INQUIRER Volume 5, Issue 06, June, 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) Confirmation, Religious Freedom, Intolerance, and the Chutzpah of the Roman Catholic Church
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Making the Rounds With Norm
4) LI US House of Rep. Steve Israel on Islamic Textbooks and Church-State Separation
5) Exposing the Truth of Suicide Bombers
6) If Not A Southern Baptist, What Then For Goodness Sakes DO I Believe?
7) Even the Comic Strips Insult Non-believers
8) Ya Gotta Believe Again The Boy Scouts
9) QUICKIES!
10) An Infidel on the (Web) Radio!CONFIRMATION, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, INTOLERANCE, AND THE CHUTZPAH OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Will Richards & Gerry Dantone
Confirmation is a rite of passage for millions of Catholic children who declare and confirm their belief and faith in Jesus and the Catholic Church. What is the lesson being learned? What is the message? Will this message make the world a better place?
Two years ago, one of the writers of this article attended the confirmation of his nephew and was reminded of the sharp division between humanistic values and religious values, a division that even many humanists prefer to minimize. Of all the moral lessons that these young impressionable children could have been taught, the very fact that the late Bishop McHugh chose something that emphasized faith, obedience and intolerance is revealing.
The Bishop quoted from the bible, as would be expected.
Here is the section to which he referred:
Mark 16:14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." 19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. (The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)
Aside from quoting questionable verses, was this just the style of a single Bishop or is this typical? Do we really need to emphasize that others are condemned for their disbelief? Will this make the world a better place? Answer: Making this world a better place is not the number one concern - getting “saved,” an inherently selfish concern, is primary.
The Bishop, during the course of his remarks, also mentioned, in a derisive manner, that in the US, there is no "freedom of religion, but instead freedom from religion." Remember, this is what the Bishop chose to say to impressionable teenagers! A letter was then written to the Diocese of Rockville Centre:
"Your Eminence: On June 1, 2000 I had the pleasure of attending my Godsons Confirmation Ceremony at St. Joseph's in Garden City. I enjoyed the services and listening to your homily. During your homily I believe you said, "In this country we have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion". Could please explain what you meant by this? I look forward to your hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Will Richards"
The following is the response, dated 6/26/00:
Dear Mr. Richards, I have received your letter questioning my confirmation homily. What I said, and usually say, is that as Americans we are proud of our constitutional protection of religious freedom. But we do not have freedom of religion any longer. Freedom from religion, yes; freedom of religion, no. That is because the values and attitudes in our society - in the media, the political sphere, academia - treat religion as a private matter with no social implication. Of course, the offenders, listed above, are the so-called cultural elites. And politicians, right up to the President of the United States, try to separate morality from public life. Mr. Clinton claimed that he should not be judged for his sexual misbehavior and lying because these were in the private domain. Rather he should be judged only on how he has run the country.
I would refer you to Gertrude Himmelfarb's "One Nation, Two Cultures," and Stephen Carter's "The Culture of Disbelief." With prayerful best wishes, I am Sincerely in Christ, Most Reverend James T. McHugh, S.T.D. Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY.
One point at a time will be addressed. The very fact that Bishop McHugh was able to say what he said, hold Mass when he held it and have a tax-free church is fairly good proof that he has "freedom of religion."
Bishop Daily, now of the Brooklyn archdiocese, said in a deposition that he didn't report the allegations of clerical sexual abuse of children to the police because he was “under the very distinct impression that there was a question of immunity for such matters.” Is this what the Roman Catholic Church considers “Freedom of Religion”? Freedom to cover up rape or abuse? The First Amendment was NOT intended to shield clerics from laws covering common decency.
In what way was Bishop McHugh truly hampered in the practice of Catholicism? Answer: Primarily in not having his religion's way in the matter of abortion, divorce and birth control for non-Catholics. One might note the complete absence of examples of limitations on the late Bishop's freedom of religion. The “problems” all pertain to the unconstitutionality of the government providing a forum and engine of promotion for religion, not the private practice of religion.
There are also some misrepresentations as well. No one claims that religion has "no social implication." The real "problem" is that a religious belief for a secular law or policy enforced by government is inadequate and unconstitutional. A governmental action must have reasons as justifications, not scripture or religious tradition, because that would mean the end of religious freedom for religious minorities or dissenters.
If the government began to promote the idea of the Pope as the anti-Christ, the Bishop's need for freedom from the religion of Protestant extremists might become easier for him to understand. The Bishop should remember that if the Founding Fathers had not been led by the secular (though religious in their own way), Catholicism might have indeed been outlawed in favor of Protestantism, and America would not be the relative bastion of freedom for Catholics and others that it is.
It is also amazing to once again see the implied accusation of "atheism" in the Bishop's critique of the "so-called cultural elite." Who are these "offenders?" Answer: They are religious persons who believe that religion is a private matter. The Bishop is assuming, via the arrogance of faith, that this more private form of religious belief or practice, is inferior or less moral than his own. It is just different, and perhaps actually more ethical.
Next we hear the claim about President Clinton asking not to be judged and making excuses for his behavior. I actually do not recall him doing this. President Clinton apologized for his conduct. It was the general public that supported judging him for the job he was doing as President. But it is also unbelievable that this somehow is part of the religious/secular argument: President Clinton signed the infamous “Charitable Choice" law into existence, and was a bible toting Southern Baptist himself. He was not secular enough in his role as President!
The Bishop recommends two books as supporting his argument. In a critique of “The Culture of Disbelief” by Stephen Carter, Adolf Grunbaum, University of Pittsburgh writes: “In his book “the Culture of Disbelief” (Carter) writes “What was wrong with the 1992 Republican Convention was not the effort to link the name of God to secular political ends. What was wrong was the choice of secular ends to which the name of God was linked.” …But clearly, Stephen Carter makes the linkage to God logically irrelevant precisely by assuming that we must already know independently of any purported divine commands, which secular political ends are ethically proper and thereby may properly be chosen for linkage to the name of God! Otherwise, any secular political ends can be given such a linkage with theological impunity, as they have been historically and at the 1992 Republican convention, to Carter's discomfiture.”
Carter's impotent defense of religion in the public square has the weakness any defense of faith inherently shares: Which faith and why? If he opposes the direction in which the religious right points political policy, what can he criticize about it? That's the direction of that particular faith, and if that faith claims it is inerrant, only trouble can result. Carter is simply in denial about this. Faith cannot be directed - faith does the pointing, good or bad. That is why religion cannot be trusted in government. They must be separated for everyone's good.
In a review of Gertrude Himmelfarb's book the reviewer, Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, stated:
“What can be done to build on these improvements? How should the traditionalists and religious conservatives who make up the dissident culture go about remoralizing American society? Here, perhaps unavoidably, “One Nation, Two Cultures” is at its weakest. Himmelfarb is a historian of civic culture, not an activist or a crusader, and she offers no prescription for curing the social ills from which America suffers. Indeed, she seems not to expect a cure. There will be no mass return to traditional standards, she says, no far-reaching transformation of American society. The best she hopes for is that as the influence of the current revival spreads, "more and more people [will] leave the state of denial in which they have so long taken refuge." And even about this modest prophecy she is tentative: "Historians," she cautions, "have not been notably successful in predicting the future."
As before, the book the Bishop recommends offers only a weak defense of religion in government and in the public square. The two author's liberal tendencies put them at odds with the religious right's agenda but at the same time they decry the “demoralizing” of America.
Bishop McHugh believes that complaints about the state of American culture can only come from a religious viewpoint, but, of course, this is arrogant and erroneous. The late Steve Allen's book “Vulgarians at the Gate” deals with the state of popular culture and morality and does it in an entirely secular manner. Even more, it suggests and gives assistance to those who actually want to do something about it. Ultimately it is a far more useful and truthful critique than either of the books offered by the Bishop.
The real problem for Bishop McHugh was not the state of his religious freedom, for he had much religious freedom for which to be thankful. It is also not about the absence of religion in the government leading to a decaying country because one cannot name any non-religious persons in positions of power in any high elected public office. It is also not the issue of moral decay striking our overly secular public officials or leaders, since time and time again, from the former President, to Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Dan Burton, Newt Gingrich, Helen Chenowith, Gary Condit, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and so on, the decay does not exclude the publicly pious. It may actually be confined to the publicly pious since the publicly non-pious do not get elected, with the exception of Gov. Jesse Ventura!
No, the real problem for Bishop McHugh is that his religious beliefs and his moral standards do not rule the land. It is as simple as that. It is sad that such an anti-First Amendment position is a primary theme of a Bishop's homily to a group of impressionable Americans entering adolescence. And of course, it is the height of hypocrisy to speak as if one has some unquestioned moral authority when the hierarchy of the organization, of which he was a part, has failed so miserably in protecting the children it then presumes to morally instruct. [TOC]LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
4/15/-2 Re: Star Jones: To Gerry Dantone and Margaret Downey (of the ADSN): I suppose this is an interesting thing to be doing, but I'll bet that with a softer approach, the beauteous Margaret and/or the musically and philosophically interesting Gerry could actually get a few minutes on The View to put their views on record. However, I've only watched The View once, and it wasn't all that impressive.
Nonetheless, I'm dismayed by an omission in the lengthy message from ADSN forwarded by the INQUIRER.
The last part of this statement attributed to Star Jones is simply wrong: 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.”
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution (NOT the Bill of Rights, but the basic document!) clearly states: “Before he [sic] enters on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There ain't no God in there, never has been, because the Quakers, among others, would have refused to endorse any swearing. It's always been notable to me that Tricky Dick Nixon, brought up a Quaker, managed to abandon his religious heritage by swearing in the name of the sacred idea.
Similar wording in found in Article V, paragraph 3, which says that all elected officials and officers of the United States and each state shall be "...bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution;" and famously goes on to say "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Star Jones -- not to say the regulars on The View -- is clearly a kind of ignoramus on this score. The ADSN and its friends should not allow themselves to be taken in by them. Dick Reichart via Internet
Response: Thanks for the info. A common ploy by the theocratic is to play fast and loose with the facts. G.D.
4/12/02 Re: Star Jones: Greetings: I don't think this issue is worthy of any attention whatsoever. The protest makes those involved look ridiculous and will lead to no original thinking about the issues of belief, critical thinking, reason and all the rest. Even if the insults are on national TV, consistently, to boot. Let's save our energies for worthy causes.
I do not wish to seem to attack you or anyone for sending the letter or showing up to protest or whatever. If the plan or action taken in protest of some slight or offense leads some to think that a positive result might ensue that's proportionate to the offense, well, go for it. In my view, this Star Jones character did not seem worth much effort. There are a lot of SERIOUS miscreants out there (the Grahams, Robertson, Falwell, et al) that seem far more dangerous than this hapless loony.
But, yes, there are lots of times when a response is necessary. But, no, let's not get PC about it and respond because "someone insults a class of persons unfairly!" There too much of that--we'll wear out in no time at all. Focus, focus. Don Ardell via Internet
Response: One always wonders whether a press release or other campaign is appropriate. However, I think it has become clear that silence in the face of constant insult has not led to a softening in the attitudes of believers towards non-believers. In fact, they seem to be pretty comfortable insulting us without provocation. G.D.
5/6/02 Re: Buddhism is the state religion in Sri Lanka: I just returned from an extended visit as a tourist in the Far East. In China I saw many people bow, kneel, clasp their hand and pray before images of the Buddha and its various statuarial incarnations. People burn symbolic money in large metal cans in the open spaces between the temples so that the smoke can ascend to "heaven" where their loved dead ones can use it. These and other acts are similar to various other theistic religions and I think it is fair to say that at least some aspects of Buddhism, the "Lord Buddha" representing a deity, are theistic and not "non-theistic." Kornform via Internet
Response: It is sad that religions tend to make deities out of the humble. G.D. [TOC]MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM
Norm Roscoe
Museum of Natural History, Tuesday April 23, 2002:
This forum featured a panel with two speakers favoring and presenting the “theory” of Intelligent Design. These folks were questioned by two scientists who defended Darwinian evolution.
The two Intelligent Design representatives were Michael J. Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, and William A Dembski , a Philosopher and Math professor from Baylor University. The evolutionists were Professor Kenneth R, Miller a biologist from Brown University and Robert T. Pennock, a scientific Technologist and philosopher from Michigan State University.
The ID proponents brought up the idea of irreducible complexity. Michael Behe offered an example of the flagella of bacteria as being irreducibly complex. Take away one item and the organism cannot function. Then Behe uses a mousetrap as a comparison. Behe maintains that the irreducible complexity supports intelligent design. Professor Miller points out that although removing parts change the function it does not make the item useless. Miller's line of questioning Socratically points out that even if the function changes it does not eliminate the usefulness of the remaining parts. A mousetrap can become a tie clip. In the world of organisms any form of utility shows improved survivability from being less supplied at a lower stage.
It seemed to me that Behe takes the anthropomorphic view. Just as some theologians look for a purpose from a human view, Behe seems to be doing this here. Miller emphasized the survivability of the organism as the step for survival and perpetuation, not simply a single function.
Dembski tried to point out patterns to show intelligent design. Again we see the anthropomorphic approach. Where we see regularities as natural scientific events some people see intent. The question came up that maybe if there were intelligent designers might they be extra terrestrial beings involved here? This does not help us tell where the extra terrestrials came from.
We have a problem of when there are knowledge gaps as to how we try to fill them. Our Darwinists remain in the questioning stance showing that when there are gaps, we acknowledge the gap and do some more research. Scientists are concerned that when we make a response to the data; is it interpreted with the most parsimonious judgment? Or do we take the anthropomorphic response? This seems to be the point of departure procedurally between these two positions.
The evolutionists seem to have more data at their disposal and more references to specific bits of research.
People want to ask who won the debate. The format was such that the moderator Eugenie Scott had the ID people making their cases and the evolutionists questioning. The Socratic method is a difficult challenge and you really must have a strong position and really be able to answer many queries. This format left the ID people making rather large leaps to make interpretation of the data presented. Behe had some numbers to illustrate but the amount of interpretation was covering too large a gap without further research. The format left the feeling that even in evolutionary theory more work is still needed and we confidently expect that this work continues. Maybe further along the line the gaps will be reduced.
I came away realizing that ID has not offered answers that assist what we are currently working on in the understanding of the origin of the species.
Theological Workshop, Shelter Rock Unitarian Universalist Society, on Sat April 27, 2002
.
Faculty members of the Star King Theological Seminary presented a day devoted the theological direction in liberal religion. Present were Rebecca Parker President of the seminary and Process Theologian, Dr. Ibrahim Eliyahou Farajajei, Muslin Scholar, and Dr Rosemary Chinnici, professor of pastoral theology.
These folks gave workshops reflecting their disciplines. I attended Dr Farajajei workshop featuring Islam in a UU context. Here Ibrahim showed misconceptions about Koranic interpretations very similar to Biblical interpretations used by fundamentalist Christians. Muslims tend to use the word literalist in place of fundamentalist. It is interesting to note that Professor Farajajei is from Sufi traditions and does refer to use of intuitive practices. However, is he using this as a source of knowledge or just inspirational sparks for life stances and creativity? Ibrahim displayed a warm friendly approach and wished to dispel the militant stances that Islamic stereotypes show.
I also attended Dr Parker's workshop. She talked about Christian atonement and violence. Self sacrifice, especially by women, goes so far as to support violence in domestic situations; a father supports the son dieing for us all; people accept abuse as parallel for this atonement. Dr. Parker, an ordained Methodist minister as well as a Unitarian Universalist cleric, presents the case for Christianity's support of violence along these lines. Her latest book is about this issue in the atonement struggle. Early Universalist leaders had written about atonement as being a mistaken idea theologically. Such an example is "The Treatise on Atonement" by Hosea Ballou. However, many Christians have failed to benefit from Ballou's work. Parker's work with many women withstanding abuse failed to break this mystique of "atonement". Many times women stayed with abusive partners.
I also had a separate conversation with Dr Parker about theological trends in UU and main line Protestantism. Naturalistic Theism is growing. Most relevant is the changing view of god based on Tillich and Hartshorne. God, in these versions, loses all coherence to many lay people.
Words really get changed dramatically as liberal religionists try to use the spiritual language. Naturalistic Theists claim to be non supernatural. However they cling to spiritual language with terms such as mystical, religious, sacred and divine.
I found it easier speaking to the Muslim and his Arabic than the new language of liberal religion.
CABLE ACCESS SHOWS!
Be Sure to Watch "Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access on Channel 71 on the Woodbury system @ 11PM, Mondays; & Channel 70 on the Hauppauge system and Channel 70 on Brookhaven Cablevision, every Wednesday @ 6:30 PM.
“Long Island Secular Humanists; What Is Secular Humanism?” 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 & Brookhaven Cablevision systems, channel 70, 11:30AM to 12:30PM, Saturdays.. [TOC]
LI US House of Rep STEVE ISRAEL ON ISLAMIC TEXTBOOKS AND CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
The following excerpt from a letter by Rep. Steve Israel was received in response to a letter to him regarding the US supplying Afghanistan with textbooks that contain religious indoctrination materials:
Dear Mr. Dantone: As your representative in Congress, I look forward to facilitating a foreign and economic policy that emphasizes education over indoctrination in Arab states, as well as helping bring a lasting peace and security to Israel. Regarding your concerns about the separation of religion and public education, I believe that no person should ever be forced to partake in any religious activity against his or her will…
As you may know, there is a proposed amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res. 81) stating that neither the Federal nor State governments shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Furthermore, the amendment states that the government shall not compose school prayers, nor require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity. H.J. Res. 81, essentially, amends the 1st Amendment, which I do not believe would be wise. This amendment has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Should it come to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts firmly in mind. Steve Israel.
Typically it is difficult for an elected official to take a position that seems to place them, superficially, on the opposing side to religion. Therefore they must choose their words carefully. The proposed amendment referred to in the letter does not protect Americans in any manner that they are not already protected. What it DOES do is allow religious majorities to force their practices on others, who must either accept this imposition in silence or be visibly ostracized. Mr. Israel is too charitable to offer this as an explanation but thankfully he sees the value in protecting the First Amendment. - G.D. [TOC]EXPOSING THE TRUTH OF SUICIDE BOMBERS
Gerry Dantone
A rally in Mineola, Long Island, NY, in support of the state of Israel, brought condemnations of the use terrorism against civilians for political gain. Rabbi Israel Lau, the chief rabbi of Israel and a spiritual leader to the country addressed some remarks to those Palestinians who had been recruited to be suicide bombers, saying, “They mislead you, your leaders. They tell you if you commit suicide and kill as many Jews as possible, you will inherit paradise. It is a lie. It is a bluff. There is no religion that can promise paradise to someone who is creating hell to their neighbor. Not one.”
Unfortunately, though the intent was undoubtedly to promote peace, the statement is patently untrue. Religions routinely promise reward in exchange for immoral acts. In fact, that is practically the basis for revealed religions: Doing what you would not ordinarily do for the sake of a supernatural reward.
The story of Phineas is a case in point. It is the violent story of the unarmed murder of an Israelite, Zimri, and his Midianite girlfriend, Cozbi, by Phinehas, who was blessed by God for the racist act.
Nu 25:1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
Nu 25:2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
Nu 25:3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.
Nu 25:4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.
Nu 25:5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.
Nu 25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Nu 25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
Nu 25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
Nu 25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
Nu 25:10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Nu 25:11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
Nu 25:12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
Nu 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
Nu 25:14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.
Nu 25:15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.
Nu 25:16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Nu 25:17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them:
Nu 25:18 For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.
One may point out that this story involved only an isolated incident, despite the fact that this story is used to this day as justification for racial separation by the likes of fanatical right wing religious extremists who consider themselves “Phineas Priests.” Perhaps the story of the annihilation (aside from the virgins they raped) of a rival tribe is more to the point.
Nu 31:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Nu 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
Nu 31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.
Nu 31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
Nu 31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
Nu 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
Nu 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
Nu 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
Nu 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
Nu 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
Nu 31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
Nu 31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
Nu 31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
Nu 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
Nu 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Nu 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
Nu 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Nu 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Nu 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
The story of Isaac and Abraham, however, is the ethical nail in the coffin for the “Abrahamaic” religions. As is well-known, Abraham is rewarded and blessed by God for his willingness to kill his very own innocent son, Isaac.
Ge 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Ge 22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
Ge 22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
Ge 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
Ge 22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
Ge 22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
Ge 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Ge 22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
Ge 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
Ge 22:11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Ge 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Ge 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.
Ge 22:15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
Ge 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Ge 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
So is it any wonder that Mohammed's followers cooked up a hadith (tradition) and assigned its origins to the Prophet himself justifying martyrdom for those who kill in Allah's name?
It says in a hadith reported by Hazrat Miqdam bin Ma'di Karib that the Holy Prophet said: "There are six peculiarities of a martyr in the sight of Allah: (1) in the very first hearing he is absolved. (2) He is shown his abode in Paradise. (3) He is saved from the torture of the grave. (4) He will remain safe from the tremendous consternation that will be caused by the sound of the trumpet on the Day of Doom. (5) And a crown of honour will be put on his head; a single garnet of this crown is superior to all that is there in this world. (6) And 72 large-eyed houris will be wedded with him, and his intercession regarding 70 of his kinsfolk will be accepted".
Now Rabbi Lau may not believe in the veracity of this hadith, or in Mohammed's prophecies or in the divinity of the Koran, but it IS the religious viewpoint of more than a few persons on this earth. The suicide bombers may indeed be immoral and the source of their beliefs bogus, but it is their religion nonetheless, and Rabbi Lau and the rest of the world must come to grips with the fact that with religion, all can be justified.. [TOC] IF NOT A SOUTHERN BAPTIST, WHAT THEN FOR GOODNESS SAKES DO I BELIEVE? Don Ardell
In the Bible Belt, the mayor of most cities, including Tampa, attends prayer breakfasts and often speaks for the reigning deity, quotes HIM a lot and makes references to revered texts-and I'm not referring to the Constitution of the United States of America. In short, separation of church and state is more a reluctant obligation often flouted, not a deep seated commitment based on a conviction that a secular state is better than a tilt toward a bit of old time religion. I don't plan to act like most Southern mayors in this respect, not as a candidate and certainly NOT as mayor. Sooner or later (and more likely than not, it will be sooner), someone is going to want to know where I stand on moral issues.
There are thousands of issues a mayor has to face in one way or another. A mayor, for example, has to choose positions to support, oppose or ignore. Informed voters must know what values, beliefs, commitments and passions animate a candidate, the better to decide whom among the vote seekers is most likely to take positions consistent with their own mindsets, values and perspectives. Here are highlights of my beliefs or core values. These commitments surely will affect positions I adopt on issues. Knowing about these beliefs should be helpful for sensing how I might conduct myself, if elected mayor of Tampa.
As a wellness promoter, you will not be surprised to learn that I believe strongly in personal responsibility, and that I have little use for blame, excuses or wishful thinking.
I subscribe to or practice no religion, on the contrary, I favor science/logic and reason as the best guide in seeking to understand the great questions regarding why we're here and what it's all about-among other great mysteries. I want to enjoy this life and help others do likewise. Among the best ways to do this is to develop talents to the fullest; another is to do good works, without expectation of rewards. In the Jewish tradition, the latter is called a "mitzvah." There are payoffs to mitzvahs, but they are private, not public, such as personal growth and further character development.
* I favor an open, democratic society. I think a mayor can lead the way in nourishing such a society, in part by promoting reason and protecting citizens from repressive authoritarians.
* I have a high regard for fair play and respect for the importance of seeking compromises to resolve differences, achieve mutual understanding, safeguard and secure justice and eliminate discrimination and intolerance.
* I want to help the disadvantaged so that they will better be able to help themselves.
* I want to see people succeed in overcoming divisive parochial loyalties. Race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation and ethnicity, among other identities, should not divide or stand as barriers to working together for the public good in Tampa.
* I want to promote optimism and encourage learning, joy and fun, compassion, beauty, preservation and critical thinking. Some of this may sound idealistic, but we need ideals. Mine include a respect for excellence, citizen privacy and the common moral decencies that are part of all but not unique to any religion, particularly altruism, integrity, cooperation, mutual respect and honesty.
Philosopher Paul Kurtz describes four categories of such decencies:
1. Integrity (truthfulness, promise keeping, sincerity and honesty).
2. Trustworthiness (fidelity or loyalty, dependability).
3. Benevolence (goodwill, refraining from harming others personally or their property, consent and beneficence).
4. Fairness (gratitude, accountability, justice, tolerance and cooperation).
These are found in the chapter entitled "The Common Moral Decencies" in Paul's book entitled Embracing the Power of Humanism (pp. 143-156), Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. 2000. If elected, I'll be guided by such beliefs and core values.
Be well and always look on the bright side of life.
(Don Ardell has recently announced his candidacy for the office of Mayor of Tampa, Florida. He is also the publisher of the Ardell Wellness report; for more info go to http://www.seekwellness.com/wellness.). [TOC]
EVEN THE COMICS INSULT NON-BELIEVERS Gerry Dantone
On Tuesday, July 31, 2001, the B.C. comic strip, by Johnny Hart, in the NY Daily News went something like this: “A guy asks the “Answer Man” the following question: “What could a dead atheist, a dead agnostic and a dead saint possibly have in common?” The “Answer Man” says, “They all know there is a God.”
Now this isn't the worst insult non-believers have ever had to endure. The most aggravating part of it is the absolute lack of balance, and absence of any opportunity in mainstream media to have our say, even in proportion to our numbers in the population. So I wrote, via email, to the distributors of this comic strip, Creators Syndicate, to let them know atheists are people too:
The BC comic strip in the Tuesday, 7/31/01 NY Daily News is offensive to atheists and agnostics, which is no great shock since Mr. Hart, the author, apparently considers all non-Christians to be heading to a deserved hell. During an interview back in April, 1999, he reportedly told the Washington Post "Jews and Muslims who don't accept Jesus will burn in hell." He also went on to describe his negative views for homosexuals, and the impending apocalypse.
Still, when he once drew a strip depicting a menorah burning until it became a cross, there was outrage expressed by many, not just by Jews, for his insensitivity. One wonders if anyone other than a non-believer, will understand the offense of the current cartoon. To make it easier I will paraphrase Mr. Hart's strip: A person asks the answer man, "What could a dead atheist, a dead Jew or Muslim and a dead Christian saint possibly have in common?" The Answer Man answers, "They all know Jesus is God."
I hope you can now understand the arrogance involved in Mr. Hart's set of religious beliefs. Would you ever consider a strip that ridicules religion and the existence of God, or the past history of Christianity? (From) Gerry Dantone, President, Long Island Secular Humanists.
The writer of the comic strip, Johnny Hart, then emailed back:
Dear Mr. Pantone (sic): It saddens me that you feel that my strip is intended as an attack on your beliefs. I assure you that this has never been the reasoning behind any content I choose to print. My strip is one of the few that expresses the joy that religious people find in their world. It is not intended to antagonize or belittle anyone, nor do I try to use the media to convert those that do not share my belief. I am sorry that you saw it that way. The world is colored by how we choose to view it. I choose to see the humor and attempt to express that. If you were drawing the strip, I am sure your own beliefs would shine through. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion. I thank you for taking the time to let me know how you feel. Yours sincerely, Johnny Hart, Creators Syndicate.
Once again, this is not the worst direct insult non-believers have ever received. The one thing to keep in mind is that it is not merely that believers think we're incorrect in not believing in the existence of God, or the specifics of their belief systems: It is that we're most likely immoral for not believing in the existence of God or their religion. Subtract that negative painting of the skeptical, and it's merely a difference of opinion: With it, it becomes an excuse for prejudice, discrimination and hate.
Beyond the arrogance is an embarrassing admission, which I'm sure is lost on Mr. Hart. It's an admission that one must be dead before one knows whether a God exists or not. Poor Mr. Hart - his own sacred comic strip is proving the reasonableness of atheism and agnosticism.
To write the Daily News email: voicers@edit.nydailynews.com
To write Creators Syndicate Inc. (distributors of BC) email: info@creators.com . [TOC]
YA GOTTA BELIEVE, AGAIN - THE BOY SCOUTS Keith Taylor
I'm a retired sailor; this is a memory from part of my 23 years service.
“I can't sign this application because I don't believe in God.” That's what an old shipmate told his CO when he was assigned the collateral duty of institutional representative for a Boy Scout unit.
His skipper would have none of it. “Of course you do, everybody does. Now sign the damn thing.” That settled that. My friend got religion and became a member of the Boy Scouts of America right on the spot.
Religion, Scouting and the armed forces go together so much the scouts were chartered by congress in 1916 with the quasi-military duty of being “an auxiliary force in the maintenance of public order.” According to an article in The Humanist “At the outbreak of World War I, the BSA had become the largest uniformed service, dwarfing in numbers the Army, Navy, and Marines.”
They still go together. As of 1998, 615 military organizations hosted Scout units. In addition, you'd be hard put to find a community in this country that doesn't lend support to them in one way or another, and almost always with taxpayers' money.
As for me I'll steer clear of them. To misquote Groucho Marx, I wouldn't be a member of an outfit that won't have me as a member. The BSA is willing to go to any lengths to exclude those who don't meet what they consider high standards.
It was all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a New Jersey ruling that said gays couldn't be excluded. They won because the Scouts are a private organization and can exclude whomever they wish.
The California Supreme Court also upheld the Scouts when they booted a couple of kids who wouldn't acknowledge God. The young men took that part about honesty seriously, and refused to swear to something they didn't believe.
Any old belief would be fine, no matter how wacko. For example, those folks in Appalachia who dance with rattlesnakes could be Scouts because they believe that's what God wants. So too could an unusual group outside San Diego who a periodically gather on a mountain to greet their Gods who will arrive in spaceships.
A couple in Colorado allowed a child to die, relying on faith rather than modern medicine to cure his illness and were arrested. Judge David Bottger sentenced them to probation, but said, “… These people are the finest people this court has ever had the duty to sentence.” This after they refused modern medical treatment and allowed an innocent, helpless kid to die! Like the Boy Scouts they placed blind faith above science, reason or even common sense. That faith was enough for the judge. The Scouts' insistence on it is just fine with our armed forces.
Certainly a private organization has the right to restrict its membership and I think that's the way it should be for everybody -- the KKK who proudly practice bigotry as well as the Boy Scouts who aim it at a selected few.
But should the armed forces and other government entities take sides? A vice president said we couldn't be citizens. My old shipmate surely escaped the wrath of his CO by agreeing to sign a statement he didn't believe in. Back in the 1960s when mandatory church attendance was discontinued at the Naval Academy the superintendent was disappointed because he didn't think an atheist could be an officer. A chaplain told me that an atheist who was also an officer was a liar.
As is often the case, the armed forces are following the example of its political leaders. The president routinely accepts the honorary title of commander of the Scouts. Would our current president do that if they excluded Baptists? Would my three Jewish congressional representatives try to get that charter revoked if the Scouts excluded them specifically?
I'd like to remind everybody that even if it's not his or her ox being gored, bigotry is still wrong, even stupid. Some of America's finest and brightest citizens would never have met the Scouts' standards. That would include Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Thomas Payne, Walter Lippmann, Luther Burbank, George Carlin, and according to one poll 93% of our top scientists.
Let's ask this outfit with such lofty goals to either live up to them or we'll pull the plug. Perhaps the Scouts could heed the words of its founder Lord Baden-Powell: “A bad man who believes in a creed is no more religious than the good man who does not..”
Otherwise we ought to close our gates to them and let them be as private as they wish, on their own.
(Keith Taylor is a freelance writer living near San Diego, Ca. These opinions are his own, and he won't demand you believe them also. He can be reached at ktraylor47@juno.com ). [TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: From the American Humanist Society in a letter to President Bush: Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the American Humanist Association, I want to thank you for making an effort to be inclusive in your radio address on Saturday, March 30. In this speech you did not limit “good” people to those of traditional religious faiths as you, and others in your administration, recently have done. We applaud your statement: "Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all."
Comment: Help, I think I'm hallucinating! I could swear I just read something where Bush acknowledges persons of no faith in a positive manner!
Item: Jim Traficant, a Democrat elected to the House of Representatives from Ohio, was convicted on all 10 federal charges he faced, including taking kickbacks from staff and bribes and gifts from businessmen. The jury also ordered him to forfeit $96,000 in ill-gotten gains from racketeering spanning more than a decade. Traficant is well-known to non-believers for the following outburst, uttered on the floor of Congress:
"Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God. That is right. And the reason they gave was that the scientists are `super smart.' Unbelievable! Most of these absent-minded professors cannot find the toilet. Mr. Speaker, I have one question for these wise guys to constipate over: How can some thing come from no thing? And while they digest that, Mr. Speaker, let us tell it like it is. Put these super-cerebral master debaters in some foxhole with bombs bursting all around them, and I guarantee they will not be praying to Frankenstein. Beam me up here. My colleagues, all the education in the world is worthless without God and a little bit of common sense. And I yield back whatever we have left."
Comment: It's a shame that atheists will no longer have Rep. Traficant available for his valuable moral guidance for the next two to three years, less time off for good behavior.
Item: House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told 300 persons at a Baptist Church in Texas in April that God is using him to promote a “biblical worldview,” in politics, and that he pursued Bill Clinton's impeachment because he held “the wrong worldview.” He also claimed that “Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?'” He continued, as reported in the Washington Post, “Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world - only Christianity.” He added that parents should send their children to schools where they will receive a “godly” education. He said, “Don't send your kids to Baylor, and don't send your kids to A&M.” DeLay was kicked out of Baylor for drinking and carousing, according to the article.
Comment: Imagine impeaching a President because he held the “wrong” worldview, which in DeLay's mind is equivalent to the wrong religious view. This is, more or less, a confession by a leading player of the Religious Right that their religious worldview is the driving factor in their policies, not the Constitution, freedom, democracy or justice. DeLay has clearly spoken, and he is no mere elected official, he is the House Whip and soon to be Majority Leader! The agenda of the Republican Party, with some exceptions of course, is no less than installing their fundamentalist version of Christianity as the state “worldview.” They are indeed our American Taliban.
Item: From American Atheists: Lawmakers are rushing legislation which would preserves a decades old policy of allowing clergy a tax break on housing. The measure is unconstitutional. This deduction will cost American taxpayers $2.3billion over the next five years. For more info go to http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church32.htm. For info and tips on contacting your congressperson, go to http://www.atheists.org/action.
Comment: Note that nothing in the present policy disqualifies a pedophile, anti-Semite, devil-worshipper, cult leader, ex-con, ayatollah, or outright nut from using this deduction as long as this person is a clergyperson. The leaders of humanist, atheist, freethinker or any non-profit or charitable non-religious groups and other groups are NOT eligible under any circumstance. This seems fair to our elected officials somehow.
Item: Another woman has been sentenced to death under Sharia law in Nigeria for the crime of adultery. The first conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. The woman is using a “sleeping embryo” defense, claiming that the child she bore out of wedlock was the result of intercourse with her ex-husband which occurred years before as opposed to being the offspring of a more recent lover. The suspected lover denied on the Koran that he was the father and is not culpable under this religious law. The sentenced woman still supports Sharia law however. “I support Sharia, but what happened to me is not just. I am not afraid. It is in Allah's hands” she says according to a Newsday story.
Comment: Besides the lunacy of the logic of Sharia law, and the lunacy of arguments necessary to defend against it, there is another aspect to the lunacy. The woman to be executed, and others oppressed by it, defend it! This is not as unusual as it seems at first glance. In the US, gays are the subject of libel and persecution by the Roman Catholic and other churches. Still, gays, like other persons, persist in attending and supporting the very institutions that victimize them. It is no easy thing to break the bonds of religion.
Item: Captured suspect Luke Helder supposedly wrote a letter and attached it to the pipe bombs he allegedly planted in mailboxes in the Midwest in May 2002. Among other things the letter read, “I'm here to help you realize/understand that you will live no matter what! It is up to you people to open your hearts and minds. There is no such thing as death. The people I've dismissed from this reality (killed) are not at all dead.” No one was killed in the bombings though some were injured.
Comment: Of course the media is oblivious to the implications implied in these rambling and incoherent letters, but they demonstrate that a person who believes that death is not the end is liable to take that belief to its logical ends. As someone else has pointed out, “believe in absurdities, commit atrocities.” Unfortunately, MOST people believe that death is not the end, and sometimes this belief affects their lives or the lives of others disastrously.
Item: From a statement by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, on May 16: “Several weeks ago, I called for a congressional investigation into what warnings the Bush Administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was derided by the White House, right wing talk radio, and spokespersons for the military-industrial complex as a conspiracy theorist. Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history.”
Comment: Actually nearly EVERY congressperson called for investigations into the US security failure. What made Rep. McKinnon's original statement remarkable was her question, “Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?” Obviously, this is a leading question that assumes that someone in the administration knew that NYC was a target on 9-11-02 and deliberately withheld this information. She also said, “…What do they have to hide?" and that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." This is an entirely different scenario from what has since been pieced together. As of now, there is still not a shred of evidence that anything other than sheer incompetence and an antiquated bureaucracy coupled with the conservative outlook that many tasks are best left to the “private sector” or “free market” (such as airport security) led to this monumental failure. Yes the FBI, the CIA and the Bush administration (and Clinton's as well) dropped the ball big time and deserve to be purged come election time, but there is no evidence that anyone deliberately and willfully “allowed” this tragedy to occur for the sake of an oil pipeline or personal profit.
Item: In a NY Times report, 5 Christian Rwandan clergymen are scheduled to go on trial for the crime of genocide. Court officials, it was reported in the 5/12/02 edition, said that the Catholic Church had until very recently shielded priests and nuns accused of wrongdoing. A recent book, “The Lost Honor of the Church,” by Christian Terras, reported that many Hutus in the clergy had been aware of meetings of extremist Hutus, and even had attended them. Mr. Terras claims as many as 100 pastors, priests and nuns played an active role, siding with the Hutu militias.
Comment: The Roman Catholic Church, in claiming that one country's experience of clerical corruption is an anomaly specific to that country are trying to avoid the conclusion that many can no longer avoid: That the Roman Catholic Church is, in the words of one of its own priests, “an organization preaching morality, and providing sanctuary to perverts.”
Item: A constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being only between a man and a woman was introduced in the House of Representatives in May 2002 by Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.). No state currently permits such marriages however.
Comment: Of all the injustices and causes of human misery that truly need attention, Rep. Shows chooses to spend time preventing gays from ever being allowed to marry. Forget that matrimony is a religious ritual and that the government is incapable of judging a religious practice. Also, forget that society is better served by encouraging stable human relationships, not by preventing them. The real question is what form of perversity drives Rep. Shows to want to control the private sexual or romantic lives of law-abiding, tax paying US citizens?
Item: In one week's time, the NY Post had a headline proclaiming “Bush Knew!” implying that President Bush knew about the attack on the WTC and Pentagon before it occurred, and an article by gossip columnist Neal Travers hinting that a major New York Sports superstar was secretly gay and about to “come out.” To most observers, the hints offered about this superstar pointed towards Mets catcher Mike Piazza.
Comment: In an interview in the days after the headline about Bush, a Post editor denied that the headline implied that Bush knew about the attacks before they occurred. Of course, this leads to the obvious question, “what was the point of the headline?” which leads to the obvious answer: To sell newspapers.
The article that lead to reporters asking Mr. Piazza directly about his sexual orientation was equally pointless. Mike Piazza should be allowed to live his life without being questioned over what is inarguably no one else's business.
The next week the ownership of the Post replaced the publisher with Lachlan Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch.. [TOC]
AN INFIDEL ON THE (WEB) RADIO!
(Condensed from the Infidel Guy website)
Reginald Vaughn Finley has astounded the freethought community with his dedication to educating the world through his webcast at http://www.infidelguy.com. He is better known as "The Infidel Guy."
Mr. Finley is a 26-year-old native Atlantan and was born into a home of agnostic theists. Now an explicit atheist himself, Mr. Finley is very active in the freethought community causing cognitive dissonance wherever he goes.
Mr. Finley is the creator and Webmaster of "Black Atheists" (www.blackatheists.com) a site dedicated to dispelling the myth that there are NO black atheists and establishing a method for black atheists to contact each other. He is also co-founder of The Atheist Network (www.atheistnetwork.com), a site that features a variety of atheist broadcasters on the web.
Who says there aren't any atheists in foxholes? Mr. Finley has been in a variety of overseas missions as a US Army infantryman and received an honorable discharge. Upon Leaving the US Army, Mr. Finley became a Federal law Enforcement officer.
Mr. Finley is currently working on many projects. He is actively involved in setting up debates with local Universities and schools in the Atlanta area and abroad. He isn't limiting his debating forums to the traditional venues. He will be setting up debate forums on the Internet were he will be highly visible.
The Infidel Guy is known internationally. His website receives over 250,000 hits a year. He currently operates out of his home and does his own production and direction of the Infidel Guy Show. If you tune into The Infidel Guy Live Show, ask him to sing a song, man the guy can carry a tune!
Mr. Finley is a lifetime humanist and atheist. He dedicates over 40 hrs a week producing "The Infidel Guy Live Show" which has a great reputation for bringing reputable guests of high intellect to anyone in the world who tunes into his show. Through his website, his show is centered around discussing atheism, humanism, skepticism, reason, science, and of course religion and its dogma.
Mr. Finley is available to speak to almost any group.
LISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH:
According to PETA, “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." Is this true, is this false, irrelevant or what?
Email your opinion to LISecHum@aol.com or mail to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.LISH MEETING INFORMATION
The 7PM, Friday, June 21st at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, of LISH will feature Arnell Dowret who will speak on the subject of “Secular Spirituality.”
LISH supporters will be visiting the Museum of Natural History, with reservations to see the special exhibition on baseball, the Planetarium show and the IMAX theater on Friday, July 19! We will be meeting at 8AM in Plainview to board a special air conditioned bus with lavatory for the trip into the city.
Email LISH if you have not received all the details in the mail. We need your payment ASAP!!!!
RALLY FOR MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY, JUNE 15, 2002 IN LONG ISLAND
Various Long Island community groups will be staging a rally in support of a moratorium on capital punishment. The rally will take place on Saturday, June 15, 2002 @ 11AM on the steps of the County Court, Old Country Road, between Washington Avenue and County Seat Drive, Mineola, Nassau County.
Sponsors include the Ethical Humanist Society of LI, UU Cong. @ Shelter Rock, NYCLU, Amnesty International, the LI Progressive Coalition, the NAACP and much more.
The rally is in response to recent findings of numerous innocent persons being sentenced to death, unequal justice being dispensed by the Courts and inadequate defense being provided for low income defendants. A moratorium may provide an opportunity to improve the system to the point that the innocent are protected while justice is served.
A moratorium is being observed in Illinois at the order of that state's governor, a death penalty supporter, in response to a report documenting the innocence of numerous death row inmates in that state.
Call Muriel Neufeld, rally coordinator, with questions @ 516 482 5321.Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb
TRANSCRIPTS!
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.
Email LISecHum@aol.com to request a copy.
LISH Email Action Info! 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.
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.
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. Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, Nassau County. For info visit the website @ www.nyask.com .
Become a Member of LISH
Membership in LISH has its benefits! Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library (contact us for a catalogue and requests, or if you want to register a book for others to borrow); voting rights; mailed newsletters; invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well! Email us for all 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.
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested , email us!
Saturday, June 15, 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), Massapequa, .
Friday, August 9, 2002: Howard Zinn, "A Peoples History Of The United States" (second Half).
Friday, September 13, 2002, “Demon Haunted World,” by Carl Sagan.
Friday, October 11, 2002, “They Call It Hypnosis,” by Robert Baker.
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.Editor: Gerald Dantone
Design: John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright LISH 2002. [TOC]