Volume 3, Issue 1
January, 2000
Long Island Secular Humanists
Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740

LISH
INQUIRER




MEETING INFORMATION
LISH members, our monthly meetings are your chance not only to see and hear a 
stimulating discussion on an exciting subject, but also to meet with your 
fellow secular humanists on Long Island.  The December gathering was treated 
to a fine presentation by Robert Price of the Council for Secular Humanism, 
who spoke on the religious implications of the millennium.  Take advantage to 
meet the face of humanism on Long Island!

The next regular meeting of the Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH) will be 
Friday, February 18, 1999, and as always @ 7:15 PM at the Plainview-Old 
Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview.  The feature for 
the evening is to be announced.

There is no January meeting at the library, but LISH members only will be 
gathering for a private brunch meeting that month!

Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at
http://wwwhumanist.com




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Manifesto 2000 - A suggestion By Gerry D
Letters to the Editor
The Worst Word In The Language By Keith T
Church State Separation Issues/The Presidential Campaign By Gerry D
The Roman Catholic Church and Israel By Gerry D
US House of Representatives Protestant Republicans Charged with anti-Catholic 
Bias By Gerry D
Catholic League Bashes Atheists By Gerry D
The Pope's Conflicting Messages By Gerry D
Columbine - the Video Tapes By Gerry D
Copyright LISH 1999




Manifesto 2000 - A Suggestion
By Gerry Dantone
The Manifesto 2000, published in the Fall 1999 Free Inquiry, is an up-to-date 
call for a naturalistic global ethic.  Anyone who wishes may add their 
endorsement to the Manifesto 2000 and support the effort to transcend 
cultural, ethnic and religious differences among humanity in favor of 
promoting the down to earth values most of us hold dearly.  This can be done 
by writing to Manifesto, Box 664, Amherst, NY, 14226 or emailing to 
fivaughn@aol.com.

Many fine ideas are contained in the Manifesto 2000 and surprising detail is 
included.  Perhaps a vague and nebulous offering would, in the short term, 
more easily garner widespread support, but I believe that the attitude of the 
document is that this is a starting point intended to get us moving in the 
right direction.  I detect little or no self-righteousness in that there is 
no suggestion that the findings contained within are final and beyond 
reproach.

My following suggestion is not regarding the contents of the Manifesto 2000: 
It is with the "marketing" of this fine document.  To be brutally honest with 
myself, my endorsement is not worth very much.  And although I am very 
impressed by the list of persons who commend the Manifesto 2000, I fear that 
their names are largely unknown to the general public and even the media with 
only a few exceptions.

What would truly impress the general public and media would be the 
endorsement of persons that are held highly in public esteem, even if they do 
not possess credentials as philosophers or "great thinkers."  As an example, 
the endorsement of one Tom Hanks (note: I have no clue as to his belief 
system) is worth about 100,000 of mine in that he might influence that many 
persons to consider seriously the principles promoted in the Manifesto 2000.

If we have the courage of our convictions, we then believe that humanism is 
the best basis for the development of a better society, one that is more 
tolerant of others and would better nurture an atmosphere of freedom, 
happiness and free inquiry.  It is for anyone who is not afraid of the 
responsibility of moral decision making.  We need to relate to more than the 
highly educated or the person who is unusually individualistic.  We need to 
make this message available to everyone we can.

The suggestion is that a concerted, organized effort be made to garner 
endorsements from public persons that are held in high regard by the general 
public.  If the existing document is too cumbersome or detailed to elicit 
such endorsements, thought should be given to creating a more efficient and 
simple statement of humanistic values, methods and goals that accurately 
state our principles and commitment to reason.  It must be kept in mind that 
admission of atheism or denigration of even fringe religious beliefs can 
damage a public person's career, so that this kind of document must be 
sensitive to that predicament without sacrificing core values.  I have to 
guess that many personalities would leap at the chance to offer a rational 
alternative to the religious ethics offered by the likes of Jerry Falwell, 
Pat Robertson and even the Pope.

If a critical mass of endorsements for either Manifesto 2000 or another 
humanist statement can be arranged, it then leads to the possibility of more 
good public relations.  A public celebration of the values and goals of 
humanism would be very educational and the occurrence of the real millennium 
provides the perfect excuse for such an event.  A celebration next year of 
humanist achievements of the past 1000 years could include honors going to 
the likes of Voltaire, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, James 
Madison and John Lennon among many others. 

The list of potential celebrity endorsers range from the likes of actors such 
as Jody Foster to David Duchovny or musicians such as Sarah McLaughlin to 
Weird Al Yankovic.  I have no idea of what kind of success rate to expect but 
I cannot believe it would not be worth the effort.




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.  




Letters to the Editor

12/5/99 In addition to commending Bill Mohrman for maintaining a lending 
library for members, I would like to make the following suggestion: Members 
should check to see if their local library has a fair representation of the 
secular point of view.  If not, members should occasionally request that the 
library purchase a particular book that does.

An especially good reference book that all libraries should have is the two 
volume set of "The Encyclopedia of Unbelief" edited by Gordon Stein, 
published by Prometheus Books.  Sincerely Vito P., Coram, NY

Response: Great suggestion Vito, thanks.  G.D.


12/15/99 Hi from Judy & John.  We continue to enjoy your newsletter.  I'd 
like to make a few comments about the Catholic League.  Isn't it strange that 
they neglect to condemn the greatest source of Catholic bashing in the 
country at this time? 

I'm referring to the Protestant fundamentalists in the guise of the 
born-again and evangelical Christians.  On any particular day, any one of a 
dozen televangelists is speaking disrespectfully about the Pope (antichrist), 
saints (idolatry), and worthless rituals and sacraments.  I've heard them say 
that even Mother Theresa was condemned to Hell since she was not "Born 
Again."  The preacher, Jimmy Swaggart, has been particularly hostile towards 
Catholics.

A second item that is particularly troubling is a subtle anti-Semitism in the 
League's arguments. It takes the form of "if this had been a Jewish symbol, 
or if this had been a synagogue," etc. They even took out a one-page ad 
making the point that many Catholics died in addition to the Jews during the 
Holocaust. In effect they are saying that Jews get special consideration John 
L., Queens, via Internet

Response:  Recently when Saturday Night Live had a skit where Jews were 
"forgiven" for killing the lord, the Catholic League  pointed out that 
anti-Semitism is less tolerated than anti-Catholicism. Ironically the League 
did not understand that the barb was directed at Christianity.  G.D.


Re: Question of the  month: Do you believe that faith is a virtue?

12/14/99 Faith is a vice if you force yours on mine.  J, via Internet

Response: Fair enough.  G.D.


12/14/99 Self-deception is probably universal, and may even be necessary when 
such sensitive matters as one's own self-esteem are at stake.  It is usually 
an unconscious process: we do not know when we are deceiving ourselves, and 
when we become aware of it, the deception ends.  Religion is unique in that 
self-deception seems to be entirely conscious, and is actually considered 
praiseworthy.  As the most admirable musician is the one who can play the 
most difficult pieces, so the most admirable "man of faith" is the one who 
can believe the most absurd doctrines.  Those for whom intellectual honesty 
is a supreme virtue, such an attitude is abhorrent.  John A., Mt. Vernon, NY 
via Internet

Response: Faith and the true virtue of integrity are not compatible I'd think 
you'd agree.  G.D.




The Worst Word in the Language
By Keith T
What's the worst word in the entire English language? Well, let's take the 
big "F" word for instance.  One of the most common words in our language was 
only hinted at in print until a few decades ago.  Norman Mailer wrote The 
Naked and the Dead, one of the most realistic novels of World War II except 
for one thing.  No matter what the provocation, his soldiers could only bring 
themselves to say a three-letter euphemism for the rich old Anglo-Saxon word. 
 In fact the awful four-letter version wasn't used until Sergeant Warden, an 
enlisted man of course, finally uttered it to an officer's wife in From Here 
to Eternity.  Then he f----- her, but that's beside the point.

Even Playboy, my favorite magazine, avoided the word for about the first 
decade of its existence.  I can remember an article in a 1963 issue devoted 
to it.  Only thing is, it wasn't spelled out.  The reader had to interpolate 
"f---."  Even Playboy had to evolve.  Eventually the language of Hefner 
caught up with mine.  Can the dirty-mouthed kids from South Park be far 
behind?

If f--- doesn't bother me, does any word?  Is there one I won't use or listen 
to?  Nah, I'd hate to be accused of being a prude, and sniffing makes my 
headache.  Still, one word has connotations I detest.

That word is "faith!"  According to my American Heritage Dictionary it means 
"belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."  I like to 
pride myself on logic and I want nothing to do with anything that denies it 
as an explanation for anything.

Yet, that's exactly where most religious folks start their explanation.  If 
they don't start with it, they'll get to it before long.  I'm sure my in-law 
from Utah would have explained that her faith wouldn't allow her to use, or 
even intentionally listen to such words as I used.

Most religious folks love to shut off an argument by hiding behind the word 
as in: "That's my faith, and I believe it."  Such passes for logic.

Well, that's okay with most of us.  Nobody wants to deprive folks of their 
panaceas.  If it makes them feel better, who cares?

The politicians, school boards, librarians, editors, publishers, and about 
everybody else, that's who.  Look at the promises folks make to get elected.  
Evan Meecham, a recent governor of Arizona, packed his cabinet with people of 
his own faith, and declared he would run the state according to his Christian 
(actually Mormon) faith.  You can be sure he didn't intend to consider the 
ideas or needs of those with no faith. Meecham was recalled, but not for that.

Michael Huffington damn near became a Senator of California.  One of his 
campaign promises was that he'd try to bring Christian principles back into 
government.  Our would-be senator also swore he'd be the scourge of secular 
humanists.  That must have made sense to him because the one thing 
secularists do not have is good old faith.

An Alabama judge named Roy Moore felt his faith outranked the law.  He was 
ordered, but refused, to take down a copy of the Ten Commandments from his 
courthouse wall.  Moore's faith was bolstered by that of Governor Fob James 
who ran for reelection by showing his disdain for legal niceties.  By cracky, 
they would call out the National Guard in order to protect the right to 
flaunt the U S Constitution.  How would you like to be tried in a court like 
Moore's if the prosecution could show you didn't have faith in good old God?

When the "contract with America" folks were running things in congress, 
scarcely a month went by without one or another of those faithful guys trying 
to amend the constitution to accommodate the idea of faith. The big deal 
nowadays is to get prayer back in school to satisfy those folks who have so 
much of it already.

For some reason (possibly explained by faith) prayer just has to be done in 
the classroom.  Well, that's true except in Texas where the faithful have 
managed to get a case before the Supreme Court to allow them to blast the 
prayers over a loudspeaker.  I presume good old god is getting deaf in his 
old age.

Oh sure, the godless children in classrooms could wait outside while the true 
believers are praying. And perhaps the godless at football games could simply 
go to the next county.
Textbooks are watered down so ideas taken on faith are given the same 
emphasis as scientific theories.  Ever wonder why our students have such low 
science scores?

Hell, I wonder why the scores are as high as they are!  In a country where 
almost everybody has that good old faith, critical thinking goes a'begging.  
The faithful are simply enjoined from applying any sort of scientific test to 
ideas accepted as dogma.

Those of us who don't have it are on the outside looking in.  We cannot 
possibly expect to gain high office, or even be taken seriously.  Most "true 
believers" are content to take things on faith and they expect us to refrain 
from making waves.  Any doubts should be muted in deference to the faith of 
others.

This, despite the fact that we cannot expect to know anything unless we test 
our theories.  Thus we are left with nothing but faith.  Few scientists are 
satisfied with that, but ...

Could anything explain faith better than the bumper sticker: GOD SAID IT -- I 
BELIEVE IT.  THAT SETTLES IT!

On the other hand the most popular science writer of our time had a different 
take on the big questions of our time.  His wife said it for him when he 
died:  "Carl Sagan didn't want to believe, he wanted to know."

Isn't it a good thing Sagan and all the scientists before him didn't take 
things on faith?




Church-State Separation Issues
The Presidential Campaign
By Gerry D
At a Republican presidential candidate debate, when asked who was their 
guiding philosopher for their political viewpoint, George W. Bush answered 
"Jesus."  He also said something to the effect that those who were not saved 
could not really understand what he meant.
Oh.

Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer and Orrin Hatch, the independent thinkers that they 
are, jumped on the Jesus bandwagon and supplied the same answer.  John McCain 
answered "Teddy Roosevelt," which had the advantage of having something to do 
with political philosophy.

Never mind that Jesus never wrote a word of anything.  Or that he is 
supposedly a deity whose message was primarily "believe in me" and you will 
be saved.  And that all we really know of him is what others, notably St. 
Paul who never met him, say about him.  What is truly frightening is that if 
you are not a follower of Jesus, and cannot understand what it means to be 
"saved," you may have a president ruling over you who believes you are not 
saved, and apparently, deserving of eternal torment!  You may have a 
president who thinks that you are incapable of understanding his moral 
outlook based on a differing religious belief!

For example, Mr. Bush said, the same week, that he would not meet with a gay 
Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans.  McCain has already met with 
them noting that the Party of Lincoln should be inclusive.  Inclusiveness has 
not been the forte of most fundamentalist religious philosophies.

The democrats, after a campaign where it seemed that they wanted to make God 
a partisan for their side, have had a change of heart perhaps.  Answering a 
question on the campaign trail in December, Al Gore said that GOP rivals were 
out of line when they tout their religious beliefs.  "I affirm my faith 
whenever I'm asked about it, but I try to do it in a way that communicates 
absolute respect" Gore is quoted.

Bradley stated "In my own case, I've decided that personal faith is private 
and I will not discuss it with the public."

No one expects a candidate to give up his or her religious beliefs when 
running for office. However must they constantly imply that their religious 
beliefs somehow give them superior character and guarantee better policy?

After a four years that gave us unprecedented political religious hypocrisy 
in the persons of Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, 
Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Pat Robertson, Helen Chenoweth, Dan Burton 
and many more, you'd think we'd all be wiser.  Maybe some are wiser.  We'll 
see.



The Roman Catholic Church and Israel
By Gerry D
Israel, according to legend, is the birthplace of Christianity.  However, 
since the wonders of Jesus' resurrection failed to convince most Jewish 
persons of his divinity, and Muslims agreed that Jesus was not of the same 
substance as God, the ironic result is that Christianity's most sacred 
locations are not on Christian controlled lands.  This causes problems from 
time to time, particularly between the Vatican and the state of Israel.

Newsday's headline read "Protest Shuts Holy Land Churches."  Why?  Because 
Christian leaders were upset at the planned construction of a Muslim mosque 
near a Christian shrine!  One would think that the operators of one church 
would be tolerant towards the operators of another church, but one would be 
wrong!

The Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth is in a congested part of the 
city and civic leaders suggested a plaza be built near it.  Muslim groups 
claimed some of the land to be used was partly owned by Muslims and in a 
compromise the Christian mayor made a deal to allow a mosque built on part of 
the property with the plaza occupying the balance.

Roman Catholic, Armenian and Greek Orthodox patriarchs declared a mosque near 
the church was unacceptable, according to Newsday.  In protest, the Christian 
churches were closed in the Holy Land, with Vatican support.  Hints were 
given that if the dispute were not resolved, that the Pope's planned trip to 
Palestine in March 2000 would be jeopardized.

Secular authorities, such as Yasser Arafat were willing to support the 
Christians and have offered that the mosque be built elsewhere.  Muslim 
religious officials however are dismayed at such preferential treatment 
especially since that location is the place of the Tomb of Shihad al-Din, 
nephew of Salah al-Din, a celebrated Muslim warrior who fought Christian 
Crusaders in the 12th century.

The dispute reaches into NY as well.  In November when Prime Minister Barak 
met with Cardinal O'Connor, the underlying tension was due to this dispute, 
not some human rights or war and peace problem.

Other problems exist involving Christian churches in Israel.  The Church of 
the Holy Sepulchre is located in Jerusalem in the place where Jesus was 
believed, by the faithful, to have been crucified, buried and resurrected.  
Three Christian denominations share this building, Greek Orthodox, Roman 
Catholic and Armenian.  This church was the one church allowed to remain open 
by Saladin when driving out Christian Crusaders nearly 800 years ago.

Ever since, the church itself has been a monument to ritual, almost by 
necessity.  Newsday writes "In a church where priests of different faiths 
have often come to blows, sometimes hiding behind pillars before attacking 
each other with clubs, maintaining a balance of power is particularly 
important."  Remember, this is on the site of the crucifixion of Jesus!

Newsday further reports that Father Jerry Murphy-O'Connor, a professor of the 
New Testament at the Ecole Biblique, explains that in the 19th century an 
agreement called the "Status Quo" was made that strictly governs the 
operation of this church.  Any change in the Status Quo might dissolve it 
and, er, all hell would break loose!

So, what's the current problem?  The lack of doors is the problem.  There is 
only one door for the church.  Secular Israeli authorities believe it to be a 
disaster in waiting if, for example, a fire were to break out, hundreds of 
persons would be trapped.  In 1834 it is recorded, that during a "supposed 
miraculous appearance of holy fire" the faithful panicked, rushed out the 
door, and Muslim guards outside, believing they were being attacked, fought 
back with 300 persons winding up dead.

If more doors are added to the church, on which denomination's side will they 
be placed?  Who will be in charge of that door?  Will the Status Quo be 
voided?

Unbelievably, some local clergy want secular authorities to "take the heat" 
and resolve a dangerous situation sensibly, something religious ritual cannot 
allow.  High Church officials, though do not want this.

The chancellor of the Catholic Latin Patriarchate says "This church was 
already ruled by the Status Quo ... and nothing bad has happened.  Now they 
want to come and make a new problem.  (The safety of those attending) is not 
worth it.  Leave us in peace."

Imagine a political and religious crisis over doors for safety reasons!  
Imagine a crisis over a church objecting to the construction of a mosque!

Due to the millennium, record crowds were expected to visit the Holy Land and 
the Israeli government was attempting to make things less crowded and safer.  
Without such measures, catastrophes could occur.  Yet they did not want to 
impose on religious institutions rules that would be imposed on secular ones 
because of Israel's policy of "freedom of religion."  Uri Mor, an official 
with the Ministry of Religious Affairs notes that "That is the great paradox."



LISH
INQUIRER part II




LISH HELP WANTED 
1)  A person to investigate the forming of a Secular Singles group and help 
with the End of the World Brunch would be helpful.  
2) Another exciting opportunity would be for some volunteers to begin Campus 
Freethought groups on Long Island colleges. 
3) 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. 
4) A person who can plan fundraising events or activities would be very 
appreciated. 
5) LISH members who would like to be on the Board of Directors should make 
their intentions known ASAP.  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.
Email Gerry D at InfidelsRe@aol.com




US House of Representatives Protestant Republicans Charged with anti-Catholic 
Bias
By Gerry D
Stop the presses!  For once the Catholic League has attacked a worthy 
opponent for real discrimination against Catholics.  Of course, they still 
did not get it completely right.

If you are not aware, there is an under-reported story in the US that is a 
stunning tale of outright bigotry, in this writer's opinion.  In fact it is 
so blatant as to be absolute proof that government and religion must have a 
secure wall of separation between each other.

The US House of Representatives have selected as their new chaplain the Rev. 
Charles Parker Wright, a Presbyterian, over the top choice of a bi-partisan 
committee, Catholic priest Rev. Timothy J. O'Brien.  Father O'Brien charges 
he was pushed aside by Speaker Don Hastert and Majority Leader Dick Armey in 
favor of the Protestant minister for no other reason than his Catholicism.  
In the history of the Senate and House, only two Catholics have ever been 
chosen for this position despite Catholicism being the largest religious 
denomination in the country.  Unitarians have been selected twice and the 
rest have been Protestants.  The House has selected no Catholics ever, 
according to published reports.

The Catholic League responded this way: "To say that most members of the 
House would be more comfortable with a Protestant minister than with a 
Catholic priest-which is precisely what Dennis Hastert and Dick Armey are 
reported as saying-is to say that Catholic priests need not apply for this 
post. As Hastert and Armey know, never in the history of the U.S. has there 
been a Catholic priest chosen for House chaplain.  More germane, never in the 
history of the U.S. has any priest been recommended as the candidate of first 
choice by the selection committee for House chaplain.  This raises the 
question, If not now, when?

Those who led the fight against Father O'Brien were mostly Republicans.  Most 
disturbing, some of their questions evinced a bigotry that has dogged their 
party for decades.  We will now write to every congressman asking him to 
reexamine this matter when it comes to him for a vote in January."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, however, had a solution 
for this problem of enduring religious bias - eliminate the position entirely 
since evenhandedness is impossible.  Barry Lynn of AU points out that James 
Madison, father of the Constitution objected to congressional chaplaincies, 
calling them a "palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of 
Constitutional principles."  In addition the budget for the position is 
$277,000 per year.  Few House members use the service.

House Republicans are the most vocal proponents of intermingling religion and 
government in the country.  They support, generally, school vouchers, the 
biblical Ten Commandments in schools, school prayers, and religious law 
serving as a model for secular law.  Let us clarify what they really propose: 
state promotion of the fundamentalist version of their Protestant religious 
beliefs, to the exclusion of even Catholic religious beliefs.

If a Catholic citizen really believes that the religious right as embodied in 
the current Republican Party represents them, they should consider that to 
those Republicans, such as Dick Armey and Don Hastert, the very thought of a 
Catholic Chaplain is unacceptable.  Catholics should let this be a wakeup 
call and inspire them to lead the charge to keep government and religion 
separate.




Catholic League Bashes Atheists
By Gerry D
Here is a Catholic League release that bashes atheism:
"ANOTHER CATHOLIC-BASHING MOVIE?

""The Body" is being directed by the same person who wrote the movie, Jonas 
McCord.  He recently explained the message of his new movie: "In a world 
where Kosovo became a situation [and] where, in the name of God, people 
doviolence, this film says God has no place in politics."

William Donohue, Catholic League president, commented as follows: 
"'Catholicism is a hoax.'  From what is known about 'The Body,' that appears 
to be a fair way to characterize the movie.  If this is indeed the theme of 
the film, the Catholic League will lead a fight against it.

"The screenwriter and director, Jonas McCord, wants us to believe that 
religion is the basis for war.  (Ed.'s note - nowhere does Donohue support 
the charge with quotes showing McCord claimed that religion is the basis for 
all war.)  His sense of history apparently excludes the 20th century: the 
greatest monsters of this century-Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot-have all 
been committed atheists, men who killed hundreds of millions in the name of 
abstract ideas emptied of religious significance. Indeed, all worked 
tirelessly to destroy every vestige of religion in their society.Needless to 
say, we will keep a close eye on 'The Body.'"

The Catholic League does not learn!  Even though the Republican controlled 
House of Representatives has just insulted Catholics over the House Chaplain 
selection process, here is the Catholic League defending the idea of the 
co-mingling of church and state!  Note that the director under fire, Jonas 
McCord, directed his comments over God and politics, not God in society or 
within individuals in it.  The League does not make a distinction.

Just as foolish is the equating of atheism, which is a lack of belief in god 
or gods, with immoral acts.  It is amazing that such an argument still 
exists, since one cannot explain how a lack of belief in gods, ghosts, 
gremlins, Zeus, aliens, alligators in the sewers, Santa or David Koresh's 
divinity can lead to any particular behavior.  It is fanatical and 
religious-like belief in something (i.e.; communism, lust for power, God) 
that has lead to the heinous behavior of history's monsters.  (Of course, 
Hitler was not an atheist though the others may have been.)

Now rather than get into the mud with the Catholic League, it would be best 
to simply admit that not all wars are caused by religious belief.  It also 
can be admitted that it is possible that such tyrants as Stalin or Pol Pot 
did not believe in God or gods, though in Stalin's case, he was raised 
religiously and trained for the priesthood.  Still, the point remains that 
non-belief does not lead to superior ethical character, and no one is 
claiming otherwise.  However it is not uncommon for the religious to contend 
that belief does lead to superior ethical character, an arrogant position 
that simply cannot be supported.  The Catholic Catechism does teach that good 
deeds flow from faith after all.

Jonas McCord states that God has no place in politics and the Catholic League 
fumes.  Perhaps they'd be more comfortable with the situation in Afghanistan 
or Iran. 




The Pope's Conflicting Messages
By Gerry D
In November, the Pope's millennium ending message was sent out from a 
candlelit St. Peter's Square, and with the Dalai Lama at his side, he spoke 
of the need for tolerance and for religions to find common ground.

Not a week later the Vatican's missionary news agency, Fides, writes that the 
revival of Hindu religious fundamentalism in India is "an ever more 
aggressive and worrying phenomenon, a serious threat to the church and 
Catholics."  This announcement coincided with a three day Papal visit to New 
Dehli where the Pope met with local Bishops.

Although it seems as though the Pope and the Vatican are speaking 
hypocritically, they are not completely to blame.  Religious freedom for 
Catholics is threatened in India and anywhere else non-Catholic 
fundamentalism takes hold.  The problem was the Pope's original suggestion 
that religions could find common ground even as they seek to proselytize 
members of opposing faiths.  Also a problem is the arrogance of statements by 
the Pope such as "The peoples of Asia need Jesus Christ and his Gospel.  Asia 
is thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give."  Though the 
Pope may be sincere is this pronouncement, it is clearly insulting to the 
Hindu religious.

For their part, Hindu groups claim that the Roman Catholic Church buys or 
forces people to convert, though it is not clear how they could force anyone 
without resorting to violence which has not been documented.  "The Church is 
trying to subvert our culture.  The missionaries are trying to take the 
people away from their roots," says R. Sanjay, a member of a Hindu 
nationalist group, RSS.

Objectively, the response should be "so what?" when a philosophical or 
theological debate takes place, but religious organizations do not see it 
that way.  Some Hindu groups want a Papal apology for past and present 
evangelizing!

Apparently, the fundamentalist Hindus have not forgotten what Newsday called 
the "forced, violent, conversions of Hindus 400 years ago in the former 
Portuguese colony of Goa on India's western coast."  Although 400 years is a 
long time, such an injustice becomes part of the fabric of religious belief.

Indeed, to reinforce this consistency in religion grudge-holding from area to 
area, the Pope's next visit was to Georgia in the Caucasus, where former 
Communist leader Shevardnadze warmly greeted him.  However, Patriarch Ilya 
II, head of Georgia's Orthodox Church was also cordial, but according to 
Newsday, "responded coolly to a call for an ecumenical dialogue."  It also 
reported that "Conservatives in the Georgian church regard the Pope's 
evangelistic message as a threat to their own tradition."

Religions have always had "turf" wars and this day and age is no different.  
The Pope has often warned people of turning to "false ideologies" even when 
they are also Christian in nature.  He has done this in speeches in Mexico 
and Central America.  However, when the Church is the target of similar 
accusations, they react as other religions react -- negatively.  The Pope has 
gone as far as to say that "No state, no group has the right to control 
either directly or indirectly a person's religious convictions."  Of course 
humanists agree with this, but does the Pope have the courage to support this 
sentiment in countries where Catholicism has state sanctioned power?  Does 
the Roman Catholic Church intend to stay out of matters such as birth 
control, divorce, the death penalty, gay rights, welfare and other matters 
where public opinion and common sense run counter to doctrine?

Is there any way to resolve this kind of friction between various faiths?  
When competing for the hearts and souls of people by resorting to emotional 
calls for faith, reasoned dialogue is impossible.  If reason and evidence 
were at the core of the debate, give and take would be possible and both 
sides would need to respond to arguments in ways that could be measured, 
tested and verified.  Religious groups are insulted by this requirement for 
evidence and often will not participate in a reasoned search for truth.  And 
religious conflict continues unabated.

Imagine if the Pope and other religious groups were sincere in their calls 
for tolerance of unbelievers.  The first thing they'd have to do is change 
the belief that what they themselves hold sacred and absolute may instead be 
in error and subject to human judgement.  This, of course, is tantamount to 
admitting that one's religion may not necessarily be the Word of God.  What 
religious leader would have the courage to admit this?

Columbine - the Video Tapes
By Gerry D
It seems that the student killers at Columbine H.S. last summer made a video 
"suicide note" that was intended to explain their actions.  It does do this 
to some degree.

There are two things that were illuminating.  One of the killers is quoted on 
the tape, which was made "available" to Time Magazine, as saying "It's a 
half-hour before our Judgement dayI didn't like life very much.  Just know 
I'm going to better place than here.  It's what we had to do."

It is clear the boy was suicidal and also fairly clear that he believed in an 
"afterlife" of some sort.  Although it could be argued that "nothingness" 
could be better than living a miserable life, it is hardly a "place" and is 
rarely what is meant in this context.  Most people would be referring to an 
afterlife of some kind.  Consider that this might even be "heaven" being 
referred to since belief alone and not works is the requirement for salvation 
according to most Christian sects.

The second thing that is vitally pertinent is the aspiration for fame after 
they die!  They actually discussed their preferences regarding directors of a 
supposed movie of ther lives.  This reinforces the idea that the killers 
believed in an afterlife because if they did not, why would they value such 
posthumous notoriety?

What can be learned if anything from this tragedy?  First of all, their 
actions would seem to confirm that their seeming belief in the supernatural 
did not prevent this event.  Belief in an "better place" after they died may 
actually have made things worse.

Secondly, the media, in their thirst for profits, have made these two killers 
infamous.  Infamous and famous, to the morally immature, are as good as each 
other.  What the media must pledge to do is not make the names of such 
persons as recognizable as the name of the country's vice-president.  The 
media is strongly urged to limit voluntarily the use of the names of such 
criminals and lessen their appeal to the young and impressionable.  (This 
does not imply that this is the only thing that need be done.)  This in no 
way restricts the public's right to know. It is sick indeed to elevate the 
names of these killers to a recognition level of that of celebrity status, 
but that is what has been done, and the media should be ashamed.

A Thumbs Up Publication
Editor:  Gerald D
Art Design:  John R. W

• Crazy Atheist Libertarian
• Government Snitch?????
• David Dorn
• Fat Blond Guy
• Crazy Atheist