INQUIRER Volume 6, Issue 6, June, 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.htmTable of Contents
1) Uniformity of Opinion and Humanism
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Origins Part 9
4) QUICKIES!
5) The Adventures of Herb Silverman from the Atheist Media
6) Not Exactly Victory Declared
7) Making the Rounds with NormLISH MEETING INFORMATION
Special Medical Ethics Double Forum!
Deborah Rudacille, author, Nancy Klein and Bill Baird to speak
The 7:15PM, Friday, June 27th forum @ the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, will feature Deborah Rudacille, author of “The Scalpel and the Butterfly,” a book about the ethics of medical tests on animals.
Is any amount of animal distress justified to save or enhance human life? Is it ethically permissible to use animals for research--whether to test new drugs, for organ transplants, or as genetically altered suppliers of spare parts for human beings?
In this sweeping history of animal research and protection, Deborah Rudacille shows how such questions, and the answers provided by both scientists and antivivisectionists over the past 150 years, have shaped contemporary society. From Pasteur's experiments with anthrax and rabies to Wilmut and Campbell's cloning of Dolly, Rudacille describes a remarkable trajectory of scientific progress, one that has been accompanied by vocal, if not virulent, opposition. Has it been worth it? Come and hear the author of one of the most authoritative books on the subject.
ALSO: Lives or religious principles? Nancy Klein was the pregnant woman involved in a car accident in 1988 and was comatose as her family battled pro-lifers to allow her to have an abortion that doctors believed would help her chances to survive.
Newsday reported: "Another abortion issue that attracted national attention involved an Upper Brookville man who sought to terminate his comatose wife's pregnancy to improve her chances for recovery. Nancy Klein, who was 17 weeks pregnant, was in a deep coma after sustaining head injuries in a 1988 auto accident. Two Long Island anti-abortion groups sued for legal guardianship of the woman and her fetus in an effort to block the abortion. After a panel of judges ruled against the activists as "absolute strangers" to the Kleins and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop the procedure, the abortion was performed. Nancy Klein partially recovered. In a less-than-happy ending, her husband, Martin, sued for divorce in 1991."
Ms. Klein is still suffering the effects of her injuries. She is wheelchair bound and speaks with difficulty. Pro-choice activist Bill Baird will accompany her on June 27 and will touch on the subjects of stem cell research and late term abortions where the life of the mother may be at stake. Both issues directly affect Ms. Klein in her life.
Ms. Klein rarely gives interviews and this may be a unique opportunity in light of recent actions against stem cell research and late term abortions.
THIS SPECIAL FORUM IS FREE and open to the public! The meeting will begin PROMPTLY @ 7:00 PM!
LISH President Gerry Dantone to speak: Saturday, June 21, 2PM, Parsons JHS, 158-40 76th Rd., Flushing, NY, Forum on “The State of the Middle East,” guest speaker, Gerry Dantone, sponsored by the Queens Society for Humanistic Judaism. For info call 718 380 5362. It's Free!
LISH on the web: http://nyhumanist.org/lish.htm [TOC]UNIFORMITY OF OPINION AND HUMANISM
Gerry Dantone
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"
There is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson had it right. In an age where church and state had always been entangled, if not one and the same, uniformity had always been a goal of both church and state, and the misery that resulted was inevitable. No one seemed to care about the misery until the Enlightenment, since it was thought that human misery was an acceptable condition prior to salvation in the teachings of many religions. Results here on earth were pretty much irrelevant, after all, if one gets to go to heaven or paradise forever afterwards.
In Jefferson's days, however, great thinkers began to question Christian and other religious theology: Jefferson is notable for being the least religious (in a superstitious sense) president of all. He was a materialist outside of his opinion that a prime mover or Creator started the universe on its course. Of course, Jefferson did not have the benefit of knowing about Darwin's theories, Einstein's ideas or the Big Bang theory, so one can only wonder what Jefferson would believe today if he were alive. It is almost certain he could not be elected president in light of current attitudes in America.
The striving for uniformity of opinion has obvious problems: Human opinion is at the heart of freedom. Humanity is happier when our minds are free. Joyously we choose the course that suits us, limited only by harm caused to others. What could be better for us while we're alive?
The religious pursuit of uniformity of opinion is in direct opposition to human aspiration, but as we know, religion's goal is not human happiness.
You might ask, “Yes, we know all that: So
what?”
The point is that the misguided struggle for uniformity of opinion is not one from which
humanists are immune.
There are many vitally important issues that face humanists and everyone else in these
times where the stakes are so high. Abortion, gun control, the death penalty, civil
rights, environment, the economy, war and peace; the list goes on forever it seems.
Though humanists may be tempted to expect a uniformity of opinion, at least among
humanists, on these issues, that temptation must be resisted.
Gun control is typically such a two sided issue. Many advocates will claim that
control of gun ownership and possession is vital to reducing murder rates and saving
lives. Those who oppose such controls claim that it is a constitutionally protected
right, and that gun ownership reduces crime. Whatever the merits of either argument,
the point is that there are those humanists on both sides.
What makes an argument humanistic or not is the use of reason, evidence and the underlying
goal of improving the human condition as a consequence. Complex issues involving the
future consequences of a policy instituted on society as a whole can easily be
disputed. This is not quite the same as testing a new medicine for efficacy:
Controls are far easier to establish in laboratory conditions compared to testing society
as a whole! Humanists must understand that differences of opinion are unavoidable
when discussing issues that involve predicting future consequences, particularly when the
subject is society or the world as a whole. Humanists are not infallible in coming
to their conclusions.
In a humanistic philosophy or political system, therefore, dissenting views must be
accepted as legitimate if they are reasonably justified and compassionate in their
goal. Debates must focus on accuracy of the facts assumed to be true, the soundness
of the methods of reasoning and the desirability of the expected outcomes.
If a humanist comes to the conclusion that the death penalty is a boon to humanity, that
there is evidence that innocent persons do NOT get executed and that lives are saved by
the preventive powers of Capital Punishment, then they may come to the conclusion that
this is a good policy. If one sees little or no life saving evidence, if one sees
bias in applying the death penalty, if innocent persons are put to death, etc., it would
be humanistic to oppose Capital Punishment. In our democracy, ideally, the reasoned
and compassionate viewpoint of the majority would become law as opposed to the purely
emotional or religiously correct viewpoint that does not take into account the actual
future consequences.
We are not at this ideal in this society since many persons still take their cues from the
bible, their religious leaders, party dogma or make emotional, visceral, vengeful or
greedy decisions that are not reasoned or compassionate. The task for humanism is to
change the way most people come to their decisions: It is NOT to dictate or necessarily
change the specific decisions to a predetermined norm.
Humanism promotes a process of reason and compassion: Not a list of dogmatic truths.
We have no choice but to promote human reason and concern for others as people go about
making their moral and political choices. Once people are making choices inspired by
compassion and guided by reason in this manner, humanists must then let the chips fall
where they may - we cannot resort to coercion to bring the results we prefer - that is
fanaticism. Hopefully the chips will then fall better in the future than they have
in the past; in my opinion there is no method proposed that could lead to better moral
decision-making. We should be satisfied with this non-Utopian goal.
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.
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.
[TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re: Darwin Day
4/3/03 I'd like to make a correction to April's Inquirer. The Onion is described as
an online magazine. This is not true; The Onion has always been a tabloid-sized
printed newspaper based out of and distributed free in Madison, WI.. As it became
more popular, they started distributing in other campus towns, and eventually created a
website when the internet took off.
I hate to bother you with such a small point, however I hate to see The Onion considered
another recent "dot-com," given that their material is still written primarily
for print, and also that they've really maintained consistent quality for many, many
years.
Otherwise I'm always happy to see the Inquirer in my inbox. I especially liked the
congressional answers this month. I was surprised by Senator Bennett. Albeit I
know nothing about him, I think it's ironic given the current political climate that a
Republican would be so much more vocal about disregarding a candidate's beliefs than the
Democrats interviewed. I would be very interested to know how my own representative,
Russ Feingold, would respond. Dan Hyslop via Internet.
Response: We always welcome improved information. Look for
the Onion on your newsstands! G.D.
3/21/03 Regardless of the reason, the lack of a second UN Security Council resolution
morally, if not legally, rescinds any implied authority for military action against Iraq
of the first resolution.
By Presidential announcement the United States now stands in violation of the UN Charter
in intent, and if and when war is launched, in fact. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive
invasion in the name of national security will have no consistency, but exercised only
toward "evil" leaders of nations the United States can easily defeat militarily
-- hence it will prove to be a tyrannical principle in concept and application. James
Wentz, Freeport via Internet
Response: In a sense, what Bush is practicing is no more than
might makes right, and we're right! This is anarchy - there are no consistent
enforceable laws governing international relations, at least none that neo-cons are
willing to observe. The opposing argument is that there are not enough truly free
and representative governments in the world to make international law feasible at this
time. G.D.
2/18/03 I greatly enjoyed the Darwin Day meeting. I had read recently that there is
no scientific understanding of how groups of living cells communicate with each other.
There must be communication between large groups of cells. That is because
salamanders can regenerate new legs and all of our special purpose body tissues grow to be
what they must be without having the all over plan programmed into each individual
cell. Dr. Carlson said that the communication was all "chemical
gradients".
I believe that the communicating force which makes cells grow the way they do is neither
chemical nor electrical, or it would be detectable by modern instrumentation. If it
is so weak that it can not be detected it would be more greatly disturbed by the chemicals
and electric fields in our environment.....So it must be something else. It is
called MORPHIC RESONANCE... but no one can explain it from any chemistry or physics
knowledge nor is there theory. Obviously this is the last hope of religious
thinkers, who for lack of any scientific understanding, can say it is God's force, or
something equally supernatural. Robert Wexelbaum via Internet.
Response from LISH Science Editor Oleg Dei: In response to Robert
Wexelbaum's letter regarding Darwin Day the following point needs to be clarified
and corrected.
The scientific evidence strongly disagrees with Mr. Wexelbaum's assertion that there is no
scientific understanding of how groups of living cells communicate with one another.
A great deal of scientific discovery has occurred in this area recently and has revealed
the following: The key to communication between cells involves a special class of hormones
called growth factors that signal certain cells to start growing. On the cell
surface is a molecule called a receptor and that is how a hormone finds a correct
cell. Each growth hormone affects only one kind of receptor on the cell's surface
and acts as the first messenger to the receptor carrying that portion of the cell to
change and become active. A variety of signals are produced by the receptors to
promote the specific changes in cell activity. That is very basically how cells
communicate with one another.
Regarding the regeneration of limbs in salamanders, the ability to replace the development
of limb formation is possible in amphibians but not in mammals. In addition,
organisms such as newts, salamanders, segmented worms and zebra fish convert
differentiated adult cells back into stem cells allowing them to re-grow limbs. Cues
from differentiated cells instruct stem cells to regenerate limbs. The presence of
the WNT gene in amphibians is what allows them to regenerate limbs. This is not
present in mammals due to their longer life cycle.
This has nothing to do with the fantasy of morphic resonance. This is a concept
dreamed up by Robert Sheldrake. It has no basis in science nor does the author offer
any scientific evidence or proof. Sheldrake tries to link this metaphysical concept
with God, souls, angels, UFO's, ESP and immortality. This is not science, just plain
fantasy and nonsense. The key to knowledge and understanding life comes from the
power of science and not an ancient religions that has caused us so much damage, nor does
it come from new age fantasy.
4/22/03 Thank you very much for furnishing info about Humanist Organizations out here on
the plains. I would love to hear Tom Flynn, but I don't get around as much as I did
when my travel bills were paid for from Deer Isle to San Diegp and from Sound to
Key. I nevertheless maintain my membership in LISH.
In the days when travel was a perq, my favorite place was Huntington. This is
because we were having a thorny problem and I knew immediately that I could trust the
engineer I was sent to coordinate with. It took the better part of a year but things
finally settled down without either Company suing the other, worthy of only a small
footnote in a history book, but I considered it an accomplishment.
For trust to be beneficial it must be mutual but it is often betrayed. Why did I
have that feeling immediately that I could trust Tony (my engineering counterpart at the
other company)? I have no way of knowing and we never discussed it, but I believe
that he had the same immediate feeling that he could trust me. People with lofty
credentials think up all kinds of goofy things to research, but I haven't heard anyone
proposing to research this question.
Humanists are willing to let others have different ideas from theirs if the ideas don't
pose a danger to the world, but I am afraid that those who have been indoctrinated with a
religion during their formative years have also been given the idea that a religion is a
good thing if most of it's concepts are pretty well in agreement with mine and a bad thing
if there is very much difference. This is where the most of the trouble
starts. The righteous seem to feel that it is a duty, imposed on them by God, to
correct the erroneous thinking of those who are wrong no matter what forceful means it
takes.
It is my belief that peace will not be possible until most people allow others to have
substantially different thoughts from their own, similar to the way most Humanists
think. Sincerely, Wesley Johnson, Wichita, KS.
Response: Thanks for sharing and it is too bad you do not get out
here too often anymore, but please let us know if you do! G.D.
[TOC]
RICK SANTORUM: SEX POLICEMAN AND AMERICAN
TALIBAN Gerry Dantone
In April, an Associated Press reporter interviewed Senator Rick Santorum on economic
issues. Without much prodding from the interviewer, the discussion veered off into
areas near and dear to the Senator's heart. Here are excerpts:
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago;
they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The
Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you
explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral
relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles.
And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in
the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised
that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say,
there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be
surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending
signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what
you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and
necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an
accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is (sic) priests who were
having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests
with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual
relationship. Which, again, according to the worldview sense is a perfectly fine
relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that
way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it…
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual
acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of
traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different
acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's
homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no
problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, “do you act
upon those orientations?” So it's not the person, it's the person's actions.
And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue
that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has
sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they
undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court
says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right
to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the
right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the
fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would
argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States
Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the
contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And
the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and
affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it
destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to
strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy,
all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond
between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society
is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children.
Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever
to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality.
It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one
thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a
United States senator; it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea
is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I
disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences
to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing
it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview
you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with
it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was
created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And
I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or
Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the
democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York
want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right.
But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. (End)
What we have here is a typical Opus Dei-like view of freedom and democracy. There is
a common dishonesty present in the above rationalization on the part of Sen. Santorum,
since he leaves unsaid the basis of his definition “traditional society”: The
basis is the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on society and its morals.
The “absolute” truth, in his view, is unchallengeable and all moral systems that
depend on humanity's well being as the central value are considered “moral
relativism,” even if they are objective, concerned with human well being and widely
accepted across varying cultures.
Here's the evidence for this analysis:
1) He considers all homosexual acts “deviant” whether or not anyone is harmed,
whether or not all involved are adults, whether or not it is consensual. This is
strikingly anti-human, and completely dependent on Santorum's superstitious world view
which considers a primitive, arbitrary and capricious moral code absolute.
2) Santorum also, without going into detail, condemns all “non-traditional” sex
acts by anyone, another derivative of Church teaching. Again, humanity's well being
or self-interest is irrelevant.
3) Santorum's enmity at the “right to privacy” is another derivative of Church
teaching since it is obviously Santorum's Roman Catholic Church that possesses the
absolute moral code that Santorum believes should be enforced by law on all persons,
regardless of religious beliefs. This coincides with Church teaching; in studying
the ideas of Opus Dei, one is struck how often the concept of personal liberty is
attacked. Many fundamentalists share the belief that their dogma should be enforced
by law, from the Taliban to Christian Reconstructionists, eliminating any right to
privacy.
Justice Brandeis, in 1928, well-articulated his case for a Constitutional “right to
privacy”: "The right to be left alone-the most comprehensive of rights, and the
right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable
intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means
employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The preceding
statement was made well in advance of the cases cited by Santorum.
4) As President, Santorum implies that government can control our private lives to any
degree it chooses as long as it is with the consent of the majority. This, of
course, turns the concept of personal liberty upside down, as well as the 9th and 10th
Amendments. It basically eliminates personal freedom in favor of what Santorum
considers to be the needs of “traditional society,” his code words for
“Roman Catholic Church teachings.”
Poor Senator Santorum: Due to his religious indoctrination, he cannot tell the moral
difference between rape, sex with a minor and consensual sex between adults. He
agrees with bin Laden that personal sexual morality is an area for government supervision:
Is the Christian Ministry of Vice and Virtue such a far-fetched idea?
5) Santorum's argues that if the Supreme Court decides that one has the right to
consensual sex (with a consenting adult) then one has the right to
“anything.” This, of course, is just plain stupid. A person's rights
end with the infringement of another person's rights.
This is such a simple concept that one must come to the conclusion that Santorum has an
agenda - a religious one. What a shock! (For insight on Sen. Santorum's views
on Catholicism and praise for Opus Dei go to http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
). [TOC]
ORIGINS
PART 8 THE APPEARANCE OF THE FISH - THE SULTANS OF THE SEAS Oleg Dei
- Science Editor
The End of the Cambrian
In many ways we have witnessed two major important events in the history of life on
Earth. First: Bacteria had oxidized the Earth, changing the face of the planet and
its effects on evolution forever.
Second: One-celled eukaryotes had evolved into complex multi-cellular forms. A
review of the Cambrian had showed that clams, mussels, and crabs were minor players in the
evolution of life, nature was just warming up, evolution was revving into high gear.
The Cambrian was not important because of what it had produced as much as what was yet to
come, thanks to the forces of nature. Towards the end of the Cambrian we saw the
evolutions of groups such as the gastropods and the cephalopods. The gastropods now
included snails and other single-shelled animals that crawl on a muscular foot.
Cephalopods were different kinds of single-shelled animals that partitioned their shells
living in the outer chamber being able to pump gas in and out of inner ones and developing
a capability to propel themselves from moving predators. They now appear as the
nautilus, squid and octopus, the latter two abandoning their shells in favor of speed.
THE ORDOVICIAN: 505 to 438 Million Years Ago
Following the end of the Cambrian was the beginning of the period called the
Ordovician. That burst of growth saw the diversity of marine life triple in 50
million years. Cephalopod mollusks exploded into an assortment of big beautiful
shell forms. Starfish evolved from armless echinoderm ancestors. Tiny
crustaceans appeared and swarmed into diverse forms as scavengers and particle
feeders. The Ordovician also saw the evolution of life on the barren lands, as life
literally crawled out of the seas and populated the lifeless land. Earth would
change its appearance forever.
The Invasion of the Land
Recent studies of some Precambrian soils have shown higher than random concentration of
12C. The lighter carbon isotope that photosynthesizing organisms use for their work
in preference to 13C. Photosynthesizing bacteria and algal microbes were the likely
source. They became the advance scouts of an invasionary force that would forever
change the lifeless and barren land. The ancestors of all land plants became the
green algae; these photosynthesizers had adapted to freshwater rivers, lakes as well as
ponds, toward the end of the Ordovician.
Freshwaters contained the dissolved carbon dioxide, phosphates and other minerals
essential in constructing biomolecules necessary for more complex life forms. To
meet the challenges of freshwater, plants evolved a coat that kept the water in but would
also admit air through the pores. Some plants developed xylem roots and efficient
systems for circulating water.
The invasion of the land had begun. The second invasionary force consisted of
mosses, hornwarts and liverwarts. These secondary invaders differed in that they
were limited in their proximity to the ground and shady damp conditions.
The third land invasion was conducted by the arthropods which evolved from coastal
relatives, such as shrimps, crabs and lobsters, whose ancestors crawled onto the land and
evolved air breathing capability, then evolved into ticks, mites, scorpions, millipedes as
well as the centipedes. The land was no longer barren. Millions of years
before the vertebrates came ashore the early terrestrial world was an arthropod world
filled with crawling creatures that were adapting to the land. At last the land was
humming with life.
Millions of years later, the land was invaded again by a group called the
vertebrates. This last group was to have a far reaching consequences on life on the
planet-they would evolve into the largest land animals ever to walk on the
planet-the Dinosaurs and it would also see the most dangerous-the Humans. Nature was
experimenting on land with various forms but the oceans have had a head start of over 3
billion years and there were many wonders to perform. The music of life was played
by evolution as the musicians conducted by nature as the great designer of life, its
beauty revealed to us by science.
The Appearance of the Fish
In arthropods and mollusks, the center nerve ganglion has evolved as a ring of tissue that
surrounded the gut. Any tendency of this tissue to grow would likely squeeze the
tube out of the gut and constrict the supply of food to the organism. This serious
evolutionary handicap prevented the arthropods from ever evolving complex
intelligence. In order for nature to evolve a more sophisticated design possessing
higher intelligence, the cosmos would have to look for better way.
Appearing in the deep oceans of life was an animal that nature evolved. This
creature contained a notochord which was a flexible stiffening rod, running along the
middle of its back. This contained a bonelike structure surrounded by nerves.
They evolved from echinoderms, starfish, sea cucumbers, and sea urchins. The
chordates survive today as sea squirts. In the future this design would have far
reaching consequences for the evolution of life on the planet. In future epochs,
this stiffening rod would evolve into the vertebrae, containing nerves, and support for
the body structure. The notochord would eventually evolve into the vertebrae; the
evolution of intelligence was now on its way. This vertebrae design led to the
development of as an attachment for the skull, numerous muscles and for various appendages
which later evolved into limbs. These limbs would eventually evolve into hands that
would learn to heal as well as build robotic explorers that would visit other
worlds. These hands would also build weapons of mass destruction that would threaten
every living organism on the planet Earth. These hands would belong to a dangerous
and bloodthirsty animal called Humans, but their reign would not come for millions of
years. The vertebrate design led to the development and protection of the
brain. In the vertebrates, the main nerve center has evolved to be housed in the
skull, while the backbone serves to support the rest of the body.
In the Ordovician appeared a creature that would enjoy tremendous evolutionary
success. Its shape, form and structure became so adapted to the marine environment
that its ancestors populated the seas, oceans lakes and rivers and exist to this
day. They became the fish. The fish became the first animal to possess a
vertebrae. The early fish that appeared were primitive and jawless. They
possessed armored plating over their backs that extended around their entire bodies.
The early primitive fish that appeared in the Ordovician had no fins, only a tail that
they used to propel themselves through the water.
The appearance of the fish was modest at first with fossils appearing in Australia, as
well as North and South America. Scientists now think that another mass extinction
occurred with at least 70% of the ocean species erased at the end of the Ordovician
period, perhaps large enough to be the second largest mass extinction of all time.
It temporarily wiped out the entire reef forming communities including most brachiopods,
echinoderms, and ostracods. Vast continental movements seemed to be the cause of
this. North America straddled the Equator as a reef supporting tropical continent.
Gondwana, the huge super-continent had drifted to lie over the South Pole. Glaciers
grew over this massive supercontinent and the oceans had cooled. Once again, the
existence of life was threatened. In later epochs as the glaciers melted the seas
warmed at the very end of the Ordovician.
Much of life had died off in a fourth mass extinction. The music of life would be
interrupted many times in the evolution of life on the planet Earth. Nature offers
no organism any guarantees of permanent survival; even Humans would one day find their
species on the verge of extinction, such is the way of nature.
THE SILURIAN: 438 to 408 Million Years Ago
Life continued to evolve during this epoch and the fish were no exception. A large
array of jawless armored fishes is shown by the fossil record in the late Silurian ranging
in size from 1 to 8 inches. Some had heavy armor sheaths while others began to
evolve more flexible scale coverings. Armor was given up in favor of speed and
adaptability to the oceans. All of the fish had a pair of small eyes and a small
rather featureless and jawless mouth.
Feeding became the key to the evolutionary change to the earliest agnatran fish.
Examples of the agnatran fish exist in several species of lampreys and hagfishes-which are
long, unarmored eel-like fish. They feed parasitically by attaching themselves to other
fishes and ripping at the flesh or by wrenching bits from dead or dying fish.
THE DEVONIAN: 408 t0 360 Million Years Ago
The Devonian featured some spectacular evolutionary changes. Eurypterids were arthropods
that looked like giant scorpions that would reach fantastic sizes of 6 ½ feet. By
this time trees had evolved on land, reaching heights of over 30 feet. Some nautiloids
also became giants in the seas, some reaching sizes in excess of 10 feet.
In some plants the spore bearing spocophyte generation began to produce two kinds of
spore, one of them large - the female while the smaller one was the male. The
Devonian saw the rise of other plants such as horsetails, club mosses and ferns-some
became giant varieties. The fishes were no exception, they too made some giant
evolutionary strides. Cephalispis made its debut at this point in time - it was a
fish in transition. It had a broad armored plate covering over its head, a slit for
a mouth, and a slender body covered with scales. This animal had a short fin on its
back as well as a long tail fin underneath the tail. Cephalaspis swam by beating its
tail from side to side, a revolutionary movement that would carry this motion to the
future in other vertebra designs. There were many other groups of jawless fish at
this time.
By the end of the Devonian, most of the land-dwelling invertebrates had come ashore, and
at this time insects evolved from the various centipedes and millipedes. These were
small air-breathing animals, characterized by a segmented body with three main parts - a
head, thorax and abdomen. In adult forms they typically had three pairs of legs, two
antennae and in many cases, two pairs of wings. Many took to the skies; at last the cosmos
could fly. For sheer variety and abundance they would soon evolve into the most
successful animals on earth.
Currently about one million species have been identified by scientists which is about half
of all animals known to science. They evolved and thrived in almost every habitat on
Earth, they became a superb design orchestrated by nature.
In the marine world nature continued her fantastic experiments. The Devonian marine
predators were easily the largest vertebrates yet to evolve-the dunkleosteus measured 33
feet long. Their movable jaws enabled the placederms to grasp and manipulate prey
and to cut and grind-the jaws had evolved.
Scientists think that slender bones in the throat region that supported the gill arches of
jawless fish, migrated and fused to become parts of the brain case attached to the skull,
forming the upper and lower Jaw. Cartilaginous fishes called the chondrichthyes had
evolved-they survive today as sharks and rays.
The late Devonian saw the rise of Cladoselache-these became known as sharks. These
became powerful predators driven by a large tail that swung side to side and able to use
its fins to control its stability and make rapid turns in pursuit of prey.
This period was the rise of the Osteichthyes which were the bony fishes which are
represented today by thousands of species. They evolved to include a slender
streamlined body covered with scales, equipped with a midline dorsal tail and anal fin and
two sets of paired pectoral and pelvic fins. The fish were now fully equipped.
This period was the appearance of the lungfish and the rhipidistians. Nature was preparing
for something spectacular in the near future. The Seas were now absolutely exploding
with life. Nature had created a fantastic and successful aquatic design that would
continue to the present. The fish literally became the Sultans of the Seas.
Nature would build on this design in future epochs on a much grandeur scale.
Evolution was about to take a quantum leap forward.
Research Material:
The Book Of Life - Edited By Stephen J. Gould
Life On Earth - By David Attenborough
Insect Encarta
In Origins Part 9 - The Conquest of the Land - The World of the Amphibians; we will see
the highly successful design of the fish and its ancestors crawl out of the sea and adapt
to the land, in the fourth and final invasion of the
land. [TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: "After six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military
success," the State Department is, "back at work pursuing policies that will
clearly throw away all the fruits of hard-won victory" in the region, Newt Gingrich
said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, where he is now a fellow.
In a speech on March 18, Tom Daschle said, “I'm saddened, saddened that this
president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened
that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of
diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said of Daschle, “[T]he South Dakota senator finds himself in
the same position as Trent Lott. His credibility is finished.”
A statement by O'Reilly criticizing Gingrich could not be found.
Comment: Yes, Daschle's and Gingrich's statements both criticize
the administration for failed diplomacy, yet only Daschle was lambasted by the
right-wing. Why? What was the difference in their statements? Only
Daschle took the logical step of lamenting that the failure of diplomacy may have led to
war, while Gingrich preferred war to nearly any attempt at diplomacy. This makes it
clear: Those who criticized Daschle ONLY do not care about American unity in times of war
- they just cannot abide criticism when it favors a greater commitment to a peaceful
alternative. If it is criticism in favor of a more belligerent stance - no
problemo. (For more info on Gingrich's statement go to http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney.asp
)
Item: (ABCNews) Officials inside government and
advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons
to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger
at home to Americans. "We were not lying," said one official.
"But it was just a matter of emphasis." Officials now say they may not
find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of
anthrax and other toxins.
If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here
are the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East - and not just Saddam Hussein.
Senior officials decided that unless action was
taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists.
Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always
looking for someone to hate - and that someone would always be Israel and the United
States.
Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part
of the solution.
The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq
was the place to show that it is democracy - not terrorism - that offers hope.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed
Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was
wrong. "I don't think you should go to war to set examples or send
messages," Woolsey said. (For Woolsey interview, go to http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/woolseytranscript030422.html
Comment: In its own twisted way, the administration's argument is
idealistic. But misleading the American public and the world is no way to inspire
freedom and democracy. Before we can spread freedom, we must have it ourselves and
without an honest government telling the citizens the truth, it cannot exist.
(For the ABCNews article, go to http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow030425.html )
Item: (St. Petersberg Times) Sometimes, before an abusive government practice gains
widespread attention, bad things have to happen to someone with this bio: American
citizen, blond wife, adorable children, good job and high-status friends.
That victim would be Maher "Mike" Hawash, a naturalized American of Palestinian
descent who has been held in federal custody as a material witness to a terrorism
investigation since March 20, 2003.
In an early-morning raid, Maher Hawash was seized by armed FBI agents in the parking lot
of his workplace in Portland, Ore. His home was later searched for hours, and four
computers were confiscated. Hawash has since been held under maximum-security conditions
in a federal prison south of Portland.
No one who can talk knows why Hawash has been detained or what the FBI agents are looking
into, although there is conjecture that it might have something to do with his donations
to a Muslim charity. Everyone directly associated with the case, including his
lawyers, has been ordered by a judge not to speak about it.
But Hawash is lucky. Unlike other Muslim and Middle Eastern men who have found
themselves in this predicament, Hawash has well-situated friends. As a former
employee and now a contract software engineer for Intel Corp., Hawash has a wide cadre of
associates in the computer industry. And they are not sitting on their hands.
Steven McGeady, a former Intel vice president, is leading the effort on Hawash's behalf.
McGeady said he had been a casual observer of the post-Sept. 11 terrorism detentions --
concerned but not engaged. His activism kicked in when his good friend was
arrested.
What happened to Hawash "is the classical definition of a police state," McGeady
said. "Government can hold you in secret at any time and for any length of
time. It violates, for me and everyone I know, the pre-existing trust we have in
government."
At issue in Hawash's case is the 1984 material witness statute that allows the government
to hold a person whose testimony is "material in a criminal proceeding" for an
indeterminate time. The law is to be used only when the witness is reticent and
probably will flee the country to avoid having to testify.
But since the terror attacks, John Ashcroft has transformed it into a tool of repression,
using it to put people behind bars for preventive detention. Ashcroft's approach is
to arrest first, investigate possible terrorist ties later -- a patently unconstitutional
practice under which the "witness" label has become just a pretext.
Comment: John Ashcroft and the administration using something as
a pretext? I'm shocked - not!
[TOC]
ATHEIST MEDIA The
Adventures of Herb Silverman
The following is what happened to Dr. Herb Silverman (the same person who was prevented
from holding a public office in South Carolina because he is an atheist--at least until
overturned in court) in his own words:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, I gave the invocation to the Charleston City Council. As
the mayor was introducing me, 7 out of the 12 City Council members got up and walked
out. When I finished speaking, these council members walked back in, just in time
for the Pledge of Allegiance. I have never seen such rude behavior by council
members, especially in a city that prides itself on civility.
I was looking forward to the presentation, with the hope that it would foster more
tolerance in the Charleston community. It was the first time a non-religious person
was allowed to give the invocation at a City Council meeting, which is, of course, a civil
event, not a religious service. And the City Council is supposed to represent all
residents of Charleston, not just religious citizens.
If white members of City Council had walked out because an African-American began to
speak, or if Christians had walked out of an invocation given by a Rabbi, most in this
community would have been properly outraged. The organized walkout vividly
demonstrates that we are engaged in one of the last civil rights struggles in which
blatant discrimination is viewed as acceptable behavior.
Fortunately, lemonade is now being squeezed from these lemons. I received numerous
apologies from Christians for the behavior of the Christian Council members who walked
out. I also heard many positive comments about my invocation, both from those in the
audience and by council members who stayed. I hope that the conversations here about
the behavior of Charleston City Council members will be effective in bringing more
religious tolerance to this city. Here is the invocation I gave to the Charleston
City Council:
Thank you for this opportunity to "invoke" a minority point of view. Each
of us is a minority in some way. It might be race, religion, sexual orientation,
nationality, or any other aspect in which we may be regarded as different. Each of
us is also part of some majority. It is when we wear our majority hats that we need to be
most mindful of how we treat others. We must pledge our best efforts to help one
another, and to defend the rights of all of our citizens and residents.
What divides us are not so much our religious differences in this diverse country, but the
degree of commitment we have to equal freedom of conscience for all people. We are
gathered today, both religious and secular members of our community, with the shared
belief that we must treat our fellow human beings with respect and dignity.
In this invocation, I don't ask you to close your eyes, but to keep your eyes constantly
open to the serious problems that city government can solve or improve. I don't ask
you to bow your heads, but to look up at what you can accomplish by applying your
considerable talents and experience to the issues that confront us.
As you work together on behalf of all who live in this city, may you draw strength and
sustenance from one another through reason and compassion.
I'd like to close in a bipartisan manner by quoting from two presidents I greatly admire
-one a Republican and the other a Democrat.
First, the Republican: When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That
is my religion; Abraham Lincoln.
And now, the Democrat: It's remarkable how much you can accomplish if you don't care who
gets the credit; Harry S.
Truman. [TOC]
NOT EXACTLY VICTORY DECLARED!
Gerry Dantone
Poor George W. Bush! He sort of “wins” a war but cannot say so. Yes,
on May 1, 2003, he proclaimed to the world that the Iraqi “threat” was over, and
patted himself on the back. He believes it was a job well done. Was it?
First, due to the Geneva Convention, declaring victory or that the war is over would
require the return of all prisoners of war, and no longer hunting down former Baath Party
leaders, including Saddam Hussein. Oops, can't exactly claim the war is over now,
can we?
Second, weapons of mass destruction were not found as of yet and hopes for finding them
are dwindling. These so-far non-existent weapons formed the basis of the
“threat” that Iraq posed. Oops, mission not exactly accomplished.
Of course, it is also claimed that the Iraqis are finally “free.” It is
quite true that they are free from the clutches of Saddam Hussein, and this is a
tremendous advance, but are the Iraqis “free” in the sense that Americans or
others are free? To be fair, this is a question that cannot be answered yet, but
should be answered in the next few years. But once again, to declare Iraq
“free” would be premature at best.
How well is the Iraqi situation going? In two days in late April of protests against
American occupation, 17 Iraqis have been killed and 89 injured by Americans troops in a
former Baath stronghold. In Shia areas, calls for an Islamic government have been
increasing. The Kurds, rightly so, do not want their relative prosperity destroyed
by a new Iraq in which they do not enjoy the rights and powers they currently have.
The US, for its part, says that they Iraqis will be able to choose their own leaders and
government - as long as it's one the US does not object to. In other words, they
will either be enslaved by religious theocrats, ethnic rivalries, or forced into a more
secular and less Arab nation by the US. Although the latter is the preferable
situation, will Iraqis see this as being “free”? Will they accept what's
“good” for them?
In practical matters, in much of the country, basic services still had not been
restored. Looting and lawlessness had been rampant.
Is this victory? Should we be patting ourselves on the back for this?
In an America where 42% of the public somehow has come to the totally unsupported
conclusion that Iraq was behind 9-11, and where hardly a peep has been made about the fact
that this President believes he can detain any American, anywhere, for any reason without
recourse to a Court, attorney or even a visit from their family, maybe this IS a victory.
And that's the most troubling aspect of
all. [TOC]
WBAI 99.5 FM Radio
EQUAL TIME FOR FREETHOUGHT!
Listen to the show for and by humanists, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, etc. on
Sundays @ 6:30 PM, WBAI FM, 99.5 on the dial.
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM
Norm Roscoe
Sunday, 9:30AM, April 13, 2003, StonyBrook Unitarian Universalist Fellowship: This
program gave many persons an opportunity to see Prof. Elof Carlson of Darwin Day Fame
speak on “Science and 'Evil'”. Accompanied by Oleg and Joy Dei, our
science editor team, we were given a challenge of evaluating ethical dimensions of
scientific practices. In a book soon to be publish by Professor Carlson the question
of what is to be considered "evil" or at least to be of a negative ethical
behavior. He started with negative consequences or outcomes and sought to find
motivational factors of these kinds of scientific endeavors. Elof presented us with
an array of ethical impacts by various scientific enterprises. In Nazi Germany the
range of ethical stances with the same outcomes of these acts are presented. There
are people who feel that their ideology is a correct one and the research was meant to
enhance the position of this ideology (Nazi Superiority).
Other folks were "Just obeying orders". Still others were too fearful to
do anything. And small numbers countered these acts with counter measures and
attempts. As outcomes were realized some who expected different outcomes counted
themselves guiltless.
This book tackles the issues of science and ethics. These wide areas of ethical
stances will be more effectively dealt with when this publication is available.
It became clear that we have to see science in its proper perspective. Elof pointed
out during the discussion the neutrality of science and is only to be conceived as a tool
(good or otherwise).
We also discussed the difficulty of finding research that is not slanted towards a
particular goal (drug companies, etc) and even when there is the opportunity to do less
biased and independently funded research it was pointed out by Rev. Kate Lehman that it
was still difficult to find neutrality and objectivity.
This was a rather stimulating presentation which only makes the release of this upcoming
book one for future study.
I also raise the question of whether science can be helpful in helping us arrive at more
effective ethical acts. I believe that we can benefit from science in helping us
better anticipate possible outcomes as we ponder acts to be taken.
We even discussed conditions with science education with Elof giving public education an
"F" because of poorly presented and less interesting learning
environments. It appears that on a broader scale we fail to teach critical thinking
very well.
Thursday April 17, LI Havurah for Humanistic Judaism: During this time of year,
when our mainstream American Culture is centered on Easter or Passover, I did not totally
escape such activities. On this day we celebrated Passover Humanistic Judaism
style. The Long Island Havurah led by Leonard Cherlin conducted this Seder in a
purely non-supernatural manner. Twenty people experienced the ritual with humanist
substitution of "man" in place of "God" in the readings. The
values of freedom and a better world for all people, not only the chosen, were emphasized.
This was one example of ritual and esthetics without the supernatural in our gathering.
Friday the 18th of April, LISH: For dinner it may have looked like a Passover
dinner, "certainly not the "Last Supper," as we gathered for dinner with
national Secular Humanist leaders prior to our meeting.
Tom Flynn provided us with a great program on "Are We in a Religious War."
He pointed out many pieces of evidence leaning in this direction.
The challenge here is for us to be able to separate real information from intelligent
speculation. Tom gave us both. Can we separate one from the other?
We can list specific facts; we can get dates and numbers. We can gather names and
even events. Once we start to interpret we must recognize this delineation from
factual data. Also we must be careful not to assign motivation to actions carried
out by others. Tom Flynn does his homework and seems careful to try hard to show
when he renders his opinions. Questions and comments from the group showed our
struggle to separate data from opinion. However skeptical inquirers must be careful
not to slide into cynicism. Even rational folks must recognize our subjective
domains.
We have been so fortunate to have such great speakers this season and Tom only enhances
this list.
It was also quite gratifying to see so many Coalition members at our last LISH
meeting. There was Arthur Dobrin from Ethical Humanist Society, Len Cherlin from
Long Island Humanistic Judaism, Lynn Unger from Suffolk Ethical Culture as well as a small
scattering of Unitarian Universalists. It was good to see all of these folks.
Sunday April 20, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Stony Brook: The question,
“How Do Unitarian Universalists look at Easter?” The major thrust was
on the agnostic stance of uncertainty on this day. Rev. Kat Lehman posed a series of
questions about biblical sources and historical information. This service emphasized
the uncertainty about the dogma and sought the ethical messages of the Christian
Myth. This program also emphasized the esthetic impact of such an event. There
was also emphasis on the season of life renewal. The supernatural terms were
reinterpreted to natural events in our lives. Resurrection was simply a return to a
season of resumed life forms. People whose lives are meaningful are perpetuated by
the memories and actions of those other people who knew, learned and cared for these
individuals who died. Our resurrections are manifested in those who knew, loved and
carried out our values.
We experienced this service with the beautiful music, supernatural lyrics notwithstanding
Alleluia Chorus). Do we as Humanists find ourselves comfortable with these
experiences? I know I love the music and some of the poetry. I, as an atheist,
can still experience these events with pleasure. The agnostic message and the desire
to know what really happened still persists while we listened to this music.
My weekend was still one supportive of my philosophical views as the rituals were carried
out. We had Judaism, Liberal Christianity (Jesus as ethical person) and of course a
good helping if Secular Humanism. There was music, poetry and solid intellectual
input fostered by great fellowship among Humanists and liberal religionists.
Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, Sunday morning April 27: First we heard
from Professor Mike D'Innocenzo from Hofstra on the role of America in the current world
scene. References were made to the Pearl-Wolfowitz program and the state of this
plan at this time (this program involves pre-emptive strikes upon perceived international
threats to US.) Dr D'Innocenzo pointed out consequences of this program including
restriction of personal liberties and negative views of the United States from other
places in the world. It is interesting that he also made references to religion as a
factor in this mix.
There was also a reference to the information and understanding gap of the population at
large as exemplified by results of recent polls. People seem far from the mark on
the basic knowledge of information. This is seen as a problem with media
availability and the time folks are able to devote to learning about crucial issues.
This is not a good situation in a democratic society.
Our second speaker addressed the issue of our current national leadership and women's
reproductive rights. Karen Pearl pointed out the rejection of support for
reproductive education on many fronts. There was also concern for the future of Roe
v. Wade situation in light of the current administrations possible future Supreme Court
appointments.
After hearing these two talks as well as Tom Flynn's talk a week earlier one may at first
feel powerless. Can we get a democratic nation to function effectively?
This is a serious concern; an informed public is necessary to make informed choices.
Religions cannot represent a particular candidate. It is often pointed out that
humanist institutions do not select a particular party. However, certain issues do
seem critical to both Humanists and main line religionists. As we look at Human
rights, separation of church and state, and other issues we find that we better be looking
ahead to 2004 and finding out what can be done to have at least a fair election and
hopefully a program that meets Humanist values. Can there be an effective
mobilization for 2004? Let's hope we can find ways to be effective citizens for this
important election.
A brief mention of a program that occurred on Saturday Evening April 26 at a private
home in Huntington: James Latimer a scientist from Stony Brook University, spoke about
the SETI projects and some recent findings about life on other bodies in space. What
seemed surprising was that amount of life that is probably "out there." Of
course the level of this life is quite rudimentary. Such places as Mars are looked
upon as possible candidates for supporting these simple life forms. Much reference
is made to the importance of water being available in searching for these forms.
The odds of finding higher forms of life are much more remote. One may need to
search a much larger area maybe within the galaxy; the solar system would have only the
simplest life forms if at all outside of the earth. A group of about 20 plus people
showed up for this event.
Saturday evening, May 10, 2003 at the home of Norm and Sue Roscoe, Discussion Group:
A large question that arose was whether all Ethical Culturalists were Humanists.
Apparently this is not the case. Some of us are neo-Adlerarians. This involves
a form of Idealism (the existence of non material essences.) Some folks interpret
this literally while others take this figuratively. Our speaker took a rather even
handed approach in respecting the various views in this area.
Some members sought clarification between the Humanist and the Adlerian perspective.
Ms. Klaeysen made the point that the Humanist view comes from our own experiences and
ideas. The idealist perspective would be possibly intuitive approaching these
ideals. The major thrust of the discussion was the ethical result. It was
pointed out that we may have different beliefs but common deeds should result.
We also explored the "examined life." People like me leaned in this
direction while others were expressing a more intuitive approach. Again our speaker
took a most diplomatic stance giving various approaches deep respect.
As with a number a gatherings we find the challenge of the younger and newer folks showing
a more "spiritual intuitive" leaning. This presents a challenge to the
older Humanists. This is probably why there is such a wide spectrum within
Humanism. We see the radical atheists on one extreme ranging from here to Secular
Humanism, Humanistic Judaism, American Humanism Association, Ethical Culture, with
HUUmanism being on the other end of this spectrum.
This is the challenge faced by the Humanist Coalition on Long Island.
We feel very fortunate to have had such a wonderful array of great speakers throughout the
past year featuring three Ethical Leaders, plus other outstanding folks from a range of
fields. We hope to benefit from these appearances plus an added thank you to Anne
Klaeysen.
Bellport Unitarian Universalist Fellowship; Sunday, 10:30AM: This service featured
the Baha'i faith. Three representatives , Tom Hazagawa, Bernice Suplee, and Stacy
Fagan, gave a presentation about Baha'i. Many parallels with Unitarian Universalism
were shown such as the important and equal role of women. There was also the
emphasis on respect for other traditions and the evolving form of revelation and even
discovered wisdom. All previous prophets and other wise folks are respected.
A video highlighting activities of intergenerational activities was shown. The
ethics of "peace" was featured. This group was very well received by the
folks at this fellowship. It was also noted that Bahai's worked with Unitarian
Universalists on a number of projects such as the Hiroshima Memorial events held yearly in
Bellport in August.
It was also noted that the Baha'is are a very racially diverse
group. [TOC]
The Science Club
Science Club Names Norm Roscoe Humanist of the Year!
In April the Science Club was proud to announce its winner for 2003 Humanist of the
Year. That honor went to Norm Roscoe. Norm is an active member of LISH, the
Science Club, the Book Club, Ethical Humanist, Unitarian Universalist, Humanist Coalition
and the Multi-Faith forum. Norm was honored with a plaque which read:
SCIENCE CLUB'S HUMANIST OF THE YEAR
NORM ROSCOE 2003
Club Schedule: A schedule of videos, all to be shown at Warren & Mary Jane's home, in
Patchogue, as follows:
June 3 - Cosmos # 9, The Lives Of The Stars
June 17 - Cosmos # 10, - The Edge of Forever
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.
At the EHSLI Humanist Blood Drive
The NY Blood Center and the Ethical Humanist Society of LI are combining to alleviate an
urgent need on Long Island. A Blood Drive will be held Monday, June 16, 2003, from
3:30PM to 9PM at the Society, located at 38 Old Country Road, Garden City.
You should be between 17 and 75 years of age, and weigh at least 110 lbs. If you
have high blood pressure it may be no problem if it within accepted limits at the time of
donation. Many medications that you may be taking are acceptable - you will be asked
at time of donation.
For additional info call Richard Rapp @ 718 767 3610 or call Louise @ 516 741 7304 to make
an appointment to donate and avoid a wait.
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.
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, and note that the gift is for SOS - NY.
SOS (Secular Organizations for Sobriety/Save Our Selves), a support organization for
people recovering from alcohol and drug abuse, will be adding a new local group.
Planning meetings will be held Wednesday nights, June 18th & 25th 2003, at 7:30 P.M.
at, 280 Suburban Avenue, #F, Deer Park, Suffolk County, NY. Open to all persons who
need sobriety in their life. For info about this planning meeting or directions,
contact Drew @ 631 242 2498.
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 Bill Wade @ wiwade@suffolk.lib.ny.us
or write to him @ Box 631, Southold, NY, 11971. All meetings are at 8 PM unless
otherwise noted.
Date: 13 June 2003, Place: Mary Jane Marrifield & Warren Rothstein's house,
Patchogue,NY 11772, waremmy@optonline.net ,
Book: Greg Palast, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.”
Date: 11 July 2003, Place: Dorothy Burns' house, 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: Norm Roscoe's house, Oakdale, NY, normrhum@aol.com , Book: Antonio R. Damasio,
"Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain."
Date: 12 September 2003, Place: Sherman Carl's house, Commack, Book: Noam Chomsky,
“What Uncle Sam Really Wants.”
Date: 10 October 2003, Place: Mary Jane Marrifield & Warren Rothstein's house,
Patchogue, NY, waremmy@optonline.net .
Book: Eric Schlosser, “Fast Food Nation.”
Date: 14 November 2003, Place: To be determined, Book: Morma Khouri, “Honor Lost:
Love and Death in Modern-Day Jordan.”
Date: 12 December 2003, Place: To be determined. Book: Eric Alterman, "What
Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News."
A Thumbs Up Publication
Editor: Gerald Dantone
Art Design: John R. Wilmarth
Copyright
2003
[TOC]