Center for Inquiry-Long Island INQUIRER 
Volume 7, Issue 2, February, 2004
Email GDantone@CFIMetroNY.org or LISecHum@aol.com
www.CFIMetroNY.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Steve Levy: Opportunist or Worse?
Letters to the Editor
Q u a c k e r y: A Brief Primer
A Unified Theory of Wellness Awaits a Unified Theory for Everything Else
On Tolerance vs. Respect
Making the Rounds with Norm
Quickies

STEVE LEVY: OPPORTUNIST OR WORSE?   Gerry Dantone
       Imagine and consider the following: Most of your friends and neighbors are godless!  So are your elected officials, news commentators and judges!  Every morning your child is sent to a school run by your state government, where as the first act of the day, your child's most likely godless teacher leads their classroom in a statement that affirms the NON-existence of God.

It would not matter if the particular teacher believed in a god, or if the principal of the school did either.  It would not matter if some of the children in the school believed in a god or if some of their parents believed in gods and preferred that their children be raised to believe in a god without interference from the government.  Oh sure, god-fearing children are given the option of leaving the classroom or not saying the statement, (thereby becoming the targets of other intolerant godless children and arrogant godless teachers), and teachers are only required to provide the “ceremony” to have the Pledge recited without reciting it (!), but how many teachers would have the courage to brave the sure-to-come abuse if they exercised that nutty option?  In actual practice, the Pledge would be said all the time, everywhere.

And to top it all off, the state government could act to remove the local school board or Board of Education of the local school or remove funding if even god-fearing principals and teachers refused to recite or provide a ceremony needed to recite the statement affirming the non-existence of god to a classroom even if it contained some fellow god-fearing students.

Outrageous?  Communistic?  Un-constitutional?

Here is the really sad part: The above scenario describes what the situation in New York State would actually be under a proposal made by former NY State legislator Steve Levy, with a minor exception: The persecuted are actually the godless and of course, the Pledge affirms the existence of God.

If you look back, it is obvious that one could easily substitute Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans and even Christians as the persecuted party in the above scenario and most Americans would feel their potential outrage at their being placed in such a position.  But the Average American probably wouldn't feel the outrage if the godless were the ones that were being forced to suffer through state-sponsored promotion of religion.  About 89% of the American public favors the 1954 Congress-altered Pledge of Allegiance containing the phrase "under God," even if though they would never tolerate it if the tables were turned and the Pledge contained a statement affirming god's non-existence or the incoherent nature of the god concept.

Like most Americans, Steve Levy, once a NY Assemblyman from Suffolk and now Suffolk County Executive, probably does not care about the feelings of the godless, but he took this likely apathy one step further to something indistinguishable from animus: He sponsored a bill in the NYS Assembly (#A10048a in 2002, #A07472 in 2003) that proposed to remove local school officials if a “ceremony” were not provided for the Pledge, (with the phrase "under god" in it!)  No matter if the teacher, principal and many students were godless; say it or make a special ceremony for it to be said, or the school board goes!

Is this OK in Long Island?  Perhaps.  Probably.  I would bet a whole bunch that this column is the first time you've ever heard about this proposed legislation, an indication of the lack of concern that exists in the media regarding blatant discrimination against non-believers.

To be fair to the then Assemblyman Levy, I contacted his office in advance to seek guidance particularly in the area of factual errors.  Mr. Terry Maccarrone of his office made one pertinent point: I originally believed that Mr. Levy proposed  having the Pledge actually recited a requirement.  Here is the actual language of the Bill:

“While the education law does not require a student to recite the pledge, it does require the school to provide a ceremony for those who wish to participate in reciting the pledge.  Those board members who refuse to implement the law are not only setting a bad example for our youngsters in cavalierly ignoring state law, but are also inhibiting our students from exercising their patriotic prerogative of reciting the pledge of allegiance. This bill authorizes and directs the attorney general to remove those board members who are acting in violation of the education law.  The bill states further that as a last resort funding could be withheld from said district until the board adheres to the education law.”

No, the teacher does not need to recite the Pledge, but teachers DO need to provide a ceremony for the Pledge!  Exactly what is an acceptable ceremony?  How does anyone know whether such an acceptable ceremony has been provided unless, (ta-dah!), the Pledge is actually said!  Is it Constitutional to require non-believing teachers, school boards or principals to provide a “ceremony” for a Pledge intended to insult them and containing a religious reference odious to some?  Is it ethical?

Another more disingenuous point was made by Mr. Maccarrone: He claims having the phrase “under God” on the lips of school children was not the motivating factor in proposing this legislation for Mr. Levy.  It is true that Mr. Levy proposed this law BEFORE the ruling in California was made that the Pledge was unconstitutional with the “under God” phrase.

However, I cannot imagine that any legislator would propose adding penalties to a state law which originally lacked enforcement powers if they did not agree with the intent of the original statute and sympathized with it in the first place.

This is entirely relevant to the issue.  If the law were one that Mr. Levy originally opposed because it was insulting to Jewish or Catholics groups, as an example, I doubt that Mr. Levy would sponsor a bill adding penalties.  In such a case, Mr. Levy would not sponsor the bill and then would vote against one if it did come up.  To say that “under God,” or other words or sentiments in the Pledge itself is not the issue is ridiculous: Insulting non-believers with the phrase “under God,” was the whole point for changing the Pledge of Allegiance, and precisely why so many politicians and demagogues are adamant about it being said in Public Schools in its current form.

The Senator (Homer Ferguson) who sponsored the bill in 1954, the Senate Chaplain and the President (Eisenhower) all made comments about “under God” and the lesson they would be teaching non-believers on the day of the celebration regarding its passing.

The Senate Chaplain, Frederick Brown Harris said on June 22, 1954, at a ceremony celebrating the “new” Pledge of Allegiance, and read into the Congressional record, with President Eisenhower listening in agreement, “The results of blasphemous denials of God on a tremendous scale already are being shudderingly shown by the baneful social pattern of atheistic materialism.  Suspicion begins to grow that it is not the believer who is irrational, but the cynical denier.”

No one admonished him, in particular the President who immediately followed him.   Quite the opposite, they were all in agreement.  The bill passed overwhelmingly if not unanimously.  They were all on the same page.

If the Pledge had been changed at that time to read “under Jesus,” and the Chaplain's speech read, “The results of blasphemous denials of Jesus on a tremendous scale already are being shudderingly shown by the baneful social pattern of Judaism.   Suspicion begins to grow that it is not the believer who is irrational, but the cynical Jew,” would Mr. Levy be so eager to add penalties to the statute?

Mr. Levy and Mr. Maccarrone will claim that they don't answer hypothetical questions, but of course, they only hope we are that stupid.  Everyone knows what their answer would be in the hypothetical case cited above.

Now that they have the facts, what are they going to do with them?  The answer: Probably nothing.

Generally, it's typical that almost no one cares about insulting non-believers.  In fact, it does gain votes on Election Day.  That is why it was decided NOT to release this article in advance of the Democratic primary or general election for County Executive: It might have helped Mr. Levy if the voting public knew he supported punishing non-believers or the fair-minded who refused to provide a ceremony for a Pledge designed to insult non-believers.  And it may also have been that his opponent was even more anti-non-believer!  Who knows?

Recently Presidential candidate Howard Dean, after being described as being the most secular Presidential candidate in memory, began to talk about his religious beliefs.   One could criticize Dean for his sudden and obvious pandering, but at the same time, all the alternatives were less secular.

Such is the reality of politics for the non-theist at this time in this country.   Exposing bigotry may help the bigot, and at the same time, the political opposition may be worse!
             [TOC]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

11/24/03 I enjoy reading the CFI-LI INQUIRER - it's one of the few publications that I make time to read every word.  Keep up the good work.  Larry Lesyna, Las Vegas, NV.

Response: Thanks so much and it is rewarding to hear about such loyal supporters.  G.D.

Re: Question of the Month: What do you think of the recently signed “partial-birth” abortion law: Is it ethical?  Is it constitutional?  Is there a way to regulate very late term abortions ethically and constitutionally?

12/11/03 I think that it is interesting that people often think that any effort to thwart their personal beliefs is somehow sinister.  Bush has his own litmus test to nominate Supreme Court justices…He would not nominate a pro-choicer or unbeliever, would he?   And yet most Christians would applaud him for discriminating against non-Christians and pro-choicers.  Is/are he/they sinister?

Sometimes I hear Bush's antagonists complain that while he is strongly pro-birth, once the child is born he would not lift one finger to make that child's life comfortable.   Hmmm…

I also think it is interesting that many religious people insist that the child must be born, even though it is likely (in their view) that the child will sin and be doomed to Hell.  On the other hand, if the child is not allowed (by abortion) to be born, its soul will certainly go to Heaven!

I wonder if anyone except myself has noted that in the Old Testament, God allegedly ordered the Israelites many times to conquer this or that people, kill all the males of any ages, including babies, and kill all the females who were not virgins.  Obviously this would not only kill the non-virgin females, but whatever babies they happened to be pregnant with.

What I see is that while believing that death is a good thing for Christians, because they get to go to Heaven, they fiercely insist that death must be resisted.  In the case of unborn babies, they are doubly insistent that the baby must be born, in spite of the many examples that the god they claim to believe in had no qualms whatsoever about killing babies, whether born or not.

In so doing, these “pro-life Christians” are acting more like unbelievers than are the pro-choicers.  In the early days of Spain conquering Mexico, priests would often baptize Indian babies; assuring that their souls were then assured to go to Heaven should they die soon.  Then they made sure that the babies would die soon, before they could sin, by killing them immediately.

At least they were true believers.

My personal opinion is that there is no individuality in the first trimester, and so I am not concerned about abortion.  In the second trimester and on, there may perhaps be some occasional consciousness, and so abortion may be permitted only in case there is a real hazard to the health of the mother-to-be.  In case of doubt about consciousness, and when abortion is necessary, the fetus should first be desensitized before aborting it.

You may be critical of any aborting, but I am at least more “humane” than the god of the Bible, who allegedly was responsible, through the Israelites, for the death of some fifteen million people who lived in the so-claimed “Promised Land” before the Israelites.  Plainly that included unborn babies, or even babies in the process of being born.  That's God's view?  How insulting to put that on the Creator, if in fact there is one.

Just as an aside, while Christians and Jews are proud to be the inheritors of that legacy, there is no record in secular history of the Israelites being the terrors they now claim for their religious predecessors.  In secular history they were just another of many tribes living there.  Neil Slater, WA via Internet.

Response: Trying to get a rational rationale from the religious right on this subject is a challenge.  Thanks.  G.D.

12/11/03 The ban on "partial-birth abortions", in its breadth and scope, is an abominable attack on the rights of American women, and yet another example of the power of our growing theocracy.  Peter Smyth via Internet.

Response: Even if one supports some restraints on late-term abortions, this may be indeed true.  G.D.

12/10/03 Since a partial birth abortion requires the baby to be partially born and outside the women's body, the danger of the abortion is greater then the danger of the birth, therefore there is no reason why the women couldn't give birth in the first place.   If you're going to wait till the last minute to abort a baby, have the baby and give it up for adoption.  Ethically it's right to ban it.  Legally it's within the guidelines set forth in Roe v Wade where the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the government has the right to ban abortion of a viable fetus.  IL via Internet.

Response: You have honed in on the precise issues that should be at the heart of this new law.  The question many have, does this law really ONLY do what you have indicated above while allowing abortions when the mother's life is in jeopardy?   Is this law written in such a manner as to jeopardize the right to earlier term abortions?  G.D.

12/10/03 When a pregnancy has progressed to that point it is time for adoption.  It is past the time for a danger to the mother diagnosis.  EW via Internet.

Response: Are you claiming that this would be true in all cases, or just generally?  Does this law allow for exceptions when there is danger?  G.D.

12/9/03 This partial birth “problem” is a non-issue created by fundamentalist Protestants and the Catholic hierarchy. Having been closely involved in the abortion rights cause for many years and closely associated with the clinics, I can speak from knowledge, not knee-jerk, dogma drive propaganda.

1. All abortions are entirely ethical and even to be commended in terms of the woman taking control of her own destiny.  When the gestation process goes wrong or is projected to end badly or inflict great difficulties on the woman, she has a right as a free individual to abort the process.  After all, it's her body.

2. To suggest that a way should be found to regulate late term abortions is unbelievably offensive.  It is patriarchal, paternalistic, condescending and misogynistic.   There is no need for regulation.  Women are not a childbearing utility.   They are entirely capable of making their own decisions about a problem pregnancy.   There is no difference in kind, only degree, between the controlling macho thugs who rape women and the controlling, macho legislative thugs who force them to continue a disastrous pregnancy.

3. The purpose of a “partial birth” abortion ban is to open the door to outlawing all or almost all abortions.  The wording is ALWAYS ambiguous enough to be interpreted as referring to early abortions.

4. The procedure is used ONLY in cases of medical necessity.  Sometimes it's to preserve the woman's childbearing ability or her health and occasionally to save her life, or the fetus is dead or has a condition incompatible with life, and removing it from the uterus before term is medically indicated.

5. If the procedure is so awful, why do women and doctors use it?  Does anyone other than a misogynist-religious or atheist (yes, we have them) - think it's for fun?  I had a fundie talk show host actually tell me women did this for no better reason than to fit into their little black dress the next day.

6. The ban affects abortions where “partial birth” is not planned but as the procedure goes on, the fetus starts coming out and gets stuck and the only option then is to shift to the “partial birth” method.  Either that or try to push the fetus back into the uterus, with great danger of rupturing it.  So a doctor is caught between being prosecuted for doing a “partial birth” abortion and doing what is medically necessary under the circumstances.  Medical decisions belong with medical professionals, not legislative ignoramuses.

7. If you want to be ethical and constitutional, just LEAVE WOMEN ALONE.  To do otherwise is condescending and patriarchal and the ultimate in busybody arrogance.   There is absolutely no need for abortion laws.

8. Atheists For Human Rights has a Moral High Ground to assist victims of religious oppression.  It includes grants to help poor women pay for abortions where controlling macho legislative thugs have enacted so many restrictions as to make abortion inaccessible.  We accept donations.  Thanks! Marie Alena Castle, Communications director, Atheists For Human Right, Minneapolis, MN (www.AtheistsForHumanRights.org.)

Response: No suggestion that an ethical and Constitutional way to regulate late term abortions should be made was proposed in the INQUIRER.  The question was, “Is there a way to regulate very late term abortions ethically and constitutionally?”  This, of course, allows for an answer totally in the negative and allows for the conclusion to be made that no such ethical way is possible.   Freethinkers should not be afraid to ask questions.

Many important points were made in this letter particularly the vagueness of the offense for which a doctor might be prosecuted.  It is likely that many citizens do not realize the possible twists and turns a medical procedure can take during the course of an operation.  This possibility may deter doctors from performing even early term abortions.

It must be noted, though, that it is probably never wise to argue in absolutes.   Always and never are huge mountains to climb in an argument and arguing that persons always do what is good for them (“if it's so awful”) is also a non-starter.  A better argument is that we should be allowed to do harm to ourselves if we so choose.

Asking the question as it was asked has ultimately served a very useful purpose just on the basis of Ms. Castle's letter which may have illuminated many of us to the pitfalls inherent in the legislation.  The argument against the recently passed legislation is compelling enough to not require demonization of those who supported it and characterizing the procedure itself in absolutes impossible to prove.  G.D.

12/10/03 I'm certain that many have wondered why the Catholic Church, some fundamentalist Christian Churches, and fundamentalist Muslims are anti-Democratic.  Universal absolutism, the creed of the Catholic Church, means that only thru the Church is Salvation possible.  The fundamentalist Christians say that only by the belief in Jesus, and the Muslims are equally adamant that only the belief in Allah, is Salvation possible.   Pluralism (democratic thought) allows for the possibility that irrespective of ones creed one can achieve Salvation.  One can thus conclude that "Pluralism" runs counter to the above.  The present Pope had said that "Modernism" is the bane of this world.  Past history has shown that some theologians who advocated pluralism were ostracized, and often forced to recant, lest they suffer dire circumstances.

In Vatican II Pope John XXIII had suggested the possibility of change from a position of absolutism to pluralism, however, subsequent Popes, esp. the present one, rather than expanding on Vatican II, has done everything to revert to pre-Vatican II thinking, ergo, by disallowing Pluralism, Absolutism i.e. anti-Democracy becomes their creed.  Joe Brooks via Internet.

Response: As has been said, this is the Pope's “fatal contradiction.”  G.D.

Re: Quickies!

1/8/04 In (a QUICKIE! article) you write, "Ah yes, Israeli abuse of Palestinians explains why the Ayatollah in Iran thwarts freedom…"

Yes, it does help to explain it.  The Ayatollah came to power in Iran as a backlash against the imposition of Western values.  What happens so often in the Middle East is just this sort of resorting to Islamic, Middle Eastern values, as a result of the never-ending manipulation of governments and peoples in that region by Western outsiders who have only their own interests at heart.  The Arab-Israeli problem is a convenient touch stone for all those feelings of inferiority and betrayal.  It functions as a symbol of Mid East oppression at the hands of the West that has literally been going on for centuries, and which has fostered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and political Islam.  The people of the Middle East are in a struggle to express their own values and ways of life in the face of Western imperialism, and unfortunately allow themselves to be pushed to extremes because of the extreme nature of the imperialism itself.  When their own oppressive leaders refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they are referencing potent feelings of anger and impotence in the minds of their people.  The Arab-Israeli conflict and all it stands for certainly does explain why the Ayatollah thwarts freedom and how people like him come to power in the first place.  Doug Herrschaft via Internet.

Response: All past events can be used to explain future events, because, after all, whatever happened in the past has led us to the present.  But that leaves true responsibility unaccounted for, since choices were available along the way.  One should not excuse the US for interfering unethically with sovereign nations - but one should also not excuse those tyrants, and their supporters, who come to power on the basis of anti-Western or anti-US sentiment.  They had a better choice, that of being a liberal, secular, democratic republic, and did not take it.  The alternative is to excuse and accept all choices made, no matter what.

This kind of rationalization works both ways, and the Bush regime does exactly this: How often do they claim that “after 9-11 we cannot wait for rogue regimes to attack?”   In other words, it's not “our fault” we attacked Iraq, “they made us do it.”  Obviously the Islamists shout “imperialism” and the neo-cons shout “terrorism.”  It's the same line of thinking.  It is no coincidence that both sides are highly ideological and those who buy into these arguments are often very ideological, even if in a secular manner.  G.D.

1/11/04 When you hear that small, still voice inside, it isn't God: It's your ego and imagination.  Neil Slater, Renton, WA, via Internet.

Response: The more you hear, the bigger the ego?  G.D.              [TOC]

Q U A C K E R Y: A BRIEF PRIMER Chic Schissel
Many well-educated, skeptical people suffer from a failure of logic when it comes to matters of health.  Some studies suggest that the more educated the person, the more likely he is to fall for some form of quackery.  A major logical failing of the educated, although it is rarely recognized for what it is, is prejudice.  Too many believe that everything "natural" is good, that "chemicals" somehow are unhealthy, that "organic" is good, and "artificial" is bad.   This is prejudice, equally illogical as saying that all Blacks or Jews are bad.   The wise question is not whether something is "natural" or "chemical", "new" or "old", "organic", or "additive", but whether something is good or bad.  Not all chemicals are bad, and not everything natural is good.  And all that is original and novel is not necessarily good ("It's easier to be original and foolish than original and wise.”   Liebnitz).

SUBJECTIVE VALIDATION: Sometimes people believe in something so fervently that they adjust any contrary information to fit into their already held belief system.  A person holding such beliefs and confronted by evidence that he is wrong may react emotionally and consider the evidence to be a personal attack.  He will then deny the evidence, no matter how strong it is.  This emotional reaction is part of common human nature; it takes a strong, objective mind to combat it, and it is exploited by the quacks.  Most of my well-educated friends take vitamin supplements despite the overwhelming evidence that they (and almost everyone else) don't need them.  And I cannot, despite my eloquence, articles, lectures, and scientific demonstrations, shake their beliefs.

Evidence, to be acceptable, must follow the rules.  Evidence based on logical fallacies, poorly designed or faked studies, testimonials and anecdotes, is not acceptable; these are the methods of quacks. We prefer science to pseudo-science.   "Alternative" Medicine is a red herring; there is no alternative to proper treatment.

AUTHORITARIANISM - CREDENTIALS: The fallacy of the appeal to authority is another pitfall exploited by the quacks.  Credentials can be phony, can be meaningless, and can be purchased.  Even people with genuine credentials can be dead wrong.  Citing credentials or quoting authorities are no guarantees of reliability.  Uri Geller said "If there is a God, I am right".  This, of course, is the ultimate appeal to authority, also used by Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy, etc.  Many quacks boast of fancy sounding degrees from unaccredited mail-order diploma mills, and display impressive-looking but meaningless plaques on the wall.

PSYCHOLOGY OF QUACKERY: Many intelligent people to some extent retain the rebelliousness of youth under the guise of "individuality". They are resentful of Authority and the Establishment; they may be jealous of "wealthy doctors"; they may harbor the desire to have trendy knowledge ("I'm smarter they are, I'm up on the latest"). And a touch of paranoia can play its part ("the establishment is trying to conceal the truth about cancer, the environment, nutrition, but they can't fool me.  I get my information from those courageous and outspoken scientific pioneers, the quacks".)   Quackery can be appealing because it's consistent with the American notion of freedom and individuality and resistance to control and dogma.

QUACKS COUNT ON: The placebo effect: this powerful psychological effect often improves chronic symptoms.  The quack is quick to take the credit.

The waxing and waning of chronic symptoms: When the symptom gets worse, the patient goes to the quack, who takes the credit when the symptom gets cyclically better, as it would have done anyway.

Misdiagnosis: A favorite quack trick, he tells you that you have a disease you don't have then he cures you.

Spontaneous remission: Occasionally, a serious disease improves or gets better for no detectable reason.  The quack will loudly take credit, without mentioning his many failures.

Phony "prevention" programs: It's very easy to successfully treat a patient who has nothing the matter with him.

Often the patient is a too-willing accomplice to the deceptions (or self-deception. Norman Cousins was a prominent example.)

QUACKERY AND THE LAW: Quackery is not necessarily illegal; in any case, it is very difficult to prosecute even the most flagrant quackery.  But the public erroneously believes that it is protected from Quackery by the law - this gives a false sense of security, and makes it easier for the quack to deceive.  The quack is often able to hoodwink scientifically illiterate judges and juries, and then will point to the favorable law decision as "proof" of his theories. The quack prefers the courts of Law to the courts of Science.  His chances are much better with the Law.  The Law says "you are innocent until proven guilty".  Science says the opposite: "You are guilty until proven innocent".  A treatment is no good and shouldn't be used until it is scientifically proven safe and effective.

METHODS OF THE QUACK: The Quack makes unscientific claims and defies you to disprove them (a real scientist develops and displays proof before making claims; a real doctor has scientific evidence that a treatment is safe and effective before he will use it).

The Quack uses complicated language and systems to cover up a simple but non-scientific principle.  Many chiropractors claim that all disease stems from mis-alignments of the spine; the dental TMJ quack claims that numerous diseases come from mis-alignment of the jaw joint.  These are simple (in the sense of "simpleton") concepts which are dressed up in all sorts of complicated pseudo-terminology.  Additionally, quack jargon commonly makes use of emotionally loaded catch words (alternative, holistic, prevention, nutrition, immune system, and wellness).

A striking example of this "doublespeak" is provided by cancer quacks who describe conventional cancer therapy as "cut, burn, and poison."  The real words are, of course, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy - effective treatments which have saved thousands of lives.  But the emotionally loaded doublespeak euphemisms of the quacks have killed many unsophisticated patients by scaring them away from effective treatment.

I offer the wisdom of Confucius: "When words lose their meaning, men lose their liberty".

The Quack focuses on what I call the "quack-sensitive ailments", for example, arthritis, headaches, depression, loss of "vigor", malaise, multiple sclerosis, sexual difficulties, etc.  These are ailments characterized by chronic discomfort and often incorporate emotional factors; conventional medicine finds these difficult to treat successfully.  The Quack hurls himself into the breach.

The Quack always finds a way to make a profit on his theories.  He relies on authoritarianism, logical fallacies, falsehoods, unsupported assertions, anecdotes, testimonials.  He never defends his methods by showing proof, but instead attacks the "establishment".  He responds to criticism by threatening to sue, rather than by demonstrating proof.  He always comes up with something "new".   As soon as we disprove one thing he is ready with something else, equally fallacious.

If the quack is wrong 99 times and turns out to be right once, the claim is made, pointing to the one time he was right, that the quack is correct, a courageous pioneer.

If the legitimate doctor is right 99 times and wrong once, the quacks loudly point out the one time the establishment was wrong.

THE SINCERE QUACK - If the quack is sincere, and really believes in what he's doing, does that make it all right?  Perhaps it's is safer to go to the quack who knows he is a quack: at least fear of legal reprisal may prevent him from killing you.  The sincere quack may kill you in his sincerity, as he has often killed himself and his family.   Recently a Long Island chiropractor, 35 years old, died in Mexico where his cancer was being treated with the "alternative holistic" methods he believed in.

"May you never know what we're preventing!"  This statement, from an advertising "newsletter" put out by a so-called "holistic" dentist, shows the Quack's "bait and switch" technique.  The quack is, in essence, saying: "prevention is good, and what I do constitutes scientific prevention".   He pretends that because the first part of his implication is true (prevention is good) then the second part must also be true (what I do constitutes prevention).   This is, of course, a disguised non-sequitur.  If challenged, the quack defends the first half of his statement and condemns you for attacking "prevention", as if his methods and "prevention" were one and the same.  It takes one experienced in critical thinking to see through this ploy.

Quacks echo the wail of pseudo-science when they say that some day a controlled study will validate their theories.  This exactly contradicts the requirements of real scientific medicine - that a treatment be used only after scientific proof is offered of its safety and effectiveness, not in the hope that maybe it will be validated in the future.

Remedies used prior to proof are called experiments, and should be so labeled.  The use of unproven treatments represented as legitimate to patients, for money, is a good description of Quackery.

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.
Visit our website: www.CFIMetroNY.org              [TOC]

A UNIFIED THEORY OF WELLNESS AWAITS A UNIFIED THEORY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE   Don Ardell
        Can a wellness perspective contribute to a unified theory of the universe?  Are wellness principles expressed in these weekly essays consistent with the fundamental laws of nature?  Will wellness mindsets prove critical to those who seek answers to such questions in cosmic strings and shards left from the primordial creation?  As Dave Barry would say, "beats me."   Barry added, "Now that I've cleared that up, I'd like to devote what little space I have left to the issue of piņata safety."  (Miami Herald, 10/26/03)

Forget piņata safety--unlike Barry, I find the search for a unified theory much more interesting.  As to whether there is a link to wellness, that remains to be seen.   Let's look first at the issues from a physicist's point of view-and connect their quests with our own for improved health status.

In an article entitled "Unraveling the Universe" in the Tampa Tribune on Oct. 27, 2003, writer Kurt Loft described how and why physicists want to view the universe "through a single theoretical lens."  They want to do this to understand "the way nature works on its simplest and most organic terms."

Personally, I think this would be a really cool way to view the universe-and I'm all for it.  This is how we should view the wellness concept.  No need to fancy it up.   It comes to this, actually-wellness entails making a conscious decision to seek advanced states of well-being, physically and otherwise based on a strong sense of personal responsibility.  That's as simple and organic as it gets.  No excuses, no whining.  Just do it.

Those who seek a unified theory for everything want to integrate the four forces of nature.  You know what these are-right?  In case you forgot, they are gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces - all operating in perfect symmetry else all hell would break loose and your prospects for wellness (or living) would evaporate-fast.

Which brings us to string theory: To assemble a unified theory, the brilliant folks who do physics create models that describe how particles interact in a grand and cosmic vibrating, one-dimensional "string'' of sorts.

We in the wellness biz do the same, kind of.   We see lifestyles as interplay not only of conscious choices, but an amalgam of at least four major forces that act upon us-culture, environment, lifestyle and medical systems.  These forces, called "determinants of health" in the landmark Canadian government 1974 report that helped launch the wellness movement (A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians), are never in perfect symmetry.  It would be nice if they were in even remote symmetry, but this is not the case, as we know from all manner of perturbations that affect the health status of populations (e.g., toxic wastes, dysfunctional medical delivery systems, natural disasters, rampant obesity due to insufficient exercise combined with abusive diet patterns and so on).

Back to the physicists and their focus on cosmic strings, which are said to look like light bulb filaments.  We laypersons may not realize it, but string theory questions the model of the universe that has passed for reality up to the present time.   (Except, of course, for those who prefer a much simpler unified theory of everything, namely, "God did it!")  String theorists take the current model to the proverbial next level, insisting that the fundamental ingredients of nature, subatomic particles, are in fact composed of miniscule strings.  These strings have length and interact with each other in fantastic loops -- and universal events are set in motion by their vibrations.  Basically, the theory joins the world of the very large and very small, thereby uniting laws of cosmology and quantum mechanics.  The key idea in all this is referred to as "vibrating strings.''

Now the challenge is to use deduction to interpret this unified theory for everything for purposes of a unified theory of wellness that will enable us to understand not only why EVERYONE is not living a wellness lifestyle but, more important, how to GET everyone to do so!  I suspect there is something to discover about this latter quest in the independent variable of vibrating strings.  However, how this happens (again falling back on the wisdom of Dave Barry) beats me.  Maybe you have some ideas about this--if so, I'd love to hear from you and when I do, I'll pass along your insights to everyone else.

With or without a unified or other theory, do your best to sustain a wellness lifestyle while always looking on the bright side of life.  (Go to http://www.seekwellness.com  for more info on wellness from Don Ardell.)              [TOC]

ON TOLERANCE VS. RESPECT Dr. Massimo Pigliucci
        Most of us citizens of democratic countries would agree, at least in principle, that tolerance for other people's ideas and customs is a positive value.  A subset of us would also agree that respect for other people's ways of thinking should ideally be an integral part of the ethos of a free society.   I disagree about the latter, and I'd like to briefly explore the difference between -- and the limits of -- the too often confused concepts of tolerance and respect.

While it is possible to think of tolerance and respect as synonyms, or at least as tightly linked to each other, I am going to argue that while respect implies tolerance, the other way around is by no means assured.   I think that being tolerant means something akin to “live and let live”; for example, I am tolerant of the Ku Klux Klan in the sense that I am not going to push for outlawing explicitly racist groups (as is the case, for example, in Canada), as long as they don't advocate violence against minorities.   Does that mean that I have respect for a view that considers blacks as inferior to whites?  Hell no, I despise everything the Klan stands for, and I have a real hard time comprehending how any decent human being could possibly conceive of belonging to such a group.  That, I think, makes the distinction between tolerance and respect as clear as I can muster to explain.

The example of the Klan also immediately clarifies why one can tolerate something without respecting it.  A second or two more of considered thought should elucidate why, on the other hand, respect does imply tolerance.  It is hard to imagine that one can respect some ideas, say the right of a woman to seek abortion, and not tolerate its actual practice (that is, demanding laws that restrict or eliminate the possibility of a woman to obtain an abortion).

Now that I have established the framework of my discussion, let us get a bit more detailed about the nuances of both tolerance and respect.  To begin with, it seems to me that one is under no obligation of respecting any set of ideas one profoundly disagrees with.   So I don't feel the least bit guilty for not respecting Republican politics (I think it tends to be motivated either by greed or by a grossly misconceived notion of human flourishing) or religious belief (because it worships an imaginary being and pretends to derive from it a universal moral code, often with the urge to impose it on others).  When my Republican or religious acquaintances (or casual readers) get “offended” at my attitude of “disrespect” they are missing an important point: I tolerate them (as I should, believing as I do in democracy and a liberal society), but that doesn't shield them from criticism, even of a satirical flavor.

What about tolerance?  Are there ideas and customs that should not be tolerated, even by members of a liberal society?  Yes, plenty.  The practice, common in some societies, of operating on a young girl's clitoris, so that she will not feel sexual pleasure as an adult, is barbaric, and cannot and should not be defended as simply another “cultural custom.”  It is wrong for the simple reason that it hurts an innocent human being who is in no position to understand or oppose what is being done to her.  There are many more obvious instances of things we shouldn't tolerate, of course (say, terrorism), but I think that examples like cliterectomy bring the limits of the concept into sharper focus, because not everybody in our society agrees that such a practice is barbarian.  Heck, many of my liberal friends even recoil from the use of the term “barbarian” when referring to another society.  Sorry, folks, but I think that Iran is currently stuck in the late Middle Ages, and I make no apologies for stating it -- which I don't mean as a compliment.

Finally, what about tolerance and respect for individuals, rather than ideas?  I think that the same considerations can be applied to people holding some ideas as to the ideas they hold.  After all, ideas don't exist outside people's minds, last time I checked.  If I tolerate, but don't respect, what the KKK stands for, my tolerance extends to its members, but I sure am under no obligation to respect the latter any more than the former.  There is, however, an important difference between ideas and individuals, in the context of this discussion.  An individual can hold a despicable idea in perfectly good faith, which may entitle the individual to respect, even though one may not wish to grant that status to the idea (it follows from everything I said above that both the idea and the individual should be tolerated).  For example, I have a good friend who is a Republican; I have little respect for many of her political ideas, but she is a very good person, and means well, so not only I respect her, but I consider her a dear friend.

However, this asymmetry between people and ideas can work the other way around.  Some people may hold ideas that are worthy of respect (or even of outright endorsement), but they themselves may fail to meet the conditions necessary for being respected.  For example, consider someone who lies and manipulates others in order to achieve a good end.   Unlike Machiavelli, I may cheer for the final outcome, but I wouldn't invite the person in question to dinner at my house (which is why I am glad of Saddam Hussein's fall, and still wish with all my being that Bush not be re-elected in '04 -- no contradiction at all is involved here).

Tolerance, therefore, is not and does not imply respect, and the relationship between the two is much more nuanced than seems to emerge from many instances of public discourse in our society.  Next time you watch Bill O'Reilly, please feel free to tolerate the existence of Fox News, but also to relish in utmost disrespect for both Bill's ideas and for him as a person, considering the willful lies he habitually dishes out to his audience.

(Go to Massimo Pigliucci's website, http://www.rationallyspeaking.org   for info on his books.)              [TOC]

MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm Roscoe

Bellport UU Fellowship Sunday Dec 7 10:30 AM: A hearty band of UU's made it to the fellowship to celebrate community.  Rev Alison Cornish made a reference to RW Emerson and the need for a wormer more friendly coming together in a UU society.   Emerson rejected the "stone cold" rituals of the old New England Unitarian churches and sought a warmer, friendly gathering. Rev Cornish then encouraged this gathering to come together in community to do what we enjoyed most.  That turned out to be eating and talking.  Outside of a couple of songs her rest of the time was "coffee hour."  The value of community may be seen as more precious in these inclement times.

Tuesday Dec 9, CUNY Graduate Center NYC 6:30 PM: This evening I had the chance to observe Barry Lynn, American United for Separation of Church and State debate a representative of the Becket Fund, a religious "liberty" fund.   Unfortunately the name of the Becket Fund representative was not given and we got to know him as "Kevin."  The main question was "What is religious liberty?"  Is it the right to practice your faith free of government impact or is it the privilege to practice religion with government assistance?

Lynn made a point that no public funds should assist any particular religion.  Kevin made some good points about the trivialization of the need for the separation.  Thais was illustrated by an Easter egg hunt on public property.  Since Easter is a religious holiday one had to refer the event as a "Spring Egg Roll".  Kevin also pointed out that the early founders were probably religious as the reference to a "Creator."  Further conversation pointed out the possible Deistic positions of Jefferson et al.  As to the famous "moment of Silence" Lynn made a reference to the idea that with this timed silence some traditions would not be honored since the time limitations and the absence of utterances required by some faith (Muslims for example) would be an example of preferential treatment even here.

It was unfortunate that Kevin was not very audible and not clear, even with mikes nearby, while Barry Lynn was dynamic and clear with an impressive presentation.  People might have been swayed the stylistic superiority of Lynn even as Kevin made some good points.

Nevertheless, it would seem with my biased ear that it would not seem feasible to see any way to arrive at the privilege of religious practice with government support.  Even as we see some trivialization of the separation we see that any public leaning towards helping a particular religion might lead to the limiting of free practice for all.

As a main line minister it is great to have Barry Lynn as a spokesperson in the separation arena.

Saturday, Dec. 13, Jewish Cultural School Centereach, 10:00AM: An early celebration of Hanukkah took place with this intergenerational group.  There were readings, songs and folk dancing and of course good food.  It was a delightful gathering with emphasis on being together in community and recognizing the myths as distinguished from history.  One need not take these stories literally but get some esthetic pleasure from them as we might realize this when we hear beautiful music no matter what the lyrics.  It was great seeing these many ages together in this program.

Friday Dec 19, 2:00 Long Beach, LI Havurah for Hum. Judaism: This was the observation of Hanukkah as led by Ed Klein and Len Cherlin.  This was a more intellectual observance with the study of history led by Ed Klein and the efforts to separate legend from quasi history and maybe some real history.  We saw methods of inquiry as to separating fact from fiction.

Len Cherlin led the observance of the holiday with the sequential lighting of the candles but this time representing the Ten amendments of the Bill of Rights with some adaption for the smaller number of candles.  This community which is comprised of older folks brings together people who otherwise might not have the opportunity to join in celebration of this holiday.  Much is learned from Ed Klein and Len Cherlin.

Friday, Dec. 19, 7:15 Plainview Public Library LISH meeting: Tom Flynn, Editor of Free Inquiry, and author of a number of books spoke to us about the "holiday season" and its impact as well as implications for Secular Humanists.

Using very humorous delivery and very sound reasoning Tom made a case for the "non celebration" of the holidays.  Does our participation in merry making at this time fail to show our unique place on our society as secularists?  Do we only add to the power of the holiday season by participation thereof?  Mr. Flynn also showed the historical perspective which showed a narrow strand of the continuity of this holiday and the relatively weak argument of the importance of this holiday.  He also points out that while others made merry he went about his day like "any other day" going about his business.  One might wonder, maybe much might be done with few interruptions, but there would not be much opportunity to carry on much business activity if most people are taking holiday.

What kind of response did this bring from our Secular Humanist audience?  I would probably indicate that while there was great respect for the speaker's presentation the expected responses still came out.  Some asked about what about time for pleasure whether it be weekend (Sabbath?) or seasonal celebrations.  What about enjoying folks in community?  And what about observing natural events which enhance our survival on this planet?  Although we realize the pagan celebration of the solstice was religious the natural scientific events of this time of year helps us to be grateful for these regularities.

Some folks showed the value of "the New Year" as a good time to celebrate the season.  It seemed to me that there were good natured differences expressed with respect for the differing views.  It was also pointed out that we still celebrated Human Light the next day as pointed out by Warren and Emmy.

After attending these varied events I see the value of the esthetic of the season as well.   We are not only free inquirers but also free enjoyers and appreciators of that which is beautiful and artistic.  Many of us delight in the world of ideas as well as the world of beauty and values.  It is great doing all of these things in communities of reason and values.

Where has “the Maker of Rounds” been in 2003? We have gone to five Unitarian Universalist Societies, two Ethical Culture societies, two Humanistic Judaism fellowships ("Havurahs), Jewish Cultural school, The United Nations, CFI Metro New York in Rockefeller Center, NY American Humanist Association Chapter in New York, City College Graduate Center SUNY Stony Brook, A mountaintop in North Carolina, conferences in Connecticut and Massachusetts and numerous Multi Faith functions.

We think of Humanist groups as small; indeed, small they are.  However, there are numerous friends, believe it or not, amongst us.  The struggle for acceptance of non believers does not come easy.  However , small progress does sometimes seem to appear.

In my final visits to UU societies and Ethical Culture the patterns of concerns are very much those expressed at the various Secular Humanist gatherings.  As we prepare to embark on 2004 projects we hopefully can work with others to meet some of the challenges that confront us.             [TOC]

QUICKIES!   Gerry Dantone

Item: Grammy winning singer Lauryn Hill read a statement deeply critical of the Vatican during a Christmas concert at the Vatican.  She accused the Catholic Church of exploitation and moral corruption and urged them to repent from the stage of a Christmas concert she was performing in at the Vatican.

"I'm not here to celebrate, like you, the birth of Christ, but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death in this place," Hill said as she read from a prepared statement.

"Holy god has witnessed the corruption of your leadership of the exploitation and abuses which are the minimum that can be said for the clergy," Hill continued.   She told the crowd to seek blessings “from God not men” and that she did “not believe in the representatives of God on earth.”

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, one of the senior most figures in the Church, was at Saturday's concert.  His aide labeled Hill's statement as a rash outburst and that she disrespected “the place she was in and for those who invited her.”  Hill, 28, was quoted as saying that there is “no acceptable explanation for defending the church.”

"I realize some of you may be offended by what I'm saying, but what do you say to the families who were betrayed by the people in whom they believed?”   (http://www.allhiphop.com/hiphopnews/?ID=2676.)

Comment: Ms. Hill is known to be a very religious person, so this is not a case of mere “religion” bashing.  In fact she should reflect on her own advice and reject the idea that her own admonitions are from God; they are, instead, from her own human conscience.  But she is right: Exactly why should anyone pay respect to an organization that systematically and as a matter of policy enabled pedophilia, right up to the number one person in charge?

Item: (Newsday) Nearly 2000 years after the parable of the Good Samaritan, which alluded to them as a sect that was often shunned by outsiders, Samaritans have shunned one of their own: well-known Israeli actress Sophie Sedaka.  Samaritans these days have a shortage of women and women are forbidden to marry outsiders, though men are allowed.   She married a Jewish man, (they are now separated) and she was then shunned by the sect.  A main theological difference between Jews and Samaritans is that Jews believe that Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac on Mt. Moriah, while Samaritans believe it happened on Mt. Gezerim.  Yefet Cohen, a Samaritan priest defends the rule saying “We are afraid we will lose our religion if we do not keep separate.  Women must marry a Samaritan otherwise they will be cut off from everything.”

Comment: Why must a religion endure?  Why must only women be forced to marry in the same religion?  Why do people place their belief system above the happiness of their fellow humans?  Stories like this only serve to re-confirm the fact that religion and dogma serve no purpose other than to divide humanity.

Item: (World Press Review) The Pope celebrated his 25th year as leader of the Roman Catholic Church in 2003 and has won many over via his personality and yet has alienated many via his doctrinal rigidity.  He defends human rights around the world but denies them within his own church to theologians and women; he admires Mary yet denies ordination of women as priests; he preaches against poverty yet is incapable of changing his stance on birth control, despite even the serious AIDS situation in Africa; he promotes the celibate male clergy yet does nothing about the loss of priests and the pedophile scandals within the church; he claims to want dialogue with other faiths yet considers them as less valid.  Theologian Hans Kung has referred to the Pope as burdened with “fatal contradictions.”
                 
Comment: It is inevitable that a religious leader who places both his institution and the god he happens to believe in above the welfare of humanity would have “fatal contradictions.”

Item: (Lawrence World Journal, Kansas City, Mo.) A member of a panel interviewing applicants for a judgeship in eastern Kansas asked candidates if they believe in the Ten Commandments, surprising several lawyers who applied for the job.

"I was a little taken aback," lawyer Darrell Smith said. "It's my understanding that the Bill of Rights prohibits a religious test for an office of public trust."
Panel member Robert Harrington asked about the Ten Commandments, and posed other yes or no questions such as “do you believe in capital punishment?”

Although Kansas law states "no religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust," Harrington said his question about the Ten Commandments was appropriate.

"The oath of office for district judge includes 'So help me God,"' Harrington said. "So why wouldn't the Ten Commandments be an appropriate question?"   (Go to http://www.ljworld.com/section/stateregional/story/155184.)

Comment: So, “Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?” is not a religious test!  And of course, “Do you believe in evolution?” is!

Item: (AP) President Bush said in mid-December 2003 that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union.  On Tuesday, he criticized it as ''a very activist court in making the decision it made.''

''The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court,'' Bush said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer. ''It did the job of the Legislature.''

Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is ''legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,'' he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

Comment: How despicable is it that a President of the US would support changing the Constitution to deny a class of persons, homosexuals, rights accorded to others for no greater purpose than to enhance his re-election?  Answer: It is very despicable.  Has anyone ever, at any time, explained how allowing gays to marry threatens the institution of marriage?  Has anyone ever, at any time, explained why the government must get involved in defining what a religious or social ceremony is or is not?

The government should confine its role to the enforcement of contracts between private individuals - sexual relations and/or orientations should play NO role in the enforcement of such contracts.  This kind of scenario would then allow all sorts of persons to arrange all sorts of civil unions, including couples that live together as a family or household, such as mother and daughter, sisters, gay couples, conventionally married couples, or roommates, who may have or not have a sexual relationship, and then still receive the rights that married persons have historically been accorded.  Whether these unions constitute “marriages” would be left to the social or religious institutions of those persons - in other words, where it belongs.

There is no explanation for the unethical behavior of the administration except that it is playing to the worst prejudices of Americans for votes.  Shame on the President!

Item: (International Herald Tribune) For three intense days in December 2003, more than 2,000 women from Kabul and from at least 10 of the 32 provinces of Afghanistan met in the Park Cinema in Kabul to debate the recently released draft of a constitution and to propose changes that would better guarantee the rights of women as citizens of an Islamic republic.

The resulting resolution was officially presented to the Constitution Commission and then to the Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, that is currently discussing the constitution.   The stakes for women are high.

Participating over the three days were representatives from the government, such as the deputy of the Supreme Court of Afghanistan, the head of the Association of Professors at the University of Kabul, women members of the Constitution Commission, and, most notably, Massouda Jalal. Dr. Jalal is a woman running for president, a remarkable first that would have been impossible in Afghanistan only a few years ago.  Striking in the meeting was the presence of men and the almost total absence of the burka - the head-to-toe covering that for many is the hated symbol of the oppression of women.

Because of the courage and intelligence of these women and their willingness to involve themselves, the effect of this conference on Afghan politics could be far-reaching.   Their participation could bring radical changes to the country in three significant ways.

First, these women are showing by their actions that they consider themselves to be citizens with rights equal to those of men.  They believe that their identity as women empowers them in many ways. Ms. Jalal, the presidential candidate, observes that women's basic and democratic message can transcend ethnic differences, cross ethnic boundaries, and thus appeal to a broad spectrum of the population.

Second, the force of the women's movement is sharply reflected in surprisingly supportive recent speeches and actions by Islamic clerics who previously ranked among the most hard-line opponents of liberating women.  Can they be trusted? As one woman leader told us, maybe yes, maybe no, but isn't this new discourse already a victory?

Comment: It would seem that hope for a truly free and democratic Afghanistan lies in the hands of Afghani women.  It truly remains to be seen if the new Afghanistan uses secular law or sharia-lite as the basis for their system.   The world needs to send its support for a more secular Afghanistan.

Item: (The Australian) Muammar Gaddafi's decision to give up his weapons of mass destruction earlier in Dec. 2003 was an astute move and one that recognized how much the world has changed, particularly since September 11.

Like Saddam Hussein, he particularly supported the Palestinians, notably the Abu Nidal Organisation that was based for many years in Libya.  At the same time however he, like Hussein, ran a secular state that encouraged women to become doctors and scientists.

In terms of terrorism, the world has moved on, though, since Gaddafi came to power in 1969.  Terrorist groups that he supported in the 1970s and '80s, such as the Provisional IRA and Red Army Faction, have entered ceasefire agreements and become political actors or ceased to exist. Most terrorists from that era are retired or in jail.   Meanwhile, the Palestinians ceased to engage in international terrorism after signing the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Comment: Those who fail to distinguish between the likes of a Hussein of Iraq, Assad of Syria and Gaddafi of Libya, and a bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the other hand should take note:   Fundamentalism scares even the despots!              [TOC]

Philosophical Discussion Group!

First and third Tuesdays  of the month 7:30PM, CFI-LI/LISH Philosophical Discussion Group; meets in Patchogue, limited seating, you must RSVP via email Warren Rothstein @ Waremmy@optonline.net or call 631 363 8216 to reserve a place and for directions.

Special meeting on Saturday, February 21, featuring Dr. Massimo Pigliucci!  Call now to reserve space!


March for Freedom of Choice on April 25, 2004

To demonstrate overwhelming majority support for a woman's right to choose safe, legal abortion and birth control, the largest pro-choice majority in history will march on Washington on Sunday April 25, 2004.

For the first time ever this pro-choice march is a collaborative effort - four leading national women's rights groups have come together to organize this momentous event.   The Feminist Majority, Naral Pro-Choice America, National Organization For Women and Planned Parenthood Federation Of America are the principal organizers of the March for Freedom of Choice and have pooled efforts and resources to lay the groundwork.  Other progressive organizations have signed on as Co-Sponsors - offering everything from member participation to help spreading the word and help defraying costs.  The march will begin at noon from the Lincoln Memorial, although participants may begin assembling as early as 10 a.m.  After marching on Washington, a rally will be held from 1-4 p.m. on the National Mall.  Special seating will be available for people with disabilities.   The route is wheelchair accessible and transportation will be provided for those who cannot negotiate the route.

To sign-up on line go to: https://www.marchforchoice.org/index.php.

Locally, you may call Sarah Miller @ 516 750 2666 or email sarah.miller@ppnc.org for more information on the march.

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 @ ; 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.


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.

MEETING INFO

Wednesday, Feb. 11, 6:30PM,  Darwin Day - NYC, featuring Anne Druyan, “Escaping Eden” @ the NY Academy of Sciences, 2 East 63rd Street, NYC.  $10 donation requested.  Call 212 265 2877 for info.

We will hold our annual Darwin Day event at the Ethical Humanist Society, 38 Old Country Road, Garden City @ 2PM, Saturday, February 14.  Our guest speakers will include Fred Edwords and Dr. John Wiens.  Music will be provided by Sonny Meadows.   Refreshments will be served.

Fred Edwords is the Executive Director of the American Humanist Association and editor of The Humanist magazine.  He is also a Humanist Minister.
                      
Among his many publications are "Creationism Is Not Dead!" The Truth Seeker, July 1990; "Students Speak Out Against Textbook Censorship," The Humanist Mar/Apr 1987; ""Scientific Illiteracy," July/Aug 1986; (contributor) Scientists Confront Creationism, Laurie R. Godfrey (Ed.), W. W. Norton, 1984; and much more!

Other Relevant Misc. Info: Humcon Pioneer, HUMCON (1992); Humanist Pioneer Award, American Humanist Association (1986); Rationalist of the Year, American Rationalist Federation (1984).

Fred Edwords will take up the topic of "Evolution of Creationism: A Historical perspective."

Dr. Wiens is Assistant Professor at Stony Brook University in the Ecology and Evolution Department specializing in reptile and amphibian evolution.  He was previously associate Editor of the journal "Evolution."  He received his BS from Kansas University and a PHD in Zoology from the Univ. of Texas.

His field experience includes 12 months over nine trips to Mexico, Ecuador, Peru and Argentina.  He is also a member of numerous professional organizations such as the American Association of the Advancement of Science and American Society of Naturalists.   Dr. Wiens has authored or co-authored over 50 publications.

His' topic will be "Evolutionary Biology and Rainforest Biodiversity: Lessons from Treefrogs; Ecological implications.”  References to the importance of Darwin's work will be discussed also.

Sonny Meadows will serenade us with some of his topical and humorous tunes.
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, it will be seen Thursdays @ 7PM on the Woodbury system and Mondays on the Hauppauge and Brookhaven systems @ 7PM, on Channel 20.

Atheist Meetup!
Tuesday, Feb 17, 7PM, Atheist Meetup.  For details go to http://atheists.meetup.com and enter your zip code.

Harlem Discussion Group
Sunday, Feb. 29, 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, Feb. 27, 7PM, Center for Inquiry MetroNY, Discussion Group, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, #2829.  To confirm call 212 265 2877.
TIME TO GROW SOS!

The Council for Secular Humanism is requesting donations 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), 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.

Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested email us.  All meetings are at 7 PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, unless otherwise noted.   FREE!

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: At the home of Warren and Mary Jane in Patchogue, Suffolk County.  Email for reservations and directions.  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".

Editor:   Gerald Dantone
Design:  John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright LISH 2004

             [TOC]