INQUIRER Volume 4, Issue 8, August, 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) Charitable Choice - Bush's Plan to Discriminate
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Terrorism, Hell & The Death Penalty
4) Ethics and Pop Culture Madonna Slays 'Em
5) Eminem: Nevermind
6) Making The Rounds With Norm
7) The Crime of Marriage
8) The Real Gary Condit Story
9) Quickies
10) SOSCHARITABLE CHOICE - PRES. BUSH'S PLAN TO DISCRIMINATE Gerry D
On July 19, 2001, the US House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 233 to 198, H.R. 7, the "Community Solutions Act" which is the embodiment of President Bush's "faith-based" initiative. Local Long Island representatives voted along party lines, with Republicans supporting the legislation and Democrats opposing it. It now goes to the Senate for passage there.
The problem with this legislation is that faith-based institutions are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, gender and sexual orientation. How painful would it be that after paying your taxes you may find yourself discriminated against in hiring or seeking services by a program you helped pay for? To mandate that such programs not discriminate would force some faith-based groups to either forfeit the state aid and lose ground to other faith-based groups, or compromise its beliefs in exchange for the money. Neither prospect is appropriate.
President Bush was quoted as saying, "The days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end." The law itself states the following:
Sec. 1991.Charitable Choice. (b) Purposes - The purposes of this section are - (3) to prohibit discrimination against religious organizations on the basis of religion in the administration and distribution of government assistance under such programs; (4) to allow religious organizations to participate in the administration and distribution of such assistance without impairing the religious character and autonomy of such organizations...
Despite numerous disingenuous disclaimers plastered all over the bill, this bill does indeed endorse churches and establish religion. Why put these kinds of disclaimers in the bill when the sponsor, Rep. JC Watts denies the very existence of separation of church and state? Further, since religious charities already receive state funding, it is not the religiosity of the organizations that is the problem; it is their discrimination and coercion of employees and clients that is the problem. Secular organizations that discriminate cannot receive state funding. Under Bush's plan, religious institutions would not have to obey laws that secular organizations must obey. Bush proposes to give religious institutions special rights that are not available to others who receive state funding.
Here is the applicable language that covers this "right to discriminate":
(e) EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES - A religious organization's exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1) regarding employment practices shall not be affected by its participation in, or receipt of funds from, programs described in subsection (C)(4), and any provision in such programs that is inconsistent with or would diminish the exercise of an organization's autonomy recognized in section 702 or in this section shall have no effect.
An amazing section of the law then seemingly contradicts the rights of the religious organizations to discriminate in certain ways. Why pick these items out as improper for discrimination, and is there really any force in these provisions? Here is the language:
(f) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS - Nothing in this section shall alter the duty of a religious organization receiving assistance or providing services under any program described in subsection (c)(4) to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681-1688) (prohibiting discrimination in education programs or activities on the basis of sex and visual impairment), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) (prohibiting discrimination against otherwise qualified disabled individuals), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age).
Do they or do they not have a right to their beliefs and full autonomy or not, or are they exempted in these laws already, making this mere window dressing? If a religion promotes certain types of discrimination, can the government withhold monies from them on that basis? What makes certain types of discrimination better than others? Will the government be a judge of religious doctrine? These obvious contradictions make it clear that the state cannot fund a pervasively religious organization without either limiting the group's beliefs, or if it does not limit their beliefs, then fostering and paying for blatant discrimination.
Beyond the details of the law, it has come to light, via a report in the Washington Post, that the Salvation Army, a faith-based charity, in an internal memo detailing negotiations with the Bush administration, planned to spend "$88,000 to $110,000 a month lobbying for Bush's 'charitable choice' provisions..." and that it was "important that the Army's support for the White House's activities occur simultaneously with efforts to achieve the Army's objectives." What are the Salvation Army's objectives? Answer: New specific regulations allowing religious organizations to discriminate against gays in hiring with tax payer funding! It turns out that these concerns were groundless since bias against gays would be allowable under this legislation.
Was the Salvation Army proud of its negotiations? The internal memo noted that efforts be made to "minimize the possibility of any 'leak' to the media." This effort has failed, fortunately.
(Note: At first the Bush administration, through spokesman Ari Fleischer, claimed that "this (issue) had not even reached the senior staff level at the White House." The next day, it was revealed that Karl Rove, the White House chief political strategist, had participated in the effort by the Salvation Army regarding the exemption sought. Mr. Fleischer then denied that he had misled anyone.)
It must be noted that discrimination by charities is not necessary for them to be effective. For example, both Catholic Charities and the YMCA do not violate Federal standards in hiring and servicing and neither religiously coerces workers or clients. These kinds of programs should be supported in the future as long as they are successful in their missions. In fact, these are the kinds of programs most threatened by President Bush's initiatives, where they will now have to compete for funding with programs that may discriminate.
In addition, claims of the great success of "faith-based" programs are often exaggerated. Never do proponents cite studies demonstrating their effectiveness. It is merely taken for granted that a program will work better if a little religion is mixed in. More likely it is the spirit of volunteerism that is uplifting, which, ironically, would be destroyed by state funding.
But helping people is not really the real goal of the Charitable Choice legislation according to its own supporters! According to Americans United, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told an audience in July that President George W. Bush's "faith-based initiative" represents "a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of the country" and attacked church-state separation, asserting that it is not in the Constitution.
DeLay, the third ranking Republican in the House, appeared at an invitation-only luncheon gathering for congressional staff organized by TV preacher D. James Kennedy's Center for Christian Statesmanship. For DeLay, Charitable Choice is a chance to spread favored beliefs, nothing more. Facts, effectiveness and constitutionality are all but irrelevant to many Charitable Choice supporters.
If the Senate were to pass this law, a Constitutional challenge would follow shortly. The outcome would depend on whether the President would have been able, by then, to pack the Supreme Court with fellow ideologues. America's freedom of religion and separation of church and state hangs in the balance. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
7/17/01 The values for the all time highs for the S&P 500, NASDAQ, and Dow in early 2000 are all derived from multiples of two numbers: 33 & 666. 33 is sacred to Masons, and 666 is used in Statan's Antichrist One World Order monetary control system...(Ed.: We have omitted the calculations out of compassion for our readers.) The likelihood that these values are by chance in all cases products of both 33 and 666 is remote. It is more plausible to conclude that these values are the result of deliberate manipulation, not chance!
...666 pops up in unlikely places. If the US is the prophesied "Babylon" of the Bible, then perhaps clues may be found in the language of this country... (Ed.: More calculations omitted!)
...(Another calculation) says the UN's 666 mark of the beast will open an everlasting age...
Is this all just an accident? But what does it matter how much you know, if you don't know the Truth. "If ye continue in my word said Jesus, "... ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free (John 8:31-32)..." (For more information go to www.truinsight.com.) From an unsigned letter from Johnston, PA.
Response: Is this what the New (or One) World Order has in mind? Manipulating the language so that it somehow adds up to 666? Designing the UN's rooms so that it conforms to these mystical calculations? And somehow manipulating the stock market so that the indexes are multiples of 33 or 666? Is this the evil they're cooking up?
Horrors! How could they! Next, they'll be putting 666 on various buildings and claiming that they're the legitimate addresses! Oh, nooooooooooo!
It's pretty sad when you can't tell whether something like this is a joke or not! G.D.
Re: Tony, Carmela & God: 7/24/01 That article about the Sopranos was absolutely great! Pass it on to the author. Dipsey Dumpster via Internet
Response: I'm sure he'll be thrilled to get a compliment from a guy who lives in a Dipsey Dumpster! Is there a TV in there somewhere? With cable? G.D. Re: The Death Penalty:
7/22/01 I oppose a blanket abolition of the death penalty because I feel there will always be a case in which such a sentence is justified. The most recent example is that of Tim McVeigh. I'm sorry but I feel anyone who wantonly murders 168 people including 20 children deserves to die. I think the death penalty should be modified though. Some modifications would include 1) DNA testing for all people on death row in order to ensure their guilt or innocence and 2) a ban on executing the mentally retarded. Tom via Internet
Response: Just as a point of information, in McVeigh's case and many others, DNA testing might be useless if no DNA was connected to the murder scene. Not executing the retarded is problematic in that defining who would be exempt would be based on tests that many dispute. Further, those who might qualify for exemption might still understand that what they did was wrong. G.D.
7/22/01 Dear Lish: My view on the Death Penalty is as follows: 1. We should allow the prisoner to choose whether he wants to die, this option defeats any public opposition. 2. If certain murderers are a danger to their immediate living situation (e.g. courtroom, jail cells, institutions) they should be executed. 3. We should NOT execute murderers using the fabricated and phony biblical statement, "An eye for an eye." It SHOULD NOT have anything to do with the bible or any other religious bull. Regards, Rob DePasquale via Internet
Response: Thank you for your ideas. G.D.
7/22/01 The whole reason we have punishments in our justice system is to deliver a measure of justice to offset the crime. Execution fails miserably in its attempt to deliver justice. Why? Because rather than punish a person, it actually ends their suffering. For those of us who don't believe in the afterlife, the death penalty is a joke. And this isn't even getting into the debate about the inherent flaws of the jury system -- which employs 12 unemployed dimwits to make a complex legal decision. (Not to mention flawed investigations and the hundreds of death-row inmates who have been released after evidence of their innocence was found.)
Life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, is a far better solution. But it can't be imprisonment with cable television, cigarettes, and lots of social time. It should be a true punishment -- without routine, amenities, or regular human contact. Those among us who commit the most reprehensible crimes should be exiled from civilization and made to endure a mundane, controlled, limited existence.
In fact, though several people close to me have spent time in prison, I believe that imprisonment in general needs to be harsher and more limiting. Weight training and cigarettes should be abolished. Television should be severely limited. Skills classes and job training should only be available on a limited basis. The culture of prison is currently such that people get used to living "inside" far too easily. Make prison something that is hardly bearable, and perhaps people will endeavor to stay out of it. With our recidivism rate at around 83%, it's worth a try. Thanks for listening. Grady via Internet
Response: Not all those who serve on juries are dim, and my recent round of jury duty was a positive experience, even for a dimmy. However, it is true that recent studies on the innocence of death row inmates have been alarming.
The idea of making prison life more unpleasant is not a new one. In fact, many believe that prisons already do a too poor job of preparing inmates for their release back into society, contributing the high recidivism rate. G.D.
7/24/01 One of the best arguments against the death penalty was given by a woman who watched her attacker be executed. Her attacker killed her parents and seriously wounded her and her brother. She said that she felt cheated by his peaceful death (lethal injection) while she continues to suffer.
Also, whether you support or oppose capital punishment, there is mounting evidence that the system is broken. A review of death penalty judgments over a 23-year period found a national error rate of 68 %. In a matter of life and death, we are getting it wrong more than 2 out of every 3 times. We need a moratorium on executions to give us time to figure out why the system is not working. Here is some of the source material, and if I find more I will send it: Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CUADP) works to end the death penalty in the United States through aggressive campaigns of public education and the promotion of tactical grassroots activism, http://www.cuadp.org/facts.html.
Wrongful convictions are another good reason to abandon this remedy. GQ via Internet
Response: The 68% is a stunning number. Can this be verified with other research? If it were true, it would have to be considered unacceptable. G.D.
7/24/01 We are one of the last developed nations to retain the death penalty. The geographical and racial unevenness with which it is applied in this country reveals its many meanings and messages. It acts as a carrier for the hostility, frustration and vengeance of a depressed and powerless public which has been emotionally blunted and which requires ever more material goods, thrills, and TV violence to feel anything at all. Strangely, it is most vaunted in those areas of the country whose all-powerful god is supposed to forgive those who have trespassed and who reveres the "right to life." Further, the death penalty has been shown time and again not to have deterrent value to up-and-coming perpetrators. Now that DNA evidence is available to us, and we have discovered our many erroneous incarcerations (inevitably, some of them executed) we should find it satisfactory enough to sentence to "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole" for those committing capitol crimes. Proven killers should be assiduously studied to find out what environmental, neurological, interpersonal circumstances produced them. Nevertheless, with all of that said, I'm still struggling with the possibility of retaining and reserving the death penalty for those individuals who have committed "crimes against humanity." We need to let others in the family of nations help us with this decision because of our national impairment on the subject. Leslie Wile, Weston, CT via Internet
Response: The fact that you have doubts both ways is an indication of an open mind on the subject. Thank you. G.D.
7/24/01 The three Ethical Culture organizations in New Jersey (Princeton, Essex and Bergen) jointly sent a resolution on the subject to the NJ Governor, Senate and Assembly last year, in which a number of reasons were given (to oppose the death penalty). A copy can be seen @ http://pluto.njcc.com/~reichart/DPRes.htm; I excerpt one paragraph: "Whereas, the execution of any innocent person can accomplish neither of the state's just goals which are: first, to afford society protection from further danger of criminal activity by the true guilty party, and second, to provide innocent victims with the consolations of punishment of the perpetrator..." The AEU's resolution from the year 2000 does not include this observation. However, the AEU has been on record against the death penalty for many years: Use the online search in www.ethicalculture.org/neac/aeuresolutions for these positions. Dick Reichart, Princeton Ethical Humanist Fellowship via Internet
Response: Thanks for the very informative letter. G.D. [TOC]
TERRORISM, HELL & THE DEATH PENALTY Gerry D
News reports of the Oklahoma City bombing mass murderer painted a confusing picture of person who aspired to deep thoughts but ultimately made little sense. Some would argue that time should not be wasted on the thoughts of such a person, but it is important to understand this kind of thought process since it lead, in this case, to such a massive amount of human suffering. What happened? Can it be militated against in the future?In addition, the debate on the death penalty is especially relevant since it could be argued that if anyone deserved it, this person did. There was no question of his guilt or the enormity of the crime.
This killer has been depicted as an agnostic, a lapsed Catholic, Christian Identity sympathizer, and more. The Turner Diaries inspired him, it is clear, a book that is dear to members of what many call a racist Christian Identity religion, and called for racial separatism and war. Prison psychologists claim, though, that he did not believe in the existence of hell, though he was known to speculate whether he was going there or not. Without a religious basis, the Turner Diaries ideas of "Mud People" and Satan's spawns make little sense. There is no basis in science for a theory of "Mud People." Before he died, he received Last Rites from a Catholic priest. (Imagine: If Christianity is correct, and the killer expressed sorrow at the Last Rites, he's in heaven while some of his victims may be in hell for some failure of perfection in the practice of a religion.)
Also, despite his love of the Turner Diaries, he complained while on death row that the US was a racist country! What's going on here?
Ultimately, his theology/philosophy was incoherent. He somehow excused David Koresh and Branch Davidianism for alleged child rape, violence and setting the fire that ultimately killed the Davidians that he supposedly was avenging. Though the FBI and ATF were largely incompetent, secretive and perhaps criminally inept and obstructive, they did not set out to deliberately kill (or rape) Davidian children as Koresh actually did. Why did this escape this otherwise bright individual?
Why kill innocent persons and not the actual perpetrators of the offense as a response to an event where no side was free of serious guilt anyway? Why not convince others of the righteousness of your cause? Is that too much trouble? Is it just easier to kill randomly?
Ultimately it was the ability to turn off concern for others like a spigot that allowed him to commit such an act. Cosmology, religion, philosophy were not the problems or immediate causes - lack of a consistent empathy was the problem. It was a belief that a CAUSE or PRINCIPLE was more important than people themselves. It could be argued that this is the essence of fanaticism. All the answers on his thought process will now not ever be known, which is another argument that could be made against the death penalty. Further, without the key witness to the crime, future corroborations of newly found facts will be impossible. Perhaps most of the truth is already known, but we have now guaranteed that we will never have all of it or that new theories will be made more difficult to contest.
Are lives saved because a death penalty exists? If lives ARE saved, it would be hard to argue against a policy that saves innocent lives. Compelling evidence for this does not exist. Are the innocent too often executed? If they are, should we opt for a less final solution such as life in prison without parole? Is the country better off for the execution of the Oklahoma City bomber? If this answer is not a resounding YES! in a case where a killer showed little public remorse and admitted his guilt, then the death penalty is indeed problematic and should be reconsidered.
BELIEF-O-MATIC
Want to find out what religion or ethical system most closely matches your beliefs? You can do this, or at least find out the match in the opinion of BeliefNet!
Go to http://www.beliefnet.com/indexpage.asp?pageloc=203 and select "What's your faith?" and a quiz appears. Take note: Some questions relate to an overall theme, such as "gaining salvation" (questions 8 to 12), so take care in answering the questions properly. [TOC]
ETHICS & POP CULTURE MADONNA SLAYS 'EM Gerry D
According to the NY Daily News, in her latest concert tour, pop superstar Madonna, dressed as a geisha, "kills," by shooting with a gun, a male dancer who has been "abusing" her throughout the concert. The mock murder follows the controversy of Madonna's video of "What It Feels Like to Be a Girl" a few month's back that showed her running several men over with a car before crashing it in an apparent suicide.A spokesperson said, "There's a thread that runs through the show about women and power. It's operatic... I don't she's advocating violence as a solution to domestic abuse. But when Madonna has a message, she's not afraid of the consequences of those who might not agree."
Oh. She thinks Madonna is not advocating violence, but apparently is not sure! I could understand the doubt!
And who actually would admit they disagree with an anti-domestic violence message? Any flack Madonna would get would be from those who consider her act to be promoting violence as a solution to domestic disputes.
This is another example of postmodernism in the arts: Just making a bold statement is something to be admired, no matter how idiotic the statement.
Popular culture is not benign. It is not simply "entertainment." Many persons construct their opinions on politics and politicians, for example, by watching Jay Leno or David Letterman, or by listening to Howard Stern or Don Imus as opposed to reading the NY Times, or a respected news magazine. Pop stars such as Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez hand down attitudes on sex to the young and impressionable even though their own views are incoherent and contradictory. And of course, there is Madonna, though past her prime, trying to squeeze an extra few million dollars out of her fans by dealing with the "domestic abuse" issue by means of violent and pointless imagery.
I'm sure she isn't afraid of those who might not agree, but what is it that she thinks those persons are disagreeing with? That she will do anything for money? Nope, I think we could all agree with that! [TOC]
EMINEM: NEVERMIND! Gerry D
In the last year or so, in addition to be criticized for his violent homophobic and misogynistic lyrics, rapper Eminem has won Grammy awards and been defended for his art (?) by many critics and many other musicians. The usual defense consists of pointing out his boldness and telling it like it is, at least from his own personal viewpoint.Eminem himself, however, has thrown a monkey wrench into that apologetic machine! According to the NY Daily News, Der Spiegel, a German magazine quotes Eminem as saying, "I'm a really nice guy. My rage attacks are obviously symptoms of the so-called Tourette's syndrome. (It) has to be the explanation for my strange behavior. Look, when I work in the recording studio, it just overwhelms me. I want to say 'birds and bees.' Instead, I hear (BLEEP! BLEEP!), I strangle your mother' coming out of my mouth."
Oh.
If we are to believe him (he could be fooling with the interviewer), then the praise, awards and most of all, the defense of his unethical lyrics is worthless. He himself is claiming that his lyrics serve no point but are instead involuntary, arbitrary and capricious results of a syndrome he cannot control.
Whatever the situation may be, Eminem is destroying any case that can be made on his behalf other than "he can't help himself." This is no excuse for those who promote or excuse him, however. [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm R
New York City, July 10 AHA Chapter meeting: I gave a talk about humanism in different packages. This lively and intelligent group provided a rather stimulating environment, graciously hosted by Beth Lamont.
A few major thoughts arose at the meeting. One was that there is only moderate communication with other local humanist groups though there is a very strong and common understanding of humanist philosophy. They were also very knowledgeable about political issues, especially those related to church-state separation.
Another topic that arose was the issue of atheism within the concept of humanism. One person wanted to contrast atheism with humanism in order to clarify the role of atheism within the movement. Some others, however, wanted to emphasize humanism even though the important role of atheism within humanism was acknowledged.
Finally I wish to point out the feeling about the term "religion." Nearly everyone there expressed an almost bitter experience with religion in his or her lives. They defined the idea of religion in the usual supernatural way.
2002 is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Corliss Lamont, Beth Lamont's husband; it seems appropriate to have a special event around this. It would be hoped that humanists from many quarters would participate in such an event.
It is quite possible that further contacts with this group should take place soon. [TOC]
THE CRIME OF MARRIAGE Gerry D
Imagine the following scenario: You're a pillar of the community, a man known for doing good deeds and your outgoing personality. Rumor has it though, that your health is questionable, and it's possible you have cancer. At the same time though, you meet a nice single woman, fall in love and get married. For this, you're fired, your community turns their back on you, and you're damned for eternity for good measure! Ridiculous?Here are some verbatim snippets from the NY Daily News regarding the priest who was fired in July 2001, for getting married:
"The former pastor of a Catholic Church in Queens has secretly married his secretary... Even though the Rev. Timothy Pasek may be seriously ill, few who worship at St. Adalbert's Church in Elmhurst have any forgiveness in their hearts for the priest they knew as Father Tim.
"He's a bum," blustered one 48 year old parishioner...
Pasek had been pastor ... for ten years until he was relieved of duty on Easter Sunday because "he had a potential serious health problem," (parish spokesperson) DeRosa said. Nine days after his last sermon as pastor, Pasek... married."
(Another parishioner) said he wasn't surprised Pasek had strayed, "but it is disgusting. ...Pasek didn't do normal priestlike things; he'd organize marathons and bike races and throw dance parties for the kids, getting in with the dancing. He was a social guy, maybe too social."
Some parishioners claimed the ex-priest tricked them into giving him large sums of money as a going-away gift. "I am so mad because he lied to us. He told us he was sick. We had no idea he was married," said one who gave the priest $100.
Not all parishioners were as harsh. One young man said, "He was honest, gentle, and he was funny. He's a good man." (Another pointed out that) "He didn't murder anyone. He hurt our feelings, but he didn't hurt us." (The woman the priest married was described as) "very, very pleasant and hardworking" and the type of church worker who could always be counted on...
Because of his marriage, kept secret from the parish for 3 months, Father Pasek is no longer a priest. Note that often times, those priests accused and/or convicted of pedophilia are not summarily fired out of the priesthood. Marriage, however, is an unforgivable crime that almost certainly sends priests packing. Imagine being fired for falling in love and getting married! [TOC]
THE REAL GARY CONDIT STORY Gerry D
Most of the interest that the media has expressed in the case of the missing Federal intern and representative Gary Condit is, of course, misguided. The fact that a sexual relationship was involved has made all the difference in this case, which is similar to other mostly unknown cases with the exception of the sexual aspect. So why bring it up here?There is a lesson in here somewhere, aptly described by Newsday columnist Paul Vitello. The real story is that of a politician, Condit, who "was willing to do almost anything - including let a young woman's disappearance remain unsolved - rather than blow his cover as a Bible student and faithful husband. Condit, son of a minister, was a vocal advocate for those who would post the Ten Commandments in every schoolroom in the country... He was among the most critical of Clinton for his infidelities..."
This is the fruit, over and over again, of publicly pious posturing. The real goal is not true character building and ethics, but instead, the leaving of the impression to others that one is religious and therefore moral. What an empty goal.
Vitello asks illuminating questions to end his column: "What mental architecture allows for such conflicting impulses in one man's mind? What draws that kind of person into the political world? What effect does it eventually have on all of us?"
Though there may be a number of possible correct answers to these questions, depending on the individual involved, the religious mindset would almost certainly seem to be a factor. When one believes that one is "saved" by "grace though faith," and is not saved by one's good deeds, while at the same time believing that good deeds "flow from faith," an arrogant manner of thinking may become realized.
One can easily believe that since one does have faith, that one's deeds are naturally then good since the two are supposedly linked. How many persons do evil (in other people's opinions) in the name of God? Do they think they're going to hell? Doesn't their faith save them? Doesn't the Bible wonder "Is it a sin if one lies for God?" (Romans 3:7)
The publicly pious (or dogmatically correct in the case of communists and other secular tyrannies) cannot help but espouse an arrogant viewpoint: That believing as they do makes one moral. Is this a fair assessment?
The effect on the rest of us can be devastating, ranging from having those without private ethics (Clinton), or public ethics (Condit, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livngston, John Ashcroft and others too numerous to mention) to the having the outright murderous (Ayatollahs, the Taliban, communists) running countries.
This is the real story and don't expect to be reading about it any time soon. [TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry D
Item: The FBI agent who spied for the Soviet Union may have confessed to a priest even before the time he originally stood accused for the crime, according to news reports regarding his plea bargain arrangement. Then, in June, the media reported that a psychiatrist who had worked with the Hanssen defense team claimed that Hanssen indeed confessed to Opus Dei priests throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
In addition, he befriended a stripper and gave her expensive gifts, but a romantic relationship has not been established. Meanwhile a friend called him a "very good person," and authentically religious, who even preached to the strippers at a club he patronized. The friend said that he probably was "calling their attention that this (stripping) was probably not the kind of thing that God intended for her to be doing."
Comment: We wondered aloud, in an earlier issue of the Inquirer, whether it was possible that Opus Dei, a secretive Catholic organization to which the accused belonged, had no inkling of the agent's misdeeds. The confession stories seem to confirm the suspicions. Consider that Opus Dei members reportedly confess to a priest each week, meet with Opus Dei officials weekly, and talk about their life's plans with other members and officials on an ongoing basis. Now one wonders how this ethically could be done with someone who had confessed treason to them?
As a member of this group, why did they not convince him to either stop spying or give himself up? Could it be that Hanssen's donations were too enticing? What did he donate to Opus Dei (above a known early tainted $20,000 donation) and did Opus Dei know whether subsequent donations also came from his Communist patrons?
Also interesting is the incredibly original excuse offered for attending a strip club: To preach about God to the dancers! That's one excuse secular humanists could never get away with!
Item: A Christian gang killed 18 Muslims, including women and children, in Indonesia on the island of Sulwesi during religious clashes in July 2001. In May of last year, 200 people died in religious fighting. There are also reports of torture and other terrorism.
Comment: In this country, we are insulated from religious violence thanks, in the past, to the government's strict neutrality. In other parts of the world, religions clash for control of the state. The result is human misery.
Item: Fourteen imprisoned followers of the banned Falun Gong sect committee suicide in a north China labor camp. Eleven more were prevented from killing themselves.
Comment: Two things are becoming clearer: First, a government cannot ethically and effectively outlaw a religion and second, Falun Gong may present a real danger to followers. The world community should pressure China to release all Falun Gong prisoners while at the same time allowing rational alternatives to persons desperate for a meaningful way of life. This solution sadly seems impossibly far away.
Item: Peace in Northern Ireland remains fragile as the IRA remains armed and a Catholic teenager is assassinated in July 2001. A Catholic militant said "The fact that the Orangemen (a militant Protestant group) refuse to speak to us after so many years tells you a lot about their supremacist, racist mindset."
Comment: It is interesting how charges of racism are made in this dispute: They are all Irish. This is a dispute that began in irrationalism, religion, and has just grown until a person's faith is equated with race somehow!
Item: According to Newsday, former congressman Rick Lazio described the nation's capital as a place ripe for extramarital affairs. He also called Rep. Gary Condit, the California congressman involved with a missing intern, whom he knew from a Bible study class as "... one of the last people I would imagine... that I would find in the middle of a story like this."
Comment: Though Mr. Lazio and other religious persons might not recognize it as such; this kind of statement betrays a bias against the non-religious. Will they ever learn?
Item: Lauren Berrios, a Hampton Bays elementary-school teacher, filed a $1 million lawsuit against the Hampton Bays School District after learning that she wouldn't be rehired for the next school year. Berrios claims the reason she wasn't rehired is because administrators believe she is a practicing witch. Parents in the school district are upset that Berrios will not be back next year and say she was an excellent teacher. Meanwhile the district superintendent, J. Bruce McKenna, says the reason Berrios was denied tenure was based on teaching and learning issues, which he would not discuss publicly.
Comment: If her teaching abilities are truly questionable, then her status as a witch/non-witch is irrelevant. However if she is a good teacher, her status should remain irrelevant. But it is an amusing thought to consider that either others think witchcraft is real, or that believing in witchcraft is somehow significantly different from believing in priestcraft.
Item: According to the Associated Press, Heartland is a Christian school for troubled children in Missouri. Local authorities are claiming that the children are abused at the facility. Disobedient children have been forced to shovel cow manure for up to 2 hours. The task involved standing in the filth of manure, urine and cattle afterbirths brimming with bacteria. Pastor Charlie says the practice was discontinued a few months ago "because it presented poor public relations" and wasn't effective.
Comment: I'm sure they're in line for tax dollars from Dubya as part of his Charitable Choice program: But why should only Christian children get to shovel manure?
Item: A Catholic priest is claiming that a Bronx man told him in 1988 that he and two other men committed a murder for which two other men were convicted. The priest counseled the man to confess to the police, but when the time came to do so, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. The innocent men were still in prison to this year. The priest now claims that this was not a confession, but instead a counseling session, although he gave the man absolution. Priests are not supposed to disclose what is said in confession. The supposed real killer died 4 years ago.
Comment: Although the priest has received praise from relatives of the inmates, what was the cause of the delay in reporting this info to the court? If this was never a confession, then it should have been done long ago. If it was a confession, the priest is now lying. Should confessions be confidential? Probably so: If they were not confidential, no one could safely confess, thus preventing Catholics from practicing their religion.
However, what kind of system of ethics is this? If a killer receives absolution and allows the innocent to continue to suffer, what good has been done? The only answer is that the killer is absolved and is once again eligible for eternal bliss, while it would be understandable that the suffering innocent inmates would curse their existence and possibly God as well, and go to hell for their trouble. This is ethical?
Item: NYC mayoral candidate Mike Bloomberg claims that recitation of the "Lord's Prayer" in school is a good idea. Although a Jew, he said he was comfortable reciting it as a child in Massachusetts. One Rabbi criticized him for "interpreting Jewish law". Other mayoral candidates criticized Bloomberg, including one who stated that his campaign "doesn't have a prayer."
Comment: What an incredibly calculated and cynical ploy: A Jewish candidate attempting to attract Christian voters using a Christian prayer! This is directly out of the Joe Lieberman School of politics! Bulletin to Bloomberg and Lieberman: According to most denominations and interpretations of Christianity, you're STILL going to hell!
Item: A brothel is busted in Dix Hills, Long Island. An alleged john, who claimed he was there for a real message since his regular masseuse was not available, is arrested and quoted in Newsday as saying, "God was trying to keep me away from that place and I didn't listen."
Comment: If God were really going to be helpful, he'd have made the regular masseuse more available. But then maybe God was just being naughty.
Item: Miss Cleo, a TV psychic well known from her late night commercials, was accused of ripping off gullible customers. The Missouri Attorney General claims that Miss Cleo's company is engaging in improper billing practices, including billing persons who are dead and those who have never requested the service. Attorney General Jay Nixon said, "Miss Cleo should have seen this coming."
Comment: Hey wait a minute! If Miss Cleo talks to the dead, why can't she bill them for her services?
Item: From the NY Daily News: Local boy scouts officials ignored warnings for decades that an upper East Side scoutmaster might be sexually abusing young boys, a former scout and his mother charged. The mother claimed she told New York scout brass in 1978 that a scoutmaster had fondled her son who was 8 at the time.... Scout officials, she claimed, "made us both look ridiculous - like we were making this up." Recently this scoutmaster was charged with molesting another scout, with 6 other former scouts coming forward to make the same claim after those charges were filed. "Hindsight is easy for all of us" said a BSA spokesperson.
Comment: The Scouts, for all their holier than thou claims of protecting the "morals" of scouts may be guilty of sacrificing the welfare of scouts in order to protect their image. How the BSA behaved and will behave in the future regarding this case bears watching. What do they really care about?
Item: A study funded by tobacco giant Phillip Morris concluded that the financial benefits to the Czech Republic from collected taxes and duties outweighed the costs of health care, fires and working days lost caused by tobacco products. Additionally, savings due to the "indirect positive effects" of early deaths, including savings on health care, pensions, welfare and housing was $146,000,000. Phillip Morris subsequently has apologized for the study and canceled plans for similar studies in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia.
Comment: I guess we should be then criticizing Phillip Morris for not instantly killing us with their products - think how much we'd save then! And we thought they were callous about their customers - we certainly do apologize to them! Help Wanted: Volunteers to coordinate and assist in setting up a Campus Freethought campaign are needed! SOS Meeting on Long Island!
[TOC]
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.
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 home page of SOS is http://www.secularsobriety.org. This web site has much information for downloading on running SOS groups. Be Sure to Watch "Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access on channel 71 on the Woodbury system, channel 70 on the Hauppauge system and channel 70 on Brookhaven Cablevision, every Wednesday @ 6:30 PM. Editor: Gerald D Design: John W A Thumbs Up Publication Copyright LISH 2001 [TOC]