Date: Mon Nov 15 13:52:04 1999 From: InfidelsRe@aol.com Subject: LISH Newsletter Nov. 1999, pt 1 To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Please email us if you'd like to be omitted from this email list. Sorry for any inconveniences.
LISH INQUIRER Long Island Secular Humanists Volume 2, Issue 11 November, 1999 Email InfidelsRe@aol.com
______________________________________________________________________________ __
LISH MEETING INFORMATION LISH members and others are encouraged to attend our monthly meetings. One look at the guest speaker list should make one realize the effort that has gone into lining up top speakers. Humanists of Long Island should take advantage, support the meetings and insure that we will be able to continue to attract such terrific guests! Last month's presentation by singer-songwriter lesbian-gay and women's rights activist Sandy Rapp was outstanding and very entertaining to say the least!
The next regular meeting of the Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH) will be Friday, November 19, 1999, and as always @ 7:15 PM at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview. The meeting will feature Dr. Peter Rogatz, founding member of Compassion in Dying of NY, who will speak on the issues of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. The meeting is free and open to the public.
We are also pleased to announce Robert Price, biblical expert and also a writer for Free Inquiry magazine will speak at the last LISH meeting before the end of the world, on Friday, December 17, 1999. His topic will be "Is the Millennium Anything?" I'm sure we'll find out soon enough!
______________________________________________________________________________ __
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.com
______________________________________________________________________________ __
CONTENTS Who is Guilty of Anti-Catholic Bias? By Gerry D
Consumer Report: Which Religion Is the Best By Michael P, Fade to Black Publications
Letters To the Editor
Ya Gotta Believe or Ya Don't Count By Keith T
Standard Ten Commandants Update
This Changes Everything By Gerry D
Help Wanted
See the Candidate Run By Gerry D
______________________________________________________________________________ __
Who Is Guilty of Anti-Catholic Bias? By Gerry D It seems as though every time one picks up a newspaper, or listens to a TV news talk show, one hears about some new round of anti-religious bias in general and anti-Catholic bias in particular. As an ex-Catholic I do believe there is a tremendous amount of anti Catholic bias in many parts of this country. But there's more to it than that, of course.
For example, though JFK successfully ran for President one has to wonder why only one Catholic, the largest religious denomination in the country, has ever been elected President. I recall that the attitude in my mostly Protestant hometown community, Ridgewood, Queens in NYC was stridently anti-Catholic. It was thought that JFK would be under the Pope's thumb. That was not a justified fear as it turned out.
The odds against only one Catholic person ever being elected President, all other things being equal, are staggering! Bias is the only explanation I can see, and it is has been largely on the part of fellow Christians who would sooner vote for a Christian of a different denomination than a "Papist."
Evidence for such an assertion? According to Gallup Polls taken at the time, 31% of the American public would NOT vote for a qualified Catholic Presidential candidate in 1940, and that includes Catholics as part of the poll! By 1959 the percentage was 20% who were prejudiced to the point of not voting for Catholics, still a significant amount! After Kennedy's election, fears were somewhat allayed and "only" 13% would not vote for a Catholic by 1961.
It can be argued that a candidate's religion has mattered more than any other factor except for gender and race. Imagine; the most important features of a winning presidential candidate are race, gender and religion! How sad!!!
Yes anti-Catholicism exists but it has changed! Check out the following recent circumstances:
- Catholics for a Free Choice are the subjects of a furious campaign to have their status as a Non-Governmental Organization at the United Nations revoked.
- A Catholic artist is the subject of public derision by a political leader and others protesting the artist's religious painting.
- A Catholic historian is attacked for his new book that expresses outrage over anti-Semitism.
- A Catholic filmmaker is criticized for his vision of faith in advance of the release of the movie!
- A Catholic priest in Baltimore is criticized for his compassionate ministry.
- Detractors call a popular Catholic rock singer who is training to be a priest "certifiably crazy".
- A campaign is launched to deter advertisers from supporting a TV show that featured a Catholic priest as the hero and shows the church in a light most would consider highly favorable.
Don't remember the above? Well of course you do! What may have confused you was that the attackers of the above Catholic persons were Catholics.
Yes in story #1 the Catholic League is supporting the move to revoke Catholics for a Free Choice's NGO status in the UN, a fairly normal status for such a group. (The AHA has such a status.) On the other hand, the League sees nothing wrong with the Vatican's special status in the UN.
Everyone has heard about the painting of the Virgin Mary at the Brooklyn Museum of Arts exhibit "Sensation." Artist Chris Ofili, an African Catholic, used manure and some other unusual materials to create his work, a motif he has used for many years. In the past he has used manure in paintings depicting great ethnic African heroes with intent only to honor them. The attack by the Catholic League grew to the point of staged protests outside the museum. The work has been called akin to "hate speech" in Catholic League" releases. Catholic Mayor Giuliani has threatened the Museum with eviction over this painting and others.
The Catholic historian noted is John Cornwell and his book "Hitler's Pope" is characterized by the Catholic League as "laced with conjecture and innuendo of the most scurrilous kind." Mr. Cornwell believes that Pope Pius XII did not evoke the needed moral outrage in the millions of Catholic Germans who then proceeded to become many of Hitler's willing executioners of Jews.
Catholic filmmaker Kevin Smith's new movie "Dogma" was not yet released but the attacks had started. Though he has called his movie a "love-letter to faith" the Catholic League has called it Catholic bashing and insulting.
The Catholic priest noted was Rev. Robert Nugent and his critics were the Vatican and the Pope. It seems his ministry to the gay and lesbian community did not meet with their approval. He was removed from his ministry to the despair of his congregation.
Then we have the pop singer Sinead O'Connor, who once tore up a picture of the Pope on TV but has since apologized. Now a minister in a splinter Catholic group, the Catholic League states "Maybe she's on LSD…She is certifiably crazy."
Finally we have noted the defunct TV show "Nothing Sacred" which depicted the exploits of a highly sympathetic Catholic priest. The show's cancellation was hailed by the Catholic League which claimed much credit for its' demise.
What's going on here? Catholics bash Catholics and call it anti-Catholic bias? Isn't there enough legitimate bias to go around? Who are they trying to make it seem is bashing Catholics - non-believers?
The ploy is simple. Don't mention that the targets of the Catholic League's ire are Catholic, but instead make them out to be enemies of Catholicism, which to many equals "evil" atheists or other non-believers. If the target protests, make them out to be insincere or not "real" Catholics.
In this effort, the Catholic League has released a booklet about Kevin Smith, director of "Dogma" that proves "the anti-Catholic nature of the film." It contains their "proof": In response to the statement by Howard Stern on his radio show that "It's got some Jesus thing in it so all the religious folks are already hating it," Kevin Smith replied "Then we must be doing something right." Yes, Smith is doing something right - he's asking tough theological questions (not that he's got the best answers) but the crime is in the asking!
Where does the lay Catholic stand on issues that rile the Catholic League? According to a NY Daily News poll, more Catholics side with the Brooklyn Museum of Art than with the Catholic League over de-funding and evicting the museum. In fact, it would not be a stretch to argue that the average Catholic person might side against the Catholic League on nearly every one of the issues they've chosen to pursue! Who is really bashing Catholics?
Now these observations constitute praise of the average Catholic person who has the good sense to live and let live and knows the difference between bias and questioning of doctrine. The Catholic person it would seem has more innate benevolence than the doctrine that the Catholic League so aggressively defends. Who defends the average Catholic's position? It's not the Catholic League as far as I can see.
Here's the bottom line - when the Catholic League complains about Catholic bashing, it is most likely complaining about an attack on dogmas and traditions it holds dear, but it is not complaining about an attack on Catholic persons. That's their specialty it seems.
Criticism of religious beliefs is not an attack on persons. How else can we have a complete discourse? As we have brought up (rather often,) sacred scripture is filled with attacks on persons or peoples of dissenting beliefs. Christian salvation is based on belief and not how one lives their life, and isn't that the very epitome of prejudice? On the part of the deity no less! The example has been set.
It is seemingly too much to ask the Catholic League or other groups to examine themselves. While they bash others for attacking doctrine, they commit the very offense they complain about. Dogma has no rights, but people do! Questioning doctrine is healthy - we do not do it enough. And the Catholic League seeks to keep it that way.
______________________________________________________________________________ __
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.
______________________________________________________________________________ __
NEW YORK AREA SKEPTICS (NYASk) The New York Area Skeptics is a terrific organization that should appeal to many secular humanists. The group has monthly meetings and a newsletter that deals with claims of the paranormal, medical quackery and any other topic that calls for a critical examination. They meet at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, Nassau County. For info call 516 827 9506 or visit the website @ www.nyask.com
______________________________________________________________________________ __
A Thumbs Up Publication Editor: Gerald Dantone Art Design: John R. Wilmarth Copyright LISH 1999
______________________________________________________________________________ __
Become a Member of LISH Membership in LISH has its benefits! Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library; mailed newsletters; invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well! Only members may vote at upcoming elections of LISH officers.
Dues will go to defray the costs of creating and mailing the newsletter and press releases, including outreach to elected officials and media. Forming a chapter of Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS), a Secular Singles program, publicizing meetings, forming Campus Freethought groups, developing a youth program, a cable access show and guest speaker costs are other expenses. A long-term goal is the creation of a fund for a Center for Inquiry, Long Island.
Let us grow into the humanist voice of Long Island! Only $35 for full family membership for one year, or $10 per year for the newsletter only. Send a check with your name, address and phone number, to LISH, Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740.
______________________________________________________________________________ __
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism with a reciprocating reprinting agreement with LISH, so long as the article is used in full and with complete crediting. Edited versions can be used with written permission.
______________________________________________________________________________ __ Fade to Black Publications presents (www.fadetoblack.com): Consumers Report: Which Religion is Best? By Michael P
Religion has been with man for thousands of years, but with so many to choose from how do you know which one is right for you? We did a study on major religions to provide the answers.
You'll find religion providing these basic essentials: Explanation of what happens when we die. Narration of universal origin. Understanding of what is intrinsically good and bad.
We tested eight beliefs Catholicism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, along with Atheism, Hinduism, and Satanism to determine which one is best for you. We used four major test criteria:
Ritualistic. We determined how much ritualism goes into religion. The less rituals that are involved the less burden it is on a person and the less work that had to be performed.
Sin threshold. This determines how much you can get away with before it is considered a sin. The greater the sin threshold the more leeway you have, and the more free you are to do as you please without repenting.
Penalty for sin. This is the price that you are forced to pay for your sins. The higher the penalty for sin, the more burdensome the repentance process is.
Ease of getting in heaven. This is how much work you are responsible for performing before you are allowed to reach nirvana. With most of the religions this was a hazy area. Majority of the information we were able to gather came from scriptures as well as extensive interviewing of theologians.
Our method of testing and the results. How we tested
Since most people have some sort of religious predisposition, in order for our investigation to be unbiased we had to use impartial participants. For our independent test, we brought in 37 aborigines from the Brazilian rain forest tribe of Raoni. With a crude understanding of god and the universe, we explained each religion to them and asked them to try it out for a 4 week period. All the participants had a chance to try out all eight religions for a 4 week time frame and rank them based on their findings.
What we found In our tests we have found that most of the aborigines preferred Christian religion based on its ease of understanding. With Catholicism being a close second, followed by other religions. Here are the findings.
Christianity- This is by far was the most popular belief among the aborigines people, with more than 2 out 4 preferring it. The concept of a loving god, was easy to understand, since it bore some semblance to their god "Khatimi" , the god of 'big shiny things'. This belief was so favorable among the tribesmen that a few even made a small donation to the Robert Schuller Ministries at the end of their two weeks trial.
Catholicism- A close second, it nearly did as good as Christianity, if it not for a few confusing ritualistic beliefs. The tribesmen enjoyed the Pope, after we were able to show them rare footage of His Holiness giving Easter Mass in the aboriginal language of drum thumping.
Hinduism- This was a distant third. Most tribesmen had a difficult time comprehending the perpetual birth and rebirth concept. Majority of the tribesmen also found the movie Gandhi to be way too long, with Candice Bergen's performance substandard and trite.
Buddhism- Buddhism did not fare well among the tribesmen. Most found the notion of Buddha as god, not to be credible. With many questioning how can a god control the world, when he can't even control his weight? Most of the tribesmen preferred Jesus who had a slender and slightly muscular body.
Muslim- Although not very popular it did appeal to a few of the aborigines. Ironically the few tribesmen who chose the Muslim religion soon got into an altercation with those who preferred Judaism. The dispute was over the territorial right of the grass hut in which they were living. The tribesmen who choose the Muslim religion claimed they were in it first..
Judaism- This religion was very confusing to most. From proper attire, ritualistic conduct, and Kosher food, left most of the aborigines baffled and perplexed. With one of the tribesmen eating a Dreidel out of confusion.
Satanism- Chosen only by few. Although many of the tribesmen could relate to sacrificing of animals to a higher power. This is due to a common practice of sacrificing small rodents to their evil god "Khulli" the god of the 'itchy rash.'
Atheism- Although ranking high on our scholarly section, this belief was not preferred by any of our testers. The concept of life being meaningless and with no hope of an after life, left most of the tribesmen desponded and depressed, with a few actually needing short term therapy, after the four week trial.
Recommendations If you are looking for a good over all religion you can't go wrong with Christianity. It ranked the highest among the tribesmen and very high in our scholarly test. If you prefer no ritualistic practices bestowed upon you, atheism is the right belief for you, even though it ranked very low in our independent tests. If you prefer a lot of rules and customs take a look into Judaism, or the Muslim religions. The chart should provide more information for you.
Ratings & Recommendations The tests behind the Ratings
Ritual We determined how much ritualism goes into religion. The less rituals that are involved the less burden it is on a person and the less work that had to be performed. Sin Threshold This determines how much you can get away with before it is considered a sin. The greater the sin threshold the more leeway you have, and the more free you are to do as you please without repenting.
Sin Penalty This is the price that you are forced to pay for your sins. The higher the penalty for sin, the more burdensome the repentance process is. Ease of Heaven his is how much work you are responsible for performing before you are allowed to reach nirvana.
Note: While searching the web for Consumer Reports I came across this wonderful "report" on religion and wanted to share their findings with you. Please check out the electronic comedy magazine Fade to Black at www.fadetoblack.com. A truly innovative and imaginative web site, not to mention very funny. W.R.
________________________________________________________________________________
LISH INQUIRER, Pt 2
Letters to the Editor __________ 10/10/99 Regarding the upcoming film "Dogma" You know, I'd go to see it…except that I cannot stand Alanis. ::Shudder:: Who in the world picked her? Lynn B., via Internet
It could have been worse - they could have picked Jewel. Now Madonna would have made for a wild God! The theological implications, however, would have been staggering. G.D. __________
10/10/99 Re: Jeff's letter to the editor, regarding whether the bible promotes homophobia he referred to a book "Barrack Buddies and Soldier Lovers." On that subject, Laura A Dunn, in the Journal for the Critical Study of Religion (V.3 No.1) makes the case that, of the two Greek words used by Paul in the verse Jeff cited and translated as same sex acts, one (malakoi) "means soft or gentle and generally has no reference to same sex acts. The other (arsenokotat) appears to have started out (1st century c.e.) as a reference to some type of exploitation by means of same-sex activity, usually involving a youth. By the fourth century it took on a more general meaning and could refer to all same-sex acts." Dunn goes on to say that, "We should refrain from using 1 Cor. 6:9-10…as a (blanket condemnation) of same-sex acts because in the first century these two terms would not have been understood that way." I like your newsletter by the way. I'm e-mailing you ours. Dave Peterson, Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry
Of course the bible can be and has been interpreted numerous different ways. The danger in arguing in the manner above is that for nearly 2000 years the bible has been seen as anti-gay. Even if a good counter-argument exists, the real point is that it doesn't matter what the bible says - a person is responsible for their moral and ethical decisions in life and one cannot abdicate them to a church, religion, messiah, scripture or supposed word of God. Obedience is NOT morals - real morals and ethics advance human need, aspiration and well being. We all have the obligation (if we care about others and ourselves) to determine if our attitudes and actions do this and we cannot take the amoral position of blind obedience and expect humanity to prosper. G.D. ___________
10/18/99 Congrats albeit late on your masterful response to Fred S.P. of Los Alamitos…You are entirely right "what we believe is true" is absolutely false and must be repudiated. Keep up the good work. Too busy to get to your meetings; thank heavens for your letter. I am forwarding it to many friends. Ray D, Northport, NY via Internet
Thanks Ray. I guess you're saying that it isn't true for you that what's true for you is necessarily true! G.D. ___________
10/15/99 The letter from Gabe E. in Brooklyn lists nine quotations condemning homosexual acts, without expressed qualification. Your comment, "Good work, Gabe" seems to assume he is against. Is he? Lee D. via Internet
Against what? The quotes, homosexuality or the bible? I was commending him for digging up actual evidence, however the chips fell, not for an opinion he did not express. I do see that you consider the nine quotes as condemning homosexuality. I suppose that this is a reasonable reading of the quotes in that case. G.D. ___________
Re: LISH Question of the month: What is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the US today? 10/9/99 the usual culprit, complacency and the tendency by Freethinkers to spend their time picking lint out of their navels. Howard Pellet, Humanists of North Puget Sound via Internet As a former lint-picker, I could not agree more and I do regret the years spent standing on the sidelines. We should not be leaving such a mess to our children when we know better. G.D. 10/10/99 Let us think about this for a minute...hmmm...The radical right...people who can't think for themselves - the Republican party....the Democratic party....anyone saying "family values" who is running for office...those who are trying to force creationism into the classroom, and force the theory of evolution out... people who won't eat squid. Scott M., Huntington, NY via Internet
Squiddites have rights too. G.D. ___________
10/10/99 A Supreme Court that will not pass decisions based on the spirit and letter of the Constitution. A quote from John Adams from A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America: "Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." Ken H via Internet
BINGO! For all the threats to our freedoms, the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights hold most of the answers! If the Bill or Rights is altered or the Supreme Courts starts answering to Gods instead of the Constitution, it's all over! Nothing is more important to our freedoms than the enforcement of the Bill of Rights. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that future appointees to the Court are there to protect our rights, not grant majority religions special privileges. What Presidential candidates and political parties do YOU trust to do that? The next presidential election is THE greatest determinant of the future of religious freedom in the US. What are we doing about it? G.D. ___________
10/14/99 Hail! The biggest threat to religious freedom is public indifference. The squabbles over organized prayer in public schools are carried out by tiny groups on each side of the argument. The rest watch television.
Most people do not care about freedom of religion for others. They just want their own beliefs protected but care little for those of others. Americans United only has 60,000 members to defend freedom.
The concept of permitting the majority to have its ideas spread but protecting minorities is not widely held. One woman at a school meeting could not find fault with having Jews and Muslims listen to Christian prayer; we can guess how she felt about Jewish and Muslim prayer. Our task is to rouse the public to encourage discussion of beliefs but to protect minorities. Hugo B via Internet
Thanks Hugo. Blindness and Apathy - the American Dream it would seem. G.D. ___________
10/14/99 Religion itself, is certainly an important factor. The many who continually fight to have the Ten Commandants posted in the secular schools for example. The certain believers who forever are imposing their beliefs into the schools and the government, who want to organize prayer in the public schools and push the use of the voucher program in support of religious schools.
But the greatest threat might be we ourselves. We must remember George Santana's words of wisdom, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And of course another wise man from the past who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing."
Therefore we must speak up, loud and often. We must organize and make things happen. We can no longer watch what is happening. And if we the people let the religious change the First Amendment of the constitution, we could be the greatest threat, indirectly. Paul L, Massapequa, NY Internet
We're all entitled to complain but of course, DOING something is what is needed. We should not be sitting on our butts. G.D. ___________
10/15/99 I am more concerned about the threat to be religiously free than the threat to religious freedom. Four H via Internet
Of course, it is obvious that the right to be free from religion is a required aspect of freedom of religion. Too many people believe that freedom of religion means the right of the religious to trample over the rights of all others. G.D. ___________
10/19/99 It is my opinion that the greatest threat to not just religious freedom, but to other freedoms as well is the outdated concept that majorities are always right. The second threat is the concept that only one of the religions is right. The third is that every difference needs to be reconciled. The fourth is Pat Buchanan, I don't have a rational explanation for it, and he is just so detestable. Keep up the good work!!! Abel V via Internet
What? Pat B. isn't your role model? G.D.
______________________________________________________________________________ __ Ya Gotta Believe or Ya Don't Count By Keith T The front running candidates for the next national election - with the exception of Jesse Ventura of course - act as if they found the magic button. Faith and goodness will be the panacea that'll carry one of them into residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Both, apparently satisfied the public has had enough sin, are making a big show of sanctimony.
Al Gore called a press conference to demonstrate his own piety. Some suggested he was trying to keep up with George W., himself. The Republican candidate sounded awfully serious when he announced that he realized "something was missing" in his life and told how Billy Graham helped "recommit my life to Jesus Christ."
Hey, why not a handwringing display of sanctimony? With religion, nobody has to prove a thing and those who question it are ignored. The folks who espouse any of the "one and only" true faiths in this country have the inside track and they demand politicians dance to their tune. Early in his first term, President Clinton danced for a Baptist group: "Sometimes I think the environment we operate in is entirely too secular. The fact that we have freedom of religion doesn't mean we need to try to have freedom from religion." Nobody asked the president if he had ever heard of the Inquisition.
Maybe it's because atheists are fair game, being out of the loop and all. The expert of loops himself knew that. On August 27, 1988, Vice President George Bush was asked by Robert Sherman of the American Atheist Press, "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of atheists?"
The reply: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." Later, after Bush became chief executive, he was asked to retract the statement. He refused.
This was well publicized in the secular press, but not otherwise. Imagine the fuss if a Veep had said such a thing about Catholics, or Baptists, or Methodists. Even the Wiccans were defended by the press against the likes of Barr and Thurmond a while back.
Politicians know whom they have the freedom to attack. It doesn't matter that nonbelievers have included such as Darwin, Darrow, Payne, Sagan, Asimov, or Sinclair Lewis. Those folks can't complain today, and those who can know what to bitch about and what to ignore if they want their ideas publicized. Atheists can be maligned without a peep from the right, the left, or the middle. Why? Are their ideas really out of touch?
Not that you'd notice. Nearly all religions reject all others and agree on just one thing, ya gotta believe in something. That leaves the nonbeliever on the outside with the door locked tight. Take this hypothesis. Two people live side by side. Both are married, have nice kids, honest jobs and well-kept homes. Either could have been the all-purpose daddy in a 60's sitcom.
One knows an astronomer can look through a telescope and see light that has been traveling towards us for some 13 billion years or so. That contradicts a book that implies that everything was created a few thousand years ago. That person also knows that a close examination of living animals and of fossils reveals an unmistakable relationship between all animal species, and persuasive evidence that everything evolved.
History tells our burgeoning skeptic of inquisitions, wars, book-burnings, and other unspeakable atrocities. More recent history tells him of similar outrages in Beirut, Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Iran, Iraq - all carried out in the name of God.
Because of all this, neighbor number one breaks the tacit commandment of "don't ask." He ignores dogma and stops believing.
Immediately his world shrinks. The Masons, Moose, Eastern Star, Elks, Eagles, Boy Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Grange and hundreds of other organizations deny him membership. Children are taught in Sunday school that he is evil, and will spend an eternity in hell.
No way would he ever be nominated to office. In some states, Texas for example, there are legal restrictions that forbid him from even holding office. Still, not a single newspaper will take up the cause. Rush Limbaugh will not pound the table bemoaning the injustice done him. In America the atheist (he doesn't even get a capital "A") is kept in the back of the bus where he won't bother the nice god-fearing folks.
And the second hypothetical person? That person is also aware that the story of creation a mere 6,000 years ago is utterly illogical, but he forgets logic while he teaches it as a fact to kids in Sunday school. He rationalizes along with the Pope that that creation somehow took place along with evolution, and forgets what happened to Galileo at the hands of an earlier Pope. A prudent American, as well as the media that claims to represent him, knows it is much easier to accept dogma and refuse to ever ask "why?"
Guess which person is considered sagacious and will be welcomed into all those clubs? Whose ideas will be a big asset if he decides to run for office? Whose kids will be considered lucky to have such a decent parent to give them "values?" Who gets automatic approval ratings as in "Good Christian?"
And where will be media with all their tough questions be when all this is going on?
(Keith T is a freelance writer living near San Diego, Ca. These opinions are his own and he won't demand you believe them also. He can be reached at ktraylor47@juno.com)
______________________________________________________________________________ __
Standard Ten Commandments Update By Gerry D Gov. George W. Bush, the inspiration behind the creation of the Standard Ten Commandments (STCs), has been sent copies and has been asked for his approval and for his encouragement. We eagerly await his response!
In other news, some LISH members intend to speak to their local representative, Peter King, about the STCs as being most appropriate for posting in public facilities. This may be an outstanding tactic. Any person who wishes to meet directly with their US Senator or Representative can request a set of STCs suitable for framing for personal delivery to their elected official. Call LISH at 516 742 1662 if you wish to lobby on behalf of the Standard Ten Commandments.
______________________________________________________________________________ __
This Changes Everything! By Gerry D News item: Adam and Eve possibly not human, says Cardinal O'Connor. Yes on November 25, 1996, one of humanity's greatest discoveries may have occurred! Adam and Eve may not have been human when "God breathed life into them," Cardinal John O'Connor told worshippers at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
O'Connor said it was a "scientific question" as to whether Adam and Eve, described in the Bible as the first people on Earth, were perhaps created "in some other form." The Cardinal made his comments a month after Pope John Paul II said that the theory of evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."
Well this changes everything, doesn't it? If Adam and Eve were not human, how come we're still saddled with Original Sin? Does this mean animals have souls? Did God just create the Big Bang billions of years ago knowing how it would all turn out? Was the Mets 1969 World Series win pre-ordained?
Of course, the Cardinal hasn't informed us of exactly how he knows what he knows, but I suppose it would be rude to ask. In the meantime, it may be time to begin the proselytizing of the higher primates - any volunteers to begin the Holy Orangutan Church of Christ?
______________________________________________________________________________ __
Help Wanted! 1) Attention Smithtown and Brookhaven residents: We still need someone to come forward to sign an application for cable access for the Hauppauge Cablevision system.
2) A person to investigate the forming of a Secular Singles group and help with the End of the World Brunch would also be helpful. Anyone interested? Don't be shy!
3) Another exciting opportunity would be for some volunteers to begin Campus Freethought groups on Long Island colleges. Once again the work may be significant at first but then the groups become self-operating.
4) Public relations is an intriguing opportunity for some creative LISH member! We need to publicize meetings, issues of interest, and membership in LISH with TV, radio, print media and the general public. We need to make elected officials aware of the Standard Ten Commandments. We need to plan and promote public appearances of LISH and LISH members for the purpose of furthering humanist goals and values.
5) A person who can plan fundraising events or activities would be very appreciated. Since no one gets paid, all of the money goes to promoting LISH, secular humanism's values and services to the secular that are lacking, such as Secular Organization for Sobriety.
6) LISH members who would like to be on the Board of Directors should make their intentions known. If you'd like to run for the Board, (Pres., V.P., Secretary, Treasurer, Director) please submit a letter that can be circulated with your ideas, intentions and what you offer to LISH. Members only will be notified via the mail regarding the elections.
Seriously, if you have never been an activist, the pride one feels when helping the community is startling and real. Email @ InfidelsRe@aol.com if interested!
______________________________________________________________________________ __
See the Candidate Run By Gerry D See the Candidate run. His name is Gary. He is running for President. He is running because America's morals are low. Morals are all about whether God approves of whom you have sex with. Gary will make America's morals better because he obeys God and wants others to obey God too.
Gary is spending a lot of time alone with a young female worker. The campaign manager warns him to stop spending so much time with the worker because Gary is married and God would not approve of such an appearance. Gary does not listen and many of his campaign workers quit and tell the media why. The workers go to work with Candidate Steve.
Gary blames Steve, who also obeys God, for spreading rumors. Steve blames Gary for spreading rumors. Gary and Steve both will not become President. God has spoken. The end.
______________________________________________________________________________ __
LISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH: What was the greatest ethical advance of the last millennium? Readers of the Long Island Secular Humanist Newsletter are encouraged to send in their opinions. Email to InfidelsRe@aol.com.
______________________________________________________________________________ __
Congratulations! The New York Yankees are World Champions once again, and of course, much of the New York metro area is in a state of joy. Great job guys!