INQUIRER Volume 5, Issue 08, Aug, 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.
LISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH
One year later: What have you learned because of the events of September 11, 2001? What should the people of the United States have learned?
Email LISH @ LISecHum@aol.com or write to LISH, PO Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) A Response to the "God Squad"
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Come Out And Get Out Of The Church
4) The Roman Catholic Church “Sexual Revolution”
5) Here's The Problem, Now Where Are The Questions
6) QUICKIES!
7) Reply to Making The Rounds
8) Making The Rounds With Norm
9) A Message from Robert G. Ingersoll (Birthdate 8/11/1833)JOIN THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON! Nov. 2, 2002
You CAN love your country and not believe in God.The March on Washington
The Council for Secular Humanism has endorsed the Godless Americans March on Washington scheduled for November 2, 2002, in the nation's capital. The march is being organized by American Atheists, who have called for the participation of all secular humanists, rationalists, atheists, agnostics and freethinkers.
The Council is dedicated to the March on Washington and we shall network with all our local organizations both on and off campus to generate the largest turnout of secular humanists possible. We urge all of our supporters to join us in D.C. behind the banner of the Council for Secular Humanism. A large turnout will see to it that the voice of secular America is not drowned out by the wave of religiosity currently crashing over the country.
If you're interested in going to the March in Washington from Long Island, email LISecHum@aol.com. We will see what arrangements are appropriate based on the number of interested parties.
DJ Grothe at (716) 636-7571 ext. 314 or Austin Dacey at ext. 223 are coordinating the Council's efforts. For general information call Katherine Bourdonnay at ext. 313. You can e-mail the CSH at djgrothe@centerforinquiry.net, adacey@centerforinquiry.net or kbourdonnay@centerforinquiry.net.
See you in D.C. on November 2nd!
A RESPONSE TO THE "GOD SQUAD" Gerry Dantone
The "God" Squad, in its July 6 column in Newsday, displayed a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the concept of religious freedom. They began by insinuating that the First Amendment merely prohibits the establishment of a national religion. This was not the only intent of the Founding Fathers; the complete intent was revealed in the words of First Amendment author James Madison, when he wrote, "I must admit … that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832.) It is clear that forcing non-believing teachers to recite the Pledge with the phrase "under God" and for impressionable children in Public Schools to listen to it violates the intent of Madison and the Founding Fathers. What part of “any way whatever” is not clear?
As is often the case, those who advocate for a destruction of the Wall of Separation between Church and State turn to the Declaration of Independence for support, since the Constitution is of little help for their position. What these theocrats forget is that the Declaration is largely opinion, including the Declaration's opinion that Native Americans are "merciless Indian Savages." Jefferson, however, understood that the government is not to coerce opinion: "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. (Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347.)
It is the opinion of many Americans that America is NOT "under God," but instead agree that, as the Declaration states, "in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States...”
Jefferson would never have supported a Pledge where non-believers and impressionable children are made to endure a religious acknowledgment orchestrated by the State. He wrote, "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." (Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429)
Jefferson, however, would not have been surprised by the attitudes of the "God" Squad. Jefferson said, "I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them." (Thomas Jefferson, to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305.) [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re: The Pledge of Allegiance:
6/27/02 Congratulations to Judges Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision that the Pledge is unconstitutional is correct for several reasons. First, proclaiming that this nation is under God is nothing short of a daily prayer. Whose God are we talking about? No matter what, it is insulting or offensive to those that seek intellectual enlightenment and do not buy into ghost stories. Oleg Dei, Huntington, NY
Response: One cannot count the ways in which this situation is ironic and ridiculous - besides the obvious Constitutional issues. G.D.
6/28/02 The God these religious patriots are referring to is that anthropomorphic Big Daddy who hasn't taken an interest in the pain and ills that men have had to put up with for centuries. A loving God he is not and to state that this democracy is one nation under God is an insult to our intelligence. Or is this considered religion bashing? RPaul via Internet.
Repsonse: When a non-believers sneezes, it's considered religion bashing. G.D.
7/9/02 It seems to be so much about so little. Still the insertion of God should never have been. We do not have to have God removed!!!!! We can solve this simply by adding the words “OR NO GOD.” They did their thing in 1954 let us do ours in 2002. Will this make everyone happy? Cheers, Paul Lozowsky via Internet.
Response: NO, it will not make most believers happy! They would be aghast at having THEIR children hear “under NO God” even if there's a choice. Hypocrisy? They never heard of it. G.D.
7/9/02 If your child feels comfortable, she may say something such as: "I don't recite pledges of any kind -- I have to decide for myself what the words mean -- I probably would recite a pledge that says I will have compassion for all people, in all countries". (Cite me the part of the constitution which makes it "unconstitutional" for public school teachers to lead a pledge with "under god" in it....probably you can make a case....I haven't been able to, so far.) Carol via Internet.
Response: Are you suggesting that laws requiring the Pledge (with the “under God” phrase) be recited in Public Schools do not violate the rights of non-theist teachers and does not ostracize children who do not want to recite it? Here is the part of the Constitution involved - the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The laws requiring the Pledge in schools establishes religion, according to the meaning of establishment by the author, James Madison. A memo (by a 3rd party) describing debate during the process of drafting the Bill of Rights reported on Madison's thoughts. The memo said, “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience; whether the words were necessary or not he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the constitution, which gave power to congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, or establish a national religion. To prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.”
So what did the Founding Fathers mean by “establishment”? In 1784 the Virginia Assembly put forward a proposal for citizens to pay a moderate tax or contribution for the support of the Christian religion, in any one of many forms. The preamble to the proposed law claimed that “the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men (yeah right), restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society; which cannot be effected without a competent provision for licensed teachers….” This preamble to the proposed law was important because it already recognized that religion was not within the competence of civil legislatures. It sought to justify intervention on what we would now call the “police” or “welfare” power of the state. Even then it was believed that the government was not to support religion in order to promote God's kingdom on earth. The bill, for example, exempted non-Christians from the tax levee. In other words, non-Christians did not have to support Christian institutions. This did not change James Madison's opposition to the proposed law in the least. This modest proposal of a tax to support the peace and tranquility of the state of Virginia still was an establishment of religion by a government and Madison was strongly opposed.
Regarding the meaning of establishment, Madison, in his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” protesting this particular bill and written a few years before he drafted the First Amendment, wrote, “The same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects, and the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever.”
Note that Madison is calling the payment of a tax to support Christian teachers of any denomination an establishment. Note it did not matter that non-Christians were exempted. Note that no state church was being proposed. It did not matter - the state was establishing religion by giving it support in some manner, in the opinion of Madison, the drafter of the First Amendment. G.D.
7/9/02 Though an atheist I might be, I'm more worried about meaningless rote repetition than I am about "under god". Those who believe can add the phrase; those who don't believe can omit the phrase. It's the requirement of repeating such a statement, and the rote repetition -- if it doesn't start out being meaningless, it ends up being meaningless. Msohns via Internet.
Response: You're right. It is a shame that the simplest solution, to do away with the rote recitation of the Pledge, which is no more than an attempt at brain washing ending up in trivialization, is not even remotely possible at this time. This is the country where you're NOT supposed to be coerced by the government to say or believe anything. G.D.
7/9/02 It is absolutely a violation of our constitution. As a public school teacher working in a school that recited the pledge every day, I refused to participate. I did so discretely from the back of the room - the students faced the flag... The recitation was initiated over a PA system. I have not had to defend my position publicly so far. I would never make a move to require a student to participate though. The court case in California and the ensuing outrage by virtually all public figures indicates the depth of the misunderstanding of the principles on which our country was founded, and the blind adherence to faith that a disappointing majority of Americans seem to maintain. Get god off our money too. Peter Smyth, Glover, Vermont via Internet.
Response: Sadly, your rights seem to be irrelevant. Imagine asking a theistic teacher to recite a Pledge that contains the phrase “under NO God”? G.D.
7/11/02 Pledging is a form of giving oneself to one mind. In a country of free minds this would be hypocritical to do this. Long Island Lou via Internet.
Response: The more it is discussed the more obvious it is that no one, particularly children, should be placed in a position by the government to say anything they may not want to say, or be ostracized or worse, punished, for failing to do so. Imagine a person who lived under and through the “Jim Crow” era; the Pledge would be empty for them. G.D.
Re: PETA & Animal Rights
7/12/02 Your argument against animal rights has flaws, and in at least one case, completely ignores diversity. Blanket statements are foolish. You state: “We, like other animals, are programmed via natural selection to perpetuate our species, and it is patently unfair for humans alone to place the welfare of all other animals above their own...”
In the first place, we are not ALL "programmed" "to perpetuate" our species. Some of us choose to NOT breed.
We make these choices based on diverse and personal tastes and needs, not "nature" or some vague "programming." A growing number of us are definitely not feeling the "programming" you mention. That is the difference between "humans" and "animals." We are supposed to possess enough reasoning power to realize that earth's resources are finite, among many other things. We are supposed to be smart enough to control our populations and, since we like to consider ourselves "above" other animals, we should possess a protective instinct that extends beyond our selfish selves. Since other animals do not feel guilt about their treatment of other animals, wouldn't it be a nice touch if "humans" actually did?
There is absolutely no reason to raise, then brutally kill, gentle animals to eat. If we are so proud of our level of evolution over animal species, then this barbaric practice has no place in a "civilized" human-based society. As a lifelong vegetarian who is healthier than anyone I know except other vegetarians, I cannot see why anyone would want to gnaw on animals. We are a nation of fat people largely because fatties have to slurp their sauce-laden hormone-filled, often cancer-ridden, open-sore included, gristly, antibiotic-treated burgers and greasy fries. High cholesterol, high salt, bacteria risk. What a diet. Animal's revenge. Animals DO have rights. The basic one, to simply live, should be indisputable.
I was not aware that the Humanist philosophy was so selfish, barren of compassion, and holds such a dismal attitude regarding animals. ProFree via Internet.
Response: I will not respond to your arguments regarding the health values of being a vegetarian since in no way does that effect your position. I agree completely that all individuals do not all feel the same way, but in general, if "We" is taken as the collective human species, I think as a species we are programmed to perpetuate the species. It is humanity's unique position to reject our "programming" consciously; also, some individuals are different and have no such programming to reject. If only you considered the “programming” of those who do like meat, or the lack of programming of those who do not have warm fuzzy feelings about food animals.
Of course merely claiming “animals do have rights” is an argument on stilts. If they have rights, there is no discussion needed, it becomes dogma and humanity is not allowed to kill animals for their own use. Taken to the next logical step, if animals indeed have these “rights,” you must be saying that that is actually the case in some reality I'm not aware of; unless, if I understand correctly, other animals do the killing.
In the reality I'm acquainted with, animals need protection from humans by humans deciding to give them those protections. The biblical dominion given to humans has probably led to a certain callousness towards animals, that's true, and should be exchanged for concern. However, since it is entirely natural for humans to eat animal products, just as other animals do, the transition will be difficult and should not be coerced. Most vegetarians agree: A recent Time Magazine poll indicated only 4% of Americans are vegetarians and only 27% of them believed eating meat was unethical. Most vegetarians recognize that eating meat is natural, ethical for all the other animals, and so is ethical for humans, but have their own good reasons for being non-carnivorous.
Humanism is not for you since in no way is uniformity of opinion a requirement. The hallmarks of humanism are concern for other persons and a non-supernatural approach to solving our problems. Uniformity of opinion is a curse common to religion or odious secular dogmas. G.D.
6/14/02 They have the exact truth about animals and I've always tried to get 'ethicals' to behave that way and lead the way actively, but I've never been successful. RR via Internet
Response: Without a reasonable argument, it would be hard to convince the non-supernaturalistic in this way, and probably rightly so. It will be hard to make a case to protect shrimp, for example, on the basis of humanism outside of an appeal to one's personal feelings being the justification. One cannot expect very many “Ethical Humanists” to similarly feel this way. G.D.
6/15/02 Barring the use of formaldehyde, our bodies will someday be eaten by worms or other smaller animals that don't have a 'right' to eat us. Nature's plan is to have almost all animals killed and eaten by other animals. Death from 'old age' doesn't exist in the real world.
If 'moral vegetarians' had their way, we would all have to plow up additional ground to grow more vegetables to replace meat. Unfortunately, each acre of ground plowed up would also plow up hundreds of small animals that live in the ground. We can minimize this havoc by insisting that we eat only range-fed meat. Cows that eat only grass will likely not step on too many moles, etc., during their lives. Do the math: one grass-eating cow eaten by us will save the lives of hundreds of gophers not plowed up. PETA members can reduce the havoc on small, ground-living animals by committing suicide as soon as this is brought to their attention. Neil Slater, Renton, WA via Internet.
Response: It's hard to fight Mother Nature! Imagine having to then cultivate vegetables for humans in a manner that avoids hurting ground dwelling creatures! Would the answer be range fed humans? G.D.
6/15/02 PETA is no different than these religious extremists who try and block access to abortion clinics. They are trying to force their view of morality onto others. If PETA is opposed to eating meat - fine. But don't try and prevent me from eating meat or hunting just because you don't like it. Just like I would never be arrogant enough to try and prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion if she wanted one. People should stand up and oppose political correctness of all types. Tom in Texas via Internet
Response: This does not address unnecessary cruelty but then again that is not PETA's thrust. G.D.
6/16/02 In Buddhism, all animals are considered as living beings. Even now scientists are astonished at how consciousness is universal.
A dog sees what you see and fears danger as you fear danger.
The real difference is that they see but do not understand concepts like the heavy weight of a car as it approaches. A severe case of an infantile understanding! Also, dogs and primates have a good sense of humor but smaller animals and birds have no sense of humor but they have fear and anger and love - the main survival emotions.
In Christianity (BIBLE) they teach that animals are for our use. Kill and kill the non-baptized as they are not yet fully human (see deaths by Conquistadores!). (But you are not permitted to kill other Baptized humans - that is MURDER!! See Southern Baptists saved!)
NOW we kill SO MANY animals in the wild - soon we will be alone - FOREVER.
Our interests will be in breeding different kinds of people and cockroaches!
As meat seems an essential intake (well, for me,) the whole flesh business has to be done as humanely as possible.
The basic problem is too many people. The earth itself will decide it limitations in the end, if we cannot. Dhaman via Internet
Response: It is almost proof of there being no Creator with a Plan: Why would such a being make us meat eaters and capable of regretting eating meat at the same time? G.D
6/16/02 Yes, animals are not ours. I am an agnostic because there is no proof that there is or is not a God. And since we do not believe in religion we can treat all people equally. And since people are a form of animals we should treat all animals equally. And I know I am not going to take a bite out of my mother there is no reason why I would want to take a bite out of a cow, who is a mother herself. Since we love our mothers and friends we should love all people, and animals the same way. And what a better world this will be when we can love all animals as we love ourselves. Lou, Long Island, via Internet.
Response: The problem then becomes one of fairness - why allow other animals to eat meat while not allowing humans to do so? Is cultivating plant food truly without consequence to other animals? Is this really practical for all humans? Is it unethical to kill an animal for food that is not aware or able to “appreciate life” as far as we can tell? G.D.
6/16/02 By using animals for our purposes, we are no different than other creatures. There is no morality floating freely in the universe. The only place to look for a standard is in human nature, which can lead us to a concept of human virtue. People are capable of perversity and a kind of selfishness inconsistent with our social nature. It is wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals -- it requires a violation of normal sympathy. But it can also be cowardice to be too squeamish about using violence if that violence is undertaken for a serious, defensible purpose. It is not easy to adjudicate matters of animal testing, but these tests are undertaken for a serious purpose, and so are not the same as gratuitous violence exercised out of sadistic motives. PS: I'll be having steak for dinner tonight. Etzonda via Internet.
Response: Thanks for this insight. G.D.
6/17/02 Yet another interesting exercise in multiplicity. I am a vegetarian who wears leather shoes. I tried the plastic 'safe' ones in the '70s for the purpose of minimizing the exploitation of animals. My feet hurt at 19 years old and I'm sure they're still sitting in a landfill, undecayed as they were when I hurled them.
I don't use paper indiscriminately. I guard every scrap. Then I stay on the Internet emailing everybody I know for seemingly endless hours, as my computer cooks and generates unusable heat dissipation.
I save little pieces of wood in my garage. Then I spray them with toxic chemical to keep the termites from gorging.
I recycle incessantly. I don't buy aluminum cans, I get generic groceries. Then I take the engine and trannie out of my car, put in a new one and take the destroyed heap back to the boneyard where it will do what is does for millennia.
I installed low-flow toilets. I have a stopper on my shower like in a submarine. Then I take a power sprayer and wash the roof and the siding on my house, using enough water to fill a pool. Let's not even talk about my garden.
As an ex-Boy Scout, I've spent many days and nights in the woods, hiking, boating, cycling, breathing, being and otherwise putting my finger and footprints all over the pristine woodlands of the great Northeast, trampling animal and plantlife whenever appropriate.
I stopped hunting ... except for insects 'in the house', snakes or moles 'near the house', birds nesting 'anywhere upon the house', Broadheaded skinks 'under the house', or red ants approaching the house, or deer anywhere 'in eyeshot of the car at night'. (not really, but you should get the point).
We have Smokey the Bear's campaign to 'Prevent Forest Fires', then tens of thousands of acres burn in a couple hours after we've built houses and businesses all over the area and then whine about the tragedy. We build houses right on the Mississippi and the Outer Banks, only to pour federal money into rebuilding them on the very spot wiped out only weeks previous as we sympathize with the owners, their 4th house next to the golf course, the one with the Mercedes in front.
I think that exotic pet ownership is immoral, but my little 15 lb. dog that wandered up the house one day and stayed is a veritable blessing. Is this for my 'amusement'?
Perhaps.
I detest guns. I think Ted Nugent and G. Gordon Liddy are buffoons hell-bent on ratings and careers in 'nothing in particular'. Liddy was a bad lawyer and crook and Sweaty Teddy was a bad guitar player ... However ... if somebody decided to liberate my dog from my watching her cock her head to the side while watching Sunday nature programs, solely for my amusement, now, I'd obtain some formidably heavy firepower … in a nice secular way, of course.
Atheistically and most duplicitously yours, Gary Oleyar via Internet.
Response: Oddly, being torn between two positions seems perfectly normal on this topic. G.D.
6/18/02 You forgot to list an "all of the above" option. I don't think animals should be used for testing make-up, lotions, bath soaps or other non-essential products. Humans, I don't think, have evolved past the need for some animal protein in their diets, though we all could stand to eat fewer animals.
As for hunting, we don't need to do that anymore. Hunting for "sport", though, I think is quite inhumane. Drugs tested on animals have, and are, saving human lives. I do think it's cruel, and I don't think I could do it, but I think human lives are more important.
As for entertainment? I cringe when I see bears or monkeys wearing silly hats and doing tricks -- but if the admission fees to Sea World keep Shamu and research in much-needed money, then where's the harm? MSohn via Internet.
Response: Thanks for the thoughts. G.D.
6/20/02 Humans were meant to eat animals, just not in the massive quantities made possible by factory farming, in my opinion.
Our ancestors were conditioned to go without meat for long stretches of time, and to supplement their diets with (I'm guessing) small game, fish, plants, nuts, berries, and grains. Therefore, if our bodies have evolved to adapt to this kind of diet, there's no reason for us to demand meat (or any animal products, for that matter) with every meal.
The fact that modern science has made it possible for us to supplement our diets, and make up for whatever nutrients we're missing, in addition to all the food preservation methods available to us, we could get by just fine by not eating animals.
It's a matter of conditioning.
A vegan lifestyle would be the ideal for those striving to be as moral as possible, since it would eliminate at least some of the suffering that takes place. However, to be truly, absolutely moral, would then mean having to know how every product we purchase was made, where the profits go, if the CEO of the company is a real jerk, etc. etc. etc.
For myself, I strive to avoid red meat and chicken, but cannot see myself giving up fish altogether. It's not just the death of the animals that's wrong; it's the prolonged suffering, pollution and waste generated by these industries. Knowing that if each American reduced their meat consumption just a bit, they could collectively make a difference - this is a step in the right direction. Mawcawfee via Internet
Response: Thanks for this balanced suggestion. The argument for not eating meat must address the naturalness of eating meat. G.D.
6/23/02 Difficult question. I think morally it may very well be that that statement is correct. But there is also some proof that human beings could not have developed their brain power without the addition of meat to their diet. So we would be much less intelligent creatures except for that protein. (Of course, that may very well have led to a less violent world too).
As long as it seems essential to our brain to be meat eaters, then using the discarded carcasses for clothing or accessories is certainly within the "wasting-not" principle. I think killing animals for only their pelts is a bad idea unless you would freeze to death in a frigid environment. Certainly dragging a mink behind you in 80 deg. weather would be completely unmoral.
As far as "experiment on", that is even tougher. I know we have improved the human condition with these experiments, (or at least that is what we have been told), and I would say I lean toward not doing that but wonder if I haven't already profited by that myself?
How about also the use of animals for pack animals or for riding on or for plowing? These animals have helped humans for thousands of years. I think as long as they were not overworked or treated cruelly, that would be OK. Many third world people could not exist without them today for that matter.
As far as entertainment goes, I am assuming they are talking of animals in circuses or those Las Vegas tigers of Sigmund and Roy. I know there have been many occurrences of cruelty in circus animals, but those tigers seem to be very well cared for and loved. So with reservations, (non-cruelty), I guess, for me it is OK. Elizabeth Jetter via Internet.
Response: As always, the situation matters. What can be safely said is that any unnecessary harm or cruelty to animals cannot be justified. G.D. [TOC]
COME OUT AND GET OUT OF THE CHURCH! Sandy Rapp
The Roman Catholic Church's jihad against women and gays is now and always has been a threat to US democracy. Religions in our country are guaranteed every right to practice and believe. But Catholic Cardinals have sat on presidential AIDS commissions where they lobby and set policy against both HIV and sex education. And the Church worldwide effects theocratic policies against reproductive autonomy which result in hundreds of thousands of annual deaths from illegal abortion. Concurrently the Catholic hierarchy opposes civil rights for lesbian and gay people, decrying as "Catholic bashing" any objections to their illegal lobbying. And it should be noted that members of religious groups are already protected by federal, state, and local legislation. Yet they lobby against similar protections for groups they vilify with astonishing regularity.
Now, as the various bishops, and other largely white men in black dresses, scapegoat gays for their current pedophile scandal, rights-minded American Catholics should Come Out and Get Out. This scapegoating is appalling in its dishonesty. The overwhelming majority of child molesters are heterosexual men; and of course the priests' abuse victims are not all males. It is the Church's antigay dogma that is the problem, not anyone's sexual orientation.
Official Catholic teaching, which in papal encyclicals describes gay orientation as "intrinsically evil," thereby creates an area of "sin" which imposes on civilians a celibacy to which the Church is clearly incapable of holding even its own priests. And yes, it is not just from priests but from all gays and lesbians that the Catholic Church demands lifelong celibacy, under pain of whatever is the current description of divine retribution.
Then, through absolutions and various other machinations, the Church becomes a protection racket for all the sins it has created. None of this will end until Catholics stop buying it. Change from within won't happen. Rights-minded Catholics must Get Out, and rights-minded gay Catholics must Come Out And Get Out. They must either leave en masse with a BIG press release, or become visible and loud enough to earn excommunication. They must stand up to the foreign lobbying sovereignty that is the Vatican, which would deprive women and gay men, a group totaling some sixty percent of the population, of civil rights and reproductive autonomy.
These silly old Newspeaking men in dazzling gowns should not be planning our families, setting our AIDS policies, and/or restricting our civil rights. In truth, the Bible is silent on the subject of same gender orientation. Most supposed references to things gay are simply mistranslations. As John Boswell concluded in his 1981 American Book Award-winning Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, "In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word 'homosexual' does not occur in the Bible: no extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic, contains such a word."
The business at Sodom (Genesis 19) was about the mistreatment of travelers seeking shelter. This mistreatment was probably in the form of gang rape, and was definitely not about consensual same-gender relationships. As for Pauline musings, Paul was phobic on all things sexual: "he who marries...does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Corinthians 7:38). In Romans 1, Paul conceives of same-sex activity as a punishment effected on naturally heterosexual people because they "served the creature rather than the Creator." He does not address gay orientation and at any rate Paul explicitly exempted his ideas about sex as "not of the Lord." Jesus of Nazareth was completely silent on the subject of homosexuality.
Finally, the Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 passages prescribing death for men who lie with men is about "abominations," or ritual uncleanness. It should be noted that Leviticus also advises from which groups to take one's slaves. These writings were about ritual actions, like bull slayings, in the Temple. They prescribe death for any number of transgressions and furthermore, any women who are parroting scripture against gays are explicitly prohibited by that same scripture from speaking in public at all. Although such texts as Leviticus are clearly sacred as religious history, they are certainly not morally relevant today. And as a matter of fact they were not even relevant when they were set down in print, which was after the destruction of the Temple to which they refer.
The Church's antigay teaching does without doubt direct gays into the priesthood. Indeed, what better place could there be for a prospective lifelong celibate? That same antigay dogma prevents some gays from developing the capacity for loving adult relationships. But most of the many gay priests are not child molesters; and many priests are molesting females. So the outrageous attempt to blame "homosexuals" for the criminal investigations under which the Church finds itself, is profoundly deceptive. The Church well knows that without gay men there would be very few priests indeed.
Meanwhile youngsters are taught and some believe the Church's pseudoscientific psychobabble about changing orientation through therapy. Such cases contribute greatly to the accelerated suicide rate for lesbian and gay youth.
Lesbian and gay Catholics, please Come Out And Get Out. Nothing will happen except you will have perhaps saved the next generation of G & Ls from this absurd, unworkable rubric. There are several denominations that are much closer to the spirit, and indeed the letter of scripture. Just perhaps the young rabbi from Nazareth would ask in this situation: "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is true?" (Luke 11:57) © Sandy Rapp 2002
(Sandy Rapp is a musician and author of God's Country: A Case Against Theocracy. Her CD, “We The People,” features a song about the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, "White Men In Black Dresses." Rapp's books and CDs are available through Amazon.com and at SandyRapp@aol.com .) [TOC]
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'S SEXUAL REVOLUTION Gerry Dantone
Why do priests sexually abuse children or minors? The answer most likely has nothing uniquely to do with the priesthood or priests. Abusers abuse for reasons that are unrelated to their occupation or religion: They do it for power and control. The real question is “why is there a child sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church specifically?”
Are those prone to abusing minors drawn to the priesthood? Do the sexually immature find a safe haven in the priesthood? Does celibacy and the unavoidable hypocrisy inherent in church dogma give rise to dishonesty and a tendency to cover-up the truth? Is the dogma imposed on priests and by which they must live so oppressive that they cannot act morally and rationally? Since the Catholic Church is the only organization that can undertake such a survey, and has shown no interest in finding possibly unpleasant answers, these reasonable queries will remain unanswered.
However, Bishop William Murphy of the Archdiocese of Rockville Centre doesn't need no stinking scientific study - he knows what the problem is, in part at least: It's the “sexual revolution.”
In a homily at Mass on June 9, he said according to Newsday, “The sinful condition of humanity is certainly at the base of this tragedy. More than three decades of the so-called American sexual revolution with all its permissiveness has certainly been a factor. A false and sinful desire for self-gratification all are part of the problem.”
In this short paragraph, Bishop Murphy uses questionable Catholic theology to conveniently blame others for the criminal actions of priests. Is humanity “sinful”? Sin is that which offends God. Non-belief is a sin, as is failure to believe in transubstantiation while still receiving communion, as most Protestants do. It was taught for centuries that is was a “sin” to marry outside the religion. It still is if one is not married by a priest and if one does not promise to raise the children in the faith. In other words, “sin” can be unrelated to harming others - sin is what offends God, in the opinion of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. “Sinfulness” is disagreeing with this church.
What is this “so-called” sexual revolution to which Bishop Murphy refers? In The Bishop's mind I might guess it's the attitude that one has if one believes that “if it feels good, do it.”
Certainly this is not a wholly sound philosophy - it does not take into account whether others are harmed, the consequences of one's action, etc. But this is not truly the bishop's gripe with it. After all, a prime motivation of many of the devout is similar: If feels good to believe it, believe it! More rationally, is it automatically immoral if something “feels good”? Is a refreshing shower in the morning immoral? A tasty pizza pie at lunch? A good ballgame with a hot dog?
In matters sexual, I'd guess that Bishop Murphy would still object to a sexual situation even if the situation made two persons happier, caused no harm now or in the future, and was made with prudence and concern for the other person - as long as the couple was not married by a Roman Catholic priest. A monogamous honest, informed mature relationship between a man and woman who love each other and are committed to each other is still “sinful” if they are not married by a priest. This is the part of the sexual revolution that so disgusts the Bishop. I stand corrected if there is evidence to the contrary.
In a way, the sexual revolution that the Bishop refers to in the last 30 years is largely illusory. Prostitution and rape are documented in the bible itself; Sexual morality is vastly improved over the biblical days of slaves and concubines. The sexual revolution is many things to many people but what the sexual revolution at its best consisted of, philosophically, was an improving condition of equality for women, and more honesty in sexual matters. No doubt much pain and heartache resulted while people explored their new found freedoms, and exploitation surely occurred often, but to the extent honesty and equality were the results, such a revolution was a good thing.
Now what precisely is the point of blaming the “sexual revolution” for the failures of priests and bishops? Is Bishop Murphy claiming that Cardinal Law allowed Rev. Shanley to continue to abuse minors because Madonna made him do it? Is the Pope's inaction since he was fully informed of the problem in 1985 due to Hugh Hefner? Did Father Gheogan do what he did because of the “pill”? If priests and the holders of the highest positions of authority of the Church are unable to act morally because of the “sexual revolution”, who needs their impotent and hypocritical counsel anyway? They would have to be clueless to be so ethically challenged. Are condoms really a ticket to hell? Is all sex outside of Roman Catholic marriage really immoral? Are all gays truly “gravely disordered”? The reason for this attempt by the Church to deflect blame is alarming - the reason is the moral atrophy caused by adherence to a supposedly infallible dogma.
In the Newsday account, a middle aged woman confronted the Bishop after the Mass. “Your timing was off,” she told him. “Both my brothers were molested by priests before the sexual revolution.” [TOC]
HERE'S THE PROBLEM, NOW WHERE ARE THE QUESTIONS? Keith Taylor
We're off and running. From now until November the airways will be filled with promises, accusations, self-aggrandizement, flag-waving rhetoric, and hand-wringing piety. I dread the piety most of all.
But, you might say, our candidates must display their belief. Religion provides a foundation for morality. William Bennett calls it a moral compass. Everybody is for it. Who could complain about that?
Well, I can. I just can't break myself of this habit of asking unpopular questions. Anybody who dares question religion takes a big chance. Religious folks hate to have their faith questioned. Their leaders demand politicians dance to their tune even though the tune is often a cacophony. We have some 1300 "one and only" true faiths in this country.
Both major candidates danced during the last election. The fellow who ended up in the White House is still dancing, and his predecessor made a great role model for him. Early in his first term, President Clinton danced for a Baptist group: "Sometimes I think the environment we operate in is entirely too secular.
The fact that we have freedom of religion doesn't mean we need to try to have freedom from religion. A great question might have been "Mr. President, have you ever heard of the inquisition, the crusades, Northern Ireland or any part of the Mid-East?" An even better question is “why wasn't it even asked?”
Maybe it's because atheists are fair game, being out of the loop and all. The expert of loops, George H. W. Bush himself, knew that. According to Robert Sherman of the American Atheist press, on August 27, 1987, he asked the then Vice President, "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of atheists?"
The reply: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
Bush's statement caused outrage in the secular press, but, except for some columnists, hardly a peep in the mainstream press. Does anybody else think that's strange? Imagine the fuss if the veep had said such a thing about Catholics, or Episcopalians, or Methodists. Even Wiccans who wanted to practice their religion at an Army base were defended by the press against the likes of Barr and Thurmond a couple years ago.
But atheists? On August 3, 1998 U.S. Rep James Traficant of Ohio was on the floor of the house fussing about his notion that 93% of our top scientists didn't believe in God. He said, "…most of these absent-minded professors cannot find the toilet." I don't recall a reporter asking him why he denigrated some of the smartest folks in the country.
The sad fact is that politicians know whom they have the freedom to attack. It doesn't hurt one whit that their targets include such as Darwin, Darrow, Payne, Sagan, Asimov, Shaw, Twain and Sinclair Lewis. Those folks aren't around today. Their successors are being awfully quiet, and for good reason. Anybody who speaks up is attacked unmercifully and excluded from mainstream American life.
Atheists are now officially denied membership in the Boy Scouts, an organization with the president as honorary head, and one given special recognition by congress. I'd like to see how long the president or congress would sanction an outfit that excluded any religion.
We are told, "But look at all the good religion does!" Our answer (if we dare give it) mentions that religion also gave us the inquisition, crusades, wars, book-burnings, bigotry, and hatred. I'll call it a draw if everybody else will stop calling me evil like Rabbi Daniel Lapin did when held a prayer breakfast to open the 106th congress. Oh, nobody said a word to him either.
But what does it matter if it doesn't hurt someone? It does hurt, that's what matters. Among other things, laws, based on religion, are offered which restrict those who don't believe in that religion. Education suffers. Kids are taught to accept religion on faith and ignore hard evidence when it comes to science. Does anybody have a problem with that?
Yet we always hear something like": It's my religion and you don't dare question it. Do we dare not question it? And who is going to ask the questions?
Keith Taylor is a freelance writer from Chula Vista. He can be reached at krtaylorxyz@aol.com [TOC]QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: According to Human Rights Watch, in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, local police indulge and abet mob violence against non-Orthodox Christian worshippers, including those who are Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, Baptists and other non-native faiths. Groups of extremists, sometimes led by Orthodox Priests, violently break up prayer gatherings, beat congregants and stalk adherents.
Comment: At least they're a country under God, these days, instead of those awful godless commies. Now someone remind me, exactly what did the communists do that was worse than the majority Christian faith is doing now regarding religious freedom?
Item: The Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines in July has issued an apology of sorts for the widespread incidence of child sexual abuse in that country by its clergy.
Comment: Is the Roman Catholic Church sticking by its story that the cause of the abuse is homosexuality and/or the sexual revolution in the US? Who cares?
Item: According to the NY Daily News, Rev. David Benke has been suspended from his duties as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's Atlantic District president after being found guilty of syncretism, which is the sin/crime of combining non-Christian and Christian beliefs. He committed this sin by sharing a stage at a public worship service at Yankee Stadium for victims of the WTC attacks. Church officials explained that by participating in the service Rev. Benke “gave the impression that there might be more than "one God,” a serious offense. This would be a signal that regardless of how people worship or pray, they all pray to the same God, according to Lutheran Church official Rev. Wallace Schulz, meaning that only Jesus is a “valid” god.
Comment: Would someone explain how prayer “brings people together”? Would someone explain how the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance is actually unifying when it is actually either sinful or divisive according to Lutherans, and probably others if they were being honest? Could someone explain any of this irrationality in favor of religion and against non-belief?
Item: Convicted white supremacist murderer Mark Anthony Stroman killed persons from Pakistan and India in retaliation for the September 11th attacks. According to the LA Times report, he recalls telling his victims, “God Bless America.”
Comment: At least he can say the Pledge of Allegiance with President Bush.
Item: Although he may have been at the head of a company which may have perpetrated the largest fraud in history, WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers, according to columnist Liz Smith, is well regarded in his hometown area in Mississippi. He is a devout Southern Baptist, donated huge sums to his church, taught Sunday school, and instructed newlyweds in biblical values. “He knew his scriptures,” according to one person who knows him.
Comment: Thank goodness for all the people that his company turned into paupers that he's devoutly religious! Imagine if this had been done by a non-believer? Horrors!
Item: A Federal Appeals Court heard arguments in June, 2002 on whether an Alabama school system had the right to discipline a student who stood silently with his fist raised rather than recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The student, Michael Holloman, a high school senior was spanked three times with a wooden paddle and given a written reprimand. Earlier, a Southern Baptist student had been reprimanded for refusing to say the Pledge because he believed it violated his rights. The case had been dismissed previously. In Pennsylvania a student was suspended from school for refusing to say the Pledge until he writes a 1000 word essay explaining why he refused. The student, Craig Paternoster, refuses to offer an official explanation.
Comment: Imagine - the government not only trying to force someone to recite the Pledge with the “under God” phrase in it, but punishing and assaulting students for refusing! Well, it's not too hard to imagine, actually, given the hatred for non believers or even the non-publicly pious.
Item: An evangelist and his wife spent a few hours in jail for an incident that took place in the wake of a scuffle that erupted at a funeral service. Police said Orlando and Glynis Bethel of Loxley, AL, were each charged with a count of third-degree assault for sprinkling olive oil on Glynis' brother, Lemuel Molden, at his home after the funeral fight. The couple say they also spoke in tongues during the incident. The funeral fight started when Orlando Bethel, in impromptu remarks, told the congregation they were going to hell.
Bethel was asked to speak at the June 14 funeral of his wife's uncle at Greater Pine Grove Baptist Church. Bethel suddenly began preaching over the microphone to about 100 mourners in the sanctuary and told them they were "fornicators" and "whoremongers." And he said the deceased, Lish Devan Taylor, had gone to hell.
Comment: It's a strange world where people not only hate non-believers, but also those who remind them that they don't really follow the religion they claim to believe in.
Item: Pakistan's Aisam Ul-Haq Qureshi, a Muslim, who partnered with Israel's Amir Hadad, a Jew, in men's doubles tennis at Wimbledon, faces a ban for teaming up with the Israeli player. Pakistan Sports Board (PSB) director Brigadier Saulat Abbas said the player could face sanctions.
Comment: Once again, religious animus turns a feel good story into a feel bad story!
Item: (From CBS News) A church pastor and his twin brother have been charged with severely beating an 11 year old boy with a stick for cheating during his Bible studies. After the beating they took the boy home and told his step dad that they had a “big problem” and that he should b e beaten for two more hours. They then banned the boy from the Bible Studies class for being a bad influence. The boy was hospitalized for a number of days because his kidneys had failed, and he needed a blood transfusion. The Pastor's father said in defense, “My son would've used a thin switch, that I'm positive of. My policy would've never been on the back like that ever. It would've been on the bottom.”
Response: The Bible calls for assaulting “unruly” children, even killing them. (Deut. 21 18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid...”; or Exodus 21 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death…”; or even in Mark 7 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother, and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death…”) I guess we should just get over it. God wants those kinds of kids dead! [TOC]
REPLY TO MAKING THE MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Oleg Dei
This memo is with regard to Norm Roscoe's summary of The Museum of Natural History debate concerning Evolution versus Intelligent Design. After reading this article one comes away with the feeling the debate was very close because Evolutionary Science has too many gaps in its theory. Norm arrives at the correct conclusion by stating that Intelligent Design has not offered any answers that assist in the understanding of the origin of the Species, however he nearly reverses himself by saying that the Evolution Theory itself suffers from serious gaps in its research. Nothing can be further from the truth.
To examine life on this planet and to jump to an erroneous conclusion that this is the work of God, when there is no evidence of a God, is a serious flaw of logic by the “mystics”. You must first prove the existence of a God and then prove that somehow he was responsible for its creation.
Now let's address the issue of huge gaps in the evidence for Evolution. The reader of this article arrives at the following conclusion: The proponents of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution did a very poor job of presenting the evidence. Let's take a look at some of the facts that prove Evolution by Natural Selection beyond the shadow of a doubt.
1. All life on this planet, every organism that ever lived or will ever live, carries their genetic information in the DNA molecule. The differences lie only in the arrangement.
2. Human beings and our closet relatives the chimpanzees share 99.6% of our genes. The best explanation for this is that they are related by descent.
3. All life on this planet carries junk genes, these are genes that we inherited from our early ancestors that no longer serve a purpose, they were copied blindly by nature as part of the replicating process.
4. Bacteria cultures now manufacture insulin, which shows that evolution has woven an unbroken thread between the simplest to the most complicated organisms on earth.
5. There are many characteristics such as forelimbs of vertebrates that are represented in frogs, lizards, fish, man and cat that are remarkably similar. The best explanation is that they are derived from a common ancestor.
6. Other morphological evidence is presented by vestigial organs. These are structures that were well developed and useful in ancestral species but were reduced or almost eliminated in importance and size in recently derived species.
7. The study of Embryology reveals a cycle of evolution that an animal goes through its development while it is still in the womb.
8. A splendid example of evolutions is revealed in the life cycle of frogs, which in their early stages of development as tadpoles have similar characteristics as fish. Later their gills and tails disappear and these are replaced by lungs, legs and arms.
9. The fossil record reveals a remarkable story of life on this planet, it shows that 99% of the species who lived on this planet are now extinct. This does not support the idea of intelligent design, this shows that the species that are best suited to survive do so and pass their genes to their offspring.
10. The significance of the Urey-Miller experiments on the Precambrian evolutionary cycle.
11. The evolutionary life cycles of Fruit flies and bacteria.
12. The discovery of various species in transitional changes such as Archaeopteryx Lithographica and Seymouria. Both discoveries represent the evolutionary examples of reptiles evolving into birds and reptiles evolving into mammals respectively.
13. Recent discoveries of human prototype fossils, reveal we humans have also have made a long evolutionary journey. A recent discovery by Yohannes Haile takes the human prototype to the point of Human-chimpanzee divergence.
14. Recent discoveries regarding extinction level events have proven that evolutionary events are strongly influenced by meteors and comets. These represent global catastrophes that have profoundly influenced the evolutionary patterns of life on this planet. As of now five such events are known, the last one eradicated the dinosaurs and killing off 75% of life on earth. The extinction level event before the reign of the dinosaurs killed off the amphibians and wiped out nearly 95% of life on this planet.
It is amazing as we enter the 21st century most people are so poorly educated on evolution that they are clueless to their origins. Perhaps we as humanists could take the lead and along with the scientific community bring this knowledge to the common person. [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm Roscoe
July 7,2002 Conscience Bay Friends in St James: I attended this meeting with a friend from Bellport UU. As many of you may know Friends (Quakers) observe silent meeting only speaking when moved to speak. During the silent meeting, the concept of living responsibly in a democrat society came up. To maintain these freedoms calls for responsibilities. It was questioned whether people were being responsible in the preservation of our freedoms.
Another individual made reference to the Pledge issue wondering if one who sees god as the best in each of us would be comfortable in saying "Under God"; as he pondered this he raised the question of how a Buddhist might feel and maybe he had to review the situation.
After the silent meeting we had a social gathering where we found that the great majority was uncomfortable with "under God." Most described themselves as agnostic.
This was a warm group of people. They are beginning to be involved in inter religious dialogues with the first such meeting with the Bahai's. They will be having other dialogues in the near future.
July 14, 2002 Shelter Island Union Chapel: This gathering featured representatives from the three major monotheistic faiths discussing the topic of Fundamentalism and Violence (Terrorism) Our speakers were Sanaa Nadim Muslim from the Multi Faith Forum and Stony Brook University; Burt Visotzky from Jewish Theological Seminary, and Father Elias Mallon from Auburn Theological Seminary.
The most striking thing was the redefinition of Fundamentalism; here defined as the reaction against modernism; seeking a simpler time and lifestyles and not requiring as much intellectual responsibility; thus leaving important matters to leaders both secular and sacred. Isn't it fascinating that also we find this trend in the popularity of Post Modernist thought?
Our speakers also referred to the violence based on feeling of frustration and loss of control. When people feel powerless, Watch Out! Sanaa referred to the Islamic Culture after having many centuries of great achievements to maybe be experiencing a form of collective inferiority complex.
Our speakers next than dealt with the concept of Terrorism: Your terrorism may be my freedom fighter. Were the Green Mountain Boys terrorists or freedom fighters? How about the perspective of the individual? There were definitions dealing with non combatant people.
Father Mallon referred to the concept of conservative as compared with fundamentalist. We failed to hear a clear definition of conservative except as to maybe reference to the Amish or Hasidim. The fundamentalism definition referred to was as cited above.
It was clear that these speakers displayed great respect to the other speakers and their traditions. The common ground seems to be the old familiar one of common decencies as found in our Humanist writings. It also would be expected that with the Ten Commandments notwithstanding these folks would probably refer to the primacy of personal experience in arriving at these common ethical values. This was a rather interesting program.
June 30 program in Bay Shore UU: Diversity, including folks from alternative lifestyles such as Gay & Lesbian lifestyles, as well as others, such as Atheism, was the topic for consideration. We discussed who were most despised; with surprise being shown regarding the low status of the atheist. However this group was most sympathetic; again we seek the common moral decencies here as well as at the other meetings. I feel that we have many more allies in many areas. [TOC]
A MESSAGE FROM ROBERT G. INGERSOLL (Birthdate 8/11/1833)
What creed could I accept for myself-or suggest for someone else?
To do all useful things, to reach with thought and deed the ideal in your brain ... to look with trained and steady eyes for facts-to increase knowledge, to take burdens from the weak-to defend the right.
At all times, I am not so much for the freedom of religion as I am for the religion of freedom.
Religion and morality have nothing in common, and yet there is no religion except the practice of morality.
Real religion means the doing of justice. Real religion means the giving to others every right you claim yourself. Real religion consists in duties of man to man, in feeding the hungry, in clothing the naked, in defending the innocent, and in saying what you believe to be true.
True religion is not a theory-it is a practice. It is not a creed-it is life. True religion is subordination of the passions to the perceptions of the intellect.
Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading bibles will not protect him from the blasts of winter, but houses, fire and clothing will. To prevent famine, one plow is worth a million sermons, and even patent medicines will cure more disease than all the prayers uttered since the world began.
Let us judge each other by our actions, not by theories. Not by what we happen to believe, because that depends very much on where we were born. [TOC]
Sandy McIntosh's New Book
LISH's May 2002 forum guest speaker, Sandy McIntosh, has a new book of poetry called “Between Earth and Sky” from Marsh Hawk Press, available @ www.Amazon.com . If anyone has an opportunity, a book review is welcomed!
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested email us @ LISecHum@aol.com. All meetings are at 8 PM unless otherwise noted.
Saturday, August 17 @ 7PM: Howard Zinn, "A Peoples History Of The United States" (second Half), Patchogue. Note change of location and date!
Friday, September 13, 2002, “Demon Haunted World,” by Carl Sagan, Huntington.
Friday, October 11, 2002, “They Call It Hypnosis,” by Robert Baker, Oakdale.
Friday, November 8, 2002, Book: To be determined.
Friday, December 13, 2002, Amityville, Book: To be determined.
Reprint form the New York Times: "When Patriotism Wasn't Religious"
By Sally Wright
My great-grandfather Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 for the widely read magazine Youth's Companion. A deeply religious man, he was also a strict believer in the separation of church and state, one who opposed parochial schools on the grounds that the state should educate its children. He intended the pledge to be a unifying statement for those same children.
By adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Congress was attempting to distinguish the politics of the United States from godless Communism. Like other actions taken by Congress at that time, this change divided our nation further rather than uniting its citizens.
As a regular churchgoer who has voted both Democratic and Republican, I believe that my great-grandfather got it right. A Pledge of Allegiance that does not include God invites the participation of more Americans.
For LI Humanist Coalition members: EVOLUTION!
LISH will be providing the opportunity to view the PBS Evolution series in member homes and, where needed, in a larger setting.
The series has been copied (with about seven minutes missing from the first episode) and what is suggested is that when people want to view a part of the series, contact Norm Roscoe to either see it either at Norm's home or in the home of a Coalition member. Norm shall soon announce the first viewing at his house but since there are so many episodes (seven) the series would be continued at member's convenience.
To attend viewings or schedule episodes contact Norm Roscoe at normrhum@aol.com. This series is open to all Humanist coalition members. Hope to hear from you soon.
TRANSCRIPTS!
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 can email LISecHum@aol.com to request a copy.
WBAI 99.5 FM Radio By Eugene Carrington
I had the greatest experience of my life when it comes to talk radio; I was home July 14th @ 6:30PM listening to WBAI 99.5 FM and I started to hear the words “atheist,” “humanist,” and “freethought,” etc…. The next thing I know one of the show's producers says that this is a regular show, Sundays @ 6:30 PM from now on!
Also, the producers requested that we listeners write the station manager Mr. Bernard White and request more time. For now we only have 30 minutes of air time, so please write Mr. White and request 1 hour's time. The following is the address:
WBAI
Attention: Mr. Bernard White
120 Wall Street, 10th floor
New York City, NY 10005LISH MEETING INFORMATION
There is no regular forum in August.
The LISH Annual Robert Ingersoll Picnic will be held on Sunday, August 11 from Noon to 6PM at a Huntington Beach Park. Details should have been sent in the mail; for more info email LISecHum@aol.com.
Newsday columnist Paul Vitello is scheduled for a forum at the Plainview Old Bethpage Public Library for Friday, September 20, 7:15 PM. This will be an exciting meeting featuring one of Long Island's most popular political and social commentators.
Rabbi Sherwin Wine, the driving force behind Secular Humanistic Judaism will be the guest speaker at the 7:30PM Friday, October 4 meeting, (Note the date!) tentatively scheduled to be held at the Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island as a LI Humanist Coalition meeting.
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. 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 librarian Bill Mohrman, 516 795 3318; 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!
Let us grow into the humanist voice of Long Island! For info, email LISecHum@aol.com
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism, American Atheists 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.
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb or http://nyhumanist.org/
LISH INQUIRER, copyright 2002
Editor G. Dantone
Design: J. Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication [TOC]