovable tenets because they are "true." Even if they are "true," a seven-year-old child is too young to be able to decide that for itself. All that is happening is acceptance without question and that is the epitome of indoctrination.
Has anyone in the media pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of those who criticize communist indoctrination but actually praise and seek federal money for the purpose of indoctrinating the young into sectarian religious beliefs? With the exception of this newsletter, the answer is no. A neutral media approach would demand that congressional critics of this child's communist brainwashing be held accountable for their hypocrisy the next time they vote for school prayer or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public facilities. Will this happen? Yeah, right. [TOC]
Forming a LI Humanist Coalition? Making the Rounds with Norm Norm R.
Sunday, May 28, 2000: we visited the Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island in Garden City. It was a wonderful experience.We were warmly greeted by numerous people and given literature about Ethical Culture. The platform (Program) was about Ethical Dilemmas. A social worker presented situations involving client-social worker relationships and confidentiality weighed against health impact on a sexual partner. Members in the society gave their inputs. Response ranged from complete confidentiality to openly divulging the information to preserve the health and life of the client's sexual partners.
Looking over schedules of future platforms and events shows some similarities with our Humanist philosophy. It seems that this group would be a very compatible partner for us.
Conversations subsequent to the platform indicate interest in our Humanist group. In fact one member attended one of our meetings. Soon I'll be meeting with the leader of the Ethical Humanist Society.
Saturday, June 3, 2000: I attended a conference with American Humanist Associates and the American Ethical Union. It was held at the Hasbrouk Heights Hilton in New Jersey.
This was a great opportunity for me to touch base with various leaders in Humanist Circles from all over the country. I met with Ed Doer, the president of the AHA. Other AHA leaders included Tony Hileman, executive director of the AHA, Fred Edwords, editor of "THE HUMANIST" and Beth Lamont U.N.N.G.O. Ethical Culture leaders included Ed Ericson, Howard Box and Arthur Dobrin, L.I. Ethical Humanist Society. Mr. Dobrin expressed great interest in our mutual circumstances.
Subsequent meetings will facilitate our organizing joint activities with Ethical Culture. Obviously these groups I've met with during the past weekend are philosophically quite compatible with us.
The AHA indicates that we can be an affiliate of the AHA with no difficulty. This possibility should be considered.
I found this conference very interesting with a range of views, not so much about Humanist philosophy but with terms that are accepted or rejected such as secular, religious, spiritual, etc. There are still also some mild ill feelings about some friction between AHA and the Council for Secular Humanism. However, according to Mr. Fred Edwords this should not hinder future cooperative ventures.
Bellport UU Society, Sunday June 4,2000: On this date I had a dialogue with Rev. Will Feinberg as an Atheist speaking with a Theist. It was a rather friendly exchange. We were seeking common ground more than having a debate. Our differing views seem to have little effect on our values. We seem to favor much of the same things. Rev. Feinberg referred to himself as Humanist and Christian as well as Theist. His Christianity is more one of honoring Jesus as Human and not divine. His theism is more of a naturalistic one showing an evolving force. However there is more out there in his view.
As far as issues are concerned, his much parallel ours such as gay rights, feminism, separation of church and state etc. It appears to me that this version of theism would not be a hindrance for coalition purposes. [TOC]
News Item: Football Prayers
American Atheists praised the 6-3 ruling today from the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared "student-led prayer" at high school athletic events to be unconstitutional. The decision in SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE examined a policy which called upon students to elect a "speaker" who delivered an invocation over the school public address system.Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, opined that the policy conveyed an impression of government endorsement of religion.
"Supporters of school prayer tried to make an end run around the First Amendment by sneaking sectarian religion into school-sponsored activities like football games. The court saw through that ruse!"Ms. Johnson noted that the court majority rejected arguments of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, that the prayer was, somehow, an expression of "free speech" said AA President Ellen Johnson.
"It's clear that the only speech the prayer advocates wanted was religious speech," said Ms. Johnson. She noted that Justice John Paul Stevens', who authored the majority opinion, observed that "the only type of message" that was permitted was an "invocation -- a term that primarily describes an appeal for divine assistance."
"The Texas policy, endorsed by Gov. George W. Bush, was just an excuse to move Christianity into a position of public dominance, and compel everyone to listen to and participate, even unwillingly, in Christian rituals," added AA spokesperson Ron Barrier.
Ms. Johnson said "Christian groups, as well as other religious groups, should not be using public facilities and events to coerce citizens, especially children, to acknowledge a particular deity or participate in a specific religious requirement."
For more information, please contact: American Atheists, Inc., P.O. Box 5733, Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733, Tel: (908) 276-7300, Fax: (908) 276-7402. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Note: due to an incredible backlog of letters, we have an expanded letters column this month!
4/16/00 I believe the right to bear arms does mean we have the right to possess and use firearms, i.e., guns and rifles. However, I believe all firearms should only be given to people after background checks and a mandatory waiting period of 30 days, and people should be required to have clean records for at least 5 years, and never have had any violent offense, or felony. I also believe it should be unlawful for people to purchase more than 2 firearms per year, and they should have to report them in for inspections just like automobile owners do, every couple of years to a firearms control agency, to insure they have not sold the weapons! Steve F. via InternetResponse: Actually, you have agreed that the government can regulate gun ownership. What you have stated is in opposition to the NRA for example. G.D.
4/17/00 "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The precedent has been set for over 200 years. The Second Amendment has been understood by citizens, politicians, and judges to mean that each citizen has the right to own firearms. There are some restrictions, such as the ban on owning fully automatic weapons and the more recent restrictions on various types of "assault rifles".The current interpretation of the second amendment tends to minimize the phrase about a "well-regulated militia". Some people would like to change the interpretation to stress the "well-regulated militia" to further restrict ownership of firearms.
While it is likely that additional restrictions may be placed on owning firearms, even to the point of requiring a license and safety examination, in addition to the current background checks, it is unlikely that public support for individual gun ownership will erode, such that a president would be able to appoint a majority of Supreme Court justices who would go against established precedents. Peter T via Internet
Response: In claiming that the 2nd Amendment "has been understood by citizens, politicians and judges" to mean individuals have a right to firearms, you make an assertion but produce no evidence. Evidence would consist of court decisions primarily where legislation has been overturned on the basis of this amendment. What you do point out is that certain guns have indeed been restricted (and even banned) in some cases. G.D.
4/17/00 The Second Amendment unequivocally DOES declare and protect the right of "the people"---ordinary citizens---to possess weapons. My evidence, in the short space allowed to respond, is the words of the amendment itself, especially the latter part: "...the RIGHT of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, shall NOT be infringed."
Now, what part of that statement is unclear? If it said the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones, baseball caps, or marigolds, would we be hearing a debate? And, if it DOESN'T protect the right of the people to arm themselves, what, pray tell, DOES it protect? And from whom?
Response: Precisely what is the purpose and intent of the phrase, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."? It has been argued and upheld that this amendment refers to what is now known as a state National Guard, and that "the people" mentioned is the latter half refer to the people (collectively) of the "free state." If this is not the case, explain how imported assault weapons have been banned for individual use. G.D.
4/21/00 I am persuaded that the Amendment does indeed intend to guarantee everyone a gun. And I think the point was to protect ourselves from the government when and if it turns tyrannical. The problem with the scary militias is not that they are unconstitutional, but that they are paranoid. If things had actually reached the pass they believe they have come to, their response would be somewhere near the mark (minus their crazy anti-Semitism, of course). At least their response would be constitutional. As for me, while I believe the federal government is cretinous and intrusive, I am not ready to take up arms against it. Not by a long shot.
Having said that, I do not believe the Constitution should be amended, as some do, to take away this dangerous right. First, it would never pass. Second, it would only be trying to put out the fire with gasoline, convincing the Survivalist-Militia types that they were right all along (as did the disastrously stupid handlings of Ruby Ridge and Waco). Third, and, most importantly, I believe the Constitution should be treated as the Bible is treated by fundamentalists: we should not lay brazen hands on it but rather should treat it as inviolable. It has been nicely reified over the past couple of centuries, with the result that it actually has force and is not simply manipulated by the government as are the constitutions of too many other countries, a condition that results in the government being superior to the law it purportedly enforces. As a matter of rule utilitarianism, I deem it best to leave the Constitution alone as much as possible, lest we pull up the plant by the roots. Of course, some amendments are necessary. It is not a clearly drawn issue, I admit.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a confiscation of all guns, house to house searches, the whole NRA nightmare scenario. But it would only wind up summoning the very apocalypse of violence it seeks to fend off, and it would erode the Constitution. Why risk it when other gun control measures do not involve such radical surgery? Robert M. Price, Center for Inquiry (NJ/NYC) via Internet
Response: The constitutionality seems to rest on whether the Amendment was intended for states to have and regulate militias or whether it applies to individuals acting on their own. The presence of the opening phrase pertaining to well-regulated militias and court decisions seems to argue for the former idea. G.D.
4/23/00 Hi! The Second Amendment to the Constitution specifically says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
My contention, based on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, the definition of "Militia" in the 18th century, and the way of life in 18th century America, is that the Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess guns.
How so? The sentence as it reads does not restrict the lawful ownership of guns to members of the militia. It merely gives that particular rational for not using the Constitution to attempt to take away that right. There are many other good reasons to own guns; those who drafted this particular amendment chose the militia argument because it had to do with government service. The definition of "Militia" was very broad in 18th century America. In effect, it included all able-bodied adult males.
This definition omitted women, the elderly, youth, and the infirm. All other men were expected to own at least one rifle, to practice shooting and close-order drills with their neighbors, and to be prepared to answer the call to arms when given by the appropriate public official. This definition of "Militia" indicates that the Second Amendment existed not only to place a well-honored freedom under Constitutional protection, but also to ensure a large supply of well-trained, well-armed soldiers.
And finally, 18th century America was an overwhelmingly rural society. Save for a few small cities on the coast, the new nation was a frontier (in the American sense of the word). As we know from Westerns, a man with a gun represented the Law--and the Law may be legislated and executed by him off-the-cuff when need be. On the frontier, people hunt, engage in target practice and competitions, and defend their homes with guns. From these facts, we can intuit that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have been wholly incapable of even dreaming of a future society without guns--they were so much a part of everyday life.
I believe that those who wish to make the purchase, ownership, and use of guns illegal in America will have to first gather support from millions of Americans in an effort to ratify a new Constitutional amendment abrogating the Second Amendment. That's the only way they could possibly achieve their ends legally. Could this be done? I seriously doubt it.
I suspect that this is why most gun control advocates avoid the issue and attempt to get their way through legislation. The only gun control supporter I know of who called for repeal of the Second Amendment was Michael Kinsley, late of Crossfire (ironic name, yes?)
This was a brave move on his part. He was no hypocrite. But I wonder how many gun control advocates winced when they heard him say it?
It's likely that America, which has ceased being a frontier society generations ago, will never drop the Second Amendment, though the percentage of people owning and using guns drops as we all become citified and suburbanized.
That's fine with me. This merely means that not all coercive force rests in governments' hands. Sally M. via Internet
Response: It is true the Bill of Rights does not restrict gun ownership to militia members - neither does it restrict crimes such as murder. Though you contend the definition of militia was broad then, it is not now, and courts have ruled that the National Guard is the "well-regulated" militia of today. Further, if we are to go by the meanings in place in those days, most weapons now available were certainly NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind. You cannot define "militia" in an old fashioned manner and then describe "arms" in a way they never dreamed of. It would seem that the Second Amendment is what the courts have said it is - and it has not been a guarantee of the right of an individual to bear arms. G.D.
Re: Miami Mayor Carollo's bigoted statement against atheists: 5/9/00 I take issue with the Miami Mayor's bigoted statement about atheists based on his inability to differentiate partisan politics from I.N.S. child custody concerns. If Mayor Carollo is a good "God" believer, then he ought to apologize to all American atheists.
His defaming statement against Atheists goes counter to the tolerant and pluralistic views of the greater Miami community. Bigotry is un-American. I am a combat veteran of Vietnam. If I knew that he was in the same war-zone bunker with me, I would not feel safe. I am an Atheist American, and proud of it.
How did the Mayor learn about Atheism? Did he see Atheists, hear Atheists, touch Atheists, smell Atheists, taste Atheists, or otherwise have some profound knowledge of Atheists? Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, the INS, or anyone else involved in the rescue and return of Juan Miguel Gonzalez's child has not stated that they are Atheists.
The U.S. Federal Agents took the undocumented alien child away from his non-custodial relatives and returned him to his real father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez. How does defaming an entire group of Americans, "atheists", give rise to conversion to his way of thinking. Sincerely, Philip K. P, San Diego, California, via Internet
5/11/00 (Email copied to LISH) Dear Mayor Joe Carollo, I am offended by your reference to atheists in your comments to the press. The totality of the events that have impacted this young child is a tragedy. The boy's loss of his mother, his days on the open sea, and the uncertainties of his situation in America have been terrible events especially for a child. It does not require religious belief to appreciate how terribly unfortunate this whole situation is. Your pejorative use of the term atheist does nothing to help this matter and wrongly casts people with different beliefs as evil. You should be ashamed of yourself. Sincerely, James S. via Internet
Response: If atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and humanists of all types do not respond to being cast as the lowest form of life on the planet, then our image will never change. Is that what we want for our children? Thanks for the effort! G.D.
5/11/00 You're missing the sweet irony here. Wasn't it a religious group that sponsored the father's efforts to get his son back to Cuba? If I'm not mistaken, quite a few religious leaders, including a prominent cardinal, wanted the child returned to his father. In our Ethical Culture group, quite a few members, including myself, believed the kid should stay here. Regards, John, Long Island, NY via Internet.
Response: There is irony every way you go. Of course there is a variety of opinion, regardless of religious beliefs, about where the child should live. Theism and atheism are NOT the determining factors.
Yes there are theists who want him to stay and who want him to go and atheists on both sides as well. This just goes to show how unrelated atheism is to the whole situation. Tell that to Mayor Carollo!
I DO think that the child should be with his father, however, particularly if the father is a good father who has not been abusive. Further, upon his return to Cuba, the child would be treated like a hero, not a prisoner. It's disturbing to hear that his Miami relatives had been telling him he would go to jail if he went back to Cuba. They have lost touch with reality to the point of their denying that he is the happy child in the pictures released showing him with his father and family. They think he's a messiah! They are probably dangerous to him. Mind control is NOT only possible via a government.
Should we force asylum on minors against the parent's wishes for the reason that they do not live in that WE consider a "free" country? Consider that freedom is a scale with degrees - there is freer and less free. Every Muslim country, such as Kuwait, that does not allow women to vote, is not really free for women. Every country that is a theocracy is not free for anyone. Every country that has no free elections is not free. Is England completely free when Catholics are not allowed some government posts?
Is the US free in those places where corporal punishment of children is legal - even by teachers?
If we start forcing asylum on minors, we will make it that much more difficult to get back OUR children from countries that have physical custody of them, and this is no minor issue. International kidnapping is quite common and if we can force asylum so can other countries. To protect OUR children, we must protect the children of other countries from forced asylum. It does not hold up to international law to say, "well that kid's from Cuba and must be treated one way" and then say "that kid's from the US, treat him some other way."
The law states that to be granted asylum, the child/person must be in danger physically or will be persecuted if returned. None of that will happen to the young child as far as anyone can see. His father should take him where he sees fit, in my opinion. This of course is unrelated to the topic of how the child was returned. G.D.
5/11/00 (Email to Mayor Carollo copied to LISH) Sir, while I do believe in God in my own ways, I feel that your remarks about the agents in question in the Gonzales raid, calling them atheists, is not only in poor taste, but in conflict with your duties as a civil servant. Whether or not you, others or I agree with the raid, bringing people's religious beliefs into your remarks is not only in poor taste, it is unconstitutional. You serve the public, and to demean constituents by their faith or lack thereof is a betrayal of your office. I am certain that the emotionally charged nature of what occurred is a very hard thing for you and the people you represent to deal with. My beliefs do not matter. I feel all involved are in pain, and that is a terrible thing. I personally know many atheists, and can tell you that they are no different in their lovingness and feelings to their fellow man than the most devout of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc... In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people involved in the raid are NOT atheists, but members of organized faiths.
You really should apologize for your words in the heat of the moment, as you demeaned innocent people who had nothing to do with what transpired. We are all allowed to make mistakes Mr. Mayor... I make plenty of them myself. Saying things that are wrong is part of being human. Showing our true colors and saying we're sorry is how we show our true strength.
I wish you well in your duties, and hope you can perform your job in a way that will serve everyone, of all faiths. Sincerely, Scott BM, Huntington, NY via Internet
Response: Thank very much for your wonderful show of support. It was beautiful. G.D.
5/11/00 Re: The Miami raid: The presumption is that it was atheists because 1) it was on traditional Easter & 2) only atheists would do something like this?
The Greek Orthodox celebrate Easter a week later this year! They could be the atheists he was talking about. Remember, anyone who does not agree with your religion is an atheist? For your respectful consideration.
Here is a copy of an email I sent to the Mayor: Your ignorance of people and religion is appalling. The fact that you "had no information at all that this was going to happen," is no reason to start name-calling. You insult yourself by name-calling. Also, you insult anyone who might consider him or herself atheist, by calling people you disagree with atheist. Calling people atheist does not make them atheist.
Remember, if you label someone as not being human, you can do anything you want to him or her. By calling people atheist, you are saying that they are not human. You then can do anything that you want to them. Is this what you really believe? Respectfully, an atheist, Jack via Internet
Response: In Mayor Carollo's world, I suspect an atheist is anyone he hates. But you're right, the Romans once considered the Christians atheists. G.D.
5/11/00 (Copied to LISH) Mayor Carollo: Speaking as an Atheist, I resent your using my religious views as a cuss word. You seem to believe that bad behavior must be a sign of Atheism. You are wrong. Theists have indulged in worse behavior than have Atheists. We Atheists have never burnt anyone at the stake for disagreeing with us. We Atheists have never ghetto-ized people of a different religion. Find another cuss word. Joel W Michigan via Internet
Response: Thanks again for the effort. We'll see if this leads to a response from the Mayor. G.D.
5/12/00 (Email copied to LISH) Mayor Carollo: I take extreme offense at your inference that atheists are the vilest and lowest of people, all of whom would seize a child from a loving environment at the point of a machinegun.
I am an atheist partly because of the two-facedness of many Christians, so many of whom go to church on Sunday to honor the "lamb of peace and love", only to go out the next day and seize children at the point of a gun.
My guess is that you are one of the many who believe that atheists cannot be moral persons. I served my country honorably as a soldier for twenty-two years and I have raised a family with four loving daughters. Your comments bring to mind what happened to many Jews in Germany who served their country heroically during WWI, only to be despised and persecuted during the next. You, sir, owe atheists an apology. Andrew F. D via Internet
Response: A powerful message that I hope is not lost on the Mayor of Miami. G.D.
5/12/00 (To Mayor Carollo copied to LISH) Honorable Sir: In these modern times one does not use a person's beliefs as a pejorative statement. Would you even consider claiming that the people who took the Gonzalez boy were Jews? Or Baptists? Or Catholics? Do you claim that an Atheist is "ipso facto" an evil person?
I have been outspoken in my opposition to the taking of the boy in the illegal manner as was done by the federal government. I am also an Atheist.
Mayor, Carollo, you were out of line and I hope that you are man enough to make the apology that is due to all Atheists who have learned of your statement. Rationally yours, Jerry B., Portland, Or. via Internet
Response: As is seen above, opinion as to the legality or wisdom of the method of returning the child to his father does not depend on whether one believes there is a god. In fact, it is pretty clear that the method used should have been a last resort at best. G.D.
5/13/00 Hey I liked the responses to last month's 2nd Amendment question. My personal is opinion is "We have an army, Jethro, we don't need you and Ma and Pa Kettle fighting the Commies in Jamaica". I saw that quote on a T-shirt when I was traveling in DC. It made me laugh, but it is so true. L.V.C. via Internet
Response: Yes, the commie threat in Jamaica, Queens is almost under control. G.D.
5/13/00 I receive your newsletter in Minnesota. This is an e-mail I sent to the Mayor of Miami in response to your e-mail regarding that issue. I thought you might like to see the fruits of your labor. Thanks for the continuing enlightenment.
Mayor, my name is Jodin, I'm a business owner in Minneapolis, MN. I'm just writing to express my irritation over your attempt to use the word atheist (a subdivision of society of which I'm part) as a demeaning term in regard to the people who raided the home holding little the child. There is no evidence to show that these people are atheists (Not that I find fault with what they did). Furthermore, your use of it as a derogatory term is offensive to those of us who are atheists. In the eyes of a public servant, it should be seen as no more derogatory that the use of the word Christian to refer to someone. If you can't separate your personal religious beliefs from your responsibility as Mayor, perhaps you should step down. Jodin M., Minnesota, via Internet
Response: Thanks for the support.
NOTE: The LISH QUESTION of the Month is suspended for one month due to a large backlog of responses! [TOC]