INQUIRER Volume 5, Issue 04, April, 2002, 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) Rain Dances, Voodoo, Wishful Thinking and Intercessory Prayers
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Creating Monsters In Laboratories and in Our Minds
4) Dogma Kills
5) By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them (Matthew 7:20)
6) In a Nutshell: The Church and Sexual Abuse
7) Quickies
8) Freedom in the World 2002: The Democracy GapTRANSCRIPTS!
We now have a number of transcripts available of LISH forums at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library and other locations.
Among the availabilities transcripts are“Darwin, the Other Great Emancipator” by Elof Carlson;
“Don't You Believe in Anything?” by Ron Barrier;
“Darwin Before the Penny Dropped,” by Hugh Rance;
“Misconceptions on Evolution and Creationism” by Kieran McNulty
“What Is Separation of Church and State?” by Gerry Dantone.
“Media Infidels” by Gerry Dantone.
“Why We Need a Humanist Coalition on Long Island” by Gerry Dantone.
“The Ten Commandments in Public Facilities” by Gerry Dantone.
“James Madison and Separation” by Gerry Dantone.
“Why Be Good?” and “Science and Creationism” by Gerry Dantone.
LISH members ONLY can email LISecHum@aol.com to request a copy.
SECULAR HUMANISM is the philosophy of life guided by reason and science, freed from religious and secular dogmas, motivated by an appreciation of life and the lives of others, seeking to reach goals of human happiness, freedom and understanding on this earth, in this life.
LISH MEETING INFORMATION
The LISH monthly forum will be held Friday, April 26, 2002 @ 7PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, Nassau County, and will feature Norm Allen, Executive Director of African Americans for Humanism, and an editor at Free Inquiry Magazine. The topic will be “African-Americans and Humanism: A History.” Don't miss this outstanding and important program!
The 7PM, Friday, May 24, 2002 forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, will feature Sandy McIntosh, Ph.D. Sandy is the author of eight books and managing editor of “Confrontation,” a literary magazine published by Long Island University. He will offer a presentation on “Carlos Casteneda, the New Age and hoaxes.” This will be a special opportunity to hear the story of the acceptance and the later disillusionment of a follower of a well-known New Age guru.
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.comRAIN DANCES, VOODOO, WISHFUL THINKING AND INTERCESSORY PRAYERS: DO THEY DO ANY GOOD? Donald B. Ardell, Ph.D.
I recently returned from the First International Wellness Conference held in Galveston, TX. It was a fine event. The speakers, myself included, were interesting (we should hope so!), the topics were varied and provocative, the setting at Moody Gardens was spectacular and the organization of the multiple sessions over seven days for four distinct groups was dazzling. Participants had a choice of sessions in multiple tracks and there were many cooking demos as well as tasty, nutritious meals to die for (with fine wines, to boot!). There were many fitness and other activities, a large expo, comprehensive handouts, creative scheduling and much more--all remarkably effective for a first-time convention. That's the good news. The bad news is that only one point of view was expressed at all the keynotes! This, of course, is not unusual. It is my major complaint about the annual National Wellness Conferences (NWC) in Stevens Point, WI. However, even more so than at the NWC, this event featured speakers representing primarily alternative points of view and highly unconventional approaches. Fair enough, but the audience, in my opinion, would have benefited from stimulating, cordial challenges to unusual claims. Most of the keynoters represent ideologies at least partially at odds with scientific worldviews. How interesting it would have been to learn what skeptics, free thinkers, scientists and others might have contributed. There were so many provocative claims put forward, many in serious conflict with familiar takes on reality. I think even the gurus would benefit from having a few non-acolytes in the audience or, better yet, on stage now and then.
In my opinion, only one of the ten keynotes did NOT cry out for rebuttals and additional perspectives. This single exception was the noon lecture by Loretta LaRoche. When Loretta finished, nothing additional was needed save the energy to get off the floor and massage the platismus, zygomaticus and frontalis muscles, all stretched and sore from laughing so hard for nearly an hour.
Everyone exposed to the other keynoters would have benefited from a good dose of alternative explanations. Some rather wild claims were made that would have attracted interesting exceptions based upon reason and critical thinking. In fact, a lot of additional information should have been included in the presentations based upon alternative explanations for phenomenon noted and interpretations expressed. Such input would have countered or at least mitigated the unchallenged assertions by the likes of Deepak Chopra, Rachel Naomi Remen, Dharma Singh Khalsa and others. Most important, other perspectives might have prodded audience members to think like responsible adults rather than nod agreement and take notes like obedient children. Informed rebuttals might have reminded all in attendance to consider that there are many possible explanations for most phenomena. Such a variety of viewpoints might have led to a better understanding than was available from the comforting and unchallenged words of the gurus, true believers and others whose careers depend upon the promotion of a single mindset on topics of their considerable expertise.
None of the speakers needed a strong challenge, an informed rebuttal and a different explanation of what science does and does not support more than did Larry Dossey. Dossey is a physician promoter of spirituality and prayer whose topic on one day was "Science, Consciousness and Healing" and "Prayer, Healing and Modern Medicine" the next. This essay about rain dances, voodoo, wishful thinking and intercessory prayer is dedicated to Dr. Dossey.
Claims for the medical benefits of prayer have become a profitable business for some entrepreneurs and a favorite subject for religious zealots who want to believe that The Big Guy or Gal in the Sky grants favors or, if that's a bit much, that there is in the universe ample opportunity to engage in what Dossey calls "communication with the Absolute." Got that? This is Dossey's definition of prayer! Excuse me if I seem skeptical but I have a sense that this definition does not exactly thrill the Pope, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, to mention just a few. Nor is it likely to sit well with many ayatollahs.
A dozen or so books on healing prayer with alleged studies lending credibility to such claims have been on The New York Times best-seller lists for years. The media, given that religion sells papers and magazines, periodically run tabloid-like stories about "the breakthroughs with prayer" and television producers are never far behind (as in "Dateline NBC" which devoted entire shows to this subject). Dossey has hit pay dirt with such books as Prayer Is Good Medicine: How to Reap the Healing Benefits of Prayer (1996) and Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine (1993). All have been devoted to the idea that there is scientific evidence that prayer works.
Dossey remarked that the most common image of prayer in our culture is something like this: "Prayer is talking aloud or to yourself, to a white male cosmic parent figure, who prefers to be addressed in English." Of course, he acknowledges this to be a limited, culturally conditioned view of prayer. After a discussion of the extraordinary range of expressions and recipients of prayer, he expressed the notion of communication with the Absolute as his own "deliberately broad and ambiguous definition of prayer." The focus of his keynote and my essay is scientific claims for intercessory prayer, meaning "distant" prayer as in an individual being prayed for whom is remote from those praying for him/her and unaware that the praying is being done on his/behalf.
None of this is intended to mock religion or deny the value of prayer or other forms of relaxation, meditation, and communion with the ineffable and so on. In a free country, we have a duty to be respectful and tolerant of adult choices, and doing so is a part of a wellness lifestyle, in my view. Adults should be free to make whatever choices they like that do not harm others, including whatever ideas about meaning and purpose they find sensible. The problem I had with the keynotes in general and Dr. Dossey's lecture in particular is that they were advanced as scientifically sound, by a distinguished physician, without any benefit of other perspectives about the claims made.
Dossey is convinced that a celebrated study by Randolph C. Byrd demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy of "intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God." A cardiologist at San Francisco General Medical Center, Byrd claims to have followed 393 patients between August 1982 and May 1983. He divided the group into 192 patients who were prayed for, and 201 who were not prayed for. He reported that, among other things, the people who were prayed for were five times less likely to develop pulmonary edema. None required endotracheal intubation, and fewer patients died. That's it. On this basis, claims for the efficacy of prayer are made near and far by fervent believers. What sets Dossey apart is that he does so as a physician, claiming scientific studies such as Byrd's work as support for the uses of prayer. Hard to believe but true! Yet, not even Dossey defends the Byrd study as statistically significant, when pressed. It turns out that 13 patients (7%) in the prayed-for group died, compared with 17 (8.5%) in the control group. Big deal! Dossey admits that these and other differences between the two groups of patients were statistically insignificant. Stated Dossey: "Do we know any more about the possible effects of prayer from this experiment? I am afraid the answer may be no." (Source: Gary P. Posner, Free Inquiry, "God in the CCU?" Spring 1990.
Some doctors with a strong religious orientation are on record acknowledging the "fatal flaws" with Byrd and other so-called scientific experiments employed to support claims for the healing powers of prayer. These medical theologians claim there are even greater philosophical and theological problems. These occur when efforts are made to show scientifically that the Christian god and other gods answer prayers. Perhaps, but the claims seem most vulnerable due to three secular factors: (1) false assumptions, (2) erroneous information and (3) wishful thinking.
Dossey promotes prayer in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as was clear in his lengthy closing prayer at the International Wellness Conference. It seemed odd that his closing displayed little regard for his hippie dippy notion of prayer as "communicating with the Absolute."
There are many problems with the claims for intercessory prayer. I'll sketch a few.
Would and should doctors impose their spiritual beliefs on patients? How could anyone be sure that a prayer was answered? Critics are unanimous in pointing out that there can be no such thing as a controlled experiment concerning prayer. Subjects can't be organized into groups that received prayer and those that did not, for there is no way to know who did and did not receive prayer. How could investigators control for relatives engaged in unauthorized prayers or prayers said on behalf of all sick people everywhere? Further, what kinds of prayers work best? Are Baptist prayers number one? Or, do the Presbyterians or, god forbid, the Unitarians do it better? Is it possibly to assess the degree of faith in patients too sick to be interviewed? What about non-believers being prayed for? Do they get better from prayer, too? How about praying that someone will come to harm? If you can do well with prayer, how about malicious prayer (voodoo)? For that matter, how could Dossey or anyone demonstrate scientifically that it was their Christian god who answered a prayer, if a healing is attributed to divine intervention? After all, there are a lot of gods out there, most of them known to our species long before the current gods gained the upper hand with the contemporary inhabitants of the planet.
Dossey's response to these concerns is to claim that such objections are not important. As to problems with human subjects, he claims prayer works from a distance on animals, rodents, bacteria, yeast and crystals, who are not distracted or affected by the experimental process. Again, in addition to the fact that studies show no such thing, the fact is there are people all over the world praying for the well-being of all life on Earth, so it is impossible to separate bacteria, fungus, mice and so on into prayed-for and non-prayed-for groups. For all I know, someone might even be praying for the likes of me at this very moment, without my consent yet!
Also, many if not all of these studies are funded or conducted by believers who want to see efficacy of prayer outcomes. Dossey told the folks in Galveston that "all the researchers I know who are currently investigating the effects of intercessory prayer embody a sense of sacredness in their work, as if they are treading on sacred ground." Not a single experiment (human and nonhuman) has been replicated by independent organizations.
Curiously, Dossey seems pleased to associate intercessory prayer and religion with parapsychology, noting a growing dialogue between the two areas.
Unrelated to Dossey's claims for healing prayer, there is a larger question that might only occur to a skeptic, namely, what's the point of praying anyway to a god that is supposed to be all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful? Do the gods not know what is best for humans and other mortal subjects? Is it not, for instance, a bit of a presumption for football players like Kurt Warner to ask the Great One to favor their team in the NFL playoffs? There is so much "God bless America" chanting since the horrors of September 11. Wouldn't such a blessing have been timelier before 8:48 AM on that day? Or, to cite a quote from Nancy Willard that Dossey used in his speech at the conference, "If prayers worked, Hitler would have been stopped at the border of Poland by angels with swords of fire." Where are intercessory prayer results when really needed?
Never has there been a documented prayer claim for incontrovertible healing, such as the regeneration of a missing limb, or the regrowth of an eye. Now THAT would get my attention. Yet, such a thing would hardly seem much of a challenge for any deity credited with constructing an entire universe-in a week yet, according to one popular myth!
Well, Dr. Dossey's keynote does point up, in my view, the need for a give and take of alternative perspectives on important topics. As mentioned, the International Wellness Conference was terrific, and I recommend you look into it next year. The website for the conference is http://www.iwellcon.com/default.cfm
Who knows--they might even stage a few debates next year. Let look on the bright side and hope they do.
Donald B. Ardell, Ph.D., publishes the ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT (sample copy available on request to donardel@tampabay.rr.com). Author of many books, Don has been delivering entertaining lectures on the search for meaning, exceptional fitness and a secular perspective focused on reason and bemused skepticism as key wellness attributes since the release of his landmark "High Level Wellness: An Alternative to Doctors, Drugs and Disease" in 1977 (Rodale, Bantam and Ten Speed). He is the director of the wellness center at http://www.seekwellness.com/wellness/index.htm and a world champion in the sports of triathlon AND duathlon.
[TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
2/23/02 In a recent column a guy wrote Ann Landers and complained about how folks treated him when they learned he was an atheist. Sound familiar? He asked, "How can I get these well-meaning but ignorant people off my back?"\
Her answer: You can't, so stop trying. Deeply religious people feel they must "save" you, and nothing you do will convince them otherwise. You don't need to justify your beliefs to anyone. If an acquaintance says you are going to hell, reply "Thank you," and walk away.
I might have answered a little differently, but she certainly did show some understanding of our plight and she didn't do as so many would have done and refused to answer it. I congratulate her for it.
Now, our challenge: Does anybody think such a thing would have happened if so many of us hadn't spoken up so often? The next time you are challenged, think about that. Believe me we can all make a difference. Dipsey Dumpster via Internet
Response: There are more non-theists than any religious denomination in the US other than Catholics. It is time to speak up. G.D.
2/27/02 Overpraise of Darwin? As one with a strong nostalgic streak, I was delighted to see at Darwin Day Professor Elof Axel Carlson, who was one of my teachers during my first semester at SUNY-Stony Brook, back in.... well, the "when" is not really a major concern. The theme of his presentation was that Darwin, like Lincoln, was a Great Emancipator, one who liberated us from the slavery of supernaturalism. But how true is that? Was man previously helpless before the power of mysticism? Let us imagine that we are living in the year one hundred B.D. -- Before Darwin. We find that we are still confronted by the same question: What is "God"? Even in this time, there are the same two answers. The first is that "God" is the unknowable ... the INEFFABLE. On its face, this argument (if we can call it one) renders "God" nothing more than a nonsense term -- gibberish.
The second is that "God" is the Creator, the Mind who existed before matter. But how is that possible? As Ayn Rand pointed out, consciousness without anything to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. Thus, there is no -- and no doubt that there is no -- "God" for the same reason that there is no "square circle." We didn't need Darwin to tell us that "God" didn't create the birds and the bees. We didn't require a scientific explanation of the origin of speciation to emancipate us from Jehovah anymore than we required a scientific explanation of precipitation to emancipate us from Thor.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 14:1 KJV) This passage demonstrates that even in a thoroughly pre-scientific society, atheism existed, which proves that the most perfect antipode of supernaturalism is not the scientific method, but something older and even more profound: the rational mind. Barry Loberfeld via Interent
Response: There is no doubt that before Darwin, many persons were free of superstition. The fact remains however that his ideas presented a plausible natural explanation for many things that before were traditionally assumed by many if not by most to be magical. This is no small accomplishment. Darwin's discoveries were not necessary for one to be naturalistic in outlook; however they made it more likely that one would be naturalistic. G.D.
3/4/02 I was glad to see (LISH) at Queen's inclusive St. Patrick's parade. I wonder if they would exclude your group like it does gay groups from the Manhattan parade. I look forward to learning more about LISH. John Moran, Jackson Heights, NY
Response: I'm glad you saw us at the parade. We WILL be at the Gay Pride parade in Huntington on June 9. We urge all members to march with us behind our brand new 8' banner and help us run our information table. G.D.
3/8/02 Re: The Phantom Patriot's attack on “Pagan Owl Worshippers: Hey, as a well-known bonafide Pagan Owl Worshipper myself, I resent and protest this usurpation of my religion by some asshole terrorist! We never sacrifice children -- just rats. And we certainly wouldn't go around setting fires to mess halls -- we like to eat too much! Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, Pagan Owl Worshipper via Internet
Response: And someone out there somewhere thinks this is proof of your child sacrificing ways! People are so credulous! G.D. [TOC]
CREATING MONSTERS IN LABORATORIES AND IN OUR MINDS Keith Taylor
On January 22nd, the 29th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, a “pro-life” rally was held near Washington's Monument. Talk of terrorism, murder, and God's will were all tied to abortion.
Such set the table for our new national new bugaboo: cloning which was described as creating life in order to destroy it. That idea was even offered by the President speaking on the subject for his “Sanctity of Life” program.
Cloning is often passed off as the work of mad scientists. They are depicted as eccentric at best, evil at worst. Nearly two centuries after Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote Frankenstein the idea of creating life permeates our society. Movies of experiments by mad scientists gone awry pop up every summer.
A lot of the current rhetoric stemmed from what happened last October at a small Worcester, Massachusetts laboratory called Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) when some scientists split off a few cells from a single cell. That evoked an outcry for the Senate to pass the House bill outlawing cloning.
I want to know what is happening, not just what I'm told by folks shouting into microphones. Last October I invited Dr. Elie Shneour, CEO of San Diego's Biosystems Research Institute to a quasi scientific group I headed.
Dr. Shneour actually made the basics of both stem cell research and cloning understandable. Even I, whose knowledge of science comes from Star Trek, caught the drift.
The scientist made us understand why it is so important that the public get a grasp of what's going on with stem cell research, how the research applies to medicine, what the legal obstacles are, and even the frightening idea of creating life itself -- Shneour says life doesn't begin at conception, it continues. Still, he and most scientists are opposed, for ethical reasons, to reproductive cloning, but not therapeutic cloning.
Although practically none of our lawmakers and darned few of our religious leaders have any particular scientific training, they all manage to take their shots at the white coated guys who devote their lives to science. The rhetoric gets heated, often silly.
That was proven the day after the news of the ACT experiment when Senator Brownback (R-Kan) and an assortment of congress people, religious leaders and anti abortion folks held a press conference. All urged the Senate immediately pass the House bill banning all cloning. Just as later at the Washington Monument, there was no question these folks thought the growth of a few cells in a Petri dish was a human life.
Representative Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) even claimed: “... (we are) on the verge of having human embryo farms in laboratories all across America."
Dr. Shneour disagrees. He told us that the bridge from those three or four cells to a baby was enormous. “If a baby equaled The Encyclopedia Britannica, the 'creation' in Worchester was tantamount to the word 'The' in the title on the first volume.”
Shneour isn't alone. During a debate, Rep. James C. Greenwood (R-Pa.) commented, “This legislation would ban what rightly worries most Americans: cloning aimed at producing a child… Some will say, 'But wait a minute, once you put Mr. Greenwood's cheek cell into this empty cell and it divides, we have a soul.' ... That's ridiculous."
Meanwhile the benefits of producing stem cells in a laboratory might be enormous. Dr. Shneour suggested a more effective treatment or even a cure for heart disease, diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.
We must also recognize that the research may be less spectacular than that. It could end up having have little affect on dread diseases. Then the most important thing we would gain would be knowledge.
Finally the recent experiment did not clone a human. It did not even get as far as creating stem cells. Nothing evil happened. Evil is when ignorant people refuse to try to understand problems then make their decisions based on emotion or dogma. Dare we hope that a misconception of this problem can be put aside and that our lawmakers will look to those with answers to try to understand the problem?
(Keith Taylor is president of the San Diego Association for Rational Inquiry. He can be reached at krtaylorxyz@aol.com ) [TOC]DOGMA KILLS , Part 2 Gerry Dantone
A religious apologist recently made the following argument against non-belief in the print media:
"While religion has had its problems and people speaking in the name of religion have committed terrible crimes, so have Atheists.
"People who did not believe in religion caused the deaths, the murder, of 100 million people during the Second World War -- Stalin, Hitler, and besides them you have Pol Pot and you have many others.
"So it is not correct to say that religion, the fact that we're sitting here, fairly civilized, and we don't have 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 billion people committing suicide is a tribute to the religious values that were instilled by many of our prophets. Otherwise we would all exit this world if we listened to the Atheists."
What is wrong with this argument? By now everyone should know full well that Hitler indeed believed in God and considered himself a Christian and a Catholic. The following quotes from Hitler should suffice:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." [From Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf".]
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." (From Adolf Hitler's "My New Order".)
Stalin and Pol Pot 's positions are less clear. However, if we assume for the moment that they were atheists, this is merely a signal of what they did NOT believe, not what they DID believe. Consider that Stalin, Pol Pot and, for example, the Pope most likely had or have no belief in gremlins, leprechauns, Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, Zeus, and countless other superstitions; does this unite them in any particular manner? Is the Pope evil because Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were evil and the Pope also fails to believe, as did they, in the divinity of ancient Roman Emperors? Of course not; it is ridiculous.
Is mere theism, or belief in Gods, enough for morality? We have bin Laden and Hitler for convincing disproof. It is inevitable when one claims to have an absolute code of morality and behavior that this code be unrelated to human well being; after all absolute means that the consequences (including human misery) are irrelevant - it is absolute. In that case, if both atheism and theism are morally impoverished, what IS going on?
What the most cruel of history's villains DO have in common is their strict (one could say religious) adherence to a DOGMA, whether it be secular or religious. Bin Laden, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, the Crusaders, the Inquisitors and many more ALL placed their beliefs, no matter what they were, ahead of human well being. They were NOT humanists, even if they were not religious. Dogma is the aspect of any system of behavior that leads to the acceptance of cruelty and misery to others, and it is dogma that is to be rejected in favor of reason, objectivity, evidence and the only real source of human morality; caring for others.
Those who think there is some point to listing the cruelty of some historic atheists do no service. They should be railing against ALL dogma, religious or secular, but instead they believe their argument somehow justifies the acceptance of their particular religious dogma. In the age of bin Laden, this is no longer a mistake, but instead, willful ignorance and frightfully dangerous. [TOC]
BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM (Matthew 7:20) Oberon Zell Ravenheart, Founder, Church of All Worlds (Neo-Pagan)
“Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred, and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not the cause of love and unity is no religion.” ('Abdu'l-Bahá)
I feel that current events necessitate a societal re-evaluation of issues of religious freedom and tolerance.
Virtually all the current wars and conflicts in the world are essentially “holy wars;” conflicts based not so much on the traditional political goals of territorial conquest, but rather on ideological grounds -- competition between religions for dominion over the souls of the people. Indeed, several of this country's most prominent televangelists -- such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell -- have directly stated that there is a war going on here today for “the Soul of America.”
The world “Court of Public Opinion” has declared to be unacceptable such strongly held belief systems as Nazism and other attitudes which mandate human slavery, torture, genocide, etc. But there is a great and understandable reluctance to condemn such belief systems if they are held to be matters of “Religion” as opposed to “secular” institutions. One could wonder whether Nazism would be more tolerated even today had it been promoted under the guise of “religion,” and incorporated with a 501(c)(3), etc. For Hitler himself said that:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)
We might wish to dismiss as “extremist” such statements as the following, from a letter left behind by an 18-year-old Islamic Palestinian suicide bomber:
“Whoever believes that God's religion will be victorious without jihad, without blood, without body parts is under an illusion and doesn't know the nature of this religion.” (Reported by Reuters in Newsday)
But the following statements are attributed to Jesus, the “Prince of Peace:”
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I am come not to send peace, but a sword. Nor I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, And the daughter-in-law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)
“And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and father child. And children shall rise up against parents, and shall put them to death.” (Matthew 10:21)
Indeed, in this present crisis, couched as it is in apparent religious polarizations, it is important to keep in mind, as Don Lattin, San Francisco Chronicle Religion Writer, says, “that no religion has a monopoly on twisting spiritual truth... Terror fueled by religious fanaticism can infect all cultures, corrupt all faiths.” (“Televangelist, Convicted Bomber War Against the Secular,” SF Chronicle, 9/23/01)
Karen Armstrong, leading religion scholar and author of “The Battle for God,” agrees: “Everyone has belligerent passages in their scripture, and what fundamentalists have done is to stress those ferocious passages.” (Ibid.)
During my first visit to Australia, in 1985, I was interviewed on local television in Sydney. After explaining about Neo-Paganism, I was asked if I felt antipathy towards Christianity. I replied that my only argument with anyone of any other faith was solely insofar as they believed that their religion required them to persecute others not of their faith. I said that Paganism, being polytheistic rather than monotheistic, had a built-in “Diversity Clause” which made room for everyone -- requiring only that folks be willing to get along with each other.
And I said that the modern world of international communications, trading, travels and migrations -- which brings every religion and culture into contact with every other -- can no longer afford to indulge the rabid myopia of monotheistic fundamentalism, with its attendant holy wars, crusades, missionaryism and inquisitions. As Thomas Paine said, “The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion;” and “No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.”
“A Rwandan who survived a massacre of thousands at a convent testified in a Brussels court that the convent's Mother Superior and another nun assisted militiamen in the killings, locking convent doors and supplying gasoline for the killing inferno. This trial is the first outside Rwanda to hear a case concerning the genocide in which 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were killed. The nuns were charged and convicted of crimes against humanity.” (Long Island Secular Humanist Inquirer, Vol. IV, No.7; July 2001)
This all came home to me over twenty years ago, with the infamous “Jonestown Massacre” in Guyana, in which cult leader Jim Jones murdered nearly a thousand of his own followers rather than allow a few defectors to leave the cult. But neither at that time nor upon the occasion of subsequent murderous or “suicide cult” investigations has there seemed to be any general questioning of the foundational premise of such groups -- which they share with the largest monotheistic “Great Religions” -- that each of them believes themselves to be “The One True Right and Only Way.” Indeed, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” (Sam J. Ervin, Jr., “Protecting the Constitution” Michie, 1984)
Frankly, it's pretty hard to see much ideological difference between the extremist position of Osama bin Laden and his Taliban, and that of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who seized advantage of the tragic terrorist attack in New York on Sept. 11 to further their own little home-blown holy war by blaming the attack on: “the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America...” (Falwell speaking on “The 700 Club,” Sept.13, 2001)
“[Pat] Robertson and [Mahmud] Abouhalima [convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center] are not saying exactly the same thing, but it's close enough to be shocking. If there is a 'holy war' in the world today, it is not between Islam and Christianity, nor Afghanistan and the United States. It is between secularism and religious fundamentalism in all its forms.” (Don Lattin, SF Chronicle, 9/23/01)
Perhaps it is finally time to ask some hard questions about religious tolerance, diversity, and what kind of world we want to live in. Do we want a world in which everyone must be of the same faith, as fundamentalists of all stripes continue to advocate? Do we want a perpetual escalation of tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye, crusades and jihads? Or do we want a world in which every thread and strand of our respective heritages and traditions can be woven into an infinitely rich and varied tapestry? Personally, I choose the latter. I believe that “holy war” should be considered an oxymoron.
“The American ideal is not that we all agree with each other, or even like each other, every minute of the day. It is rather that we will respect each other's rights, especially the right to be different, and that, at the end of the day, we will understand that we are one people, one country, and one community, and that our well-being is inextricably bound up with the well-being of each and every one of our fellow citizens.” (Arthur J. Kropp, former U.S. Surgeon General)
So I have put together a little interview questionnaire concerning various matters of religious belief. These questions are designed to be asked verbally, one at a time and in this sequence, by journalists, sociologists, etc. of prominent religious leaders and spokespeople - including Pagans. I would very much like to see what answers would be given, and I would also very much like to see a comparative analysis printed and widely circulated, showing the responses from each of various religious leaders side-by-side...
For, as Jesus himself said:“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)
Questions for Religious Leaders
Please identify your religion, and distinguish it from all others.
Please describe the Sacred Mission, Divine Purpose, and Holy Objectives of your religion.
What is the single most important Precept of your faith?
How do you define “Evil,” and what kinds of actions do you consider to be evil?
What is the “Path to Salvation” as defined by your religion?
Do you believe that the God you worship is the only True God, and that all other Gods worshipped by people of other faiths are false?
Do you believe that your faith is the only True Religion, and that all other religions are false?
Do you believe that the members of your own faith are the only legitimate “Chosen People” of the only true God?
Do you believe that believers in other faiths are sincere and legitimate, deluded and ignorant, evil and Satanic, or what?
What is your opinion of the concept of “Universal Human Rights”?
What do you believe to be the proper position of your religion in the world today, and its relationship to other faiths and peoples?
Do you feel that the tenets and laws of your religion should be the laws of the land, and enforced upon all citizens and residents, whether or not they follow your religion?
Do you believe that the members of your faith deserve special legal and social rights and privileges, which members of other faiths do not?
Please describe the treatment you feel should be given towards “Unbelievers,” “Infidels,” “Heretics” and others who do not share your beliefs.
Do you feel an obligation to attempt to convert non-believers to your faith, whether or not they wish to be converted?How do you feel people who do not wish to be converted to your faith should be treated?
Do you feel that “Holy War” should be declared against people and faiths other than your own? Please explain the concept of “Jihad.”
Do you feel it is the intention of your God that other faiths and their adherents should be subjugated, enslaved or exterminated?
Do you feel that such institutions as the Holy Inquisition are necessary to root out heresy?
Do you feel that torture is a legitimate means of rooting out heresy? How about burning people at the stake?
Regarding Women: What do you believe to be the proper position of women in society? Please explain.
Do you believe that women have souls equivalent to those of men?Do women go to Heaven, or other afterlife? Do you believe that women should have equal access to education and literacy, as do men?
Do you believe that women should have the right to vote in elections, and on matters of public policy?
Do you believe that women should have a right to lead autonomous single lives independent of fathers or husbands?
Do you believe that women should hold positions and offices of political power in society?
Do you believe that women should be allowed to hold regular jobs, and receive the equivalent pay as men?
Do you believe that women should have the right to determine for themselves whether or not they wish to give birth?
Regarding the Earth: What do you believe to be the proper relationship of humanity to the environment?
Do you believe the Earth and all life on it was created for the use of man?Do you believe that other creatures than humans have souls? Do animals go to heaven, or other afterlife?
Do you feel any concern over the extinction of species by the hand of man?
Do you feel that “Environmental Issues” are legitimate concerns?
Do you feel that “Natural Resources” should be exploited as immediately, completely and efficiently as possible, or conserved and preserved for future generations? [TOC]
IN A NUTSHELL: THE CHURCH AND SEXUAL ABUSE: Gerry Dantone
On 3/14/02 Bishop William Murphy explained in a Newsday column, the Rockville Centre's Archdiocese position on handling child sexual abuse by priests, past and present. Among many other points, his statement contained this revealing point of view.
The Bishop wrote, “…I do not wish to allow the media to turn the tragedy of sexual abuse of minors into a forum to call the life of the Church and the Church's teachings into question as they have done in other places.”
Imagine ANY other institution saying this out loud! The Church, it is being said, is ABOVE questioning, and will oppose any opportunity for such questioning. Yes, the problem is the MEDIA for being an open forum of ideas. Bishop Murphy would prefer it act obediently.
The Pope, in an annual Holy Thursday message, was most concerned about priests afflicted by “sin” and the “mystery of evil,” a reference to the molestation of children by priests. However, there was NO mention or apology regarding the cover-up of abuse, perpetrated by Church leaders, which is the real scandal of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope apparently doesn't get it, or more likely, does not WANT to get it. We all know it is not Church policy to abuse children; the problem has been the Church policy in opting for silence, cover-up and denial. Once again the Pope's non-apology is overplayed by the media. He should be known as the “Teflon Pope.”
Simply put, the Church cannot allow questions about itself. If there were ever evidence for willful and aggressive ignorance, this scandal must be it.
Does the Church have any moral authority? What do you think? [TOC]
QUICKIES Gerry Dantone
Item: From Beth Corbin of Americans United: A "compromise" version of the "faith-based" initiative endorsed by President George W. Bush and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) poses constitutional problems, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The revamped proposal, drafted in conjunction with Lieberman and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), will omit contentious questions over "charitable choice," which had raised the ire of civil rights and civil liberties advocates.
"The White House claims this plan will offer equal treatment for all groups, but it actually gives special treatment to religious groups," said AU President Barry Lynn.
Lynn noted, for example, that religious groups would be able to receive public funds while displaying unlimited amounts of religious "art, icons, scripture or other symbols." Such displays will make many religious minorities feel like second-class citizens at institutions providing social services with tax dollars. "If a religious group receives public funds, they should display an American flag, not a crucifix."
To check AU's full coverage of the White House faith-based initiative, visit our online report at http://www.au.org/faithbased.htm .
Comment: Pres. Bush claims that this bill does not violate the Constitution's separation between church and state, though this is a debatable point. If he's so proud of himself for this “fact”, then exactly why did he propose originally a bill that did violate the Constitution?
Item: The Associated Press reported that the Tennessee county that was the scene of the Scopes “Monkey Trial” was ordered to stop holding Bible classes in its elementary schools. For 51 years, the 30-minute classes were held weekly for about 800 students. Parental consent was not required though students were allowed to participate in alternative activities if they objected to the classes. The judge ruled that school officials “acted with both purpose and effect to endorse and advance religion in the public schools.” The Plaintiff's identities were held in secret for their protection. The Freedom From Religion Foundation was also a plaintiff.
Comment: They'll just have to be content with intimidating kids into saying the Pledge with the “under God” phrase in it.
Item: The NY Times reports that women as well as men were taking entrance exams to the University in Kabul, Afghanistan. Though the weather was cold and the rooms for the exams unheated, faculty and students expressed their pleasure in the new opportunities ahead. "The Taliban? I have nothing to say about those people, they did rudely to Afghan women, we are happy to see them go," said a 25 year old woman who had spent the last few years just "busy at home." She now plans to become a teacher a play a more productive role in Afghan society. The Taliban, in addition to barring women from seeking a full education, destroyed many books, often by shooting them. Faculty member Dr. Rahmand says that if President Bush wants to give a convocation address at a campus where he is certain to be welcomed, he should go to Kabul. "We wish to help you, because Mr. Bush has helped us, by driving out these terrible Taliban" says the professor.
Comment: Of course, one school does not a consensus make. It is hoped, however, that the awful cost of the war in Afghanistan, the death of innocent Afghani civilians, will be more than offset by the prevention of innocent deaths at the hands of the Taliban, the ending of their civil war, the return of foreign humanitarian aid and the rebuilding of Afghanistan by the world community. They paid a heavy toll for the transgressions of their unpopular leaders, as has the US, and they deserve assistance. Donations of books and other educational materials would seem to be appropriate. The humanist community should see this as an obvious opportunity to help the Afghani people help themselves.
Item: Amidst some controversy, a 55-year-old Buddhist nun has become the first female monk to be ordained in Thailand, according to a report in Newsday. Monks are the main clerics in Thai Buddhism while nuns do little besides tend temples and other low-level work.
Comment: When a tradition becomes entwined with the “sacred,” fairness and the benefit to humanity of that tradition becomes secondary. It seems to be an unavoidable problem in religion, and other dogmatic practices.
Item: The AP reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in an interview on MTv that sexually active young persons should consider using condoms for safety and prevention of pregnancies. This advice was criticized by some conservative religious groups such as the Family Research Council which call the remarks “reckless and irresponsible” and a “slap in the face” to the President's supporters.
Comment: The religious right is in essence saying that if a person chooses to be sexually active outside of marriage, particularly if they are young, they must do so in the manner that leads to the greatest danger of disease and pregnancy. Doing it more safely and responsibly is unacceptable. Great advice!
Item: A bill allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments in Virginia schools was defeated in committee. Democratic Sen Ed Houck was concerned about what version of the Commandments was to be posted and whether secularizing them was sacrilege.
Comment: Well-intentioned concerns, but of course not the primary ones. First, it is unconstitutional, and second, the religious Commandments are un-American, in particular the First Commandment which demands that only one certain god be worshipped. In this country, so far, one may worship ANY god or NO god. This Commandment is a prescription for impossible intolerance.
Item: The AP reports that a state representative said in February he will file an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore over a ruling that denied child custody to a mother because she is homosexual. Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said Sunday he will file a complaint with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission over a state Supreme Court ruling released Friday in which Moore wrote a lengthy concurring opinion. Holmes said language in Moore's 35-page opinion that claims that all homosexuals are inherently evil violates the state judicial ethics canon and Moore should be removed from office.
"The statutes of Alabama, the constitution of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States do not designate blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, lesbians, Asians, Muslims or others as evil," Holmes said. "It's almost inconceivable the chief justice of the state would take a position like that." However, American Atheists reports that, in regard to the controversy over the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools which Judge Moore champions, Rep. Holmes has said in an AP story on 10/28/01 in the Mobile Register, “I'm against anything atheists represent because I believe in God."
Comment: Obviously Rep. Holmes is able to take such a position on atheists without feeling compelled to resign!
Item: Attorney General Ashcroft uttered the following statements to a group of Christian broadcasters in February 2002: “Civilized people - Muslims, Christians and Jews - all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator… We are a nation called to defend freedom - a tradition that is not a grant of any government or document, but is an endowment from God.”
In an earlier speech a month before, Ashcroft claimed that Christianity is a faith where “God sends his son to die for you,” while Islam is a “religion which requires you to send your son to die for him.” He tried to back away from that statement by saying that the war on terrorism is not a religious war but “a defense of our right to make moral choices, to seek fellowship with God that is chosen and not commanded.”
Comment: First he claims Islam demands that people die for their God, then places them under the umbrella of the “civilized” while leaving out Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, other religious persons, and of course atheists. Is there any person in this country LESS qualified to defend the rights of all Americans than John Ashcroft?
Item: Reporter Daniel Pearl was murdered by his radical Islamic captors by having his throat cut, but not until after he was made to say, “I am a Jew, my mother is a Jew” according to a government official's report on a video tape recovered from the captors. These statements were meant to justify their execution of him.
Comment: Although we already knew this, it once again demonstrates the complete absence of any socially just cause being advanced by the terrorists. They are as purely a religiously inspired fascistic imperialist movement as one could devise.
Item: According to a Newsday report, 90 persons are suing the Hare Krishna sect for sexual abuse which occurred while they were children in the care of the organization at a boarding school. The suit is for $400,000,000.
Comment: Just more evidence that it sexual abuse is not the product of Christianity or any other specific religion; but instead a product of the mindset that the religion and organization/church that represents it has become more important to itself than the well being of human beings.
Item: TV commentator Ann Coulter is at it again. Speaking to an audience of conservatives in January, 2002, she said: “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that (American Taliban) John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.”
Comment: Just as Jerry Falwell tried to blame the terrorist attacks on “liberals” by claiming they've forced God to “allow” these acts of terror by religious conservatives, Coulter has her own ploy: Painting the Taliban and their followers as “liberals!” Please! There is no more conservative outfit in the world than the Taliban! Perhaps, however, I misunderstand: Perhaps it was the liberal upbringing of Walker that led to his Talibanization! Somehow conservatives even blame liberals for having offspring who turn out conservative. How sick is that? Answer: Very sick. And how sick is it that this garbage passes for reasoned commentary (or even sanity) in the “liberal” media?
Item: According to combined news services, in northwest India, a mob of Muslims attacked a train full of Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya, hurling acid and firebombs, killing 57 people including 15 children. Militant Hindus demand the construction of a temple in Ayodhya to mark the birthplace of Hindu god Lord Rama, which is also claimed as a holy place by Muslims. Retaliatory violence by both sides followed this event. There have been many clashes over this site in the past, leading to thousands of deaths.
Comment Local Muslim leader Ghazi Khankan suggested that Hindus and Muslims in India should look to Long Island. “We are on good terms (here). Why can't we also have that over there?” he asked. He's right. If only India and Pakistan embraced this country's strict (thus far) separation of Church and State, much violence could be averted.
Item: Secretary-General of the UN Kofi Annan vowed to end the sexual abuse of minors by aid workers in West Africa after a study by the UN High Commission on Refugees and Britain's Save the Children. The study found that almost 70 workers from 40 agencies had been trading sex from refugee children for food and other supplies. Most of those implicated were staffers hired locally though some UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were involved.
Comment: It will be interesting to see how this allegation is handled by the UN in comparison to similar (or worse) charges made against religious organizations.
Item: The Fox network announced the debut of a new show: Celebrity boxing matches. The first bout scheduled: Figure skating bad girl Tonya Harding versus attempted murderer, Long Island's Amy Fisher. However, soon after the initial announcement, it was revealed that Amy Fisher was not going to a part of the event, but was being replaced by Clinton-accuser Paula Jones. Fisher's parole board rescinded permission for her participation.
Comment: REPENT, the end IS near!
Item: Various news wires reported in March that in tapes recently released by the National Archives, Rev. Bill Graham is quoted in a 1972 conversation with President Nixon as saying the following:
Graham (In response to a Nixon diatribe about Jews): “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain.”
Nixon: “You believe that?”
Graham: “Yes, sir.”
Nixon: “Oh, so do I... I can't ever say that, but I believe it.”
Graham: “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something about it.”
Later in the tape…
Graham: “A lot of Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.”
Nixon: “You must not let them know.”
Graham has apologized for the remarks.
Comment: What a shock - not! Since it is a core belief of Christian Evangelicals that Jews, having rejected Jesus, are damned, and since God is just, they are deserving of their coming eternal torment, this attitude is almost inevitable. The damned MUST be bad, or else God is unjust. The public unity of the religious is often nothing but superficial and typically only for the benefit of the skeptical and non-believer. Now Rev. Graham's true beliefs are known. What a fraud! After this shocking expose, will there be any lasting ramifications? Answer: No, it's back to denial as usual.
Item: Accused murderer of her 5 children, Andrea Yates, knew drowning them was against the law but believed it was the right thing to do because it was the only way to save them from the fires of hell, said a forensic psychiatrist at the trial, according to Reuters. Yates told police that she thought Satan was tormenting her children, so she killed them to keep them from his grasp. A jury found her guilty.
Comment: Isn't it possible, according to some Christian theology, that she was right? To many, Satan is as real as God, as are the fires of hell. Why wouldn't killing an innocent person be viewed as a means of insuring that person's eternal bliss? Imagine the torment that religious dogma caused this woman who fretted that her children would someday be sentenced to a hellacious existence - forever? In a sense, the act was heroic if she understood the secular, real world consequences of her actions. Would she have been in as much torment if she did NOT believe in the fires of hell? We'll never know for sure, but imagine if an atheist had committed the same crime because she feared her children might become believers. Would she garner any sympathy even if she was in similar emotional distress? Will anyone ask the question if irrational religious beliefs drove this poor woman to this awful crime?
Item: A priest and a parishioner are shot dead by a man during mass in Lynbrook, Long Island. The man had a history of mental illness and institutionalization. He bought a rifle on a Friday and used it on Monday.
Comment: Besides the obvious horror of a priest being killed while serving Mass, the real question regarding this tragedy must be “why is it so easy and legal for this person to buy such a dangerous weapon?” Maybe Charlton Heston would advise priests to pack a rod while giving communion.
Item: In the fall of 2001, the UN predicted a crisis of “stunning proportions” in Afghanistan due to draught, civil war, government harassment of relief workers and the onset of American bombings against the Taliban regime then in control. Between October and December, according to a Newsday report, courageous Afghani truckers brought more than 320,000 tons of food to their people from the UN World Food Program. Former Sen. George McGovern, now the UN ambassador on hunger, says, “There's almost no starvation or acute hunger in Afghanistan this winter. It's a trickle compared to what was predicted.” Other factors, besides the truckers heroism, was the closing of Pakistani and Iranian borders and the preciseness of the American bombing which reduced the number of refugees to far below what was expected.
According to the report, it was stated that the most awful fear - that 100,000 more Afghan children than usual might die this winter from preventable causes - may not have come true. Steps, such as a massive measles vaccination program may have been helpful to “prevent that scenario” as a UNICEF spokesperson claimed.
Comment: No war is a “good” war, this is true. Every such conflict is evidence of a failure of humanity. It would have been best to achieve the above goals without the use of bombs and bullets; the question is whether it was possible? Was it likely that the Taliban would have allowed it while fighting a civil war? Would aid have flowed into a country harboring Al Qaeda and bin Laden? The answers are almost undoubtedly “no.”
The primary goal of the battle against the Taliban and Al Qaeda was admittedly NOT the welfare of the Afghani people - it was the security of Americans and others, and the bringing to justice of a terrorist network. However, the welfare of the people of Afghanistan was the primary argument AGAINST such a response. If many innocent lives were saved overall in the long run, though a smaller number sadly sacrificed in the course of the struggle, was this the better option? This is the issue that humanists must wrestle with in this world where answers are never simple.
Item: Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.) in March unveiled the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," a bill that would allow government posting of the Decalogue in public buildings and order the federal courts to find the religious displays constitutional.
Americans United, which has helped file multiple lawsuits challenging government-endorsed Commandments displays, said Aderholt's legislation is an assault on the First Amendment.
Comment: The First Commandment orders a person to “worship no other God,” which, of course is un-American. In THIS country we can worship or not worship anything we choose. Perhaps Rep. Aderholt would feel more comfortable in Iran where this law would be welcomed.
Item: According to a NY Times report, Israeli Staff Sgt. Michael Oxman died with 5 comrades when Palestinian gunmen attacked an Israeli outpost in mid-February. Later that week though, he was buried in the non-Jewish section of the military cemetery even though the young man had considered himself Jewish like his father. He did not qualify for burial in the Jewish section, as per Orthodox Jewish tradition, because his mother was not Jewish, while his fallen comrades did qualify. His commander said "He was Jewish enough to enlist, to fight and die with them... It is very regretful for us all."
Comment: This is just another reminder of the pointless divisiveness of superstitious beliefs. Even in death superstition and irrationality only serve to drive us apart no matter how close we would be otherwise.
Item: A cease-fire was called in Sri Lanka between rebel Hindu Tamils, and the government forces. Buddhism is the state religion in Sri Lanka.
Comment: Shame on the Buddhists for making their religion a state religion. Apparently this sort of desire for privilege infects non-theistic religions as well. [TOC]FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2002: THE DEMOCRACY GAP Gerry Dantone
Freedom House is an organization that rates the freedom and democracy situations in all the countries of the world. Though this can be a somewhat subjective task, they have tried to make it as objective as possible by devising a rating system that takes into account concrete and measurable forms of freedom and democracy.
The summary conclusion of the survey is that 86 countries are Free, places where basic civil rights and liberties are recognized. There are 58 Partly Free countries; respect is limited for rights and liberties. Finally there are 48 countries that are Not Free, where basic rights are absent and liberties denied.
It turns out that 2.54billion persons are in Free countries, 1.43billion in Partly Free countries, while a staggering 2.17billion persons are Not Free.
The survey highlights the disparity between Islamic countries and non-Islamic countries. In countries where there is an Islamic majority, there is but one Free country: Mali. Only 18 Islamic countries are even Partly Free and 28 are Not Free.
By contrast, there are 85 Free non-Islamic countries, 40 Partly Free non-Islamic countries and 20 Not Free non-Islamic countries.
The survey proposes that the future of liberty in Islamic countries is not hopeless. It notes that if one examined the map of the world at the beginning of the 1950s, one might have noticed the singular absence of democratic governments among countries with Catholic majorities! Authoritarian governments predominated on the Iberian Peninsula, East Central Europe, the Philippines and in most of Latin America. Today these areas are free and democratic for the most part. Religion can change, despite the supposedly immutable nature of its dogma.
The 10 worst rated countries included Afghanistan (pre-9/11/01), Burma, Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan. China follows close behind. Of the above, Cuba, North Korea and China are one-party communist regimes. The balance of countries are Islamic except for Burma, a military dictatorship.
There are 27 Free countries with “perfect” scores in the survey, though this does not mean that these countries are beyond improvement. The US is one of the perfect scores.
(For the complete story, go to http://www.freedomhouse.org .) [TOC]
NEW YORK AREA SKEPTICS (NYASk)
The New York Area Skeptics is a terrific organization that should appeal to many secular humanists. The group deals with claims of the paranormal, medical quackery and any other topic that calls for a critical examination. Forums are usually held on the last Tuesday of the month at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, Nassau County. For info visit the website @ www.nyask.com
LISH Email Action Info!
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 Press Release to the Media and Elected Officials
Long Island Secular Humanists is asking Long Island elected officials to consider whether it is Constitutional to accord only Religious 501 (c) 3 Corporations the right to use up to 20% of their budgets to endorse and fund specific political candidates, as per the proposed US House of Representatives measure #2357. As an example of its unfairness, Long Island Secular Humanists, which is also a 501 (c) 3 corporation would not be given this special privilege, nor would any other non-religious non-profit organization.
We believe this measure, H.R. 2357 is unconstitutional because it establishes religion by singling out only religious corporations for this privilege, and by showing governmental favoritism to the political speech of a specific constituency, the organized religious, to the detriment of secular and non-religious groups and individual religious persons.
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested, email us!.
Friday, April 12, 2002: “Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials,” by Wendy Kaminer, Commack.
Friday, May 10, 2002: Amityville, Book: Douglas E. Krueger, "What Is Atheism?"
Saturday, June 14, 2002: V. S. Naipaul, "Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among Converted Peoples, Patchogue.
Friday, July 12, 2002: Howard Zinn, "A Peoples History Of The United States" (first Half).
August 9, 2002: Howard Zinn, "A Peoples History Of The United States" (second Half).
September 6, 2002, “Demon Haunted World,” by Carl Sagan.
Be Sure to Watch
"Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access on Channel 71 on the Woodbury system @ A NEW TIME, Mondays, 11PM; Channel 70 on the Hauppauge system and Channel 70 on Brookhaven Cablevision, every Wednesday @ 6:30 PM.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.ANNOUNCING A NEW SHOW!
“Long Island Secular Humanists,” a LISH self-produced show will be shown on the Woodbury Cablevision system, Channel 71, from 9 to 10 AM, Saturdays, and on the Hauppauge Cablevision system, channel 70, 12:30PM to 1:30PM, Saturdays.
Become a Member of LISH
Membership in LISH has its benefits! Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library, voting rights; mailed newsletters; invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well!
Let us grow into the humanist voice of Long Island! Contact us for more info.
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.
Editor: Gerald Dantone
Design: John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright LISH 2002 [TOC]