INQUIRER Volume 4, Issue 12, December, 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) Why God Bless America is Inappropriate in Public Places
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Humanists and the Holidays
4) The Peace Movement
5) From Americans United: Rep. Istook to Reintroduce School Prayer Amendment to Constitution
6) Should We Feed Afghani Children?
7) A Winter Solstice Message from Robert G. Ingersoll
8) John Lennon's Death
9) Winter Solstice
10) Quickies
LISH MEETING INFORMATION
The MONDAY, December 17, 7:15 PM year-end celebration, at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, will feature LISH members making presentations on celebrating the year-end, the solstice and New Year. We will also feature a video message from Paul Kurtz regarding the threat to secular humanists as a result of the new fundamentalist book "Mind Siege." The meeting will be a reaffirmation of what it means to be a humanist! If you have an idea, tell us about it! We want to know your humanistic and secular ways of celebrating the coming of a new year! Members are also urged to bring homemade (or store bought) foods and treats for consumption at the Library! It's party time!
Note: Don't forget the January LISH Annual brunch. Where would YOU like to see it held? Email or call LISH!
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHY GOD BLESS AMERICA IS INAPPROPRIATE IN PUBLIC PLACE Gerry Dantone
In the wake of the vicious September 11 attacks on America, many Americans have turned to religion for solace. This is understandable and inevitable: Most Americans are religious and find religion to be a source of strength and understanding. As a result, we are finding religiously influenced sentiments and symbols everywhere, not only including businesses and private residences but also at government controlled locations.
No one should have a problem with such expressions in the private sphere; this right to religious expression is precisely what makes American great.
However, the posting of "God Bless America" signs at schools, in addition to the daily Pledge of Allegiance that includes the phrase "one nation under God," which my children must endure, is personally hurtful. The constant litany of hearing government officials asking for God's blessings is also hurtful. Why should I be so sensitive?
Although this fact seems to have escaped many Americans, the perpetrators of these heinous terrorists acts were all deeply committed to God and their religion. That it is not the same God concept as most Americans worship is beside the point, since "God Bless America" does not seem to make any distinctions. For many nonbelievers, therefore, the hearing of "God Bless America" is a painful reminder of the hateful motivations of the religious terrorists who gave their lives and killed others for the benefit of their concept of God. They cared more about their God than their fellow human.
The "God" of "one nation under God" is also not defined. Who are we asking to bless us, and what God is this nation under? Doesn't this matter? If it does not, then all those who consider the US "one nation under God" share a false unity, a unity that can only survive if we are silent about the most divisive concept ever created: God. Therefore why is it then necessary for a government official or institution to invoke something that it may not define or distinguish, other than to cause in nonbelievers a feeling of exclusion? Is the American public aware of the history of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge? Do they know that the addition of the phrase was intended to be a rebuke of non-believers, not a signal of solidarity of the American people?
Has it escaped the notice of others that many American religious leaders have made the sick claim that American "deserved" the tragedy that has befallen us and that secularists are to blame? Is the God blessing America, THEIR God? Wouldn't this make "God Bless America" or the Pledge even more of a slap at secularists?
Gov. McCallum of Wisconsin has directly stated the obvious intent of many supporters of religious sentiments in the public sphere. He has insulted nonbelievers, charging that those who complain about "God Bless America" signs or the Pledge of Allegiance and who prefer the National Anthem in schools, are "oddballs" not concerned with patriotism. Remember, Gov. McCallum has not told us which God blesses America. Yet the cause of our troubles today is not lack of God belief; it is competing God beliefs at war with each other.
The Founding Fathers knew from their own experience that governments and religion couldn't be mixed. James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, warned that "religion as an engine of civil policy is an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." This warning is still relevant.
Nonbelievers are people too. We do not wish to be excluded from the national mourning and resolve. Why should the religious wish to exclude us? Privately, all are entitled to their own beliefs, but if there were ever a lesson to be learned, the murder of 5,000 of our neighbors by 19 religiously inspired zealots, backed by a religiously motivated international movement should be a signal that belief in God is pretty much irrelevant to morality. Our primary endeavor on this earth should be the happiness of our fellow human and the welfare of humanity. This is called humanism and we need no one's blessing to make it happen, we just have to care enough about each other.
In order to include EVERYONE in America, and I stand corrected if that is not a worthy goal, couldn't we avoid religious sentiments in the public square that depend on willful denial to keep from being divisive. Not only is it constitutionally mandated to not promote religion in the public square, there is a better alternative, the secular alternative; the alternative that has given us the freedom that religious zealots despise. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
9/5/01 I couldn't miss that mention of J.C. Watts. The conservative Congressman has opined: "Morality is what you do when nobody is looking." Now I may be mistaken here, but isn't that a remarkable thing for a THEIST to say?
(Also, you write) "A Secular Dogma would be communism, fascism or even extreme libertarianism ..." Indeed? Fascism and Communism are dogmas because their advocates posit a polylogism that denies the possibility of rational exchange between men of different categories (nations, races, classes, etc.) In distinction, NO "extreme libertarians" hold to anything even remotely comparable. Thus Noam Chomsky, while distinguishing his own political position, nonetheless added, "I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare." Dogma vs. a "commitment to rationality" -- surely the greatest of contrasts! Barry Loberfeld, LI Liberty Coalition via Internet
Response: Michael Shermer had an interesting chapter in his book "Why People Believe in Weird Things" regarding the cult of Ayn Rand. Obviously she was a strong and sincere champion of rationality who made great contributions to philosophy. However, when she began to believe that all her positions derived via reason were correct without question, she fell into a mode that did not allow her (or her followers if they were to remain in her good graces) to question her conclusions, which after all, were subject to incorrect reasoning or bad info, as much as anyone else's would be.
This is how she could rationalize her own affair while at the same time condemning the affairs of others, for instance.
Those of us who embrace reason must remember that we can still reason poorly or have incorrect facts. We must not take the conclusions of our reasoning as dogma - these conclusions must always be subject to testing in the real world. We should be humble in that these conclusions are our opinions, though we strive to be reasonable.
That is why I always caution that a libertarian, capitalist or socialist must be a humanist first - their politics or economics must stand the test of human well being. They must be willing to abandon their economic or political philosophy if human misery is the result in the real world. Socialists have been pretty humbled in recent years, I would say, even though they may have embraced reason as their method. It just did not work. Capitalism, or what passes for it, has not worked well yet in the former Soviet Union. I suspect a purely libertarian world would also fail. There is no perfect system for us unreasonable humans. It's cut and paste, and a patch here and a patch there. G.D.
9/13/01 Re: The Death Penalty: Six months ago a half dozen convicts escaped prison and later a cop was killed. Polly Klass was abducted and killed by Richard Davis, an escaped convict. Today, we would be hearing interviews with Timothy McVeigh on the suicide missions in NYC. Escapes happen all the time. Weeping heart parole boards let killers back on the streets. Inmates kill other inmates. The death penalty IS a deterrent to murder and further crimes. Kornform via Internet
Response: In those cases, you are right, it cannot be argued. Yet it seems that in the Western world, those countries without the death penalty have lower murder rates. The approach you take is correct though - we should always test our beliefs by results in the real world. If the death penalty saved innocent lives, we should consider it. Does someone argue against this point of view, putting aside whether we can prove that such a policy would actually work? If it were proven that the death penalty saved innocent lives, should it still be opposed? G.D.
Re: LISH Question of the month: Should there be 1) more stringent 2) less stringent or, 3) no change in laws regulating the marketing and sale of music, TV, movies or other forms of entertainment to children? What objections or virtues do you see in the proposed Media Marketing Accountability law?
9/12/01 Hey, they already trash kids minds with this god stuff. If we could get them to stop doing that, it would be the best thing we could do for kids. E J via Internet
Response: Obviously, worse than that would be legally prohibiting religious indoctrination. But getting people to voluntarily teach children ethics as opposed to superstition would be good. G.D.
_______________________
9/12/01 Ask God. He must have an answer for this right? And let's be sure and say a prayer too. Let's pray that he helps save the people who he let get trapped in the building in the first place. Yeah. That should help. I hope everyone is ok. Jeff via Internet
Response: Thanks. In the aftermath of the WTC attack, nothing else seems to matter, even though we know it does. G.D.
9/22/01 Are you part of the solution or part of the problem? Part of the problem is that religion has the answer, but cannot or will not solve man's problems.
And sorry to say LISH has the same problem. It is a great organization with loving caring, kind, talented and gifted members just like religions and like religion its goals and creed are of the highest standards.
But! It needs to make some changes to be effective. You can not change other people, you can only change yourself.
The change I am suggesting is that LISH becomes a religion - all that has to be done is add Commandment number 11 to LISH's existing ten. Commandment 11: Love and respect the spirit that dwells within us and which lives within others.
This could be the spark that ignites our membership to grow so large organized religion as we know it will not be able to sustain itself this enabling secular humanists to make effective changes in the ways of people in all lands. Don't be a fundamentalist that will not change! Thomas Callahan, Seaford, NY
Response: Religion, as the term is most commonly used, implies certain things that many humanists who are secular, cannot agree with, such as faith in the supernatural and dogma that is placed beyond question. Further, in a legal sense, if secular humanism is legally a religion, the promotion of science may become considered a religious teaching, as will common decency. This will lead to the banning of legitimate science in schools and teaching civics in a secular manner there as well. This is no pipe dream, since this is precisely the tactic that many religious extremists, including the country's Attorney General, John Ashcroft, would utilize.
Humanism also has a built in marketing problem: we cannot promise supernatural reward or punishment on our behalf. We cannot claim divine inspiration for our beliefs. We are duty bound to tell the truth.
All is not lost as far as your suggestion, however. Ethical Humanism/Culture is considered a religion by many of its followers though they differ very little from secular humanists. LISH is deliberately designed not to compete with fellow humanist organizations, and LISH members are Ethical Culture members and vice versa. There is little need for a secular humanist religion since Ethical Humanism/Culture is pretty much what it would look like. LISH exists as a non-religious styled alternative. We try to be the humanist activist and outreach organization in the community, not the only humanist organization.
Take note though: Ethical Culture has existed for a century, yet they are massively outnumbered by secular humanists in this country and around the world. The marketing of a secular "religion" that has no supernatural aspects appeals to only a select few. Ethical Culture is a noble experiment, but it has not caught on. G.D.
10/8/01 I want to thank you and express my appreciation of your Newsday editorial re "Ground Zero." I spoke at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Huntington regarding this and reminded them that we are always Sisyphus rolling that gravitational stone of religious fanaticism up toward the light. Keep up the good work. P.S.: At least 7 to 8 members of UUFH "left God behind" with this current Godly nightmare. Shirley Steere, Huntington, NY
Response: Thank you. As the terrorists have demonstrated, evil remains evil, even if a God approves or demands it. Humans must consider humanity first when assessing the moral content of their actions. G.D.
10/16/01 I guess all the atheists are at the Ground Round. Seriously, you wrote a great letter to Newsday in which you challenged the notion that there are no atheists at Ground Zero. I had written what I believed was a good critical letter but they chose yours and it was a superior offering. As a WWII vet, I can tell you that as many suffering soldiers cry out for Mama as they reputedly cry out, Oh my God, which in itself is ambiguous. Keep up the good work, Gerry, and take the battle to the righteous Conservative religious patriots. Ray Forest, Long Island, via Internet
Response: Thanks Ray. Ground Round or Ground Zero, they're not going to deny us. G.D.
10/22/01 Gerry, your article on "mindless hate, American style" was thoughtful and interesting. thanks. And I really appreciated the "jihad" article by Ibn Warraq -- very revealing.
However, on the down-side, it was truly disheartening to see that Sally Morem, president of a supposedly humanist group, would issue such an ignorant statement ("what do we do"). We should, she suggests, engage in pro-war propaganda? This will promote humanism?? I cherish the ideals on which the US system is supposed to be based, but we must recognize that our government, especially the current illegitimate "President" Bush, is no friend of democracy and secularism. Bush, and especially his attorney general, Ashcroft, are Christian fundamentalist fanatics. And most of our so-called leaders favor a kind of thinly veiled plutocracy, which is oppressing the human freedoms of millions around the world. I consider them enemies of humanism too, as are the Islamic fanatics and terrorists. So, no, I cannot in good conscience run around waving flags and proclaiming America's "greatness", or urging that we attack and kill innocents in othe! r countries. There is a great deal wrong, that must be righted, in US foreign (and domestic) policies. If we favor strenuous prosecution of terrorism, then in all fairness, we must apply the same standards to our own government. (For example, when will Henry Kissinger be "smoked out" and brought to trial?). If the US continues with gross hypocrisy, it will only lead to more terrorist crimes, perpetuating a cycle of violence.
It was also shocking that two of the most blood-thirsty, foaming-at-the-mouth letters you included in the newsletter were both from representatives of the Ayn Rand Institute. I guess that's some kind of hotbed of pro-war, libertarian mass murderers? Patrick, in NJ (member of CFI-MetroNY) via Internet
Response: I believe that this effort against the Taliban and bin Laden to be justified and it is clear that Pres. Bush and the US are acutely aware of the problem of civilian casualties. I believe, to this point, they are trying to avoid harm to civilians, though some will occur. The alternative is to not pursue the perpetrators in any way that threatens innocent civilians, ensuring bin Laden would remain free.
It is true that Bush and Ashcroft are enemies of secularism, but they have been forced into defending it just the same. Although a conversion is unlikely for either one of them, a casualty of this war may be American Christian fundamentalism, and we have seen the President rebuke Jerry Falwell already.
I believe humanists must accept that the US has its faults, some major, particularly in its comportment of foreign policy over the years. This can be an opportunity to begin to right some wrongs.
For example, why boycott Cuba when we trade with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.? Should we lift an embargo against Iraq that impacts civilians while Hussein remains in charge and seemingly unaffected?
We should support the anti-terrorism efforts consistent with our Constitution or more of our neighbors will die. We should also be engaged in the debate constructively so that we are a more ethical superpower. Still, when one reflects on our country in total, where else would humanists rather be? In a world where only 25% or less of humanity has even a smattering of religious freedom, this country is a relative utopia. We should be proud of this and struggle to keep it that way. To demand perfection or close to it is unrealistic in a world where the US truly does shine brightly for liberty compared to the darkness of most other countries. Ashcroft will not be Attorney General forever.
Your point about the Objectivists is valid: If you have seen Mr. Peikoff, Ayn Rand's handpicked heir to her legacy, on TV recently, you would be even more greatly shocked. They may be destroying the credibility of Objectivism in the process. G.D.
11/2/01 I heartily agree with your article on FAITH! Although I might call it REVEALED TRUTH vs the scientific method. It is the unquestioning acceptance of REVELATIONS, instead of critical thinking, that gets us into trouble.
I am pessimistic about weapons control. The course of human history has shown that once the genie is out of the bottle, watch out! Once we have invented new terrible weapons, someone always manages to use them, and to ratchet up the technology of killing, one more irrevocable notch. It is probably just a matter of time before some nut manages to set off an atomic bomb in a city.
We might be in a race to genetically alter human aggressiveness, before suitcase-sized hydrogen bombs eventually become widely available. Kind regards, Bill Pelton, Denver, CO via Internet
Response: Revealed truth vs. the scientific method is less inflammatory than "FAITH!" and very descriptive as a title for such an essay. Using the word "faith" however, does grab attention and focus on the problem. It's a style thing. G.D. [TOC]HUMANISTS AND THE HOLIDAYS Dave Miller
One can tell that our humanist community is searching for a solution to the winter holiday problem. This time of year is difficult especially if you have small children. (I have a 5-year-old daughter and a 2-year-old son.) I also believe the issue of the holidays is very important to attracting new members to our way of life. We want to be a fun group of people don't we? So in answer to your call for dealing with the holiday season let me tell you my story.
Some history: I grew up in a small steel and coal town in eastern Kentucky, When I was young I never thought to question the beliefs taught to me in Sunday school. My parents were not overly strict when it came to religion in the home, we did not pray at dinner or have religious icons hanging on the walls. We did, however, attend church fairly regularly. All of my Aunts and Uncles (I have seventeen) were extremely pious people and one was a minister at a local Methodist Church. My parents were good people that always strived to do the best for their children and they made many personal sacrifices to that end. We were good members of the church and community and we celebrated holidays just like everyone else around us.
We dressed up on Easter, hid Easter eggs, and went to church and of course, we celebrated Christmas.
College became a turning point as I was exposed to many new ideas and began to develop critical thinking skills. But it was a very confusing time. I had no Free Thought organization to turn to for help and spent (or wasted) a lot of time discovering things on my own. It was a "spiritual quest" that ended several years later with the rejection of all things religious and the discovery of humanism.
When I finally become an atheist it felt as if a large shackle or weight had been removed from me. Things in life connected and made so much more sense than the nonsense I had been taught in church. I gladly gave it all up, free at last from shackles of religion!
Free from all except... Christmas. Christmas took me many more years to finally let go of. And giving it up was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do.
Christmas seems to be a way that children of religious families get indoctrinated into a lifetime of Christianity. As a child, once you've joined the Christmas club you will always look back in fond, loving remembrance of those happy Christmas mornings with a great sense of nostalgia. And this is when religion digs in deep. Christmas opens a child's mind to magical and wishful thinking that is just right for religious indoctrination. A child participating in Christmas absorbs enough of the religious and consumer aspects of the holiday to last a lifetime. As an atheist I knew I had to put "my money where my mouth is" and give up the holiday. But strong feelings of nostalgia are difficult to let go of.
I did try other ways to celebrate the "Holy-day" but it all seemed too much like Christmas. My Christian friends always just looked at me as if to say, "There's Dave the atheist, you know he celebrates Christmas, he must still believe in some sort of God at Christmas time."
I tried Solstice but came to the conclusion that, after years of giving up one set of outdated superstitions why would I seek to replace it with yet another set. Do I really care that the days are getting longer enough to celebrate it. And what of the other three Solstices? I just had to let all of it go. It was tough but I was finally able to do it. I have been Christmas free for eight years now, and I love observing this bloated, consumer driven, religious thing of a holiday from the sidelines.
When I married my wife I developed a unique perspective on all of this. She comes from a Jewish family (she is now a humanist) and for years has always been an outsider to this yearly Christmas madness. Her family did (and still does) celebrate Chanukah. And she feels the same way about Chanukah as I do about Christmas.
So what to do? After eight years of trial, our family has found a solution that works well for us. Just say no to Christmas/Chanukah and celebrate a holiday that's already with us: New Years Eve! But give the holiday a humanistic spin and give it more meaning than it currently has. In the grand, historical tradition of Christians moving into an area and adapting the local customs and holidays to their own religious practices so too can we take over New Years Eve.
Here's how it works: 1. We do not celebrate Christmas (or Chanukah or Kwanzaa). We make it clear to our friends and neighbors that we do not celebrate these holidays. Why would an Humanist/atheist celebrate them anyway? Depending on the day of the week the holiday falls on I usually work (I agree with most everything Tom Flynn has to say on this subject). Some times we have taken advantage of Christmas day if it falls on a weekend and gone skiing. It's a very peaceful time to ski, no crowds, no lift lines.
Other times we have gone to a local duck pond to feed the ducks in the early morning. What a weird experience to drive around seeing only two or three other cars on the road. It's also a good time to talk to your children about the holiday and why other people celebrate it. My children are being exposed to these holidays, whether it's through daycare, other family members or the media. We do not live in a vacuum and it would be impossible to keep these holidays from them. Neither do I want them to gravitate toward one of them later in life because of a lack of exposure. We approach it as Christmas/Chanukah is something that happens in other peoples homes. But not in ours. It's O.K. to go to a friend's or relatives house this time of year and see the Christmas tree or light a menorah. But we don't do that at home simply because we do not subscribe to what those things represent. Kids are bright. They unders! tand this concept.
2. We tastefully decorate our house for New Years, both inside and out. (We find that Christians do not understand the word "tastefully" when it comes to Christmas decorations. Of course Christmas is a holiday of excess and not taste.) We live on a court that has six houses. Five of them are decorated with Christmas decorations and ours is decorated with Happy New Year! It definitely shows the world that we do not celebrate "their" holiday. After trying different types of decorations, all of which seemed too "Christmassy" we decided on a Winter/New Years theme.
At our house you will find all of the common New Year symbols from festive Happy New Year signs to clocks, banners, confetti and balloons.
We stay away from decorations featuring alcoholic drinks/glasses. This is a family holiday. The adults can drink all they want but I don't think it's a great idea to enforce that concept on small children. Our other decorations are slanted towards the color white (for snow, we use white tinsel), our lights are also white (easy to find in the Christmas section of stores these days) and we decorate with snowmen, penguins and polar bears. Each year my daughter gets to play with the decorations as most of them are plush toys. The snowmen are a little tough to find because most have a Christmas look to them (ivy, Christmas presents, etc.) but we've found them without these things or we've simply modified them with a little paint or a pair of scissors.
3. We start our shopping after Christmas. This is wonderful. Stores are not crowded (except the return lines), there is plenty of parking, you don't have to deal with other angry "happy holiday" shoppers, things are on sale, it's a delight! The only down side to this is depleted stock, so if you want a hot toy item you have to get it before the holidays.
Our children are included in the decision making process. My daughter and I shop together for presents for her mother and her brother. These presents will be from her and she will help pick them out and wrap them.
Mom and dad discuss what items cost too much and which ones are good and we buy the gifts for them. In the future we will start a gift budget to help them understand the concept of money. We also buy all of our holiday decorations and gift-wrap at this time. Most of it is 50%-75% off! The gift-wrap we used the first year seemed too "Christmassy" and we quickly discovered that it had a lot to do with the colors red and green. These two colors in combination cry out Christmas. Once again, years of trial to establish our New Years "look" landed us on silver, gold, and blue. I'm a graphic designer and an illustrator and from a "design" perspective these colors do not remind one of Christmas and work quite nice together. They are usually solid colors but once in a while we find wrapping paper with a pattern or design in these three colors that has a non-Christmas look to it. We like wrapping paper with snowflakes, stars an! d moons as well. (Stars and moons relate to the night aspect of the holiday.) These three colors also compliment the white lights that we decorate with. (Some have said that blue reminds them too much of Chanukah but it's the combination of blue and white that gives that impression so we stay away from that color combination as much as we can. The use of gold and silver helps offset this look.)
4. New Years Eve: Early on we tried opening gifts on New Years morning but the specter of Christmas morning reared up again so we changed it to New Years Eve. Picking a time to exchange gifts with excited children became tough so we had to come up with something that they would understand. So it became sundown. We look at it as the ending of the last day of the year and a time to say farewell to the old and welcome to the new. Around 4:00 we start a fire in our fireplace, put on some music, (we are building a library of festive, secular, non-holiday music) and then all family members, kids included, bring out the gifts we have bought and wrapped for each other. The gifts are placed near our fireplace where everyone can set around them easily. (No Christmas tree for us please!) The intent is to develop a sense of giving in our children as opposed to the sense of receiving that Christmas emphasizes. Our children know that the! gifts are from mommy and daddy as opposed to some mythical person named Santa. (Our children know Santa is a make-believe figure.) The "spirit" (if you will) or lesson of the holiday is an appreciation of all the good that we as humanists, singularly and as a family have done together over the past year and to look forward to the year ahead. We talk about this to our children. Its intent is to bring us closer together as a family. We give gifts to each other to say thanks for all that you have done over the past year. Starting at 8:00 we open our house to friends and family that would like to stop by and welcome in the New Year with us. We offer snacks and drinks and it usually ends up with the kids falling asleep on the couch while the adults make it to midnight. As far as the types of food we have... well the holiday is still a work in progress.
5. New Years Day: We have been toying with the idea of a midday feast for family and friends although this hasn't come to pass yet. As our children get older we will get evolved with some sort of charitable volunteer work, as long as it's not associated with any religious organization.
I hope that these are useful, interesting suggestions. New Years is an ever-changing, evolving holiday for us and what works well this year might be done better a different way next. Happy New Year! [TOC]
THE PEACE MOVEMENT Gerry Dantone
In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the US has embarked on a policy of the use of force to bring suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden to justice, as well as his benefactors, the Taliban. In pursuing this course, many innocent Afghani civilians will be killed and more will suffer. Is this the proper policy? Is this the ethical course to take? What could be a greater ethical wrong than killing innocent persons?
The Long Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives demonstrated against the US action in Afghanistan in early November opposite Roosevelt Field Mall. According to Newsday, one protestor claimed "It's wrong to kill innocent people in order to catch a criminal." Others said it would be better to seek to find the terrorists peacefully and then try them in an international court.
It is also claimed that millions of Afghani people are starving because the US attacks have driven humanitarian organizations out of the country. They claim millions of persons will die because of US actions and that bombs are no way to have a dialogue to reach peace. One claimed that the "US is the terrorist in this scenario."
Ghazi Khankan, director of the Interfaith Affairs for the Westbury-based Islamic Center for Long Island said the US should have allowed the UN Security Council to decide how to respond to the terrorists. "We believe in due process. Even a country should be innocent until proven guilty," he claimed.
Are these legitimate criticisms? Each item deserves reasonable and compassionate consideration.
Is it wrong to kill innocent civilians in order to catch a criminal? Of course it is wrong to simply disregard innocent lives when pursuing justice, but the question must be asked: "If NO innocent lives can be risked, will it be possible to achieve justice?" Even more important is this highly relevant question: "If this (assumed) criminal organization is not apprehended, will more innocent civilians die in that case than would die in the pursuit of this organization?"
This is not an easy question to answer with absolute certainty, but one must admit that the goal of bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, are the deaths of as many "infidels" as possible; these are their stated claims. Already about 5000 innocent Americans are dead in his latest attack. Also, bin Laden has been implicated in numerous murders of civilians all over the globe over the years, including hundreds if not thousands of Muslims. Up until this point it would seem that allowing bin Laden's freedom has cost many lives and that the US would have to be grossly indifferent to civilian casualties to cost more lives than it would save in its efforts to capture bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The US has gone to great lengths to minimize civilian deaths, though it is expected that many civilians will die. So far, though, it would be reasonable to expect that not pursuing bin Laden would be more deadly to civilians than pursuing him. ! This conclusion would be a certainty if bin Laden were to acquire a nuclear weapon or a smallpox weapon.
It might even be argued that more Afghanis would die sooner if the Taliban and bin Laden remained unmolested in Afghanistan. The death rate for children there is enormous, women have little or no health care and the general mortality rate is among the world's highest. The cause was the repressive Taliban regime. If the US removes them and follows up with aid, rebuilding, etc., then it is almost a certainty that the lives of the typical Afghanistani person would improve. Lives would be saved. The focus should be on the US efforts after the military action.
This is not even taking into account the absolute misery in which women were forced to live. One could argue that half of the country's population would had no worthwhile life under the Taliban and that only a military action, with its unfortunate side effects of civilian deaths, could possibly have improved their lot. If the US did not remove the Taliban, the opposition forces would most likely have failed for the present time, and abject misery would continue. This must be part of the equation.
Are the US efforts contributing to a charitable relief disaster? Of course, charitable efforts are hindered during bombings, but the US has made an effort to drop food supplies. Yet the disaster was ongoing before the US intervened. The life expectancy was already among the worst in the world. And further, the Taliban harassed aid workers, even arresting those who were Christian on trumped up charges. There is no doubt that removal of the Taliban is vital in improving the lives of the people. Once again the focus should be on the US' efforts at giving aid to Afghan refugees.
Should the UN or some other court of justice handle the situation? In this case, idealists must be realistic. The UN is not truly qualified to be a fair and impartial judge, nor are other courts where dictatorships, theocracies and monarchies might sit in judgment of a liberal secular democratic republic. If the evidence were to be convincing to US citizens and the courts were to decide against the US, would we allow this to stand? Why?
Only 25% of the world's population has a measure of freedom, the rest has little freedom. China, the Middle East, much of Africa etc. cannot sit in judgment of international right and wrong when they are not ethically justified in the rule of their own countries.
In addition, some of the tools at the UN's disposal are crueler to civilians than war. The UN embargo against Iraq has not led to Hussein's removal, and instead Hussein has allowed it to impact the population, killing many, and building hatred against America. A military action at the end of the Gulf war, to remove Hussein, may have been a less deadly course for the typical Iraqi than the UN embargo.
At the present time, both the Egyptian and Pakistani governments have stated that there is enough evidence to indict and convict bin Laden. A video exists of bin Laden taking credit for the WTC attacks, and exhorting his followers. The Taliban were given the opportunity to extradite bin Laden and refused. There is no chance of courtroom justice until he is forcibly removed from Afghanistan.
The US must be extremely considerate of the plight of the Afghanistani people and reduce their risks in this war. Yet allowing bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban to continue in power would be far more dangerous for humanity when one considers their statements, intent and actions. Nuclear and biological war is not impossible for them - we cannot wait for them to acquire this potential, and in the process, a country can be liberated. It is hoped that the US does not lose patience with a precise tactical approach if and when US military casualties begin to add up. To abandon the pursuit of the terrorists and the government that hides them will almost surely lead to many more deaths, including Afghani, possibly nuclear war or a great biological plague, in the long run.
If those who support completely non-violent means of dealing with this crisis honestly believe that less deaths would result from that type of approach, they would need to display their plan, including whatever appeasements to the terrorist demands they suggest will be necessary, what the expected the fruits of those appeasements would be, taking into account the continued death and misery of the people of Afghanistan itself under a non-violent scenario (on the part of the US only) and the likely future victims of Al Qaeda terrorism. If this scenario would most likely result in a better world than if the terrorists were removed forcibly, with the attendant collateral damage, then they will have made their case. However, it would be dogmatic and anti-humanistic to promote a non-violent approach on the sole grounds of a principle alone and ignore the desperate needs of the imprisoned people of Afghanistan, and the incredible danger to innocent Americans from mu! rderers without consciences. [TOC]
FROM AMERICANS UNITED: REP. ISTOOK TO REINTRODUCE SCHOOL PRAYER AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTIONRep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) has announced that he will reintroduce a constitutional amendment to allow government-sponsored religion in public schools and other public buildings.
Americans United, which helped spearhead opposition to Istook's previous efforts to amend the Constitution, has learned that the Oklahoma congressman began circulating a letter last week among House members seeking co-sponsors for his new proposal. He plans to introduce the "Religious Speech Amendment" in Congress in the next few weeks.
"This constitutional nightmare would grievously damage religious liberty in this country by blurring the line between church and state," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "This is offering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Religious speech is already alive and well in this country, guaranteed by the First Amendment.
"Istook's amendment would destroy the delicate church-state balance we have struck in this country over the last two centuries," Lynn added. "Because this country has separated religion and government, we have created one of the most religiously diverse nations in the world. Our First Amendment works fine, it doesn't need fixing."
AU's Lynn noted that, if passed by Congress and ratified by the states, this amendment would bring sweeping changes to the church-state landscape and alter the First Amendment for the first time in American history. Among the likely consequences are coercive school-sponsored prayer in public school classrooms, government endorsement of religious texts on public property and divisiveness among religious groups as they are forced to compete with one another for government recognition.
This new effort represents Istook's third try to change the text of the Constitution. In June 1998, House members voted 224 to 203 in favor of H.J. Res. 78, a majority but still far short of the two-thirds necessary for a constitutional amendment. Istook tried again a year later with H.J. Res. 66, but the amendment never received a floor vote.
Istook has suggested in media interviews that his amendment is necessary to protect the people's right to pray in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. AU's Lynn believes that argument is "nonsense."
"In recent weeks, Americans have prayed, or not prayed, according to the dictates of their conscience," Lynn observed. "This is exactly how it should be. We should allow Americans to make up their own minds about religion, and keep the government out of it. The Constitution didn't need to be amended the day before the terrorist attacks, and it doesn't need to be amended now."
According to news media accounts, the text of the amendment will read: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, or prescribe school prayers."
AU's Lynn noted that Istook's emphasis on schools is troubling.
"The idea that prayer has been banned in public schools is a myth," said Lynn. "All the law requires is school neutrality on religion. Students already have the right to read their chosen sacred texts in their free time, organize after-school religious clubs and say prayers before meals or at any time they seek spiritual guidance. An amendment to protect school prayer is completely unnecessary." [TOC]
SHOULD WE FEED AFGHANI CHILDREN? Gerry Dantone
In embarking in the "War on Terrorism," President Bush has urged American school children to donate $1 each toward an effort to feed Afghani children impacted by the US attack on Taliban locations in Afghanistan. This call has been met with a mixed response at best.
Some persons do not want to hear about assisting anyone other than Americans. This position has been solidified by the hateful attitude of many who would receive that assistance. Is this an exaggeration?
The NY Times, on Sunday, October 21, 2001, ran an article entitled "Jihad's Women" in which a mother in a Pakistani madrassah (religious school) for women is quoted as saying, "I named my son Osama because I want to make him a mujahid. Right now there is war, but he is a child. When he is a young man, there might be war again, and I will prepare him for that war. In the name of God, I will sacrifice my son, and I don't care if he is my most beloved thing. For all of my six sons, I wanted them to be mujahadeen. If they get killed, it is nothing. This world is very short. I myself want to be a mujahid. What will I do in this world? I could be in heaven, have a weekly meeting with God. Jihad is when you are attacked, you attack back. This is God's wish. We are not afraid. I am already asking my husband if I can go to Kashmir and train to fight. I will suicide bomb. If there are 20 to 3! 0 non-Muslims, there I will commit martyrdom. If America attacks, we will put our hands on the throats of Americans and kill them... Non-Muslims are our enemy according to the Koran, so Americans are our enemy. We hate America."
Despite bin Laden's recorded blessing of the attack, a 12 year old boy there is quoted as saying, regarding the World Trade Center tragedy, "Osama is not involved because he is a Muslim, and Muslims are not capable of such a terrorist act. He is a mujahid and is supposed to fight on the path of God."
Send food to others who might think similarly to the above persons? What, are we crazy?
Well, not exactly. It is true that if we do indeed feed those who are displaced as a result of the American quest for justice, we will be assisting many who will turn on the US as soon as they could. It is inevitable that this would happen.
However, by not lending a helping hand, any person inclined to not hate America may not be given the necessary motivation to follow through on that inclination. Simple self-interest on our part makes it clear that we should do our best to win sympathy, not create more enemies.
This has been done in the past with some good results. Germany and Japan are primary examples of former enemies who have become reliable allies, and relatively free secular democratic states. Perfection? No, but human rights have never been more honored in either of those countries than they are today. The populations of those countries generally sympathize with the US, a far cry from before WWII.
Imagine: we helped the former Nazi Germany! Why give up on Afghanistan?
There is a second motivation that should not be ignored when contemplating whether to assist Afghani children: It is the right thing to do. They ARE children after all, and the victims of religiously motivated child abuse. What could be more sickening than teaching children to hate others, and to not value one's own life? It is the opposite of humanism to only value God, and to consider one's own life and the lives of others as "nothing." Some WILL grow up to be terrorists, but it is right to save those who may not. They are the Taliban's most innocent victims, and they are children after all. [TOC]A WINTER SOLSTICE MESSAGE FROM ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
What creed could I accept for myself - or suggest for someone else?
To do all useful things, to reach with thought and deed the ideal in your brain ... to look with trained and steady eyes for facts-to increase knowledge, to take burdens from the weak-to defend the right.
Religion and morality have nothing in common, and yet there is no religion except the practice of morality.
Real religion means the doing of justice. Real religion means the giving to others every right you claim yourself. Real religion consists in duties of man to man, in feeding the hungry, in clothing the naked, in defending the innocent, and in saying what you believe to be true.
True religion is not a theory - it is a practice. It is not a creed - it is life. True religion is subordination of the passions to the perceptions of the intellect.
Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading bibles will not protect him from the blasts of winter, but houses, fire and clothing will. To prevent famine, one plow is worth a million sermons, and even patent medicines will cure more disease than all the prayers uttered since the world began.
Let us judge each other by our actions, not by theories. Not by what we happen to believe, because that depends very much on where we were born.
I believe in the festival called Christmas - not in the celebration of the birth of any man, but to celebrate the triumph of light over darkness - the victory of the sun.
I believe in giving gifts on that day, and a real gift should be given to those who cannot return it; gifts from the rich to the poor, from the prosperous to the unfortunate, from parents to children.
There is no need of giving water to the sea or light to the sun. Let us give to those who need, neither asking nor expecting return, not even asking gratitude, only asking that the gift shall make the receiver happy-and he who gives in that way increases his own joy.
Happiness is the only good; reason the only torch, justice the only worship, humanity the only religion, and love the only priest. [TOC]THE DEATH OF JOHN LENNON Lynne Schultz
Could March 4th 1966 have been the beginning of the end for John Lennon? On that day, Lennon said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus". He only meant that English teenagers were more interested in Beatles' music than in religion, but this angered Mark David Chapman, a fan of the Beatles and of Lennon in particular. Chapman was furious with Lennon for this remark as well as for writing the song "Imagine", which made Lennon a hero among freethinkers. Chapman had become deeply attached to Christianity, carrying around a Bible and a 'Jesus' notebook. Chapman and his prayer group started singing, "Imagine, imagine if John Lennon was dead." Jack Jones, an expert on Chapman, says that "Imagine" and the March 4th quote "deeply offended Chapman's Christian identity" and that Chapman may have begun plotting John Lennon's murder at that time.
Both a personal Bible and "Catcher in the Rye" were found on Chapman when he was arrested for the shooting. The main character of the novel, Holden, is preoccupied with "phonies". Jack Jones has noted that Chapman retraced the steps of Holden and believed Lennon to be the "ultimate phony". Chapman did idolize Lennon but the real John Lennon fell short of Chapman's ideal Lennon; hence John Lennon was a "phony". Chapman's ideal Lennon would of course be Christian like Chapman. Although the religious beliefs of the real John Lennon are unclear, Lennon obviously was not Christian, probably an agnostic, and definitely a freethinker. Perhaps Chapman killed John Lennon for nonconformity to Chapman's Christian ideals, a nonconformity that began its expression on March 4th, 1966 and triggered the rage of the disturbed young man who would later take John Lennon's life. [TOC]WINTER SOLSTICE Paul Lozowsky
Merry Winter Solstice and a happy New Year! Another year has gone by and at an ever-increasing speed.
This is my way of wishing you a joyous holiday season. Some people may wonder how I can celebrate at Christmas when I don't believe in a God, Our Lord. Why do I send cards, have a tree, send gifts and have a special dinner?
Those of us who make no secret of our rejection of Christian beliefs are often subjected to jibes of this nature. But we have unassailable historical facts to justify us and help us prepare confident rejoinders to the taunts of Christians who would exclude us from the feast of friendship and the "Christmas Spirit" of empathy and feasting.
Yes, the word Christmas is, of course Christian. But it was unknown before the eleventh century. The pantomime, the Christmas tree, candles, mistletoe, holly, feasting and celebrating were all of pagan origin originally. Even the Christian Nativity scene is pagan, representing the sun god on earth, born of a virgin at midnight, on the twenty-fourth day of December, laid in the manger of a stable, and visited by three gift-bearing kings or magicians.
It is doubtful if those Christians who annually bemoan the festive season as "pagan" realize the extent to which they are right. For in celebrating Christmas we continue a practice of our remote ancestors, who have done much the same thing every year at winter solstice for many centuries before the coming of Christianity.
For hundreds of years the celebrating of winter solstice was damned, shunned and banned by the church. Perhaps it is a good thing that human beings are less consistent than they like to think they are, and no one resents that Christians now join wholeheartedly in celebrating the universal pagan festival from which they alone stood aloof during the first generations of Christianity. Now, at times, though, it seems a bit too much that they should claim sole right in it.
In the past the Roman, Persian, Egyptians, and the Jews celebrated the Solstice. The Romans had a great feast called the Saturnalia, which lasted for about five days. Parties were given and presents were exchanged. It was in honor of the Unconquered Sun, which after reaching its lowest point of its annual course through the heavens, once again began to rise higher in the sky. It was the first indication, to those people, that winter would come to an end and that the animal and plant life on which humanity depended for its existence would flourish anew.
So I say good health, good food, good cheer, and let's PARTY. And watch your rear guard. [TOC]QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: The Rev. Adrian Condit, father of embattled philandering Congressman Gary Condit, blamed rapacious reporters, lying women, and weak cops for his son's troubles, and claimed in September that "Satan had a big-time role in this..."
Comment: Perhaps Gary Condit should have the Exorcist perform an exorcism - on everyone outside of Gary Condit's immediate family.
Item: Well-known rapper Christopher Martin, of the rap group Kid N Play, was arraigned in Islip, Long Island, NY, for failing to pay child support to his former wife. According to Newsday, since their divorce in 1995, he has had no contact with his son and has failed to pay most of the $159 a week child support a Nassau County Court ordered him to pay while he lived in Syosset. In recent interviews over the past few years, Martin has claimed he had lost all his money in failed business ventures, was contemplating suicide, but then decided to devote his life to religious work. He said he was working on Christian rap and a Christian docu-drama. He faces up to 5 years in prison.
Comment: The bible says in Mark [13]
[10] And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached.
[11] And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
[12] And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death.
[13] And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.
I guess Mr. Martin's priorities are biblical in origin after all. And he'll be saved!
Item: Gunmen trying to stir up hatred with Northern Ireland's Catholics promised more bloodshed after killing a Protestant teenager who was standing with his Catholic friends.
Comment: No religious crime is greater, for some it could be argued, than for not hating those who you are supposed to hate.
Item: From the NY Times, Sunday, 8/12/01:
"... In a study published today, researchers contend that some forms of religious anxiety may in fact increase the risk of death among people who are ill.
The researchers, who surveyed 596 elderly hospitalized patients in 1996, found that those who said they "wondered whether God had abandoned me," "questioned God's love for me" or "decided the devil made this happen" were more likely two years later to have died than patients who did not endorse such statements. The patients in the study were almost exclusively Christian, with the majority representing conservative or mainline Protestant denominations." For more info go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/13/health/psychology/13RELI.html?ex=998707473&ei=1&en=51ac098aac9a2568.
Comment: The study had one problem in that many of the patients were unavailable for follow-up investigations. However, it would be assumed that the unavailable subjects would be split the same way as the known subjects. Mathematically, the researchers say, this assumption should hold up. Otherwise it makes sense that inner turmoil would lead to poorer health.
Item: Former NY Jet football player Mark Gastineau was released from jail in July 2001 after 11 months for violating his probation on a 1998 conviction of assaulting his wife. He had been found guilty of assault in 1984 and was sentenced to 3 years probation in 1993 for drug charges. Gastineau visited Jet camp in early August, saying, according to the Associated Press, that he "had found religion." The next week he was arrested for speeding in Sedona, AZ, and was found to have an outstanding drug paraphernalia warrant.
Comment: It is amazing what people believe becoming religious will do for them. I am waiting for someone to say the opposite - after going through many self-made problems, reassuring everyone that they had "discarded" religion and had become a humanist. It won't happen most likely because humanists should humbly acknowledge that improving one's character is not dependent on what you believe or fail to believe. It's a process that is begun by nurturing concern for others as a child and is reinforced throughout one's life.
Item: From AU: How will Bush's faith-based initiative allow church groups to proselytize using government tax dollars? Marvin Olasky, a former Bush advisor, and author of the term "compassionate conservatism," says that "vague language" in the recently House passed bill will allow it "as long as you do it right and keep separate books."
According to an Olasky article in World magazine, if, for example, a homeless shelter had a sermon after a free meal, it could require attendance to the sermon or offer as an "alternative" to the sermon a requirement that the homeless person must write a "paper" after the dinner. The choice, in other words would be, attend a sermon or do "homework." Most, obviously, would opt for the sermon.
Comment: Would such a practice be tolerated if a non-Christian or anti-Christian message were the choice? Nahhhhhhhhhh!
Item: (From the Ayn Rand Institute) Brazil's government has declared that it will seize the formula for Viracept, a drug used to fight AIDS, and manufacture it without compensation to Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.
"This is just the beginning of a worldwide trend," said Robert Tracinski, a columnist for Creators Syndicate and fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "Other poor nations, especially in Africa, are expected to follow Brazil's lead, seizing the formulas of patented drugs and making pirated knock-offs--all justified by the claim that they are putting 'lives before profits.' But this ignores the fact that attacking the profits of drug developers destroys the incentive to create new drugs."
"The U.S. government needs to take a stand for the patent rights of its citizens," said Tracinski. "It needs to put an immediate stop to Brazil's destructive policy of looting the scientists and innovators who create the life-saving drugs on which we depend. But to do that, we need to reverse our own moral priorities--and understand how lives depend on the freedom to make profits."
Comment: Here is a legitimate issue - if drug companies do not make profits after developing new drugs, why make the new drugs? If there are no new drugs, there is nothing to "steal" in order to save AIDS victims. However, rather than solving the problem, the profit motive system merely supplies a certain kind of justice to the capitalist, not that this should be overlooked. Is humanity better off with this arrangement? Would scientists still research for new drugs and cures for problematic diseases?
Answer: Of course they would! The scientists that developed the new drugs were most likely salaried employees - they do not own the companies in the vast majority of cases. They would press on with this research if the government or the United Nations paid them.
Does the profit motive direct capital in the manner most consistent with humanity's best interest? Not always: Consider the number of hair growth drugs that are on the market. These drugs save no lives yet are the subject of great research, marketing and emphasis.
The free enterprise and capitalistic system is indispensable, but sometimes it needs to be reigned in. Some would call any such controls equivalent to socialism, while those who desire a completely planned economy regard any free enterprise or capitalism as alienating and fascist. Since humanity is not perfect in its motives and ambitions, an idealistic system is doomed to failure. Patchwork seems inevitable, and so the drug distribution system that deals with worldwide plagues needs a special patch of its own. A compromise is in order.
Item: Belfast Protestants attempted to prevent Roman Catholic school children from entering the front door of their Catholic school, which is located on a "Protestant" roadway. (Note that there are almost no secular public schools in Northern Ireland. Almost all schools are religiously affiliated, resulting in the obvious good will towards others.) About 100 hardliners pelted children, parents and police with bottles and other objects as they entered the school. One bomb was set off injuring police. The Protestants claimed that they were responding to Catholic attacks on their neighborhood which is separated from the Catholic part by high metal fences and the school. They accused some of the Catholic parents of being IRA members orchestrating violence. Further heightening tensions was the death of a Protestant boy struck by a car driven by a Catholic earlier in the week.
Said a local resident, "It's weird but true that you can tell somebody's religion by the side of the street they walk on."
Comment: Obviously there are huge differences between Catholics and Protestants that cannot be resolved peaceably. What possible common ground can they find? The very presence of each other's children in the other's neighborhoods represents a danger to that neighborhood. The only possible solution is total separation or the annihilation of one group or the other.
Or perhaps they're all deluded by their religious beliefs.
Item: Nawal el-Saadawi is a rarity - an Islamic feminist who happens to be Egypt's most widely translated writer. She says, "For me, Islam has always meant belief in God, the spirit of justice, freedom and love. Wearing the veil is not necessarily an indication of high morals." Her anti-fundamentalist stance has led to an accusation of apostasy, which in turn is being used to force her to divorce her husband of 37 years, Sherif Hetata. Using an obscure tenet of Islam called "hisba," an attorney has filed a complaint against her claiming her immoral views have "ousted her from the Muslim community" thus obliterating her right to remain married to a Muslim! She swears, no one can separate her from her husband, only death.
Comment: This wouldn't be a form of prejudice, would it? Is it worthy of worldwide condemnation? It is amazing how this kind of religious prejudice, though not technically "racially" based, escapes the attention that Zionism, which also has a religious component to it, has not been able to avoid. Prejudice is so rampant across the world that there is hardly a society qualified to fairly identify it where it exists.
Item: Memorial services for the victims of Dominican Republic bound American Airlines Flight 587 were held in the Rockaways, and attended by local residents and residents of Washington Heights, home to many in the Dominican community. Since many persons of both communities were of the Catholic faith, Catholic services were held. Said one participant, "The parallel of religion and grief are stronger than any ethnic difference."
Comment: On the surface, it would seem that faith is bringing these two communities together. This is true in this case, however, take note of the implied corollary: Differences in faith would be stronger than any ethnic or cultural similarity. Indeed, communities could have been united in grief alone, as they were after the World Trade Center tragedy. However, it was religious differences that acted as the cause of that grief. Being united on the basis of a shared belief in a supernatural realm is a shallow unity; togetherness on the basis of common human aspirations and concern is far more universal. [TOC]
LISH Email Action List Being Formed!
In order to allow LISH supporters become informed of an event or make a response that requires their immediate attention, an action email list is being formed. If you'd like to know about an event or anything that requires the immediate attention of humanists on Long Island, send a note to LISecHum@aol.com.
To encourage LISH member letters to the editor, here are email addresses of local print media: Daily News, voicers@edit.nydailynews.com; NY Magazine, NYLetters@primediamags.com; NY Post, letters@nypost.com; NY Press, mugger@nypress.com; NY Times, letters@nytimes.com; New Yorker, themail@newyorker.com; Newsday, letters@newsday.com; USA Today, editor@usatoday.com; Village Voice, editor@villagevoice.com; Wall Street Journal, editors@interactive.wsj.com.
LISH Affiliation News!
Good news for LISH and its membership. As you know, LISH is a corporate affiliate of the Council for Secular Humanism. In addition we are also an affiliate of the American Humanist Association, though not in any corporate sense, and a charter member of the Long Island Humanist Coalition. In the last month, the LISH Board of Directors has also voted unanimously to affiliate as a supporter of "Scouting For All," and "American Atheists." Both of these affiliations can be revoked at any time, though LISH sees only benefits from both arrangements.
"Scouting For All" promotes that the concept of Scouting be open to all regardless of sexual orientation or religious beliefs or non-beliefs. American Atheists are leaders in the defense of Church-State separation, and LISH's affiliation may become a source of new members.
LISH will not need to alter in any way any of its policies or by-laws to accommodate these new affiliations, and affiliation is at no cost to LISH. Comments and opinions from the membership on these affiliations are encouraged.
SOS Meeting 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.
The 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 home page of SOS is http://www.secularsobriety.org. This web site has much information for downloading on running SOS groups.
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested, email us @LISecHum@aol.com
December 14, in Bayside, Book: "The Moral Animal," by Robert Wright.
January 11, 2002, in Amityville, Book: "The Prince," by Niccolo Machiavelli._____________________________________________________________________
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism or the American Humanist Association, 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. [TOC]