INQUIRER Volume 4, Issue 7, July, 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) Tony, Carmela & God
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Dogma reaches the right and left
4) Former sen. Kerrey and the Viet Nam War
5) Making The Rounds With Norm
6) Quickies
7) SOS
8) Help neededLISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH:
Should death penalty laws as they now stand in the US be
1) kept as is,
2) modified because they are not justly applied, but kept because it is possible to make them fair, or
3) eliminated altogether no matter what?
We'd like to hear about other options as well.Readers of the Long Island Secular Humanist Newsletter are encouraged to send in their opinions. Email to LISecHum@aol.com or mail to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.
LISH MEETING INFORMATION
The next LISH sponsored event will be the annual LISH Picnic, on Saturday, August 18, from Noon to 6PM in Huntington. Detailed information, including location will be sent in the mail soon to LISH supporters, or those who'd like to become members (email us for info). If you'd like to contribute a prepared dish, email us. Last year's event was a huge success with great food and fun!
Note: American Atheists are asking everyone to send a fax or letter (not email), or make a phone call to your US House of Representatives elected official protesting Pres. Bush's faith-based initiatives. For all the needed info, go to www.thedaythatcounts.org or call 908 276 7300.
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.com
TONY, CARMELA & GOD John Rafferty
What do you call an all-powerful, jealous, and terrible being who is beyond ordinary human concepts of morality and ethics, who demands absolute loyalty and obedience, who takes life, destroys fortune, and dispenses rewards and punishments for reasons and according to rules known only to himself? You might call him God. HBO calls him Tony Soprano."The Sopranos," the House of Atreus chronicle (New Jersey branch) as modern gangster movie, is well into its smash-hit third year on cable television. Looking at the values of contemporary American society in the mirror-image reflection of the mores of the Mafia, series creator David Chase has given us, so far, thirty hours of the best-written mayhem and murder television has ever aired, and a few things more: an inside-out view of what the pulpit-pounders call "family values;" an upside-down morality play about the meanings of "honor," "loyalty," and "respect;" and, almost incidentally (but my reason for writing this), a look at the value and usefulness of religion in dealing with life's problems.
The various members of Tony Soprano's two families - his "business" family and his flesh-and-blood - look to religion for answers in times of personal crisis at each of life's stages, and come up empty every time.
Youth: In a first-season episode, Tony's pre-pubescent son and friends steal the church sacramental wine, get drunk, and throw up in gym class. Tony and wife Carmela are at first concerned about their son's behavior, but, when wrathful church-school authority predictably overplays its hand, the parents react like any sane people: lighten up. True to life also, the same Anthony Jr., on the eve of his Confirmation and having discovered Camus and Nietzsche (and marijuana), announces that he no longer believes in God. His parents' reaction? Just like yours or mine: "No talk like that at the dinner table."
Maturity: Tony, for mob reasons too complicated to go into, has a little restaurant owned by his boyhood friend blown up. The unsuspecting restaurateur is at first devastated, but, when the insurance money comes in, is able to open a bigger, better place. Then he finds out - not for sure, but pretty sure - and faces a crisis of conscience: did he profit, albeit unwittingly, from insurance fraud? Tortured, he confides his suspicions to the young parish priest, who offers platitudes but no practical advice. The restaurateur mulls over the platitudes for a while, comes to the same practical conclusion 99% of Americans would arrive at, and okays the invoice for expensive new barstools. And the audience breathes relief that bad/good-guy Tony has dodged the bullet of exposure.
That priest: There hasn't been as scathing a portrait of priestly hypocrisy since Balzac. I can't remember the name of this hip, sexy, way-beyond-Vatican II character, but it's something like Father Jerry. He insinuates himself into Carmela Soprano's kitchen and erotic fantasies, and into Tony Soprano's ten thousand dollar home entertainment center. He "drops by" with romantic-movie videotapes, an appetite for free Italian food, and new-age counseling for the Mafia wife who spends her evenings alone. Love-starved Carmela mistakes her erotic fantasies for religious remorse over her husband's business ("I've allowed evil to enter my house") and the priest and the penitent almost do get it on, saved only by the priest's too many trips to Tony's wine cabinet. When, a couple of afternoons later, she shows up at church and sees and hears him counseling another Mafia wife in the same sweet sexy tones, tough, gritty Carmela turns away, chucks the casserole surprise she'd brought "for Father" into a trash bin, and wises up. When, to the home audience's delight, Carmela confronts this thoroughly-modern representative of organized religion later in her kitchen over his sleazy, mooching ways, even then he can't resist a faux-hip Yiddishism: "You think I'm a schnorrer?"
And in a truly anti-religious sequence over a couple of episodes, a Hasid with a problem (his son-in-law won't give the Hasid's daughter a get, a Jewish divorce, and so holds on to half a business the Hasid wants back) comes to Tony for a solution. When Tony solves the problem (without murder), the Hasid contemptuously tries to buy him off. The image of the self-righteous Pharisee washing his hands or "shaking the dust from his robes" is plain. But Tony is God and the Devil (as the old man grasps in a moment of understanding) and Tony makes it clear that once invited in, he is the Hasid's new partner. And the audience cheers, in the privacy of two million living rooms, as genuine wickedness triumphs over pious hypocrisy.
Midlife Crisis: Tony's new-age dimwit-but-vicious sister Janice, having been smacked around by Russian gangsters for stealing an artificial leg (don't ask), and grieving ("The man I loved is dead") for the loss of her fiancé (she shot him because he punched her, then shot him again because he wasn't quite dead), decides to dedicate her life to God. Not run off to India or join a California ashram or enlist in a desert commune, all of which she has done before. This time, as of the latest episode, she's embracing the God of the Bible and changing her life. Yeah, sure. The audience delights in her idiocies, and now, it seems, mainstream Christianity is going to be her latest loony tune.
Middle-aged: Mid-level Mafioso Paulie Walnuts worries about his place in the universe, and seeks enlightenment in a psychic's self-help circle. When he perceives every share-and-care question and every twittery insight as a threat to his "personal business," he considers killing everyone in the group. I voted Yes, but damn, he just wrecked some furniture and walked out.
Although barely out of his teens, young killer (and Tony's nephew) Christopher has an out-of-body experience while clinically dead for a moment during surgery after a botched murder attempt. The tunnel, the white light, the whole thing. Afterwards, he thinks about it all for the on-screen equivalent of about twenty minutes, and decides: to hell with it.
Old Age: "I wish the Lord would take me," Tony's mother Livia (who tried to have her son killed) cries. The only unambiguously evil character in the entire cast, Livia eventually gets her wish. Of course, quite a few other "Sopranos" characters are also gathered to the eternal bosom, but they all go very much against their wills. And many of them are sent on that final journey by Tony Soprano himself, God.
Television is the widest world we will ever know - apart from the infinite distances in our minds that we are only beginning to learn to explore - and truly a mirror in which we see exactly what we want to see.
The human race will never again be without television, and whether we waste our time with it or use it to explore new worlds - our grandchildren will certainly "virtually" walk the canals of Mars and the streets of ancient Corinth - we now, and forever, create our myths on television, in television, and reveal ourselves to ourselves.
Tony Soprano's universe is ours, however skewed and distorted, and in that universe he plays two roles. He is Lord God of his mafia family, a judgmental and jealous Jehovah who demands absolute, unquestioning fealty, a merciless Shiva Destroyer of his enemies. In his flesh-and-blood family, he is a modern Everyman trying to "do the right thing" but turning to evil to solve his problems as naturally as a flower turns to sunlight, an angst-ridden Hamlet who collapses in anxiety attacks over the enormity of his crimes and the conflicts that rage in his conscience. (Like Hamlet, too, he tries to appease his long-dead but still-mourned father while wishing murderous revenge on his treacherous mother.)
In our modern myth, Tony Soprano is both God and Man, Jehovah and Job. It is his human side that we respond to, that we understand, that makes us cheer his victories over not only the other (more) evil characters on the show, but over the forces of law and order as well. But it is Tony Soprano as God - Tony Soprano who strangles, who shoots, who orders the butchery of the un-Godly who betray his Law - who draws us in every Sunday evening, who causes us to stare in horrified fascination at his monstrous enormity. Tony is a monster. But then, of course, so is God.
(Reprinted from PIQUE, the newsletter of the Secular Humanist Society of NY) [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
11/24/01 Dear Gerry, I read your treatise on apologies. Hmmm. Dude, an honorable apology is the beginning of redemption. (I don't know what the Secular Humanist equivalent is to redemption). In my pointy-headed opinion, redemption is the worst and best thing to happen to someone that commits a transgression.
If I commit a crime, my first instinct is going to be to justify it. Why? Because it's too painful to admit I've caused pain. That would be the pain I've laid on the victim, the victim's family and friends, my family and friends. Who wants to acknowledge that kind of damage? Nobody.
In my experience with friends, family, strangers and prisoners, the folks that successfully turn their lives around are the ones that make the decision to redeem themselves. They eat the responsibility of their actions. To me, G-d was instrumental in my redemptive processes. G-d put his hand on my shoulder and told me to do the right thing and I felt safer with G-d than I ever had with any person in my life. To me, it is an evolutionary process.
True apologies are the beginning of solemn witness. Imagine Gerry, if all of us white dudes solemnly acknowledged the damage done by our race. Imagine if we had the guts to examine all the damage done in the name of white men throughout history and then keep it in our hearts. As a race, do you think we would still be confused about black people (from the smartest to the dumbest) writing, talking and preaching about their slave heritage? Do you think we would teach American History the same way? Do you think all community service would be directed solely at poor people? Do you think religion, as we know it, would be the same?
Solemn witness is a good thing. And if it starts with apologies - then great! Some folks are sincere others are full of crap - no brainer. But to make a negative blanket statement about blanket apologies is a mistake. It gets people thinking. It gets people angry. And sometimes it gets people to take responsibility. Your pal, Jamie Y., Huntington, NY via Internet
Response: Note that some people are sorry without apologizing and that some of what the media has labeled apologies that I referred to were not really apologies - such as the Pope asking forgiveness from God for the misdeeds of wayward Christians as opposed to apologizing to actual victims or their descendents for actual immoral doctrines and actions of the Roman Catholic Church and some of its Popes. Part of the point was to hold insincere apologies or expressions of sorrow up to the light of day. I was pointing out that just saying you're sorry is not enough, being sorry counts, and doing something about it counts the most.
Here's what I said in the first sentence: 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.
Being sorry, as I proposed, is not enough, but it sure does get you good press! That's why I put an ersatz apology at the end - to demonstrate the pointlessness of it.
But, of course, it IS important to be able to, at some time, recognize a mistake, be sorry for it, and THEN MAKE AMENDS, either by direct correction of the mistake or preventing future occurrences. I have no argument with that. I don't think I've contradicted that idea.
In your own life, and the change you made in it, it could also be possible that since you care about other persons, you decided to make amends. In fact, if you did not care about others, then it would not have mattered to you whether God wanted you to make those amends or not. On the other hand if God MADE you care about others and manipulated you to make amends, then your life has no meaning other than being a puppet of a super being. The only life-fulfilling understanding that I can see is that Jamie, the unique human being that he is, cared so much about other persons he decided to do the right thing henceforth (a.k.a. Jamie 3:16). What is wrong with humans caring enough about each other to do the right thing? Why can't that be the case with you? It IS the case with you.
The God concept, if you didn't know, likes to delegate the blame and confiscate the credit.
To sum it up, I did not intend to make a blanket statement about apologies, but instead listed some obviously insincere items. All the above have either gotten good mileage out of being sorry, or would have gotten good mileage if they had expressed even ersatz sorrow. Secular humanists, who, though they have few skeletons in their closet, are still the most hated class of persons in the country. So I thought we needed an apology to boost our public image, even if it was insincere. Hey it works for the Pope! Maybe you just have to be a part of this hated minority to "get it."
Thomas Jefferson had a good quote, though he had trouble ethically in his own life: "It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." G.D.
6/8/01 (Re: Info on Islamic Martyrdom sent to former Mayor Koch's attention) Thank you for your letter of May 21st and the information on Islamic martyrdom. I hope you enjoy listening to my daily radio program. All the best. Sincerely, Edward I Koch, NYC, NY.
Response: Glad to be of service. Should he be charged for the plug, however? Nahhhhhh! G.D.
6/18/01 One of the letters to the editor in this month's newsletter suggests that a lack of scientific training and thinking is the reason why so many people accept blindly religious beliefs. This appears to be reasonable until you consider our ability to compartmentalize our "thinking processes" into rational and magical. Let me give you an example: A very nice young Mormon missionary asked me for change for a dollar. I carefully counted out 3 quarters and 2 dimes. He agreed to accept 95c in order to make his phone call. How much rational thinking did he engage in as part of this transaction? I think a lot. He carefully counted my change, which involved examining evidence and mathematical thinking. He also had to make a rational judgment that loosing 5 cents on the transaction was worth it. Now remember this is the same person who would tell you that the American "Indians" are a long lost tribe of Jews in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Regards, John Lucania, Whitestone NY via Internet.
Response: Compartmentalization! It explains a lot, except for its own existence! G.D.
6/19/01 I fully agree with the importance of satirizing, parodying, and even ridiculing religious beliefs and premises. After all, as you point out: "No one questions satirizing political beliefs, or any number of secular social beliefs." Why should religions be exempt? I'm all for a "Mad Magazine" of religious parody, and I have quite a lot of material that could go into it. People make fun all the time of the beliefs I hold (Pagan), and no one more so than we Pagans ourselves. We have more jokes, songs, etc. circulating about our own religion than about all others put together. But just to be fair, here's a little something I wrote regarding the "sheep" metaphor that Christians so identify with. If you like this, I'll send you more...
SONG OF THE SHEEP (Edited for length) We're the faithful, the flocks of the Shepherd, We're not like those nasty old goats! We always do what we are told to, And we never sow any wild oats! We believe what we know to be bullshit We must die so that we can be born! Like lambs being led to the slaughter; Like sheep lining up to be shorn We follow our Shepherd from out of the East And if we are lucky we'll only get fleeced! (Ozymandias 6/16/99), Oberon via Internet
Response: Just to prove you can laugh at yourself, you now owe us a pagan parody! Any funny stuff directed at humanists out there? Send them in! G.D. [TOC]
DOGMA REACHES THE RIGHT AND LEFT Gerry D
What's happening here? The First Amendment, dear to the heart of most secular humanists, has been taking a beating from all directions lately. We all know President Bush's and the radical religious right's indifference to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but in recent years they have not been alone.
Senator Joseph Lieberman shocked separationists for actually advocating that the Constitution guarantees only freedom of religion, not freedom from religion for those who prefer that kind of freedom! What made it all the more shocking is that Sen. Lieberman takes full advantage of his freedom from Christianity in his practice of Orthodox Judaism. Would he mind if he were burdened by the state in any way to support the concept that Jesus is his lord and savior and that by not believing, he was destined for hell eternally? How does he answer this question?
Of all the major candidates who ran for national office, only Mr. Nader and Mr. Bradley declined to link their campaigns to religion. They both did poorly. As President, Bill Clinton defended separation of church and state on a number of occasions but did sign an overwhelmingly passed Congressional bill allowing for "charitable choice." This allowed then Governor Bush to fund, with taxpayer dollars, church based charities that were allowed to ignore civil rights laws while pursuing their goals. As president, Bush has moved to expand this program, in an attempt to make common the discrimination in hiring and rendering services in tax funded programs. Unbelievable!
But the First Amendment is under more assault than just on the separation front. An inflammatory ad written by social critic David Horowitz contesting the legitimacy of reparations for slavery has caused violent reaction against the few college newspapers that have chosen to print the ad. Although a college newspaper has every right to reject any ad for its own reasons, once it accepts an ad, those who oppose its contents do not have the right to break laws to prevent its circulation. The First Amendment protects even stupid, incorrect and hateful speech and admittedly left-wing activists have blithely trampled the free speech rights of those they oppose. How shortsighted! The legitimacy of Mr. Horowitz has been inflated beyond accuracy with his calculated tactic to make his opponents look like storm troopers.
Others seek to advance their causes by any means necessary, particularly if they have been unable to convince the general public by the force of their arguments. Radical environmentalists, animal rights advocates, group identity advocates, advocates for the ill or disabled and others seem to have little problem in literally shouting down those who may even be sympathetic, but not "pure" enough in their beliefs.
Hate speech laws have been a common legislative item in many states and many politicians and activists have seemed willing to risk limiting the First Amendment in advocating for protection for their special group. Once hate speech laws are passed, it seems bigoted to refuse to protect the next group seeking such protection, but why should a crime be punished differently because a group is protected or not? In states where gays, for example, are not protected, should a person receive a lesser sentence for a crime against a gay person accompanied by hate speech than if a protected person were attacked accompanied by hate speech? Absolutely not! And of course, all other unprotected persons deserve equal protection under the law.
After considering these areas of attack, and the many directions from which they come, it leaves precious few who are actually in deed as well as in word, willing to support the First Amendment. We need to reinvigorate support for the entire First Amendment, or we will forfeit our freedom. [TOC]
FORMER SEN. KERREY AND THE VIET NAM WAR Gerry D
In April 2001, it was revealed that former US Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska was involved in an incident in Viet-Nam, during the war, where 21 Vietnamese civilians where killed by a group of US Navy Seals under his command. One of those Navy Seals, Gerhard Klann, claims that the civilian villagers were rounded up and executed - the others say that return fire of the Seals killed the civilians. Navy reports claimed at the time that 21 "Viet Cong" were killed, an apparent lie to the American people.
It would be impossible to determine here whether this was a deliberate execution of civilians in a massacre or whether this was merely a horrible occurrence that is common in wars of this nature. What is clear is that this country placed young Americans in a nearly impossible situation, in a war with, at best, doubtful ethics, or at worst, completely unethical, and perpetuated the situation by lying to the American public about the realities of the war.
It is clear that we have not, in the past, properly valued the lives of American soldiers and the lives of those whose countries we claimed to "defend". A basic component of an ethical value system would involve integrity, something that was lacking throughout the Viet-Nam war. Without knowing the real facts, Americans were denied the ability to make a reasoned and ethical decision on whether to support the war and expose young Americans to the dangers involved, and to kill the "enemy."
In addition, the fact that such basic facts about these kinds of incidents are not truthfully revealed to the American public allows American citizens to harbor doubts, and for some, to point of dismissing all information disseminated by the government. For example, are we to believe the US government's version of the recent "spy plane" incident in China? Did the FBI deliberately or arrogantly withhold information in the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing case? An enduring legacy of the Viet-Nam war and other breaches of trust is that it makes it impossible to take our own country's word on "faith," though a cynic could ask, "as if it ever should have been taken that way." Our confidence in the truthfulness of our elected officials and their appointees has been damaged severely. Only a long period of painful honesty can repair that confidence. [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm R
May 27, Newton N.J., UU fellowship of Sussex County: This was a wonderful experience. I was greeted warmly and given a rather extensive amount of time to describe the humanist landscape in North America.
After the talk there were many interesting questions reflecting some confusion about humanism and images of the movement. I believed I dispelled many negative stereotypes about Humanists and intellectual snobbery. A compassionate and friendly face was presented. It was also pointed out that there are many different humanist groups and that sometimes we fail to work together enough; we hope that this situation will improve. Our coalition efforts were highlighted. This experience is what we should be all about: Delivering a positive message about humanism. The basic effect was that that the folks at this UU society were impressed that humanists can be warm, caring, benevolent people as well as intellectual. This visit was well worth the trip.
The Ethical Humanist Society, Thursday, June 7, Garden City, Nassau County: A panel debate on the subject of President Bush's Faith-based initiatives and Charitable Choice was held at the Ethical Humanist Society. A number of LISH members were there. It was fascinating how the panel divided pretty much as would be expected with mainstream believers being basically against it while those closer to fundamentalism being for it. Many issues around this subject arose such as who is accepted as legit religions, the size of the pie being divided and various issues centered around accountability.
I raised the question about tax breaks for personal contributions to religious groups. The Roman Catholic representative raised the question of agencies that were affiliated with the Catholic Church though technically secular in function, such as Catholic Charities.
It appears that the faith-based initiative is problematic since even some fundamentalists object for fear of attracting and having to service or employ "unacceptable" applicants. It seems that if deserving groups want to do good works they should be able to attract private contributions. I would give to my favorites charities even if I didn't get a tax break. Our priorities go to those agencies that meet our needs. It seems to me that since Bush has not allocated additional funds for these initiatives, why should the funds be split up even more and perhaps diluting the effectiveness in the ability to deliver services. There will be more opportunities for further discussion in this area. [TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry D
Item: Fiona Morgan in Salon magazine (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/05/04/darwin/print.html) reports that the Louisiana Legislature has claimed that the father of modern science was responsible for the racist ideologies of the late 19th century and for Adolf Hitler's persecution of Jews. Louisiana State Rep. Sharon Broome, (D-Baton Rouge), who sponsored the resolution condemning Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, said it would shine a light on the history of racism.
"Be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others," reads the Legislature's statement, which was approved 9-5 by the state's House Education Committee.
Comment: Of course, slavery was instituted in this country hundreds of years before Darwin's birth, and in the world, thousands of years before his existence. Is the Louisiana State legislature claiming backwards causality? Did Darwin influence the Southern Baptists, notorious for their acceptance of slavery, segregation and Creationism? What will they accuse the rational-minded of next? It's also revealing that these elected officials saw the need to legislate their history into existence, since apparently objective reporting does not suit their purposes.
Item: From Vatican City via Reuters: The Vatican acknowledged in March a damning report that some priests and missionaries were forcing nuns to have sex with them, and were in some cases committing rape and forcing the victims to have abortions. Some nuns were forced to take the contraceptive pill, said the report cited in the Rome daily LA REPUBBLICA. The Vatican said the issue was restricted to a certain geographical area, but the report cited cases in 23 countries, including the United States, Brazil, the Philippines, India, Ireland, and Italy.
The author of the report was nun and physician Maura O'Donohue, who presented it to the head of the Vatican's Congregation for Holy Orders, Cardinal Martinez Somalo, in February 1995. In 1998, Marie McDonald, mother superior of the Missionaries of Our Lady of Africa, presented her report on "sexual abuse and rape committed by priests and bishops." LA REPUBBLICA quoted McDonald as saying she knew of no inspections taking place after her report. (For more info:[no longer active] http://news.iwon.com/home/news/newsarticle/0,11746,109614|top|03-20-2001::16:47|reuters,00. html)
In a related story, New York's Catholic League, as reported in the Daily News, blasted a new BBC movie about a long-ago love affair between a monk and a nun. The lead actors engage in a supposedly graphic love scene in the movie. William Donohue, spokesman for the League said, "The very fact that they have to go back 6 centuries to find some illicit affair between a priest and a nun ... tells me something ... They should explore the sexual abuse by Anglican priests and how they've been predators on a number of women."
Comment: Of course the sexual abuse of nuns by priests does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus or Christianity by itself. However, the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine on the role of women in the church, and it's unwillingness to admit errors of policy and administration should be subject to a deep criticism, which many Catholics themselves are already expressing. Note the Catholic League's tactics though; defense by a non-sequitor attack! To castigate a film based on a true story, depicting what may have been a positive relationship that commits only the crime of contradicting official doctrine is premature. Is the movie fair and accurate? Is it a good movie? The mere questioning of doctrine should be no offense. Then to viciously counter with an allegation that Anglican priests were predators of women while ignoring the sins of his church's own clergy is simply unbelievable. If Mr. Donohue thinks that reciting the transgressions of other groups makes his Church immune to critical inquiry, he is mistaken. It merely exposes the fact that all dogmatically held belief systems and authoritarian organizations, secular or religious, are inherently flawed. The only criteria we should have in judging an action is humanity's well-being. Doctrine will just have to defend itself in the court of reason.
Item: Some Latino Democrats decried David Dinkins' endorsement of Mark Green for Mayor, as opposed to Fernando Ferrer. Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo said, "When they needed us, they came to us and we said, 'Yes.' We said it's time for a black to become mayor... Unfortunately they are not doing the same thing."
Comment: One would think that after years of being denied elective office on the basis of ethnicity, members of minority groups would not promote choosing candidates based on ethnicity. One would be wrong I guess.
Item: In the season finale of the West Wing, President Bartlet, a Catholic, lashes out at God, in English and Latin, for its apparent unconcern with the cruelties of fate: Here is a transcript, as per Newsday: "Have I displeased you, you feckless thug? (The following is translated.) Am I really to believe that these are the acts of a loving God? A just God? A wise God? To hell with your punishments! I was your servant here on Earth. And I spread your word, and I did your work. To hell with your punishments! To hell with you!"
Comment: Prediction: Somehow the death of his assistant, which prompted this tirade, will be seen as for the good, or as a test of "faith." In other words, a complete cop-out is the most likely resolution. In fact, a rumor is that Mrs. Landingham will return to have "conversations" with the President as a sort of "spiritual advisor."
Item: In a letter to the editors of Newsday, Louis Giovino, an assistant to the president of the Catholic League, writes "Contrary to her (Frances Kissling's of Catholics for Choice) spin, it has never been Catholic moral teaching that an individual decides what is "morally correct." He adds that Catholics who have or procure abortions are automatically excommunicated.
Comment: This is tantamount to saying Catholics are not allowed a "conscience" in the usual sense of the word. Morality is reduced to blind obedience to a hierarchal authority, that apparently rules without question. They obviously KNOW they speak for God and you don't! How convenient!
Item: From a letter left behind by an 18 year old Islamic Palestinian suicide bomber, as reported by Reuters in Newsday: "Whoever believes that God's religion will be victorious without jihad, without blood, without body parts is under an illusion and doesn't know the nature of this religion."
Comment: Though many persons make the apology that this is a fundamentalist approach to Islam, the problem is that it is also the mainstream approach in the Middle East and most other Islamic countries. Moderate Muslims live in fear for their lives in many of these countries.
Those who say that the reward of paradise and women for martyrs is not in the Koran are correct - this belief is contained in a hadith, a saying of the prophet. It is reproduced here for your information: It says in a hadith reported by Hazrat Miqdam bin Ma'di Karib that the Holy Prophet said: "There are six peculiarities of a martyr in the sight of Allah: (1) in the very first hearing he is absolved. (2) He is shown his abode in Paradise. (3) He is saved from the torture of the grave. (4) He will remain safe from the tremendous consternation that will be caused by the sound of the trumpet on the Day of Doom. (5) And a crown of honour will be put on his head; a single garnet of this crown is superior to all that is there in this world. (6) And 72 large-eyed houris will be wedded with him, and his intercession regarding 70 of his kinsfolk will be accepted".
Item: Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) has proposed the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA, H.R. 2057, 106th Congress) of 2001, which seeks to immunize teachers, school board members, and all other state and local officials, and schools, school boards and local governments they are employed by as well, from being sued for their "expression of religion." The bill also states that no one's "ability to seek injunctive relief (court orders) for perceived violations" has been limited.
Comment: In a new low of cynicism, the bill states no ones "ability to seek injunctive relief" has been limited except that one can no longer seek monetary damages if no relief is forthcoming! Exactly why would anyone obey an injunction if they cannot be sued? This bill actually seeks to allow the religiously correct to harass the non-conformist without recourse except for injunctions that no one will obey if money damages are impossible. To make it work, the law will have to be applied in a biased manner so that the law protects majority believers while others are not protected at all.
Item: Beliefnet reports that the highest likelihood of divorce exists in Jewish and Southern Baptist marriages, lowest in atheist and Catholic marriages. Pollster George Barna says that most disturbing was that those experiencing divorce feel their community of faith provides more rejection than reconciliation or support. (Barna Research Group home page: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/Home.asp)
Comment: You mean being taught that getting a divorce is a sin that might lead to hell gives people a feeling of rejection? Who'd a thunk it?
Item: President Bush promoted White House efforts in June to support parenting and mentoring via faith-based groups, saying that fathers in particular have "a unique and irreplaceable role" in children's lives. "Fatherlessness has public consequences, so public officials have a role to play," he said.
The president said his proposed budget calls for $64 million next year for programs designed to "strengthen fatherhood" by providing grants to religious and community groups that promote successful parenting and marriage.
Comment: A recent poll indicated that atheists have fewer divorces than the religious and in fact the "bible belt" has the highest rate of divorce. Wouldn't it then be in the public interest to promote atheism? Well, Mr. President?
Item: A Rwandan who survived a massacre of thousands at a convent testified in a Brussels court that the convent's Mother Superior and another nun, assisted militiamen in the killings, locking convent doors and supplying gasoline for the killing inferno. This trial is the first outside Rwanda to hear a case concerning the genocide in which 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were killed. The nuns were charged and convicted of crimes against humanity.
Comment: Of course none of the above implies or is evidence that nuns, Catholics or the religious are prone to genocide. It does give evidence that faith does not necessarily lead to a moral life, which is contrary to the claim that religions often make.
Item: During Congressional hearings, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) asked Mr. Castellani, executive director of a faith-based anti-drug abuse group, if Teen Challenge hired non-Christians as employees. Castellani said, "No." During later questioning, Castellani was asked if the group takes non-Christians as clients. He said yes, and then boasted that some Jews who finish his Teen Challenge program become "completed Jews."
Critics of faith-based funding said the exchange spoke volumes about the dangers associated with President Bush's faith-based initiative.
"The religious intolerance that could be funded by the Bush initiative is now in plain view," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Teen Challenge has repeatedly been cited by Bush as one of his favorite faith-based groups. Yet now the group's leaders have admitted that they want to convert Jews and get public funding to do it."
Comment: Teen Challenge can do what it wants on its own dime, but imagine Jewish taxpayers subsidizing their efforts to convert Jewish children to Christianity! Unbelievable! Would Pres. Bush allow a Jewish group to use tax dollars to convert Christians to Judaism? Would atheists get money for this? NO WAY!
Item: Ten African American employees at the Christian Coalition of America's Washington headquarters have filed a racial discrimination suit against the organization in U.S. District Court, alleging that the office bars black workers from using the front door and maintains segregated eating facilities, The Washington Post reported.
Comment: This must be the Bob Jones memorial branch of the CC.
Item: The Pope visited the Ukraine hoping to heal rifts with the Orthodox Church there. However, the leader of the Orthodox Church was out of town to avoid any chance of meeting the Pope. The President of the Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, used the visit as a boost to his scandal-ridden administration, and to curry favor with the west.
Catholics and their Church were persecuted under Stalin for political reasons, with their churches confiscated and given to more cooperative Orthodox parishes, according to the NY Times. After the failure and death of communism there, Greek-Catholics began to reclaim their old churches, fueling new religious disputes. The Orthodox Church itself is split in the Ukraine, adding to the problems.
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II sums it up: "We cannot meet when a war is going on in Ukraine between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox and the Catholic church is engaged in expansion and proselytism on the canonic territory of the Russian church."
Comment: This seems to be a rerun story of many other Papal visits. Can't we just get along? Why is it so important to get people to believe in a certain supernatural cosmology, right down to the minute details? As long as the hierarchy of the church believes "it has never been Catholic moral teaching that an individual decides what is morally correct, ..." the Pope's authority will rightly remain a relevant and controversial issue among Christians. As long as some churches believe that proselytism or inquiry into religion must be limited by geography, there will never be religious freedom.
Item: The NY Post reports that an attorney for a 21 year old boy has asked a Bronx community group for help in finding other victims of sexual abuse by four parish priests who used his client as a "sex toy" several years ago. A lawsuit was filed in March 2000.
The lawsuit alleges that "a group of predatory, pedophile priests" used alcohol and pornography to "groom" and seduce the then teenager among other charges. When the boy and his family confronted church leaders in 1999, they claim the archdiocese tried to get them to sign a release, absolving the Church of responsibility.
Post columnist Rod Dreher reported that one accused priest denied the charges and blamed another priest. Another had been transferred to Staten Island where the lay leadership was not made aware of the charges. Another priest works in a hospital evaluating and counseling patients.
In a related action, Dick Ryan in the NY Daily News has reported (6/25/01) that Cardinal Egan has held closed-door sessions with every priest in his archdiocese on the subject of sexual misconduct. A set of guidelines focuses on the problem. Ryan claims that the guidelines treat abusive priests more leniently than it would lay persons, and that nowhere in the report is a provision calling for police involvement. Ryan claims that one priest quoted Egan as saying, "The more we show that we have meetings like this, the better chance we have in Court, with less liability."
Comment: This is not simply "Christianity" causing child molestation, because, of course, there is no directive to do anything of the sort in Christianity. Instead it is anti-humanism that is at the root of this problem. The actual well being of a person, in this case, a teenaged victim of sexual abuse, is secondary to the need to prop up a religious institution, in this case a Catholic parish. To the archdiocese, it could be argued, a person's beliefs about God, Jesus' salvation, and the image of the institution of the Church is more morally important than the safety of a teenager.
Item: Liverpool, England is honoring a local son, John Lennon, by renaming its airport after him. The airport will also feature a cartoon self-portrait of Lennon and the words "above us only sky," taken from his song "Imagine."
Comment: This sort of honor could never occur in the US where objections to the use of "above us only sky" would be difficult to overcome. The song goes "No hell below us, above us only sky." [TOC]
SOS Meetings 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.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.
The home page of SOS is http://www.secularsobriety.org. This web site has much information for downloading on running SOS groups. [TOC]
Help Wanted!
Volunteers to coordinate and assist in setting up a Campus Freethought campaign are needed! Also needed are volunteers to assist with the August LISH picnic! Those interested or with suggestions please email us! [TOC]