INQUIRER Volume 4, Issue 9, September, 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) Music Makers to Face the Music
2) Letters to the Editor
3) The Good Ship Religion Is Leaking
4) REPENT! DSL Is Near!
5) QUICKIES
6) Dr. Shaikh Convicted
7) The Never Ending War________________________________________________________________________________
MUSIC MAKERS TO FACE THE MUSIC Gerry Dantone
A recent Federal Trade Commission report found that movie and video game companies had made a good-faith effort over the last year or so to keep promises of not marketing violent and inappropriate movies and videos to children. As a result, parents now have a better opportunity to monitor what their children watch and play, a small favor that parents do appreciate. The good news was that this occurred without government regulations. The bad news was that this occurred under the threat of government regulation.
The music industry, via its representative, the Recording Industry Association of America, at first recommended compliance with a similar kind of standard as the video industry, but almost immediately withdrew that recommendation. They indeed still market what can only be described as inappropriate material, such as the "Real Slim Shady" by Eminem, to children. It is clear that artistic integrity is not behind the music industry's decision since no one has suggested that Eminem or anyone else not be allowed to make and release and sell this music - the question has been the targeting of the marketing efforts at children. Without going too far out on a limb, the reason for the industry non-compliance was money - artists like Eminem are among the biggest moneymakers in music, and much of it was paid by or on behalf of children. The parents either did not know that their children bought the items or did not know the nature of the material. If t! he parents did know the nature of the material, and did not care or actually approved of it, there would be nothing anyone could (or should) do.
Indeed there are far worse offenders than Eminem out there - for evidence of this, one can peruse the catalogue of Resistance Records for material that would make one yearn for Eminem's mildness. The same person who brought us the Turner Diaries, that racist call to arms that so inspired the Oklahoma City Federal Building mass murderer, also owns Resistance Records. Although Eminem does have murderous fantasies, hateful homophobic and misogynistic lyrics, while extolling drug use, the "artists" at Resistance Records do all that plus add anti-Semitism and racism to the list, as well as hatred of all authority, or at least democratically elected authority and exhort their listeners to violent action. Whatever doubts one may have about Eminem's appropriateness for children, doubts that such inappropriate material exists can be erased with a listen to "hatecore."
Now one of Long Island's members of the US Congress, Steve Israel, of Huntington, Babylon and Islip, has proposed to empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate the marketing practices of the music industry, though supposedly not the music itself. The FTC would be authorized to impose fines of up to $11,000/day per violation for what it considers "deceptive marketing" which would be the marketing of "adult" material to children.
In reading the proposed law, I immediately had a couple of concerns. One concern is the power given to the Federal Trade Commission. The bill states that the FTC shall "determine that the advertising or marketing is otherwise directed or targeted to minors;" "establish the criteria;" and "prescribe the rules." The FTC apparently also decides the punishment (up to $11,000/day/violation as per internal rules). Since the FTC is non-elected, and there is no system of checks and balances on their power incorporated into this system of controlling marketing and advertising, a serious criticism of the bill can be made in this regard. I would at first suggest that this issue be looked into so that at the least due process is incorporated easily into this system. Perhaps such an incorporation now exists within typical FTC practices and I am simply ignorant of the process.
The greater concern is one of a civil libertarian's. As a parent I am personally concerned with what my 7-year-old girl and my 9-year-old boy watch on TV and hear on the radio. The TV, my children understand, is completely subject to my and my wife's approval. They watch only what we approve. We wish all parents took this kind of care with their children's viewing and listening habits; it would eliminate all need for such legislation. However, all parents do not do this, and the result is that by socializing with other children at school and elsewhere, my children become exposed to many of the influences we work so hard to avoid.
At the same time, I am steadfastly against rules that would make it impossible or truly difficult for adults who wish to be able to enjoy adult forms of entertainment to have access to those products. In that regard, I think it is imperative that the focus is well defined and not subject to hysterical witch-hunts in the future.
Therefore I believe it would be wise to define as carefully as possible what it is that is proposed to constitute "adult material" and be careful that access to that material by adults would not be made impossible or unreasonably difficult. Provocative or even controversial ideas should not be made a focus, and the grounds for material being objectionable should not be influenced by self-concerns of elected or appointed officials, particular religions, political parties, or other special interest groups. Hate directed against persons, violence and inappropriate sexual material should be the focus, and only the marketing of that material directed at children.
A concession to state sponsored censorship can result in artistic death generally - this cannot be accepted. Of course, if the music industry in general had an active conscience, there would be no need for marketing regulations - they would have voluntarily done it themselves. And yes, what children hear and see influences their behavior, that's the whole point of marketing. In addition, it is my firm belief that marketing violent and hateful products to the young does not lead to higher profits in the long run, though the short run may indeed be improved by such a tactic.
The impact on local artists that I'm familiar with would be minimal. Who among us actually intends to market to children hateful, violence inciting music? Actually, I have never heard of the marketing of such material outside of a huge company selling out for profits or a company that specializes in specific kinds of hate. Still artistic freedom should be everyone's concern, as well as nurturing good qualities in the young. Of course the trick is to find the right balance. (Rep.Steve Israel's website is www.house.gov/israel/welcome.htm. For those interested enough, the website for the proposed Media Marketing Accountability law is the following: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107L1Iu5C::) [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
8/10/01 I admire your work with great awe! I usually read your e-mail newsletter from the first to the last pixel and have used a few items from it in the newsletter I assemble for the Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin called Reasonings. Jim Dew, via Internet
Response: I'm glad you find the newsletter useful. Thanks! G.D.
Re: The Death Penalty:
8/3/01 Justice O'Connor expressed concern on the death penalty because the death penalty is supposedly being unfairly administered. She and others would also like to impose a moratorium on these executions. I have been debating this issue with the ACLU for some time now, and the conclusion I have arrived at is if there is something wrong, fix it. In society and its many diverse and intellectual abilities, the public seems to favor the death sentence by a great majority.
It is common knowledge that in life itself there can never be a totally fair system of justice and its enforcement. Can the death penalty ever be justified?
The arguments against the death penalty heard are many: 1. It is barbaric. 2. No other major democracy uses the death penalty. 3. An innocent person might be executed by mistake. 4. Capitol punishment cheapens the value of human life. 5. The death penalty is applied in a discriminatory manner. 6. Thou Shalt Not Kill is in the Bible. 7. The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder.
As a retired policeman and a critical thinker, I have listened to the many ideas for and against the concept. I have weighed the objections carefully and I support the death penalty for heinous crimes of murder and there is a little of my sporting character in me that says there is nothing wrong with getting even.
I do not intend to respond to all seven items listed above - I will explore item number 3.
Mr. Hugo Adam Bedau is one of the most implacable foes of capitol punishment in this country. According to Mr. Bedau, it is "false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty should be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed. He cites a study of 7,000 executions in this country from 1893 to 1971, and concludes that the record fails to show that such cases occur. But the logic is that if government functioned only when the possibility of error didn't exist, government wouldn't function at all.
Human life deserves special protection, and one of the ways to guarantee that protection is to assure that murders do not kill again. And only the death penalty can accomplish this end. Many convicted killers have been able to commit more killings while they were in prison. In life and in society when we have a problem, we try to fix the problem.
The law has been revised many times, and it can be done again. It is a good law and in this country we simply must have it on the books.
The case below is a wonderful example of why we NEED and MUST keep this law on the books.
Pray tell me what is wrong with the death penalty in the Wendy's massacre? Wednesday Oct. 25-2000, Daily News report by Austin Fenner:
One of the survivors of the May massacre at a Wendy's hamburger shop in Queens says that while the store manager lay on the basement floor, bleeding to death, terrified employees begged for their lives.
They appealed to God, howled for help and pleaded with the killers to spare them for the sake of their children, according to survivor Jaquione Johnson.
But the killers ignored the pleas for mercy and silenced their victims by rapping duck tape across their mouth, said Johnson, one of the two workers to survive the May attack that left five dead.
Johnson's graphic reconstruction of the gruesome night marks the first blow-by-blow account of how events unfolded inside the fast food outlet on Main St. Flushing, NY.
Johnson, 18, told his story to one of his aunts, Linda Beberaggi who gave the details to the Daily News. In an interview with The News, Beberaggi provided the following reconstruction:
It was closing time and several workers were cleaning up when manager Jean Auguste let the suspects John Taylor and Craig Godineaux inside. Auguste, 26, knew Taylor because he had once worked for the store manager. While Taylor went downstairs to the basement with his former boss, Godineaux, chatted amiably with the other workers upstairs. He even flirted with one of them, Anita Smith.
A short time later Auguste got on the intercom to summon his staff for an evening meeting. Johnson was the first to head downstairs. When he entered the managers small office the safe was open and Taylor, 36, was pointing a gun at Auguste.
"Jean (Auguste) told Taylor to take the money and go." Beberaggi said. The safe was already open and they could have fled. Taylor and Auguste began to argue. Taylor shot Jean, and the girl (Smith) started screaming."
Sensing that she would be shot next, Smith grew hysterical and told the assailants that she wanted to get married and finish school - and live.
"That's when when Taylor wanted them all tied up," Beberaggi said.
He then handed the 9-mm gun "to the tall one"- Godineaux- and said, " Let me see what you can do?"
"They were begging Godineaux not to shoot," their bodies were shaking on the floor and they used their last breaths calling out to God."
But Godineaux was deaf to their pleas. He turned his attention to Smith the worker he had flirted with only minutes earlier.
"Oh God, please no!" screamed Smith, 21. Godineaux shot her, and she slumped to the floor.
Johnson and the others begged Godineaux not to shoot them, too. So he went and taped their mouths with duct tape. He then pushed them into the freezer. They were made to kneel. Then Godineaux went down the row, shooting them one by one- as they trembled - from the cold and fear...
There should be no question on the death penalty; this is a case where it would be a gross injustice in not using the death penalty.
Let us open our minds to reality, truth, logic, and critical thinking. Compassion, and fairness is not always the means at arriving at certain decisions in life, for the killers.
In conclusion, I feel that it is impossible to design a law that can be fair to all humanity. And if anyone thinks that all humans are born equal, you better sit down to reality. We say "use what we have to fight crime"; we have discovered DNA, as a tool for police in identities and use all science and evidence and when in doubt then do what the law specifies. If we have problems we should fix them. We do not need to discard the law because of a few questions that can be rectified. Paul Lozowsky via Internet
Response: It is a good point that no rule is ever perfectly applied. Life without parole will most certainly be abused as much as the death penalty. The bottom line seems to be whether we are better off with the death penalty or without it. If there were any solid evidence that the death penalty makes the innocent safer, the argument would be immensely stronger. G.D.
8/15/01 This August's newsletter had references to punishing criminals. A lesson we can learn as rational thinkers is that there is no objective morality (god). Judgments of individuals are subjective (to an individual/group/majority). So, if they're not 'bad,' but disadvantageous to the population, we're left with a more pragmatic problem.
In these cases, the (subjective) good of the many, outweighs the rights of the one. We must separate them somehow. We could execute the ones who are never to be trusted again. But, this is as expensive as incarcerating them due to all the checks and balances to protect the innocent. However, prison is prohibitively expensive to society, often causing dangerous criminals to be emptied back into the street. Simultaneously, prisons offer libraries, gyms, Cable, education, counselors, web access, and other non-essential perks that many of us can't afford. I don't believe in punishment for punishment's sake. However, since we have to foot the bill, why should we make life in prison easier than life outside?
We're letting criminals out early so we can buy other criminals Playboy. Beyond the necessities, we should allow inmates jobs to pay for extras. No one buys me Playboy. Just like in real life, bare necessities (through welfare) for a few, jobs for the rest. If such a system were set up, I'm sure many companies looking for cheap labor would flock. The jails could skim off the top to cover the basic needs. Also, it might provide inmates with initiative: hope of a better life in prison may reduce the number of restless, angry inmates causing trouble. Fancy cells for the successful, they could have whatever their jobs afforded them. The criminal justice system should not be about punishment. Jails should be about a legitimate pragmatic concern, protecting society.
There would be those criminals who are incapable of working: the disabled, the emotionally unstable, etc. This would be a problem, but no more so than it is on the outside. There would probably be extra services awarded to such individuals to temper our view of what should be. This model of the criminal justice system has debatable problems, I'm sure. The details of such a new system would need to be fleshed out in the political arena. However, it at least starts with a more reasonable premise. My main point is that when humanists think of complex systems such as criminal justice, it would behoove them to apply the same critical thinking that lead them to humanism. It's easy to judge others and demand punishment. It's difficult to balance the legitimate best interests of society with the rights of an individual. Jodin Morey, Minneapolis, MN, via Internet
Response: First, I must say that ethics can be objective - we have all of history, culture and sociobiology pointing us towards a huge consensus on many moral issues such as kindness, honesty, responsibility and courage. These values are not as subjective as you think if we take into account everything and everyone. What they are not is absolute, which would make them arbitrary and capricious. Secondly, although the financial and practical implications of prison and the death penalty are indeed important, we need to make sure that we are on firm moral ground before we proceed in any direction. It could be argued that the practical results of the decision are part of the moral weighing. G.D.
8/5/01 Capital punishment exists to provide a legal means of revenge, pure and simple. When we think about the basic function of government, it should be to protect the people and to provide for the common good.
The people are protected when convicted murderers are put into prison for life with no possibility of parole. Cries of "closure" are just cries for taking "the final step". In our country, "the final step" is execution. In other civilized countries, "closure" is what you get when the murderer is sentenced to a life permanently in prison.
Government has no business in taking revenge, when protection is all that is needed. When we execute somebody, we have taken away the chance for freedom in case the convicted party is really innocent. In addition, we teach people that killing is acceptable when you have "good reason". We may disagree upon that constitutes "good reason", but people who kill for personal reasons always think that they have a good excuse. At first, they may be appalled by what they have discovered about themselves, but most people who kill eventually rationalize it in their own minds.
The one exception, it seems to me, is when someone who is already serving a life-without-parole sentence decides that he/she has nothing more to lose by killing a fellow convict or guard, and does so on purpose. In that circumstance, it may be a last, unavoidable means of protecting those in prison. Neil Slater via Internet
Response: It is interesting that even you might see a need for the death penalty in a certain case. Others see more cases that would justify this penalty. This is no simple ethical situation. G.D.
Re: BeliefNet: 8/13/01 This "quiz" is as bad as many of the Internet "polls," where the answers are crafted in such a way that the only logical answer is "none of the above" but the choice is not provided.
Take for example, question #12:
Q12. Regarding those who hold beliefs that are sharply different from mine, I think:
1. It's amazing the sort of nonsense some people will believe
2. Since many people aquire (sic) their beliefs through upbringing or social circumstances, we should not judge
3. All beliefs are equally valid
4. They may be sincere but are mistaken or ill-informed
For what it's worth, here's my take:
Regarding No. 1, this is true, but it applies to a minority of people whose opinions are sharply different from mine. Broad brushing those I disagree with in this manner is the height of arrogance.
Regarding No. 2, regardless of where we aquire (sic) our beliefs, should we put our brains in neutral and not apply critical analysis to what may be the pinnacle question of our existence? I think not.
Regarding No. 3, it's amazing the sort of nonsense some people will believe! All beliefs, equally valid? Ridiculous.
Regarding No. 4, they may be sincere or insincere. They may be ill informed. Or, maybe they're correct and I'm ill informed? Maybe we're both wrong or maybe we're both right?
So what about those whose beliefs are sharply different from mine? How about this?
5. With dialogue and without defensiveness, it's amazing what we can discover together. Iron sharpens iron. Likewise, one thinking person sharpens another. Kind regards, Frank D. via Internet
Response: Thanks. Any others who took the "quiz" out there? G.D.
8/13/01 Hello! I am curious about the statement below: "Secular Dogmas"? Don't you mean Sectarian? Put this way, this means you are free from the dogma you are guided by. Just a thought!! Cheers, J. E. Hill, Washington State via Internet
Response: A Secular Dogma would be communism, fascism or even extreme libertarianism, if religion were not a factor. Flat-Earthedness is a secular dogma if one believes it independent of religion or scripture. Even "moderation" when applied dogmatically is a secular dogma of sorts. It occurs when one puts the "dogma" ahead of the results of putting that dogma in action on humanity. If one's secular point of view on economics, the environment, etc. leads to human misery and you resist change at that point, one is secularly dogmatic.
As secular humanists we are not "free" of the "dogma" of secular humanism because it is not dogmatic. Dogmatism, as per the definition that humanists use, in my opinion, is the belief in a fact or a world-view in spite of the lack of evidence to support it or contrary evidence to that fact or world view. Secular dogmatism also applies when one holds steadfastly to a principle that leads to human misery because the "principle" is somehow more important than human well-being. Humanism holds humanity's well-being as the highest principle, and also subjects all "facts" to testing and further evidence. That is the opposite of dogmatism
8/14/01 Re: Gary Condit: I LOVED THIS! Glad I got on your e-mail list. I had a thought, though, that I think is worth considering. Not to disagree with any part of this, I think it's right on target about why "publicly pious posturing" is the natural course of things for a theology based on being "saved" by "grace through faith" and not good works.
However, I actually subscribe to this theology, only because I take it in a different way. It in no way absolves me from good works or using reason to determine what is a good work.
Though I am no scholar of theology, I suspect that our modern theology is so divorced from its roots in communities with entirely different assumptions than ours that the root issue of what it means to be "saved" and even why it is important has been trivialized into some fable of life-after-death in the clouds if we're "good" -- and even the issue of what is "good" has become an ego issue separate from the "good" of those around us. So people today can quite seriously say they are "good" people with a "personal relationship with their savior" and other such individualistic b.s., while trampling all over the larger questions of good and evil and what "saves" humanity.
There is no reason why a personal Jesus Christ who supposedly tells the likes of Gary Condit what to do would objectively and directly disapprove of Clinton's lack of personal ethics, or any politician's public wrongdoing, and so on, because these are defined entirely in relation to our culture and the same actions might be perfectly acceptable in another context or tradition where such actions bolster the community rather than insult it. All that the Jesus of the Gospels would ask is humility and a consciousness of the needs of all humanity -- not an easy task but one requiring intensive use of reason and perhaps meditation and intuition as well. This is just the opposite of what the puffed-up "faith" community thinks it must do. And rather than saving one's own soul from eternal damnation, blah, blah, blah, the person who does this is lifting humanity itself, as only posterity is "eternal." If we define "faith" in this sense, then ignorance is i! ts opposite, and one who lives in faith is literally losing one's life in order to gain it, living the Beatitudes, and so on.
Just wish I could do it. In all humility, Beth via Internet.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Humanists try to keep it simple, even though ethical issues can be complex. Rather than be concerned about scripture, being saved, etc., we wonder if something is helpful or hurtful to humanity. The Condits of the world worry about the appearance of piety. It is the almost inevitable result of a system that emphasizes belief, obedience and being "saved." How sad. G.D. [TOC]
THE GOOD SHIP RELIGION IS LEAKING Paul Lozowsky
Science, critical thinking and reason continue to sail ever more majestically and methodically into the world of knowledge and the unknown, demystifying it.
We live in a world of science and technology every day. We may not understand precisely why computers do what they do, or how cell phones can do what they do without wires: In fact most of our latest inventions are incredible to us, but we know that science and reason brought them to us, not faith and revelation.
Science lifts us into space, cures diseases and broadcasts a world of knowledge into our homes. So when their lives are in jeopardy, holy men (and women) go to the hospital - not to a mosque, church or synagogue - if they want to live on. Science has helped to ease the fear of death somewhat - a fear that religion has sought to address from the beginning.
The modern world knows exponentially more than in Jesus' days, or Darwin's for that matter. To think that only 200 years ago so few people had the knowledge or education to challenge the creation story of Genesis. The churches never felt compelled to compose a reasoned response to any questions to support Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, or the Shroud. You believed what the church taught or you were shunned, excommunicated or possibly executed. The Church, in the past engaged in no serious debate with nonbelievers because they felt no need to do so. This tradition of openly challenging religion and superstition is very modern.
Today there is debate. Despite the Creationists, most people would as soon entertain a serious discussion about Adam and Eve as a discussion about goblins or witches - also once common beliefs. Before Darwin, about 150 years ago, few scientists had any idea how life evolved on this planet. Today no competent biologist, geologist, zoologist, archaeologist, astronomer or physicist denies evolution. This is indeed fast progress.
The Catholic Church recently admitted that Galileo may have been correct in his heliocentric ideas, and admitted that there is something to this evolution thing. Religion is, for the first time in history, feeling the need to use science to support its ideas. It seems that Jesus or any other God was not scientifically minded.
Will Rogers said, "It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so."
Thinking has also experienced evolution from the standard of beliefs in myths and magic to the use of science and reason, though this evolution is incomplete. Still, there are angels on TV, devils in the movies and "In God We Trust" disfiguring our money. Will we ever finally completely graduate as rational thinking beings?
Therefore let us be patient; it took 1500 years and movable type for Western civilization to make books available to large numbers of people who could then learn (if they could read) about things beyond their immediate environs.
Science soared at a time when religions staked out territories and built fences.
So let us not sit back and accept old tales, myths or untruths and instead let's question, question, question and look for evidence, repetitious evidence, and demonstrable evidence, and enjoy what the thinkers in the past and present have given us. It is time we began to stand on our own two feet, and used our own critical thinking to contribute to the well being of humanity. [TOC]
REPENT! DSL IS NEAR! Gerry Dantone
Can it be? There have been rumors of a lightning fast Internet service that can travel through phone lines. A few people swear that they have actually used this service, but when you actually try to use it, it's not really working at that place and moment. Still, they insist, DSL exists.
Sure it does, I say. The phone companies that claim to provide the service are saying, "DSL is here," but I say that there is no reason to believe that DSL is here.
The ads for DSL are becoming more and more compelling at the same time. I swear I heard an ad on the radio that went "Buy our DSL now and you will have "eternal Internet bliss." On TV, the President proudly swore that he had gotten DSL, but added that if you didn't already have this DSL, "it could not be explained to you."
A competing phone company has tried to make inroads to the dominant phone company's market share by claiming that those who believe they have the other company's DSL will suffer Internet misery forever. Their DSL service, however, would guarantee a place in Internet Paradise with beautiful nymphs to attend to your needs. Coincidentally, I've read that there have been suspicious fires at each other's technical facilities. There were fatalities, but we have been assured that the deceased either died for an honorable cause or deserved their fates.
When I asked my friend, who had the "blissful" DSL service, how he knew that the claim was true he said, "Look, I'm not really sure that it's true but just in case it is, I don't want to suffer forever, if you know what I mean." Then he looked at me. "You're not saying you DON'T believe DSL is here, are you?
I said, well, "yeah, I don't believe in DSL."
"Then," he said, "I think we can't socialize anymore," walked away, and we haven't spoken since. [TOC]
QUICKIES Gerry Dantone
Item: Roman Catholic bishops in southern Africa denounced condoms yesterday as an immoral and misguided weapon against HIV infection, though they said married couples could use condoms if one or both were infected and they abstained from sex while the woman was ovulating. Condom use "contribute to the breaking down of self-control and mutual respect," says Cardinal Napier.
Comment: In other words, condom use is ok as long as they were not used for "immoral" contraception! It is precisely this kind of "logic" that makes the Roman Catholic Church a target!Item: The body of a woman, strangled with her Islamic headscarf was found in Iran, the second since police arrested a suspected serial killer of 16 prostitutes. The suspect claimed he killed them for "the sake of God." Police believe five other killings are the work of copycats. The arrested killer went on the spree after a man mistook his wife for a prostitute and propositioned her. Iranians are concerned that Mashad, a holy city northeast of Tehran has turned into a prostitution center, and that prostitution is thriving in this rigid theocracy (Ed.: What a shock!). Many Iranians applaud the murders.
Comment: Besides ignoring the fact that a man propositioned the wife, is it an exaggeration to say that in Iran, a killer might be less hated than a prostitute? Or women and their sexuality in general? Read on...
Item: (From Americans United) An Iranian woman was stoned to death in May 2001 after the country's highest court upheld her conviction for appearing in "obscene sex films." The woman was partially buried in a hole in the yard at a Tehran prison and stoned to death. Iran is an Islamic theocracy.
Comment: Imagine: The whole world including Iran protested the destruction of standing Buddhas in Afghanistan. Shouldn't the world be even MORE outraged by this? I guess if you don't believe in separation of church and state, you can't really complain, right Dubya?
Item: A witness in the assault trial of two Long Islanders accused of attacking and nearly killing two Mexican illegal immigrant workers said that one of the accused "studied the bible a lot." According to Newsday, the suspect believed in Christian Identity, which teaches that Europeans are the descendents of the lost tribes of Israel, and that other races are "beasts of the earth." Jews are the "seed of Satan."
An Identity leader is quoted as saying that when all whites "bend their knees to Yahweh" then God will eliminate all non-whites.
Comment: If this doesn't prove that one can get God to say or do anything one wants, nothing does!
Item: Catholics in the Medford, Oregon area are demanding the removal of a billboard stating that the Pope is the anti-Christ. The sign is the work of the Rogue Valley Historical Seventh-day Adventists, a splinter Christian group. A Catholic priest says, "It's a deliberately and gratuitously offensive statement that singles out Catholics for contempt."
Comment: Although the billboard is idiotic, and it is offensive in particular to Catholics, it is becoming increasingly clear that any speech critical of religion is being branded "hate speech" while at the same time, speech critical of the non-religious or secular humanistic, is not. Pretty soon, criticism may be legal in one direction only. A recent book, "Mind Siege" by Tim LaHaye, a best selling author of the ludicrous "Left Behind" series, writes about the "purported evils of secular humanism" according to a "Book Page" interview with the author. Who is LaHaye trying to reach? Both adults and children, he admits. Who endorses this kind of "legal hate speech"? US Congresspersons are among the persons who wrote endorsements of this book.
Item: The Taliban in Afghanistan had 24 workers of a Christian relief organization arrested for spreading Christianity. The group provides supplies to the needy, but was allegedly caught with materials to proselytize and supposedly tried to convert local Muslims. The ministry for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice conducted the raid. Converting Muslims may be punishable by death according to law.
Comment: There is no separation of church and state nor is there freedom from religion in Afghanistan. Since the US Religious Right maintain that this is the correct way to run a government, exactly on what basis could they protest such a horror? Answer: Simply that their faith, Protestant Christianity, is correct, and the Taliban's, Islam, is incorrect. I'm sure that would settle the issue.
The international community should react decisively against Afghanistan, but will not because too many other nations have restrictions on minority religions as well. Separation of church and state is a rare treasure.
Item: The Vatican called attempts to investigate charges of anti-Semitism against Pope Pius XII a "slanderous campaign" and accused some Jewish historians of "clearly incorrect behavior." A commission of both Catholic and Jewish scholars suspended work earlier this year after releasing a preliminary report describing Pope Pius XII as a diplomat who did not express sufficient outrage while reports of atrocities poured into the Vatican. The historians had hoped that the Vatican archives would be opened to fill in what they saw as gaps in the record. Jewish leaders were surprised by the tone of the criticism since they had believed that tensions were lessening on the topic, while the information was awaited.
Comment: Why even bother to investigate? According to church dogma, isn't it impossible for a Pope to have acted unethically or non-compassionately? Any problem, they would contend, has to do with someone's perception, not the facts. Is this a fair assessment?
Item: (From AU) A White House report, titled "Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Faith-Based and Community Organizations' Participation in Federal Social Service Programs," was released in August at the Brookings Institution.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said that if the White House plan is reckless, it could raise serious legal questions and threaten the safety of families and children in need.
"Bush tried deregulation in Texas, and kids got hurt," said AU's Lynn. "It would be an unmitigated disaster if he tries this at the national level."
Americans United pointed to a critical area that needed to be addressed as the administration released its report: Will the lifting of regulations hurt those who receive assistance? As governor of Texas, Bush lifted a series of regulations placed on religious groups that provide social services. Bush's changes fully exempted faith-based drug treatment centers and children's homes, for example, from the health, safety, accountability and quality of care guidelines required of Texas' secular service providers.
As a consequence, religious groups could be accredited by a private religious agency instead of the state. According to a report prepared by the Texas Freedom Network, these alternatively - accredited facilities had a rate of abuse and neglect claims that was 50 times higher than that of state-licensed facilities.
Comment: Yeah sure, there was 50 times the abuse, but their souls were saved!
Item: In May, the Rev. Moon of the Unification Church performed the ceremony at an arranged marriage of an African Catholic Archbishop to a woman he had just met. In August, the Vatican released a statement from the Archbishop renouncing the marriage and pledging his allegiance to the Pope. The wife is protesting in front of St. Peter's, claiming she might be pregnant and that she would starve herself to death. An exultant spokesman for the Unification Church denounces the Catholic Church for "arrogantly trying to steal her husband." The controversial faith healing, exorcising and independent Archbishop Milingo, age 71, has not been seen and critics wonder if he is being restrained.
Comment: You can't make this stuff up. [TOC]DR. SHAIKH CONVICTED TO DEATH IN PAKISTAN:
Dr. Mohammed Younis Shaikh is convicted to death for blasphemy in Pakistan. The judgment was pronounced by a district court in Islamabad 18 August (Saturday). Dr. Shaikh has appealed. He is kept in a narrow death cell in jail under primitive living conditions.
Dr. Shaikh, British educated physician, Pakistani rationalist and founder of the first known rationalist organization in Pakistan, "The Enlightenment," was arrested on 4 October, 2000 by Islamabad police and booked under Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code. Dr. Shaikh was accused to have defiled the prophet Mohammed with his statement that Mohammed did not become a Muslim before the age of forty and that his parents were non-Muslims. The web site of Rationalist International (www.rationalistinternational.net) has several pages about Dr. Shaikh and the case, with the full text of the Police First Information Report (FIR), the Pakistan Blasphemy Laws and reports of the several stages of the case. The site is being updated with all new details. (Rationalist International has set up a committee to build international public opinion to save the life of Dr. Shaikh.)
[TOC]
THE NEVER ENDING WAR
By Gerry Dantone
One of these days, peace will break out in the Middle East. However, it clearly seems that only the horror of life under the conditions we now find in Israel can motivate the inhabitants to search for a way for peace. The brother and sisterhood of humanity is not yet part of the vocabulary in that region.
Centuries ago, Jews were dispersed from their traditional lands by Roman forces who found them difficult to rule. Ever since, they have yearned, as a group, to return to the place of their religion and tradition. This is certainly not a yearning unique to Jews; what is unique is the need to reacquire the lands that were traditionally the location of a nationality.
When the many satellite countries of the former USSR broke off to form their own nations based on a somewhat homogenous ethnicity, no one thought twice; no one considered it "racist." But the fact is that almost all nations of the earth were formulated based on an ethnic preference of one sort or another: In other words the existence of most nations are concessions to some form of prejudice or ethnocentric bias. The country of Israel is just a typical case. It is hypocritical of most countries to complain or criticize. This is not meant to condone nationalism and such bias; it is merely the way the world, sadly, has always worked. (The US is unique in that the premise under which it was founded was a desire for liberty for all, or at least Caucasian males. More steps were needed than were originally taken, and more steps are possibly still needed, to complete that journey towards a more perfect union.)
Palestinians have yearnings similar to Jews and both sides have religious justification to make them that much less compromising. One after another suicide bomber kills himself and civilian Jews, with the goal of paradise and martyrdom, which translates to women and pleasure in heaven. If they believe this, it is a wonder it does not happen more often. Please be aware that this is a mainstream Islamic teaching, though not all (or not most) Muslims agree on this specific tactic in this specific case.
Israel's responses are often extra-judicial: Assassination of suspected terrorist leaders with high incidences of "collateral damage," which translates to dead civilian Palestinians, who are technically Israeli citizens. Are they considered less important than Jewish Israeli citizens? Does the religious backdrop foster this kind of tactic?
After one such assassination mission, in which two Hamas leaders were killed, as well as two civilians, one a seven-year-old girl, the Israeli Prime Minister proclaimed it a "success."
After a bombing injured 20 persons in a café, the father of the terrorist said, "I am extremely proud of my son's actions. It is just a pity that he didn't kill more Jews."
A solution, other than the continued horror of war, is not discernible.
________________________________________________________________________________
Center For Inquiry's International Conference: Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?
The Center For Inquiry has planned a conference international in scope, to take place November 9th through 11th, @ the Atlanta Airport Marriot, Atlanta, GA.
Guest speakers will include Norm Allen, Jr., Susan Blackmore, Ed Buckner, Antony Flew, Kendrick Frazier, Adolf Grunbaum, Ray Hyman, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Massimo Pigliucci, Steven Pinker, Eugenie Scott, Wole Soyinka, and David Willey! Noted "Intelligent Design" theorist Michael Behe will also appear.
Registration is $149, $79 for students. Call early for special hotel rates ($89/night) and optional luncheon and dinner events (at extra costs). Call 1 800 458 1366 for details. The website is: https://secure15.cedant.com/secularhumanism/conference/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
Book Discussion Club!
For info call Bill Wade @ 631 765 2941 or write to @ Box 631, Southold, NY, 11971. September 14, Sherman Carll's house, Commack, Suffolk, 631-499-0411, Book: Michael Osterholm & John Schwartz, "Living Terrors". October 12, Mary Jane Merrifield & Warren Rothstein's house, Patchogue, Book: Richard Dawkins, "Climbing Mount Improbable". November 9, Norm Roscoe's house, Oakdale, 631-589-8665, Book: Corliss LaMont, "The Illusion Of Immortality".
________________________________________________________________________________
LISH MEETING INFORMATION
Joe Beck, host of the Humanist Perspective TV show will visit LISH at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, Nassau County, @ 7PM, Friday, September 21, 2001. NOTE THE NEW STARTING TIME OF 7PM! His topic will be "Ending faith-based discrimination." As always, these meetings are free and open to the public!
On Friday, October 19, also @ 7PM, Ron Barrier of American Atheists will be speaking at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library. His topic will be "Don't you believe in anything?" We'll take a wild guess that the answer will be YES! This promises to be an outstanding forum.
Note: There will a grand opening of new offices for a Center for Inquiry - Metro New York on Sunday, September 23, 2001 at Friar Tuck's restaurant, 691 Pompton Avenue, Cedar Grove, NJ, 11AM to 4PM. Reservations are required, call 973 655 9556 or email Barry Seidman @ BFS200@aol.com. The restaurant is 2 miles from the offices, which are located at 19 Walnut Street, Montclair, NJ.
Note: Ron Barrier will be addressing the Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, 38 Old Country Rd., Garden City, on Sunday, Oct. 7 at their 11:00AM meeting, 516-741-7304, website: WWW.EHSLI.ORG. The topic will be: American Atheists 2001. He will present an overview of the organization; it's direction, vision and accomplishments.
Visit LISH on the web: http://wwwhumanist.com
________________________________________________________________________________Editor: Gerald Dantone
Design: John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up
Publication
Copyright LISH 2001 [TOC]