INQUIRER Volume 5, Issue 11, November, 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 QUESTION OF THE MONTH
What should be the appropriate focus or mission of coalitions of humanist, atheist and/or freethinking groups?
Forward your answers to LISecHum@aol.com or write to LISH, PO Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Speaking Personally on Iraq
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Bush's Dangerous Adventure in Iraq
4) What Have We Learned, One Year Later
5) Rep. Steve Israel Replies: The Pledge of Allegiance
6) Quickies
7) Summer Session 2002 at the Center for Inquiry
8) Making The Rounds with Norm
9) Where is Ken Starr When You Need Him?LISH MEETING INFORMATION
Friday, November 15, 2002, @ 7:15PM, The Friday Multi-faith forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, will feature Rev. Mark Bigelow, Pastor at Huntington Congregational Church and Past chair of Educational Committee, Long Island Multi-Faith Forum; Rajinderjit Singh, Board Member, and Co-chair Long Island Multi-Faith Forum, Educational Committee; Humayun J. Chaudhry, Chair Department of Medicine New York Tech and Long Island Multi-Faith Panelist; Werner Reich, Board Member and Chair Special Programs Long Island Multi Faith Forum. The forum will explore how these panelists view people of other religions and folks with no religion.
Sunday, November 10 @ 1:15PM, Gerry Dantone, LISH President and editor of the INQUIRER will be speaking about the mid-term elections at a luncheon held by the LI Havurah for Humanistic Judaism. The luncheon will be held at the Hunan Gourmet, 2035 Merrick Road, Merrick, in Nassau County. Call Len Cherlin, 516 889 8337 for info/ late reservations. Send $10 check/person to LI Havurah, c/o Sylvia Smith, 25 Harmon Street, Long Beach, NY, 11561. Cut-off date: 11/3/02.
Visit LISH on the web: http://nyhumanist.org/lish.htm (NOTE NEW WEBSITE ADDRESS)
SPEAKING PERSONALLY ON IRAQ Paul Kurtz
What is the difference between a preemptive first strike and a war of aggression? The latter is defined in Webster's as "a forceful action... intended to dominate... (an) unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another." Is the impending war on Iraq a war of aggression?The United States is arguably the most awesome superpower in the history of the world, able to transport massive military forces anywhere on the globe to enforce the rule of pax Americana. It is essential that it use its power responsibly and with restraint.
The efforts of the Bush administration -- now supported by the Congress -- to impose its will unilaterally in its foreign policy raises fears among our allies about our misuse of our great power.
President Bush insists that Iraq is "a threat to the peace" and "security of the United States," for it possesses "weapons of mass destruction," and that thus a preemptive strike is justified. But Iraq is a small impoverished country of 25 million people, virtually landlocked, with limited technological-industrial resources. It is difficult to see what kind of threat it poses realistically to the United States, in spite of the repetition of the mantra designed to raise fears in the American public.
Many countries of the world now possess weapons of mass destruction; and an estimated forty-four countries have the know-how to build nuclear weapons. (In this regard Iran is a far greater threat than Iraq.) This is why so many are skeptical of the intensified war drums now being beaten so loudly by the Bush administration -- on the eve of the national elections for control of the Congress! Many wonder whether there are not deeper geo-political-economic interests at stake, such as the control and exploitation of the vast untapped oil fields of Iraq (also coveted by France and Russia).
To insist that a regime be toppled is a familiar ploy of those who wish to embark on a war of aggression to achieve its national interests, but it is a violation of recognized international law. To threaten the UN that the US will act if it does not undermines the entire concept of collective security introduced to stem wars of aggression after World War II.
The no-first-strike principle has been the centerpiece of the moral case for US wars in the past. There is no imminent threat of a direct attack by Iraq today. If the President barges ahead with his preemptive strike, it would seriously undermine, perhaps irreparably, the international framework of world peace and order so laboriously developed in the last half a century.
The United States should be patient and allow the inspection process administered by the UN to proceed. To do otherwise is to endanger the moral authority that America has had since the Wilsonian era as a stalwart defender of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. To insist that the US has a divine right to invade Iraq, if others do not follow our bidding, would define us in the eyes of the world as an aggressor nation.
Paul Kurtz is Chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism and Professor Emeritus at SUNY at Buffalo. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re: The Roman Catholic Church excommunicating would-be female priests:
9/6/02 Near enough: It is one of the rare blessings of the Catholic Church that they refuse to permit women to be indoctrinated into the bullhockey the Church promotes, teaches and leads in its promulgation. Women are lucky--very lucky that they are shunned. Their minds can remain independent and thier actions and livelihood unsullied by superstitious Church activities. John Nernorff, III, M.D., PA, via Internet
Response: Ordaining women, however, might lead to a humanization of the Church; at least it would break up the "old boys club." But this brings to mind the old Groucho Marx quip: "I wouldn't join any club that'd have me." G.D.
9/6/02 Dear Gerry: After the careful and reasoned reply you made to Susan Cheever's Newsday column regurgitating the rationales for a belief in a supreme being (God), all she can offer in response is to say that she merely stated the results of her experiences! If that column is any evidence, she is experience poor, or hasn't paid much notice to the unexamined messages in the experiences she's already had thus far.
Your observation that people use belief in a supreme being as a facade to create a united front of believers is perfectly true. It is also true that far too many people would rather camouflage their fear of the unknown by creating a supreme being in which they can invest their trust. In so doing, they avoid the opportunity of developing a sense of competence in the ability to employ reason to meet life's challenges. They're actually superannuated children afraid of the dark.
Reason is given to humankind for it to use; it will either use it to its fullest extent or eventually cease to be. That eventuality is very near. Harvey Baylis, Queens, NY via Internet
Response: In an age when smaller and smaller groups of persons can threaten millions, humanism exists to moderate religious fanaticism. I hope it is enough. G.D.
9/7/02 Recently I read my first issue of the INQUIRER -- the September issue. I thought it was refreshing and thought-provoking.
I am a high school biology teacher on Long Island and I am surrounded by Christian mania. Your articles were interesting and courageous; someone has to speak up for the humanist. In particular, I enjoyed the "Origins" article by Oleg Dei. Keep up the good work. Lisa from Long Island via Internet.
Response: thank you very much - this is what keeps us going! G.D.
Re: The God Squad Insults non-Theists:
8/25/02 Considering the unique importance of the question: "Does God exist?" the answers, in Newsday, were inexcusably shallow, callow and offensive!
The first response, "We think God is real, because if there was no God, there would be nothing to start the world," is totally inaccurate. To a fifteen year old who takes daily science classes in school, that answer is absurd. There is ample evidence to support the "Big Bang Theory" for the inception of Planet Earth. There is overwhelming evidence to support Darwin's Theories of Evolution.
The next statement, "If there is no God, there would be no reason to do good," is totally lacking in credibility, and is downright insulting as well. There are millions of secular people in this world who value and follow the Golden Rule, without needing a belief in a deity.
The last statement, "If there is no God, there is no reason to get out of bed in the morning and no reason to believe that life has an edge over death, hope and edge over despair and love an edge over hate," is utterly foolish and also quite demeaning. Once again, the millions of secular people in this world who lead full, constructive, hopeful lives, without any belief in a deity, AND, who are most worthy and productive human beings, would have to laugh at such a callow and simplistic statement. There are dozens and dozens of Nobel laureates and other great contributors to mankind and who are secular in the beliefs and who have lived the most admirable and valuable of lives.
Put all of these answers together, and for two such learned clergymen, they have responded to this most important of all religious questions with a resounding "F". This may have been their very worst column and both have ample reason to be ashamed of it! Stan Freidland, Ed. D., Syosset, NY
Response: What is worse is that these comments came from what might be considered the more "enlightened" and "inclusive" of media savvy clergy. Yeah, right. G.D.
Re: LISH Question of the month: What Does Humanism Mean to Me?
9/8/02 Humanism means to me that I am free to engage in moral, ethical and honest behavior without asking some invisible "father" whom I don't believe exists for permission. W. Via Internet
Response: It's a beginning, and necessary but is it complete? G.D.
10/2/02 Loved Volume 5 Issue 10! We're still chuckling over your witty comments. Enjoy, Regards, Mario Maltese, Long Island, NY via Internet.
Response: Thanks, we'll keep the yucks coming. G.D.
Re: What have we learned?
10/5/02 Sorry to be late on this topic. I've learned that Muhammad's followers don't have any clearer grasp of his teachings or of the contents of their own holy book, or any greater unity of belief than do the followers of Jesus. The apologist articles on Islam I've read and interviews of Muslims I've heard over the past year could just as well have been recycled Christian material. There's equal confusion as to what their respective religions teach and require of their followers. Wayne O via Internet
Response: Good point. What a shock! G.D.
RE: LISH Question Of The Month: Based on the facts that are known and the case being made by proponents, should the US "preemptively" invade/attack Iraq in the near future without support from allies and/or the UN? With UN support?
10/2/02 Hi. I don't think the US govt. should attack Iraq at all. Iraq is a nation at peace right now. They don't even have a civil war going. This was all taken care of in 1991, and whatever wasn't taken care of is the mistake of the US govt. and it's too late for them to try to fix it using war. The idea of going after Hussein is somewhat rational, but not with a war. Starting an entire war to kill just one person is flat out insane, but not beyond the current insane Bush administration. It seems that Bush Sr. screwed it up when he had the chance, and the entire Bush family wants revenge... for that screw up. No, Bush Jr. has NOT presented any viable reasoning to justify attacking Iraq, UN blessing or not. Joe Zamecki, Atheist Activist via Internet.
Response: A good point is made: If Iraq is not an imminent danger, then this is all about getting one person particularly since we are clueless about who or what would follow this regime. G.D.
10/2/02 I find it ethically incomprehensible that we should preemptively attack ANY country under ANY circumstance. Mike Rue via Internet
Response: Particularly a country that no one has claimed is preparing to attack the US or anyone else! G.D.
10/2/02 Since MAD, the "Mutually Assured Destruction" approach doesn't work against suicidal religious fanatics or mad-men, preemptive strategies are reasonable; however the case that Saddam is either has not been made to my satisfaction.
Also, concerning Jews and Catholics: Starting with John 23 and Vatican II, Jews are given special honor as the chosen people and (honored as being) the heritage of Jesus. Yet none of these seemingly ecumenical pronouncements goes as far as allowing them entrance to heaven. So Holocaust children are still going to burn again (in hell) but with honor. Regards John Lucania, Queens NY via Internet.
Response: Re: Saddam: Precisely. In fact the suicidal religious fanatics oppose him because he is not suicidal. He is just your typical power hungry murderous tyrant who has been deterrable to this point. As for the fairness of the "chosen" going to hell at the hands of their mostly Christian executioners, that's for Christians to rationalize, which they seem to do easily enough. G.D.
10/2/02 "We" should not attack Iraq unilaterally for the following reasons:
1. The action would leave open the question that where would this end? Would India feel free now to attack Pakistan, and vice versa, unilaterally? How about Iraq and Israel? Other such pairs of nations which have deep-seated enmities?
2. Although this would not be the first time we would have fired first, such an act is against every ideal we have expressed historically. Will we now understand the Japanese on December 7, 1941?
3. We wondered, about the Arab world after September 11: "Why do they hate us so much?" After this attack we would never have to ask that question again; we will know the reason.
4. This administration has not thought through, as far as we know, what our actions will be after the attack -- typical of this war-mongering group all of whom, except the Secretary of State, used whatever means necessary to avoid personal military service when it was their turn to serve.
5. The public has absolutely no idea of the projected costs, human and financial, of this action. Again typically, this administration is the most closed administration in this country in recent memory.
6. We have been shown absolutely no proof of the WMD development by Iraq. All we have heard were jingoistic statements by this administration, not proof. Yes, Senator Lott, I firmly believe that this president lies to the American public. Hank Kocol via Internet.
Response: Thanks for the itemizing. I wonder if Bush is this orderly? G.D.
10/2/02 We should finish what GHW Bush failed to do, during the Gulf War. When he wimped out on getting Sodamn Insane, after killing a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, and then called for Iraqis to overthrow Sodamn Insane, but got them slaughtered when he failed to give them support, I started voting Democrat.
He said that it was wrong to go after heads of state, but we already had Noriega in a U. S. jail, where he still resides.
I expect that we will pay a big price to get Sodamn Insane now, but if we don't get him ASAP, we will pay a bigger price. Neil Slater, Renton, WA via Internet.
Response: The question then, which remains the same today, "is what happens if we go after Hussein - and win?" G.W. Bush's father did not have an answer and declined to step into the unknown, ironically, when it would have been more feasible than it is today. Nowadays, Islamists would accuse the US of being anti-Islam. Back then, our involvement was motivated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a country friendly to the US, and a country with great oil reserves. Now, Kuwait is not currently threatened, Islamic countries are not at our side, and charges of anti-Islamism and colonialism are tougher to deflect. G.D.
10/2/02 We should not invade Iraq, WITH or WITHOUT U.N. support. Terrible destabilization of that region would be the major consequence -- death and destruction of civilians would certainly follow -- a new generation of young people in the region would hate America, Europe, and the U.N. Iraq poses no military threat to this country, though terrorism is certainly on their agenda -- our attempts to decrease terrorist threats will NOT be aided by going to war with Iraq, these threats come from all over the mid-east and far-flung sections of some of the Muslim world. Enough?? Also, the last time I read the constitution, it specifically indicated that only Congress could make war, not that Congress could cede that power to the executive branch. Carol A. Smith, M.D via Internet.
Response: Has anyone mentioned the above to Pres. Bush? At least it would not insult our intelligence if the President pointed out the other side's arguments and rebutted them. However these good arguments should not mean that Hussein could do anything and not face attack. It's just that he has not done what requires us to wage war as of yet. We cannot be dogmatic if he indeed launches an attack on the US or an ally. G.D.
10/3/02 Overheard at a gathering of quite liberal people recently: Well; if the UN okays an attack on Iraq and if Saddam plays his usual cat and mouse game, then I guess we've got to go attack him and his country. Here's my problem, not as a pacifist, which I am not: Why does the kiss of approval from a multi-gathering of countries who have much to gain monetarily by agreeing with the USA make such an incursion moral, ethical or practical, or without grave consequences? The UN is an idea I approve of but their consensus on matters that deal with loss of lives and the promotion of powerful countries does not make their dealings right. How do you feel? Paul via Internet.
Response: Excellent point. UN approval still, of course, would not make it right. Without such approval though, an invasion would be that much more ill-advised. Consider, however, that if the world community, including neighboring Arab/Muslim countries, agreed that Hussein was too dangerous to leave alone, an invasion would be something to then consider. In the age of nuclear and bio weapons, a Saddam Hussein is not a trivial matter. Neither is waging unilateral preemptive war however. G.D.
10/3/02 No. I could go into detail, but this is pretty simple. No case has been made. Isaac via Internet.
Response: We're not up late at night worrying about an Iraqi attack on us, are we? Lack of serious gun controls causes many insomnia but don't bother John Ashcroft with this info. G.D. [TOC]
BUSH'S DANGEROUS ADVENTURE IN IRAQ Press Release from the Editorial Board of LISH
The editorial board of Long Island Secular Humanists, Long Island's largest secular humanist organization, believes that the Bush Administration's acquisition of broad powers from Congress to unilaterally and preemptively use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq is fraught with danger and represents an abdication by Congress of its Constitutional duties. Though Hussein deserves removal on the basis of crimes against his own people and his invasions of bordering nations, the consequences of a unilateral American attack may far outweigh any advantages.Such a unilateral attack would further weaken support in the troubled Middle East and around the world for the legitimate War on Terror against those who have actually attacked the US, and other nations, namely, Al Qaeda. Such an attack would support a view commonly held that the US is simply "attacking Islam" and would allow all critics of the US to point to this country's arrogance and colonialism, real or imagined. Further, the administration has not been able to verbalize any vision of a post Hussein Iraq, and cannot claim that a war against Hussein would lead to a better situation for Iraqi civilians with any certainty.
Most importantly, what kind of precedent would the US be setting for a civilized society when it attacks a regime, albeit a rogue regime, that does not pose an imminent threat to the US or any other nation? In contrast, Al Qaeda declared war on the US, attacked it numerous times and was harbored by the Taliban which brutally oppressed its people. The Taliban's brutality by itself did not lead the US into action in Afghanistan; the attacks on the US did. The chance of a better outcome afterwards for the Afghani people made the US intervention easier to accept, though it is justified to claim that the Bush Administration is not as fully committed to the rebuilding of that country as it should be. Improvement in Iraqi civilian life afterwards is even less certain if the US goes it alone. "Preemptive war" may be a "Pandora's Box" if fundamentalists seize power after Hussein's removal.
We urge our political leaders to refrain from any unilateral preemptive strike against a nation which does not now pose an imminent threat to the US or other countries. We urge that the US cooperate with the UN and exhaust all avenues within the UN in seeking Iraq to comply with International Law. We hope that the Administration's full efforts be directed to rebuilding Afghanistan, encouraging peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and talks between nuclear superpowers Pakistan and India, and in support of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East and the world. There should be no shortcut taken in order to wage war.
(Note: Agreement with the editorial board of LISH is in no way a requirement of its members. We are happy to publish responsible alternate opinions that are grounded in reason and seek to promote humanity's well being as their ultimate goal.) [TOC]
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED, ONE YEAR LATER Gerry Dantone
Just over one year ago, the course of history was inarguably and profoundly altered by the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Since that time, most of us have learned that the attacks were conducted by an organized group of Islamic extremists who perpetrated the crime, in their words, on behalf of their God. Have any of the lessons of this event changed the way we think and act toward each other and the rest of the world? Have we learned anything useful?We have probably learned that it is hardly possibly to overestimate the amount of incompetence and inter-agency political rivalry within the FBI and CIA that led to a country being "asleep at the wheel"; however, have we learned that an objective non-ideological approach to intelligence analysis is essential? Do ideologues still seem to dominate intelligence gathering and analysis? Is promoting a point of view more important to them than getting the facts straight?
Most Americans now know who bin Laden is and that he and his organization, Al Qaeda, were the specific perpetrators as per their own video taped confessions/recruitment videos, and other substantial pieces of evidence. Still, some persons (including New Jersey's "poet laureate") cling to a belief, however, that the New World Order, including those in power in the US and Israel, conspired to allow the leveling of the WTC so that 1) we'd forget about Enron and other financial scandals 2) they'd get an oil pipeline through Afghanistan 3) they'd make oodles of money (somehow) in the stock market 4) they'd do a favor for the bin Laden family 5) they could suspend civil liberties 6) they could make money for the defense department 7) they'd boost Bush's approval ratings 8) they'd make Muslims look bad or 9) some or all of the above. Of course, these conspiracy theorists have the advantage of having short memories as the theories come and go, but the theorists themselves remain seemingly forever.
Conspiracies aside, has this administration ever learned the value of civil liberties? Right now it is attempting to hold two American citizens without charges and without access to an attorney because it branded them unlawful combatants without benefit of due process? How can the government do that in this country? Where is the outrage? Have Americans ever learned what freedom really means, or has it been learned and forgotten? These prisoners are most likely despicable persons, but rights are to be extended to all, included the hateful. Isn't it necessary to prove they are as bad as the government claims? Who's next?
Does the administration's conservative ideology prevent them from embracing security solutions that involve the government? Have they learned that some solutions require government regulation of business as well as of individuals? Gas guzzling SUV's and other wasteful energy habits seem to be a right that the government cannot take away, but they can lock you up indefinitely without a trial or charges, access to a court or attorney! Can this be explained?
Regarding the rest of the world, have we learned that poverty and misery are fertile breeding grounds for religious fanaticism and terrorism? This is not to contend that those who perpetrated the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon actually cared about such matters, but that antipathy against the "haves" by the "have nots" is nearly inevitable, justifiable or not. What is even clearer is that freedom and a better standard of living are the surest cures or preventatives for such fanaticism. The world community is now too small to ignore suffering even if it is half-way around the globe.
Has America learned of the dangers of religious fanaticism? Is this concept so foreign to us, in this land of church-state separation, that we mistake Islamist rage as legitimate grievances by those interested in social justice? The issue isn't globalization, US hegemony, US arrogance or US imperialism: Have we learned that Islamists have actively pursued imperialism and hegemony in the Middle East themselves and see the US as the biggest threat to their success. Social justice for humans, particularly female humans, is irrelevant to them.
Have we learned that democracy is viewed by the zealously fanatic as a tool to gain power for religious rule - and ending democracy? Have we learned to negotiate this treacherous situation? Is our President capable of navigating this obstacle course of conflicting aspirations?
At the same time, are we learning that we cannot forgo social justice simply because some of those, or even many of those, who are subjugated (not that their independence would lead to freedom as we understand it!) engage in terrorism or support it? Or have we learned that it is impossible to expect a people who are being terrorized to be just and fair with the people they oppress? Terrorism and oppression only lead to more of the same, apparently. When, exactly, will Sharon's and Bush's policies regarding Israel and Palestine be considered failures? What will it take?
Over the last year we have seen what a religious people Americans believe themselves to be. What we as a nation and the administration have not learned is that it is zealous religious conviction that thwarts tolerance and freedom. The furor over the Pledge of Allegiance shows that when religious privileges for a majority and religious freedoms for all are the two mutually exclusive choices, the majority will choose the privileged position. The fact remains that any government coerced oath that champions a specific religious or partisan political world view for its citizens to recite is anti-freedom.
We have learned that the US conduct of the war was not perfect - routing the Taliban was fairly simple but during the course of the war many civilians were killed. The future will determine whether more lives were saved by the violent intervention and subsequent reappearance of aid and an end to the Taliban's cruel repression, and whether the threat to the US was indeed decreased. We will learn if war had to be waged or if it was futile and pointless as so many other wars have been.
We have learned by now how cruelly women were treated by the Taliban; but have we learned that we must do more to help them now? Have we learned the best way to lead a war-torn country to peace and freedom? Have we learned our responsibility to leave Afghanistan better off than we found it? We will see if the US has learned that it is morally imperative and good policy as well to leave a country significantly and inarguably better off for the intervention. Afghani citizens, by and large, must not regret our actions - they must be made better off for this intervention or the price paid was too high. Commitment on the part of the US and world community is all that is necessary to accomplish this.
Finally, it must also be noted and appreciated that when left to their own individual instincts and judgments, and before politics, organized religion, philosophy, social pressure and other culturally induced influences were brought to bear, most people, including the many rescue workers who worked and died at the WTC, were brave, loyal, courageous, selfless and noble. When people had to act now and think later, they acted brilliantly. People did not think about going to heaven before performing a virtuous deed - they thought about the valuable humanity they intended to save. In the numerous acts of enormous virtue, as the world literally crumbled around them, there is hope for the future. It would perhaps be useful to remember this lesson the most. [TOC]
REP. STEVE ISRAEL REPLIES: THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Gerry Dantone
A press release was sent by LISH to Rep. Steve Israel (D) among other local elected officials and the local media, regarding the Pledge and the backlash against non-theists during the summer of 2002. The release pointed out the deliberate and overt bigotry that was the inspiration for the change in the Pledge during the McCarthy "red scare" era, when all non-theists were thought to be uniformly evil and/or communists (see the July edition of the INQUIRER). Not much has changed over the years it seems. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Israel's reply to that release:"On June 26th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state. The ruling, which hopefully will be overturned, prohibits children from reciting the Pledge since it allegedly violates the First Amendment because of the phrase "under God."… It is most unlikely, however, that this unwise decision will ever be implemented.
I support the Pledge in its current form and encourage every American classroom to start their day by reciting it. I introduced my own resolution the night of the decision. Each morning in Congress we begin our legislative session with a prayer. The words "In God We Trust" are written on all currency of the United States of American. And the oath of office that I took, that the President and the Vice President took, and the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took end with the words, "So help me God." I am sorry that we disagree on this issue, but I am sure there will be many others where we will agree…" Signed, Steve Israel, House of Rep., Second District, NY.
Please note the lack of ANY coherent argument in favor of the excluding phrase "under God." All Rep. Israel was able to do was cite other forms of discriminatory practices against non-theists! To illustrate this better, imagine if all the examples given were meant to deny Jews or racial minorities the ability to truthfully and proudly recite the Pledge: What if "In Jesus We Trust" was on currency? What if oaths ended in "So help me Jesus?" What if prayers in legislative settings were directed to Jesus, or to a fundamentalist God of one sort or another? Would that be Constitutional? Would that be sensitive to religious minorities? Answer: No, and that is why it is not done (aside from Constitutional reasons). Sensitivity to the feelings of non-believers, who wish to be included in pledging allegiance, is still politically incorrect, however.
This vacuous kind of vote grubbing to the lowest common denominator only adds to the perception that there are few elected officials who have a real reverence for the freedoms we should all hold dear. We should no longer be surprised by any of this anymore. It makes it more obvious that the fight to rid the Pledge of a religious test is all the more important.
Congratulations, however, are in order to local Reps. Gary Ackerman, Jerry Nadler and Ms. Vasquez who at least had the decency to abstain during voting on resolutions on the Pledge of Allegiance this summer. [TOC]
QUICKIES Gerry Dantone
Item: Bill Teague says he never had a chance when he sued an Elmore County contractor, not after an attorney for the contractor raised a certain matter before the jury: Teague's atheism.
Teague was suing contractor Andy Mizzell for breach of contract over work done at Teague's home in Eclectic in Elmore County. The jury ruled that Mizzell did the work he was supposed to do and ordered Teague to pay the contractor $3,000.
On appeal, Teague claimed the jury was biased because Mizzell's attorney, Bill Brittain, told them Teague was an atheist during the questioning of potential jurors before the start of the trial. Brittain asked potential jurors if any of them were members of atheist organizations.
"Without a doubt it swayed their thinking," said Teague's attorney, Larry Darby. "When that question was posed to the jury panel, some members assumed a look of disgust and some looked horrified."
Teague said he believes the jury ruled against him because he is not a Christian.
"There's no question about that," Teague said. "You should have seen the jurors. You could have heard a pin drop after they were told I was an atheist."
The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the jury's verdict in a decision dated Aug. 16. Darby, Alabama director of American Atheists, said in the appeal to the high court that Brittain's statement was made to alienate jurors against Teague. But in his response to the appeal, Brittain claimed that Teague's attorneys should have objected to the comment when it was made in court, not after the verdict. Darby said he did not object at the time because he did not want to draw the attention of the jurors to the comment.
Comment: How dishonest can people be? Why on earth ask whether persons are members of a religious or non-religious organization unless it is to find people sympathetic, or in this case, non-sympathetic to person on trial. If Catholics or some other religious group were barred from a trial, it would never stand up on appeal, would it?
Item: (NY Daily News) House Majority Leader Dick Armey told an audience of primarily Republican Jews that he "sees two Jewish communities in American. One of deep intelligence and one of shallow, superficial intellect… Liberals are, in my estimation, just not bright people. They don't think deeply. They don't comprehend. They don't understand. They have a narrow educational base, as opposed to the hard scientists." Armey claimed that none of the Jewish leaders he addressed at the event for GOP congressional candidate Katherine Harris were offended. However, Allan Fedder, president of the Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Federation told the Bradenton Herald he was shocked. In the past, Armey has referred to gay Rep. Barney Frank as "Barney Fag."
Comment: And I'll bet you never knew that the Jewish Albert Einstein, perhaps the last century's most accomplished thinker, was in reality, an idiot because he was liberal. Just ask Armey. Armey must also be claiming that scientists, who in general are 60% non-theists, and if you count the top scientists, are about 90% non-theists, are actually generally conservative even if they are unwelcome in the Republican and Conservative parties. And it truly takes a deep thinker to come up with "Barney Fag." I guess I can't figure it all out because I'm a dope as well. G.D.
Item: (From various news dispatches) Attorneys for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) are fighting a subpoena by the Diocese of Worcester, Mass., for victim's names and correspondence. Five women in the lawsuit claim that the diocese failed to protect them from Rev. Robert Kelley who was convicted of rape and has admitted molesting 50 to 100 girls while at St. Cecilia's in Leominster. SNAP believes the diocese's request for the names of all persons claiming they were abused and all related correspondence is "designed to intimidate and harass this group because of their role of encouraging people to speak out" according to a group attorney.
Comment: Would the church actually stoop so low as to harass and intimidate people? Now tell the truth, or you'll go to hell! G.D.
Item: (Washington Times) The Rev. Sun Myung Moon is God according to a report and advertisement in the Washington Times. The claim is the result of a conference which took place in the spirit world and included Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Martin Luther, Karl Marx and others all in support of the "True Parents of Humanity, Rev. Moon and his wife. Even Stalin "wrote" the following: "Friends in Communist countries, I am Stalin. You have had wrong thinking… Those at whom we laughed live well in the spirit world. It is certain that they didn't go to hell. When we laughed at them, they and God loved us. We live in the bottom of hell here…" (For the whole article and ad go to www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml)
Comment: There is nothing that one could say that could make them look more imbecilic than their own words.
Item: (The Honolulu Star Bulletin, October 5th, 2002) Members of Hawaii's largest Buddhist denomination voted last month in support of restoring the original text of the Pledge of Allegiance, minus a reference to God. "The surest way to protect the rights of every citizen and the integrity of religion in America is to keep the government neutral on religious matters," said the resolution approved at the Hawaii State Federation of Honpa Hongwanji Lay Associations convention Sept. 14, in Hilo. "A secular Pledge of Allegiance does not mean that we are a nation hostile towards religion; it means we have a government that respects our freedom of conscience and allows Americans to make up their own minds about matters of faith," the measure said.
"Buddhists are pacifists; we usually just keep quiet," said Bob Asato, a member of Mililani Hongwanji. He and his wife, June, drafted the resolution because "we felt we need to remind people that America is for everyone, even an atheist."
June said the change to the Pledge of Allegiance was made when she was in elementary school. "Suddenly we were told we had to say 'under God,'" the retired public school teacher said. "My father said, 'If you don't want to say it, you don't have to.' I have never said it."
Comment: Thanks go out to the Buddhists of Hawaii.
Item: (NY Times, 10/6/02) In the Anambra State of Nigeria, one of the country's most notorious militia's, known as the Bakassi Boys, has been legalized by the state. Officially known as the Anambra State Vigilante Services(!), they have a headquarters inside the governor's offices. They are suspected in the brutal hacking deaths of a married dissident couple, the Igwe's, on a crowded downtown street. Ostensibly formed to combat corruption, the Bakassi Boys/Vigilantes are accused of targeting government critics as well. The NY Times reports that in the same way that the Muslim northerners support the harsh punishments as per Sharia law, in this Catholic southern state, ordinary people often support the instant justice of the Bakassi Boys.
Comment: Religion and severe extra-judicial punishment seem to have little trouble co-existing around the world. Whenever a society is ruled or dominated by a heavily dogmatic system, religious or secular, rights go out the window. With certainty comes arrogance. Brutal civil war seems unavoidable in this country where two impossible to reconcile religions dominate in different areas. The only solution would seem to be separation and a situation where minorities in either area would be subject to great persecution.
Item: (Newsday, 10/6/02) Opus Dei founder, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was declared a saint by the Catholic Church at a ceremony at St. Peter's Square. According to Nassau County DA, Denis Dillon, "Opus Dei is the best thing I ever found in the church for a lay person." Others see Opus Dei operating as a cult. According to one former member, celibate lay persons, or numeraries, often surrender control of their finances, have their mail monitored, cut family ties, sleep on wooden boards, wear a chain with spikes around their thighs for two hours daily and flagellate themselves with a small rope.
Comment: But hey, it's not a cult!
Item: (Time Magazine) The Bush Administration plans to appoint Dr. W. David Hager head a panel at the FDA on women's health policy. Author of a book called, "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now," Hager as an obstetrician, refuses to provide contraceptives to unmarried women. He opposes the morning after pill, RU 486, and critics believe he may be biased against studies determining the efficacy of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women. Some conservatives wish to discredit such therapy because the compounds are similar to birth control pills which they oppose.
Comment: What a shock! Bush appoints an ideologue to a scientific position where objectivity is the first requirement! Bush and scientific - and you thought that one couldn't create a sentence with both words in it!
Item: (NY Daily News) The aggrieved spouse of a woman that the Vatican says was miraculously cured by Mother Teresa says his wife recovered with the help of doctors. Mr. Seiku Murmu told Time Magazine the miracle is "much ado about nothing." He claimed, after placing a Mother Teresa locket on her stomach one night, the woman then went to doctors, "and they cured her."
Comment: Basing a religious belief on a questionable story? I'm shocked! Not!
Item: (Skeptical Briefs) A Colombian family of three adults and two babies were caught at Bogota's Int. Airport with $1,000,000 in cash stuffed in diapers. They claimed that they got the money from the Virgin Mary who appeared before them and rained the money in large bills down from the sky. The three adults were arrested.
Comment: Actually, a miracle medical cure is believable to many, but miraculously receiving cold hard cash - nahhhh! [TOC]
SUMMER SESSION 2002 AT THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY Bob Goldberg
I was fortunate to have been among 30 students who attended the two week Summer Session 2002, at the Center for Inquiry (CFI) in Amherst, New York. The courses are intended to provide foundation material for secular humanism. It was a wonderful experience that included taking two college level courses; visiting local sites; and, listening to a number of guest lecturers talk about related matters. The courses were presented by excellent, challenging faculty and were augmented by comments from many knowledgeable students. I am still going over of the material and trying to digest the ideas offered and exchanges that took place.The morning course, Critical Inquiry, covered methods for treating categorical statements, deductively and inductively. The validity and soundness of arguments constructed from such statements, their persuasiveness and how to detect fallacies and win debates was illustrated by viewing and analyzing video, as well as by participating in class. While I was familiar with syllogisms and propositional logic, the relationship between these two formal structures is now much clearer to me. My ability to effectively use them in persuading and debating others is, I think, enhanced. (When my term paper is returned, I'll have another opinion in this regard.)
The use of probability to characterize empirical data was covered and the difficulty of relating such information to the categorical statements of syllogisms was made clear. To date no satisfactory method exists for introducing inductive logical statements into syllogistic arguments, as is done with epistemic ones. It's something for us to work out in the future.
Afternoon sessions covered the History and Philosophy of Naturalism. This is of great interest to secular humanists, since it offers an alternative to other philosophies of science - logical positivism, mechanism, reductive materialism -- that people find unsatisfying. When science tries to characterize living things, particularly ourselves, there are difficult problems. How can ideas, feelings, and values be related to material objects, like that in our nervous systems? Are conceptual material objects made of (or might we benefit from considering them) some other type of other stuff - mind or soul? These were some of the things covered in CFI's efforts to provide a better philosophy of science, as well as its application to our lives.
Evenings and meals were spent in (mostly) serious discussion, though there was time for a magic show, watching several videos, and solving the world's problems. (This was difficult, of course, without access to much in the way of outside news.) I heartily recommend the CFI program for anyone who thinks about science and humanity and wants to learn and share their views with other serious people. [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm Roscoe
Sunday, Sept. 22 Suffolk Ethical Culture: James White, Leader Emeritus of the Essex Ethical Society, brought to our attention the double problem of reduced civil liberties and foreign policy initiatives of the current administration since 9/11. We so often feel powerless in the face of such enormity but Mr. White indicates that action can and should be taken by citizens in the face of such circumstances. Sometimes we simply engage in conversations; however actions must be considered and undertaken. We must be informed and be in touch with the appropriate agencies such as civil liberty groups (ACLU, etc.) and also make the usual calls and letter writing campaigns. The first responsibility seems to be being well informed and staying in touch with the best sources. We also need to try to deal as effectively as possible with media as difficult as that might be. Mr. White says it's not easy but the alternative is worse.
Sunday Sept 29, Bellport UU Fellowship:
On this day Raj Singh from the Long Island Multi Faith Forum and future panelist in a future LISH meeting kicked off the Multi Faith series at this UU fellowship.
The major focus of this program was on equalizing opportunities for a broader spectrum of people. Raj indicated that historically Sikhs have worked on this issue beginning with trying to dismantle the cast system in India. They also made considerable efforts in women's rights. It continues to be impressed upon on us the common efforts being undertaken to improve the human lot.
We recognize that there are many areas of disagreement with believers and many do not appreciate efforts to be proselytized nor to be pressured and criticized in personal attacks for our positions. It is hoped as we interact with believers we can reduce these possible pitfalls.
That same afternoon at the Conscience Bay Friends a number of faith groups gathered to discuss the question whether there is any justification of violence.
There was the expected unanimity with limited exceptions; the major distinctions involve responding to aggression as contrasted with being the initial aggressor. The range of faiths was from humanistic, Jewish, Buddhist, Native American, Catholic, Hindu and even Christian Science. Of course the hosts were the Friends.
One does not see any trends showing any particular faith being more hawkish than any other. Because of the special scope of the issue one would not find opportunities to get involved with other beliefs of these faiths
The informal conversation which followed found some questions which would find out about the other traditions and it was as good chance to dialogue on other ideas.
The setting was amicable and found folks finding common ground.
Oct 4, 2002, Ethical Humanist Society, Garden City:
On this day our Long Island Humanist Coalition, led by Len Cherlin with help from Gerry Dantone welcomed Rabbi Sherwin Wine. A nice crowd heard Rabbi Wine call for Courage as the hallmark of a Humanist. Reason is important but at times of stress one needs courage hopefully in the context of a supportive community. The recognition of our mortality emphasized the need for courage.
Rabbi Wine also pointed out that it was not the Fundamentalists who we should communicate with but folks who have more of a "New Age" leaning where these folks show a need for as form of "spirituality."
Sherwin Wine has no problems using terms like "spirituality" and he did indicate that there are too many arguments over what he considers unimportant issues such as Religious vs Secular Humanists.
Although he did not favor the use of the term "Post Modernism" he did make the agreeable point that we need critical thought and not over democratize the qualities of opinion.
The next day at the luncheon Rabbi Wine took this issue to the Jewish part of the Humanistic world. He highlighted the culture of the Jewish people and indicated courageous heroes that he looked up to including a Survivor of the Holocaust.
This was a fine weekend and it shows what coalition work can do. [TOC]
WHERE IS KEN STARR WHEN YOU NEED HIM? Gerry Dantone
As everyone remembers, when President Clinton was dishonest about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, his political enemies sought his impeachment and conviction even though his original misleading testimony in a civil suit was irrelevant to the suit's disposition. They pointed to his deception of the American Public and the poor example he was setting. They claimed he lied to Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr in a deposition that was ordered only in the hopes he would lie. No past crime was ever unearthed outside of the investigation itself. The country and government was paralyzed for over a year. The justification offered by Clinton's enemies was righteous - Presidential liars deserve what they get even if the lie about "nookie."Nowadays, Presidents, Congress and the American Public have much more important things to deal with: war and death for example. We are not concerned with President Bush's personal life even if his past private life was wilder than President Clinton's. Now, we are all above that sort of thing, fortunately for this President.
Unfortunately for us, we are now so uncritical of this conservative President that distortions, exaggerations and perhaps outright fabrications that could lead the world into a disastrous war seem to be not important: At least he's not cheating on Mrs. Bush.
In a story in Newsday and other new services, it was shown that CIA intelligence was at odds with Bush's public statements regarding the danger Iraq posed to the United States. On October 9, 2002, Bush claimed in a televised speech that Iraq has produced many thousands of tons of chemical agents. A CIA report released previously claimed that Iraq currently has 100 to 500 tons of chemical agents, a negligible amount for warfare. CIA Director George Tenet was also cited in a letter where he states that it was unlikely that Hussein would order a chemical or biological attack on the US unless he believed that an attack was imminent.
Bush said in his speech that Iraq "could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group which could allow the Iraqi regime to attack American without leaving any fingerprints." And monkeys might decide, just might, on any given day to fly out of someone's butt… Raising the possibility of something happening is not at all the same as providing evidence of its likelihood, but one must understand this explanation might be lost on most children and Creationists.
The point is that we are not being told the same thing by the President that the intelligence community is telling him. Is this distortion? Exaggeration? Lying? Is the issue too trivial?
After all, the President is not having illicit sex which apparently to the Republicans in Congress, means everything is OK. And actually, a Republican having illicit sex is OK too, as long as he or she is "born again" at some point.
So, where is Ken Starr when you need him? Probably defending some good ol' tobacco company somewhere! I guess unless the President is caught doing the "wild thing" with Ann Coulter, we're stuck with him. And the country meanwhile is being told of the necessity of war with Iraq, while "diplomacy" is the correct road in regards to North Korea. Is one justified in having the feeling that Bush may believe he is on a mission from God regarding Hussein? [TOC]
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. For current 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! Only $40 for membership for one year, $5 more for each extra family member who seeks voting rights, or $12 per year for the newsletter only. Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations aligned 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.
FREETHOUGHT CALENDAR!
The 2003 version of the Council for Secular Humanism's Freethought Calendar features Robert G. Ingersoll! Great pictures and dates of significance to humanists and all freethinkers are featured in this handsome calendar.Send only $10 to LISH, PO Box 119, Greenlawn, NY, 11740.
WBAI 99.5 FM Radio
EQUAL TIME FOR FREETHOUGHT!
Listen to the show for and by humanist, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, etc. on Sundays @ 6:30 PM, WBAI FM, 99.5 on the dial.Be Sure to Watch
"Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access, can be seen on Channel 71 on the Woodbury system, Wednesdays @ 6:30 PM; and on Channel 70 on the Hauppauge and Brookhaven systems, Wednesdays @ 7:00 PM.
LISH ON CABLE!
"Long Island Secular Humanists; What is Secular Humanism?" a LISH one-hour self-produced show will be shown on the Woodbury Cablevision system, Channel 71, @ 6:30 PM Tuesdays; on the Hauppauge & Brookhaven Cablevision systems, it will be aired Sundays @ 2:00 PM.LISH Email Action Info!
To encourage LISH member letters to the editor, here are email addresses of local print media: Daily News, voicers@edit.nydailynews.com; NY Magazine, NYLetters@primediamags.com; NY Post, letters@nypost.com; NY Press, mugger@nypress.com; NY Times, letters@nytimes.com; New Yorker, themail@newyorker.com; Newsday, letters@newsday.com; USA Today, editor@usatoday.com; Village Voice, editor@villagevoice.com; Wall Street Journal, editors@interactive.wsj.com.LISH SCIENCE CLUB!
Due to the success of the LISH evolution series, plans are underway for the formation of a LISH science club. Monthly meetings to view videos, hear speakers on scientific subjects, hold discussions, etc., are possible. If you are interested in such a club contact LISH @ 516 742 1662 or email us @ LISecHum@aol.com.Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested call Bill Wade @ 631 765 2941 or write to him @ Box 631, Southold, NY, 11971. All meetings are at 8 PM unless otherwise noted.Date: 8 November 2002, Place: Charlotte Herrmann's house, Amityville, NY 631-691-7141, OMIcharlotte@aol.com, Book: Corliss Lamont, "The Philosophy of Humanism."
Date: 13 December 2002, Place: Al Lipsky's house, Patchogue, NY, 631-363-6869, alanhl@optonline.net, Book: Richard Hofstadter, "American Political Tradition" (first half).
Date: 10 January 2003, Place: Maria and Carl Schulz's house, Baldwin, NY 516-546-3944, Book: Richard Hofstadter, "American Political Tradition" (second half).
Date: 14 February, 2003, Place: Sherm Carll's house, Commack, NY 631-499-0411. Book: Gordan Prange, "At Dawn We Slept (first half).
Date: 14 March, 2003, Place: Minnie Lodato's house, Amityville, NY, 631-691-4571, mlodat@suffolk.lib.ny.us, Book: Gordan Prange, "At Dawn We Slept" (second half).
Date: 11 April, 2003, Place: Bill Mohrman's house, Massapequa, NY 516-795-3318, skeptic1@optonline.net, Book: Susan Blackmore, "The Meme Machine".
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]