INQUIRER Volume 6, Issue 04, April, 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) Questions But No Answers
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Who Would Confirm an Atheist to the Supreme Court?
4) Making the Rounds With Norm
5) QUICKIES!
6) Bush - We Told You So!
7) Origins Part 6: The Oxygen CrisisLISH MEETING INFORMATION
TOM FLYNN of FREE INQUIRY TO SPEAK!
Tom Flynn, of the Center for Inquiry, author and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, and known as the “anti-Claus”, will speak at our Friday, April 18, 7:15PM forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, Nassau County, NY. The forum topic will be “Are We in a Religious War?” a timely exploration of the most important issue facing the US today by a distinguished freethinker. It's Free!On Friday, May 16, 7:15PM, at the Library, our guest speaker will be Socrates, as portrayed by Ron Gross.
Spring Conference, Council for Secular Humanism, Washington, DC, April 11 to 13: The Council for Secular Humanism is holding a conference, “One Nation: Without God?” featuring Christopher Hitchens, Paul Kurtz, Massimo Pigliucci, Eugenie Scott, Michael Newdow, Barry Lynn, Nat Hentoff, Norm Allen, Rob Boston, Ed Buckner, Margaret Downey, Tom Flynn, Ibn Warraq and actress Julia Sweeney. Unbelievable! To register and for info call 800-458-1366, ext 0. For rooms, call the Capital Hilton @ 202 393 1000 and ask for the Council for Secular Humanism rate of $119/night.
May 8 to 11, American Humanist Association Conference, in Arlington, Virgina, “Making Humanism Count.” Featuring Rabbi Sherwin Wine, Ralph Nader, journalist Helen Thomas, Long Island's Arthur Dobrin, and more! $95 for members, $130 for non-members, until 4/15/03 - hurry! Atthe Hyatt Regency, Arlington, Virginia, call 800 837 3792 or go to www.americanhumanist.org for info. Hotel reservations, $109/day, call 800 233 1234.
American Atheists 29th National Convention, April 18 to 20, Chicago, IL: The luxurious, world-class Indian Lakes Resort is the venue and special room rates are in effect from April 14-25, which allow you, friends and family to make a "mini-vacation" of it and see the great attractions the Chicago area offers.
A blockbuster line-up of speakers: Kimberly Blaker, Editor of "The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America"; Eddie Tabash, Constitutional Attorney, candidate for public office; Jonathan Levy, Attorney suing the Vatican Bank for restitution of World War II looted funds; Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, Chair of the Godless Americans Task Force; Normal Bob Smith, Irreverent and humorous host of JesusDressUp.com; Conrad Goeringer, Editor of AANEWS, speaking on "Muhammad Is From Mars, Jesus Is From Venus -- Secularism, Pluralism and Taming Organized Religion." There's plenty more at the Convention, too!
REGISTER ON LINE using our convenient secure-transaction server. Just visit http://www.atheists.org/convention.Visit LISH on the web: http://nyhumanist.org/lish.htm (NOTE NEW WEBSITE ADDRESS!) [TOC]
QUESTIONS BUT NO ANSWERS Gerry Dantone
Someone should ask the President, on national TV, the following questions point blank: Does he, the President, believe in the rapture, Armageddon, the antichrist, the end times? Are we engaged in a great battle between good and evil, orchestrated by God as a test for us humans? Is his presidency part of this grand finale? What role has God given G W Bush to play? Or is this some lesser but still divine drama that he has placed his enormous faith in? Is God not neutral, and actually on our side?If one brave reporter had the guts to ask the above of the President (or of a dozen other powerful political leaders) then perhaps other reporters would be emboldened to say what has been unsayable - that we may be taking the bait and plunging full force into an ongoing holy war - an American ideological jihad, as envisioned in a 1998 memo by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This group, which consists of many individuals now in the Bush administration, has succeeded in co-opting the inexperienced (and ignorant?) President Bush into their camp. This is not mere frivolous speculation: The ideology is real, well articulated and not secret: American interests are paramount and our military might should remain unequaled and should be placed in play. The primary target has always been: Iraq.
President Bush's motivations, if one were to ask him, always seem to be faith inspired. If he were to adopt PNAC's ideas, it is guaranteed that he would claim a Christian moral basis for this acceptance-some kind of “Divine Providence” blesses the US. And thus a Judaeo/Christian jihad would be real. Other Religious Right Republicans are not coy about their motivations - is their President that different? Is this what the American public wants - a biblical basis for going to war? We deserve to know. (See http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac030310.html.)
Now, since war has begun, most will be forced to hope that the US prevails quickly, efficiently and with minimal casualties on all sides. Most will hope that we don't prod Hussein into using his chemical or bio weapons. Most will hope that Hussein is not as lucky as bin Laden. Most will hope that what follows Hussein is more free and/or democratic and not more Taliban-like. Most hope the now (supposedly) hidden weapons of mass destruction are not distributed to terrorists for spite. (It would almost be worse if it turns out there were no such WMDs - that was the surface rationale for war.)
As this is written in March 2003, one can only wonder that even if the best Bush scenario occurs, such as a quick victory over Hussein, and a “friendly” Iraqi government installed, whether we have created numerous bin Laden wannabees who will forever be terrorizing the US and using our inaction on Israel and our attack on Iraq as excuses to kill American civilians the world over; whether other countries will pre-emptively attack each other based on our extra-UN action; whether Bush will be emboldened to lower the bar even further for future military action; whether the US economy will collapse under the weight of the cost of rebuilding Iraq (if we even try to rebuild it); and whether the Iraqi people will hate us or love us for imposing US will and removing their tyrant. Will religion and dogma trump sanity all over the world?
Will the US score an easy victory with minimal bloodshed on all sides in an attack on Iraq?
Will the people of Iraq be thankful for the war that rids them of Hussein or be resentful of the destruction and US domination? Will the US be able to install a workable government at all, post-Hussein? Will the new government of Iraq be democratic, free and secular, or non-democratic, Arab and Islamic?
Will civil war break out in Iraq, post-Hussein?
Will Hussein destroy oil fields? Will the US exploit the Iraqi oil fields for its own benefit?
Will Hussein draw Israel into the war? If Israel is drawn into the war, will other Islamic countries enter the war? What then?
Will Hussein use weapons of mass destruction? Will the US use weapons of mass destruction? Will we find weapons of mass destruction? Will some weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of terrorists?
Will there be an increase in terrorism against the US or a decrease?
Will the US economy falter or progress after the war? Will interest rates rise? Inflation and oil costs increase? Will there be a recession? How much will the war and the following occupation cost?
Will any other governments or countries be impacted by this war, such as Turkey, Iran, Israel or Pakistan?
The preceding questions are by no means complete but they make clear one thing; anyone who claims to have certain answers is delusional. At best we can assign probabilities to the above - and admit that the risk of a unilateral war is incredibly high and the outcome, aside from a US military victory, totally uncertain.
What to Do?
Once the shooting starts, there is no chance for American soldiers to be brought home until the battle is over and the US is in control. NO CHANCE. Whatever casualties the US endures, it will still prevail according to all “experts.” In essence the fighting will be the easy part, although the possibility of high US (and Iraqi civilian) deaths exists, expert opinion notwithstanding, due to the possibility of chemical and bio weapon use by the Iraqis, the possible luring in of other countries into the war, the proximity of Iraqi civilians to military targets, etc. Still, according to all experts (and we all know how reliable they are), the US will win at some point, and that will be that.
Then the really tough part starts.
After the war against the Iraqi army comes the battle to tame Iraq and prevent civil war, intervention by Iran, Turkey and/or Syria, prevent distribution of WMDs and prevent the destruction of oilfields. After the war comes the likelihood of increased terrorism against the US on US soil and around the world. After the war comes the possibility that other countries (Pakistan?) will not cooperate as fully in the real war on terror.
After the war, the UN would be pretty much pointless if the US went at it alone. Anti-US sentiment around the world will most likely grow. An economic recession and inflation may be in the cards under the weight of the costs of war, higher (though some say they may go lower) oil costs and rebuilding.
This is a sample of what could happen after we WIN a military victory over Hussein's army!
The best we could hope for after the shooting starts is for as quick and as bloodless a victory as possible and as sensible and free an Iraqi government as possible that Iraqis could support. At best this government will be based on freedom and democracy and not on being “Arab” and Islamic while it would be able to mollify feelings of resentment and repression. (Good luck!)
Those who simply demonstrate against a pre-destined outcome (a US military victory in Iraq) may be excluded in the post-Hussein Iraq debate. That is not a good strategy if one cares about Iraqis, post Hussein.
Bush has screwed up the Afghanistan situation with poor follow-up, and he can do it again in Iraq. For the sake of the US and the world, the anti-war movement has to morph into a “rebuild Iraq (and Afghanistan)” movement, seeing that it is done ethically, and not in an exploitive manner. Those who opposed the war before it even started should now be demonstrating for an “ethical” execution of the war (since war is now a reality) and an ethical post-Hussein vision of Iraq. The war itself will be a matter of weeks or months. The years after such a war are key and where many more lives will be at stake. This is also the aspect of this war that many of those who opposed it feared the most.
As much as one may detest current policy, once the shooting starts, one should hope that the US prevails quickly, because, since the war was NOT avoided, the alternative of Hussein prevailing does no one any good. After what's done is done, the debate shifts to the future of Iraq; will it be an Islamic and Arab Iraq or a secular and free Iraq; will there be civil war? What will be the future of US policy - unilateralism or working with the world community? What do you prefer? New questions are being asked, and new answers must be sought. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re: LISH Question of the month: Why is the Bush administration promoting a pre-emptive and non-UN sanctioned attack on Iraq?
2/26/03 The pre-emptive strike against Saddam will occur because Bush has not grown up and never will. He is mentally a Fifth grader preparing for his first fight. He justifies picking Saddam because Saddam is a "bully" and must be stopped from bullying.
There is nothing Saddam or anyone else can do to stop it. If Saddam were to announce complete disarmament and open his entire country for inspection, it would only be a temporary irritant. We would soon hear that his willingness to comply with requests is only a trick he has up his sleeve in order to get ready to do something worse.
I have come to this conclusion reluctantly and am sorry that we have a President with the troubles he has, but after having struggled with trying to figure this thing out, I can come to no other conclusion. Fortunately there are enough people who will see the folly of Bush's ways that he will only be able to get away with it once. Sincerely, Wesley R. Johnson, Wichita, KS, via Internet
Response: It is hard to prove a person's motives, but predictive accuracy may lend credence to a theory. We'll see. G.D.
3/1/03 All high-level speculation aside, my hunch is that he had seen the movie Thirteen Days and said to himself, "Enough of this JFK legend! The Republicans need a folk hero like Kennedy. Daddy already did a "Bay of Pigs" fiasco when he failed to back the overthrow of Hussein after the expulsion from Kuwait, contrary to what he had promised he would do. Let's see, where can I find a situation like the Cuban missile crisis? Colin Powell can be Adlai Stevenson."
Okay, in a less humorous vein: He couldn't deliver on his promises regarding Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, so he had to find a boogeyman with a conventional country and infrastructure that our weapons were designed to target. Then Bush could contrive to blame the terrorist threat on that person and take our attention off his failures. One other question... How come you can criticize a president to your heart's content until he sends our troops somewhere? Wayne O., Murrieta, CA
Response: Once the shooting starts, it must be admitted that it would be best if the US prevailed quickly and efficiently. The alternative, Hussein prevailing, or a prolonged bloody war, serves no purpose, including for the people of Iraq. Supporting an efficient war effort would then be sensible, although Bush would still be accountable and the target of criticism if the consequences of even a “successful” war are as dire as many anticipate. G.D.
3/1/03 Here's a better question: Why must the mongoose kill the cobra? Answer: It's nature's way.
And an even better one: Why was there no outcry over the unwarranted destruction of Yugoslavia and the killing of its innocent people? Answer: Arab money paying for Arab propaganda.
And a better one still: How has Hussein... a vicious madman dictator who makes Hitler, Milosevic, and the Nazis look like benign Disney characters... managed to win the world's misguided sympathy? Answer: Arab money paying for Arab propaganda.
And the best question of all: Why would any atheist want to protect, even inadvertently promote, the spread of Islam, the worst, most dangerous religious madness of them all? Answer: Arab money paying for Arab propaganda.
But let's digress to Iraq: Iraq is the weakest link in the Iran-Iraq-North Korea triumvirate, all three of which represent the most retrogressive, non-democratic and dangerous fragments of the civilized world. Iraq does not have nuclear power at the moment and therefore can be toppled, and therefore must be toppled before it has a chance to gain that power, which it has clearly stated and demonstrated it would use against America. All three must be stopped ASAP, and Iraq is only the first stage. It may never be proven that Iraq has been a key player in funding and abetting bin Laden et al, but we can't prove what's in outer space, either, yet we know it's there.
Destabilization and democratic reconstruction in the Middle East is the only answer to the world's crisis, and war is the only way it can be achieved. Of course, to some world factions, this perpetual crisis is an advantage. Every day of delay is another day of torture for the civilized peoples of the world. Apparently, if today's antiwar zealots had been around in 1940 they would have protected Hitler, and Hitler would still be alive and killing millions of people today.
One last question: What ever happened to the art of intelligent thinking?
Answer: It moved away from the Arab propaganda that keeps the ignorant masses comfortably brainwashed. Cyndhi, NYC via Internet
Response: At least you presented arguments; better arguments than Bush. However, here is the question of the day: Would attacking Iraq halt or promote the spread of Islamism (not Islam)? Since bin Laden is all for such an attack, in order to help him recruit, I'd say the attack would backfire in the long run. Religious memories are long, lasting centuries!
Why has Hussein gained sympathy? Do not discount massive US (Bush) incompetence. The opposition to this war is largely based on Bush's arrogance.
Even more to the point, is why can't Bush exhaust UN cooperation? It is the pre-emptive and unilateral aspect of his policy that is most easily dismissed - not the need, somewhere down the line, to remove Iraq's weapons perhaps by force. If the UN, and indeed the world, reached a consensus on invading Iraq, the question would be quite different then because it is likely the facts would also be quite different. In the meantime, the threat of an Iraq attack on the US or others is remote. G.D.
3/1/03 I think President Bush believes that his chances for re-election in 2004 are significantly enhanced by a war with Iraq at this time. I think, in his heart, President Bush believes that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the Untied States. I think somewhere in the equation is his inclination to want to finish what his father left undone. And elsewhere in the answer to the question lurk issues such as: the "Little man syndrome;" egomania; death wish; religious revelation; tunnel vision; lack of historical perspective; and a inherent want of intuitive knowledge and intellectual capacity.
Oil, I believe is only peripherally involved, not the driving force behind Bush's motives. I believe that the oil issue is more on the minds of our European allies in the E.U. and NATO.
Finally, I believe that President Bush is not brave enough to sheathe his sabers and put away his canons for a while, and commit a few billion dollars to diplomacy, coercion and time. Respectfully, Richard Stivelman, Salisbury, MD via Internet.
Response: I think you've covered a lot of plausible ground. G.D.
3/1/03 My personal view is that an attack on Iraq may be profitable because of the oil resources. Another observation is that Iraq is an enemy of Israel. The Jewish population in America is approximately 2%. However, they are over-represented in government and in Congress. Therefore, there seems to be a very large pro-Israeli lobby that can virtually dictate what the United States should do in the Middle East. Iraq is of no consequence to the USA, but they are dangerous to Israel. This would not be a war AGAINST Iraq as much as this would be a war FOR Israel. If there is to be a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, let Israel do it. Thanks, Rob DePasquale via Internet.
Response: I doubt this scenario highly and in fact, you refute it a bit yourself. A 2% share of the voting public is not that much. More likely it is a religious conviction on the part of fundamentalist Christians that favors Israel (not Judaism) since they play a part in an apocalyptic drama. Israel must be saved so that the Jews can be converted or, er, killed. This would be a fairly selfish motive on the part of those who see things that way. Further, the cost of the war and occupation might be more than any value of oil “liberated” from Hussein, if indeed this is even possible to do in a post-Hussein Iraq. GD.
3/1/03 Ever since 9/11/01, Bush has realized that we are a nation of wimps, that we fear terrorism much more than the loss of our mere civil liberties. Thus, if he can keep us in a state of terror, he can grab as much power as possible for himself, and the public and Congress, will thank him for it. Since Bin Laden has evaded our military, Bush must have another enemy to instill fear. However, that enemy cannot be someone potentially strong, like North Korea perhaps, but one who could be defeated relatively easily. Better yet, if he could tie the 9/11/01 event, even if only improbably, to this weak enemy, the country would be willing to give up even more rights to "stop" this international terrorist. The next election, then, could have the corrupt Sublime Court crowning Bush emperor.
In no way do I imply that Bush himself is smart enough to plot the above by himself. However, he does have people around him who are intelligent enough, and diabolical enough, to make such plans. The effort could probably be believably laid at the feet of Karl Rove. Hank Kocol via Internet.
Response: I have trouble believing that Bush's actual goal is to do evil and take over the world. Even a Bin Laden believes his motives are pure - Bush probably believes his motives are sacred which equals moral in his mind. More likely this is an ideological adventure/divine mission that Bush is on, and indeed, neo-conservatives and Rove are the architects of this vision. G.D.
3/2/03 Because he is a doofus with the largest, most powerful military in the world. And that's the most dangerous combination there is. Elizabeth Jetter, who is not kidding about this, via Internet.
Response: I never doubted your sincerity for a second. G.D.
Re: The Return of Elizabeth Smart
3/15/03 Except for Iraq, the big story has been the safe return home of 15-year-old Elizabeth Smart after being kidnapped and held by Brian Mitchell for 9 months. According to Elizabeth's parents, their daughter was restored to her family because of the heavy volume of prayers said in her behalf.
Obviously, omnipotent God has responded. However, according Mr. Mitchell (surely an equally reliable authority) he was following God's explicit instructions to abduct the girl. The Smarts did not comment on why God allowed Mitchell to take away their daughter for 9 months. Nor did Mitchell comment on why God permitted Elizabeth to return to her parents. It seems to me that God has been suffering a bad press. I trust she has arranged for adequate legal representation. Marvin J. Schissel, Long Island, via Internet.
Response: I think God's culpability goes beyond civil liabilities. In advising Mr. Mitchell to take 7 wives and targeting Ms. Smart as the first, God could be a conspirator in a felony. Unless the Court decides God does not exist, an unlikely occurrence in Utah, this fellow named God, based on the testimony of Mr. Mitchell, a close associate, should face charges. G.D.
3/2/03 EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT NEWSLETTER!!! Karel Bott, Plainview, via Internet.
Response: Thank you, thank you. G.D. [TOC]
WHO WOULD CONFIRM AN ATHEIST TO THE SUPREME COURT? FROM HUMAN EVENTS
Human Events is a conservative magazine, not in any way sympathetic to atheists. The following article is still shocking in that it unabashedly depicts as patriotic the willingness to deny atheists positions in the judiciary. If one thought that such bias would be swept under the rug, or denied one would be wrong. They are bigoted and proud. The following are excerpts, first printed in 2002:The first principle of the American Republic is that God has given men rights no government can deny. (Ed.'s note: This is a reference to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and was an opinion, which Jefferson believes governments should not force onto citizens.)
That is the argument James Madison made when, at the same time he was writing the 1st Amendment, he supported the law hiring a chaplain for the House of Representatives. (Ed.'s note: Madison was very clear in his later writings that he opposed chaplains for Congress.)
And that is the argument Congress made in 1954, when by uncontested voice votes in both chambers it added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, notoriously, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that American schoolchildren are prevented by the Constitution from reciting the principle that inspired the Constitution. (Ed.'s note: The Constitution has no mention of God and bans any religious tests for US office or any establishment of religion.)
Human Events (HU) Assistant Editor David Freddoso went to Capitol Hill last week with this question: In light of the 9th Circuit decision, would senators confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Robert Bennett (R.-Utah): Sure. I don't think that a person's religion, one way or the other, should be a disqualifying situation. There should be no religious test for national office. That should be very clear.
HU: Senator, the Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God. Can someone who disagrees with that idea effectively protect our rights?
Bennett: I think that he or she could intelligently interpret the law without agreeing with that particular phrase. I think the phrase is very clear. Rights do not come from government, but they are spelled out in the Constitution under that understanding, and if you are dealing with an honest jurist rather than an ideologue, and that jurist doesn't happen to believe in God, he or she would still be capable of interpreting the law intelligently.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
(Former) Sen. Max Cleland (D.-Ga.): I just got through dealing with another heavy issue. I have to go to the office right now.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah): I think that it would be very hard to get an atheist through the system. But if the atheist was willing to abide by the law and really literally willing to do what's right-you know, it would depend on what his attitude is about the law, what his attitude is about other people's rights, what his attitude is about religious rights… If that all fell together, sure.
We have some very decent atheists who respect the rights of others and who respect the rights of religion. So it depends on the person. It depends on… whether they're in the mainstream of the law, whether they are honest and decent people. There are a hundred factors. Have to have good temperament and a hundred-and-one other things.
HU: The Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God. Can someone who rejects that premise still be able to-
Hatch: Well again, you can be an atheist without rejecting that premise. As an atheist, you might say well, I'm an atheist, but I do feel people have the right to believe the way they want to. And if that person is in the mainstream of the law… I would not disqualify anybody. I don't think we should have a single litmus test on anything.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.): No, I would not. To me, that totally contradicts everything that this country is founded on-including our Constitution, including our original oaths of office. Back in the colonial days, the whole purpose that people came here and lost their lives was to achieve the freedoms, of which the major freedom is freedom to love your Lord.
HU: Given the recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance by the 9th Circuit, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Tim Johnson (D.-S.D.): Ah, that's a hypothetical issue. I don't-I have no answer.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.): Well, I suppose it all depends.
HU: In some instances you might?
Kyl: If a Clarence Thomas were nominated who embodies all of the characteristics of Clarence Thomas except his Christianity, but was very firm in his other beliefs, I might well. By the way, that's an impossibility, but-
HU: The Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from God. Can someone who rejects that fundamental premise protect our rights effectively?
Kyl: I'm not so sure, because I agree with the premise. That's why I said it's probably an impossibility that someone would believe exactly as Clarence Thomas and yet could still be an atheist.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): I don't know, I've never contemplated such a thing, but I would-I don't believe so, but I've never thought about it. I think the possibility of President Bush nominating an atheist is less than zero.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Zell Miller (D.-Ga.): Nope.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Don Nickles (R.-Okla.): I don't think so. Is there one coming? I don't think so. No, I wouldn't.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.): I don't know that I've ever thought about that, quite frankly. I deal with each nominee as the nominee comes up, and I don't start with any pre-conceived notions about them, other than that I want to know that they don't have an agenda going into the nomination process or if appointed. So I have to know more about the person than about that.
HU: You were saying-about having an agenda going in-you mean that someone who would speak openly about "I would do this if I were there, I would do that"-you wouldn't want that kind of person-
Nelson: I don't believe I would. I don't want somebody with an agenda. I want to know what they stand for, but when they're on the bench, I want them to make decisions based on law, even at the Supreme Court level. I think they have to be very cautious about legislating. They are adjudicators, not legislators. I appointed 45% of the judges in Nebraska, and I always held that to be the standard, and it will be the same standard for me here.
HU: Given the 9th Circuit Court's recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, would you vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court?
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D.-Md.): (Walking along, the senator silently refused to answer and instead entered the nearest elevator.)
For the whole article go to http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/07-15-02/capitolq&a.htm [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm Roscoe
Ethical Culture Society of Suffolk, Feb. 2, 2003: We at the Suffolk Ethical Culture are very grateful for the appearance of David Harmon at our platform on Sunday Feb 2, 2003. It was a privilege having David come out here to fill us in on Human Rights in Nassau Country with considerable relevance to Suffolk County as well.
We were joined by members of the Long Island Secular Humanists and a few other Humanist Coalition members.
We find that sometimes people have to take a stand even if it threatens their job status as long as the final result is the goal desired. Dr Harmon displayed this determination and also hard work over a long period of time.
We are also pleased to see one of the few Ethical Leaders of color.
However David did not only address problems of racial bias but a number of other forms of discrimination and showed an even handed effort to deal with the range of biases well beyond that of race.
We here at Suffolk Ethical Culture feel proud to have leaders like David Harmon address our group and look forward to benefit from other leadership figures in the movement.
We thank you again David for your wonderful presentation and look forward to further joint efforts.
January 26, 2003, Sunday morning, Bellport UU Fellowship: We in the humanist movement tend to look with caution those movements featuring elements of the transnatural. The Unitarian Universalist movement has such a large variety of views that one wonders how to differentiate it from the Multi-Faith Forum. However the UU varieties are much less authentic than these submovements.
On this day Sue Roscoe (we know who she is) presented a program on the meeting of Christianity and Paganism in early England through the use of the ideas of the Musical Play "Camelot." Two major themes come out: One of anti-War and the other of ecological values. Even as people use myths and story to make statements we still find people making the error of confusing myth with history. Literalist folks fail to make this distinction. Also some neo-pagans refer to the Goddess as Earth itself. This is a variation of Pantheism with the Feminist twist.
As I noted in previous Making the Rounds, "God" is being redefined dramatically so that the usual super(trans)natural is being almost being eliminated. We only have to refer to Bishop Spong and many other main line protestant theologians to see that many are going this route.
With this Sunday program Sue R. made numerous references to the use of power for good and "Might for Right". Also the Earth is so valued that any damage to "Mother Earth" is decried.
I find so many believers still engage in the same values as we do. Better to be on the same side with these folks; it's great when they advocate "separation of Church and State and other Humanist values.
Feb. 9, Sunday AM Bellport UU: A new but not well know faith (Brahma Kumari) made their appearance at the UU Fellowship this week. This religion is only 65 years old. It is an Indian religion with many similarities to Buddhism and some to Hinduism. This group is monotheistic. They do believe in reincarnation and the dualistic body and soul.
Of course I would highlight the ethics which is very much like the Native American's of White Eagle. So we continue to get the ecological message as presented so often in my contacts with other traditions.
We find that like a number of Indian faiths they have a major Guru or prophet. Thais prophet is Prajapita Brahma. This individual is not a God but one in touch with the Divine. Similar to the Buddha, he is the source of wisdom for this group.
When people have similar ethics with different sources how do we respond to them? It seems quite a different story than when we confront Christian Fundamentalists. I feel no confrontation with these believers who fully know of my Atheistic status. Strangely they think of me as a benevolent instrument of God. Actually as I view them, this may even be a compliment. At least they see me as a positive example of an atheist in their eyes.
Darwin Day 2003, Plainview Public Library, Sat. Feb. 8, 2003: There are a number of ways to view this year's Darwin Day. First, we had abput 100 attendees from a number of places in the metro area with LISH folks dominating. Most LI Humanist Coalition members were represented. We had three fine speakers interspersed with amusing music.
Gerry Dantone talked about "Is Evolution Moral." Many people have difficulty differentiating ethics from facts. Evolution, being the result of natural events, is not an ethical agent. I raised the question of the difference of How and Why questions. How involves the seeking of what natural causes take place to make a phenomenon occur. Why is the involvement of a volitional being having a motive for such an act. If Evolution is a natural event there are no ethical issues except as when a volitional agent acts in a consequential way. If there are bad events such as natural disasters these are not ethical issues. Many folks fail to make this distinction.
Evolution is neither good nor bad; it just is.
Our two other speakers gave us a contrast of the micro and the macro of evolution. Elof Carlson dealt with the micro; showing the wonderful use of inferences, to determine the times of domesticating of cattle or cattle like creatures. The timing of when the animals died help to determine the domestic use of animals verses animals in the wild. Human influence in the way breeding affected evolutionary processes to breed the cattle for specific purpose (dairy verses Beef etc.).
The type of use of clues like the evolutionary detectives shows the kind of thinking so dramatically lacking in much of our culture.
Our other speaker Carl Zimmer took us into a humorous view of sexual activities of what would normally be quite uninteresting creatures. How stationary creatures managed to exceed their territories with unusual evolutionary adaptions (increasing genital size and or tongue size) was discussed.
I am only touching a small part of what was dealt with here; but clearly the importance of natural selection and the need to show that events being quite fortuitous in the cases where mutations led to successful adaptations.
We also must try to understand that creatures do not make intentional decisions to successfully adapt; they just "hit it right."
One other misconception covered was that acquired traits were not inherited as discussed is the questions period; The "Lamarque-Lysenko" era was shown to be erroneous.
A great day was punctuated by amusing music from Sonny Meadows with his usual religious satire adding a great deal to this event.
Ethical Humanist Society of LI, February 23, 2003, Fritz Williams, platform speaker: It seems former Episcopalian priest and current Ethical Culturist leader of the Baltimore group, Fritz Williams shares the same philosophy of secular humanists with different language.
Fritz took us on a personal journey from Episcopal priest to Ethical Leader. His story to the young people showed his use of the concept of "Faith". He also referred in his talk to the term "religion." Some of us who have been involved in secular humanism find that we could take Fritz's talk and substitute "philosophy" for "religion" and "confidence" for "faith; we have a common message for so many humanists.
In his story for the children he showed how he had "faith" on his first dive from the high board in spite of his fears because of past experience and his ability to use this experience to overcome his fear.
He also showed a secular "religious" perspective by rejecting the supernatural features of his previous position.
Do we quibble over terms in our movement too much? Fritz Williams' talk showed a Humanist perspective shared by just about all in this Humanist area.
Some say “Yes, we do quibble too much;” others wonder if the terminology creates confusion and makes clarification difficult when we relate to those outside the Humanist area. [TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: (Richard Cohen, NY Daily News) Elliot Abrams has been named the Bush Administration's Middle East honcho. Abrams lied to Congress during the Nicaraguan Contras Scandal in the Reagan years and was convicted and granted a pardon by George H. Bush… Bush ran on this platform of moral purity. Then he turns around as President and chooses liars for high government positions and no one says a peep.
Comment: Where is the supposedly liberally biased press in all of this? Bush himself contradicts his own intelligence agencies when arguing about the Iraqi threat, imprisons two American citizens without charges, access to courts or attorneys and names Henry Kissinger and Abrams to posts that require veracity and confidence above all other qualities. Where is the outrage? As in other countries, have the fundamentalists seized the stage and now control the debate?
Item: (AU) In Chesterfield County, VA., elected leaders bow their heads for a brief prayer to start every meeting of the Board of Supervisors.
Local ministers, priests and the occasional rabbi, each of whom has volunteered to be on a list, offer words of inspiration before the meeting shifts to zoning laws, budget cuts and public hearings. It's been that way for years.
But when Cynthia Simpson, a witch and local Wiccan priestess, volunteered, she received a firm "no." In a letter from the county's attorney, she was told that only members of "Judeo-Christian" religions can pray on the board's behalf.
In December 2002, two civil liberties groups filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the county's response to Simpson amounts to religious discrimination. The suit demands that the county either stop offering prayers before meetings or allow Simpson to participate.
"That is basically a non-religion," Town Supervisor Kelly E. Miller said of Wicca. "It doesn't recognize the God that we have recognized. My perspective is that we should continue to follow the Judeo-Christian perspective. In the name of diversity, we need not throw away our Christian heritage." Miller said the policy is "the right course," even though it likely would bar Muslims and Hindus from offering the prayers as well.
Comment: Boy, are we stupid! When are we going to realize that this country belongs to Christians? Our mistake!
Item: The Catholic Church and a battery of conservative groups were fiercely lobbying in December 2002 in a last ditch effort to scuttle anti-gay-bias legislation that they feared could lead to same-sex marriages in New York. The Catholic Conference issued a statement saying, “By conferring special status on homosexual men and women… the state would be going far beyond a legitimate desire to avoid unjust discrimination.”
Comment: In typical Catholic hierarchy doublespeak, the Church equates equal rights for gays as a “special status.” And seeking the equal right to marry within the same sex is viewed as “beyond legitimate.” Imagine placing obstacles in the way of persons who seek stable and monogamous relationships! Some set of morals the Catholic Conference claims to have!
Item: (NY Daily News) Ex-Tyco director Frank Walsh cried as he plead guilty to a felony charge of taking a secret $20million payment from his former employer and lying about it. Under terms of his plea deal, he won't spend a day in jail. Defense attorney Joel Cohen said his wealthy client was a “daily churchgoer” who has spent the last decade in charitable works.
Comment: And charity begins at home I suppose. By the way, what if Walsh was a daily church non-goer? Would that mean he was more deserving of jail time? Answer: Of course!
Item: (BBC) US immigration officials in Southern California have detained hundreds of Iranians and other Muslim men who turned up to register under residence laws brought in as part of the anti-terror drive.
One of the Iranian-Americans who came to demonstrate in Los Angeles, Ali Bozorgmehr, told the French news agency AFP that his community was being targeted unjustly. "All Iranians that live in America are hard-working people... They love this country and all... are against terrorism," he said. For more info go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2589317.stm.
Comment: Those who obeyed an order to report should not be treated harshly - obviously one removes the incentive to comply by arresting those who do comply. Worse is targeting a group that is most likely to sympathize with the US and hold resentment towards the theocrats in Iran whom they fled. Why make them bitter towards the US? Why treat them like criminals when many may be freedom seeking refugees? This may be an example of the administration (or whoever ordered these arrests) not having a real grasp on Iran, fundamentalism and secularism.
Item: (NY Daily News) A Brooklyn kindergarten teacher, Ingrid Attio, is being brought up on disciplinary charges because she refused to put up a holiday bulletin board outside her classroom at Public School 179. As a Jehovah Witness, she claimed her religion did not allow her to put up “pagan” symbols such as Christmas trees. The principal had demanded that Attio put up a multi-cultural holiday display featuring Christmas trees, menorahs, and the Muslim crescent and star. When she refused, she was ordered to report to the principal's office for “noncompliance of display of secular holiday symbol decorations.” Ms. Attio says, “No one can be made to put up a Christmas tree, this is America.”
Comment: “Secular” symbols? Of course, Ms. Attio should not be forced to do any such thing. Ironically, she has an appreciation of America that may belie the official world view of the Jehovah Witnesses which considers the temporal world as ruled by Satan. Go figure.
Item: (AP) The Boston Archdiocese in December 2002 asked a judge Monday to dismiss the hundreds of sexual-abuse lawsuits against the church on freedom-of-religion grounds. The archdiocese said it made the dismissal request to satisfy its insurers that it has employed all possible legal defenses.
In court papers, the archdiocese argued that under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, civil law does not apply to how religious organizations supervise their personnel.
Comment: Of course! Exactly why should we expect a religious institution to live up to the ethical standards that all non-religious institutions must live up to? And of course, according to the Roman Catholic Church apparently, the First Amendment actually exempts religious institutions from any expectations of legal and moral behavior! Isn't that what freedom of religion is all about? It's not that stupid notion that government should be neutral towards religion: It really is that government should give religion a free pass to do just about anything! That's the ticket!
Item: (AP) Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, UT, said Monday that an agreement has been reached with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the Main Street Plaza.
The city and church have agreed to exchange the sidewalk easements on the church-owned plaza -- which include free speech rights -- for a portion of land on city's west side.
Although only a proposal, Anderson said that in exchange for giving the church all rights to the easement, the church would donate 2.17 acres near the Sorenson Center in Glendale.
In October, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that the Salt Lake City plaza must remain open to free speech, including protests, even though it is owned by the church.
A panel of three 10th Circuit judges found that the church cannot evict protesters or enforce rules of public conduct because the city retains a public easement through the plaza. The church appealed, but the full Denver-based court declined to hear the case.
Mayor Anderson had initially refused to give up the easement. The church paid $8.1 million for a block-long section of Main Street in 1999, turning it into an extension of Temple Square. The deal left a public easement for pedestrians and banned a long list of behavior offensive to the church, including sunbathing.
Comment: Yes, they admit it: Free speech is incompatible with Mormonism. Even though the streets of the plaza were to remain a public access area through a legal easement, the Mormon Church could not abide the freedom that goes with public areas. Their solution is to give away a couple of acres elsewhere so that Mormonism can rule unimpeded in their little Kingdom on earth in Salt Lake City. This latest “deal” does not justify in the least the original sweetheart sale of the property from the city to the Mormon Church. Imagine a municipality “selling” the First Amendment protections! Imagine no longer!
Item: Three girls were killed in an attack in a Pakistani church by grenade wielding terrorists allegedly incited by a cleric. The cleric, Afzar, was arrested had told his nearby Muslim congregation 3 days before the attack, “It is the duty of every good Muslim to kill Christians. You should attack Christians and not even have food until you have seen their dead bodies.”
Comment: Although many apologists will argue that the above is not “true” Islam, they miss the point. A religion, any religion, is based on faith, and on human interpretation of a primitive scripture and tradition, and brings with it the danger of certainty and the belief that one is an instrument of a god. Certainty is the surest way to overcome feelings of empathy for others. The cure is doubt, skepticism and an end of faith in favor of reason and an end of obedience to god in favor of compassion towards others.
Item: Terrified people fleeing Ivory Coast's western town of Man told reporters of bodies piled in the streets after heavy fighting between rebels and loyalists. The rebel group, the Patriotic Movement of Ivory Coast holds the largely Muslim north and wants President Laurent Gbagbo, a Christian from the Bete ethnic group in the southwest, to quit and allow new elections.
Comment: A new religious conflict? I'm shocked! [TOC]
BUSH - WE TOLD YOU SO! FROM THE ONION:
The Onion is an online satirical magazine that takes on various political and social topics. Although it is not explicitly atheistic, humanistic, liberal, etc., it cannot be denied that the editorial slant is decidedly skeptical, which often leads them towards humanistic viewpoints. Why bring this up?On January 18, 2001, the Onion published a “news” story regarding George W. Bush just before assuming the Presidency. The satire was sharp and unrelenting - and completely accurate as it turns out. Since we have read and heard it all regarding the current war in Iraq, and the consequences of this action won't be fully known for a while, it is informative to look back to the point of view of those who criticized the President before he ever articulated the concept of “pre-emptive war” or “regime change.” The following excerpts amazingly serve as a commentary on the current state of affairs:
From the Onion http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bushnightmare.htm):
Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over!
Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further…
Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He.
Bush had… high praise for Attorney General Nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth…"
Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."
The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.
"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America…"
An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.
"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption…
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it…" (Go to www.theonion.com for more!) [TOC]
ORIGINS - PART 6 Oleg Dei, Science Editor
THE OXYGEN CRISIS: THE FIRST EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENTThe beauty and grandeur of nature and the true origins of man are revealed to us through the power of science.
HUMBLE BEGINNINGS
The origin of life on Earth began some 3.8 billion years ago, deep under the sea, around the ocean bottom vents that spewed hot sulfuric chemicals into seawater. This concoction of chemicals which gave rise to early life is similar to those found in bacteria today. The process of life began as metabolism and this was the essential pathway that gave rise to other reactions that eventually produced the nucleic acids and sugars that make up the genetic material so critical for life.
Once lipids formed they were able to enclose the early genes in primitive cells. The amino acids later combined to form proteins so that these cells might have the capability to produce enzymes and more complicated structures. These organic processes were part of the essence of nature and continue today everywhere on the planet.
The first stirrings of life on this planet were very humble indeed; they appeared as strange bacteria that were powered by chemosynthesis. These bacteria subsisted on inorganic chemicals such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide which were products of underwater volcanic eruptions, these archaebacteria produced oxygen and organic matter.
These ancient bacteria are called archaebacteria and today live in extreme environments such as hot springs where temperatures never fall below 131 degrees F. The energy that powered the Earth later gave rise to life and thus it was Mother Earth herself that became the force that brought the Cosmos to consciousness. I wonder on how many other worlds has the music of life played its melodies.
As bacteria spread throughout the seas of the young Earth, the lands were still silent and barren of life. About 200 million years later, other places on Earth began undergoing a parallel evolution. Around volcanic areas located on land, masses of molten rock lying thousands of feet deep in the earth's crust, superheated the ground water above its boiling point. As the boiling pressurized water flowed upward through the cracks in the rock, it spewed high into the air as geysers carrying rich minerals to the surface. In other places the water settled into steaming pools, mineral laden bacteria evolved and flourished. Some bacteria grew into matted filaments, other bacteria formed colonies of thick sheets.
Many became brilliantly colored in blue - green, they are called eubacteria. Some of these bacteria evolved into more complicated organisms called cyanophytes or simply blue greens.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
This bacteria used the power of the sun plus carbon dioxide and water to produce organic matter and oxygen. This process is called photosynthesis.
The bacteria were able to extract hydrogen from a wide spread source - water. As hydrogen was removed from water the remaining element - oxygen was freed. The key to the production of oxygen was chlorophyll which is now possessed by true algae and all higher plants.
The production or the release of oxygen would have a profound effect on the planet earth, its ecosystems and the advanced life that was able to evolve billions of years later. Both the archaebacteria and eubacteria are called prokaryotes because they carry their DNA loose inside the outer cell membrane.
MICROFOSSILS
The internationally known microfossil expert William Schopf from the University of California has identified authentic traces of at least seven distinct types of cyanobacteria in rocks situated in northwestern Australia and accurately dated them between 3.46 and 3.47 billion years.
Many of the fossils appear like chains of up to several types of walled cells almost indistinguishable from present day cyanobacteria.
THE RELEASE OF OXYGEN
As the archaebacteria and eubacteria evolved, they began to synthesize complex molecules - enzymes that could capture the oxygen waste within their cells and then safely escort these lethal molecules outside their cell walls before any damage was done.
After nearly two billion years these bacteria released huge quantities of oxygen into the water. The waters of the alien Earth were originally rust colored because they contained dissolved iron. This is because iron will dissolve in seawater but once oxygen is introduced it becomes oxidized iron and will precipitate to the bottom and settle out of solution. The oxygen that was released by the bacteria reacted with the iron and settled to the bottom of the oceans.
Scientists now believe that the production of oxygen by bacteria was absorbed by ferrous iron in the first 1.8 billion years. As the iron settled out of solution it precipitated to the bottom of the oceans, the waters turned blue. The current estimated 600 trillion tons of iron ore composing the banded iron ore formation are today's key commercial source of iron.
BIF are marine rocks in which layers of iron rich sediment alternate with iron poor layers of other minerals. The industrial countries of the world owe their success to these tiny little microbes and their oxygen production process that took billions and billions of years. The bacteria continued to produce huge amounts of oxygen.
Roughly 200 millions years later the oxygen started rising into the atmosphere and reached stable levels at about 1.5 billion years ago. As the oxygen stabilized in the atmosphere, the skies turned blue and allowed additional sunlight to reach the earth, the planet began turning green. This gave a tremendous boost to the organisms now capable on feeding on biomolecules manufactured by the simple organisms.
THE OXYGEN CRISIS
As the planet became polluted by the oxygen wastes of the early organisms, life on Earth became threatened. Billions and billions of bacteria began to die off, for the early forms of bacteria, oxygen was a deadly poison. Even today many anerobes could only survive in the absence of oxygen.
The toxicity of oxygen is due to its early conversion in the presence of living systems into highly reactive chemical species such as hydroxyl radicals, super oxide ions and hydrogen peroxide which can severely damage vital cell constituents including DNA and liquid bi-layers. As the toxicity levels of oxygen reached super critical levels, bacteria continued to die off in the first mass extinction Earth would experience. If life could not find a way to adopt, evolution would come to a halt. Oxygen was a dangerous toxin as it invaded every crack in the soil and reached all levels in the oceans, life on the planet Earth was truly in jeopardy, the planet was slowly dying.
ADAPTATION - THE KEY TO SURVIVAL
However life was not finished. The bacteria that could tolerate oxygen confronted it, while those that were less resistant layered below. The first microbes to adapt evolved the capability to produce various antioxidants that helped to counteract the toxins. Among these were ascorbic acid, vitamins C and E and a number of thiols.
Thanks to mutations produced by evolution, the microbes evolved the capability to transfer to oxygen, the electrons exiting from their electron transfer chains with the consequent formation of water. This function is known as respiration and became a major evolutionary breakthrough inaugurating the planetary water and oxygen cycle.
THE APPERANCE OF THE EUKARYOTES
Through the evolution of life there appeared more complicated microbes known as the eukaryotes. They were much larger and sophisticated microbes since they contained a nucleus complete with DNA and RNA along with mitochondria which contained its own DNA that was scattered throughout the cell.
Lynn Margulis a University of Massachusetts biologist was one of the first to propose the idea that at one time the eukaryotes were invaded by an aggressive predator microbe. A symbiosis developed between the eukaryotes and the invader. This explains why the mitochondria which powers all cells have a different DNA structure than the nucleus of the cells. Every cell in our bodies and in all multicellular organisms from trees to whales, function in this manner, a tribute to the evolutionary power of life on this planet which traces its ancestry back to the beginnings of life that was started by the bacteria. Life maintained this simple microbial existence for billions of years spanning the time from 3.8 billion years ago to 530 million years ago.
Then a fantastic transformation occurred with the appearance of much more sophisticated life.
Millions of years later evolution would give rise to the giant 100-ton sauropods who would thunder through the landscape in search for food. This period would see the biggest land predators to evolve, which terrorized anything in their path.
The oceans were not safe either, as ferocious 150-ton marine reptiles hunted for prey. The future would see nature evolve descendants of the primates that would become bipedal and evolve large brains. These super primates would terraform the planet and develop incredible technologies. They would send their spaceships to other worlds and they would also learn how to kill, a gift that they would inherit from their aggressive reptilian ancestors. Their nuclear weapons would sit otop missiles pointed at their neighbors, their own extinction waiting to happen.
RESEARCH MATERIAL
EARTH MAGAZINE - FEBRUARY 1998
LIFE ON EARTH BY DAVID ATTENBOROUGH
VITAL DUST BY CHRISTIAN DE DUVE
THE BOOK OF LIFE EDITED BY STEPHEN J. GOULDIn Origins Part 7: Evolution goes into high gear in the Cambrian Explosion - The Great Proliferation of Life. For an expanded version of Origins Part 6 reference this months issue of Science and Discovery Magazine. [TOC]
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, as follows:
April 8 - Cosmos # 5, Blues For A Red Planet
April 22 - Cosmos # 6, Traveller's Tales
May 6 - Cosmos # 7, The Backbone Of Night
May 20 - Cosmos # 8, Travelers In Space And Time
For further info or to confirm the location or schedule episodes contact Norm Roscoe at normrhum@aol.com. This series is open to all Humanist coalition members. Hope to hear from you soon.Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested call email LISH @ LISecHum@aol.com. All meetings are at 8 PM unless otherwise noted.
Date: 11 April, 2003, Place: Massapequa, skeptic1@optonline.net; Book: Susan Blackmore, "The Meme Machine".
Date: 9 May, 2003, Place: Amityville, OMIcharlotte@aol.com, Book: Richard Elliott Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible."
Date: 13 June 2003, Place: Patchogue, waremmy@optonline.net, Book: Norma Khouri, "Honor Lost: love and death in modern-day Jordan."
Date: 11 July 2003, Place: Huntington, doburns@suffolk.lib.ny.us. Book: Michael Shermer, "Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time."
Date: 8 August 2003, Place: Oakdale, normrhum@aol.com, Book: Antonio R. Damasio, "Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain."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.Center for Inquiry Summer Sessions 2003
Main Session, July 6 to 20, Amherst, NY: Includes courses on the Psychology of Belief; Reason and Ethics; Practicum; entertainment.
July 25 to 26, Amherst, NY: Debater's Toolbox.
August 15 to 18, U. of Oregon, Eugene, OR: Skeptic's Toolbox.
For all info: Call 716 636 4869, ext. 0. Email adacey@centerforinquiry.net; or apply online @ www.centerforinquiry.net.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 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?”
This is a LISH one-hour self-produced show and will be shown on the Woodbury Cablevision system, @ 7PM Mondays and on the Hauppauge & Brookhaven Cablevision systems, Tuesdays @ 7:00 PM, on Channel 20.
New show from American Atheists!
Atheist Viewpoint
Featuring Ellen Johnson and Ron Barrier will be seen Tuesdays @ 7PM on the Woodbury system and Mondays on the Hauppauge and Brookhaven systems @ 7PM, on Channel 20.TIME TO GROW SOS!
Recent NY State court decisions have created an extraordinary opportunity for SOS to grow in New York State. Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS) must move now to create an infrastructure to enable it to expand and meet the demand created by these decisions.In Stefano v. Emergency Housing Group, the court ruled that no government-funded social service bureau or other agency in NYS can require clients to attend AA meetings due to their religious nature. Overnight, the only way NY treatment centers could hang onto their AA groups at all was by having SOS groups right down the hall as a secular alternative! New York can be the first state where SOS stands on equal legal footing with AA. Unlike AA, SOS is appropriate for all persons regarding beliefs or non-beliefs. The priority is sobriety not piety at SOS.
The Council for Secular Humanism is requesting donations specifically for SOS programs administration.
Send your donations to:
CSH, PO Box 664, Amherst, NY 114226
( & note that the gift is for SOS - NY.)The current LI 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.
Note: There may be another SOS meeting available in East Meadow or go to http://www.secularhumanism.org/sos/index.htm or call LISH for info.
The home page of SOS is http://www.secularsobriety.org. This web site has much information for downloading on running SOS groups. [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.
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 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.
Editor: Gerald Dantone
Design: John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright LISH 2003 [TOC]