INQUIRER Volume 5, Issue 05, May, 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) Calling the Life of the Church and the Church's Teachings into Question
2) Letters to the Editor
3) LI Humanist Coalition Responds to Boy Scout Resolution
4) Response by Larry Dossey to Prayer Essay
5) Anti-Discrimination Support Network Continues to Decry Star Jones' Point of View
6) QuickiesTRANSCRIPTS!
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 areSECULAR 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.“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.
LISH MEETING INFORMATION
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 acceptance and the later disillusionment with a well-known New Age guru.
Note: On Sunday, May 19, The CFI NJ/NY will hold a 6 hour buffet/luncheon in Little Falls, NJ, $30/person, featuring “Women Without Superstition.” Margaret Downey, Annie Gaylor, Ellen Johnson and Dan Barker, too! To register call 973 655 9556, or go to www.CFI-MetroNY.com or email CFIMetroNY@aol.com
JOIN THE PARADE: LISH will be marching in the Annual LI Pride Fair & Parade on Sunday June 9. The parade begins around noon and marchers assemble beforehand in the municipal parking lot across from the Huntington Post Office in the village on Gerard St. & Clinton Ave, Huntington. Email LISH for info and come and march with us and staff the tables at the Fair!
The Friday, June 21st at the library forum of LISH will feature Arnell Dowret who will speak on the subject of “Secular Spirituality.”
Note: The 4th World Skeptics Conference will be held from June 20 to 23rd in Burbank, California. For details go to www.csicop.org or call 716 636 1425 ext. 200.
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://nyhumanist.org
CALLING THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCH'S TEACHINGS INTO QUESTION Gerry Dantone
In a column in The Long Island Catholic in March 2002, Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre attempted to explain the Church's position in the sex abuse scandal engulfing his church. Among the reasons for not making public the names of all priests accused of sexual abuse, Bishop Murphy states, “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 teaching into question as they have done in other places.”
This is a remarkable statement! Imagine not allowing the media to explore or hold an open forum on any topic! This is a blatant attempt to censor society's ability to seek the truth from a position of authority - religious authority. Hasn't the time come for exactly this kind of inquiry?
The Roman Catholic Church is now asking for our trust and understanding as they attempt to place their house in good order. But consider the facts: this scandal is not merely the sexual abuse of children by a handful of pedophiles within the Church; it is also the systematic cover-up of this abuse by those in the highest authority, the hypocrisy of condemning homosexuality while maintaining a heavily gay priesthood, the sexism inherent in an all male hierarchy, and the perverse attitude of the Roman Catholic Church towards all things sexual. A recent “statement” by the Pope on the scandal was mostly mystical babbling about the problem of evil and sin, ignoring the deliberate attempts to cover-up or ignore sexual abuse. He refuses to acknowledge that Church policy - HIS policy - is at fault and unethical.
This latest pedophile eruption is not the first, not by a long shot. A detailed book, “Betrayal of Trust,” by Annie Laurie Gaylor, recounts numerous cases of abuse by the clergy and cover-ups by religious organizations including the Catholic Church as reported in US newspapers. The amazing and overlooked fact is that she was able to write this book 14 years ago in 1988. In the ensuing years after the mainstream American media had exposed the Church's dirty secrets, the response from the hierarchy has been more of the same - cover-up.
The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) has run a number of stories detailing other examples of heinous sexual abuse, this time perpetrated on nuns. They have referred to reports that some Catholic clergy around the world use their position to exploit nuns and that there has been little effort by the Church to correct the abuse, which includes nuns being forced to have abortions, or die ignominiously from AIDS.
How sincere is the Church hierarchy when they promise change? Indeed, Ms. Gaylor's book recounts that in 1985 the Cleveland Plain Dealer obtained and excerpted a confidential report prepared for American Catholic bishops that warned that the Church appeared to be “an organization preaching morality and providing sanctuary to perverts.” This report, written by two priests and an attorney, advocated immediately removing molesting priests, giving them treatment and not allowing their contact with children. It advised bishops to report all cases to authorities, on pain of more costly lawsuit settlements and criminal neglect charges. It stated “Our dependence in the past on Roman Catholic judges and attorneys is GONE.” Not only was this report largely ignored at the 1985 National Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was not even put on the agenda for a vote. The bishops never adopted any of the common-sense and law-abiding recommendations. One of the priests that authored the reports commented on TV recently that he believes the report was sent to the Vatican and that the Pope was aware of it over 16 years ago!
Where are the heroic whistle-blowing priests who have broken ranks with their bishop and have not been forced to leave the priesthood, but instead have been allowed to thrive within the Church? Can we point to any priestly role model who courageously fought for the abused, risked their position, and was rewarded by the Church hierarchy? Is this the organization that does not want us to question its moral authority?
The American religious public must share the blame as well the hierarchy. Although quite a few lay Catholic have voiced their concerns, and the NCR has showed courage in their reporting, the facts have been available for quite a while; yet many persons remain Catholics and support the Church financially. Denial has worked for the Church up until now, but denial is becoming more difficult now thanks to a suddenly aggressive media and a more questioning lay Catholic. Why support an institution that claims to be the “body of Christ” but behaves in this manner? The Church as an organization cannot, with these policies, truly represent Jesus, can it? Nothing in Jesus' teachings accounts for this behavior, does it? The Church has simply evolved to take itself too seriously. Morals have become less important than the institution itself.
So it is now time for all Catholics, persons of other religious beliefs in their own ways, and everyone else for that matter, to ask the questions the Church does not wish to allow asked:
Are scriptures and revelations, truly reliable? How can we know if faith is a reliable method of finding truth or an ethical life? How can we know anything about the supernatural?
How can we know if one religion is truer than another?
Do religious leaders qualify as moral and ethical leaders? How can we know whether they have any more authority than anyone else? Is the Pope infallible on any matter?
How can we know whether a religious teaching is moral and ethical? How can we know if obedience to a religious teaching is moral and ethical?
Is it more important to obey one's religious teachings or to do what one believes is best for humanity? Should a person do what they believe is not best for humanity and obey a religious teaching instead?
Is “being saved” or “going to heaven” more important than doing what is right for your fellow human in this life, on this earth.
These are the questions that the Church, many other religious organizations and many religions in general do not wish to “allow” the media, their followers or others to ask. Of course, these are the very questions that need asking, if one intends to live a life well considered.
(For more information about the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Annie Laurie Gaylor and the book “Betrayal of Trust,” which is the source of much of the above info, go to www.ffrf.org, or write to PO Box 750, Madison, WI, 53701)
Catholic Church to Scapegoat Gays & Liberals?
Amid the turmoil of the Pedophilia cover-up scandal, has the Catholic Church decided to scapegoat gays? As Cardinal Egan was called to the Vatican along with other American Cardinals to meet with the Pope on the subject of the child sex abuse in the US, his stand in for mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral, on 4/21/02, Msgr. Eugene Clark made the following statements according to the NY Daily News:
“But to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - whose defining sexual practice is sodomy - is wrong. That's wrong… practicing homosexuality is truly sinful.”
Perhaps Msgr. Clark, as a priest, is unaware that heterosexuals are as equally capable of committing the “sin” of sodomy as homosexuals. And what is it about homosexuality which makes gay sex “sinful” or “immoral”? My guess is that it offends the delicate sensibilities of his easily offended God, but perhaps a more mature understanding of right and wrong is necessary here. Some God concepts, including the Jewish concept, for example, consider the eating of certain foods, such as pork or shrimp, or the mixing of certain diverse foods as sinful. Does Msgr. Clark agree? I doubt it. A better moral vision judges an act by the harm or good it does to others. Is the sex act in question honest or dishonest, reckless or responsible, caring or unconcerned about the other person? Are both persons consenting, informed adults? Aren't these questions the ones that matter? And isn't it clear that both gays and straights are equally capable abusing sexuality or using it to increase human happiness. And what does being gay have to do with pedophilia?
“Not because homosexuals in any way tend to criminality, but because it is a disorder, and as a disorder, should prevent a person from being ordained a priest.”
Once again, perhaps Msgr. Clark should consider that Parkinson's disease is a disorder. Does that disqualify the Pope from his position? Is left-handedness a “disorder”? All that matters should be the quality of a person's character. The Church would be better off not making liars out of a substantial portion of its ministry.
“We are probably the most immoral country in the Western Hemisphere - and maybe the larger circle - because of the entertainment we suffer and what it's done to our morals… So if 3% (of clergy) were touched by that, we ask God to forgive them for it. We ask God to help remedy a situation which might be way beyond the control of the Holy Father and the apostles.”
Msgr. Clark is using a now familiar technique: blaming the sinful hypocrisy of religious conservatives on “liberals” who somehow pollute them by their mere existence. Somehow “liberals” are influencing priests to sexually abuse children. Even though many female children are abused by the clergy as well as boys, “homosexuals” are the reason the clergy not only abuses them, but covers it up. A question to the Msgr. Clark: Are gays responsible for the cover-up? Is Cardinal Law gay? Cardinal Egan? Are they powerless from gay or liberal influence? Is that what Msgr. Clark is saying?
May I hypothesize that Msgr. Clark is actually upset with US freedoms for reasons unrelated to this scandal. Does anyone believe for one second that US permissiveness is behind the sexual abuse of nuns in Africa as well and the Church's poor response to that abuse? Or in Ireland where lawsuits threaten the Church with bankruptcy? Or down through the centuries when certain Popes were known as libertines?
Once again it is clear by the words out of the mouths of the elite of the Catholic Church that it's business as usual. How can anyone in good conscience support such an organization?
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! Email us for details.
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] LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
3/25/02 I enjoy the newsletters you send. Another letter writer's comments regarding Christmas and Humanism prompt my thoughts on the topic. I love the season, Santa and the tree etc. I feel we should be keeping Christ OUT of Christmas. Many peoples celebrated the winter solstice with similar festivities, but the Christians co-opted it for their own purposes. The descriptions from the biblical stories regarding lambs and shepherds, the stars at the time of his birth etc. suggest the actual time as March or April. I think the season is great for young children when Santa is non-threatening, gifts are not used as blackmail and it's kept low-stress. Good time for families, memories and warm feelings. T. Conway via Internet
Response: As always, it is the humanistic aspects of a religious holiday that are worth keeping, such as the spirit of love, generosity and peace. The mythical aspects, such as a virgin birth, a rotund elf flying through the skies delivering gifts to obedient children and a mysterious star of Christmas teach us nothing. G.D.
3/25/02 Hi Gerry, very interesting newsletter, as usual. I appreciate it, even though you and I do not agree on certain things (but let's not get into that.) The reason I'm writing is to comment on the first item in your "Quickies" section, about the incident at Bohemian Grove.
It seems clear that you, the article itself, or maybe both, either do not know what the Bohemian Grove is or are maybe distorting this incident for some purpose.
This incident had nothing whatever to do with "pagans". Bohemian Grove (BG) is a secretive organization that meets annually in a secluded forest area of northern California. Its membership is composed of high-level corporate executives and top government officials, included presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., Kissinger, George Schultz, as examples. In short, it's the who's who of powerful elites, and incidentally, it's a white males only group; women are barred, and non-whites have never been members.
No one believes they are a group of "pagan owl worshippers", and that includes the misguided, far-right armed extremist who attempted to attack the gathering, as mentioned in the article The goings on at the BG meetings have been shrouded in mystery for years, and its mere existence was practically unknown to the public until about 10 years ago.
The meetings serve as a venue for private "networking" among the power elites of the "old-boys club". Some reports have indicated they attend policy discussions/seminars; and also reported are drug use, heavy drinking and wild parties, including gay orgies.
We do know for sure from some reporters who have infiltrated BG that the "owl ceremony" is actually a ceremonial killing/sacrifice of owls by BG members dressed in strange robes, but the purpose is unknown (it is perhaps to signify their opposition to environmental laws). We do not know whether any other animals or people are sacrificed at BG, but personally, given whom the members are, I think nothing is beyond their capability. The man who tried to attack the meeting was a far-right, anti-government type, a la Timothy McVeigh, who wanted to assassinate corporate or government officials. Patrick Colucci, in NJ via Internet
Response: The article was clear that the fellow sought the remains of sacrificed babies and that he was dressed in a superhero's costume. Perhaps the article quoted was inaccurate but if it was accurate it would seem that there are some who DO think they are a group of “pagan owl worshippers.” As for the rituals and whether “nothing is beyond their (the BG) capability”, it is more likely that nothing is beyond the capability of someone somewhere to believe almost anything. G.D.
3/26/02 I hope that you are able to find an article published in The Seattle Times on Saturday, March 23, originally from The Washington Post, about the source of Afghan children's earliest training in terrorism. I earlier was shocked to discover that our own government helped set up terrorist training camps in order to bedevil the Soviet Union when they tried to take over Afghanistan. I was doubly shocked and dismayed to learn from the referenced article that our efforts included the training of Afghan school children, so that they would grow up to become terrorists and willing martyrs!
I am greatly disappointed that our own government would deem it their right to invoke deep-seated religious feelings, and introduce early training about terrorist activities, with Islamic promises, to school children. Where were the watch dogs? This happened even before Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski came on the scene. The media didn't ignore that!
To summarize the article: “In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan children with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
“The primers, which roiled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the U.S.-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces [from the Second Commandment; ref. Ex. 20:4-NS] in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.”
Now we are trying to get rid of the old texts, and are busy replacing them with ten million new books, which “…still feature Koranic verses and teach Muslim tenets.”
“…The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and the books 'are fully in compliance with U. S. law and policy.'
“Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax money to promote religion.”
The old textbooks were smuggled into Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation of 1984 to 1994. “Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said.
They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U. S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.”
“An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages.”
One page from the texts shows a picture of a fighter praised as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.”
“In early January [2002], UNICEF began printing new texts for many subjects but arranged to supply copies of the unrevised U. S. books for others, including Islamic instruction.”
“Within days, the Afghan interim government announced that it would use the old AID-produced texts for its core school curriculum. [Italics mine-NS] UNICEF'S new texts could only be used as supplements.”
There is more in the article, but I think that this e-mail contains the gist of it. Again, I can only express my profound disappointment and anger in learning of our government's involvement in this training of Afghan children, plainly teaching them to become adult terrorists. Learning of our involvement in the adult training camps was bad enough!
We must look to our own history and admit that wrongly-oriented people have historically used inflammatory verses from the Bible to support violent or repressive causes, such as witch-burning the Crusades and slavery. Many of us are very concerned over efforts to unite religion and government here or elsewhere. Neil via Internet
Response: Too often, US administrations have not understood the danger of religious fanaticism at home and abroad. Even now, after the disaster of 9-11-01, we have not learned our lesson. G.D.
3/21/02 Dear Gerry: Congratulations on the upcoming WCBS AM feature. It is added testimony to the great work that you and LISH are doing to advance secular humanism. With best personal wishes, Cordially, Paul Kurtz via Internet
Response: For those who may not know, WCBS AM newsradio featured LISH and this writer in an on-air feature. The effort put forth by the reporter, who attended the March LISH forum, Mike Xirinachs is greatly appreciated. G.D. [TOC]
LI HUMANIST COALITION RESPONDS TO BOY SCOUT RESOLUTION
The following letter was sent to all LI schools, districts, elected officials and the media:
On February 6, 2002, the Boy Scouts of America responded to three resolutions suggesting changes in leadership standards in order to permit avowed homosexuals to serve as Boy Scout leaders. A committee was formed to consider the resolutions. The BSA then reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and that these values cannot be subject to "local option" choices. In addition, the board also agreed that duty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with the BSA; it is an obligation. Thus it has been re-affirmed that non-believers are barred from the Boys Scouts.
We therefore request that it be found improper by all school Boards of Education for teachers and schools to actively promote the Boy Scouts by having teachers and/or schools hand out their literature or promote the BSA in any other manner. The BSA has as much of a right to the use of public properties as any organization; however they have no greater right either, and their mandate to discriminate on both the basis of sexual orientation and religious belief disqualifies them from receiving any endorsement of any kind by the state.
As an example, it has been the practice, in the past, for teachers to hand out flyers to all male students announcing BSA registration dates that falsely state that the Scouts are open to all. It is now clear beyond any doubt that the BSA should be only accorded their rights as required by law and not promoted in any way to the detriment of fairness and good ethics.
From the Long Island Humanist Coalition:
Members: Arthur Dobrin, Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island; Gerry Dantone, Long Island Secular Humanists; Len Cherlin, Long Island Havurah for Humanistic Judaism; Ed Klein, Queens Society for Humanistic Judaism; Norm Roscoe, Religious Friends of Humanism, UU Society of South Suffolk; Bob Raffaela, Ethical Culture Society of Queens.
Other groups endorsing this statement: Josh Karpf, New York City Atheists; Hugh Rance, Secular Humanist Society of New York
The following is the actual BSA resolution:
February 6, 2002,
Boy Scouts of America Resolution
WHEREAS the Resolutions Committee of the Boy Scouts of America (on behalf of the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America) on June 1, 2001, assigned the Relationships Committee of the Boy Scouts of America with he responsibility for considering and making recommendations to the Executive Board with respect to various resolutions submitted by members of the National Council at the Annual Meeting concerning the appropriate flexibility to be employed by the Boy Scouts of America in establishing standards for leadership, and
WHEREAS the Relationships Committee duly formed a Task Force on Resolutions, composed of a cross section of representatives from the religious and civic chartered organizations and others represented in Scouting, to consider these resolutions and make recommendations to the Relationships Committee, and
WHEREAS the Task Force has reported the results of its thoughtful and extensive deliberations to the Relationships Committee which submitted the report to the Relationships/Marketing Group Committee, both of these committees having approved and adopted the Report of the Task Force on Resolutions as their own, and
WHEREAS the national officers, having received and considered the Report, unanimously adopt the recommendations of the Report without reservation, and
WHEREAS the national officers agree with the report that "duty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with the Boy Scouts of America; it is an obligation" which has defined good character for youth of Scouting age throughout Scouting's 92 year history and that the Boy Scouts of America has made a commitment "to provide faith-based values to its constituency in a respectful manner," and
WHEREAS the national officers agree that "conduct of both Scouts and Scouters must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law" and that "membership is contingent upon one's willingness to accept the values and standards espoused by the Boy Scouts of America," and
WHEREAS, the national officers further agree that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that an avowed homosexual could not serve as a role model for the values of the Oath and Law, and
WHEREAS the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, BSA's values cannot be subject to "local option" choices, but must be the same in every unit, and
WHEREAS the Boy Scouts of America respects the right of persons and individuals to hold values and standards different than the Boy Scouts of America, the national officers also agree that Boy Scouts of America is entitled to expect that persons and organizations with different values and standards will nevertheless respect those of the Boy Scouts of America, and
THEREFORE, the national officers recommend that the National Executive Board affirm that the Boy Scouts of America shall continue to follow its traditional values and standards of leadership. (The Boy Scouts of America http://www.scouting.org ) [TOC] RESPONSE BY LARRY DOSSEY TO PRAYER ESSAY Don Ardell (The following is a letter sent to Don Ardell by Dr. Larry Dossey)
Dear Don -- I accept your invitation to respond in your newsletter to your criticisms of my talks at the recent First International Wellness Conference in Galveston, TX.
I'm not sure my talks were worth all the ink and energy you devoted to them - especially since the talks you report on do not resemble in many respects the talks I actually gave. I regret I do not have the leisure to provide a detailed response to your comments, so I'll make only a few brief observations.
You have seriously misrepresented many of my views. For instance, in contrast to your claim, I have never stated that the 1988 prayer study by Randolph Byrd demonstrates the power of the Judeo-Christian or any other god. Studies of distant healing and prayer suggest correlations - not causation - between intercession and clinical outcomes. Prayer researchers have no god meters and are acutely aware that they can make no conclusions as to causation. They almost always defer on issues of mechanism. They are not out to tempt God, trap God, prove, or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
Did you go to sleep in my lectures? Surely you know I went to extreme lengths not to elevate or put down any particular religion or spiritual tradition. My claim was that spirituality and prayer - whatever you may think of them - are universal and are not the possession of any particular cultures, faiths, or traditions; and that they flourish, even, in non-theistic spiritual traditions such as certain forms of Buddhism.
You apparently think I'm selling religion. Wrong again. I don't belong to any religious or spiritual organization. I'm interested in the ways consciousness manifests non-locally in the world, and how science might shed some light on the question of the nature of consciousness.
It seems to me that your antipathy toward spirituality is leading you into some egregious misinterpretations of the goals of researchers in this area, as well as putting words in my mouth. You are entitled to your views, of course, but take care that your enthusiams doesn't outrun your good judgment. For instance, I gather you think it preposterous that consciousness might manifest at a distance. I'd be grateful if you could tell me which "laws of consciousness" would be violated if these phenomena were valid. Don, if you want some hard-hitting criticism of the prayer and distant healing studies, take a look at my book HEALING WORDS, as well as the various essays I've written on this subject.
Criticizing studies in distant healing is no great accomplishment, Don. Any fledgling, immature field in science can be so criticized. Like any other immature field in science, the methodological rigor of the studies in distant healing is imperfect but will improve in the future, as it already has. Don't shout down this debate -- particularly in view of our appalling ignorance of the nature of consciousness - unless you can provide alternative answers to the mysteries of consciousness and the mind-brain relationship.
Along with your satire and cynicism, your readers deserve to know that five recent systematic- or meta-analyses of scores of distant healing studies have yielded positive findings, and that 80 of the nation's 125 medical schools have developed courses dealing with this data. If this field is as flimsy as you suggest, why have our best academic institutions begun to feature this information? C'mon Don. Check out some of the hypotheses I mentioned that are cordial to these phenomena, which are being offered by Nobel-caliber scientists.
Lighten up, Don. We don't need "thought police" in science to tell us what we should and should not think, or where science should and should not go. Don't let your eagerness to sanitize medicine of spirituality obstruct the scientific ideal of dispassionate inquiry. All best wishes. Your colleague, Larry Dossey, MD
Don Ardell Reply to Larry Dossey Don Ardell
Thanks for the detailed comments -- not sure my essay is worth all the ink and energy you devoted to it - but it's good to hear from you just the same. I looked for you after the talk and though I did see you briefly, I can't recall if I had a chance to offer my overall critique at the time. That would have been this: "Anyone who finds fault with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell AND plays Bach can't be completely beyond redemption."
I thought you'd be amused, at least by the idea of someone such as me making reference to redemption.
We agree on more than you realize, perhaps. We certainly are one on the belief that it pays to "lighten up." (And on the non-need for "thought police" in science or elsewhere to tell us what we should and should not think, where science should and should not go or anything else.) The whole point of my essay, which of course might have been clearer, kinder, more balanced, more just about everything good and wholesome, was that critical thinking, debate, varied interpretations and perspectives and the like would have been appropriate in order that conferees might best assess the merits of your claims for intercessory prayer. That still seems a fair mindset.
"There are correlations between all kinds of phenomena that few would confuse with causation, but prayer is not one of them. I think you base your case for prayer's efficacy entirely on these correlations, and you are successful at it because the vast majority of people want to believe. It seems inaccurate to me to suggest that prayer researchers are NOT seeking to prove the existence of a Supreme Being. More than that, they seem intent on at least suggesting that this Being is at least occasionally interested in intervening in human affairs. This desire to believe is what probably accounts for the courses and other activities at medical schools, not good data. In addition, I would think your lectures, books and other successes in stirring interest in the power of prayer for medical purposes have surely had an impact on all of this."
Nope, I was far too interested in your performance to fall asleep during it. I don't think I accused you of putting down any particular religion or spiritual tradition though I personally think we would be better off if there were norms that encouraged putting down nonsensical beliefs. The belief about virgins waiting in the next life for Islamic martyrs, for example, would be good to put down, though in most countries doing so would (and does) count as blasphemy -- a capital offense, so doing so is more than risky. It's deadly. But, we do need a norm, at least in America, that religions and religious beliefs are fair topics for frank discussions -- and this includes claims for the efficacy of prayer. I was pleased that you did some putting down of religious belief yourself, when you attacked Falwell (and Pat Robertson) for religious interpretations regarding the events of 9/11.
Nobody would be surprised or newly informed to hear you claim that spirituality (with all its varied associations and meanings) and prayer are universal and are not the possession of any particular cultures, faiths, or traditions or that they flourish, even in non-theistic spiritual traditions such as certain forms of Buddhism. You would not gain much attention with those kinds of claims. I did not write about your role in promoting these perspectives. There is no news value in such revelations.
I don't think you are selling religion. I think you are promoting the idea that prayer works and that there is evidence to support it. Fair enough, but you might expect that many folks will be skeptical. Are you opposed to debate on these matters? Do you disagree with my central point that your presentation should have been joined with or opposed by speakers who take a different view on the efficacy of prayer? Would you favor a debate on this topic (and others) next year?
I would guess that everybody shares your interest in the ways consciousness manifests non-locally (and locally, too) in the world, and how science might shed some light on the question of the nature of consciousness. Of course, all this interest has been and fortunately continues to be pursued methodically and we ought to be interested in varied interpretations of what is being discovered.
My antipathy is towards pseudoscience, irrationality, hokum, group think and superstition, for starters. I think the term spirituality is so vague as to be meaningless, unless defined. I am not persuaded that phrases like "communication with the absolute" do much to clarify that ambiguity. There was no need to put words in your mouth, as those you expressed in your paper, the presentation and elsewhere gave me more than enough material for the essay. I'm glad you find me entitled to my views. That's very democratic of you.
Nobody can or should try to show that consciousness cannot be manifested at a distance or that certain "laws of consciousness" would be violated if such phenomena were valid, for the burden is always on those who advocate a hypothesis to demonstrate the validity of their claims, not on the rest of us to prove such claims erroneous. I think you knew that.
In summary, the last thing I want to do is "shout down this debate." Quite the opposite--as I think I made clear in the essay and again in this response. I seek to HAVE such a debate. I hope you will join me in that effort. Perhaps this exchange is a very modest start. And all best wishes to you, Larry. Be well. [TOC] ANTI-DISCRIMINATION SUPPORT NETWORK CONTINUES TO DECRY STAR JONES' POINT OF VIEW Margaret Downey
On January 22, 2001 panelist Star Jones made her feelings known about Atheists on the talk-show The View. Admitting that it was not the first time she said negative things about Atheists, she is quoted as saying, "Everyone was mad when I said on the television that I wouldn't vote for an Atheist, but it's interesting that the Oath of office of the President is with 'so help me God.'"
On March 4, 2001, the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN) wrote to Jones requesting that she cease demeaning the Atheist community and apologize for making harmful negative stereotyping statements. ADSN also wrote to each panelist of The View asking them to help convince Jones that prejudice and hatred directed at a minority was unprofessional. All letters were ignored even though it is standard practice for The View staff to acknowledge correspondence received.
On February 12, 2002 ADSN conducted a protest rally at The Playhouse Theatre in Wilmington, Delaware where Jones was scheduled to speak. Jones received advance notice of the hour-long rally (6:30 PM - 7:30 PM) via a press release. A member of her staff was also provided with a copy of our protest literature (an article published in the March/April issue of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia's newsletter, The Greater Philadelphia Story, "ADSN Decries Star Jones' Point of View"). Jones knew exactly why five members of ADSN were protesting her appearance that night.
During the question/answer period of Jones' speech, I was able to confront her with ADSN concerns. She responded defensively to my query saying, "I never said that you can't run for public office. I just said..." She stopped short and appeared to think carefully about her next statement. Jones instead went on to say how much she loved God and that he died for her and she wasn't going to change her mind about that.
Even though Jones stopped herself from saying that she would never vote for an Atheist it was obvious that she simply did not want to understand why ADSN wrote to her and conducted the protest rally that night. We don't care about her religious beliefs and have no desire to change them. Our focus is on changing her bigoted point of view. We object to her prejudice and negative stereotyping, not her belief in a supernatural God.
Jones talked about the protest rally the following day on The View. I was shocked and disgusted at the way she twisted the facts. Keep in mind that ADSN's March 2001 letter was sent to Jones to complain about the statements she made on January 22, 2001. Below is a transcript of the show which aired on February 13, 2002:
Star: Last night, can I share with you? I'm so humiliated. I go to give a speech in Wilmington, Delaware and there was a little communiqué sent out and Bill Geddy got it -- that there was going to be a protest.
Meredith: At your speech?
Star: At my speech. The Atheists were mad at me.
Bill: I was concerned about security.
Star: And he was concerned about security. So I called...
Meredith: For who, the Atheists or...
Star: For me. So I called down. We get the hotel all involved and the people giving the speech and they've got security. Three Atheists showed up to protest. I said, "Well wait a minute. I'm a half a celeb. I can't even get a real protest going on."
Lisa: I know. She was so disappointed today.
Star: I was disappointed in there weren't more people protesting.
Meredith: Why only three?
Star: Because, you know, this security guard went out and said, "Well, you know, just want to make sure you are in the right place." They go, "Oh it's OK we'll be leaving by 7." I didn't even start 'till 7:30 -- cause they had something else to do.
Joy: Atheists don't have a lot of time to demonstrate because they don't have as many days off as the rest of us.
Star: It was really funny. The woman. I want to tell you they had someone in the audience who asked me a question and they were very, very nice and very open and I...
Lisa: The Atheist?
Star: The Atheist lady. And she was a very, very nice lady but um you know me, I don't back down.
Joy: What was she mad about?
Star: Well, because around September 11, I had stated on the air that I was very, very happy that President Bush was someone who had a relationship with God. As you remember that. And I said that I would never be comfortable voting for...
Joy: Voting for an Atheist.
Star: No, no no. Voting for an Atheist for President. That's what I said.
Joy: But not Senator or Congressman?
Star: I hadn't even thought about that. But I know what I said - for President. Well, they were very up in arms and, as I explained to them; I respect your opinion, I respect what your position is, but God died for me and I'm standing for him and you've got a problem, it's your problem. So that's what I said.
Joy: It is interesting though - you know most people - most people in America agree with you, but if you had said I will not vote for someone who believes in God, you would have had millions protesting.
Star: Isn't it interesting. And I guess it's because our country still, for the most part, has a belief system in a higher being. But it would make you too depressed to think that this was it. You know. Don't you want there to be something else?
Joy: Well, Shirley MacLaine, she's coming back.
Star: Oh, please.
(End)
The following is the text of my follow-up letter to Jones regarding the comments she made on February 13, 2002:Dear Ms. Jones,
The Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN) receives and acts on reports of negative stereotyping of the Atheist community. This is our second letter to you concerning remarks you have made on The View. The first letter we wrote to you on March 4, 2001 was ignored. Please do not continue to ignore our correspondence.
On February 13, 2002 you purposely misrepresented the facts of ADSN's concerns. On March 4, 2001 we objected to the negative stereotyping of the Atheist community by you on January 22, 2001. We clearly indicated at that time that you should, as a media personality, convey messages of tolerance not messages of bigotry and prejudice.
We explained our position by quoting you as saying on January 22, 2001, "But everyone was mad when I said on the television that I wouldn't vote for an Atheist," and "I mean you could be a nice person - you could baby-sit my kids - possibly - but that doesn't mean you would get my vote because you got your finger on the button. I want you to feel like there are long term, everlasting ramifications."
We asked that you reassure us that you would cease making disparaging remarks against the Atheist community. To this date, you have not acknowledged our request.
The protest rally ADSN conducted on February 12, 2002 at The Playhouse Theatre in Wilmington, Delaware was an attempt to bring attention to our issue.
As stated in ADSN's press release of February 11, 2002, we are sure that if the Anti-Defamation League had complained about bigoted remarks you made against the Jewish community (i.e. you wouldn't vote for a Jewish person or you might let a nice Jewish person baby-sit your kids - possibly.), you surely would have apologized in public.
Instead, you have made matters worse by fabricating a story during the airing of The View on February 13, 2002. On that date you said that ADSN complained to you "around September 11, 2001." That is simply not true. You know full well that ADSN contacted you on March 4, 2001 regarding anti-Atheist comments you made on January 22, 2001. This is completely verifiable through taped copies of The View, ADSN's letter to you, the ADSN protest rally press release, and the literature ADSN distributed at the protest rally.
It is obvious to ADSN that your purposeful misrepresentation of contact dates was intended to make it appear that Atheists are not patriotic. This is despicable behavior, Ms. Jones.
ADSN demands an immediate public correction of the facts and an apology. ADSN members and the Atheist community at large will not rest until this matter is satisfactorily resolved.
You will be hearing from a variety of people who want you to become sensitive to what it is like to be a member of a misunderstood minority in America. Please open your heart and mind to those who live courageously in a world surrounded by prejudice and unwarranted bigotry.
ADSN realizes that you have the right to your opinion and in America you have every right to express that opinion. As a high-profile media personality, however, you must make every attempt to help end negative stereotyping, hate speech, and bigotry. And most importantly, you have the responsibility to present the facts truthfully, without twisting details to suit your purposes. It is your moral duty to rise above prejudice not only as a representative of ABC, but also as a national spokesperson for Payless ShoeSource. Sincerely, Margaret Downey, Anti-Discrimination Support Network Founder and President. (cc: Payless ShoeSource, Barbara Walters, Lisa Ling, Joy Behar, Meredith Vieira.)
In a continuing effort to extract a retraction and apology from Jones, ADSN is announcing a "Walk A Mile In My Shoes, Star Jones" campaign. Details of this campaign can be found below or provided upon request.
Please participate in this campaign as it will be a disaster unless Jones hears from hundreds of Atheists. She will make a mockery of small Atheist representation, just as she did after the February 12, 2002 protest. Please put your best foot forward and help stomp out Star Jones prejudiced point of view.
Protesting the Bigotry of Star Jones
In March 2001, the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN) wrote a letter to Star Jones, who for the second time in less than a year, had expressed prejudice against Atheists on the talk show, "The View" (see "ADSN Decries Star Jones' Point of View" in the March/April issue of The Greater Philadelphia Story).
Jones never acknowledged ADSN's demand for an apology. On February 13, 2002, she made matters worse by making fun of the small number of Atheists who were concerned about her bigoted views. Jones intimated that Atheists are unpatriotic, while falsely claiming that our complaint had been in response to patriotic remarks she made on September 12, 2001. On February 13, 2002, Jones said that in her opinion Atheists are unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States.
While Jones is entitled to her opinion, she has a moral duty to present the facts truthfully. She should also be held accountable for spreading hateful and negative stereotyping of a minority community. Had Jones made the same remarks about the Jewish community, the Anti-Defamation League would have demanded and received a public apology. Atheists must demand and receive the same type of respect.
A clever attention-getting campaign is in order. Please participate in the "Star Jones, Walk a Mile In My Shoes!" campaign. Please see the details in the form below. When you send the form to Jones, please send it with a pair of used shoes. This will help make our point. Jones is a national spokesperson for Payless ShoeSource so the inclusion of a pair of shoes is very appropriate.
Participants in this campaign must not belittle the religious beliefs of Jones or any other religious belief. She, like all Americans, can believe anything she likes. We are only objecting to her bigotry - not her belief in a supernatural God. Please keep this in mind when you write to her. The following mailing addresses are provided for your convenience:
Star Jones c/o The View, 320 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023
Protesting Star Jones Bigotry, Payless ShoeSource, P.O. Box 1189, Topeka, KS 66601
Protesting Star Jones Bigotry, ADSN, P. O. Box 242, Pocopson, PA 19366
Star Jones, Walk A Mile In My Shoes!: I am an Atheist who is offended by the demeaning remarks you have been recorded as having said on January 22, 2001 and February 13, 2002 during the airing of "The View." While I support freedom of speech, I strongly object to media personalities spreading hateful rhetoric, negative stereotyping, and disrespectful treatment of a minority.
In February 2001, the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN - a national organization that represents the interests of the Atheist community) requested a public apology from you. You have not had the courtesy to respond. I am, therefore, asking you to educate yourself on what it is like to be a mistreated minority in America.
On the reverse side of this letter is my personal story of the type of discrimination I have suffered at the hands of bigoted people such as you. Please take the time to read my correspondence. As a spokesperson for Payless Shoes and a talk show host, you should know what it is like to walk a mile in the shoes of a misunderstood minority. You may find that my words will open your heart and make you more compassionate and sensitive - qualities that all media personalities should possess. Acknowledgment is expected.
(Enclose your name & address, signature, and note that a copy of this form and yourpersonal story are being sent to Payless ShoeSource and ADSN.)
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.comTRANSCRIPTS!
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?”, “Media Infidels” “Why We Need a Humanist Coalition on Long Island,” “The Ten Commandments in Public Facilities,” “James Madison and Separation,” “Why Be Good?” and “Science and Creationism,” by Gerry Dantone.
LISH members ONLY email LISecHum@aol.com to request a copy. [TOC]
QUICKIES!
Item: Roman Catholic Archbishop Juliusz Paetz of Poland was forced to step down over accusations that he sexually harassed young clerics. The allegations became public when a Polish newspaper broke the story in February 2002 that the Archbishop had been accused by numerous priests, who had been complaining to superiors for the last two years.
Comment: What a shock! The Church did nothing for two years, but the bishop is out after two months thanks to a secular newspaper article. The abusive Archbishop was most likely influenced by the decadent American society somehow.
Item: The AP reports that St. Valentines Day was protested in India by gangs of Hindu nationalists, because it is considered an “invasive Western tradition.” Protestors have harassed westerners holding hands and burned down a gift shop selling Valentine's Day cards. The Shiv Sena party has called for a ban on celebrations of the day. St. Valentine's Day has become more popular in recent years with students holding parties, papers printing messages, and general publicity in the media.
Comment: Of all the “invasive” traditions to pick on: One that promotes love and/or romance! How dare anyone have the choice of joining in the celebration!
Item: If one writes to the White House on a WTC/ Pentagon terrorist attack related subject, one is likely to get back a short form letter restating American policy on terrorism. Also included is the following: “We must remember that our Arab and Muslim American citizens love our Nation and must be treated with dignity and respect. Americans of every creed, ethnicity, and national origin must unite against our common enemies.”
Comment: The White House must be commended in at least one respect: They have consistently sought to defuse enmity against minority groups that could have been scapegoated in the aftermath of the terror attacks. (Except for non-believers, of course, who are scapegoated somehow no matter what.)
Item: In the continuing Catholic Church child sex abuse scandal, Newsday reported that a priest, the Rev. Paul Shanley, spoke in favor of pedophilia at a meeting in Boston that resulted in the creation of the North American Man Boy Love Association in 1979. According to the story, the local archdiocese knew about abuse allegations against this priest in as early as 1967, the Vatican was informed about his statements in 1979, but he continued to be assigned to parishes with access to children for 30 years.
Comment: Now is the time, in the age of bin Laden, Mid-east war and the cover-up of clerical sexual abuse of children, to question once cherished beliefs and place the well being of others as one's first concern.
Item: A man who shot 7 co-workers in Cambridge, Mass. allegedly believes that St. Michael was dispatched by God to tell him to kill these people who he identifies as Hitler and his generals, according to his attorney. This insanity defense is countered by prosecution claims that he killed out of rage because his company was withholding wages to pay the man's back taxes.
Comment: This demonstrates either how difficult it is to distinguish between insanity and religious revelation or that religion is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Item: (From the Portside online newspaper) Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."
In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th… What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?
Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? …What do they have to hide?" McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
Comment: "Might reveal"? When they have no evidence, the conspiracy theorists insist that a theorized cover-up must be ongoing and must be investigated, and a portion of the public who is pre-disposed to distrust those charged become convinced of the worst. It must be noted that MOST congresspersons favor an investigation of the failure of the intelligence community - it is another thing, however to claim that they DID NOT FAIL, but instead allowed it to happen for the sake of money! It is now the far-left's turn to go crazy after years of right wing insanity versus Clinton.
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.
Be Sure to Watch
"Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access on Channel 71 on the Woodbury system on Mondays, 11PM; and on Channel 70 on the Hauppauge system Wednesdays @ 6:30 PM.
LISH ON CABLE!
"Long Island Secular Humanists; What is Secular Humanism?" a LISH one-hour self-produced show will be shown on the Woodbury Cablevision system, Channel 71, from 9 to 10 AM, Saturdays. On the Hauppauge Cablevision system, it will be aired Saturdays @ 11:30AM.
(Church from page #)
Copyright LISH 2002
Editor: Gerry Dantone
Design: J. Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication [TOC]