INQUIRER Volume 3, Issue 11, November,
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
Humanist Music Competition The New Jersey Humanist Network
(NJHN) is sponsoring a Music Competition to encourage the creation of new secular humanist
works. For more info, feel free to contact New Jersey Humanist Network, PO Box 51,
Washington, NJ 07882 or email: hbrown@nac.net
or call H. Brown: 908-689-2813.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Give Us This Day Some Realism
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Lazio Accuses Hillary of Supporting Terrorism
4) LISH book discussion club
5) Making the Rounds With Norm
6) Clinton Goes to Hell
7) To Shmita or not to Shmita
8) Quickies
9) College Prayer Wars!
Give
Us This Day Some Realism Keith T
As an atheist I don't get exposed to the
word of God too much, but nowadays I feel as if I'm in a revival meeting. The two top
candidates for president have been carrying their love for God on their sleeves with the
fervor of evangelists. In addition one of the candidates for vice president suggested we
somehow give religion official sanction.
Bush tells us how he became born-again, and we're expected to assume that makes him a
better candidate. Gore lets us know his decisions are based on "what would Jesus
do?" Both ask God to bless us whenever the cameras turn their way.
Lieberman certainly is not an evangelist, but he would leap right in bed with the
fundamentalists with his "constitutional place for faith in our public life."
As would be expected the criticism comes not because Lieberman is religious, but
because he has the wrong religion. Those who object to his ideas think folks with a
different religion might be offended. There's not a word of concern for those of us with
no religion at all.
Perhaps we should be used to it by now. The Boy Scouts won't have us, and the Supreme
Court says they don't have to. The Scouts' argument was they are a private organization
and can admit whomever they please.
Six states won't let us in as elected officials either, and I have no idea how they get
away with that. Even the most ardent states-right advocates don't claim the states are
private. Yet, the constitutions of Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas all require a belief in God in order for a person to hold
any office in those states.
Suppose they (or the Scouts for that matter) specifically excluded Jews, or Baptists,
or Mormons, or any other group. Would we see a howl about that? But nobody howls when the
likes of Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Thomas Payne, Walter Lippmann, Luther Burbank, and
93% of our top scientists are excluded from everything from dogcatcher to governor.
In fact a nonbeliever couldn't be elected to be much of anything anywhere. Even in the
43 states that don't specifically prohibit them from holding office you'll not see an
avowed atheist or agnostic holding office. If one would run, you can be certain his heresy
would be exploited.
This "wisdom" prevails despite more than 20 centuries of religiously inspired
inquisitions, crusades, wars, library burnings, censorship, and gratuitous killing. Today
those who embrace any idea of God are accepted, applauded, and lauded. Those who have one
less religion than the rest are shut out of the whole process.
Blind faith carries more water than hard facts. In the fourteenth century virtually
every European prayed for deliverance from Black Plague. Still one quarter of the
population--some 25 million--died. Compare that to the fact that in the last 100 years
scientists, few of whom even believe in God, have doubled our life expectancy.
Still, lately more and more of our candidates for high office insists their prayers --
not decisions based on hard facts -- will serve our country well. In 1992, Gore, who dared
write in favor of science was sneered at as "Ozone Head" for his writing.
Thereafter he emphasized his piety not his scientific acumen.
Dan Quayle, who was criticized for nearly everything he said, claimed the first thing
he would do if he became president would be to say a prayer. It was one his few remarks
that passed without comment or question. Perhaps the reporters didn't want to seem to
question the common perception that good things happen to those who pray. Perhaps it does.
We haven't had a plague for quite a while.
Now we have a major candidate who would seem to defy the first amendment and give
religion the imprimatur of law. Thank goodness it raised a minor ruckus. Religion is out
in the open. Now let's take a good look at it. Let's decide if it is deserving of a free
ride, or if it is just something that sounds good.
My hope is to live long enough to see Americans willing to challenge unproven ideas and
willing to actually consider the wisdom of those who dare to doubt. Perhaps one can even
hold office somewhere. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
9/11/00 Re: Affirmative action: By jumping to conclusions like that, you are acting in
just as rational a manner as a religious fundamentalist. There are many possibilities and
you have stated no reason why the interpretations of the federal data by this group must
be considered unbiased. The statistic you quote of five times as many white drug users is
virtually meaningless. For example, blacks may tend to use harder drugs, (The report
reported did not have any such evidence - Ed.), to have prior criminal records more often
(This could confirm bias, not refute it - Ed.), to be repeat drug offenders more often
(Ditto - Ed.), and/or may be using drugs in locations that are less spread out and thus
easier targets for cops without racism being a factor (What should this have to do with
anything? - Ed.). It is possible that some of the data the group considers to "bear
scant relation" to the problem may well completely disprove their interpretation if
looked at objectively (Let's see the evidence - Ed.). I am opposed to any form of racial
discrimination, such as "affirmative action", and especially government
sanctioned discrimination. When the illusion of progress provided by "affirmative
action" is dismantled, the real roots of the problems will have to be addressed. One
important step will be to bring all schools, regardless of how many blacks (or poor
whites) attend them, up to high standards. School choice could be one way to help do that.
Jacques M via Internet
Response: According to the Human Rights Watch: 1) "Racial
disparities in drug arrests account for the preponderance, but not all, of the racial
disproportionality in incarcerated drug offenders. Indeed, Alfred Blumstein has found that
the rate of imprisonment for drug offenses "is the most poorly correlated to the rate
of arrests of all crime types." Based on 1991 data he concluded that blacks comprised
57.7 percent of the prisoners for drug offenses but only 40.4 percent of the arrestees for
drug offenses, "so that they are overrepresented in prison by forty-three percent
compared to arrest." (Source: Alfred Blumstein, "Racial Disproportionality of
U.S. Prisons Populations Revisited, 64 University of Colorado Law Review 751 (1993))
2) "In a report based on NHSDA data for 1991, 1992, and 1993, SAMHSA estimated
that 3.1 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 2.4 percent of non-Hispanic whites over the
age of 12 had used cocaine in the past year. Because there are far more whites than blacks
in the national population, these use rates translate into 3,727,680 non-Hispanic whites
who had used cocaine compared to 720,130 non-Hispanic blacks. That is, there were five
times as many non-Hispanic whites as blacks who were cocaine users. (Source: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA), Prevalence of Substance Use Among Racial and Ethnic Subgroups in
the United States 1991-1993, Washington, D.C., 1998.)"
3) "...data as exists indicates whites constitute a far greater share of the drug
selling population than of the population arrested for drug selling. For example, during
the period 1991-1993, SAMHSA included questions about drug selling in the annual NHSDA
surveys. Although the responses are best seen as a rough approximation of drug selling
activity, they are nonetheless highly suggestive. Beginning in 1991, SAMHSA asked
respondents in the household survey, whether they had sold any illicit drugs during the
preceding year. One can assume that under-reporting on illegal conduct may be considerable
and that withholding information would be more prevalent with regard to drug selling than
drug use. We do not know, however, whether there would be significant differences between
blacks and whites in their willingness to acknowledge drug selling. On average over the
three-year period, blacks were 16 percent of admitted sellers and whites were 82 percent.
According to research on patterns of drug purchase and use in selected major cities, drug
users reported that their main drug sources were sellers of the same racial or ethnic
background as they were. (Source: K. Jack Riley, Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug
Purchase and Use Patterns in Six U.S. Cities, Washington D.C.: National Institute of
Justice and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, December 1997." (For all the
information go to: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/index.htm#Topof Page)
I think it would be hard to deny that bias is a major factor
in the disparity in incarceration rates. The fact is that other surveys show bias, for
example, in mortgage loan application denials for black vs. white families of similar
credit worthiness on Long Island. How would this be solved, other than by affirmative
action programs? This kind of bias extends, undoubtedly to job hiring - what should be
done to level the playing field? G.D.
10/15/00 Re: The Secrets of Fatima Revealed: Gerry, most people attempt to predict the
future. Sis Lucia is unique, she predicts the past...and still misses once in a while.
Understandably so, since only the Pope is infallible. Thanks for a great newsletter, very
informative and fun to read. Abel via the Internet
Response: Wait a minute, I feel a vision coming on! The 1969
Mets will win the World Series! G.D.
10/25/00 Hello, The Richmond Area Free Thinkers is changing its email address. I
forward your newsletter to all our members, so please keep us on your list under the new
address. And keep up the good work! Thanks, Dennis Heidlebaugh, RAFT Coordinator
Response: Done! And of course, thanks mucho! G.D.
[TOC]
Lazio
Accuses Hillary of Supporting Terrorism Gerry D
Rick Lazio is known, somehow, as a moderate
Republican. His campaign style is not exactly moderate, however. Lazio accuses, in
campaign telephone calls made by committees that support him, that Mrs. Clinton has
accepted money from a Muslim group that has publicly denounced violent tactics, but may
have members that support violence against Israel. This he has linked to the attack on the
US battleship Cole on which 17 American soldiers died in a presumed terrorist attack. Ms.
Clinton has since returned the money. In a televised debate, he charged she
"encourages violence."
The group in question is the American Muslim Alliance and among their efforts is
funding social work in places such as the occupied West Bank of the Jordan River. An
Alliance leader has expressed support for some Hamas efforts without making a distinction
between social work and violent attacks. The leader, Mr. Alamoudi told Newsday's Ellis
Henican, "I don't think the Palestinians should continue guerilla war against
Israel." Mr. Alamoudi has donated money to both major parties.
Lazio expects voters to believe that Hillary Clinton would knowingly accept money from
terrorists or deliberately supports their causes including the killing of US sailors. It
also speaks of an open bias against Muslims in this country, not all of whom, of course,
support terrorism. Now Mrs. Clinton is not an ideal candidate, and Mr. Lazio has a record
on which he can run. Instead he sees fit to paint Ms. Clinton as an accomplice to the
murder of US sailors. Either Lazio thinks voters are complete idiots or perhaps he is an
idiot. It's no wonder so many persons don't vote. [TOC]
LISH BOOK DISCUSSION CLUB For all LISH
members and others who can read, LISH board member Bill W has
formed a book discussion club! To join, call Bill, it's free for LISH members!
The Friday, Dec. 1st, 8PM meeting book will be "The
Search for the Historical Jesus" by Albert Schweitzer.
The Friday, January 5th, 2001, meeting will feature "Did
Jesus Exist?" by G.A. Wells, (Prometheus Books.)
For the Friday, February 2 meeting members have yet to decide
on that month's featured book.
If you are interested email to LISecHum@aol.com write to @
Box 631, Southold, NY, 11971.
[TOC]
MAKING
THE ROUNDS WITH NORM
Norm R
LISH MEETINGS: On Friday Oct.20 at the Ethical Humanist Society in Garden City, Ed
Doerr, AHA President addressed Humanist concerns in the upcoming elections. He focused on
the Supreme Court possibilities and the impact on important Humanist concerns such as
church and state and rights of Gays and atheists.
Mr. Doerr also showed the importance for us to work with other groups to meet our
needs. Friday night was a night for us to meet with other Humanists and discuss election
strategies such as whether we vote for our ideal candidate even if his chance of winning
was nil, or whether we vote for the lesser of two evils.
Saturday on the other hand was much more focused on language concerning Humanism such
as religious secular, theistic and atheistic etc. This is quite interesting in so far as
this audience was at least half non-Humanist. This Unitarian Universalist audience
however, was quite receptive to our Humanist message. In fact there was more disagreement
between humanists and hard-line atheists than between the Unitarians and humanists.
Obviously, there was a small but vocal hard-line atheist presence.
Ed Doerr again emphasized our common needs even when the question of theistic humanism
was raised. Gerry Dantone gave a rather positive response to the query of whether someone
can be a religious humanist as posed by a UU Minister.
A small gathering for dinner followed this meeting with Ed Doerr dining with folks
representing UU Christian, Pagan, Spiritualism, UU Jewish as well as humanists. This group
seemed quite compatible despite some theological differences.
On Sunday morning, AHA affiliation was discussed and with anticipated approval from the
majority of our Board, steps were taken to initiate the affiliation.
Although attendance was not ideal for the weekend we had a fine gathering. We are also
very grateful to those who contributed so generously towards our programming fund to
further the quality of programs for Humanists on Long Island. Future programs will be
announced in the LISH INQUIRER.
THE LONG ISLAND MULTI FAITH FORUM: I attended a couple meetings and panels with other
faiths on Long Island.
I will briefly describe the Baha'i and the Native American faiths.
The Baha'i is a rather interesting group whose interests parallel ours in terms of
separation of church and racial harmony. In fact this is the only moderately liberal
religion that claims a large number of people of color. It seems well-educated African
American and Hispanics are attracted to this group. Except for a couple of areas we find
the Baha'i quite compatible.
The fascinating thing about the native Americans is that they like being called
American Indians rather than Native Americans. Ideally they liked being referred to by
their Indian nation such as Onondaga or Cherokee. They are the ultimate ecologically
involved people. They are very conscious of the environment and in this area there are no
better advocates.
Although the weekend of Oct 20 featured Ed Doerr another event on Sunday afternoon was
presented the Humanistic Jewish community in Long Beach (Lido Beach firehouse).
Here Ed Klein and Len Cherlin gave a fine presentation pertaining to the gathering of
Humanistic and Secular Jews in New York City. Ed Klein gave an excellent presentation of
events of a September weekend that included tours with Rabbi Sherwin Wine and other
Humanistic Jewish leaders' presentations.
Len Cherlin gave a very interesting talk relating a biblical figure to western
philosophy. What a connection! Imagine an Ecclesiastes-Epicurean connection!
It is quite evident that these folks know their bible and can really interpret quite
effectively. Those of us in the humanist tradition would benefit considerably to access
this knowledge.
Ed Klein also suggested excellent books of great interest to humanists. This was an
excellent cap to our humanist weekend.
[TOC]
CLINTON
GOES TO HELL Gerry
D
What will become of Bill Clinton as he steps down from the presidency? A while back, if
one might remember, the late Cardinal O'Connor commented pointedly about President
Clinton, a Baptist, receiving Catholic communion in a church in Africa. As O'Connor
explained, Catholics believe the communion wafer IS Jesus, a doctrine they call
transubstantiation, while most Protestants believe it is simply a symbolic ritual honoring
Jesus. While I have much respect for a person to have the RIGHT to have those beliefs or
others, a reasonable person would have to side with the Protestants on this one! If a
wafer is Jesus, then one wonders how humans are capable of manufacturing deities, by the
truckload yet! And then have the nerve to eat God himself!
Protestants take the simpler path of saying it is symbolic. No problemo, if you ask me.
If one wants to honor a past hero with a symbolic rite, there is nothing wrong with that,
I think.
But think of what the Catholic Church is saying in this case: Catholics must believe
that the wafer is Jesus! Beyond whether this is obviously, to put it kindly, contradictory
or not, how does the Church prove or give evidence on the subject? Forget it, it is simply
a matter of faith, and belief is the primary thing. President Clinton cannot have Catholic
communion because of his beliefs, not because of something he did or continues to do!
What happens if a non-believer in Transubstantiation receives Catholic communion?
Nothing? If nothing, then what is the big deal? The point is that the ramifications are
something, according to Catholicism. Mortal sin looms for Clinton and any other person who
defiles the communal wafer without belief that it is the literal or transubstantiated body
of Jesus.
For the sin of taking this communion, it is my understanding that orthodox Catholic
believe Clinton will be punished eternally. And that they worship the deity that will do
the punishing. They believe that the deity who doles out this punishment is perfectly just
and merciful!
There can be no true reconcilement between peoples of differing religions when two so
closely aligned systems, Catholicism and Protestantism, each believe, for various reasons,
that practitioners of the other are deserving of eternal punishment. When a deity makes
belief a requirement, when a deity is seen as merciful and just yet punishes people
eternally for crimes consisting of no more than offending the deity, then that religion is
morally bankrupt, in my opinion. (Dear readers what do you think?)
It is ironic and completely predictable that while Christians struggle to not kill each
other in Ireland, struggle to end religiously-defined ethnic cleansing in the Balkans,
that few persons ever question the basic corruptness of a religion demanding faith and
belief coupled with the concepts of heaven and everlasting hell. By focusing on a person's
beliefs and equating incorrect beliefs with a justly deserved eternal punishment, many
religions poison the social interaction of people with diverse faiths. To think President
Clinton or other non-Catholics worthy of eternal punishment for receiving communion at a
Catholic Church will not improve this life on this earth. It will not promote good will
among persons of different faiths.
And according to the Catholic Church, for the sin of improperly taking communion, of
all things, it seems that it is hell where Clinton will ultimately
reside. [TOC]
TO SHMITA OR NOT TO SHMITA
Gerry D
In late September is the occurrence of the
Jewish New Year. According to the Torah, once every seven years, the land of Israel is to
lie fallow - not be cultivated with crops. This tradition, called shmita, is scheduled for
this coming year. In shmita years past, over the last century, Jewish farmers would
"sell" their land to non-Jews, leaseback the property and cultivate it. This
year, the Orthodox rabbis that oversee and dispense kosher certificates are not willing to
allow this practice to circumvent the shmita tradition. These certificates are very
important, commercially, in Israel. Net result: Farmers may not be able to plant their
crops this year!
What will happen ultimately? The subject is beyond this writer's understanding except
to see that there is no justification for this practice other than fearing a taboo! A
taboo that will effect secular Jews as well, who may be forced to buy more expensive
imported foods!
The ruling is viewed suspiciously by many, with some wondering if those enforcing the
taboo have an interest in importing foods for profit!
Recently, the state of New York ruled that it was not going to determine what foods
were or were not kosher anymore. In Israel, this right IS by law given to Orthodox rabbis,
and this is the result. Temple and state MUST be separate! I suspect more and more persons
in Israel would agree. [TOC]
QUICKIES Gerry D
Item: A pregnant teenager has been sentenced to 180 strokes of a cane by a Islamic
sharia court in Northern Nigeria. Roman Catholic bishops in Nigeria protested, calling the
institution of sharia law in some Northern Nigerian states a "serious"
situation.
Comment: What those who favor sharia overlook (or do not care
about) is the appalling lack of rights of women in this system and the cruelty of the
punishments. Amputations and stonings are normal, and women who are raped and become
pregnant are at incredible risk if they cannot prove that they were raped. Since their
testimony is discounted, they may be subject to the whippings for having unwed sex.
Secularism is the obvious solution, a solution many Catholic bishops assail when
Christianity is the ruling religion.
Item: US House of Rep. Tancredo, supported by Reps. Delay, Largent, Souder, Demint and
others, has proposed a bill, (#HR 5306 IH) that would "prohibit the use of Federal
funds to discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of beliefs promoted
by that organization...".
Comment: Congress is hard at work making the world safe for
those who discriminate and difficult for those who do not want to support discrimination.
How about proposing a law that would protect the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, or the
Church of the Creator from similar problems? Why not, Rep. Tancredo?
Item: San Francisco 49er Terrell Owens insists that he was only praying to God, and not
taunting the Dallas Cowboy fans when he celebrated a touchdown at midfield, on the Dallas
star symbol. The second time he did it he was leveled by Dallas safety George Teague, who
was ejected.
Comment: Exactly what was Terrell praying to God for? He had
already scored, so it couldn't be for that, could it? If he was giving thanks, has he
figured out why his team, cannot beat anyone but the awful Cowboys this year? If he just
felt like praying, why doesn't he do it after every play, why after touchdowns only? These
are the deep theological questions Mr. Owens needs to address.
Item: China's government continues to persecute Falun Gong followers, who remain
undeterred.
Comments: Yes, it is likely that Falun Gong is a cult, that
many if not all of its beliefs are fraudulent, and that it's possible that it might be
dangerous to fervent believers. One could say the same thing for many mainstream religions
however. Further it is obvious that it is unethical, senseless and futile to attempt to
stamp out it or any other faith-held belief by force. Communism's need for control and
conformity rivals that of many religions, and it is useful to view it more and more as a
religion, complete with faith, saints and its own dogma. God is not the problem - faith
and dogmatism is.
Item: The Pope issued a statement in support of Cardinal Ratzinger's declaration of the
primacy of the Catholic Church. "Our confession of Christ as the only son, the medium
through which we sees the face of God, isn't arrogance that deprecates other religions but
an expression of joyous gratitude...".
Comment: Gratitude for what? That Catholics are going to
heaven and others will burn in hell?
Item: A Catholic Priest in Illinois crashed his car into an abortion clinic building.
The action came just two days after government approval of the RU-486 abortion pill. No
one was hurt in the attack.
Comments: Though it is difficult to criticize people who find
abortion repulsive out of compassion for the fetus, not all persons agree that a fetus has
the attributes of a person. The demonization of those who favor choice by their abortion
opponents is indefensible. Those who support abortion rights obviously feel no murder is
being committed. There are no facts or statistics, such as higher crime rates, to support
the contention that those who have abortions have less ethics or morals than those who do
not. The argument should be confined to the (secular) ethics of terminating a fetus and
the consequences of a pro-life policy versus and pro-choice policy.
Item: Eight years ago, Gloria and Gus Schuck, a Long Island couple, had the idea to
form a ecumenical Christian event, bringing diverse denominations together to celebrate
their commonality - Jesus. It culminated in an event attended by 5,000 persons at the Long
Island Coliseum on Saturday, October 7, 2000. They had promoted the event by visiting
various churches over the years to spread the word.
"The message we're trying to get over is that after 2000 years, Christians on Long
Island can come together without referring to doctrinal differences, without worrying that
there's some part of our various denominations that we might see different" said Rev.
Charles Coverdale, a Baptist.
The service did not use prayer styles that are heavily identified with one Christian
group that might be jarring to another. No rosaries, no praying in tongues, etc.
Comment: Imagine! Praying in tongues to Jesus might be jarring
to another Christian. A rosary might be jarring to a non-Catholic. How do they think any
prayer to Jesus feels to a non-Christian? Wouldn't that "jar" a non-Christian?
Do they consider this when so many Christians push for school prayer?
Further, this meeting of spiritual unity did not exactly unify
Christians with Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists or non-believers, did it? At best it
displays the tortured unity of some Christians whom, in order to cooperate, had to be LESS
spiritual than usual in order to get along. True spiritual unity will occur when people
simply celebrate the common virtues and decencies for no other reason than their own
intrinsic value.
Item: On page three of a recent Newsday, was a feature article on Rebbetzin Esther
Jungreis who, with her husband, organized a large Yom Kippur service held at the Pierre
Hotel in Manhattan. Apparently she is a popular public speaker. Of the ceremonies, past
participant Richard Seaman says "It's so beautiful setting-wise and beautiful
prayer-wise, and even though it's a totally Orthodox ceremony, anyone from any religious
background could feel comfortable there."
A holocaust survivor, according to Newsday, Rebbetzin Jungreis set out to fight
interfaith marriages after arriving in American in 1947.
Comments: Somehow I do not think such an attitude regarding
interfaith marriages would make the non-Orthodox too comfortable. Obviously it is an
admission that love of God interferes with love between people. Just what the world
needs!
Item: Reported on the same day in Newsday: Liz Smith's column relates the story of how
CBS TV has been "flooded" with faxes and emails protesting the cancellation of
"Touched By An Angel" by a group of "powerful atheists." The rumor
that the CBS show was under fire from godless objectors has taken hold in the last couple
of weeks. Of course, Christian extremists intending to foment hatred toward atheists are
spreading the rumor. Madelyn Murray-O'Haire is blamed for the efforts, even though she is
believed to be dead (murdered) and at the least, has not been heard from for years. An
EWTN (a Catholic news agency) story debunks the entire rumor, which has been circulated by
believers, in various forms, for 25 years. The website is .
htm.
Elsewhere in the same newspaper, the Roman Catholic Church apologized and settled a law
suit in Portland, Oregon, against a priest who molested young boys over 24 years. The
suit, which accused the archdiocese of a failure to notify parishioners of the priest's
past molestations of boys and other failures to supervise him properly, had been for
$44million. The actual settlement amount was not disclosed. Despite this actual incidence
of real harm, no firestorm of criticism is sweeping the country.
Comment: Obviously, fictitious accounts of atheists protesting
a mediocre TV show are a far more serious problem than the real raping of little boys and
subsequent cover-ups by religious institutions. I mean, even if that dead atheist isn't
currently protesting that show, it's still outrageous, while we all know God will forgive
an errant priest who simply made a mistake, or two or three dozen. The Church, being the
body of Christ, cannot be capable of sin, as we all know. Somehow, I'll bet the late Ms.
O'Haire is behind all this too.
Item: A top official and broadcaster from Focus on the Family has resigned from the
organization because he had an extramarital affair. Mike Trout is an on-air partner of
ministry founder James Dobson.
Comment: How can this be? If such deep belief in Jesus does
not help a person's character, exactly what is the benefit of such deep belief? Oh yeah,
eternal bliss in heaven, since, fortunately for Mr. Trout, we are not saved or justified
by our deeds - just our faith. Stupid me!
Item: The Pope and Queen Elizabeth II expressed their hope for Christian unity in their
first meeting since 1982. The Pope leads the Catholic Church of course, and the Queen is
the titular head (Editor's note to Jerry Falwell: I was not trying to be salacious here)
of the Church of England. The two churches split in 1534, not amicably. The Pope remarked
that there can "be no turning back from the ecumenical goal."
Comment: The Pope probably feels bad for the Queen, who is
destined to spend eternity in hell. After all, according to the Catholic Church's recently
beatified Pope Pius IX "We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman
Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in
her perishes in the deluge...." Of course, some apologists will allow for the
exception of ignorance of the "Truth" of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings,
but you'd then think they'd be quiet about their "Truth" so people who are not
convinced don't go to hell. But nooooooooo, they gotta tell everyone, and all the
unconvinced are then doomed. Thanks for nothing!
Item: The NY Post's Neal Travis recently reported that the British are having a fit
over Salman Rushdie's recent socializing in NYC. They are supposedly miffed that they had
to foot a $10,000,000 bill to protect him from the fatwa issued by Muslim fundamentalists
because of his book "The Satanic Verses."
Comment: Exactly why are they peeved at Rushdie? Isn't the
problem the fatwa issued by the late Ayatollah? Are the British annoyed at their country's
commitment to freedom of speech? Do they read the news and see the documented cases, day
after day, of religious persecution of Jews, Christians and others in countries ruled by
Islamic Sharia law?
There is an almost complete absence of criticism and
scholarship of Islam in Islamic countries, though to be fair, criticisms of Christianity
and Judaism in countries where they dominate are also muted. What is needed is more such
criticism, not less, and an open discussion of the merits and accuracy of any and all
religious beliefs, no matter what hard feelings may occur. The alternative is societies
where deviation from the norm, whatever it may be, results in a fatwa or some other
punishment for what is perceived by the dominating group as blasphemy.
[TOC]
COLLEGE PRAYER WARS Gerry
D
Congress has recently passed another one of those non-binding resolutions, this time,
instead of promoting humiliation before God, promoting prayers before college football
games.
Apparently somewhere in scripture is the information that God chooses sides on the
basis of prayer and influences collegiate sports. However, this influence seems diluted or
weakened by other factors in determining victory in college football, such as the talent,
budget and size of the competing college football teams.
I propose a solution to the problem of prayers not directly and indisputably
determining the outcome of college sporting events! A new game is in order and I call it
"Prayer Wars."
Two college student bodies gather at the local stadium, one school on each side of the
field. School one, the visiting team, is allotted 30 minutes of prayer from the start of
the "war." Then the home team receives its own 30 minutes to petition the Lord.
Finally, the visitors get a 5-minute period in which they may speak in tongues, writhe on
the ground, burn incense or do whatever they have planned in an effective entreaty of the
Deity. The home team gets the last say with a similar 5-minute finale.
The winner is decided on a strict game of chance, a 50/50 situation where skill is
irrelevant -- a toss of a coin. A local pastor can officiate. Heads, the visiting team
wins, tails, the home team wins, and all depending, presumably, on the opposing powers of
prayer. Winners continue on in an elimination type tournament until a national collegiate
prayer champion team emerges and is awarded the Billy Graham trophy.
Losers go to hell. [TOC]