Center for Inquiry-:ong Island INQUIRER
Volume 7, Issue 3, March, 2004TABLE OF CONTENTS
Super Boob!
Letters to the Editor
Israel and Anti-Semitism: A Follow-Up
Quickies
Bulletin to Bush: US is a Free Country After All
CFI's Conference About Alternative Medicine
Making the Rounds With NormCFI-LI/LISH MEETING INFO
Paul Grosswald on “Cults & Coercion”
Our guest speaker for our 7PM, March 19 forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, will be Paul Grosswald on the topic of “CULTS AND COERCION: How Ordinary People Are Turned Into Extraordinary Fanatics.”
Paul Grosswald was recruited into the Church of Scientology during his sophomore year at Hofstra University. During six months of intense indoctrination he became increasingly drawn to the group, until he ultimately dropped out of school, moved into the cult's Manhattan compound, and signed a one-billion year employment contract with Scientology's Sea Organization. After finally breaking free from the cult's influence, he returned to Hofstra where he earned a B.A. in Communications. Paul has discussed his experience in over 200 lectures and media interviews, in which he educates the public about the dangers of destructive cults and the techniques of coercive persuasion used by cult leaders. In 2001, he received a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School and is currently a litigation associate in a New York City law firm.
Don't miss this chance to hear it first hand from an ex-member!
The guest speaker for the Sunday, March 7 @ 11AM Service at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 223 Stewart Avenue, Garden City, Nassau County, will be Gerry Dantone, the President of the Long Island Secular Humanists. His topic will be "Humanism vs. Religious Morals."
Atheist Meetup!
Tuesday, Mar. 16, 7PM, Atheist Meetup, location to be decided. For details go to http://atheists.meetup.com and enter your zip code.
Rockefeller Plaza Discussion Group
Friday, Mar. 26, 7PM, Center for Inquiry MetroNY, Discussion Group, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, #2829. To confirm call 212 265 2877.
Harlem Discussion Group
Sunday, Mar. 28, 12:30PM, Center for Inquiry MetroNY, Discussion Group, 163 W. 125th Street, Harlem, NYC. Call 212 265 2877 to confirm.SUPER BOOB! Gerry Dantone
The Super Bowl, played on February 1, 2004 this year, was a fairly exciting game. Alternating between suffocating defense and wild offense, the game delivered for once in the face of its hype. What was not bargained for was the controversy resulting from a halftime show that featured a surprise climax - Janet Jackson's exposed right breast! Placed in context, the whole affair is very revealing.
It is claimed by the participants that at the end of a song in which singer Justin Timberlake sings “Gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” Mr. Timberlake was supposed to tear away a portion of Ms. Jackson's outfit to reveal a lace bra. Of course, the bra tore away as well revealing a breast only adorned by a piece of jewelry. Oops! The whole display could not have been more than a second or two.
The display of 95% of Ms. Jackson's breast on broadcast TV was not the biggest problem - it was a combination of things. This raunchy halftime (other acts had women removing articles of clothing and others sang tunes referencing nudity, sex, whores, crackheads, etc.) was PG13 rated in the middle of a G rated sporting event. Most viewers probably did not have this kind of expectation for a halftime show.
For example, at a Super Bowl that I attended, the only person to see the controversial display was a 10 year old girl - who immediately ran out of the room in embarrassment and confusion (so she claims). She explained the next day that it had made her very uncomfortable. What was shocking to her was not the body part - it was that Mr. Timberlake took it upon himself (it would seem to a 10 year old) to do the exposing without asking Ms. Jackson in advance. Of course, this is not the kind of example that a teen or pre-teen icon like Mr. Timberlake should be setting, not to mention Ms. Jackson, whose idea it was. If there is a rash of children ripping the shirts off of other children, we will know where they got the idea. That would not be amusing.
I suspect that the incident was more revealing than intended, though it remains obvious that the whole tone of the halftime show was inappropriate for a general audience. Though it was in poor taste, the republic will most likely not tumble.
To some persons however, the republic will tumble at the mere mention of anything sexual! Extreme right wing pundit Sean Hannity said, “Is it another example of how our culture is going downhill? Of course it is.” Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director said, “MTV's halftime would have played well in an S&M strip bar…” In less than a day, the head of the FCC, Michael Powell vowed to launch a “thorough and swift” investigation which could lead to massive fines against CBS. No bureaucratic delays on this case! Hearings were held within a week! All that is left is for the NFL to investigate whether the breast was chemically enhanced!
At the same time, however, the panel headed by former NJ Governor Keane needed more time to investigate the intelligence failure that allowed 9-11 to happen, with the uncooperative White House opposed to any extension, ready or not. Also, at the same time, the Bush Administration resisted attempts to have an independently appointed panel investigate the intelligence failure, and the possible misuse of intelligence regarding the non-existent Iraqi WMDs that were used as the motivation for attacking Iraq. A panel appointed by the President would not necessarily review whether the intelligence was “hyped” and in any event was not to report back until after the 2004 elections. We're sure that this is just a coincidence.
Let's review: It took less than 24 hours for an investigation to be started on Janet Jackson's breast. It has taken years to get the tragic mistakes and/or miscalculations in the White House investigated impartially!
Let's face it - nothing has changed. To the extreme right-wing Republicans running the country, a woman's boob is more of a peril to the country than a boob in the Oval Office.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Re: Pigliucci & Israel
1/1/04 I have read and appreciated a lot of Mr. Pigliucci's writings, which is why his article "Israel, Anti-Semitism, and World Peace" was so deeply disturbing to me. I find it hard to believe that a humanist like Pigliucci can be treading the fine line of anti-Semitism, but I can think of no other explanation for some of his remarks.
Most outrageous is his accusation of Israel's "Holocaust-like behavior toward other religious or ethnic minorities". Does Pigliucci have any idea of what the Holocaust was? Have the Israelis brutally rounded up these ethnic populations, looted their property, and then sent them off to mass extermination camps?
Israel has tried, time and again, to come to an accommodation with its Arab neighbors. The Israelis have made generous offers to return territory and assist the Palestinians, always to be treated deceitfully and ultimately rebuffed. Four times they have been attacked in wars of aggression; they have won these wars, but the Arabs want to get, through terrorism and bargaining, what they couldn't get with war.
Most of the Arab world is mired in a medieval culture and suffers under corrupt, despotic autocracies. The Arabs in Israel have long been much better off than the average Middle East Arab. The only Arab free press in the Middle East is in Israel. The rest of the Arab world endures a repressive totalitarian society that includes slavery, abusive treatment of women (including stoning to death of "adulterers") and lack of opportunity for the common man.
And it's surely true that the Palestinians are suffering. The Israelis are not perfect, but Arab suffering is not Israel's fault: The blame lies with the corrupt, incompetent, and heartless Arab leadership.
I agree that the Jews should abandon many of their settlements. The radical Jewish orthodox are in some ways as bad and intolerant as the extreme Islamists (except the Jews don't sanction murder). But each conciliatory gesture by the Israelis has been rejected, each agreement has been broken by the Arabs. The PLO charter still says they intend to destroy Israel. But the Jews do not intend to walk quietly to the ovens. Not this time.
I can't understand how a humanist can criticize Israel but not the Arab states, how the behavior of the Arabs can be preferred to that of Israel. Anti-Semitism might explain it. Chic Schissel, Long Island, via Internet.
1/4/04 Massimo Pigliucci, is mistaken when he characterizes the Israeli occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians as Holocaust-like. He is either unfamiliar with the facts and scope of the Holocaust or engaging in reckless hyperbole. He also fails to mention intentional targeting of Israeli civilians by suicide bombers. While I'm not a defender of Israeli policies concerning Palestinians, I am a defender of facts and truth. Regard, John Lucania, Whitestone, NY, via Internet.
1/7/04 I was appalled by the article by Massimo Pigliucci. The main thrust of the article is that the Europeans have a right to be critical of Israel not because it is a major threat to world peace, but it is acting in a similar manner to the way they were treated at the hand of the Germans (who INSTITUTIONALIZED KILLING).
This is sophistry in the extreme. Firstly, had the Palestinians accepted the partition voted by the U.N. in 1947 there would have been no Israeli-Palestinian problem. Israel had to fight wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. An Arab victory would have resulted in the annihilation of Israel. To allow an armed foe as a neighbor would be a formula for possible disaster.
Israel has an Arab population comprising 20% of its citizens, and they enjoy the same rights as all Israelis, although in truth they are not treated as well as the Israelis.
This is a negative. Prior to Arafat assuming control of the Palestinians in the early 1970s, they were the world's 4th fastest growing economy.
The Palestinians and other Arab states in their press, TV, and schools, teach their people to hate and kill Jews - this is INSTITUTIONALIZED.
Clinton, with Barak, Arafat et.al., brokered a deal which afforded the possibility of a peaceful solution. Arafat did not show up for the signing. Saudi prince Bandar said what Arafat did was criminal.
While most Europeans are probably not anti-Semitic, the Israeli-Palestinian situation has indeed given the latent anti-Semites an excuse to vent their venom.
It should be quite apparent to any thinking person, that anti-Semitism and scapegoating are alive and well. Joe Brooks via Internet.
1/11/04 Re: "Israel, Anti-Semitism, and World Peace" (Vol. 7, Issue 1, Jan. 2004), M.Pigliucci states a questionable "fact" as a lead- in to a slanted opinion. First, the "fact" stated is that Europeans (based on a questionable survey) think Israel is the nation most dangerous to world peace, for which no reason is given except that we should rule out 'Anti-Semitism', because, he tells us, Europeans are not 'Anti-Semitic' anymore; and second, that the Europeans are right to be critical of Israel, however, for a different reason: that it is "acting in an increasingly despondent and despicable manner against largely defenseless people," as did Germany during the Holocaust.
Mr. Pigliucci's rhetoric is very disturbing. It is verbal persecution of the type which always seems to precede actions of persecution. First the words, then the actions. That's how persecution begins. That's how the Holocaust began in Germany.
The author tells us that the motive and method of the survey which gathered the 'fact' of Europeans being Anti-Israel is suspect, so why does he even mention it? His reporting of this seems to be an emotional appeal for an Anti-Israeli position, especially when no reason is given for the blaming of Israel as being the "most dangerous nation" in the world, and when the author himself names several other nations which are truly dangerous due to the nature of their leaders and their access to nuclear weapons. The author's 'proof' that Europeans are not Anti-Semitic is that Germany has made (under protest) reparations, and some of the others have said they are sorry.
Also, the so-called "defenseless" Palestinians have terrorized Israelis for years, maiming and killing them with bombings, and Israel has had to retaliate, to defend themselves. Mr. Pigliucci says that Israel is acting like the Nazis did during the Holocaust. This is such hyperbole that it can only be thinly veiled Anti-Semitism. How can M. Pigliucci compare the Nazi torture and gassing of millions of gentle and productive citizens of Jewish heritage with Israel's defense of its citizenry? How can M. Pigliucci compare the plan to exterminate the Jews with the desire of Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians? The Palestinians rejected Israel's offer after offer for peace. Israelis are not Nazis, and this L.I.S.H. member resents it being portrayed as such. Sue Taub via Internet.
Response: I do believe that the essay made a number of useful points and in addition many persons share Dr. Pigliucci's views; however, it must be admitted that left unexplained was the paranoia over Israel. Please read Dr. Pigliucci's response to these letters elsewhere in this newsletter. G.D.
ISRAEL AND ANTI-SEMITISM: A FOLLOW-UP Massimo Pigliucci
I wish to thank Gerry Dantone for allowing me the possibility to respond to several letters he received after the publication of my recent column on Israel. There, I discussed a European Union survey from which it emerged that most Europeans think that Israel represents a primary threat to world peace (an opinion that I do not share, as I clearly wrote in the same column). Given that I am about to move to Long Island and join LISH, I sure welcome the opportunity of clarifying my thoughts with an audience among whom I hope to find many friends and discussion companions.
I was a bit surprised by the tone of the criticisms I received, but on second thought I should not have been. The reactions I elicited were exactly of the same kind that prompted me to write the column to begin with. First, however, let me start by acknowledging some of the points raised by the readers.
My use of the sentence “Holocaust-like” to describe the policy of ethnic cleansing practiced by the current Israeli government was not meant to convey the impression that I think the Israelis are behaving as the Nazi did. They most obviously are not. Rather, what I wanted to get across was the idea that it seems to me rather ironic that a people who has suffered for so long at the hands of others doesn't seem to be able to do much better than exercise force on weaker people when it is their turn to be the strong side. However, obviously my choice of words was not my best moment in writing, so the version of the column that is hosted on my web site (www.rationallyspeaking.org) has been changed accordingly.
The second thing to note about the letters is that they call for a balanced criticism of the Palestinian side. Such criticism is surely due, and in fact my forthcoming column (which was planned
before I received the letters, and will appear in the April 2004 newsletter) does just that. I am wondering what sorts of letters that piece will generate from either side of the debate. I'm afraid I might end up being perceived as an equal opportunity offender, but so be it.
Third, it seems to me that some of the readers have a bit too much of a black and white view of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is certainly true that Israel had to fight wars to defend its own existence, and it is equally true that Arafat is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the Palestinians. Equally, it is correct that the only Arab free press is to be found in Israel (see my next column on this). However, to think that the actions taken by Israel against the Palestinians are always in response to the latter's evil and unprovoked horrors seems to me a bit naive.
Israel has built settlements and insists in occupying land following a pattern that the United Nations has declared illegal; it has engaged in “retaliatory” actions that have often brought about the indiscriminate killing of civilians, including children, and the razing to the ground of entire villages; and it has carried out assassination attempts of alleged (not tried in a court of law) terrorists. These are the factors that contribute to the low degree of sympathy that most Europeans currently hold for the Israeli government. To point this out, it seems to me, is a way to attempt to strike a balance between an uncritical acceptance of whatever Israel does and true anti-Semitism, which I most certainly deny was the motivation behind my article.
Finally, I find interesting the use by all of the letter writers of emotionally loaded and rhetorical words to describe my article, such as “disturbing,” “outrageous,” “reckless,” “appalling,” “sophistic in the extreme,” “verbal persecution,” “hyperbolic” and, of course, “anti-Semitic.” And this in only four letters! Rhetorical flourishing is more often the product of emotional reaction than of reasoned discourse (I know, because I occasionally fell into the same trap!), and I humbly ask my fellow secular humanists to refrain from the former and engage in the latter. This is, if nothing else, what secular humanism is all about: we are supposed to be able to openly discuss any issue -- no matter how controversial -- and even to agree to disagree, without fear of being ostracized because our opinions are unpopular, or even in need of correction. At least, this is the spirit in which I am going to join LISH next May.QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: (CNN) A photograph, taken on Labor Day 1970, shows Fonda at an antiwar rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Kerry, who at the time led a group called Vietnam Veterans Against The War, can be seen in background behind her. John Kerry is seen behind Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally in 1970. Kerry's campaign confirmed that he was at the rally and spoke.
But aides stressed that Kerry and Fonda were only acquaintances, and the meeting took place two years before Fonda took a controversial trip behind enemy lines and posed for pictures on a North Vietnam army anti-aircraft gun which prompted her angry detractors to dub her "Hanoi Jane."
Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, told the Washington Times that Kerry's attendance at the rally with Fonda "symbolizes how two-faced he is, talking about his war reputation, which is questionable on the one hand, and then coming out against our veterans who were fighting over there on the other."
"This was an organization of men who risked their lives in Vietnam, who considered themselves totally patriotic," Jane Fonda said of Kerry's antiwar group in response.
Fonda also dismissed attempts to link Kerry to her controversial antiwar past with the photograph as "a dirty black propaganda tactic."
"My reaction is that the American people have had it with the big lie," she told CNN Wednesday. "Any attempts to link Kerry to me and make him look bad with that connection is completely false. We were at a rally for veterans at the same time. I spoke, Donald Sutherland spoke, John Kerry spoke at the end. I don't even think we shook hands.
"I'm tired of the government lying. I'm tired of people desperately pulling out anything that they can do to hurt another candidate, and I think that the American people feel that way, too," she said. "It's a bunch of hogwash."
She also said that she does not recall meeting Kerry during the antiwar movement. Kerry aides said he did not support Fonda's trip to Vietnam, an action for which many veterans still refuse to forgive her more than 30 years later.
Response: Is it really true that some Republicans are attempting to criticize war hero John Kerry for speaking at the same rally as Jane Fonda because of what Fonda would do IN THE FUTURE?
It's not as if he shook the hand of someone already known as a murderous thug.
At least Kerry is not hiding his past and in fact has much to be proud of. Exactly where was Bush in 1972 & 1973? Isn't it odd how evidence and logic is so consistently elusive in the Bush administration?
Item: (Borzou Daragahi, Newsday) A decision by Iraq's American-backed Governing Council to hand control of marriage and divorce laws to religious authorities has sparked outrage among Iraqi women, who fear clerics will revoke the rights they enjoyed under the ousted regime. Under Directive 137, approved by the council on Dec. 29 in less than 15 minutes, Muslim and Christian clergy will have final say about issues involving marriage, divorce and inheritance - matters that under Saddam Hussein were handled in civil court. The decision, which must be approved by a future Iraqi government to become law, means religious leaders would dictate such things as the number of wives a man may have, who gains custody of children in divorces, whether girls and women may inherit property, and how easily a man can get a divorce.
Iraqi officials were dumbfounded when asked where atheists would go for such decisions.
Critics say the move nudges Iraq closer to a theocracy. "This is based on Islamic Sharia law," said Samira Hossein, a member of the advocacy group League of Iraqi Women. "I believe it will hinder the democratic aspirations of Iraqi women, their right to choose, their right to educate themselves. It will damage them in the fields of marriage, family and commerce."
As details of the decision trickled out, outraged women took to the streets, accusing the Governing Council of giving in to Islamic hard-liners. Even Nasreen Barwari, Iraq's lone female minister, chosen by the Governing Council, joined a protest in Baghdad Tuesday.
Council spokesman Hamid al-Khifaey said that giving religious figures a say about family matters is what Iraqis want. "We don't have Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq," he said. "It is only right that people use the doctrine they believe in to sort out their family affairs and family problems."
Under Hussein's regime, Iraqi women enjoyed a level of freedom and equality remarkable for the Muslim world. Laws protected them from child marriages and allowed daughters to inherit property, for example. New laws cannot be enforced until Iraq regains its sovereignty, scheduled to take place July 1. But the council's decision illustrates the influence of some religious Iraqi figures, such as al-Hakim, and their determination to impose religious law over Iraqis' personal lives, critics said.
Maysoon al-Damluji, a deputy culture minister, said the civil code under Hussein was enforced selectively and needed to be fixed, not wiped out. "What we were looking for was improvement, bringing it into the modern world," she said. "Abolishing it was unacceptable." (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wowome173632064jan19,0,4786551.story)
Comment: This is incredible: Removing Hussein has the potential to make life worse for Iraqi women - 50% of the population for a start, not to mention the situation for atheists! Wasn't liberating the Iraqi people the only remaining rationale for this war? Aren't Iraqi women persons?
Item: (AP) During the weekly prayers Friday at Baghdad's biggest Sunni house of worship, the Abu Hanifa mosque, young men distributed booklets, describing Saddam as the true ruler of Iraq, and calling for an end to American occupation. Saddam was captured Dec. 13.
''Even if he is in captivity, there is still hope for his salvation,'' said the booklet, signed by unnamed ''caretakers of Islamic laws.''
''The Iraqi leader (Saddam) is immoral but not an infidel,'' the booklet said, adding that Muslims have the religious duty to ''fight against those who go against the legitimate ruler'' even if he was unjust.
Comment: Huh? “Fight against those who go against the legitimate ruler” even if he was unjust? Why should we be surprised? The very essence of religion is that belief is more important than ethics. It is more important that Hussein was a believing Muslim than he was a murderous tyrant because his removal was at the hands of unbelieving “infidels.” If this sentiment is truly representative of many in Iraq, then there is no getting away from a specific conclusion: That if the Americans were Sunni Muslims, the attack on Iraq would have been OK, or not as bad at the least, with the Sunni Muslim Iraqis. The whole basis of their anti-Americanism is nothing more than religious prejudice. Religious beliefs trump justice. But it is to the shame and fault of the administration that they could not see this in advance.
Item: (Pak Tribune) Afghanistan's Chief Justice-the country's highest Islamic jurist-has ordered the execution of two journalists who questioned the compatibility of Shari'ah with democracy, and a female member of the interim administration has been charged with blasphemy. Shea said the U.S.-supported Karzai government has defended these actions and others.
Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, has expressed concerns. "The (Constitution) doesn't contain any provisions separating the mosque from the state or ensuring equal rights among the religious groups," he said. "They're running the risk of establishing a theocracy."
(An Aghan official said) Afghan jurists will use the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. "Hanafi is the most liberal jurisprudence in Islam," he told the news agency. "It allows a very wide range of interpretation according to where the law is applied." That's part of the problem, says Shea. Using any single interpretation of Islamic law inhibits religious freedom, which must be individual, she said.
"It's a radical Muslim country whether the Taliban is in there or not. It's still a radical Muslim country with a fundamentalist mindset."
Reports that the constitution declares that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" trouble Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House. "That means to me that Islamic law is the supreme law of the land," she said. "The provisions of Islam are left undefined, and the interpreter of what they are is left unidentified." Though the final draft removed references to Shari'ah, the restriction (called a repugnancy clause) may be a cloak for Islamic law. Shea said, "It's not going to be the secularists who claim the right to interpret. It's going to be the hard line Shari'ah jurists."
"The U.S. government seemed to think that if you could go to church you were free," she said. "There was no concept that religious freedom means educating your children in the faith or being able to possess religious literature, Bibles, being able to designate your leaders, being able to meet with co-religionists, being able to carry out charities, being able to raise money, or to take collections."
"[The constitution] says equality for women, but someone is going to have to interpret that in light of the provisions of Islam, which say that women have half the weight as men. "It's going to be tragic if we influence [the region] by creating an Islamic state, sending the signal that the U.S. is willing to establish and support and tolerate a repressive Islamic state," she says.
Comment: The loya jirga is basically saying “we'll kill anyone who says we're intolerant.” And of course, there are the likely irreconcilable differences between equality for women and sharia law. If the Afghani Constitution serves as the model for the Iraqi Constitution, many will have died for almost nothing. However, will GW Bush have any inkling? It's freedom, stupid!
Item: (IHS) Connecticut Republican governor, John Rowland, has rejected calls for his resignation for accepting gifts from government contractors, and claims God is his biggest supporter.
Rowland, who has admitted accepting gifts from powerful businessmen, defended himself by saying God had called to him "loud and clear" in his "adversity.”
Comment: Well, I guess that settles it: God spoke to him and the Governor thinks we should accept it. This puts him on a par with St. Paul and Mohammed! How dare anyone accuse believers of being delusional!BULLETIN TO BUSH: US IS A FREE COUNTRY AFTER ALL Gerry Dantone
(Reuters) President Bush does not have power to detain American citizen Jose Padilla, the former gang member seized on U.S. soil, as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. The decision could force the government to try Padilla, held in a so-called ''dirty bomb” plot, in civilian courts.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization.
The former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam was arrested in May 2002 Chicago's O'Hare airport as he returned from Pakistan. Within days, he was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C.
The court directed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days, but said the government was free to transfer him to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges. (End quote.)
This decision by the 2nd circuit was truly a no-brainer: Exactly what did the Bush administration expect? Did they expect to be able to disappear ANY citizen without charges, without presenting evidence, without allowing a day in court, denying access to an attorney, etc.? Did they truly think that they could do what is akin to being able to do anything they want without the slightest check or balance?
Understand the Bush position: They believed they could take ANY citizen, ANYWHERE, WITHOUT a stitch of evidence, answering to NO ONE, and imprison or even KILL THE PRISONER, without even divulging that they have that person in custody to anyone, including relatives or the courts!
What could more tyrannical? Yet the media refused to depict the President and his attorney general's actual position in these indisputable terms! Some liberal media!
The Courts have now made their decision, unless appeals are made to the Supreme Court. Bush's approval ratings remained fairly good at the time but are now slipping. Is the public finally getting it?
The following quote is taken from the Cato Institute, a conservative think-tank:
Consider this specious logic, endorsed by the Bush administration: Under the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel does not apply until charges are filed. The government has not charged Padilla. Ordinarily, U.S. citizens cannot be detained without charge. But the administration has avoided that technicality by designating Padilla as an "enemy combatant," then proclaiming that the court may not second-guess his designation.
Essentially, on orders of the executive branch, anyone could wind up imprisoned by the military with no way to assert his innocence. That frightening prospect was echoed by J. Harvie Wilkinson, the respected and steadfastly conservative chief judge of the Fourth Circuit. In a case involving another U.S. citizen, Yaser Hamdi, Wilkinson warned, "With no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel." Judge Wilkinson upheld Hamdi's detention but pointedly noted that Hamdi's battlefield capture was like "apples and oranges" compared to Padilla's arrest in Chicago. "We aren't placing our imprimatur upon a new day of executive detentions," Wilkinson cautioned.
An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention. (Go to http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html.)
Another article from the Cato Institute first published in the conservative National Review reads: In a nutshell, we cannot permit the executive branch to declare unilaterally that a U.S. citizen may be characterized as an enemy combatant, whisked away, detained indefinitely without charges, denied legal counsel, and prevented from arguing to a judge that he is wholly innocent. (http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-01-02.html.)
Imagine the following groups filing a “friend of the court” brief together: The Cato Institute; The Center for National Security Studies; The Constitution Project; The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights; People for the American Way; and the Rutherford Institute!
Numerous diverse moderate, left wing and right wing groups joined in opposing the unlimited secret detention of Mr. Padilla, who the administration has claimed is a would-be “dirty bomber.” If this is true, is it too much to ask that they prove it? Just a little?
Otherwise, Bush and company are guilty of kidnapping and subverting the Constitution. What more serious offense could a President commit (not including adultery)? What is more dangerous to our country than the end of personal liberty - and with no recourse? What could possibly motivate anyone to overlook this?
Yet that is precisely what many will do.CFI-International Conference
Science & Ethics
May 13 to 16th, Toronto, Canada
For many centuries scientists and philosophers believed that with the advance of scientific knowledge, literacy, and education, humankind could become liberated from ancient fears and superstitions so that a wiser and more humane ethical outlook could develop. It was believed that scientific inquiry could be applied to moral values and modify them in the light of their causes, rational consistency, and a regard for empirical consequences. This viewpoint is sympathetic to the classical attempt to apply reason to conduct, and it is consonant with the Enlightenment goal of achieving human progress. Many people were thus committed to using science to reconstruct the traditional sources of morality and to form entrenched socio-political-economic institutions.
First, many religionists hold that without belief in God and in absolute religious commandments, no moral standards are possible (a premodern view). Second, postmodernists, while skeptical of religious metaphysics, are likewise skeptical of science, believing that it offers its own mythology and that consequently no progressive emancipation agenda is possible for humanity. Third, many scientists and philosophers have in the past held that science deals with facts and that moral values are based on passions and feelings. Hence, it was held that science cannot help frame rational moral judgment.
This conference will challenge these assumptions and bring to the fore a renewed challenge to integrate the sciences and ethics as disciplines.
Among the scheduled speakers and lecturers are Prof. Paul Kurtz, Prof. Mario Bunge, Prof. Austin Dacey, Vern Bullough, Prof. Richard Hull, Prof. Jim Alcock, Jim Underdown, Susan Jacoby, Prof. David Koepsell, Jan Eisler, Tom Flynn and many others.
Accommodations: Courtyard Marriott, 475 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA, M4Y 1X7, Tel: (416) 924-0611
For More Information: David Koepsell, Executive Director, Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, P.O. Box 741, Amherst, NY 14226, Tel: (716) 636-7571 ext: 215, E-Mail: dkoepsell@centerforinquiry.net
REGISTRATION
Adult Registration: $159.00 USD
Student Registration: $99.00 USD (please show valid ID)
Friday Luncheon: $30.00 USD
Saturday Luncheon: $30.00 USD
Saturday Banquet: $45.00 USD
(Go to: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/conference-2004.html )
American Humanist Association Conference: Oasis in the Desert
The AHA will be holding their 63rd Annual Conference from May 7 to 9, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada! Guest speakers will include Nadine Strossen of the ACLU, Barry Lynn of Americans United and many more! Go to www.AmericanHumanist.org for all information and details.
For more information, please don't hesitate to contact Allison Muller at the AHA's Washington, DC office: (800) 837-3792 or amuller@americanhumanist.org.MAKING THE ROUNDS WITH NORM Norm Roscoe
Tuesday, Jan. 13, Moonstruck Restaurant New York City Metro NY AHA affiliate: We saw a video and discussed the difference between conspiracy and incompetence. The video displayed the apparent coming together of events which could be suggestive of conspiracies involve in events leading up to 9/11. The video focused on flight training schools and the connections with the terrorists' attacks. As we see events unfolding we can readily start to assume that conspiratory forces were at work. We also can see some terrible errors could have been made. The challenge confronting us is “to what extent do we have conspiracy and to what extent do we have errors?”
Conspiracy theories require a great deal of knowledge about goals and motivations of the people we are studying. As I watched the video I was trying to balance the difference between whether there was a conspiracy or some serious errors and oversights were committed. Many times we find the combination of these items in the perception of actions of folks we are studying.
As we evaluate the "War in Iraq" can we see the questions of prior motivation and/or possible errors in "intelligence"? Even as we tend to lean in a particular direction in this area we nevertheless may be aware of some who point to the contrasting view; we wish to see if the opposing view is sincere. I felt that some folks really thought that intelligence led to weapons threat. Maybe later it was seen that the intelligence was in error.
Others can point to a number of errors in judgment about finding "people at large" and the post war preparations.
Errors and conspiracies are both areas of great concern. Most people at the gathering in New York were quite convinced of the conspiracy involving to the events leading up to 9/11. This leaning has strong support; however, with so many errors made in this and other places one would worry that even the folks in conspiracies would also be prone to further error. Errors in the act of conspiracy could maybe be helpful in detection or it could make things even worse.
Maybe we should be careful in determining our understanding of the study of this challenge and be able to carefully question on both of these major possibilities.
Sunday, January 18, Suffolk Ethical Culture Smithtown: Today we had a platform on Ethics and Ecology. Our speaker was Eric Young, Program Director of the Sweetbrier Nature Center.
As one who works in this setting Mr. Young made a strong point about our separation from the earth and nature in our current society. We are far removed from the sources of our natural enrichment. Mr. Young has a trio of suggestions; reduce, renew and recycle.
It seems hopeful that things can be done on a number of fronts. One last challenge was the role of technology. Some of us fault our technological progress as a source for some problems; however, it seems that this same technology could also be a major source for attempted solutions.
Suffolk Ethical Culture, Smithtown. Sunday Feb 1, 2004: This morning we heard from Ethical Adjunct Leader, David Harmon. As a kickoff for Black History Month we heard from our speaker a story telling perspective of Martin Luther King.
Dr. Harmon gave a very human dimension of the "hero" Martin Luther King. Personal foibles were pointed out (maybe he was a womanizer) among a few other things. We also heard about some background on David Harmon himself as he weaved his personal story with that of the civil rights leader; we also saw a very human dimension here. We also heard the possible music that King probably enjoyed just to add to the personal perspective. We heard some recorded excerpts of speeches by the civil rights leader.
The groups displayed great respect for our speaker; we also did see the human side of the great leader as well as that of Dr Harmon.
Thursday, Feb. 5, 7:30 PM Hofstra Law School: This was a very important event featuring Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This was the second time I had the privilege of hearing Rev Lynn in the past two months.
I found it quite interesting the differences in Barry Lynn's approaches in these two events. In the previous experience he was in a debate and so showed courtesy towards his debate partner and only stayed with the issues of the debate. On this night however, Dr Lynn engaged in a monologue a la stand up comic delivering considerable barbs towards the religious right. This was a great way to loosen up everyone in preparation for a very serious challenge that he would lay out later.
The main challenge for those of us in support of the separation issue is to be apprised of the issues that confront us.
Our speaker laid out a series of possible actions that are being initiated by the religious right and the political forces that would support these. Some examples a National Hymn, "God Bless America," posting the Ten Commandments in schools, the Pledge to the Flag (under God) in schools, scholarships for questionable majors (ministry), vouchers for religious schools, media control, reproductive choice. Not only did Lynn highlight major issues but also some tactics to be undertaken as the "Loyal opposition." Examples would be the "f" word filibuster. It was also pointed out that those of us in the activist mode should attempt to find friends to bring along to vote.
Not only did we get a primer on the above mentioned issues among a few others but we gave special attention to the area of Faith Based initiatives. We find however that things are not so simple. Some charities that have religious affiliation do function in a secular manner, e.g. Catholic Charities, among some others (Jewish Philanthropies). We have to be able to distinguish these from those which do have potential for discrimination for workers and clientele served. Of course we are also concerned with the threat of proselytizing in these situations.
Another major point made both during the meeting and in conversation afterwards is that we need to work in coalition with other groups. For example, this event was sponsored by nine organizations ranging from Secular Humanists to Interfaith Alliance along with civil liberties groups.
An evening like this gives us a mixed feeling of the daunting challenges facing us and at the same time the feeling of empowerment in just being aware and seeing what can be done.
Questions from the floor was also encouraging as we found many well informed folks who seem ready to put this good knowledge to work.
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.
THE 30th ANNNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION OF AMERICAN ATHEISTS
April 9-11, 2004, San Diego, California
Join AA in beautiful San Diego for the gala 30th Annual National Convention of American Atheists. We have an exciting three-day program including talks by distinguished speakers, panels and workshops, our annual Member's Dinner, the Oral History Project, the Life Member & Legacy Dinner, and a magnificent Harbor Excursion Cruise!
The venue is the luxurious, world-class Shelter Pointe Hotel and Marina located on Shelter Island at the tip of beautiful San Diego Bay.
Visit us at http://www.atheists.org/convention to learn more, and register on line using our secure transaction server.
Confirmed speakers include: ELLEN JOHNSON, President, American Atheists; EDDIE TABASH, Constitutional and civil rights attorney; AROUP CHATTERJEE, author of the critically acclaimed book "The Final Verdict" which probes the life and sordid legacy of Mother Teresa; FRANK ZINDLER, editor, linguist and Bible scholar; TIM SLAGLE, comedian and entertainer (M-TVG, C-SPAN, Showtime); CONRAD GOERINGER, Editor and more.
CFI's Conference About Alternative Medicine Robert M. Goldberg
On November 18th 2003 the Center For Inquiry (CFI) sponsored a conference, “The Assault on Scientific Medicine & Mental Health: Protecting the Public in an Age of Pseudoscience,” at the New York Academy of Medicine. Paul Kurtz facilitated the meeting, provided its rationale, and introduced the nine speakers who took part in the two sessions that made up the half day event. This conference inaugurated the formation of the Council for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, a merger between The Council for Scientific Medicine and the Council for Scientific Mental Health Practice. Previously, each group had published a separate journal; now each will be contributing to the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.
The Conference comes at a time when practitioners of alternative or complementary medicine and producers of material and equipment that alternative practitioners use, make claims of therapeutic value for various unconventional approaches. The newly formed Council aims to evaluate alternative practices scientifically, so the public has a basis for seeking safe and efficacious treatment.
The speakers covered a number of areas of health and treatment with a number of different approaches to their subjects. Some speakers claimed that sufficient investigation of alternative medicine has already been carried out and it was only necessary to carefully review this literature. Others felt that double blind studies were needed to properly evaluate alternative methods and means. Still others pointed to the lack of success of the National Institutes of Health's Center on Alternative Medicine and the millions it has already spent.
Reported at the Conference were studies of the claims of therapeutic benefit of certain substances and practices. For example, the use of large quantities of vitamin C, taken orally or chelated, has been claimed to prevent or ameliorate the common cold, certain forms of cancer, and other illnesses. Criticism of these claims pointed to studies that showed little or no benefit. The reader is referred to the Journal, which contains many well-written, definitive papers.
My reaction to this Conference is mixed. I feel the Center For Inquiry is to be commended for undertaking so important and difficult an effort and for holding the Conference. However, I feel that too many of the speakers seem to work under the assumption that all conventional medical practice is scientific and all alternative or non-conventional and complementary (mixed methods) practice is unscientific. To me this is clearly wrong, particularly since definitions of each type of practice are weak. Hopefully, objectivity and openness to various practices, regardless of any initial categorization, will apply to future work.
Scientific exploration of the physical-chemical world did not come easily. Religious people who hold dogmatically to beliefs, which many of them associate with morality, always fear that any new understanding might undermine their control over the thin veneer of civilization apparent around us. And they are correct - scientifically literate folks don't look for religious answers in those areas where naturalist explanations are available.
As science has extended its reach, it has always had to refine its philosophy, along with producing better instruments and paradigms. For example, Newton's concept of action at a distance caused scientists to accept gravitational force in future inquiry and to consider the possibility of other non-contact forces in describing new phenomena.
When living things are studied, the idea of purposeful and intelligent objects has to be considered. New tools have been developed for objectively sensing the behavior of living things, and more recently, the sensing of the electro-chemical communications within an organism's nervous system. It is clear that scientific philosophy needs to be broad enough to allow new approaches, without admitting invalid ones.
Human health and the treatment of illness are very complex matters and a dogmatic approach is foolish. Each of us is different as an individual and different as part of genetic groupings reflected in our phenotypic characteristics, such as, sexual, racial, ethnic, and possibly, other makeup. Various people in such groups are more subject to particular diseases (e.g. Sickle Cell Anemia in Blacks; Tay-Sachs Disease in Jews). It is also the case that specific treatments have somewhat different effects on us as individuals and as members of particular groups. For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs are known to either sedate or stimulate an individual depending upon the applied dosage, and that the crossover dosage varies greatly for different individuals.
There is no question that there is a mind-body connection. How we think and feel does affect our physical condition. The placebo effect has long been recognized and compensated for. But the philosophy and mathematics of similar, but somewhat different entities remains to be developed.
How medicine is practiced also depends on which model is employed to characterize human beings. Examples are: a collection of mechanisms that simulate anatomical structure; a chemical factory to explain digestion; a pump and plumbing to model the circulatory system; and, a digital computer to describe the mind. Each model has utility in its area, but clearly leaves much about an organism uncovered. Scientific medicine needs to be developed, but we should recognize that while current practice often depends upon scientific understanding, it is in many ways an art. This is fine for many purposes, since medicine often seeks only to palliate or simply to diagnose a condition, rather than to cure it.
CFI-LI/LISH Philosophical Discussion Group
First and third Tuesdays of the month 7:30PM; meets in Patchogue, limited seating, email WarrenRothstein@optonline.net to reserve a place and for directions.
Book Discussion Club!
If you are interested email wiwade@suffolk.lib.ny.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 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. Call 631-363-8216 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".
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.
New show from American Atheists!
Atheist Viewpoint
Featuring Ellen Johnson and Ron Barrier, it will be seen Thursdays @ 7PM on the Woodbury system and Mondays on the Hauppauge and Brookhaven systems @ 7PM, on Channel 20.
From Rationalists International
Dr. Younus Shaikh Is Free and In Safety!
This is a great moment! Rationalist International has received confirmed information that our rationalist friend and colleague Dr. Younus Shaikh has reached a safe haven in Europe!
Sentenced to death in a made-up blasphemy trial in August 2001, Dr. Shaikh was languishing in solitary confinement in one of the dreaded death cells of Rawalpindi Central Jail for more than two years, before the High Court, after a conflicting decision in the appeal trial, referred the case back to the sessions court.
The retrial took place in greatest secrecy and under heavy security in the jail itself. Dr. Shaikh, who had personally overtaken his defense, was acquitted and released. He dispensed with government provided security guards and returned into the circle of his family and friends, where he spent some weeks in hiding before secretly leaving Pakistan.
The case of Dr. Shaikh is only the most publicized among hundreds of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. The fight against the draconian blasphemy law, the bloody weapon in the hands of religious fundamentalists and unscrupulous forces acting in their shadow, has to continue till this inhuman and antidemocratic law is abolished.
(http://www.rationalistinternational.net.)
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.
In addition there will be a number of local meetings in advance of the march. Join members of the Ethical Humanist Society of LI and other local organizations for coffee and conversation on Friday, March 5, @ 8PM. Contact Jackie Cara @ 516 739 7830 or email to jackiecara@aol.com.
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.
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.
Buses and/or car pools will be available and will leave from the Ethical Humanist Society of LI @ 38 Old Country Road, Garden City. Call Jackie Cara, 516 739 7830 for the cost and to reserve space.
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, 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.
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.
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 websites: www.CFIMetroNY.org &
http://nyhumanist.org/cfilongisland.htm
Editor: Gerald Dantone
Design: John Wilmarth
A Thumbs Up Publication
Copyright LISH 2004