Center for Inquiry - Long Island (formerly Long Island Secular Humanists) INQUIRER Volume 6, Issue 10, October, 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
Visit CFI-LI on the web: http://nyhumanist.org/lish.htmTABLE OF CONTENTS
Ten Commandment Myths
Letters to the Editor
A Faux News Scoop on a New Bush Administration Health Initiative!
Are you a bright?
The Unholy Alliance of the Bush Administration and the Vatican - A Jihad Against Gays and Christian Sharia Law
Making the Rounds with Norm
A Call to Freethinkers
QUICKIES!
Debater's ToolboxCFI-LI MEETING INFO
JOE NICKELL, Paranormal Investigator Extraordinaire!
Coming 7:15PM, Thursday, October 9 at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview; JOE NICKELL! Topic: “Adventures of a Paranormal Investigator.” Please note the date and make plans to see CSICOP's and skepticism's legendary investigator extraordinaire! DO NOT MISS THIS EXCITING FREE FORUM!
Mr. Nickell has a B.A. University of Kentucky, 1967, an M.A. University of Kentucky, 1982 and a Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky, 1987. He holds the following titles: Senior Research Fellow, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP); Associate Dean, Center for Inquiry Institute. Mr. Nickell contributes to the following publications: Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptical Briefs. He is the author of 16 books, including Inquest of the Shroud of Turin, Secrets of the Supernatural, Looking for a Miracle, Entities, Psychic Sleuths, and The UFO Invasion. Other relevant misc. info: Joe Nickell has worked professionally as a stage magician, private investigator, journalist, and university instructor.
CFI Briefings @ Rockefeller Plaza
Fridays, weekly, 3 to 4PM, Center for Inquiry-MetroNY, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, #2829, NYC, for friends of the Center, special briefings at CFI offices. Refreshments served. RSVP, 212 265 2877 or info@cfimetrony.org.
Atheist Meetup!
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 7PM, Atheist Meetup, location to be decided. For details go to http://atheists.meetup.com and enter your zip code.
Harlem Discussion Group
Sunday, Oct. 26, 12:30PM, Center for Inquiry MetroNY, Discussion Group, 163 W. 125th Street, Harlem, NYC. Call 212 265 2877 to confirm.
Rockefeller Plaza Discussion Group
Friday, Oct. 31, 7PM, Center for Inquiry MetroNY, Discussion Group, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, #2829. To confirm call 212 265 2877.
Mike Xirinachs of WCBS AM on Sunday Oct 5 at 10:30 will speak at the Ethical Culture Society of Suffolk, @ the Anne Mercedes Dance Studio in Smithtown, located @ the corner of Maple Ave and Rt. 111. Free! [TOC]
TEN COMMANDMENT MYTHS Gerry Dantone
Day after day, during the Judge Roy Moore controversy in Alabama, we heard media commentators, such as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, claim that this country's laws were "based" on the Ten Commandments or Christianity. Of course, their evidence is feeble and they ignore some very pertinent quotes from Madison and Jefferson, but let's go in another direction: The First Commandment is un-American and cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment in practice.
The First Commandment reads (as per the KJV Bible, not the Protestant edited version as per Judge Moore's statue): (Exodus 20:1 - 3) "And God spoke these words saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...". As a part of the 2nd Commandment, Exodus 20:5 adds: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (other gods), nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."
To make it even more clear what is meant by this, Deuteronomy largely repeats the Commandments and a bit later commands the following as an addition: Deut. 7:3 - 5: "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them (those peoples who do not follow the Hebrew God)... For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you and destroy thee suddenly. But thus you will deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire..."
THIS is the spirit of the First Commandment: Absolute intolerance towards those who believe otherwise. The bible commands that other religious practices be prevented. At times, there are calls for genocide in the bible.
The First Amendment reads: Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Also pertinent is the Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It cannot be more obvious that the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states and that an endorsement of the Protestant version by an elected judge is an establishment of religion. Whatever else one may argue it cannot be denied that the intent of the First Commandment is to promote INTOLERANCE. The intent of the First Amendment is to give rights to all, even minorities who may be threatened by tyrannical majorities: In other words, tolerance and rights for believers and non-believers of all stripes on the part of the government and its representatives. The First Commandment is simply un-American.
Thomas Jefferson quotes:
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808.
James Madison quotes:
I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, Madison 1865, III, page 265.
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. James Madison., Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others. -- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams, in Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom (1987)
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. -- James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788, from Michael Kammen, The Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re: Question of the month: How serious a matter was the “uranium reference” in the President's State of the Union address?
8/7/03 Those 16 words are important mostly as a focal point. In fact, we were sold a complete bill of goods by the president and his entire staff. There were no weapons of mass destruction. They knew that. We should have. Shame on those who fed us such a line of nonsense and shame on us for believing it. Keith Taylor, San Diego Association for Rational Inquiry via Internet.
Response: I suspect that what the President “knew,” he new only via religious faith. As for the neo-cons in the administration, they knew via faith in their political ideology. Evidence was an annoyance to all concerned. G.D.
8/7/03 It was very serious in that all of the major justifications for the war in Iraq, as given before the war began, were shown to be based on flawed intelligence at best and political gerrymandering at worst. In responding to questions about the validity of their war justifications, the administration's replies are essentially "trust us." That's not good enough when it comes to committing thousands of lives (hundred of US and British lives and uncounted numbers of Iraqi's) and many billions of dollars. Trust needs to be earned, and the administration has shown it has not earned it.
I agree that Saddam Hussein was a "bad guy" and that the Iraqi people would be better off without him (as long as the disposing force doesn't simply substitute their own dictatorship, as it seems we are currently doing). The UN should have addressed this matter by consensus among the rest of the world. Based on the lack of reliable evidence of clear and present danger, we had no justification for unilaterally invading a sovereign nation. Bob via Internet
Response: No doubt that without nukes, WMDs or any chance of Iraq posing a threat to the US, the administration's credibility is threatened. G.D.
Re: LI Press article
8/7/04 Read your Point of View piece in this 8/7/03 Long Island Press and could not agree more with your positions. I do think that there is an additional element at play as far as the Bushies are concerned. In addition to pressure from the religious right, there is corporate opposition to any institutionalization of gay union, since that will put additional downward pressure on corporate profits through benefits and other entitlement programs. Re the (Roman) Catholic Church, I think more and more thinking, well-meaning Christians are moving far away from church orthodoxies to deeply personal religious practices. The church's abetting of pedophile priests -- and we learn today that the policy was approved, even dictated, by Rome -- is hypocritical in the extreme. Opposition to abortion and birth control are clearly contradictory positions. As someone who has traveled widely, including numerous trips to third-world countries, watching this "beloved" pope tell citizens of countries where sexually transmitted diseases and overpopulation are rampant that use of condoms is sinful, I find… well sacrilegious. Congrats for speaking out on this issue so publicly. Tony Tedeschi via Internet.
Response: I have not considered pressure from corporations though I'd bet that such pressure would more likely STILL be more motivated by religious inclinations of the leaders of the corporation than profit. Motivation is a funny thing to figure. It should not matter what a god, religion or scripture says we should do - we should do what we believe is right to the best of our abilities to figure it out. That's humanism. There is little excuse nowadays for deeply personal religious practices that are not reasonable, compassionate and curious. Thanks for the note on the article. That's sorta my job! G.D.
8/11/03 I read yesterday that the blueprint for our "war on terrorism" was first penned by our current Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, in 1992, during the administration of the first Pres. Bush. While pre-emptive strikes were considered "war crimes", he advocated them. When the first Bush was defeated, the plan was laid aside until after the 9/11 attacks. Meantime, the original text was considered too frightening to many Americans, and was re-written in a more palatable form by Dick Cheney and released a year after Wolfowitz's plan. Since our current pres. has placed Wolfowitz in a strategic position, he must approve of the man's ideas. Cheney's document was entitled "Defense Strategy for the 1990's". I will try to get a copy through our local library. If what I read is true, and the Saudis were aware of it, maybe they felt justified in attacking us first.
Their obvious plan was to crash the fourth plane into either Congress or the White House. In that case, Bush is largely responsible.
My source on this? My brother occasionally sends me his ENDTIME MAGAZINE. This one is for May/June of this year. While I debunk most of the salient "endtime" claims, I found that detail very interesting. After all, if a person has the power, and knows of the biblical predictions of horrible war centered around the Middle East, he may well look forward to playing a pivotal part in the horror, thinking that God planned it that way. Neil Slater via Internet.
Response: It is indeed reported that Wolfowitz originally wrote the attack Iraq scenario in the early 1990s; in 1998 when the Iraqis gave the UN problems over inspections, PNAC (Project for the New American Century) restated this policy in advice letters to Clinton and Congress. GW Bush was NOT yet on board.
When Bush was elected he was more of an isolationist than anything else. Then 9-11 happened and the neo-cons, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney and others saw their opportunity to advance their ideology; they managed to convince Bush that attacking Iraq was central to winning the war on terror and peace in the Middle East even though Iraq was not involved in 9-11. To the neo-cons this was just good policy. To Bush, this was God's way of telling him what to do.
Bush is not a neo-con; neo-cons actually think about policy. Bush does not think about policy or much else - according to his own people! This is not a joke.
Bin Laden and the Saudis could care less about the neo-cons; they also hated Hussein and Iraq's safety was no factor in their thinking. Al Qaeda was seeking revenge for the presence of infidel US soldiers leftover from defending Kuwait, on Arab soil, nothing more. Their motives were purely sick fundamentalism in nature. If the American soldiers were Muslim, they would have had no problem. They were jealous of the fact that Kuwait asked the US, not Al Qaeda for help in fighting Iraq.
The Saudis involved in 9-11 were not motivated by the neo-cons plans for Iraq. The US as the symbol of modernity was the entire motive they needed. They have said these things themselves. G.D.
9/3/03 With few exceptions most people embrace their religions from their parents - consorting with people of like kind-usually living in areas with other families of similar experiences, etc., it is understandable how their choices were made.
Wouldn't it make sense to first allow children to grow-up, receive an education, study comparative religions, etc., and then be allowed to accept or not accept a religion? Of course this would not be acceptable to religions power brokers, e.g., popes, bishops, imams, elders, etc., because to do so would result in loss of adherents, and some loss of control of their subjects. They have long recognized the old adage, "give me a child till he's six and he'll be mine forever." We all recognize the persuasive power of brainwashing-especially when applied in the formative years. Most religious people, feel that their particular sect is the correct one-yet their conclusions were derived from very limited circumstances. Does this make any sense? Joe Brooks, Queens, via Internet.
Response: It makes sense that the religious power brokers are not about to give up brainwashing - it's their bread and butter. G.D.
Re: Can It Get Worse?
9/7/03 Your article was right on the money. Many Americans love George Bush for no other reason than that he is a Christian, Republican President. He reportedly told Palestinian leader Abbas that God told him to strike the Taliban, and strike Saddam, and he did so. He quotes Old Testament scripture, which is rife with claims that God inspired His people to exterminate this or that people, for crimes and insults, both great and small.
Most recently, Bush defied popular world opinion by going into Iraq and taking over the government. As his rationale, he first tried to use "regime change". When that didn't fly with the American people, he switched to the argument that Iraq had many "weapons of mass destruction" that they were about to unleash upon us.
Most of the world agrees that Iraq apparently was making no visible threat aimed at the United States. No WMDs have been found, nor any tie to terrorist organizations. Bush supporters usually go back to the argument that freeing Iraqis from Saddam justified sending American troops there. Prominent Conservatives are joining this side: They would argue that collecting taxes to help innocent Iraqis would be offensively "liberal", but sending American young people there to fight and perhaps die is honorable and "Conservative".
Because of the wide-spread perception that Bush et al hoodwinked us about Iraq's WMD's, they are likely to turn a blind eye toward any effort to follow Bush as he tries to take on a REAL danger: North Korea. That country had already made some nuclear weapons, but when Bush named them as part of the "evil empire", and attacked another country that was part of the "evil empire", North Korea went into high gear to produce even more nuclear weapons, to protect themselves against us. Neil Slater, Washington, via Internet.
Response: It's hard to believe the effort we're putting into Iraq, a country that was NO threat to the US, as compared to the effort on North Korea and bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which actually declared war and attacked the US. $87billion plus the cost of the war itself could have gone a long way in increasing “Homeland Security.” Instead, the Bush administration has actively promoted American ignorance to the point now where about 70% of the US public believes, without a shred of evidence, that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. This ignorance is the legacy of a faith-drunk society, just as is the belief in Muslim countries that Jews were behind 9-11. G.D.
A FAUX NEWS SCOOP ON A NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION HEALTH INITIATIVE! Don Ardell
What danger can ever come from ingenious reasoning and inquiry? The worst speculative skeptic ever I knew was a much better man than the best superstitious devotee and bigot." David Hume in a letter to Gilbert Elliot, March 10, 1751.
BACKGROUND: Nearly everyone realizes that the bloated $1.3 trillion sickness system exists in large part because people smoke, fail to exercise vigorously on a daily basis, make poor nutritional choices, abuse alcohol, overmedicate and alternate from boredom to stress in everyday life. This is the archetype or pattern characterizing the normal American! Millions more do not meet even this degree of mediocrity; instead, they take all or some of these qualities to extreme levels. As a result, society is overpopulated with the heavily medicated who are obese, diseased, depressed, dependent on the health/sickness care system, a bit mad, superstitious and humor-impaired. Few show much interest in seeking the meaning of life!
A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE HELPS ME BREAK THE STORY: I met secretly a few days ago with a top Bush health advisor who revealed (leaked, actually) a revolutionary, top-secret Administration plan to motivate normals and sub-normals. Ostensibly crafted to cure the ills of the health care/sickness system, the new plan will, if implemented, do much more.
I promised not to disclose the identity of my source. At this time, I will only acknowledge that he wore a trench coat when we met in the shadows of a parking garage. At some future date, when he has passed from the scene, I'll name my source. All I can volunteer at this time is that my Bush Administration insider, whom I'll call "Shallow Esophagus," is as highly placed as one could be - this is no mere underling. On a personal note, I'll add that he is a smoker and otherwise not someone you would associate with healthy lifestyles. But, he is, in my opinion, a patriot who knows the innermost secrets of White House strategies in general and about this plan in particular -- and wants a wellness promoter to leak the amazing story. (I'm unclear of his motivation - perhaps he wants to put the normals on notice that big changes are ahead from the unlikeliest of places.)
THE COMING BUSH PLAN: The key to the future Bush health reform plan, to be called the "Brightstyles Initiative," is to identify and reward Americans who adopt and sustain healthy, sensible and intelligent attitudes and lifestyle practices. This and this alone, the Bush people believe, will motivate our nation's normal majority to rethink their ignominious life choices and begin to live so as to avoid most illnesses.
The shrinkage of medical system costs, including Medicare and all other Federal health programs, will drop the Federal budget to a fraction of current levels. While Shallow Esophagus did not have definitive information on the matter, one can assume that the hundreds of billions saved can be used for all manner of needed domestic initiatives, as well as invasions of Iran, North Korea, France and any other country whose leaders get out of line.
BASIC DETAILS OF THE PROGRAM: What brightstyles will be rewarded by the new Bush Administration initiative? A composite set of characteristics or a "brightstyle profile" can be sketched at this time.
Look for the following qualities to be positively reinforced with all manner of tax and other wellness-based incentives. Brightstyle designations will go to citizens who:
* Demonstrate better sense than to engage in self-destructive practices (e.g., smoking, excessive alcohol consumption).
* Consistently make healthy choices (e.g., vigorous daily exercise, eat wisely and manage stress in constructive ways).
* Practice critical thinking.
THE REAL CHALLENGE, THE TRUE AGENDA: While the first couple reforms noted above may seem daunting, the most challenging part of the president's Brightstyle Initiative is, in my opinion, the promotion of rational, evidence-based decision-making. Why? Because there is so little of it in our culture, particularly in the ranks of the Administration itself!
Consider a few qualities of brightstyle thinking to be encouraged by the Initiative:
* A respect for democratic traditions, many of which date to the Enlightenment, such as an inquisitive world view, a reliance on humanity to save itself from folly and the rejection of superstitions and belief in being aided, abetted or even "saved" by ghosts, elves, the Easter Bunny or fictitious beings. Citizens with brightstyles reject black magic in all its forms.
* A strict separation of church and state. This separation has protected the best interests both of church AND state in America for well over 200 years. Brightstyle practitioners do not want an American version of an Iranian, Saudi or Israeli theocratic government - hey prefer instead a "secular society that tolerates all religions but promotes or favors none, gives absolute equality to all and bases law on ethical principles for a just and good society, not religious beliefs." (I'm quoting Shallow Esophagus.)
* Demonstrate a robust enthusiasm for all the safeguards and liberties associated with the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
* Share a naturalistic worldview marked by bemused skepticism, objectivism and rationalism.
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR THE BUSH PLAN: A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, quoted by Daniel C. Dennett in a New York Times piece on July 12, 2003 entitled "The Bright Stuff," suggests 27 million Americans are likely to qualify initially for full benefits under Bush's Brightstyles Initiative.
Richard Dawkins, a science professor at Oxford University and author of many books, including "A Devil's Chaplain," suggests 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of scientists in the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to the Fellows of the Royal Society) will qualify for full benefits as brightstylers under the Brightstyles Initiative. He goes even farther, hinting that "though at present they can't admit it and get elected, the US Congress is full of such people." He suggests America is basically "full of closet brightstylers and that the more come out, the easier it will be for others to do so." His suggestion that children should be "free to choose their own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit the religion of your parents" will be incorporated into the Brightstyles Initiative.
Dawkins added, "We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So, isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighborhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?"
Many will be quite surprised to learn of this wide-ranging health care system reform. Given the president's faith-based efforts, it seems a remarkable turnaround toward a more democratic, secular and free America.
Be well. Look on the bright side, and the "brightstyle" of life.
(For more on Don Ardell, go to http://www.seekwellness.com/wellness .) [TOC]Are you a Bright? Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell
Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. Check the wording in the definition and description (above). Important terms used are below: naturalistic: conceiving of reality as the natural world as it is known and experienced scientifically (no supernatural) worldview: the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a set of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group. If you decide that you fit the definition, then you can simply say so and join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society--the BRIGHTS' Movement. If successful, these early efforts of ours could have a far-reaching effect.
If you are in fact a Bright, please tell us, so we can count you. Tell others, so we can count them. We are forming a constituency of Brights for social and political action. The Brights include those who are members of existing atheist, agnostic, freethought, humanist, rationalist, secularist, or skeptic organizations and those who are nonreligious and are not associated with any formal group.
Can we Brights impact society's outlook by putting just one new word to popular use? That remains to be seen, but if you are intrigued by the idea, we invite you to explore this Web site and learn more about The BRIGHTs' Movement.
(For more information on how to be a “Bright,” go to http://the-brights.net ) [TOC]
THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE VATICAN - A JIHAD AGAINST GAYS AND CHRISTIAN SHARIA LAW Gerry Dantone
(Info from the NY Daily News) The Vatican is hoping to rally public opposition to gay marriages in a worldwide campaign spurred by its alarm over growing legal acceptance of same-sex unions in Europe and North America, warning Roman Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral'' and that moves to legalize same sex marriages or gay adoption are "legalizing evil" that "do violence to children" and urged non-Roman Catholics to join the offensive. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," is their justification. Instructions outline a course of action for politicians and other lay people to oppose moves to extend rights to gays. Catholic teaching says homosexuals should not be subjected to "unjust discrimination" but it also says gays should be chaste.
The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued the 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II. "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family,'' the document said.
At the same time in July 2003, Newsday reported that President Bush announced that "Marriage as a legal institution should be limited to "a man and a woman" and the Bush Administration is studying how best to enshrine that principle into law. Bush coupled his rejection with a plea for "tolerance," … but he said his belief "does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage… I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
It this the height of chutzpah? The Roman Catholic Church does not have the decency, as an organization, to protect children and teens from predatory priests, and it thinks it is doing something "moral" by opposing legalized marriage and adoption for gays. They ought to be ashamed, and seriously, anyone who supports this organization financially simply cares too little about ethics.
Also please note how Bush "justifies" his proposed actions: Same-sex marriage violates his "beliefs." Exactly why should anyone care what Pres. Bush "believes"? The real question should be is "would anyone be harmed if homosexuals were to be allowed to marry as heterosexuals are allowed?" The answer, obviously, is no. However it violates his "sacred" beliefs. Once again, Bush eschews evidence and the consequences of his actions in favor of - faith!
There is perhaps no single issue that more clearly shows the divide between religious morality and humanistic ethics than the issue of gay rights. The religious side feels no compulsion or obligation to provide any reasoned explanation for their position: The bible simply prohibits gay sex, and that is that. Even though there is strict church-state separation in this country, the religiously extreme seem often unable to govern themselves by judging whether the consequences of their actions are good or bad for humanity. They can only mindlessly obey or disobey supposed absolute moral law.
Humanistic ethics are derived from human concern and caring, however. If we care about the plight and lives of others as well as ourselves, and most of us do, we prefer that others do well and are happy. In return, they prefer that for us as well. If we do NOT care about what happens to others, then morals are not needed. Our anxiety over the existence of such a non-moral society is proof positive that we care deeply. Therefore we create an ethics based on humanity's well being: As far as human society is concerned, when humanity is served, it is good, when humanity is harmed, it is bad. It cannot be more obvious that allowing gay couple all the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples are accorded is a good thing. No one is forced into being a couple or forced from being a couple. Humanity prospers.
There are even implications for those who are more self-centered however. How obvious is it that if the government can outlaw gay marriages, it can outlaw other marriages if they do not conform to a religious orthodoxy, even if they are heterosexual? What would the government be unable to outlaw? Who would they be unable to imprison, all based on mindless religious orthodoxy? Does this remind you of Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia? It should.
Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church STILL believes that contraceptive devices should be illegal; it opposes liberalization of such laws where and when it can. Taken to its logical conclusion, if the government sees fit to outlaw gay unions, why not outlaw an even worse "sin”: Gay sex outside of marriage. After all, it was the Supreme Court's ruling declaring such sex constitutional that has inspired this backlash. Religious extremists will not shrink from amending the Constitution itself to impose their religious views on all of us.
President Bush is now playing to his religiously conservative constituency who actually approve of his avoidance of evidence, reason and concern for the consequences of his actions when making policy. It is time for all persons of reason and the gay community to defend the one thing that protects them from the Talibanization of American: Separation of Church and State.
By now, it should be clear: Gay Rights and Separation of Church and State are pretty much one and the same battle. In a national debate on gay rights where the discourse is secular, gays will probably receive their rights quickly. It is time that all reasonable Americans and the gay community more strongly defend the 1st Amendment. This has always been a "civil rights" battle: It's time to get back to basics.
(This was excerpted in the August 7, 2003, LI Press.) [TOC]
MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm Roscoe
Sunday July 27, Bellport Unitarian Universalist Fellowship: On this Sunday Rev. Lou Schwebius addressed the topic of Humor in Unitarian Universalism. Rev. Lou brought to mind why certain types of humor strike a chord in this movement. There are jokes about not going to heaven but "a discussion about going to heaven". Also how the KKK burn not crosses on UU lawns, but question marks. We find that this type of tradition draws humor from the questioning and seeking pursuits.
How do we Secular Humanists see the role of humor in our movement? I know we find humor in the foibles of fundamentalism and the tremendous discord between the reasonable and the devout believer.
Do we find humor in ourselves? We maybe have some of the same features of the questioning UU's. It is hoped that we can laugh at ourselves as we find humor in the dichotomy between the professed values of others and their practices.
August 3, 2003, Bellport UU Fellowship: A Musical Extravaganza: On this day folks from various Unitarian Universalist, Ethical Culture, Humanist, Christian, Jewish as well as many folks from the Long island theater and entertainment community came together to hear some of the favorite songs and music from Broadway in the twentieth Century.
This was just a day of fun featuring some of the best entertainment in our area. Folks came from Creative Ministries, Airport Playhouse, Huntington Village, James Street and PlayCrafters. Many choruses were also represented as well as some of the best pianists on Long Island. These folks included Joy Dei, Irv Beiser and Maurice Kemp, who has performed with some major orchestras.
We spend a great deal of time dealing with ethics, knowledge, logic, religion and science; but a little dose of esthetics is always welcome. Humanists are considered too serious by some others however these two events show our lighter side quite effectively.
Sunday Aug 10, 2000 Bellport UU Fellowship: On this morning at 10:00 AM Rev Harry Green an administrative leader from the Metropolitan Area of Unitarian Universalist Societies spoke about our new "Rootlessness." We live in a society which is so mobile we find it difficulty to talk about our hometown roots. In a parallel with "Our Town" Rev. Green tried to show the absence of a parallel for us as compared to the folks of "Our Town." He failed to find the same local roots as were in earlier times. Our mobile society makes it difficult to have roots. How do we find substitute roots? Well through our religious affiliations and associations. We create new roots in our UU and Humanist communities.
It seems to me that this is what some of us have done. With Coalition members we find a range of communities. I did find that for some of us older folks, I was able to relate my old home town to the "Our Town" as we have class reunions and occasional visits with high school class mates. However, as we grow older we change and we find that our newer friends display greater compatibility to our current values and philosophies while our old friends developed differently from us in values etc.
It seems to me that our new groups provide this valuable community to folks like me.
Aug 10, afternoon, CFI-LI Picnic, Centerport Beach: What a picnic. We had a nice turnout with great food both for the stomach and for thought. It was nice that Austin Dacey plus at least one other person from CFI came to join us. Austin spoke to us briefly and provided a very encouraging message.
We seem to have retained enough autonomy with support, a fine mixture. I also noticed a smattering of coalition folks from Humanistic Judaism, Ethical Culture, Unitarian Univsersalists and other Humanists. This was a fine job done by all those who worked to make this successful.
Tuesday, Aug 12 Noon, Ethical Humanist Society of Long island: This is a leader lunch that Anne Klaesen has on alternate Tuesdays and Wednesdays. On this day we contrasted an Evangelical video and its approach to the Middle East with Humanist Manifesto III.
We noted the Fundamentalist epistemology of divine revelation through scripture and contrasted to the rational empirical of Humanism. It was evident that we would be critical of the divine revelation approach of the Fundamentalist and what was supposed to happen in the Middle East with the Jews being instruments for the ultimate Christian result to take place as defined by prophecy. We expressed concern for current implications with these beliefs and how this could impact on policy for those decision makers who are believers of this prophecy. We feared that the use of the rational empirical method would be ineffective in our attempts to dialogue with divine believers.
We however, did find among us folks who expressed the concern that maybe Humanist may also be "Dogmatic" about our methods. Do we claim that our way is the "Only" way to find knowledge? Do we claim in the manifestos to know the "finality "of death? Do we take into account the proper role of intuition? These thoughts received considerable discussion with the important realization that the empirical rational approach is TENTATIVE. It is always self correcting; that is one reason why we have had three official Manifestos; they evolve and hopefully self correct.
This third Manifesto did make efforts to allow for variations of ideas and thought which can be tested. It also made the important qualification that it is not only human but a wider ecological value that we pursue.
Do we realize that like democracy, our Humanist ways may not be perfect but it seems to be the best for now?
Monday, Aug. 18, @ a Humanist group in Connecticut near New Haven: This is an active group with dual affiliation with AHA and Council. Their last president is also the new president of HUUmanist and this is a promising turn of events. This individual, David Shafer, is a individual with a more secular leaning and should be a boost within the UUA Humanist picture. We had a nice meeting discussion on the Humanist scene and our places in it. I was asked to speak about the Long Island picture and also meetings that we attended and hosted. It was a very positive meeting and we hope to have David Shafer on Long Island in the reasonably near future.
Ethical Humanist Society Leader Lunch, Aug 20, Noon: Here we just continued the Manifesto III discussion. We wondered about the use of the World "manifesto." Recognizing the time of the first manifesto in the thirties prior to the "Red Scare." we find that forms of Socialism were quite popular during this time and it may not be surprising that such a term would be selected.
Some folks still wondered if this document was too dogmatic in the Humanist ways. I pointed out that this is after All a Humanist document and should therefore reflect Humanist views. I would not expect the Pope to give Humanist values equal status in his statements. We also realized the open ended nature and the ever evolving nature of Humanist Manifestos "Three plus Manifesto 2000". Just like science itself this Humanist position is self correcting and continuously updated.
How many adjustments have we seen in the Ten Commandments over the centuries?
I wish to add that even though there was disagreement, I nevertheless, was at ease as those who disagreed with me were respectful and listened to my position; I hope I was as courteous with them.
Sunday Aug 24, Bay Shore UU Fellowship: Today we discussed Existentialism and compared this with Humanism as we know it.
Another Coalition member Arthur Edwin made this presentation. We can see the main emphasis of "We are responsible" for our actions and consequences and how we attempt to solve earthly problems.
The main departure from the Humanism I know is the difference in the mood of existentialism as contrasted with the “Happy” Humanist; we see opportunity where as Existentialists see dread and Nausea etc.
This was a stimulating discussion and we recognize moods are a product of our experiences.
“The Mountain" in Highlands, North Carolina, Labor Day Weekend (Aug 29 -Sept l. 2003), a Unitarian Universalist conference: It was fascinating as I helped organize programs for the weekend involving folks scattered around the continent. These folks felt isolated from like minded folks (often surrounded by areas of conservatism and reactionaries, both theological and political). As the openly proclaimed atheist I found myself surrounded with mostly agnostics with various views of Pantheistic, neo Pagan, liberal Christians, and assorted folks who claimed Humanism of various sorts. These folks pretty much did not accept any supernatural (transnatural) being in any personal sense. The major focus was a desire for aesthetic symbolic ritual. The desired language was what some of us refer to reverence. As I worked with these folks I used such terms as honored, appreciated, grateful; words which were secular forms of reverential language. Many tried to relate to me that they had the same idea; just the wish for the more "spiritual" terms.
I developed the theme of coming together, appreciated the created community, and departing with renewed vigor to go back to the hinterlands of conservatism developing coalitions with others. Because of the internet etc., we can be connected with those with the more liberal perspectives.
Language continues to be a struggle; we find similar referents with different symbols. I do appreciate the aesthetics of coming together. We engaged in music, poetry, story telling, drama, and of course the usual talk. (Some folks used sermons, homilies, etc).
I myself helped to lead two services with readings reflecting my Humanist values along with song and drama. This was well received and folks continue to insist that they, even as Neo pagans, Liberal Christians, and other assorted views, held these same views a la common moral decencies.
I have previously raised the idea of aesthetics in our activities; do we comfortably consider these artistic expressions to be a part of our Humanist environment. I wonder what folks think about this area. I would love to hear from folks about this issue.
My weekend was one of being treated with great respect and friendship; some of these UU's are quite friendly. I do hope that our humanist groups can show great friendliness also. I feel that often we do.
Guest Movie Review
The Magdalen Sisters
By Jack Mathews (@ NY Daily News, L.P., reprinted with permission.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/moviereviews/story/105635p-95361c.html [TOC]
A CALL TO FREETHINKERS David Zilkha
When Dr. Newdow's case was being talked about, that was my wake up call. It was not that all of a sudden I became a free thinker. The seeds of free thought had been building in me for many years before that. However, I never fully confronted and accepted them. Seeing Dr. Newdow on the news, and hearing about an organization he was part of compelled me to do a little more research. What I found was that despite the fact that I did learn a lot, more than anything; I reaffirmed what I had already known. It made me see that there were many other people with beliefs virtually identical to mine in almost every way. The reason I bring this up now, is that I feel the issue in Alabama of the Ten Commandments may be a similar opportunity for many "in the closet free thinkers", and an even greater opportunity for the ideals many of us have.
Since its beginnings, Christianity, as well as Islam and many other religions have a strong agenda to convert people. I believe that if we don't want to see this country and in a larger sense this world move back in time progressively due to religion, we must try to combat this. The reason I brought up the Ten Commandments issue is that now, the issue is on many people's minds, and many people are talking about it. But convincing people that their religions are wrong can be difficult. We have a lot to compete against, such as heaven, and 72 virgins. The only thing we have to offer them is logic and the truth (with a small “t”). And as many of you know, many of them don't want to hear it. However, many of these people are very naïve, and in a way were sucked into their religion. If we can't get them to see the truth, as supported by the best evidence and reason and not by faith and revelation, then if we can at least plant the seeds of doubt in them, we would have accomplished a lot.
So why do I bring this up now? Well, we have an election coming up that I know many of us believe means so much more than an ordinary election. We have a president that operates on the views of the evangelical movement, and has already been very scary and damaging to the country in the eyes of many of us who see things in a more logical scientific, realistic way. I know that almost all of us at CFI-LI/LISH and other similar organizations find the thought of another four years of this unbearable. This is why I believe we need to take action. Not necessarily politically, but I believe that by planting the seeds of free thought, we can spread the truth. And more importantly, as I am sure many of you believe, free thought and progress go hand in hand. When you don't have an afterlife to look forward to, you want to enjoy the life you have as much as possible.
So, anyway, how can we most effectively accomplish this goal? I believe that one of our best tools is the internet and chat rooms more specifically. It all started in a chat room on atheism, where a born again came into, trying to save us, and we tried talking to him. Then I figured, instead of a bunch of atheists talking to one religious person, why not go into a Christian chat room, and talk to thirty of them at once. I have been doing this over the last few weeks with mixed results, which is fine, I am not trying to pull everyone away from religion; just plant the seeds of free thought. I think with more help form anyone who has time; a real difference can be made. Many of these people have never had any perspective but the ones which were pounded into their heads.
So, in conclusion, I hope many of you will try this, and let's see what happens. For the time being, I have concentrated on the born agains, fundamentalists, and evangelicals. I figure the Catholic Church has been beaten on enough lately for now, and I consider the other groups more of a danger than the Catholic Church for now. As a last piece of advice for now, don't go into a chat room as an atheist attacking anyone, instead, go in as an agnostic seeking the truth. They will be more than willing to help you find god, and then you can just tell them your obstacles to believing it. I have found that this approach works best. Good luck, and have some fun with it. [TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: (Reuters & AP) Malaysia's religious adviser said that men can divorce their wives through text messages on cell phones if the notes are clear and unambiguous. Islamic law permits a man to divorce his wife by declaring “I divorce you” three times. Eventually the Malaysian government overturned the ruling because of pressure by women's groups. The procedure for women is far more difficult than for men.
Comment: Who said that Islamic fundamentalists were “anti-modern.” If this were legal here, it could have saved a fellow such as Larry King a lot of money. Of course, it would do women no good, but apparently, they don't seem to count as much in Islamic law. Good thing that there is a semblance of secular law in that country.
Item: (Associated Press) Greeneville, TN: A federal judge reinstated an atheist's religious discrimination lawsuit against Associates Commerce Solutions and CitiGroup. Carletta Sims, the Tennessee director of American Atheists Inc., filed a $250,000 lawsuit in U.S. District Court in December 2001 claiming she was fired because she is an atheist.
Sims began working at the former ACS facility in Gray on June 21, 2000. Since then, ACS sold the property to CitiGroup.
The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in which Sims claimed two female co-workers became openly hostile toward her after she showed them a business card that identified her as an official with American Atheists during a work break.
The two women, both Baptists, complained to management and were granted a request to move away from Sims. Two days later, Sims found a picture of Jesus on her computer.
When Sims complained, supervisor Russell Rogers dismissed her on grounds that she was a disturbance, the lawsuit said.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull dismissed the lawsuit in May, saying Sims' discharge was not based on her atheistic beliefs.
He reversed himself Monday after Sims' attorney, Charlton DeVault, argued that ACS gave preferential treatment to the two co-workers by allowing them to change workstations and that the company's human resource department failed to conduct an objective investigation.
"Religious discrimination (or preferential treatment of Christians) can be inferred and the trier of fact should be allowed to draw that inference," Hull wrote in his order. "The court has reconsidered the facts and does believe that an inference of discriminatory intent could be drawn from the facts now before it." Hull set a trial date for Sept. 30.
Comment: This story explains why most atheists are “in the closet.”
Item: (AP) A man accused of killing his two kids told cops he shot them in New Hampshire and buried them in the Midwest with a duct-tape cross on each child's chest.
Comment: Imagine for a moment if a satanic symbol or any other non-mainstream religious symbol were found: What uproar there would be! The blame would undoubtedly be placed on the related belief system. Instead, reassured that they would be going to heaven, the father killed the children thus making the sick act easier to perpetrate.
Item: (AP) Carlton Dotson, accused killer of college basketball player Patrick Dennehy, said in a jailhouse interview with The Dallas Morning News that the slaying was in self-defense and said he had been hearing voices. Dotson has said that his life has been threatened and that he has been hearing voices that say, ''We are many. We are strong. We are behind you. We support you. We are ready for war ... a spiritual war.''
Comment: I'm so glad that Mr. Dotson has his spirituality to rely on for support. Could it be that there is only a thin line between spirituality and mental illness?
Item: (Newsday) In a rambling farewell speech, Pres. Charles Taylor of Liberia said in August 2003, “I am being forced into exile by the world's superpower. I see myself as in the case of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ… I hold myself in the same position.”
Comment: Isn't it comforting to know that this accused murderer and thief can look forward to eternal bliss in the next life? Isn't it a miracle of faith? Will George W. Bush burn in hell for this? It gets so confusing at times!
Item: (Various newspapers) EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley released a report saying the Bush White House “convinced the EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones” in its early new releases regarding the safety of air quality in lower Manhattan following 9/11/01 when they could not have known whether air quality was safe or not. The info withheld included guidance on indoor cleaning as well as potential health dangers posed by asbestos, lead, concrete and pulverized glass, the report found.
On Sept. 13, 2001, the EPA issued the following statement: “Monitoring and sampling conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday (9-11 & 9-12) have been very reassuring about potential exposure of rescue crews and the public to environmental contaminants… the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling.”
The EPA database shows that almost no air samples were available when the EPA made this pronouncement, and were limited in scope. About 25% of samples available on 9-12-01 showed levels above the regulatory standard for asbestos.
Testing for pulverized concrete dust and glass was not begun until 9-21-01 with the first results coming in October. Subsequent tests in 2002 on lab mice showed that the mice suffered from Reactive Airways Disease Syndrome or RADS if exposed to the dust found in lower Manhattan. The test was necessary since this concoction had never been tested on anything ever before. The estimated amount sufficient to cause the disease in humans was probably exceeded in the air following 9-11 according to scientists. EPA head Christie Whitman declared on 9-18-01 that the air was “safe to breathe.” It was not, or at the least, it could not have been known to be safe.
Comment: Hell, New Yorkers weren't voting for Bush anyway, so what's the difference if there are a few less of them for the next election? New Yorkers just don't appreciate “moral clarity.”
Item: Najaf, Iraq (Aug. 29) A car bomb attack killed a top Shi'ite Muslim leader and up to a score of other people on Friday in an apparent assassination that dealt a further blow to the increasingly embattled U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Supporters of the slain Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), blamed loyalists of Saddam Hussein for the carnage outside the main mosque in the holy city of Najaf.
SCIRI has been criticized by some Iraqi groups for cooperating with the U.S. military occupation and Hakim had been viewed by Washington as a stabilizing influence in postwar Iraq.
Comment: Although it cannot be proven at the current time which group specifically was responsible, blaming Baathists for all the sabotage and carnage is getting more and more difficult to justify. Rival religious groups and Al Qaeda forces rushing into the power vacuum are becoming more possible as explanations. Bottom line: A leader of a group that was NOT killing and actively opposing Americans is now dead. What a mess.
Item: U.S. Rep. and former governor of South Dakota, Bill Janklow was charged Friday with second-degree manslaughter in the death of a motorcyclist, killed when the congressman allegedly ran a stop sign at more than 70 mph.
If convicted of the felony charge, Janklow could face up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The House of Representatives ethics committee will also investigate.
Janklow, a conservative Republican, served 16 years as governor and four years as state attorney general before he was elected to the state's only U.S. House seat last year.
A self-proclaimed speeder, Janklow got 12 speeding tickets in 11 South Dakota counties from 1990 to 1994 and paid more than $1,000 in fines. He often drove 15 mph to 20 mph faster than legal speed limits and once got caught going 90 mph in a 65-mph zone.
Speaking in favor of mandatory drug sentencing in his 1999 State of the State address, he offered this analogy: “Bill Janklow speeds when he drives - shouldn't but he does. When he gets the ticket, he pays for it, but if someone told me I was going to jail for two days for speeding, my driving habits would change."
Comment: Mr. Janklow is one of those holier than thous who supports coercing impressionable children with the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance (with the “under God” phrase in it) under the guise of morality and patriotism. The fact is he cares so little about others he is unable to obey speed limits despite numerous warnings and the obvious risks. His behavior was almost pathological yet he did not hesitate to moralize to the rest if us. How does his mind work? Sadly, the answer is “pretty typically.”
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. [TOC]
DEBATER'S TOOLBOX Robert M. Goldberg
I was one of over a hundred folks from around the country and world who attended the Debater's Toolbox, an extended weekend (July 31st to August 3rd) program at the Center for Inquiry headquarters in Amherst, New York. The idea behind the meeting was to prepare freethinkers to engage in debate, informally as well as formally, with theists who argue for the existence of God, the truth of revelation, or the veracity and value of other supernatural explanations.
The program included: lectures on the philosophy and technique of debate; mock debates for practice and their criticism, and a serious, no holds barred debate between two lawyers - one a secular humanist, the other a member of a local fundamentalist Christian Church. Audio tapes of the Toolbox program, as well as a video of the closing debate will be available for purchase from CFI. The text of some of the speakers' talks will be posted on the web site: www.councilonsecularhumanism.org.
Day one comprised a number of lectures by a panel of seasoned philosophy professors, several of whom have engaged in debate with formidable theists. These covered some of the major arguments for the existence of God and ways to challenge them. The panel stressed intellectual integrity in debate. One philosopher, Evan Fales, questioned the value of debate as a tool for seeking truth. Others suggested that arguments should be aimed at targets in the audience, rather than the opponent.
The mid-afternoon was given over to a panel of debaters, each of whom offered advice on debate technique and practical advice. Some of the suggestions were to: have a good opening; make appeal to hostile authority; pre-empt common objections; track arguments; and, know your opponent. The advice was not necessarily consistent, different debaters have different style. Dinner offered time for informal discussion.
On the morning of day two, there were mock debates, with participants taking positions that were not necessarily their own. At lunch CFI staff member Bill Cooke gave a critique of the debate form and urged “Defending the Trinity” -- clarity, brevity, and honesty. A plus at lunch was a performance by actress/comedienne Julia Sweeney. She did a serious/humorous monologue relating her conversion from being a devout Catholic to a questioning freethinker. Her intelligence and basic wholesomeness came through.
In the afternoon, several concurrent sessions were held: “Paul Draper's Arguments for Metaphysical Naturalism”; “Debating the Resurrection”; “This is a free country, Not a Christian Nation”; and “Spirituality is for the Self-deluded.” These were held in smaller groups and allowed for discussion as they were presented.
After dinner, the Center for Inquiry hosted a debate on “The Existence of God” with a mixed audience of invited theists and freethinkers. Lawyers Eddie Tabash and Michael Vander Meer produced a stimulating event, in a civil atmosphere, but it became clear immediately, that the debaters were on different wavelengths. Tabash offered arguments that rested on science and questioned supernatural explanation. Vander Meer leaned on the authority of the Bible and didn't hesitate to infer that providential interventions occur frequently. While many in the audience did not change their position, some were challenged by new ideas, clearly stated and supported with evidence; perhaps seeds were planted for future growth. [TOC]
Errata: In the article, “Good God, ID Just Won't Go Away!!” (Aug. 2003 issue) the year for the TIMES review should be 2002.
From the Public Access Movement of LI:
Proposed New Rules Will Cut Access Time
By Bob Goldberg
Unless public opposition can change their minds, the NYS Public Service Commission (PSC) will soon end the state's long-standing requirement that cable franchises must provide two access channels in each franchise area (one for public access, the other for educational and governmental access.)
The new rule - concocted in secret - with little notice to the public - would state that franchise agreements can limit public, educational and governmental access to a combined single channel.
Public access programs would have to be shared with programs of government agencies, schools and colleges. The new rules might also allow shifting “extra” access channels out of the basic service tier, moving them to a higher-priced premium service.
To let your voice be heard: Write to: William M. Flynn, Chairman, Public Service Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223; toll free opinion line, 800-335-2120.
(Ed's note: CFI-LI sponsors 3 public access shows at this time.)Become a Friend of CFI-LI
Join CFI in challenging unreason and promoting the scientific outlook. Become a Friend of the Center today. Levels are available to suit every family and budget:
$20 Student/low-income
$45 Individual
$65 Household
$100 Contributing
$250 Supporting
$500 Sustaining
$1,500 Lifetime
Friends of CFI-LI gain use of the CFI-LI 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 for the CFI-LI advisory board; mailed newsletters; invitations and discounts to local non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well!
All Friends of the Center receive:
A colorful CFI vinyl decal
A handsome enamel CFI lapel pin (at contributing level or higher)
10% off CSICOP and Council for Secular Humanism events
15% off Prometheus book titles
Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to CFI-Long Island, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with CFI, CSICOP, Council for Secular Humanism, American Atheists or the American Humanist Association, with a reciprocating reprinting agreement with CFI-LI, so long as the article is used in full and with complete crediting. Edited versions can be used with written permission.
The Center for Inquiry is a transnational nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization that encourages evidence-based inquiry into science, pseudoscience, medicine and health, religion, ethics, secularism and society.
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 @ 7PM on Channel 20 on the Woodbury, and Brookhaven systems and at 7PM, Thursdays on the Hauppauge system.
CFI-LI ON CABLE!
What is Secular Humanism?”
This is a CFI-LI one-hour self-produced show and will be shown on the Woodbury Cablevision system, @ 6:30PM Mondays and on the Hauppauge & Brookhaven Cablevision systems, Tuesdays @ 7:00 PM, on Channel 20.
Atheist Viewpoint
Featuring Ellen Johnson and Ron Barrier, it will be seen Thursdays @ 7PM on the Woodbury system and Mondays on the Hauppauge and Brookhaven systems @ 7PM, on Channel 20.
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested email us @ LISecHum@aol.com. All meetings are at 8 PM unless otherwise noted.
Date: 10 October 2003, Place: Patchogue, NY, waremmy@optonline.net. Book: Eric Schlosser, “Fast Food Nation.”
Date: 14 November 2003, Place: Massapequa, NY, skeptic1@optonline.net, Book: Morma Khouri, “Honor Lost: Love and Death in Modern-Day Jordan.”
Date: 12 December 2003, Place: Amityville, NY, OMIcharlotte@aol.com. Book: Eric Alterman, "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News."
Date: 9 January 2004, Place: Oakdale, NY 11769, normRhum@aol.com. Book: Kurt Vonnegut, "Player Piano".
Date: 13 February 2004, Place: To be determined, Book: Richard Ellis, "The Empty Ocean: plundering the world's marine life."
Date: 12 March 2004, Place: To be determined. Book: Jon Entine, "Taboo: why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to talk about it."
Date: 9 April 2004, Place: To be determined. Book: Michael Moore, "Stupid white men: -- and other sorry excuses for the state of the nation!"
Date: 14 May 2004, Place: To be determined. Book: Patricia Daniels Cornwell, "Portrait of a killer: Jack the Ripper case closed".
Date: 11 June 2004, Place: To be determined. Book: Jared Diamond, "Guns, germs, and steel : the fates of human societies". [TOC]
Editor: Gerald Dantone
Design: John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright CFI-LI 2003
[TOC]