INQUIRER Volume 6, Issue 03, March, 2003, 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.) Visit LISH on the web: http://nyhumanist.org/lish.htm

TABLE OF CONTENTS
  1)   Lurching Towards Armageddon
  2)   Letters to the Editor
  3)   Giving Atheism a Bad Reputation? 
  4)   Dear Dittoheads 
  5)   A Full Secular Democracy, Not a Partial Theocracy
  6)   Making the Rounds with Norm 
  7)   QUICKIES!

LISH MEETING INFORMATION

Margaret Downey to Speak!
    Margaret Downey, head of the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ASDN), will give a special multi-media presentation at the LISH forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, Nassau County, on Friday, March 21, 7:15 PM.  Her speech, "Walk a Mile in My Shoes, Star Jones," recounts her ongoing crusade to get TV personality Star Jones to recant her diatribes against atheists.   Jones is a spokesperson for Payless Shoe Stores.
    Ms. Downey is also the founder of the Freethought Society of greater Philadelphia and the Thomas Paine Memorial Committee.  She has appeared as a guest on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" and "Radio Times," and been featured on radio programs all over the nation as well as at the Godless Americans March on Washington.  It's free!

Tom Flynn, the anti-Claus, to visit in April!
    Tom Flynn, of the Center for Inquiry and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, and known as the “anti-Claus”, will speak at our Friday, April 18, 7:15 PM forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, Nassau County, NY.  The forum topic will be “Humanism in the Arts,” a most appropriate topic for this well respected author of “Galactic Rapture,” a science fiction novel, and editor of the world's foremost humanist magazine, Free Inquiry.  Members are encouraged to bring their favorite pastries and finger foods.  It's Free!

Join the Parade!  LISH will be marching in the St. Patrick's Day for All Parade, with a tribute to Irish freethinkers!  Join us at Noon on Sunday March 2nd, on the corner of 43rd St. & Skillman Ave., Sunnyside, and we'll march to 61st St. & Woodside Ave., Woodside.

Le Theatre du Blaspheme…necessary evil March 2003, Sanford Meisner Theatre -- New York City
    Le Theatre du Blaspheme is mounting its original, sell-out comedy, “Steve DeVries Goes to Fundamentalist Islam Heaven” at the Sanford Meisner Theatre, 164, 11th Ave. in New York City, March 13-16 and March 18-23. Showtime is at 8 p.m., except Sundays, which is 5 p.m.It tells the story of Steve DeVries, a missing New Jersey community newspaper reporter who turns up outside a Tel Aviv nightclub, strapped with explosives. The show is a hilarious, irreverent take on current events, with a dash of mystery, drama and sharp satire.  To reserve early, call (973) 655-9556, or e-mail cfidevries@aol.com. Cost is $15. All reservations will be held until 15 minutes before showtime.

LURCHING TOWARDS ARMAGEDDON   Gerry Dantone

“I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has the right to the land.  This is the most important reason: Because God said so.  As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis...  In Genesis 13:14-17, the bible says: The Lord said to Abram, “Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever…  Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it to thee.

That is God talking….

This is not a political battle at all.  It is a contest over whether or not the Word of God is true….”

The above piece of fanatical religious extremism obviously was not written by a diehard Islamist, but religiously extreme it was.  So who wrote it?  The author was none other than US Senator James M. Inhofe (R- Okla.) and presented as a Senate floor statement on March 4, 2002.  More terrifying was the collective yawn of the media and general American Public.

Contemplate the meaning of all this: An elected US Senator actually believes that US foreign policy should be based on fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, and that the US could actually support violence and injustice against a peoples on that basis!

According to the Word of God, if Israel has to be ethnically cleansed of Palestinians, so be it!  This heinous policy would be OK to those who apply biblical answers for modern political problems.  Action would be taken not for regrettable but necessary practical considerations, or because of some complex higher ethical purpose.  No, the justification would be “God gave the land to Abram (Abraham).”

Since it is undeniable that many Palestinian families have had their property illegally and immorally confiscated, they should be compensated.  Since it is undeniably true that Jews have suffered tremendously from terrorism and prejudice both recently and over the long course of history, they should have a secure homeland and future.  Since both sides have an enormous emotional need for a capital in Jerusalem, it must be shared by the two peoples with the “holy places” controlled and protected by the international community.

But instead, Senator Inhofe simply claims, “God says…” and reason, ethics and compassion are out the window.  Inhofe is not alone in his opinion of what God wants and that this version of God's Word should be policy.

Other American leaders are just as overt in their biblical politics.  Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell cynically support the state of Israel, giving little regard to the mostly Muslim Palestinians.

Why this support from the Religious Right?  Because in their end of the world scenarios, which Robertson in particular believes is fast approaching, a Jewish state is necessary for the second coming of Jesus which will lead to the Kingdom of God on earth.  They like to keep their scenario quiet because it requires either the conversion to Christianity or the liquidation of Jews.  Falwell has said in the past that this scenario involves an anti-Christ, who would be a Jew.

Oh.

Tom DeLay and Dick Armey are also on the “God gave the Jews Israel” bandwagon, and also support the belief that if God OKs ethnic cleansing, no problemo.  They do not say this in private - their utterances appear on national TV.  The fact that most Palestinians are Muslims in essence lends some measure of credibility to the Islamist claim that the US government is targeting Muslims.  It sure is working out that way for all intents and purposes.  Of course this fanatical religious decision making process is precisely what a bin Laden prefers - it could lead to a more active “holy war.”

When did the Religious Right become Israel's most rabid supporters?  Haven't fundamentalist Christians always been among the most anti-Semitic portion of the American Public?  The bible hasn't changed recently has it?

What has changed is the prevailing popular mythology.  In his recent series of books on the end of the world, the “Left Behind” stories, Tim LaHaye proposed that the “Rapture” would take place after Jews are in possession of all the lands God “gave” them and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity.  Millions of these books have been sold to impressionable Christians.  Ergo, the US must assist Jews in securing all of Israel - and then make Judaism extinct.

With friends like this, Israel truly DOES have much to worry about!

So where does the President stand on this issue?

Did the President admonish Senator Inhofe for his comments?  Has he corrected House Whip Rep. DeLay?  Has disavowed the end-of-the world scenarios that his loyal supporters Robertson and Falwell unceasingly promote?  What actions have the Bush administration taken that would indicate opposition to the policies of Sharon's Likud party, much of which opposes the creation of a Palestinian state?

Does the President struggle with recognizing the difference between a Hussein and a bin Laden; one Muslim from another?  Are Jews and Christians “good?”  Are the Muslim leaders the “evil-doers” or “anti-Christs?”  Is everything simple and certain for the President; is everything black and white?

Why is he willing to risk Iraq drawing in Israel in a pre-emptive war despite no imminent danger to the US?  Why is he giving bin Laden an easy to use excuse to rally religious hatred against the US?  Why back Hussein into a corner until he has nothing left to lose?  Why is he inviting more terrorist attacks against the US? 

Why is he focusing on Iraq and not Al Qaeda which represents the real danger?  Why are we not concentrating on Afghanistan which is home to Al Qaeda? Why don't we show the world our good intent by rebuilding this country and lending even more support to their fledgling government?

Before 9-11, President Bush was struggling, and other than proposing tax cuts and faith based initiatives as a sop to his most fervent supporters, his administration was without focus.  Does President Bush view 9-11 as a revelation - a mystically imbued event?  Since 9-11, foreign policy has become his focus; before it was merely an annoyance.

Yet nothing in this President's behavior suggests that he is thoughtful or is concerned with complex analyses of delicate issues.  Everything suggests that he is a person on a particular mission - a Crusade - from God.

Bob Woodward has written that “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan.”

A former speech writer, David Frum has written in a recent book that Bush said in a speech that Bush gave at his alma mater, Yale, on May 21, 2001, "Life takes its own turns, makes its own demands, writes its own story. And along the way, we start to realize we are not the author."  Is the author - God?

The US is now headed by the most publicly pious president in its history, and unfortunately this president lacks the thoughtfulness, humility and conscience that tempered the behavior other religious presidents, such as Jimmy Carter who eventually saw fit to leave the Southern Baptist Convention out of personal conviction.  This President shows no such signs of independent thought or personal conscience.  "I do not need to explain why I say things," he told political reporter Woodward. "That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

This is a fundamentalist President who may actually think that the end of this (6000 year old) world is a good thing, and that he has been given by God a key role to play in this epic drama.

Under President Bush, the US may be lurching towards Armageddon.

Deliberately.

(For more on this story, go to http://www.progressive.org/webex/wx010303.html           [TOC]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

12/20/02 Regrettably, the dissent in the ranks of Secular Humanists (and other persons of reason) simply strengthens our enemies.  By losing the opportunity to form ranks and become an effective force in opposing the inroads being made by faith based groups, we cannot be effective in fighting the Executive Order of last week that seriously breaches the wall between Church and State.  Let us remind ourselves of Pogo philosophy, ' WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.  Art Harris, NYC, via Internet

Response: Pogo knew something.  G.D.

12/15/02 I read your article “Bush Wins! By Default” in which your writer blames the peace movement for Bush's gains.  This is not true.
Let's face it, when it comes to politics, US politics are nothing more than an exercise in corruption (i.e.: Watergate, Iran Contra, the Savings & Loan scandal… Bush was selected!!!)

As a black American I would say life in this so-called great country(?) in many of our communities is just a touch better than in the Third World.  At present in the US we have the growth of the far-right and racist right movements whose goal is to rid the US of non-whites.  Racist police and yes, these are skinhead and Nazi cops on the beat in the USA along with Neo-Nazi, Klan and skinheads daily murdering Blacks, Latinos and Asian.  Your writer sounds like a middle-class white person that never reads Black or Latino newspapers and has never set foot in Harlem or Central Brooklyn where most people are struggling to survive.  And yes, we do need a war against poverty, homelessness, and most importantly racism.  Not Iraq!  Enclosed are articles about the racist right and their victims.  Eugene Carrington, Brooklyn, NY.

Response: It is true that I laid part of the “blame” in my article for Bush's continued popularity on an ineffective “peace movement.”  However, after you take note of that claim of mine, you never address the issue again.  You never offer an alternative explanation of why Bush is popular and why the “peace movement” has been mostly ineffective.  Instead, you become the example I warned against by bringing topics into play that will only undermine opposition to the war in Iraq.

Your final point, that we DO need a war against poverty, homelessness, etc. is obviously true, but nowhere did I indicate any opposition to such programs nor does this mean I was not correct in my other criticisms.  If we try to make our case for progressive causes while at the same time bashing the US, we will fail to make a dent with most Americans.  The evidence is the following: Bush has been a popular president.

For all its faults, we are able to freely speak about this nation's faults.  This country is a democratic nation which means that sometimes we elect idiots.  That is our burden; one which we don't dare give up, however.

By the way, I was born in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, grew up in Ridgewood on the Brooklyn-Queens border, attended college in downtown Brooklyn and do (or try to do) business in Bedford Stuyvesant, Bay Ridge, Park Slope, Sunset Park, and other Brooklyn neighborhoods.  However, I'm sure you don't consider your stereotyping as racist.  Regarding the articles you enclosed on Ben Smith, the racist murderer - for your info we did a headline article on him and the World Church of the Creator in a previous edition of the LISH INQUIRER.  I'm not sure why you thought we needed this pointed out; but in any case, the existence of racism is not news to us.  G.D.

1/9/03 Upon hearing that I do not believe that there is a god, I receive similar responses from many people of different faiths.  The common response is, “No human has been able to create life.”  I am never permitted to make the response I always desire to.  That is, "Mankind has not been blessed with something that nature has.  That is billions of years with freedom to experiment."  W9 via Internet.

Response: I think that humans cannot possibly fathom what 13 to 15 billions years means, or even 4 or 5 billion years if you just take earth's existence into account.  A lot can happen in 4 billion years!  G.D.

1/11/03 Re: Myths To Live By, And To Kill For By John Rafferty: In Mr. Rafferty's piece, "Myths to Live By, and to Kill For" he states that it is fair to make fun of the mythological bases of the great religions because “it is not principles, ethical systems or philosophies over which people kill each other - it's their idiotic religious mythologies.”  He rightly uses the term “mythology” for the stories that he ridicules, but if he understands what a myth is, then why does he attack them for seeming absurd?  Mythology is not history.  The trouble is that adherents to these religions take these myths as literal history and Rafferty seems to blame the myths for causing their ignorance.  He seems to imply--”discard the myths, put an end to killing.”

A good Humanist should seek to “know thyself”.  Part of that entails understanding the psychological metaphors that are embedded within the stories of our ancestors.  Our own dreams, when properly interpreted, reveal things about our self.  Our ancestors' myths, when properly interpreted, reveal things about our species.  There is much insight and wisdom about the human condition that is missed when the stories are merely taken literally.  And much more than that is lost if these portals to the ancient mind of man are erroneously discredited completely.  Atheists and Humanists that dismiss religious literature because the literal interpretation is absurd, and implore others to do the same are being every bit as ignorant as religious fundamentalists.  (I am astounded that Rafferty does not recognize the symbolic significance of “a serpent wrapped around a mountain” or a “four armed god”.)

Science is the wrong tool with which to understand the HUMANITIES.  Science cannot interpret a painting, a poem, a dream or a myth.  These products of the human mind hold myriads of meaning that science could never compute.  Tragically, there are too many Humanists for whom only the products of scientific truths are worthwhile or legitimate.  They are missing out on the higher and deeper aspects of being human.  Yes, it is harder to achieve an understanding of these subtle aspects of our mind it is no wonder that most get it wrong. (Such as the religious zealots who would kill out of ignorance or the secular humanist who ignores her intuitive faculties.) But if we take the time to acquaint ourselves with the esoteric expressions of the world religions, we will find that better minds have been grappling with areas of the uncharted mind; naming its invisible forces with poetic and mythic language.  Without science (and its language), the ancient sages studied the “physics” of mental attitudes, and the power and properties of thought.  It is atrocious that their noble work can be so thoughtlessly disparaged with such sophomoric flippancy.  Humanists must aspire to better.  A Humanist with Spirit, Qarol Price via Internet.

Response from John Rafferty: “Rafferty seems to blame …” and “He seems to imply …” are a neat way of setting up a straw man I never stuffed.  Of course we can learn much about our ancestors (and ourselves) from their (and our) myth-making imaginations, and I no more want to erase myths from our consciousness than I want to expunge poetry or “A Midsummer Night's Dream.”  But like any rational, 21st century humanist, I enjoy Shakespeare's play without believing in fairies.  My point (I almost can't believe I have to explain this) is not what the “symbolic significance” of any of the myths is, or what their “psychological metaphors” mean to educated people like Price, me, and the readers of LISH Inquirer, but: 1) that people who have never heard the word “metaphor” (yet who can spell “Kalashnikov”) are killing each other - and us! - because they believe in the literal “truth” of their age-old fairy tales; and 2) that people who believe in “different truths,” and that “science is the wrong tool” to apply to the humanities or to the wisdom of the “ancient sages,” are part of the problem.  I may have missed the mark of clear communication by trying to convey those ideas with what Price takes for “sophomoric flippancy.”  Then again, maybe it's Ms. Price who's missing something: a sense of humor.  J.R.          [TOC]

GIVING ATHEISM A BAD REPUTATION?    Gerry Dantone

The last couple of years have not been good ones for theistic apologists.  Osama bin Laden and other religious fanatics have tragically demonstrated to where belief in gods and heavens can lead: A devaluation of life here on earth and an arrogant self-righteousness. 

Arrogant church hierarchies have covered up rape and sexual abuse of children by their priests, living proof that faith does not lead to good deeds, and that the self-appointed arbiters of our morals have little morality of their own.  The case against theism has never been clearer - or has it?

The case, in a sense, has never been against “theism,” per se, but against the processes that lead to theism: Dogmatism, irrationalism, revealed truths and faith.  This distinction was rammed home to us in the case of the World Church of the Creator, an atheistic white supremacist religion, as reported in the INQUIRER, a couple of years ago.  However, since this was a very small group, it may have been dismissed as an anomaly.

This year, a couple of other examples of non-theistic irrationalism have reared their ugly heads, and the implications for the world, at least in one case, are frightening on a global scope, North Korea is now, with the passing of the Taliban, probably the most insulated and most unpleasant society in the world.  They “revere” their leader, Kim Jong Il, and have little or no personal freedoms.  Of course, the government claims that its philosophy, the “Juche” idea, an “improvement” to Marxism or communism, and the state philosophy, is reasoned, logical and good for humanity.  Yes, this is all claimed while elevating dictator Kim Jong Il to the status of a near-God, if not an actual god.

It has designated 1912, the year of Kim Il-sung's (the father of Kim Jong Il) birth, as the "first year of Juche," and April 15, the day of Kim Il-sung's birth, as the "Day of the Sun." This means that North Korea decided to worship Kim Il-sung as "God," or the "Sun," and as the "founder of the Juche Dynasty" according to a Korean War Veteran's website (http://www.theforgottenvictory.org/old/interest.htm.)

Though it might be argued that there is now a god in the Juche ideology, it is the opinion of many persons that this is no more than calculated megalomania.

Meanwhile, the country and its intentions are an enigma to outsiders.  Does North Korea pose an actual threat to its neighbors?  Would it use its alleged nuclear capabilities or missiles if it were to feel threatened?  South Korea and Japan, free countries, would be the first targets of North Korean wrath.  How does one deal with such a group?  What is it that they want?

The fact that this country is atheistic does not seem to matter: It is still irrational and dogmatic, even if a god in heaven is not part of the package.

Less of a threat to world peace, but still damaging to the image of atheists, is a cult group that has garnered many headlines recently.  Raelians believe that humans are a “creation” of extra-terrestrials who used earth as an experimental breeding ground.

According to their website, “The messages dictated to (group founder) Rael (Ed.: by an alien named Yahweh on a flying saucer) explain how life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'.  It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally in their image" what one can call "scientific creationism". References to these scientists and their work, as well as to their symbol of infinity can be found in the ancient texts of many cultures.  For example, in Genesis, the biblical account of creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but it is a plural, which means "those who came from the sky".

Leaving our humanity to progress by itself, the Elohim nevertheless maintained contact with us via prophets including Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, all specially chosen and educated by them.  The role of the prophets was to progressively educate humanity through the messages they taught, each time adapted to the culture and level of understanding at the time.  They were also to leave traces of the Elohim so that we would be able to recognise them as our creators and fellow human beings when we had advanced enough scientifically to understand them.

This message is the final chapter of all the world religions, it is the key which enables everyone to understand that what we thought was god is in fact people just like us but more advanced, who love us very much and have been waiting for us to reach a stage where we can finally understand them.  The vehicle for this new message was called the Raelian Movement.

It is an atheist, non-profit, spiritual organisation; "atheist" because it demystifies the old concept of god, "spiritual" because it links us with our creators and infinity, and "non-profit" because no member gets paid any salary, not even Rael himself.  (http://www.rael.org/int/english/raelorgencountersmall.html)

Though not paid a “salary,” it is clear that Rael does not live in abject poverty and in fact has raised considerable funds.  Raelian philosophy also conveniently accepts group sex and non-monogamous relationships, a policy of which the charismatic leader Rael has reportedly taken advantage.

Their latest and most offshoot project is “Clonaid,” an alleged attempt at human cloning.  The group's first announced clonings remain unverified, though the announcements may have done wonders for the group's fundraising efforts.  Not all persons, obviously, require evidence of any sort, even for remarkable claims.  Their complete lack of credentials for this difficult procedure, which may be dangerous to potential offspring, is alarming as is the possibility of fraud.

So how can self-described scientifically minded atheists such as the Raelians turn out to be so out of step with those who also consider themselves as skeptical?  The answer is that Raelians hold irrational and dogmatic views based on revelation and faith just as do the adherents of many other religions: The Raelians have simply left out the part about god, making them atheists.  Revelations from an alien no else has met are eerily similar to revelations from a god no one else can see. 

Often one hears debates in the media about whether “religion” is dangerous; one hears the accusations flying back and forth over the cruelties of “atheistic” communism versus religious fundamentalism.  They all miss the target, and the target remains unscathed: Dogmatism, irrationalism, revealed truths and faith.  Indeed, in a recent book by a former Bush speechwriter, David Frum, he described Bush, in part, as “incurious” and “dogmatic;” Bush should be mortified, as should the rest of us, but most people are not!  Open-mindedness and a healthy skepticism apparently are optional traits in our leaders!

Until the debate is better defined, the debate will be pointless. 

All dogmatic systems are suspect; all irrationality may lead to dangerous conclusions; all revealed truths still require empirical evidence in support; all faith needs to be replaced by reason.  Until faith itself is questioned, the masses will still be subject to following ideas without convincing evidence and without concern for their own well-being and the well-being of others. 

The existence of ideologies of groups such as the Raelians and the Juche is the reason why LISH and other humanist styled groups promote more than simply non-belief in gods.  A faith-held belief is simply a symptom of the core problem: The abandonment of reason, the devaluing of the scientific method and the potential absence of concern and caring for humanity.

Every year is a bad year for the dogmatic.          [TOC]

DEAR DITTOHEADS    Keith Taylor

Internet chat rooms are great places for folks of similar interests get together.  The problem comes when a one disagrees with the majority.  Thus atheists' boards generally reflect the more liberal-and in my obviously unbiased opinion, more enlightened view of the world.  Conservative ideas are often given short shrift in those boards.

I'm at home in the atheist boards precisely I agree with the majority on atheism as well as on politics.  Not so on the military boards.  This despite the fact that I'm a veteran of nearly 23 years and that I am a regular columnist for Navy Times, a weekly civilian paper about things navy.

One board consisting of many of my old shipmates regularly carries what I consider jingoistic calls for support to our president and all his policies.  Just as Bush gets the credit for everything good, Bill Clinton is still the whipping boy for all that isn't perfect.

I decided to get in a few licks of my own:

    Dear Dittoheads:

I have to admit that your arguments for supporting the current occupant of the White House are very persuasive, even more persuasive than the arguments of the occupant himself.  His seem a bit vague. I have such a time understanding a guy who can't pronounce "nuclear" or remember a simple aphorism, an aphorism every 10-year-old kid can recite.  "We have a saying in Texas I think it's in Tennessee... uh you can't fool me."

Let me add a new aphorism: "You can't fool a fool so stupid he wouldn't know if he was being fooled in the first place."  You guys can teach it to your grandkids, except for those grandkids who might be Governor of Texas.

Still he's such an improvement over his predecessor, the guy who committed the unspeakable sin of having sex outside of marriage.  No wonder so many sailors held that fellow in contempt.  I cannot ever imagine a sailor who would do such a thing!  I'm sure if any of my old shipmates ever tried it he'd be ostracized by all his shipmates.  In fact, I'm compiling a list of those I suspect of adultery, cunnilingus, and receiving fellatio.  They'll earn my scorn, I'll tell ya that!

And the effrontery of the last elected president!!!  He married a woman with a fat ass.  She's also one who was elected the outstanding trial lawyer of the year for the entire country.  The Fat Ass surely killed Vincent Foster to boot, probably Stephen Foster and Foster Brooks, too.  I haven't seen hide nor hair of any Foster for quite a while.

Oh I'm sure you'll suggest her victory was contrived, but you dittoheads understand "contrived."  Look at the election of 2000.

But it is lying that upsets folks so much.  Good, conservative Judaeo-Christian congress people just had to try to overturn the last honest election and oust the sinner... er, winner.  After all he had lied about a blow job.  Oh sure others lie about things, but those lies are good ones done to protect the nation.  For example Bush, the elected, claimed he was "out of the loop" on some of the most important things that happened while he was vice-president.  Most every other time he claimed to be in on all decisions.

Thirty-two times Reagan, himself, claimed he "didn't recall" the same things his veep didn't know about-all under oath of course.  Reagan was either utterly out of touch with the rest of the country or he was fibbing with good old god as a witness.  Let's just assume he was lying, and it was a case of good lying, done to protect the country; that makes it okay.

Ollie North put on his pretty uniform, marched into a congressional committee, held up his hand and swore to god to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth-as well as the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Then he lied through his teeth and has been bragged about it ever after.  Ollie gives countless examples of good lying on his talk show almost every day.

Poindexter also bragged about lying, but it was to keep the commander in chief ignorant of what was happening.  Why on earth would we want a leader who knows what is going on?  A glance at the current occupant proves that knowledge, even a modicum of intelligence is unnecessary.  For confirmation of this, tune in to LIMBAWWWW any one of five days a week.

Gosh you'd think lying was a conservative Christian tradition, at least good lying.

The only thing the last elected president had going for himself is he was lucky.  He took over an immense national debt and unmanageable annual deficit.  By miracle the annual deficit disappeared and we were on track to reduce the hell out of the national debt.  I guess the luck changed again because the debt is soaring out of sight and the best way to control the deficit is by cutting aid to countries who try to control their populations.

Back when the despicable sinner took office in 1992 we had only recently finished a war that took thousands of lives-no problem there, most of those killed were foreigners who didn't even speak English.  They probably deserved it.  The guy whose impeachment you cheer so much was so unspeakably horrible he couldn't even conjure up a good war against some defenseless little country.  Panama and Grenada must feel unloved without a single bomb being dropped on them.

This era of peace nonsense is being rectified right now of course. We found a country we can beat the crap out of and we will do so every time the ratings polls go down.

There, I'm on your side.  Let me know how I can help you guys out further.          [TOC]

A FULL SECULAR DEMOCRACY, NOT A PARTIAL THEOCRACY, Best Serves the National Interest     Don Ardel

President Bush recently accomplished by executive order what he was unable to do via legislation, namely, clear the way for channeling tax dollars to religious organizations.  This policy change is part of the president's "Faith-Based" (FB) initiative.  At both the state and federal levels, Mr. Bush has initiated several changes leading to public funding of religious programs. Specifically, he has:

Directed government agencies to take specific steps to increase contracting with FB social service providers.

Eliminated regulations that restricted intermixing of outreach services with religious proselytizing.

Established an advisory body to support current FB initiatives and brainstorm new ways to fund such programs.

Established FB liaisons and/or offices within key government agencies to identify regulatory or other barriers for FB partnerships.

Directed Federal officials to pursue both regulatory and legislative means to facilitate FB funding.

The president's elimination by executive order of longstanding barriers between church and state reflects the president's "soft spot for theocracy," as Paul Krugman put it in a column entitled "Gotta Have Faith" in the New York Times on December 17, 2002.  The entire concept of FB funding seems a very bad idea, in my opinion.  There are reasons why, for hundreds of years, America's leaders have maintained a strict separation between church and state.

One need only look to the Texas experience to appreciate problems from such infringements on the First Amendment.  Then Governor Bush's five-year experiment was called "Charitable Choice."  Assessments of the program allege that it was insufficiently regulated (a concern with the current initiatives) and led to lower standards of client health, safety, and quality of care.  Abuses occurred frequently, such as instances when people were required under court orders to attend FB programs that included religious services.

Government must never compel worship, at least not in a secular democracy.  In Iran, Saudi Arabia and other theocracies, it is the norm.  Such compulsion could be unpleasant under any circumstances, even for adherents of the religion being compelled.  If that which was required consisted of dogmas or rituals of a different faith (for example, imposing Islam on a Baptist), it could spark civil insurrection!  In the Texas FB model, there were instances of health care services provided by unlicensed FB providers, as well as favoritism and the co-mingling of funds between aid activities and religious devotions.  Many legislators in Texas who once promoted FB funding have since abandoned it, choosing not to renew their accreditations for successive years. Barry W. Lynn, head of "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," got it right when he said, "Bush is on a crusade to bring about an unprecedented merger of religion and government... taxpayers will be forced to support churches they don't believe in, and workers will be denied publicly funded jobs because they don't conform to religious mandates."

In my view, the government should never fund proselytizing by any religion.  Yet, according to Amy Sherman, a scholar at Hudson Institute, "robust faith-based partnerships between governments and religious groups are operating in 15 states, and funnel nearly $124 million to 762 different providers."  Wellness promoters care about more than fitness, nutrition, stress management and other physical and mental health matters: they have passionate convictions about democracy, freedom, good government and a duty to speak out for programs that serve the larger order and against programs, policies and/or leaders who jeopardize treasured if not "sacred" principles.

Furthermore, I think it wrong if not unchristian to discriminate.  (I admit I'm really not much of an authority on what is or is not Christian -- I was just giving Christianity the benefit by assuming most followers no longer favor discrimination as practiced by Southern congregations prior to the decades since the Civil Rights era of the 60's.)  Mr. Bush's directives explicitly permit discrimination by FB groups by allowing them to "take faith into account in making employment decisions."  In other words, it's OK to refuse to hire a person for a job paid for by public funds if the applicant does not meet the preferred religious test.  AP reporter Laura Meckler noted that the Department of Health and Human Services "will let churches, synagogues and mosques use federal money for programs infused with religion and consider religion in hiring and firing workers."

Fortunately, even religious interests express some concerns about this assault on the Constitution and the drift it represents toward a partial theocratic Republic. In a nationwide, representative study of 567 Protestant ministers conducted by Ellison Research of Phoenix Arizona, 67 percent of the clergy support this program, 32 percent oppose it, and 1 percent is undecided.  However, only 20 percent support it strongly, while 47 percent say they "somewhat support" the program.

Polls and opinions aside, the President's decision to not just allow but to encourage and enable the expenditure of taxpayer funds for religious outreach programs seems unhealthy for our democracy.  To break down the separation of church and state is always a bad idea, but it is worse than ever at present when there is a war on terror fueled by religious intolerance.

What's your view on this matter?  Whatever it is, I'd appreciate hearing from you.  Enjoy yourself, be well and try to look on the bright side of life.  Send email to dardell@seekwellness.com.

(Visit http://www.seekwellness.com/index.htm)

Be Sure to Watch
"Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access, can be seen Wednesdays @ 7:00PM PM on Channel 20 on the Woodbury, Hauppauge and Brookhaven systems.

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, @ 6:30PM Tuesdays and on the Hauppauge & Brookhaven Cablevision systems Tuesdays @ 7:00 PM, on Channel 20.          [TOC]

MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM    Norm Roscoe

Sunday January 19, 2003, Ethical Culture Society of Suffolk: Gerry Dantone raised the question of the value of teaching comparative religions in the education programs especially for young children: Are myths confused with history?  Rosemary Dantone, however, pointed out that ethics was also taught in the Ethical Society program.

Another issue raised was dealing with the question of non believers and their experiences in public schools.  Do we divulge the status of non-believing children or not?

The overall challenge of the "age gap" is one that needs addressing.  Humanist groups and both the AHA and Council have fine publications directed on this but fail to provide institutional support for gatherings for multi generations.

Shariee Calderone of the Secular Schule did considerable study on this issue.  We see the problems and challenges but solutions are hard to come by.

I suspect we can continue making efforts knowing that Ethical Culture, Unitarian Universalism and to a lesser extent Secular Judaism do maintain programs and this may be our starting point for further progress.          [TOC]

QUICKIES!    Gerry Dantone

Item: (AP) More than 100 people died in riots in late 2002 stoked by Muslim fury over the country's planned staging of the Miss World contest.
The violence was sparked by a newspaper article suggesting the Prophet Mohammad would probably have married one of the Miss World beauty queens.

The riots erupted when rampaging Muslim youths burned the Kaduna offices of the independent Lagos-based daily This Day, whose November 16 article sparked the violence.  The reporter who wrote the offending line, “What would Mohammad think?  In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from one of them” fled the country.  The deputy governor, Mahamoud Shinkafi, of Zamfara, a large Islamic Nigerian state, called on all Muslims to kill the female reporter, Isioma Daniel.  “Just like the blasphemous Indian writer Salman Rushdie, the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed,” and that anyone who killed her would be a “martyr who will go to heaven,” were the statements.  The state Information Commissioner Umar Dangaladima explained that while state officials in Nigeria cannot issue fatwas, the deputy governor, “like all Muslims,” considers the death sentence against Daniel “a reality based on the teachings of the Koran.”

The Miss World contest, which Nigerian officials hoped would showcase the country and add to its tourist appeal, initially ran into trouble amid worldwide publicity over Amina Lawal, a 31-year-old woman who was sentenced under Islamic law to death by stoning for bearing a child out of wedlock.  After the riots, the Pageant decided to move to London.

The Pageant was also greeted with criticism in London with one writer, Muriel Gray, stating, “These girls will be wearing swimwear dripping with blood.”

Comment: Let's get this straight: A death sentence to a young mother (but not the father) for “fornication” is moral, but a beauty pageant is immoral.  Insulting the Prophet is grounds for rioting and a death sentence; and those who voice an honest though potentially offensive opinion are jailed and threatened with death.  Here is the “issue” that is at the heart of the divide between much of the Islamic world (and other religious fundamentalists if given the chance) and the non-Islamic  or other fundamentalist world (note that US policy has nothing to do with it): Modernity vs. anti-modernism.  This battle used to be modernity against Christianity - now it is Islam's turn.

Not that some western minds have got it straight either.  Although beauty pageants are antiquated and contestants are often expected to fit into a certain kind of stereotypical mold for women, the Pageant is voluntary: No one has to be in it or watch it.  To blame the Pageant for the violence is to justify or excuse the violence.  One does not have to like “Miss World” in order to defend its right to exist.

And finally, if various religious groups object to being stereotyped, then they must, in great numbers, object when it seems that the intolerant and extreme wing of their sect takes control and dominates the theological and political argument.  The apology cannot go like this: “We are tolerant, but this person should not have said what she said…”  This is a cop-out: Freedom to criticize a religion is the essence of religious freedom.  It must be a right.

Item: (Washington Post) Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, government officials have been complaining that a shortage of employees proficient in Arabic has hampered the fight against terrorists.  The intelligence agencies have sought to recruit people with language skills so that documents and intercepts could be translated promptly.  But in the military, at least, the desire to defeat al Qaeda has been preempted by an apparently more important priority: Continuing the irrational discrimination against gay men and lesbians who would serve their country.  According to the Service members Legal Defense Network, at least seven Arabic linguists -- along with two Korean-language specialists and an expert in Mandarin Chinese -- have been discharged from the services since the attacks last year solely because of their sexual orientation.

Comment: Some things, apparently, are more important to the military and the Bush administration than the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security: The NRA's wish list and discriminating against gays.

Item: (Atheist Media) Do you remember back in February of 2001?  It was then on the 700 Club that on the national airwaves of CBN (Family Channel) that Pat Robertson told his audience that the Bush Plan for Faith-Based Initiatives "could be a real Pandora's Box."  Robertson, you see, came out against it.  Two weeks later, Robertson told his audience that religious groups would be addicted to government funding: "They'll begin to be nurtured, if I can use that term, on federal money, and then they can't get off of it," said Robertson.  "It'll be like a narcotic; they can't free themselves later on."

Bush now has created the "Compassion Capital Fund."  Congress appropriated $30 billion to the Fund for 2002.  The money for the Fund was intended by Congress to provide "technical support" for charities, such as streamlining the process for creating non-profit organizations.  When passed, the project enjoyed bipartisan support, and wasn't considered particularly controversial.  That is, until the Bush Administration ignored Congress' intended plan for the Fund and started using it to direct publicly funded grants to religious organizations.  Guess who is on the dole now?  That is right!  Rev. Robertson!!  He is now receiving funds from the CCF at this very moment!  There could be no clearer case of hypocrisy than ever!

Comment:  Pat Robertson a hypocrite?  I'm shocked!  Here's some advice courtesy of the Atheist Media list:

1. Write to President Bush and ask him why Pat Robertson is receiving money from the federal government to fund his ministry.

2. Write to your Representative and Senators asking questions about the strange bedfellowness of Bush and Robertson.  Urge them to do something about it.  Recommend new legislation to put a stop to this particular eroding of SOCAS.

3. Make some noise in the media!  Write and call every news director of the national news services: NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, AP, NPR, and urge them to investigate this shameful use of taxpayers money to fund religion.

4. Embarrass the religious organizations by conducting protests in their front yard, calling media attention to the problem.

5. Embarrass the White House by organizing protests in Bush's front yard and call attention to the problem of government abuse of public funds directed towards religious organizations.

6. Write letters to the editors of your local papers criticizing the Bush Administration for funding Pat Robertson and other religious groups.

Item: (From Americans United) The Bush administration emphasizes politics over policy and has failed to advance its highly touted “compassionate conservative” agenda, the former head of the White House “faith-based” office has charged.  John J. DiIulio, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until August of 2001, told Esquire magazine recently that top Bush political advisor Karl Rove and his allies control the administration's domestic policy, not policy experts.  Said DiIulio, “There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus.  What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm.  It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”  DiIulio, now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, described Rove as “enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political advisory post near the Oval Office.”

The White House quickly dismissed DiIulio's allegations, calling them “baseless and groundless.” Under what Washington observers believe is intense pressure from the Bush administration, DiIulio issued a statement parroting the White House line and agreeing that his criticisms were “groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples.”

Comment: You mean that the “Office of Faith Based Initiatives” is nothing but a ploy to win the favor of select religious organizations?  I'm shocked.  NOT!  Imagine hearing this from the first leader of that department!  How cynical can the Bush administration get?

Item: (Newsday & other reports) Kansas City, Mo. - A pharmacist who diluted chemotherapy drugs for thousands of cancer patients was sentenced to the maximum of 30 years without parole yesterday after victims' families told how the scheme had cost them precious days with their loved ones.
"Your crimes are a shock to the civilized conscience," U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith told Robert R. Courtney. "They are beyond understanding."

Courtney, 50, also was ordered to pay $10.4 million in restitution and a $25,000 fine.  He showed no emotion as the judge announced his sentence.
In a statement to prosecutors, Courtney cited pressure to pay a $600,000 tax bill and a $1-million pledge to his church.  The government has frozen at least $8 million in Courtney's personal and corporate assets, and the church has pledged to return more than $600,000 he donated.

During the trial, Mr. Courtney's attorney, J.P. Bradshaw, had argued, "While the charges are certainly serious, he's a man devoted to his family and his community," Bradshaw said.  He also said the dilutions affected 30 to 35 patients under the care of a single doctor.  But a Kansas City doctors group has been trying to contact more than 700 cancer patients it said received treatments from Courtney's pharmacy over the past five years.  Three witnesses -- Courtney's wife, his father and a church music director -- testified in support of Bradshaw's position.  One of Courtney's best friends from church testified that Courtney was well-known, well-liked and had many friends.

Comment: Thank God he wasn't an atheist!  Then he'd really be a creep.  At least the judge called it as he saw it.

Item: (AP) A priest fathered at least two children in the 1960s and apparently failed to call doctors immediately when their mother collapsed from an overdose, according to personnel files that contain some of the most lurid allegations yet in the Boston Archdiocese sex scandal.

Cardinal Law expressed concern over the priest yet Foley was placed in a parish in 1995 and has since been appointed associate pastor.  Other files contained allegations regarding a priest beating his housekeeper and threatening abuse victims, a priest trading cocaine for sex, and a third priest having sex with teenage girls studying to be nuns.  Thousands of pages of more documents relating to 55 priests have yet to be made public.

Meanwhile Boston church officials debate the advantages of declaring bankruptcy.

Comment: There still seems little chance that the Catholic Church will reform itself since there are still no plans to truly discipline the Cardinals and Bishops that enabled abusive priests to continue breaking laws.

Item: (Newsday) Nearly a decade ago, the Long Island Muslim Society bought two small houses on a busy street in East Meadow and began holding prayer services there.  Now the Islamic group of about 40 families, mostly of Bangladeshi origin, wants to tear down the houses and build a new mosque and school in their place.

But plans for the mosque, big enough for 300 people but with only nine parking spaces, have sparked a clash with neighbors that may pit quality of life against freedom of religion.

"We want to start an open dialogue between the community and us," Mohammed Rafiqur Rahman, the society's president, told an overflow crowd of more than 200 residents at a community forum Tuesday night.

The forum was the Muslim group's first attempt to get local support for the mosque before a scheduled Jan. 29 hearing at the Hempstead Town Board of Zoning Appeals. It needs permission to build with fewer than the required 87 parking spaces.

A few East Meadow residents at the Tuesday meeting protested in moderate tones about the society's planned expansion and its tax-exempt religious status, which they said forces them to pay more than their fair share of property taxes.

But most of the meeting consisted of a barrage of angry shouts and anti-Muslim jeers directed at Rahman, his architect Hossein Alemzadeh, and his lawyer, Peter Morra. Meeting moderator Joseph Parisi, who heads the civic group, banged a gavel again and again, and shouted the audience down, to maintain order.

"Go park in Bangladesh!" one man shouted.

Some said they oppose the mosque because it would attract more Muslims to East Meadow, and they don't like Muslims, especially after last year's Sept. 11 attacks.

Comment: LISH's position is that all non-profits should be treated equally and be subject equally to zoning laws and equally taxable.  These are reasonable positions and we have issued a press release to that effect.  However, the issue, to many other persons, is bigotry, pure and simple.  People are so confident in their religious bigotry that they have no problem displaying it publicly.  Although Christians don't issue fatwas in the US, it does not mean tolerance is universal. Read on…

Item: The FBI reported that Muslims and people who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent were reported as victims of hate crimes far more often last year than ever before.  Incidents jumped from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001, most of the increase probably taking place in the few months after 9-11-02.

Comment: Beyond the headline, the report was interesting for other reasons.  Out of 1828 incidents, anti-Protestant bias accounted for just 35 events; anti-Catholicism, just 38; anti-Jewish incidents a whopping 1043; anti-Muslim, 481; and “other,” which includes other religious groups (not including Muslims, Protestants, Catholics and Jews) and includes atheists and agnostics, an out of proportion, 231 incidents!  As one might expect, if you're not a Christian, you're much more likely to be the subject of a bias incident.  What a shock!

Item: In his State of the Union speech in January 2003, President Bush explained, “… we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them.”

Comment: Could someone explain to Pres. Bush that he probably should not trust in what he cannot explain or know?  Can someone point out to him that he is in complete agreement with bin Laden and every other religious extremist on this point and at odds with calm, sober reflection?

Margaret Downey, guest speaker at the LISH forum, Friday, March 21, 2003, 7:15PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview.          [TOC]

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.

Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested email LISecHum@aol.com.  All meetings are at 8 PM unless otherwise noted.
    Date: 14 March, 2003, Place: Amityville, NY 11701,  mlodat@suffolk.lib.ny.us; Book: Gordan Prange, "At Dawn We Slept" (second half).
    Date: 11 April, 2003, Place: , Massapequa, NY,  skeptic1@optonline.net; Book: Susan Blackmore, "The Meme Machine."

The Science Club
LISH will be providing LI Humanist Coalition members the opportunity to view outstanding science videos and participate in discussions in LISH member homes, and if necessary, larger settings.  A schedule of videos, all to be shown at Warren & Mary Jane's home, in Patchogue, 631 363 8216, as follows:
    Tuesday, March 11, 8:00PM, “Cosmos 4-Heaven & Hell
    Tuesday, March 25, 8:00PM, “Cosmos 5-Blues for a Red Planet.” 
    Tuesday, April 8, 8:00PM, “Cosmos 6-Traveler's Tales.”
    Tuesday, April 22, 8:00PM, “Cosmos 7-The Backbone of Night.” 

For further info or to confirm the location or schedule episodes contact Norm Roscoe at normrhum@aol.com.  This series is open to all Coalition members.  Hope to hear from you soon.

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.

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.

Become a Member of LISH
Membership in LISH has its benefits!  Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library; voting rights; mailed newsletters; invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well!
    Let us grow into the humanist voice of Long Island!  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 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.

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 QUESTION of the MONTH:
   Why is the Bush administration promoting a pre-emptive and non-UN sanctioned attack on Iraq?
Send your response to:
LISecHum@aol.com or to LISH, PO Box 119, Greenlawn, NY  11740.

Editor:  Gerald Dantone
Design:  John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright LISH 2003         [TOC]