If you want to be removed from this mailing list, please let us know!

Volume 3, Issue 2
February, 2000

Long Island Secular Humanist
INQUIRER




LISH MEETING INFORMATION
The next regular meeting of the Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH) will be 
Friday, February 18, 2000, and as always @ 7:15 PM at the Plainview-Old 
Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview.  The meeting will 
feature Barry Loberfeld of the Liberty Coalition and his topic will be 
"Theocracy in America: The Second Coming of the Christian Right."  Do you 
know what Christian Reconstructionism is?  It is no less than a movement to 
institute the Kingdom of God in America!  Not only would a Protestant 
fundamentalist version of the bible be the basis for all law, but also the 
government would then enforce biblical sanctions, such as death for 
practicing gays or blasphemers.  Would unacceptable forms of religion, 
perhaps including even Catholicism, be banned outright?  Would racially mixed 
marriages be forbidden?  Find out who these people are and their 
relationships to well-known Christian social and political leaders.  They are 
more powerful than you might suspect!

The Friday, March 17, 2000 meeting will feature Beth Lamont, AHA NGO delegate 
to the United Nations and daughter of Corliss Lamont, humanist philosopher.



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



Table of Contents:

George Bush Flip-flops, by Gerry D
Letters to the editor
What Would the Candidates Say? By Gerry D
A Very Bad National Precedent, By Sandy R
Bush and Other Republican Candidates Visit Bob Jones University, By Gerry D
Einstein Speaks, By Gerry D
Help Wanted



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.



George Bush Flip-flops
He now opposes Republican leadership regarding version of Ten Commandments!

By Gerry D
In a campaign question and answer session during the late summer of 1999, 
George W. Bush indicated that he believed a "Standard" version of the Ten 
Commandments could be agreed upon for posting in public schools and other 
government facilities.  In a complete about-face on this issue, he now, 
through his press secretary, supports the posting of the "original" Ten 
Commandments as opposed to the English language Protestant version 
congressional leaders are promoting.  However, it is possible that Gov. 
Bush's position is simply one of being misinformed and ignorant of the facts 
involved.

LISH's letter to the Gov. Bush was as follows:

Dear Governor Bush:
Your recent comments on the campaign trail encouraging the creation of a 
Standard Ten Commandments moved me deeply.  Acknowledging that the biblically 
inspired Ten Commandments as promoted by Roman Catholics, Protestants and 
Jews differ markedly from each other and the bible itself, and that other 
persons do not subscribe to any of the above-mentioned belief systems, 
developing a Standard Ten Commandments was in order.  As you probably would 
agree, such a formulation should not offend anyone's religious beliefs, and 
should not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, while at the same 
time, should promote good moral and ethical behavior.  Our Standard Ten 
Commandments succeed on all counts!

It is important that political leaders seek the widest possible grounds for 
promoting good ethical and moral behavior in all Americans while showing 
respect for everyone's religious beliefs.  It is therefore necessary that 
publicly, no sectarian version of a biblically based set of moral commands be 
promoted at the expense of other contrary sectarian commands.  What we can 
all agree upon is the need to promote the common decencies for which there is 
great consensus.

The Standard Ten Commandments would be hard to argue against as a set of 
simple yet useful moral guidelines.  They are not at all controversial in any 
manner, and they do not claim to be perfect or absolute since they are open 
to improvement and inquiry.

I request that you indicate approval or encouragement of our effort to create 
the Standard Ten Commandments.  It would be of tremendous assistance as we 
contact every US Senator, all the major media outlets and others to plead our 
case that these Standard Ten Commandments are the most appropriate set of 
moral and ethical instructions for placing in public institutions.  A number 
of complete sets of the Standard Commandments are enclosed so that you may 
distribute them among friends, family and consultants.  I truly seek feedback 
on the Standard Ten Commandments for which you planted the seed.  A return 
reply envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Very truly yours, Gerry D, President, LISH

This is the response from the Bush campaign:
Dear Gerry
Thank you for your letter to Governor Bush asking for his endorsement of your 
revised Ten Commandments.  Governor Bush firmly believes that our society 
would be a better place if everyone understood the difference between right 
and wrong and treated each other with dignity and respect.  He believes 
reasonable people can disagree and still get along.

He also believes that the original 10 Commandments have stood the test of 
time as the best guide for how to live a life of decency and compassion.  He 
is not interested in promoting a revised version.

We wish you well and appreciate your taking the time to write.
Sincerely, Mindy Tucker, Press Secretary

The response is interesting on a number of levels.  If Gov. Bush truly 
supports the "original" version of the Ten Commandments for public school 
posting, does he know what they actually say?  Does he recall the references 
to a jealous God, Israelites, and curses upon four generations for the sins 
of the ancestor?  Somehow, I doubt it, since these excesses and strange 
references (to Americans or non-Israelites) are probably what led to the 
derived and "unoriginal" versions.  Does Gov. Bush realize that this is not 
what the Congress expects to have posted?

However, if Gov. Bush is under the impression that the English language 
Protestant version is the "original" version, it bespeaks a staggering 
ignorance of the issues!  If he does know that the version Congress prefers 
is a revision it indicates his insincerity in his criticism of the Standard 
Ten Commandments.  His objection, that he is not interested in promoting a 
"revised" version, is precisely what the Protestant version is - a revision!

Bush Supports Federal Funds for Nation of Islam!

Could Gov. Bush be this ignorant on this major issue?  Consider that when 
asked in January 2000 whether the Nation of Islam would be considered a 
faith-based organization eligible to receive Federal funds under one of his 
proposals, Bush said, "I think it is.  I think it's based upon some universal 
principles.  It's certainly not the faith I accepted...."  The Southern 
Poverty Law Center has cited the Nation of Islam and some of its leaders for 
making anti-Semitic statements.  The NOI has negative opinions about the 
status of white persons as well.  Is this the kind of organization that 
should receive Federal funds?  The answer is most likely that Bush is simply 
ignorant on the subject and has not thought through the concept and is 
unfamiliar with religion other than his own narrow viewpoint.  A Bush 
spokesperson, Ari Fleischer covered Bush's behind later by stating that 
groups that espoused hate would not be eligible for such funds.  Does this 
mean Psalm 53 (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.  Corrupt are 
they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good) 
eliminates Christianity and Judaism from receiving funds as well?

Gov. Bush did not at all address the criticisms of the original biblical or 
derived versions of the Ten Commandments, which includes intolerance of 
diverse beliefs, and on the other hand, neither did he indicate any failings 
of the Standard Ten Commandments.  One can conclude that despite his ardent 
support of the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools for the claimed 
reason of their ethical effects, his real motivation is to allow government 
sponsored religious proselytizing of his favored belief system.  This is 
unacceptable in a presidential candidate, and Gov. Bush and other like-minded 
candidates are urged to remove themselves for consideration as elected 
leaders of a free and pluralistic society.

If political leaders truly are sincere about a call for improved ethics, 
particularly in the young, the Standard Ten Commandments deserve 
consideration based on the merits.  No other version should be favored for 
the unconstitutional and ethically unsound motive of a narrow religious 
"pedigree."



NEW YORK AREA SKEPTICS (NYASk) 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 



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 $40 for full family 
membership for one year, or $12 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

1/17/00 Re: Columbine - the Video Tapes: After the contents of the video were 
made public, I also concluded that those individuals had a belief in the 
afterlife. Whether school or parents indoctrinated them is irrelevant.  What 
is relevant is that if they would have been trained from a humanist point of 
view, i.e., no afterlife, chances are they would have reconsidered their only 
opportunity to be "alive."  Ergo, by their own admission, afterlife beliefs 
likely increased the probability of such a horrendous attack.  Abel via 
Internet.

Response: It can never be proven since we cannot reproduce their lives with a 
humanistic upbringing, but their words spoke loudly.  The idea of an 
afterlife can trivialize our lives in the here and now and make us do things 
we should not do otherwise.  G.D.


1/18/00 Re: Is faith a virtue?  Like everything else, this question rests 
upon definition.  Faith can be a virtue if it is based on a realistically 
projected, achievable outcome informed by past demonstrable outcomes.  
Without some leap of faith, new science and other creative projects wouldn't 
be undertaken, relationships started, or children raised.  It's well known 
that children frequently fulfill our own sense of prophecy for them.  We have 
witnessed that this is so.  Conversely, faith in the religious sense has 
proven to be a vice, maybe the most deadly sin.  It has not only failed us 
repeatedly across the span of history, but worse yet -- it fills people with 
a false and malignant sense of smug security, so they are distracted from 
doing the very real and active things the universe needs to survive."  Leslie 
W. W., CT, via Internet.

Response: Faith seems to require arrogance in that it is necessary to exalt 
one's mere opinion to nearly unchallenged fact.  G.D.



1/19/00 The newsletter continues to be great.  One exception: LISH member 
James DeRidder continues to submit tapes of "Humanist Perspective" to public 
access cable and the program could use promotion.  I suggest listing the date 
and time, Wednesday @ 5:30PM on channel 80 of the Woodbury System of 
Cablevision, in each issue.

Response: So it shall be done.  Thanks.  G.D.


1/22/00 I have read with interest Keith T's article titled The Worst Word in 
the Language.  Keith thinks that "faith" is a dirty, unacceptable word for 
the age of reason.

I have several comments.  First, Keith, just like many misled Christians, has 
a rather superficial understanding of "faith."  What they call "faith" is 
actually belief.  More precisely, it is dogma.  Beliefs and dogmas are 
matters of the intellect.  We have a choice to believe whether the universe 
was created in seven days, whether Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from 
the dead in three days.  But beyond religious beliefs, there is a deeper kind 
of faith, which is existential and not intellectual in nature.  This kind of 
faith is not a matter of the brain but a matter of the heart.  It has to do 
with how you carry yourself if your doctor tells you that you have contracted 
a terminal disease and you have only 3 months to live.  Another example of 
existential faith would be how you feel if you know that you are broke and 
have no way to make a rental or mortgage payment which is due tomorrow.  
Would your heart be still at peace?  There are many people who claim to have 
"strong faith"(by which they mean they have strong conviction in certain 
religious dogmas) and yet crumble in face of a life-or-death situation. But 
what truly matters is not what one claims to believe in.  Rather, it is how 
one walks through fire.  I think of existential faith as a basic trust in the 
benevolence of all there is.  There may not be a rational basis for this kind 
of trust.  But it will be somewhat hard for anyone to live without it.  We 
have a choice whether to believe that whatever challenge or difficulty we 
face in life is a gift and a valuable lesson.  But what a difference it makes 
to believe that it is so!

"Faith" is at its worst when it is based on fear.  It is this kind of "faith" 
which motivates religious wars, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the 
suppression and demonization of one's opponents, intolerance, etc.  Such 
faith is an expression of the ego.  On the other hand, there is faith that is 
based on love, openness, receptivity and trust.  I am a Buddhist, and as such 
do not have "faith" in a personal god.  In my book The Zen Teachings of 
Jesus, which has a chapter on faith, I said that the Buddhist equivalent to 
faith in God can perhaps be characterized as "gentleness."  Buddha says that 
suffering is the First Noble Truth.  No one's life is totally smooth.  There 
are bound to be bumps during life's journey--illness, accidents, loss of 
loved ones, and eventually death.  To be "gentle" in this context means to 
embrace even these, although they may be very threatening to one's ego.  
Surely, when we are ill, we should try our best to get well.  However, we 
must also recognize that as mortals, we do not have control in some of the 
most important events in our lives.  When we are faced with a problem that 
simply is out of our control, it is wise to learn acceptance.  Why spend 
energy on something that we can't control anyway?  When everything fails, it 
is time to relax and trust in the benevolence of the universe.  Perhaps there 
is a lesson to be learned in this difficult situation.  Perhaps there is 
certain beauty and wisdom even in death.  True faith is not an expression of 
the ego--it is the surrendering of the it!  In fact, the word "Islam" means 
surrender.  Sometimes, life is beautiful when we learn to surrender...
True faith is not about forcing ourselves to believe in something that we 
find it hard to believe.  Rather, it is about being very open to all that 
life is showing us and not insisting on the ego's view of the world.  It is 
about learning to love all there is.

I hope this helps.  With metta, Kenneth Leong via Internet

Response: Of course by changing the definition of the word faith to that 
which almost no one else, at least in this society, uses, you have defined 
everyone else into incorrectness.  If faith is a belief not substantiated by 
evidence, it is no virtue according to Keith Taylor.  If you change the 
meaning of faith, claim it is a matter of the "heart," then call it a kind of 
irrational "trust," "surrender," or "gentleness" and then claim that there is 
some "true faith," you have rendered the term almost completely obscure.  
What could be more obscure than finally claiming faith is "learning to love 
all there is."  It points out how when people talk of "faith," they are 
talking nearly incoherently and expect congratulations for it!  If faith is 
all those different things, faith becomes yadda yadda yadda.  G.D.


1/24/00 My wife and I had a wonderful time on Sunday (at the End of the World 
brunch).  We have to do this again.  Hayo B., Farmingdale, NY

Response: The brunch was a roaring success!  The food was great and the 
conversation non-stop.  We need to do this more often at other restaurants 
and other kinds of events!  Any suggestions?  G.D.


1/27/00 First, let me say how much I enjoy your newsletter.  I live down here 
in the Bible Belt as they say, and it's nice to get a breath of fresh (i.e. 
not bible thumpin') air once in a while.

You're doing a great deal of research for all of us, and it can only help to 
open eyes and encourage more fact-based discussion between the types of 
people that tend to ignore each other's respective viewpoints.  Your ability 
to research and report on specific topics is amazing!

I had a sort of a discussion with a bible thumper that I work with. He 
blurted out.. "Albert Einstein...", and I responded with a humble "... was an 
atheist".  To which my co-worker replied "No he wasn't!".

And that reminded me of the article that was in LISH a while back. There was 
the story of whether or not Einstein "accepted religion" on his death bed. I 
remember that he didn't, but I'd like to find a copy of that article.

As a matter of fact, I would really like to have a copy of all of the 
newsletters over the past year or two, if they are available. I have been 
deleting them (I always print them and read them a few times), but I am 
starting to keep them from now on.

Thanks in advance. Keep up the good work!  Dan M, Malabar, FL via Internet

Response: We did not run that Einstein conversion story and I think you're 
confusing it with a bogus Charles Darwin conversion story.  There seems to be 
a need on some people's part to convert famous non-believers to believers on 
their deathbed.  Must be some kind of insecurity!  G.D.


Re: LISH Question of the month: Should secular humanist organizations 
publicize the fact that Time's person of the century, Albert Einstein was, as 
they described him, a "humanist"?  Should it be pointed out that Einstein did 
not believe in a personal God?

1/17/00 And to note that our Founding Fathers were Deists not Theists which 
makes them a-theist in the strict meaning of the term -- no personal god.  
This is the real battle for Humanists: to distinguish between belief in a 
personal god (where all the damage comes from) vs. a belief in an unknown 
organizing principle of matter and life, also called god for many.  Divide 
and conquer is a valid principle that should not be confined to the military 
battleground.  James W. Prescott, Ph.D., Inst. Of Humanistic Science, San 
Diego, CA via Internet

Response: I'm not sure "conquer" is the exact right word.  I was willing to 
settle for acceptance of non-believers by believers!  G.D.


1/17/00 Yes, I think it highly appropriate to notify TIME that Einstein did 
not believe in a personal God.  (I'm not a reader of American bourgeois 
newsmagazines and didn't know Einstein had been chosen.  Thanks for the news. 
 But hurry before their next deadline!  Uh, I read THE ECONOMIST.)  Warren 
Allen Smith, NYC via Internet.

Response: I was lucky to see the TIME cover.  It was next to the Weekly World 
News, which I never miss!  G.D.


1/17/00 NO.  If Einstein had been a Catholic and they publicized that fact it 
wouldn't have made me respect Catholicism.  I believe in the separation of 
church and brains and the church agrees with that idea.  J.G. via Internet.

Response: In a perfect world, it would be rather tasteless to promote one's 
philosophy in this way.  However, non-theistic humanists are so reviled that 
we need a marketing campaign so that our children are not routinely despised 
for their lack of religiousness.  If Linda Tripp can get a facelift, we can 
mention that Einstein represents a kind of humanism.  G.D.


1/18/00 Yep.  He's widely quoted as saying that "God doesn't play dice with 
the universe" which implies that he did believe in a personal God.  And on 
behalf of all intelligent Texans (there are some of us here!) I'd like to 
apologize for both Bush and Shrub.  And I might as well apologize for Perot, 
while I'm at it.  Oh, and I used your newsletter as a defense that not all LI 
people are mindless god-believers up there.  We've had a spate of people 
claiming to be from Long Island who are mostly Bible-thumpers. Lynn B. via 
Internet.

Response: Texas does have a lot to answer for doesn't it?  Isn't it one of 
those states whose constitutions require religious belief for public 
officials?  And yes, some of us on LI are mindless non-believers.  G.D.


1/18/00 Why, what's the point?  Amassing support?  What different does it 
make "what" Einstein believed?  He was not an authority on whether or not 
there is a god, only on Relativity Theory.  Did he not (believe in a personal 
God?)  I do know that the uncertainty principle caused him to remark that he 
could not believe that "God roles dice."  Larry Parker, Philosopher and 
Educational Consultant, Ohio Center for Critical Thinking Instruction, Inc. 
via Internet.

Response: Of course, if Einstein did not believe in a personal God, that 
would not make it necessarily so.  It is more the idea that the "person of 
century," an honored person, was what is often sneeringly referred to as a 
"humanist" or worse, a secular humanist.  For the sake of those who follow 
us, and ourselves, we hope our fellow travelers would reconsider their 
opinion of us.  The general public's admiration of Einstein could be a step 
toward that goal.  G.D.


1/18/00 You bet!!  Never Thirst, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart via Internet

Response: Well then that settles it!  G.D.


1/18/00 Hello.  Aren't there in fact two questions to answer, not one as in 
the "LISH Question of the month?"  In any case, the answers are yes and yes.  
Howard P., Gurmes Island, WA via Internet

Response: Must have been a quantum fluctuation.  G.D.


1/18/00 YES!  But in doing so we need to be very careful about what Einstein 
believed and said. Many of his commonly used quotes are confusing and 
ambiguous.  Be well August E. B. via Internet.

Response: See Einstein Speaks, this issue.  G.D.


1/18/00 Even though he asked whether "God plays dice with the universe" he 
was an atheist apparently.  Many intellectuals tend to be.  Bless 'em all.  I 
happen to be a venerator of Goddesses and Gods.  There is room at my table 
for atheists, secular humanists and anyone else who does not wish to make all 
others "wrong" or "unsaved" or some other claptrap.  Blessings (in whatever 
form you can accept them) Starwhite, Berkeley, CA via Internet.

Response: Though the nature of the universe is up for conjecture, and secular 
humanists opt for natural explanations, those who disagree are certainly not 
damned and deserving of it for their viewpoint.  Accepting your blessings in 
the form of human good will would be wonderful.  G.D.


1/24/00 Secular humanist organizations should not make a big issue of the 
fact that Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God.  Einstein 
believed in some concept of a God as was evidenced by the fat that he 
declared that "God does not play dice."  He attempted to construct what he 
termed a unified field theory in which probabilities would be replaced by 
facts.  He was unsuccessful as have been all other to date.  There should be 
room in humanist organizations for all doubters, from atheists, to agnostics 
to those who believe in some logical concept of a "God" similar to 
Einstein's.  Wesley J. via Internet

Response:  The primary requirement for being considered a secular humanist is 
a concern for others and oneself in this life, on this earth and not 
resorting to the supernatural for ethics or solutions to problems.  Does this 
sound like Einstein?  It does to me.  One's opinion on God is not a primary 
concern.  G.D.








What Would the Candidates say?
By Gerry D

It was a hot and sweaty debate.  A reporter asked questions.  Somewhere in 
the auditorium, a cough reverberated.

"Governor Bush, what economist has most influenced you regarding your 
positions on running the economy?" was the query from Chris Matthews.

"I'd have to say it was Jesus Christ who has most influenced the way I handle 
economic issues.  The Lord has opened my eyes to the concern we must have 
toward children.  He said 'suffer the children' you know.  I think that means 
we should care about them.  That leads directly to a balanced budget where 
their future earnings would not be eaten up by interest payments on the 
national debt.  If you aren't with the Lord, you simply cannot know what it 
means to balance the budget."

"I agree with that" blurted Alan Keyes, out of turn.  "Yes, definitely Jesus 
would want a balanced budget and vouchers for religious schools."  The 
moderator, Larry King, began to admonish Mr. Keyes for interrupting but then 
Steve Forbes chimed in saying "Jesus wrote the book on economics and 
indisputably preferred a flat tax system to the primitive code we are now 
saddled with."

"Gentlemen, gentlemen, you'll all have your turn" said an exasperated King.
It was now Mark Shields turn to ask a question.  "Mr. Bauer, do you believe 
that soft money is a threat to the democratic process?"  Mr. Bauer looked up 
sharply and replied "Jesus definitely would have accepted "soft money" in 
support of a righteous cause.  Didn't he say if someone needed a cloak, you 
should give him yours?  Well, I need your cloaks!"

Senator McCain almost exploded!  "Jesus would have had nothing to do with 
soft money!  Soft money is not only corrupting our political system, it is 
also anti-Christian!"

"If soft money were anti-Christian, I would not take soft money.  But since I 
am a Christian, and I'd take soft money, it cannot be anti-Christian!" 
proclaimed a proud Governor Bush.

"Please, I will recognize the speaker" said a perspiring Larry King, reaching 
for his ginseng tablets.
"Governor Bush," asked Cokie Roberts, "let's ask something on the personal 
level.  What is your favorite food?"  The Governor paused, and spoke 
considerately.  "As a person reborn in the spirit of Jesus Christ, my 
personal savior, I must reply that my favorite food is fish.  You know, Jesus 
did wonders with fish."

Gary Bauer bursts out shouting "I like fish too, even more than Bush does!"  
The moderator interrupts "Please, Mr. Bauer, you'll get your turn."

Christopher Hitchens, smelling a pattern emerging asks Steve Forbes, "Mr. 
Forbes, who, in your opinion, was the greatest athlete of the 20th Century?"  
Mr. Forbes dutifully replies "Well Jesus of course."  Bauer, Bush, Keyes all 
nod in agreement.  McCain seems to want to say something but thinks better of 
it.

"Mr. Bush," says Cokie Roberts, catching the drift from Hitchens, "who is 
your favorite Beatle?"  

The Governor from Texas bleats "Jesus, of course, the cute one with the 
beard."

"Yes, yes, that's the one" say all the candidates in miraculous agreement.

"To all of the candidates," asks an incredulous Larry King, "is there 
anything you would like to add?"  

"Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus ..."



A Very Bad National Precedent
By Sandy R

The bad news from Long Island, New York is that in mid 1999 the national 
Democratic leadership "embraced" the transmigration of Long Island's First 
District Anti-Choice Republican Congressman Michael Forbes into Democratic 
ranks.  Indeed, Congressional Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt actively 
courted this anti-rights maven into the Democratic Party, a phenomenon with 
disturbing national implications.

Forbes consistently cites his religion as a reason to oppose Church/State 
separation and deny reproductive autonomy to all American women.  That the 
Democratic National Committee orchestrated his party switch bodes ill for all 
civil liberties and First Amendment Church/State separation in general.  
Once, when accused of imposing the Catholicism he so often cites upon members 
of other religions, Forbes sent out, over his own signature and on his own 
official campaign stationery, a mailing declaring that his position was not 
anti-woman and should not be construed as such, insofar as all Catholics 
"greatly revere the blessed Virgin Mary."

It is true that in 1999, Forbes found it in himself to support the federal 
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (an extremely watered-down version of an 
originally comprehensive bill introduced a quarter of a century ago by Bella 
Abzug).  Yet it is precisely the premise of Constitutionally protected 
privacy, as it relates to sexual and reproductive matters, which underlies 
the all-important drive to repeal the anti-"sodomy" laws, still on the books 
in roughly half these United States.  And in fact those archaic anti-"sodomy" 
statutes are the very biggest of guns in the Religious Right's artillery 
against LesBiGay civil rights.

Of Forbes' political cross-dressing a National Organization For Women press 
release read: "The recent stripe changes of NY Congressman Michael Forbes 
from Anti-Choice Republican to Anti-Choice Democrat does not endear him to 
feminists."  NOW-NYS President Lois J. Shapiro-Canter Esq. continued "He is 
an enemy of women's rights in whatever guise he dons!"  Past NOW-NYS 
President Marilyn Fitterman, expanded on the theme: "Nothing is more primary 
than this bottom-line issue of women's autonomy."  In an interview on the 
subject Fitterman emphasized: "Imposing one religious view on a culture as 
diverse as our country's is in direct conflict with the US Constitution's 
First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee.  And sacrificing women's 
rights is no way to end discrimination against gays."

Recently, at a Long Island fundraiser, none other than the President himself 
trotted out the sanctimonious Congressman Forbes as a great catch. National 
party leaders have bandied about "three million dollars" as the figure Forbes 
is likely to receive from them for the next election.  And they have given 
out onto the press that Forbes will not be opposed in a primary, a promise 
they have no power whatever to implement, in that Congressional candidates 
are proposed not by Washington but by their local districts.  It is fodder 
for thought, however, that the "three million dollar" banter is scaring off 
viable Democrats and Republicans alike, in that no one wants to take on a 
local race whereon the national Democratic machine is obsessively focused.

There have been of late, some signs that this national manipulation of a 
local seat is beginning to backfire. Long Island's premier newspaper, Newsday 
9/13/99, ran a headline describing Forbes as "The Life Of Neither Party."  
But the national Democrats must not be allowed to get away with increasing 
their Congressional numbers at these costs.  It is very nice for Mr. Gephardt 
that he will, with a net gain of five seats in the next election, get to be 
Speaker of the House.  But to what avail is a Democratic majority if privacy 
rights are defeated in its wake?  Yes, politics is politics, but some 
trade-offs are utterly without principle. The Forbes debacle is definitely 
such an animal.

(c) Sandy Rapp 1999.  Sandy Rapp is a feminist author and singer whose book 
God's Country and whose CD We The People are available through Amazon.com & 
SandyRapp@aol.com.



George W. Bush and Other Republican Candidates Visit Bob Jones University
By Gerry D

No one has accused Republican candidate George W. Bush of being a racist.  
However, is it time to consider his biases concerning religion?

As the campaign for the nomination swung into South Carolina, the candidates 
began making their rounds.  One of the first stops by Gov. Bush was to Bob 
Jones University, known for its conservative brand of Christian ethics, 
including the banning of interracial dating.  The university also attempts to 
ban gays from campus and regulate the length of female students' skirts as 
well.

That is not all however.  According to Rod Dreher, in a column for the NY 
Post, Bob Jones Sr., the founder of the school 70 years ago, was of the 
opinion that he'd "rather see a saloon on every corner than a Catholic in the 
White House.  (He) would rather see a nigger as president."

More recently, in 1978, Bob Jones Jr. declared on the death of the Pontiff 
that "Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, 
like Judas, gone to his own place."  Current President, Bob Jones III calls 
the Roman Catholic Church "a cult which calls itself Christian."

Precisely why would Gov. Bush seek out this bastion of Christian extremism 
and anti-Catholic hatred for a campaign stop?  Why would Steve Forbes and 
Alan Keyes (an African-American Catholic!) also plan to go there?

Are they of the mind that the bigot vote is within their grasp and that they 
should do what they can to grab it?  Do they excuse the views held by the 
administration of Bob Jones University because, after all, they are devout 
Christian?  Does that make everything OK?

Once again, the extreme religious right wing of the Republican Party has 
shown that it is no friend to the religiously diverse, Catholics and 
minorities.  Is anyone paying attention?



Einstein Speaks!
By Gerry D

The LISH Question of the Month concerned Albert Einstein's religious beliefs 
and humanism.  Rather than put words in his mouth and beliefs in his head, 
here is what he had to say on these topics:

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for 
their numerous stupidities, for which only He himself can be held 
responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse him." (Letter 
to Edgar Meyer, 1/2/15)

"It is possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written 
in the Bible about him is poetically embellished." (W.I. Hermanns "A Talk 
with Einstein, 10/43)

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.  I am convinced that a 
vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the 
betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, 
especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." 
(Letter to M. Berkowitz, 10/25/50)

"Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all." (Letter to V.T. 
Aaltonen, 5/7/52)

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever... This is a somewhat new kind of 
religion." (Letter to Hans Muehsam, 3/30/54)

"It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie 
which is systematically repeated.  I do not believe in a personal God and I 
have never denied this but have expressed this clearly.  If something is in 
me which can be which can be called religious then it is the unbounded 
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal 
it." (Letter to Princeton student, 3/24/54)

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions 
of individuals, or would directly sit in judgement of his own creation... 
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us not for God." (Letter to a 
banker in Colorado, 8/5/27)

"I do not believe a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being 
afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in 
this way he will be rewarded after he dies.  This does not make sense.  The 
proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts 
upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others." 
(Interview with P.A. Bucky)

"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the 
stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that 
source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands 
of priests.  In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those 
forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful 
in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult task but an 
incomparably more worthy task..." (From "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, a 
Symposium", 1941)

"It is the privilege of man's moral genius, impersonated by inspired 
individuals, to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and so well 
founded that men will accept them as grounded in the vast mass of their 
individual emotional experiences.  Ethical axioms are found and tested not 
very differently from the axioms of science.  Truth is what stands the test 
of experience." (From "Out of My Later Years")



LISH QUESTION OF THE MONTH: What person(s) has most influenced your political 
philosophy, if you have one?

Readers of the Long Island Secular Humanist Newsletter are encouraged to send 
in their opinions.  Email to InfidelsRe@aol.com or mail to LISH, Box 119, 
Greenlawn, NY 11740.



Help Wanted!

1) A person is needed to investigate the forming of a Secular Singles group.  
Anyone interested?  Don't be shy!

2) An exciting opportunity would be for some volunteers to begin Campus 
Freethought groups on Long Island colleges.  The work may be significant at 
first but then the groups become self-operating.  This is perhaps the key 
project for LISH.

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.  Special days for 
humanists, such as February 12, "Darwin Day," and June 7, "World Humanist 
Day" must be publicized and planned for.  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.

Email @ InfidelsRe@aol.com if interested



Be Sure to Watch "Humanist Perspective" on Cablevision Public Access (channel 
80 on the Woodbury system), every Wednesday @ 5:30 PM!



A Thumbs Up Publication
Editor:  Gerald D
Art Design:  John R. W
Copyright LISH 2000

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