INQUIRER Volume 4, Issue 5, May, 2001, Long Island Secular Humanists Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740, Email: LISecHum@aol.com . 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.)
LISH members, our monthly meetings (Calendar) 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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Moral Relativism, Absolutism and Objective Ethics
2) Separation of Church and Court
3) God's Existence-St Thomas Aquinas
4) Sorry!
5) The Spy & Opus Dei
6) Quickies
7) Making the Rounds with Norm
8) Letters to the EditorArthur Dobrin, Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island Leader, Retires Gerry D
After 33 years as leader of Long Island's Ethical Humanist community, Arthur Dobrin has retired to the position of Leader Emeritus. His inspirational writings and teachings by example are a standard for humanists of all labels. LISH congratulates Arthur and admires his many accomplishments. The Society is located at 38 Old Country Road in Garden City, NY, 11530. For information, call 516 741 7304 or email EHSOFLI@sprynet.com Their website is www.ehsli.orgHUMANIST PERSPECTIVE
Be Sure to Watch "Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access on channel 71 on the Woodbury system and channel 70 on the Hauppauge system every Wednesday @ 6:30 PM!MORAL RELATIVISM, ABSOLUTISM, AND OBJECTIVE ETHICS Gerry D
Quite often we hear moral leaders, pundits and columnists decrying "moral relativism" while others make excuses for ethical outrages under the guise of "who's to say what's right or wrong?" I do wonder how many people understand or even care to understand the issue at hand and who is on what side of this issue.Unfortunately, quite often, the most vocal opponents of moral relativism are the religiously righteous extremists who believe that their version of the Word of God is absolute and unchanging. I say this is unfortunate because it leads those persons to take, quite often, scripture very literally, and often to the detriment of certain classes of persons, including women, gays, and those who do not believe in those scriptures. This misery is not confined, of course, to New and Old Testament believers - fundamentalist Muslims and secular absolutists have also shown they are capable of enormous cruelty, particularly to dissidents, women and infidels in adhering to their moral absolutism.
Their problem is that in order to escape the impotency of moral relativism, they embrace absolutism, which is by necessity arbitrary and capricious. If a morality is absolute, it applies no matter what the consequences might be, good or bad. Indeed, in practice, this is what happens when we do not "suffer a witch to live," persecute "enemies of the state," or consider gays "abominations." The solution to avoiding empty moral relativism and unthinking moral absolutism is to embrace an ethics that judges its' moral tenets on the effect they have on human well being. Moral rules have existed for centuries. Humanity has a long history of valuing many ethical rules involving honesty, kindness, courage, loyalty, and many more. None of these rules are absolutist in the sense that no God or tyrant imposes them on us. We have arrived at these values by human consensus over centuries of consideration. In other words, we can objectively say humanity values honesty and kindness and can judge objectively, with out being either relativistic or absolutist that, for example, the Nazis violated long-standing human moral codes.
The absolutist moral alternative can be used to justify Nazism, if the standards of human kindness and fairness are not part of the imposed sacred or unquestioned code. Human well being is irrelevant -- the code is to be followed to an absolutist, and if killing the infidel (i.e.: Jew) is part of the code, so be it.
Contrarily, but also to awful results, a moral relativist will ask, "who's to say it was wrong?"
WE, the human community are to say it was wrong, and it is simply being human to denounce cruelty, unfairness and dishonesty. We have, as a species, believed and felt this for centuries, and if followed, our positive ethical values will lead us to a happier existence, both individually and as a society. None of this implies that a long-standing moral code cannot be questioned, as the practice of slavery was questioned over the last few centuries. It instead implies that humans, as moral agents, must relentlessly search for the best ethics.
As a secular humanist, I support the notion that ethics and morals can be objectively arrived at, while at the same time understand that there is no "higher authority" imposing them upon us, other than the laws of the land which have been instituted by a government that serves by the consent of the governed. It can be objectively said that Nazism in practice is evil, and it is both moral relativism and moral absolutism that enable people to overlook the common decencies that nearly all of us are capable of, and that should be nurtured in all of us from birth. [TOC]
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND COURT Gerry D
In a shocking display of religious incorrectness, Knick basketball coach Jeff Van Gundy wondered aloud in an interview in New York Magazine whether the religious practices of some Knick players was a distraction to the team. Typically, a number of players attend a 10-minute chapel session before games and have a prayer meeting afterwards with opposing players. Team pastor John Love has free access to the players and runs the pre and post game prayer meetings.It was reported in the NY Daily News that Pastor Love invited the then just acquired Knick Othella Harrington to chapel as the player was studying the Knick playbook, something he needed to do so that he could run Knick plays. In the article Van Gundy pointed out, "Now, do people in offices have preachers coming into their place of business, interrupting their work? No. They have to do it before or after work. That's the problem I have."
The popular sports radio show, Mike and the Mad Dog featured Coach Van Gundy on their Friday, April 6th show on WFAN. Mike Francessa and Chris Russo, the hosts, were surprisingly forceful in their support of Coach Van Gundy's position. They went even further than the coach, stating that God would not care about winning and losing basketball games, that a person's religious beliefs are no one else's business, and that some sports figures are indeed trying to shove their religion down the public's throats with their gratuitous displays of piety.
The two hosts also stated that their beliefs, whether they believe or not, are irrelevant or should be to others. They then joked about calls coming in from the religious right.
Of course, this is a most unusual display of independence and common sense for a member of the media. Whatever the beliefs are of "Mike and the Mad Dog," they are to be commended for their fairness in the religious arena. As for Coach Van Gundy, he is well aware that he is fighting a losing battle and regrets having made the comments. As he said, he is "old school": At work you work, and religion is a private matter.
Shortly after this story broke, a reporter, Filip Bondy, investigated the background of the religious organization to which Rev. Love belongs. He discovered that at one time this church had been sued into bankruptcy for questionable recruitment practices. A former member of the church had taken them to court and won. He also reported on a link with some church hierarchy to Scientology, a group sometimes associated with aggressive recruitment and fundraising. The church now known as Greater Grace Church, apparently is known to go where the money is.
The topper of this story came courtesy of the New York Times Sunday magazine (4/22/01) in which the most devout member of the team God Squad, Charlie Ward, is quoted as saying that Jews are stubborn, "persecute" Christians under certain circumstances, and have Christ's blood on their hands. He was booed the next day during the Knick's playoff opener, though by the end of the game, the crowd was largely cheering his good play.
The controversy is interesting on many levels, but one stands out above others, from the perspective of non-believers. Many religious persons have criticized Mr. Ward's views on Jews, but as he pointed out, one can point to some bible passages for justification. Indeed, the Catholic Church reversed itself on the issue of Deicide only 40 years ago. What persons of faith cannot do is criticize faith itself: All they can do is argue, in an unconvincing manner, that one or another faith is misguided or in error. Of course, faith is immune to reasoned argument, and unconcerned with human well-being. That's what makes it faith! And that is the very criticism that persons of faith are unable to make.
(For more on Greater Grace Church go to: http://www.nydailynews.co/2001-04-17/Metro_Sports/Basketball/a-107609.asp) [TOC]
GOD'S EXISTENCE-ST THOMAS AQUINAS Paul Lozowsky
Logically it makes sense, of course, that the question of god's existence should come first in discussions concerning God and related matters. For, as St. Thomas Aquinas at the beginning of his multi-volumed Summa Contra Gentile, if we first don't establish that he at least exists, then there is no point in going on.Now, among the inquiries that we must undertake concerning God in Himself, we must set down in the beginning that whereby His Existence is demonstrated, as the necessary foundation of the whole work. For, if we do not demonstrate that God exists, all consideration of divine things are necessary suppressed.
Of course logically no further discussion could continue, as there as never been any acceptable evidence for the existence of a so-called GOD.
In the course of debate, somewhere the subject of the truth should be addressed and the below paragraph might be considered.
Pursuit of the Truth: The inquiry of the truth, which is the love making or wooing of it; the knowledge of the truth is the praise of it; and the belief of truth, which is the enjoyment of it, and is the prime good of human nature.
In books we converse with the wise, and the unwise, as in action with fools. That is, we learn how to select our books and reading material. Some books are to be tasted, others are to be swallowed, and some few, to be chewed and digested.
The question might be asked what is the purpose of all this pursuit for knowledge and truth? One can become so good that one is good for nothing. One must practice this knowledge with a judicious mixture of dissimulation with honesty, like an alloy that will make the purer but softer
omas Aquinas metal capable of longer life. And is not the purpose of education, and a varied one at that, not only to learn but to learn how to think.
A student in schools takes many subjects preparing for a full and varied career, giving acquaintance with everything that can broaden, deepen, strengthen, and sharpen the mind.
But one does not admire the contemplative life; Knowledge is to be scorned that does not lead to action. The world looks for doers, people of action, it is for the couch potatoes, the limited, and the gods and angels, for those who believe, to be spectators.
What books should eye read is the next question? There are thousands of books that deserve to be read, and equally many to be chewed and digested.
Fortunately, the Bible is not one required to be read by students of sciences, logic, critical thinking and history-.
As the debate goes on and on and reaches a climax, and the theist is unmoved by the presentation of valid arguments, the Atheist, Secularists, might present Dostievsky's classic from his story, Brothers Karamozof; in which he ends his tale thus: "So long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find something or someone to worship. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but also to find something that all would believe in and worship. What is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community worship is the chief misery of every man, individually and for all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship, they have slain each other with the sword. They have set up their gods and challenged each other. Put away your gods and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods. And so it will
be till the end of the world. And when the gods have disappeared from the earth, they will fall down before idols just the same."
The above items of knowledge come about form reading, reading and making notes and copying facts of interest. It is a never ending endeavor and the collection of these facts can end up in piles of paper. But thank goodness for my Macintosh, I have solved this problem, somewhat.
In conclusion, I might add this famous paragraph from Cicero. It is also an answer to where I get my information and how I use the end result. Cicero is accused of complete lack of originality; all he did was translate from the Greek. His own words are cast in his teeth; he admitted to his friend Attacus that his philosophical works are only copies, and they do not involve much labor: "All I contribute is the words - I have plenty of those! I am not a mere translator, but contribute my own judgment in deciding what to select and how to present it. Originality in a philosopher, far from being looked upon as merit, would rather have been treated as a sin. Nor is there any philosophical merit in originality: the quest to ask a philosopher is not whether it is original but whether it is true."
So, enjoy the above and question all that is given as the truth. Use logic, critical thinking and the scientific method as your vehicles of your knowledge.
[TOC]SORRY! Gerry D
Being sorry is big business these days. It seems that if you're sorry, you could've done almost anything, and it's OK now. Who isn't sorry for something they've done in their life? Answer: Hardly anyone, thus making being sorry useful for almost everybody. If one could get a royalty for others being sorry, one could buy Bill Gates for cash, and have a little left over to rent Ted Turner. Sorry Ted and Bill, for using your actual names.In recent years the Catholic Church and the Pope have used being sorry as a means of being excused from past transgressions. Excused by whom, you may ask: Well, God of course, the only one who counts! By confessing to God for the misdeeds of wayward sinful "Christians," the Catholic Church would have us believe it has started the process of wiping the slate clean of Inquisitions, pogroms, persecutions, burnings at the stakes, sexual abuse by Church officials and the ensuing cover-ups, censorship, holocausts (not that they had anything to do with it), and anything else anyone might possibly hold against anything possibly related, but not the direct responsibility of the Church, its Popes or its doctrines, except where prohibited by law, limited time only, private independent contractors excluded.
Of course the Catholic Church is not the only organization that is sorry in some manner of fashion. The Southern Baptists, a few years ago, said they were sorry for having supported the institution of slavery, which as they were formerly quick to point out, was biblically justifiable. I'm sure the bible would be sorry if it weren't inerrant. The problem must have been the misunderstanding of those Baptists who obviously are sinful and fallible in their reading of this infallible text. Of course, the Baptist's confidence in their current understanding of the bible's morality is something they can be sorry for in the future. The Baptist gay and lesbian sorry card has not yet been played; the unchanging bible has not yet required them to be sorry for this persecution at this moment.
President Clinton was sorry for cheating on his wife and lying about it and was forgiven by the public since he was good at keeping the economy going, that is until Alan Greenspan screwed it up. Mr. Greenspan owes us an apology, has anyone noticed? President Clinton, in the meantime has been building up towards another big apology over his misguided big bucks pardons. Of course once he admits he was wrong to give greater weight to pardons to rich donors to his library, the sooner all will be right with the world!
Even countries can be sorry for things it has done. Japan has apologized for its treatment of the Chinese in World War II. We have done the same regarding our treatment of the Japanese at that time. Reparations for slavery is a volatile subject these days, and we're sorry for even bringing it up, not that we're saying we're for or against it. Sorry.
It is important to be sorry. Roger Clemens has never said he was sorry for throwing at gentleman Mike Piazza's head during the regular season last year, and then throwing a broken bat at him in the World Series. How could he NOT be sorry for such a dastardly series of deeds? This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Roger Clemens is not very nice. If only he said he was sorry, he'd be a great guy, that is until he is sorry again at some later date for almost killing someone else who owns him, with another fastball to the noggin.
How many stories have been printed about the fact that the Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber, who killed 168 persons, is not sorry? He admits he did it, but has no remorse. Well, what if he DID have remorse? No one would come back to life, and no person deceased would be transferred from hell to heaven if he were to air his regrets, if heaven and hell were to exist. (Sorry to those who have just been offended by the raising of the possibility that heaven and hell might not exist.) Actually, if he were sorry, he'd have a lot more sympathy going for him. If he were sorry, he could probably become almost heroic for his "change of heart." Then WE'D be more sorry for his execution.
Not.
Even new President Bush has gotten into the sorry business of being sorry. When Chinese fighter jets intercepted a US spy plane, flying close to China, an accident occurred where a Chinese pilot died, and the US plane was forced to land without permission on Chinese property. President Bush, not realizing how much he could gain for saying he was sorry, resisted for weeks. When he actually said he was "very sorry," or as the Chinese refer to it, "deep apology," or "extremely sorry," the American crew was released and all was well. Being sorry, as we have proven, has its benefits. President Bush, who is a quick learner from experience, has been seeking more ways to be sorry, and his increasing of allowable arsenic levels in drinking water may result in a hell of an apology someday. We can't wait!
All this apologizing has left us humanists left out in the cold, but that is only because we have not been industrious enough in finding good areas for reticence. It is therefore time that humanists begin apologizing so that we can be forgiven and join the ranks of accepted and mainstream classes of sorry persons in America!
So, in lieu of specifics, since, to paraphrase Cardinal Egan of New York, all humanists are simply independent contractors who are on their own, we are sorry in a sort of third-party manner! We are sorry for any transgressions by wayward or mistaken humanists, caused by a misreading of humanistic philosophy or a misunderstanding of secularism. We apologize to those other humans harmed by those wayward humanist misdeeds, since apologizing to an omnipotent and unchanging deity seems pointless. We are sorry for the previous remark. [TOC]
THE SPY AND OPUS DEI Gerry D
Recent news that an FBI agent may have been spying for the Soviet Union and then Russia for the last 15 years was shocking, if for no other reason than the infrequency of agents who betray their country. However, doubly shocking was the alleged betrayal by agent Robert Philip Hanssen, who, as a member of Opus Dei, a poorly understood organization within the Roman Catholic Church, was presumed to be extremely anti-Communistic, among other things.Catholic priest Josemaria Escriva founded Opus Dei in 1928. Some critics of Opus Dei claim the group is fascistic. According to Franz Schaefer, a Roman Catholic and critical expert on Opus Dei, the organization is: 1) Fascistic 2) Fundamentalist 3) Dishonest 4) Undemocratic, and promotes blind obedience 5) Manipulative in recruiting new members 6) Founded by a person with a deeply flawed character 7) Secretive, particularly of their true goals, and 8) Elitist.
These are strong accusations to make regarding a religious organization from one's own faith, but Mr. Schaefer is not alone in his charges. There is also an "Opus Dei Awareness Network" as well.
Should any credence be given these charges against Opus Dei? This is what an outspoken Opus Dei priest, Father McCloskey, has written: "…the 'dogma' of the U.S. has long been the absolute right of the individual to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' The saving message of Christ as mediated though his Church and its effect on our nation, culture, and society rarely enter the American mind." This is an interesting statement that contrasts "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" with Christ's "saving" message.
He also writes: "…the liberal democracy which forms the basis of our political system tends to be anti-hierarchical and based largely on the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment. It therefore tends to a subjective relativism as regards belief, which certainly militates against the unique claims of the church." What claims of the Church? Basically that the Church is the only true Church and that secular laws should not contradict Church teachings. He continues, "The two aspects of this Anti-Catholicism - liberal democratic ideology and Protestantism - have, ironically, kept the American Catholic populace from wholeheartedly embracing the American ethos."
Is this true? Does the American Catholic populace not embrace the American ethos, at least in comparison to other groups? Somehow I think Father McCloskey is not really in tune with the typical Catholic who is as patriotic and values democracy as much as any other religious group in America. It is perhaps only the more fundamentalist Catholic wing that feels as does the Father. Further evidence that Opus Dei is out of step with most American Catholics can be reflected in the way most Catholics support progressive social programs. However, Father McCloskey writes, "The complete integration of the Church with the American system of government and culture… also resulted in an identification of some of the leading elements of the clergy and laity with a leftist statist political agenda which alienated a significant portion of the working class laity. This over-emphasis on social problems at the expense of spiritual ends threw large numbers of the faithful into confusion."
It is amazing to actually see a religious figure admit that social problems are secondary to spiritual concerns, but Opus Dei goes further. Social concerns are supposed to be secondary to the good of the Church it would seem! While the supposed anti-democratic nature of Opus Dei could explain a person's animus toward the United State's liberal democracy and pluralism, it would not at all explain why someone would choose to help the communistic Soviets. Opus Dei's primary targets have always been Freemasons and Communists.
However, it must be remembered that 15 years ago, when Agent Hanssen is suspected of beginning his spying career, the Soviet Union under Gorbachev began a course of more freedom for its people, including Catholics. One can recall that the Church in the past reached agreements to secure its place in Italy with Mussolini, a non-believer, and in Germany with Hitler a highly unorthodox believer. When the Church must hold its nose to protect its interests, it has done so. The Soviet thaw in freedoms with special allowances for the Church may have been enough to placate an Opus Dei member, but of course, this is pure speculation. In the meantime, motivation, beyond monetary rewards, remains a mystery. It may stay this way until the agent, if he is guilty, decides to speak out.
For more information on Opus Dei, go to http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/opus.dei.uo.faq.html [TOC]
Item: In 1992 in Algeria, Islamic hard-liners tried to sweep the parliamentary elections, threatening to "turn ballot boxes into coffins". The government banned all non-religious activities in the 10,000 mosques of the country and cancelled the second part of the polls. This unleashed a wave of violence. The Islamic Salvation Front started fighting for theocracy. It was comprised of Afghan mercenaries, who found after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan their new target in Algeria. The militants lead a war of atrocities against the population, especially against intellectuals and women. They massacred, decapitated, raped and cut off women's breasts. About hundred journalists were killed. The government took a tough stand and refused to share any negotiation table with the terrorists.
In December 1996, newly elected president Liamine Zeroual established a constitution that banned political parties formed on the basis of religion. Algeria fought a brave and successful battle to develop and defend sound democratic structures and is today the only Islamic country which does not give in to political manipulation in the name of religion and fights fundamentalism without reservation. (From Rationalists Int.)
Comment: One could criticize the Algerian government for repression of a religion, but the goal of that religion is to either win elections or "turn ballot boxes into coffins." These rebels have been true to their word. That they are religiously inspired should not diminish the fact that they are a criminal organization.
Item: The mail solicitation from "the Josephites" reads, "'We had been praying for 18 months to have a baby. The Thirty-Day Prayer to St. Joseph came in the mail. St. Joseph interceded for us. We are so happy to find out that we're expecting. St. Joseph is truly the intercessor for families wanting more children.'… If you choose to help support the work of the Josephite Fathers and Brothers, your gift will be used primarily to support the training of more priests for our work, and to care for our sick and elderly Josephites…"
Comment: Let's get this straight: Praying to God or whoever else for 18 months did not succeed in getting the grateful couple pregnant! St. Joseph did the trick almost immediately apparently! This does not say much for the omnipotent God, who seems to need his attention focused by others, and it seems Joseph, Jesus' stepfather, is particularly good at this particular task. Further, your money, if you decide to send it, primarily goes to the "training" of other Josephites, whom it would seem, do nothing more than pray and send out solicitations. Unless I'm missing something.
Item: Headhunting has returned to Borneo's rainforest, courtesy of young Dayak tribesman who are killing rival Madurese settlers. According to the Washington Post, a century ago, Christian missionaries persuaded tribal leaders to end the practice. It has been revived recently when settlers from Madura island arrived and took jobs in the local economy. The Dayaks have responded with decapitations, and, supposedly, a form of cannibalism.
Dayak leaders are surprised by the revival of headhunting since the young men are not traditional in other ways. They watch Mtv, wear fashionable clothes, read newspapers and drive motorcycles. They were not taught headhunting techniques, though they've heard the old stories.
The Madurese are strict Muslims and resent the Dayaks eating of pork and keeping dogs. The Dayaks, predominantly Christian, usually incorporate old animist beliefs into their form of Christianity. Their perception that new settlers have taken their jobs has led to the recent bloodshed.
Comment: I wonder if the Dayaks understand that Eminem is only kidding. [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm R
BayShore UU Society, March 25, 2001: On this Sunday Morning, Milt Schneider, Coalition partner from our UU friends did a presentation about Jesus Mysteries.
The emphasis here was the apparent use of the Jesus stories as parallels from pagan traditions. We see the same story as seen in older pagan cultures such as Osiris, and Bachus etc. Christianity cannot claim much originality, as their story is one from pagan myths.
The next question would be "Was Jesus a real person who was built up to match this story or was he totally created to make this myth go?" We cannot solve this dispute here but we do wonder why there is the great success of Christianity in becoming the largest religion in the world (sources World Almanac 200l). Mr. Schneider gives Roman emperor Constantine credit for much of this success in the early days by giving Christianity official status in the empire at the expense of other promising traditions. Also Justinian, a couple centuries later, closed the Greek academies to cut out more competition to Christianity. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
04/19/01 In response to the letters and the responses to the letters, in the April, 2001 issue of LISH Inquirer, I would like to add these comments. In the first place I think we must recognize that the viewpoints of the writer, Gerald A., and the editor, G.D., are both defendable and surely represent like-mindedness. For myself, I have long given up calling myself an agnostic, although, like Mr. Dantone, I am one. I call myself an atheist because it sends a clearer message about who I am; one who categorically denies the existence of god. Of course I don't know the answers, and it is that very unknowing, likely to remain unknowable, that drives my belief/non-belief system; a "religion" of wonderment, if you will. I have tried calling myself an agtheist or an atheiognost, but of course that doesn't work.
Either way, agnostic or atheist, I'd be poorly received in most company, especially in Salisbury, Maryland, where I now live, in the thick of the bible belt. So it is good every once in a while to receive the LISH Inquirer and I miss the meetings that I occasionally attended. Keep the faith! (Oops!) Richard Stivelman, Salisbury, Maryland, via Internet
Response: Thanks for your thoughts, and we'll keep those newsletters coming! G.D.
4/19/01 I want to thank you again for a fine newsletter. I think you do a wonderful job.
I wish to especially respond to the Jimmy Carter item. It is quite a challenge when words get in the way of communication, such as "Faith" and even confidence. I looked up these words in a number of dictionaries I found that each word is a synonym for the other. This does not allow us to distinguish between "blind untested faith" and the confidence developed by experiencing a "track record" to help us determine that which warrants confidence. Even our dictionaries fail us here. I try terms such as reliance or reliability. Jimmy Carter could have used many dictionaries to make his response. That is why we in Secular Humanism continue to have challenges in finding words to define and describe ourselves.
I am happy that Jimmy Carter made his exit from the Southern/Baptists and was able to communicate some positive feedback. Norm R., Oakdale, NY, via Internet
Response: It is interesting how clearly we can see that Pres. Carter's decency is independent of his religious beliefs. No matter what the orthodoxy is of his religion, he will instead seek to do what is right by his fellow human. G.D. [TOC]
SOS Support Group on Long Island!
SOS is a program for those who abuse alcohol or other substances. Unlike Alcoholics Anonymous, it does not require that those attending meetings accept the religious claims of the program. SOS is not just for the non-religious; it is also suitable for those who prefer to focus on sobriety rather than the religious components of AA.One meeting is in the North Fork of Long Island, N.Y. The contact person is Matthew R., 631-477-0746. The meetings are each Tuesday from 6 to 7 P.M., at the Unitarian Universalist Church, Main Road, Route 25, Southold, Suffolk County, NY.
The other meeting is on the north shore, mid-Suffolk County. The contact person is Kathy, 631-689-1683. The meetings are each Wednesday, 6:30PM at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 380 Nicolls Road, StonyBrook, Suffolk County.
LISH will support the efforts of other interested parties to start SOS meetings in other locations on the Island with press releases, mailings to substance abuse centers and other humanist organizations, and meeting materials. Just ask us to help!
The home page of SOS is http://www.secularsobriety.org. This web site has much information for downloading on running SOS groups. [TOC]