Humanist Association of Orange County - Newsletter for February 2006 
Issue #99 ( HTML format ) 
Editor: Benito Franqui
Associate Editor: Dave Silva

Send submissions and membership renewals to:
HAOC
2609 Fernside St.
Orange, CA 92865
benfranq@earthlink.net

Articles submitted for publication in the newsletter
must be received no later than 10 days before the
next HAOC meeting.
The Humanist Association of Orange County ( HAOC) is a chapter of the American Humanist Association.

HAOC Board
President: Pete Anderson
Vice President: Dave Silva
Treasurer: Harry Becker
Secretary: Jerry Parks
Member at large: Carl Mariz
Member at large: Benito Franqui

NEXT HAOC MEETING:                    
Sunday, February 12, 1:30 P.M. 
( Please note that for this month only, we will be meeting on the second rather than the third Sunday ).

Intelligent Design
Charles Rulon is a professor emeritus of Long Beach City College, where he taught in the Life Sciences Department for 34 years.  He has spent the last four decades lecturing and writing on the subjects of evolution, creationism, science and religion, the Christian Right, pseudoscience, abortion and environmental issues. 

Good News!
by Benito Franqui
     Academic freedom is alive and well at Chapman University!
     Why do I feel that way?
      On January 19 I witnessed a debate on the subject "The Intent of the Founders", dealing mainly with the issue of the separation of Church and State in the U.S.A. The venue was the Chapman University Law School. This was the first one of three debates whose main sponsors are the Anti-Defamation League ( www.adl.org ) and the Chapman University School of Law. Co-sponsoring groups are: The Federalist Society, The Christian Legal Society ( www.clsnet.org ) ( HAOC recently received an invitation, which was respectfully declined, from this group to participate in a debate on "Christianity vs Atheism" ), and The Jewish Law Students Association.
       Arguing against the separation of Church and State was Professor John Eastman, law professor at Chapman.
       Arguing for the separation of Church and State was Stephen Rohde, civil liberties lawyer, peace and justice activist and past president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
        Serving as moderator was Marshall Kaplan, Executive Director of the Merage Foundations. Formerly, he was  Dean of the University of Colorado's Graduate School of Public Affairs, a senior official at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a principal in the policy advisory firm Marshall Kaplan, Gans & Kahn.
        Before the debate had begun, I had been hoping that Professor Eastman was going to be participating essentially as a devil's advocate. How could anybody entrusted with  instructing others about our present judicial system, in which legally binding decisions are supposed to be arrived at according to the solid evidence presented by each side ( not according to fear, blind faith, wishful thinking, or hearsay ) really believe in allowing the judicial system to be influenced by a system based mostly on fear, blind faith, wishful thinking, and hearsay?
      On second thought, it seemed to me that what Professor Eastman was really arguing about was not about how to render legal decisions once a set of laws has been decided upon, but about the process of how to decide what the laws should be in the first place. But that interpretation seemed to me to be hardly any improvement. If we agree with this interpretation of Professor Eastman's worldview, then we would still be agreeing to let essentially irrational elements influence our judicial system. And once irrational elements have been allowed to influence our judicial system, what kind of justice can we really expect?
       Professor Eastman's rationale seems to be that there is no difference between morality, religion, and belief in a "supreme being" - hence the administration of justice, which I agree must be based on some concept of unethical or immoral behavior, must necessarily also be based on a belief in some kind of  "supreme being". More specifically, the administration of justice ( according to my interpretation of Professor Eastman's arguments ) must be based on the Christian concept of a "supreme being". Seems to me that the adoption of that viewpoint would be discriminatory against any group of believers or unbelievers other than Christians, and could even be discriminatory against certain sects of Christians.
       According to Professor Eastman, the intent of the founders of the U.S.A.  was to establish a specifically Christian Nation. But in order to accommodate the various competing and quarreling Christian sects of that time ( Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, etc ), the Founders decided that the best policy was not to establish any particular Christian sect as a National Church, but to recognize instead the right of each individual state to establish its own official State Church.
       Whatever merit that policy may have had at the time, we're facing today a much more complex situation. In addition to the traditional Protestants and Catholics, there are in our midst significant numbers of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers, and non-believers ( not to mention the first Americans! ) Does Professor Eastman seriously think that it is in the best interests of the United States of America today to allow each state to establish its own official State Church?
       Perhaps Professor Eastman should reflect on the fact that there are two kinds of laws: those which are invented by man, and those which are discovered . Theologians, of course, have for centuries claimed to have discovered what those latter laws are via certain "revelations" from a "supreme being" which have been faithfully documented in certain "holy scriptures". These claims have led to endless strife ( often resulting in loss of life and limb ) among countless competing groups, each group claiming exclusive access to "religious truth". This endless strife provides solid evidence that those attempts to discover the laws which are not man-made via the "divine revelation" route have been sorely misguided.
       But there is another way to discover the laws which are not man-made: the scientific way. Instead of assuming a priori that those laws have been devised by a ( usually male - I wonder why? ) "supreme being", the scientist ideally begins her search with no preconceived notions ( pretty much the same state in which an ideal judge or juror is supposed to be in at the beginning of a trial - I hope that Professor Eastman is in agreement with at least that much! )  In order to insure reliable results, this arduous, painstaking search must be undertaken in a spirit of extreme humility and concern for the truth - whatever the latter may turn out to be.
       Faithful application of the scientific method has given us most of the countless products on which our quality of life, and even our very lives, depend today. What useful products have been obtained just by perusing a "holy book"?
       The laws I'm talking about, of course, are the laws of Nature - which include as a subset the laws of human nature, which in turn have to do with the factors which influence our behavior towards other human beings and towards our common environment - a behavior which is already having a big impact on how long, and how well, the homo sapiens species is going to survive on Planet Earth ( where else? ). And right now, the prognosis for homo sapiens doesn't look particularly good! We urgently need to increase the rate at which we're discovering the laws which govern human behavior!!
       Perhaps Professor Eastman should also reflect on the fact that there are two kinds of Christians: those whose primary preoccupation is to dodge the fiery pit, and those whose primary preoccupation is to promote the Christian values of repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. I'm sure Professor Eastman knows about many examples of leading Christians in each camp. Which kind of Christian are you, Professor? 
       Academic freedom demands that ( whatever the reasons may be for Professor Eastman holding his particular views ) he be allowed to freely and openly present his case. It also demands that it be possible to respectfully criticize his views. Hurrah for academic freedom!
        Seems that I wound up becoming a devil's advocate for Professor Eastman's views instead.

“Americans United” Meeting
by Benito Franqui
       At the Jan.21 meeting of the Orange County chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Eddie Tabash, chair of the AUSCS Legal Committee and director of Center for Inquiry-West, clarified the issue of the scope of the First Amendment clause which forbids government interference in matters of religion.
      In !868, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.
      In 1947, The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly stated that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment applicable to all levels of government, state and federal. No level of government is allowed to pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. No branch of government can force nor influence a person to go or to remain away from church against that person's will. No one can be forced to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs.  

Somebody's knocking at the door of the U.S. Congress
by Benito Franqui
        Who? Lori Lipman Brown, daughter of American Humanist Association president Mel Lipman:
       Why? To keep religion out of government, and to win respect for a stigmatized minority which has found how to live moral, productive, and happy lives without the need of affirming any dubious god hypothesis. And Lori herself seems to be an excellent example of that!
       Lori has been lobbying Congress since she became executive director of the Secular Coalition for America on Sept. 19, 2005.

      The Member Organizations of the SCA currently are:
            American Humanist Association
            Atheist Alliance International
            Institute for Humanist Studies
            Secular Student Alliance
            Secular Web ( Internet Infidels )
      Honorary members are:
            Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
            Anti-Discrimination Support Network

       Christian conservatives wield enormous clout In Congress through a network of advocacy groups and relationships with politicians from President Bush on down. Atheists, humanists and freethinkers, as Brown’s  constituents call themselves, are usually ignored. So Americans who don't believe in God have decided it's time they had a lobbyist in the nation's capital. Their advocate describes herself as a "soft, fuzzy atheist".
       I had the privilege of meeting Lori on Jan. 21 at a meeting of the Orange County chapter of American Atheists at an Anaheim restaurant
       Lori reminds me of another Brown ( Charlie ) who refuses to quit no matter how many times luck seems to turn against him. That's of course not surprising since Charlie Brown was the brainchild of a secular humorist.
       As the meeting was coming to a close, the rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air ( nearby Disneyland's fireworks display ) gave proof that our flag ( the SCA's ) is now there ( in Congress ) asserting a new Declaration of Independence in the realm of ideas. ( On second thought, this analogy is utterly preposterous, since we clearly are no longer living in the days of George III ).
      Next morning, I felt inspired to compose a march which I titled "Somebody's Knocking", and which can be heard at our website.

The Stoning-Age Obsession With "Satan"
by Benito Franqui
      Hundreds of devout pilgrims, trying not to miss their possibly once-in-a-lifetime chance to throw stones at three pillars representing Satan, trample one another to death in Mecca.
      More sophisticated but no less fanatical, others throw airliners at three pillars representing the "Great Satan".
       Americans, of course, are above engaging in such childish nonsense.
      A long time ago we realized that Satan, Ahriman, Rothbart, Carabosse, the Mouse King, Yamantaka, the Wicked Witch of the West, and all other such "personifications of evil" are strictly figments of our own imagination - bogeymen which disappear on their own into thin air as soon as we refuse to grant their very existence any credibility.
      What more mayhem could Satan ( if he/she really existed ) possibly want to cause than the mayhem that has already been caused ( and is still being caused ) by the mere belief in his ( or her ) existence?
      That's the way we educated, grown-up Americans think. We don't any longer pay any attention to those silly third-world superstitions.
       We don't demonize others just because of their beliefs or their lack of belief - particularly their lack of belief in Satan ( or even their lack of belief in Santa! )
       Or do we?

Which is more useful?
by Benito Franqui
       On January 17, two articles dealing with the Katrina disaster appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
        One was a rant by New Orleans mayor Nagin in which he insinuated that the hurricanes which devastated his city last year were a sign that "God is mad at America" and at African Americans in particular.
      The other was an engineering analysis which explained in detail the reasons why the New Orleans levees failed to achieve their intended purpose.
      While Nagin was in effect cursing the darkness, others were trying to light a lamp.
       Who would you rather trust as a leader? Which attitude better reflects true Christianity?

On the Light Side
The following answers were supposedly given by children  when answering questions at Bible classes:
     1. IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, GUINESSIS. GOD GOT TIRED OF CREATING THE WORLD SO HE TOOK THE SABBATH OFF.
      2. ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AND ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.
      3. LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY, BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.
      4. THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS.
      5. SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIMSELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.
       6. SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WITH THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.
       7. MOSES LED THE JEWS TO THE RED SEA WHERE THEY MADE UNLEAVENED BREAD WHICH IS BREAD WITHOUT ANY INGREDIENTS.
      8, THE EGYPTIANS WERE ALL DROWNED IN THE DESSERT. AFTERWARDS, MOSES WENT UP TO MOUNT CYANIDE TO GET THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
      9. THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.
      10. THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT ADMIT ADULTERY.
      11. MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL.
     12. THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.
      13. DAVID WAS A HEBREW KING WHO WAS SKILLED AT PLAYING THE LIAR. HE FOUGHT THE FINKELSTEINS, A RACE OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN BIBLICAL TIMES.
      14. SOLOMON, ONE OF DAVIDS SONS, HAD 300 WIVES AND 700 PORCUPINES.
      15. WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.
      16. WHEN THE THREE WISE GUYS FROM THE EAST SIDE ARRIVED THEY FOUND JESUS IN THE MANAGER.
      17. JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.
      18. ST. JOHN THE BLACKSMITH DUMPED WATER ON HIS HEAD.
      19. JESUS ENUNCIATED THE GOLDEN RULE, WHICH SAYS TO DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE THEY DO ONE TO YOU. HE ALSO EXPLAINED A MAN DOTH NOT LIVE BY SWEAT ALONE.
      20. IT WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.
      21. THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE 12 DECIBELS.
      22. THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE APOSTLES.
      23. ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.
      24. ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACRIMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.
      25. CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE. THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY