Center for Inquiry-Long Island INQUIRER
Volume 6, Issue 12, December, 2003
Email GDantone@CFIMetroNY.org or LISecHum@aol.com
www.CFIMetroNY.orgTABLE OF CONTENTS
The Meaning of Mepham
Letters to the Editor
Edward Teller - Dr. Strangelove
QUICKIES!
The End of Christianity
A Winter Message
THE
MEANING OF MEPHAM
Gerry Dantone
Every once and a while a situation or
event occurs that absolutely forces the general public to ponder its meaning and
implications. Considering the ability of most persons to think critically, the
conventional wisdom that results generally isn't all that wise. So it goes with the
attacks on football team members of Mepham H. S., of Bellmore, Long Island, NY.
The facts are unusually clear: During a sleep-away football camp in Pennsylvania, certain
students on the Mepham High School team attacked three other students, under the guise of
“hazing,” abusing and sodomizing them to the point where one child had to be
hospitalized eventually. Many fellow team members witnessed the attack and none came
to the victim's aid or sought assistance from the adult coaches at the time. Upon
return to their homes in Long Island, few came forward with details, and eventually some
of those who did come forward were threatened. It took a week of school at least
before the accused students were suspended. Victims or those who were cooperating
were made to feel like “rats” by others. The football team's season was
cancelled, and some students protested the cancellation.
To top it all off, the Westboro Baptist Church, a.k.a. “God Hates Fags,” a
Topeka, Kansas organization, decided that the existence of Mepham's Gay-Straight Alliance
was the “cause” of the attacks and picketed at the school in late October.
Eight of their demonstrators (including 4 children) were met by hundreds of
counter-demonstrators, organized by David Kilmnick and his organization, LIGALY, and the
local PTA.
Three students have been charged in Pennsylvania with the attacks as juveniles, and
victims claim others may have assisted.
What does it all mean? To put last things first, the appearance of the Westboro
Baptists was certainly not expected but is illuminating.
And this brings us to a particular point: What is the difference between the general
public who counter-demonstrated, and the Westboro Baptist church?
The general public is also (mostly) Christian (about 75% to 80%), and believes the
following, strongly or somewhat strongly, according to Barna Research (www.barna.org):
The bible is totally accurate in all its teachings: 60% agree
If a person is generally good, they will earn a place in heaven: 42% disagree
It doesn't matter what faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons: 53%
disagree
The universe was originally created by God: 87% agree
The bible does not specifically condemn homosexuality: 53% disagree
Both the general public and the Westboro Baptists would have much agreement on most of
these items (excepting going to heaven where predictably almost everyone believes that
they ARE going to heaven); it's just that the Westboro group has no reservations about its
beliefs and is instead fully committed to their religion, the bible and all its
implications. They think, “Why compromise the Word of God.” Ask
yourself, why?
Yes, many of those who counter-protested the Westboro Baptists agree with Westboro on
basic religious concepts. Where the Westboro Baptists posters said “God Hates
Fags,” the counter-protestors posters often said “God Loves Everyone,” or
“God Doesn't Hate.”
Though the conclusions are opposites, the ideas and methodology of thinking are familiar
and similar: Both sides' claim that their conclusions are based on the same scripture and
then declare that this conclusion is what people ought to believe, and from that, ought to
determine how one should act.
Unfortunately for those who would like to promote Gay Rights, or tolerance, the bible
simply is not friendly to homosexuals.
It is clear that many, if not most Americans oppose giving full rights to gays, and of
course, their rationale consists of biblical injunctions. Leviticus 20:13, in
particular, is troubling: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both
of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood
[shall be] upon them.
Exactly why do Christians embrace the bible as being “accurate,” and agree that
homosexuality is immoral, and then condemn those also accept the biblical
“solution” to that sin?
If a person is a Christian, they are Christian because they are convinced on the basis of
the accounts in the Old Testament and New Testament: There are no other sources for the
ideas of this religion, except for those who have come later that have merely
re-interpreted what scripture says.
What, then, is not clear about Lev. 20:13? Or other bible verse that calls for other
atrocities and injustices? Why call the bible “accurate” and reject a key
teaching and key demand?
Answer: Denial.
It was sobering to hear counter-protestors, though extremely well-behaved and friendly,
declaring that “God Loves Everyone,” and quoting favorable bible verse. It
is an admission on their part that if the bible DID declare that gays were immoral, and
DID declare that gays were to be executed, that the bible should be paid some mind.
It is an admission that the bible has some kind of moral authority.
It shouldn't have any moral authority.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the “patriarchs” of the Old
Testament stories such as Moses, Noah and Abraham. The veracity of the account of
Jesus' death and resurrection is doubtful to say the least. It was NOT generally
agreed upon that Jesus was “God,” until the Council of Nicaea, centuries after
his death. There is overwhelming evidence that the bible is the work of mere humans.
Morality is the job of all of us. We cannot escape responsibility by obedience to a
primitive moral code. Aren't we obligated to determine whether that moral code is
moral itself? Obedience is not morality - we must make a moral decision in order to
decide whether to obey before we accept that moral code! On what basis is that
decision made?
Morality can be made understandable to most persons: Doing well to others. Why do
well? Because as humans, we care about others - it's in our genes and in our
societal culture. If we did not care about others, this whole discussion would not
be necessary. No one would care, obviously.
And that brings us to the other point: How did children decide that they could attack,
sodomize and injure other children.
Although all unethical behavior cannot be eliminated by any form of applied ethical
system, it is clear that we do not teach our children ethics properly. Instead they
are taught mythology and superstition in its place. Belief and faith are the keys to
heaven, most are taught, not good deeds - that is why almost everyone thinks they are
going to heaven - they have the right faith! Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and
the Lutheran Church agree that we are justified by “grace alone” and that we
reach out for this grace through “faith. We cannot earn God's favor with our
actions.”
( http://www.elcic.ca/lwf/200209-002.pdf
)
We should be teaching our children to humanistically care about others, to feel for
others, to put themselves in the shoes of others. They need to be taught how to help
others. They need to be taught to appreciate nurturing.
They are, instead taught, that this is a country “under God,” that “God
created the Universe,” that they must be “saved,” and that everyone must
have “faith.” What any of this has to do with loving each other, I do not
know. This is the ultimate meaning of Mepham, and it is a lesson completely lost on
most of us. [TOC]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
More on the “Brights”:
10/19/03 I have always espoused the "Marxist" view that I would not want to
belong to any group that would have me as a member. While the Brights reflect ideals
I share, I find the concept of labeling Naturalists/Humanists "Brights"
antithetical to any effort to steer the world from the arrogance associated with Faith.
Creating another movement that substantiates its moral authority under an assertion
of correctness, righteousness, or sheer intelligence is profoundly arrogant - precisely
what I feel is most offensive about nearly all religions. Peter Smyth, Vermont via
Internet.
Response:
Nowhere is it said, I think, that “Brights” are smarter than non-Brights.
You may argue that the implication is being made, but that is the very stuff of good(?)
marketing. The whole idea is to counter the very negative association that we now
suffer through. Or we could do nothing and continue to be despised. G.D.
10/4/03 I love the idea of a name to cover all of those who have a naturalistic world
view. So, I joined "The Brights." However, I bet there would be a
lot more of us if we could rid ourselves of that awful name. It can't help our cause
by adopting a name that is an object of ridicule. As if we don't have problems
enough. David Gluck, Skeptic Friends Network, via Internet.
Response:
There seems to be many in the good idea, bad execution camp! G.D.
10/6/03 Perhaps like many of your readers, I first learned of the Brights movement from a
NY Times op-ed piece of July 12, 2003, "The Bright Stuff," by Daniel C. Dennett.
I felt compelled to send a letter to the editor of The NY Times. It was not
published and since I have not changed my mind, I enclose it here as a response to your
question of the month:
“I'm an atheist, but I think I don't wish to be called a "Bright" or align
myself with some of the bold statements in Professor Dennett's otherwise welcomed treatise
about areligious people.
I offer these few objections: We don't need "image-buffing," as Professor
Dennett suggested was in the minds of the two atheists in Sacramento, when they came up
with the Bright moniker; atheists are not necessarily the moral backbone of the nation;
and, while there are probably more atheists about than is generally thought, I doubt
seriously if they are a majority, silent or otherwise.
It demeans the fervor and sincerity with which I maintain my philosophic posture to
suddenly find that I may be though of as a Bright. Adjective, noun, or meme, it
sends the wrong message!” Respectfully, R.L. Stivelman via Internet.
Response:
Does anyone care about our non-believing children who will grow into a society that looks
down upon them? Although many of us as adults can handle the animus that believers
have towards non-believers, and accept the fact that we cannot get elected to public
office, I suggest that we should consider any number of strategies to improve the
situation we now find ourselves in for the sake of those who come after us. There is not
that much to lose when we have zero elected officials to represent us. G.D.
10/6/03 I get the idea, but the name is silly. I'm not calling myself a bright.
I'm an atheist freethinker. A rose by any other name smells the same.
We need to just stand up, step out, and get it done. We can transform the word
atheist by letting people see who we are and making them realize that the term, contrary
to what they've always been told, represents a group of decent, thoughtful people who hold
jobs, raise families, and participate in public life on a massive scale. We're not
the devil's minions. Only coming out of the shadows and letting people see who we
are will change their point of view. Changing what we call ourselves will only cause
our enemies to tell their minions, "Hey, the atheists are calling themselves brights,
now." It's like calling Creationism, Intelligent Design. Same thing, different
words. Doug Herrschaft via Internet.
Response:
Perhaps. We shall see how it works out. G.D.
10/6/03 Re: "Brights" campaign. I think it is counter-productive even
though we all know that, in order to be an atheist, one has to be smart. Not only
are atheists disliked on general principles because they are "against God" and
therefore unAmerican, but now they can be accused of arrogance too. How dumb are we?
Ed Tolley, Jr., Long Island, via Internet.
Response:
We're so “Bright” we need sunglasses. G.D.
10/7/03 My first thought was perhaps foolish and futile - then I watched a TV history of
the Papal Inquisition a few days ago. It is worth a try. We need to band
together and make our voices heard. We are a minority, but we happen to be right.
Galileo eventually got an apology from the Pope - but 359 years later! Kind
regards, Bill Pelton via Internet.
Response:
Doing nothing is endorsing the status quo I suppose. G.D.
9/23/03 Hi! I just wanted to writ to say thanks for your continued efforts toward
reason! I was watching a George Carlin segment on HBO and came across his hilarious
comments about how we seem to be losing the separation between church and state. He
suggests that we combine the Lord's prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. I think you
might enjoy this:
“Our father who art in heaven and to the republic for which it stands. Thy
kingdom come, one nation indivisible, as it is in heaven. Give us this day as we
forgive those who so proudly we hail. And crown thy good into temptation but deliver
us from the twilight, AMEN.” Gene, Long Island via Internet.
Response:
Be careful! Don't give them any non-bright ideas! G.D.
10/31/03 To Norm Roscoe of LISH: I had decided that most of the folks who believed in a
"Supreme Being" were sincere but misguided until I got married and succumbed to
pressure from my new wife to join one the mainstream Protestant religions. I was not
too uncomfortable with being a deacon, a little uncomfortable with passing a plate for
people to put money into a cause I felt was folly. Then I was selected top be
an elder. In the Presbyterian Church, the session is composed of the Sr. Pastor and
the Elders. The Session decides issues on matters affecting their congregation on
matters not dictated from the top.
I decided that I didn't know enough to fill such a responsible position and started to
study the Bible. There I found contradictions, tales which I believed to be
holdovers from superstition and commands to commit more cruel acts than I had ever heard
from Hitler. After evaluating my new knowledge, I found that I had to resign from my
position as Elder and eventually from the Church.
They say that the Bible is the most widely purchased and the least read book printed.
I believe that if more people bothered to read it, many more would consider it
nonsense, as I do. Sincerely, Wes Johnson via Internet,
Response:
First of all, I thank you for your thoughtful response. Many of us "fallen
away" faithful have had experiences similar to yours. However, I approached my
leaving the faith of my childhood because of the study of philosophy rather than the
bible. My move was an attraction to philosophy more that rejection of biblical
sources.
There seems to be at least two types of believers (and I may be oversimplifying here) but
we have fundamental or literalists who seem to select those passages which meet their
religious needs and reject or at least ignore those that conflict. Logic is not part
of the literalist's approach. The other type of the faithful are the "modifying
liberal" who, like such examples as Bishop Shelby Spong, will use biblical sources as
figurative symbols for a given concept. They redefine the sources in the most
liberal way to almost be like Humanists. I know a number of Congregationalists,
Methodists and other more Main Line ministers who use the figurative mythological approach
to make "sense" of the bible.
One example: With the miracle of the Bread and Fishes one minister simply made the message
of each person in the crowd being more generous and therefore shared much greater portion
of his own food and like The "Stone Soup" story a miracle of generosity takes
place.
Your experience speaks to many of us. Some folks leave the old churches to no place,
others try out Unitarian Universalism. Others are as I feel fortunate enough to find
Humanist communities and find a place for us to be supported and enhance our experience in
the philosophical search. Please follow-up as I stand ready to benefit from your
further insights. Thanks again, Norm Roscoe.
[TOC]
EDWARD TELLER - DR. STRANGELOVE Massimo
Pigliucci (Rationally Speaking)
Physicist Edward Teller has moved on, as the
ancient Romans used to say, to the Elysian Fields. Good riddance, I say,
paraphrasing George W. Bush's comment in another context. This is ironic, because
obviously Bush thought highly enough of Teller to accord him the Presidential Medal of
Freedom in 2003, the highest civilian honor in the United States.
Famously, of a different opinion was physicist Nobel laureate Isidor Rabi, who remarked
that the world would have been a better place without Teller. E. Teller was a
real-life Dr. Strangelove (of “how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb”
memory), the immortal character played by Peter Sellers in the film directed by Stanley
Kubrick in 1964. (A Google search revealed that there are three primary suspects for
being the inspiration for Strangelove: Henri Kissinger, Werner von Braun, and Edward
Teller -- I vote for a nicely split award).
Perhaps Teller's most outspoken critic was Carl Sagan, who wrote a poignant essay on
Teller-Strangelove entitled “When Scientists Know Sin” (republished in his The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark). Sagan met Teller several times,
both in private and in public debate, and -- as a physicist himself -- was in a primary
position to evaluate not only Teller's technical work, but also how accurately he
portrayed it to the public and to politicians like Ronald Reagan. Sagan reminds us
of Teller's advocacy of all sorts of “civilian” uses for the H-bomb (which
Teller helped develop and aggressively advocated): from scientific experiments (let's
explode one on the moon to analyze the resulting gas and dust and see what our satellite
is made of), to -- believe it or not -- construction projects (e.g., to eliminate
mountains that may get in the way of roads or dams).
Sagan's take on it is that perhaps Teller was desperately trying to justify to the world
his life-long work in nuclear weapons development, truly an attempt to make all of us
“love the bomb” (and, by reflection, his chief inventor and advocate).
There are also plenty of personal circumstances that help explain Teller's hawkshiness,
like the fact that when he was young the communists confiscated his family's property in
his native Hungary. That he lost a leg as a result of a streetcar accident, and was
in permanent pain throughout the rest of his long life, probably didn't help to soften
Teller's character either.
Be that as it may, Teller took advantage of McCarthyism and the paranoia that swept the US
during the first phases of the cold war, to attack his colleague Robert Oppenheimer (who
coordinated the Manhattan Project that had led to the development of the atomic bomb) for
being too soft as well as disloyal to the United States. Oppenheimer's crime, in
Teller's eyes, was his critical stance on the further development and use of weapons of
mass destruction, tough Oppenheimer was joined in his campaign by many leading scientific
figures of the time, most famously Albert Einstein.
Teller's academic life was also rather controversial. While he was called the
“father” of the H-bomb, there is good reason to believe that his original idea
was flawed and would not have worked without substantial revisions carried out by many
people working under him. When Sagan and other scientists discovered the possibility
of a “nuclear winter” following the launch of a thermo-nuclear attack (even
without retaliation), Teller both claimed that the science underlying the nuclear winter
scenario was flawed, and that he had discovered the possibility several years earlier, but
did not alert the public or politicians about it.
Now, what sort of monster can stumble on a discovery that could very well annihilate
humankind, or at the very least cause the death and suffering of hundreds of millions of
people, and make the unilateral and private decision of not sharing such discovery with
the rest of the world? The sheer arrogance of such an attitude is hard to
comprehend, although it would fit very well with the current administration's policy of
secrecy and military aggression (it may not be a coincidence that one of the many good
things President Clinton did not do was to award Teller the Presidential Medal of
Freedom).
In Kubrick's movie, in response to President Merkin Muffley's (also played by Sellers)
question about why the “Doomsday Machine” can be automatically triggered, but
not manually un-triggered, Strangelove answers with perfect ill-logic: "Mr.
President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this
machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the
fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making
process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's
simple to understand. And completely credible and convincing." That is
the sort of 'reasoning' that Teller advocated in real life, and which brought us the
hydrogen bomb and Star Wars (not the movie). Teller is finally now gone, but his
twisted logic is still endorsed by the Hawks currently usurping the White House, and the
War Room is as busy as ever. It is most urgent that each one of us contribute to
write a different finale to this movie than the apocalyptic one Kubrick chose for his
fictional version.
(Dr. Pigliucci is an associate Professor at the Univ. of Tennessee, where he teaches
ecology and evolutionary biology. Go to his website http://www.rationallyspeaking.org.)
[TOC]
QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: (The Hindu, West Bengal) Oct. 7. A controversy has arisen over the reported miracle
that is said to have taken Mother Teresa closer to sainthood with a former West Bengal
Health Minister, and doctors claiming that the ovarian tumour of a North Bengal woman,
Monica Besra, was medically cured.
Supporting the doctors, the former Health Minister Partho De, during whose tenure the
woman was treated, said Besra was medically cured.
``This woman was cured by medicines,'' he said without commenting on the aspect of the
miracle.
The Superintendent of the State-run Balurghat Hospital, Dr. Manju Murshed, said ``with due
regards to the Mother I must say and place medical treatment above a miracle.''
She had been treated initially by Dr. T. K. Biswas, for tubercular meningitis, when she
was admitted to the hospital in June 1998 for a month.
Dr. Mustafi said the medicines given for TB cured her of her tumour and 'not a miracle'.
PTI
Response: This is no minor story if one is precise about
Roman Catholic theology. If the Church claims that various saints can intervene and
cause miracles, and the saints either never even existed or did not actually caused
miracles, there would be a deep flaw in their belief system. The only remedy would
be denial. On second thought, no problemo!
Item: (Inst. For Humanistic Studies) The Catholic Church stands accused of telling people
in countries with high rates of HIV that condoms do not protect against the deadly virus.
The claims are made in a program called Sex and the Holy City shown on British Broadcast
Company Channel One last week. According to the show, cardinals, bishops, priests
and nuns in four continents are saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms.
The World Health Organization has condemned the comments and says the Vatican is putting
lives at risk.
"The statements are totally incorrect. Latex condoms are impermeable.
They do prevent HIV transmission," said Catherine Hankins, chief scientific advisor
to UNAids.
The Archbishop of Nairobi Raphael Ndingi Nzeki told interviewers that condoms were helping
to spread the virus. "AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of
condoms," the archbishop said.
Gordon Wambi, director of an AIDS testing program near Lake Victoria, said he could not
distribute condoms because of opposition from the Catholic Church. "Some
priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids," he said.
Comment: What next?
Item: (MSNBC) This summer, Army Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin was promoted
to deputy undersecretary of defense, with a new mission for which many say he is uniquely
qualified: To aggressively combine intelligence with special operations and hunt down
so-called high-value terrorist targets including bin Laden and Saddam. But that new
assignment may be complicated by controversial views Boykin - an evangelical Christian -
has expressed in dozens of speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts around the country.
Here are some quotes from Army Lt. General William Jerry Boykin in talks given to
church groups while in uniform:
1) [While showing a slide show; picture of PRESIDENT BUSH] “And then this man stepped
forward. A man that has acknowledged that he prays in the Oval Office. A man
that's in the White House today because of a miracle. You think about how he got in the
White House. You think about why he's there today. As Mordecai said to Esther, 'You
have been put there for such a time and place.' And this man has been put in the
White house to lead our nation in such a time as this.”
But who is that enemy? It's not Osama bin Laden. Our enemy is a spiritual
enemy because we are a nation of believers. You go back and look at our history, and
you will find that we were founded on faith. Look at what the writers of our Constitution
said. We are a nation of believers. We were founded on faith.”
[Shows picture of Satan] “And the enemy that has come against our nation is a
spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is
real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God. Now I'm a warrior.
One day I'm going to take off this uniform and I'm still going to be a warrior.
And what I'm here to do today is to recruit you to be warriors of God's
kingdom.”
And we ask ourselves this question, 'Why do they hate us? Why do they hate us so much?
Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to that is because we're a Christian nation,
because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. Did I say Judeo-Christian?
Yes. Judeo-Christian.”
2) (To an evangelical audience) “There was a man in Mogadishu named Osman Atto. You
see him in the movie [“Blackhawk Down”], smoking a big cigar and talking
philosophically. How many of you have seen the movie? Acting like a big shot.
Well let me tell you something. That's not what Osman Atto did. The
reality was Osman Atto was Aideed's closest ally. He was Aideed's top lieutenant.
He was a multimillionaire financier for Aideed's clan. And we knew if that if
we could capture Osman Atto and take him away, that we could destroy Aideed's network.
So we went after Osman Atto about two weeks before the battle.... We went
after Osman Atto. We got into a terrible fight. And I'm sad to say a lot of
Somalis were killed as we went after Osman Atto.
But we missed him by seconds. He walked out of the facility that we raided, he
walked down the street and blended in with the crowd and we missed him.
And then he went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because
Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.'
Well, you know what I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real
God, and his was an idol. But I prayed, Lord let us get that man.
“Three days later we went after him again, and this time we got him. Not a mark on
him. We got him. We brought him back into our base there and we had a Sea Land
container set up to hold prisoners in, and I said put him in there. They put him in
there, there was one guard with him. I said search him, they searched him, and then
I walked in with no one in there but the guard, and I looked at him and said, 'Are you
Osman Atto?' And he said 'Yes.' And I said, 'Mr. Atto, you underestimated our
God.'”
Comment: For some, the Crusades are truly back in
operation. Imagine: Someone who has real authority in our government and army who
believes this is all a supernatural drama being acted out for benefit of a supreme being -
and who is, of course, on our side. On second thought, who in the current
administration does not think in that way?
Item: (CNN) At the largest gathering of Muslim leaders since September 11, 2001, the
controversial Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, who is stepping down this month
after 22 years, stepped up to the podium and left little room for interpretation.
"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million, but today the Jews rule
the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them," said Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad at the opening of the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit
Thursday.
The general theme of Mahathir's speech is a call for Muslims to unite. But even his
appeal for an end to suicide bombings is laced with references to Jews as
"enemies."
"Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill
people and invite the massacre of our own people? It cannot be that there is no
other way. One point three billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million
Jews," said the prime minister.
Mahathir has made anti-Semitic remarks throughout his tenure, at various points blaming
Jews for his nation's economic problems. But these remarks seem to provoke a new
level of outrage.
He calls on Muslims to emulate the Jewish response to oppression, think rationally for
their own interests and fix their problems themselves. But even that appeal is
punctuated by insult. "Of late because of their power and their apparent
success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people, will make
mistakes, will forget to think. They are already beginning to make mistakes.
There may be windows of opportunities for us now and in the future," Mahathir said.
A leader of the American Muslim community offered his interpretation. "I will not
believe that Jews are in control of the world. So I see that statement as a
misguided opinion," says Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Mahathir also said, "They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy,
so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights
with others.
"With these they have gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this
tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone,
we must use our brains, also."
Attendee Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he supported Mr. Mahathir's analysis, which
also included steps for how Muslim nations can develop economically and socially.
“It is great to hear Prime Minister Mahathir speak so eloquently on the problems of
the ummah (Muslim world) and ways to remedy them,” Mr. Karzai said. “His speech
was an eye-opener to a lot of us and that is what the Islamic world should do.
In a later statement after visiting with a traveling President Bush, Mahathir said that
Christian fundamentalists holding power in the US government is “a development we
worry about because, like the so-called Muslim extremists, Christian fundamentalists tend
to have extreme views… As Bush continues to condemn Malaysia, Muslims around the
world will be sure to hear his silence on (US Christian fundamentalist General)
Boykin.”
Comment: What makes the speech more relevant was the
thunderous ovations received during the talk and lack of criticism received after making
it. It lends credence to the idea that behind much of the criticism directed at
Israel is simply anti-Semitism. It is true that Palestinians may have legitimate
grievances, but how does Israel adversely affect the balance of the Muslim world?
How is Israel responsible for the sexist, corrupt, theocratic dictatorships that dominate
the Muslim world?
At the same time his point on General Boykin was reasonable. If only world leaders
were not blinded to other injustices by their own religious convictions…
Item: (AP) Cleared to defend himself against capital murder charges, John Allen Muhammad
fired his lawyers and told jurors he had ''nothing to do with'' last year's
Washington-area sniper attacks, surprising legal experts and raising the possibility that
he could cross-examine shooting survivors and his alleged accomplice.
In a rambling but adamant 20-minute opening statement Monday, Muhammad, wearing a suit and
tie, told the jury the evidence ''will all show I had nothing to do with these crimes.''
Muhammad also spoke at length about the nature of truth, saying at one point, ''Jesus
said, 'Ye shall know the truth.''' He also said he hopes to be found innocent ''by
the grace of Allah.''
He later re-instated his attorneys but was found guilty anyway.
Comment: It is actually very revealing that he hoped to be
found innocent by the “grace of Allah.” The hyper-religious don't need no
stinkin' evidence.
Item: (Forbes Magazine,
http://biz.yahoo.com/fo/030818/00587cb9a07a2c1c6dde063cd93c468d2.html) Leo F. Wells has
become one of the hottest names in real estate. His real estate investment trust is
amassing an amazing amount of fresh capital: In 2003's first half he sold $1 billion of
stock, amounting to nearly half what public REITs raised, and he's targeting another $1.5
billion by year's end. Like a latter-day Harry Helmsley, he is using the money for a
buying binge of first-class office properties. In May his REIT bought Chicago's
83-story Aon Center, the third-tallest building in the U.S.
A cherubic fellow with an easy Southern charm, Wells, 59, combines a salesman's bonhomie
with a religious conviction that he is doing good for his 100,000 investors. The
company creed is "to glorify God and care for people." Meetings at
headquarters in suburban Atlanta often begin with a prayer
Professions of atheism, casual dress at work and drinking are verboten…
The safety of Wells' REIT dividend has deteriorated alarmingly. Last year's 73-cent
dividend was not covered by FFO, so Wells had to borrow $8 million short term to cover it.
What's happening: Recession-time rents on new properties aren't keeping up with
these buildings' rising costs. And although Wells has long crowed over his tenants'
stellar status, it turns out that some were deadbeats. Two of them were
Enron-tainted Arthur Andersen, whose accounting business propelled it into oblivion, and
auto parts maker EYBL CarTex, which went bankrupt. "The quality of tenant
credit in this country was sliding rather rapidly," he admits.
Most big office REITs pay out only 70% to 80% of their FFO. Some of the balance goes
to cover the cost of replacing roofs and elevators and the like, a cost Wells largely
avoids by signing tenants to triple net leases in which they cover operating costs.
But some of a REIT's funds from operation must be set aside to update space when leases
roll over, and Wells does face that burden.
High fees: To ensure that tenants maintain property, Wells says, inspectors need to visit
them quarterly. The REIT buys that service from a company owned by Leo Wells, called
Wells Management, to which it pays a fee of 4.5% of the rent roll. Real estate pros
find that way high: For a triple net lease, 1.5% is more like it.
Then there's an entity called Wells Real Estate Funds, which gets a 2.5% cut on the
purchase price for advice on which properties to buy.
Then comes the lush fees on all the new capital. Some $400 million -- 16% of the
equity capital Wells is raising this year. By Green Street Advisors' reckoning,
that's four times what publicly traded REITs incur when they make follow-on offerings.
A third of the boodle goes to Wells' own sales organization, Wells Investment
Securities, or its advisory firm, Wells Real Estate Funds.
Interesting… Leo Wells owns 100% of these affiliated firms, but he has just a
tiny $15,000 stake in his supposedly wonderful REIT.
Comment: Of course despite the public acknowledgement of
Well's bigotry, one has not heard about an investigation into discrimination against
atheists at his firm. I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps, however, his REIT
will turn out to be the real estate version of Enron. We'll see.
Item: (Reuters) A University of Rochester and Zogby Poll indicated that followers of the
world's major faiths, including those in countries torn by sectarian violence, insist that
religion is not the cause of unrest. These believers also said that more piety would
improve their countries.
At the same time only American Protestants and Catholics and Peruvian Catholics
overwhelmingly approved of interfaith marriage. Muslims approved of interfaith
marriage generally for men, but not for women.
Comment: What the pollsters are unwilling to conclude is
that holding religious beliefs is irrational and leads to irrational world views.
How can a person claim that religion is not the cause of unrest and then oppose interfaith
marriage? How can they favor it for men but not for women, unless women are
considered property in that religious view?
Item: (NY Daily News, 11/1/03) When twins were born to the Dykstra family of upstate New
York, they were called a “gift from God,” since the couple had been trying to
conceive for more than decade without success. It was only after trying in-vitro
fertilization that the miracle occurred as recounted in a local newspaper story at the
time. However, 10 months later in October 2003 a flash flood swept away the family
car and dragged away the desperate mom who could not free the babies from the car.
The baby's bodies were found the next day. Their pastor, Carl Orlando of the
Assembly of God of Dehli Church said the grieving parent's faith will sustain them.
Comment: Exactly why would God grant a “miracle”
(aided by science) only to utterly break their hearts so soon afterward? A zealot
might conclude that the parents, having been granted their “miracle,” took God
for granted and this was his way of re-testing them… or something like that. Of
course, nothing will explain or justify why God saw fit to kill two 10 month old children,
but I'm sure the religious will figure a way to blame humans and exonerate God, all in
service of maintaining an impossible belief.
Item: Pregnancy and abortion rates dropped in the US from 1990 to 1999 according to the
Centers for Disease Control. Pregnancies dropped 7%, and abortions dropped 22%.
Teen pregnancy rates reached historic lows, dropping 25%, and their abortion rate
was down 39%.
Comment: The Religious Right must be going into “full
denial” mode! Ultimately, they are not really interested in abortion or
pregnancy rates: They are interested in sin, which means all sex outside of marriage,
period. "What Planned Parenthood is doing is absolutely contrary to everything
Christian. It is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery,
teaching people to get involved in every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -
everything that the Bible condemns. And teaching to be without absolutely any moral
restraint…” said Pat Robertson, on the "700 Club," on 4/9/91.
The fact that during the Clinton years, abortion rates actually decreased means nothing -
people were still having sex and a sin is a sin to the Religious Right. Let's see
what the Bush administration accomplishes in this field… Go to http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/fs031031.htm.
Item: (AHA) President Bush signed
the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban into effect that outlaws a medical
procedure even when it is used for the health of the woman.
At the signing ceremony he said “This right to life cannot be granted or denied by
government, because it does not come from government - it comes from the creator of
life.” While internally inconsistent with Bush's pro-death penalty position,
such a statement makes clear that Bush has been guided in this matter by his beliefs about
God's will, not about the interests of our country's citizens.
Comment: If
this case goes to court, will Bush argue that only God has the right to take a life?
That would certainly impede his right to wage war, and execute prisoners, wouldn't
it? And if he couldn't do that, he wouldn't be able to govern in his accustomed
fashion.
Item: (Newsday) Speaking to a crowd at St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church in Oceanside,
Nassau DA Denis Dillon said Suffolk County DA Thomas Spota violated laws that govern the
release of such reports when no indictments are handed up, referring to a scathing grand
jury report on the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in which only the statute of
limitations prevented prosecutions.
Comment: I'm
sure that the Opus Dei friendly Dillon is being completely objective and that the equally
(but sanely) Catholic Spota is actually anti-Catholic! Yeah, right. Imagine
going to bat for a rape-enabling organization! It is just that some religious
persons cannot bury their humanism as totally as the righteous DA Dillon can. Some
people, like DA Spota, actually care more about children than some amoral institution.
[TOC]
THE END OF CHRISTIANITYr Gerry Dantone
[TOC]
A WINTER
MESSAGE Robert G. Ingersoll
I believe in the festival called Christmas -
not in the celebration of the birth of any man, but to celebrate the triumph of light over
darkness - the victory of the sun.
I believe in giving gifts on that day, and a real gift should be given to those who cannot
return it; gifts from the rich to the poor, from the prosperous to the unfortunate, from
parents to children.
There is no need of giving water to the sea or light to the sun. Let us give to
those who need, neither asking nor expecting return, not even asking gratitude, only
asking that the gift shall make the receiver happy - and he who gives in that way
increases his own joy. [TOC]
TIME TO GROW 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, have added a new local group.
Meetings are held Thursdays 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. [TOC]
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested call Bill Wade write to him @ Box 631, Southold, NY, 11971.
All meetings are at 7 PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country
Road, Plainview, unless otherwise noted. FREE!
Date: Friday, 5 December 2003, Book: Eric Alterman, "What Liberal Media? The
Truth About Bias and the News."
Date: Friday 2 January 2004, Book: Kurt Vonnegut, "Player Piano".
Date: Friday 6 February 2004, Book: Richard Ellis, "The Empty Ocean: plundering the
world's marine life."
Date: Friday 5 March 2004, Book: Jon Entine, "Taboo: why black athletes dominate
sports and why we're afraid to talk about it."
Date: Friday 2 April 2004, Book: Michael Moore, "Stupid white men: -- and other sorry
excuses for the state of the nation!"
Date: Friday 7 May 2004, Book: Patricia Daniels Cornwell, "Portrait of a killer: Jack
the Ripper case closed".
Date: Friday 4 June 2004, Book: Jared Diamond, "Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of
human societies".
[TOC]
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 Paul
Lozowsky, 516 799 5612; 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, or call 516 742 1662 with your Visa, Mastercard or Amex card ready.
[TOC]
CFI-LI MEETING
INFO
Tom Flynn, the “Anti-Claus”
Coming 7:15PM, Friday, December 19, at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old
Country Road, Plainview; Tom Flynn, a.k.a. the “Anti-Claus.”
Christian Americans are puzzled when non-Christians complain about Christmas.
"Why whine? We throw this great party and they get to crash."
"Crash isn't the word," non-Christians retort. "You don't even get
invited to Christmas. You get drafted."
In The Trouble with Christmas author Tom Flynn challenges America's most popular sacred
cow. Alternately outrageous, satirical and thoughtful, this rollicking critique
calls Christmas to account.
How many holiday traditions are authentically Christian? (Next to none.) Does
the contemporary Christmas holiday have ancient roots? (Hardly. It was largely
invented by six eminent Victorians.) Is the Santa Claus myth unhealthy for children?
(Yes, Virginia.) Are Christmas critics discriminated against? (Is
"Scrooge" an insult?) What is the future of Christmas as America becomes a
multicultural, multi-faith society? (Educators should start sweating now.)
(End quote.)
Tom Flynn is editor of Free Inquiry magazine and author of the sci-fi novel,
“Galactic Rapture.” Don't miss this provocative FREE forum!
Attendees are encouraged to bring and share Solstice, Human Light and New Year treats and
goodies! [TOC]
Atheist Meetup!
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 7PM, Atheist Meetup, locations to be decided. For details go to http://atheists.meetup.com.
Harlem Discussion Group
Sunday, Dec. 28, 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, Dec. 26, 7PM, Center for Inquiry MetroNY, Discussion Group, 30 Rockefeller Plaza,
#2829. To confirm call 212 265 2877.
[TOC]