Humanist Association of Orange County - Newsletter for
March 2006
Issue #100 ( 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, March 19, 1:30 P.M.
Dubai Ports World:
Geography and History
The
acquisition by Dubai Ports World of a British company which held contracts for
the operation of six American ports has attracted much media attention. At this
meeting, Benito Franqui will show some computer slides which illustrate the
strategic importance of Dubai, what Dubai Ports World is and does,
and some of the concerns expressed by columnist Rosa Brooks in a recent Los
Angeles Times
article.
Next
CFI-West Orange County Meeting
Sunday,
March 19, 4:30 p.m.
Costa Mesa
Neighborhood
Community Center
1845
Park Ave,
Costa Mesa
$6.00, or free for Friends of the Center
Sabbatai
Sevi: A Seventeenth-Century Jesus
Sabbatai
Sevi was a very popular messiah in the 1600s who abandoned his religion at the
last minute, converting to Islam himself instead of converting the Turkish
sultan to Judaism as he had boasted. Sevi’s life eerily parallels that of the
crucified Jesus and the evolution of early Christianity. By examining the story
of Sabbatai Sevi, much light can be shed on Jesus and the development of Western
religion.
Bringing
this story to light is author Robert
M. Price,
Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute and the
editor of The
Journal of Higher Criticism. His
books include The
Empty Tomb, Deconstructing Jesus, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and
The
Da Vinci Fraud. Price
is also Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Johnnie Coleman
Theological Seminary in Florida.
Next Americans United Orange County Meeting
Saturday,
March 18, 2:00 p.m.
Irvine Ranch Water District Building
15600
Sand Canyon Ave, Irvine
Dr.
Francisco Ayala
of the University of California at Irvine will be speaking on "Darwin's
Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer".
Dr.
Ayala's research interests are in evolutionary biology; he is also interested in
the philosophy of biology and bioethics as well as in the relationship between
science and religion, including the teaching of evolution in the schools. Dr.
Ayala served as an expert witness in the Arkansas trial on the teaching of
evolution in 1981.
He is on the editorial board of Theology and Science which has as its
goal to publish critically reviewed articles that promote the creative mutual
interaction between the natural sciences and theology. For this journal Dr.
Ayala has written "Intelligent Design: The Original Version".
Dr. Ayala was born in
Madrid, Spain and became a U.S. citizen in 1971. He is the author of over 650
articles and 12 books. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been a Guggenheim Fellow and a
Fulbright Fellow.
He has received a number of honorary degrees from prestigious
universities throughout the world. He is currently the Donald Bren Professor of
Biological Sciences and Professor of Philosophy at UCI and has been a member of
advisory committees for the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health as well as being on
President Clinton's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Second
Debate at Chapman University
by
Benito Franqui
This
debate ( the second of three sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League and the
Chapman University Law School ) took place on February 16. The subject was
"The Faith-Based Initiative". Arguing for the FBI was Karen Lugo, a
recent graduate of the Chapman University Law School and a member of the
Federalist Society. Arguing against was Stephanie Campbell, president of the
Orange County Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and
a member of the ACLU.
Karen's
rationale seemed to be that religious organizations (
particularly Christian ones ) are
in a better position than are secular organizations to deliver charitable
services because their members are more highly motivated to be charitable. They
can be trusted to not take undue advantage of their position in order to advance
their sectarian agendas, or to discriminate in hiring.
Stephanie
countered that safeguards are necessary in order to insure that proselytizing
and discrimination ( in determining which religious sects deserve to receive
public monies and which ones do not, as well as in hiring ) do not take place.
Some safeguards currently exist for some charitable organizations affiliated
with
religious organizations. These safeguards make it easier to insure that public
monies are used only for their intended purpose. The FBI would throw these
safeguards out the window.
In
contrast to the first debate, which was narrowly focused, the discussion went
off-topic into the subject of school vouchers.
The
attendance was much lower than at the first debate. I got the impression that
most of the attendees were on Stephanie's side.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
My
comments:
It occurs to me that the argument that religious believers are highly
motivated to deliver charitable services may have some merit as
long as the believers believe that “salvation” is to be achieved
exclusively, or almost exclusively, through works rather than faith.
But the FBI, to my knowledge, makes no mention of this ( in my opinion ) highly
important qualification. On the contrary, the religious groups which are most
energetically lobbying for the adoption of the FBI are those which have
uncritically accepted the hypothesis that “salvation” is almost if not
completely dependent on blind faith. “Blind Faith Based” would therefore
seem to be a more appropriate designation for this initiative.
The majority of the backers of the FBI seem to be also believers in the
hypothesis of eternal damnation. They are probably more highly motivated by fear
than by genuine compassion. I wouldn’t be surprised if their fear led them to
believe that the highest form of charity is deliverance from eternal damnation -
therefore every opportunity ( including those afforded by their being entrusted
with the spending of public monies earmarked for charitable purposes ) must be
taken advantage of in order to spread their dogmatic beliefs.
This situation, of course, is far from being unprecedented. Fear of
eternal damnation has ever been since the latter hypothesis was invented a
motivator of extremely un-charitable
actions. Do we want to risk a return to the dark days of the Crusades, the
Inquisition, and the Salem witch hunts? I hope not.
"Christianity
vs. Atheism" Debate
by
Benito Franqui
HAOC
was recently invited to participate in a debate on the subject of
"Christianity vs. Atheism". Here's why I think we should decline to
participate in any such debates:
In
my opinion, the main concerns of humanists are how humans behave towards other
humans, and how humans behave towards the environments which make human life
possible in the first place. Humanists are also very much interested in the
discovery, via the rigorous application of the scientific method, of the laws
not made by man. This is because judicious application of those laws can
significantly improve the human condition. Examples are too numerous and too
well-known to require elaboration here.
Humanists agree with theists that man-made laws are essential
in order to counter the
tendencies of human beings to act in immoral or unethical ways, and that those
laws should be modeled on the cosmic laws not made by man. The disagreement is
strictly about how those latter laws are to be discovered: via rigorous
scientific investigation, or via “supernatural revelations”?
Belief
or non-belief in any "supernatural" entities is of significance for
humanists as a group only insofar as it relates to the enactment by humans of
laws which arbitrarily
restrict or attempt to restrict how humanists (
as well as other humans ) may think or behave. Regarding the enactment of any
such laws, our position should be that the burden of proof should always rest on
the proponents of any such laws. By "arbitrarily" I mean without the
benefit of any solid
evidence
that the proposed laws will indeed help to improve the human condition in
general. When determining what does
not
constitute solid evidence, essentially the same rules should be applied that are
applied in jurisprudence - e.g., no presuppositions as to the validity or
invalidity of
the evidence, no hearsay,
and
no circular reasoning
are acceptable. Witnesses must be available for cross-examination,
and
alleged physical evidence must be inspected as closely as is practical.
Another
reason for declining participation is that the subject itself represents a false
dichotomy in the sense that other possibilities have been arbitrarily excluded,
i.e., besides Christianity and Atheism, there are other positions worthy of
consideration such as those of Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. To rule those
positions a
priori as
being unworthy of consideration would in my opinion be unfair to those who hold
those positions.
Instead
of engaging in any arbitrarily, narrowly-defined debates which will probably
benefit no one, we
should instead welcome any constructive criticism from our theist friends of
ideas such as the ones which have been espoused above, or in the rest of this
newsletter, or in past or future HAOC newsletters.
Humanism
Encompasses Much More Than Atheism
by
Benito Franqui
On
February 19, at the Center for Inquiry-West 10th year celebration, CFI founder
and chairman Paul Kurtz announced "a turning point for secular
humanism". According to Dr. Kurtz, secular humanists need to do a better
job of communicating to the public the fact that secular humanists, although
holding an atheist stance, are not defined
by atheism. Secular humanists also care deeply about "exuberance, sex,
moral empathy, reason, creative joy and planetary ethics". These concerns
are encapsulated in the word "eupraxsophy" - good practice and
knowledge.
Those
of us who don't deem it necessary to distinguish ourselves in the public eye
from other humanists by qualifying our worldview with the adjective
"secular", and who think that it is counter-productive to ridicule all
religious believers, of course welcome this "turning point" - and hope
that it will lead to a closer rapprochement between CFI and AHA.
Along
more or less these lines, I received a letter from long-time HAOC member Gene
Barmore in which the following letter to FREE MIND magazine ( Oct/Nov 2005 issue
) was enclosed:
AHA's
Public Awareness Campaign
Hallelujah!
Inside the front cover of my July issue of the American
Prospect
was a full-page, eye catching ad saying, "My Values? A Clean
Environment, Reproductive Freedom,
Human Rights, Equal Opportunity, Public Education, Democracy ... I'm a
Humanist."
What
a magnificent outreach to progressives. It appeared where progressives are
likely to see it. It spoke to progressive values and the values crucial to
Humanism without gratuitously insulting peopIe who believe in a god. We
nontheists are a tiny group of people. Shackling Humanism to atheism makes us
irrelevant to most Amer icans and anathema to many millions of them. Polls
show about 165 million Americans accept evolution not creationism and understand
the huge divide between reason and fundamentalism. There are thousands in the
United States who could potentially join the movement to build a more
enlightened American culture and soci ety if we stop insulting mainstream
religious belief.
Humanism
has the "moral and intellectual compass" to guide this enlightenment.
Most mainstream religious Americans agree with our moral and intellectual
principles and care about most Humanist values. This advertisement,
non-insultingly welcoming progressives, seems as magnificent a step into the
real world as was AHA's move from Amherst, New York, to Washington, D.C. Let's
get on with the advertising campaign to welcome "mainstream" religious
believers into Humanism.
Robert
F Moore
VicePresident, Humanists of Broward County, Florida
Pompano Beach, Elorida
Gene
also enclosed a copy of the article titled "The Emergence of the Religious
Left: An Opportunity For Religious Liberals and Humanists to Unite" ( The
Humanist,
Jan-Feb 2006 ). Here are some excerpts from that article:
IN
1689 THE DEDICATED Protestant philosopher John Locke famously wrote:.
"And upon this ground I
affirm that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of
any article of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his
laws." Locke's precedent-setting
work, A Letter Concerning Toleration, outlined the distinct
division between the duties of the church and those of the state. In it
he wrote that "the business
of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the
safety and security of the common wealth, and of every particular man's
goods and person."
Blinded
by the religious right's howling dogmatism and recalcitrant disregard for
such principles as the separation of church and state, many Humanists
might be unaware of just how
pivotal Protestants were in building the wall that many
contemporary Christians seem determined to collapse. A summary of such
broad support comes to us via
Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835, 1840).
Reporting on the rise of American democracy, Tocqueville, a Roman
Catholic, wrote that he was
initially shocked to learn that the "spirit of religion and the spirit
of freedom" in the United States weren't "pursuing"
courses
diametrically opposed to each
other." Upon coming into contact with several priests, he found
"that they mainly attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their
country to the separation of Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm
that during my stay in America I
did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who
was not of the same opinion upon this point." While such
appreciation for the separation of
church and state and the true spirit of religious freedom is entirely
lost on the United States' growing number of religious fanatics, there
are signs of a revived deference
for this great principle within our nation's expansive Christian population.
On June 22, 2005, at a Washington, D.C., press conference,
the Christian Alliance for Progress (CAP), a Jacksonville, Florida,
group, declared war on the
religious right's theocratic aspirations and its attempt to take over
Christianity. The group boldly stated: "We reject a Christianity
co-opted by any government and used as a tool to
ostracize, to subjugate, or to condone bigotry, greed, and
injustice."
Founded
by health - management consultant Patrick Mrotek early in 2005, Simpson's
group proclaims unequivocal support for economic justice, gay and
lesbian rights, environmental
stewardship, reproductive rights, universal health care, as well as
the separation of church and state. Boding well for the organization's
humanistic agenda, thousands of
Christians flocked to become members of the group before its
official launch in June 2005, with virtually no publicity. By the end
of July, after news of the group
had spread across the globe - yes, international media
covered its Kick off - CAP announced that it had 6,000 new members,
swelling its membership to 10,000.
"Ultimately,
in Christian theological terms, the question is: how is the neighbor
best served. And we want the focus to be on that
- particularly
the neighbors that are in
difficulty, that are in distress, that are in the margins
- rather
than on trying to get the
corporate interests and the wealthy in this country another tax
cut."
Most
recently CAP succeeded in debunking a bun dIe of stereotypes when it
denounced the pseudoscience of
"intelligent design." In response to recent attempts to
mandate the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution, CAP
states its unequivocal support for
real science: "Evolution is widely accepted as
incontrovertible in science communities and faith communities across
the world." The group also
points out that, as with many issues, such as same-sex marriage, the
separation of church and state is at the heart.
CAP
also promotes the Clergy Letter Project ( blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/O9/the_clergy_lett.html
), "a coalition of scientists and Christian
clergy members" declaring that "faith and science can be
partners rather than enemies."
Whether
Humanists and Christians agree on the issue of God's existence, the
existence and popularity of CAP proves arguably that both groups have
something far more important in
common: a unified dedication to peace and justice issues. Groups
like CAP offer Humanists an important opportunity to bridge the gap
between secular and Christian
humanism.
Already,
progressive Christians and Humanists are working side by side on such
issues as church-state separation, social justice, and supporting true
science. With so much at stake,
let's take the next step and join these struggles arm in
arm.
Voices
in my Head
by
Benito Franqui
The
following dialog was inspired by the results of a personality test I took at
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/dis_sample_36.asp?discover
.
According to that test, out of 9 characteristics measured by it, # 5 ( the Investigator
) and # 9 ( the Peacemaker
) are the most prominent in my case:
Investigator:
We need to become more active in exposing the secret deals which are going on
behind closed doors! Only in that way will the human condition improve. The
victims of the secret deals have to be made aware of what's going on, so that
they can demand that the rascals be thrown out, and that people of integrity who
can reform the system be put in leadership roles instead.
Peacemaker:
Take it easy. You're not saying anything new. Since much earlier than Socrates,
the efforts of whistleblowers have not been appreciated - not even by those
"victims" you talk about. If you study the history of reform
movements, you'll find out that individuals who combine the integrity,
expertise, and stamina to make a real difference are very few and far between.
The
main obstacle faced by the reformers has always been human nature itself.
Progress takes place in fits and starts, and is to a large extent unpredictable.
After periods in which increasing civility and prosperity are manifested, the
pendulum has swung back to a more primitive, darker, and chaotic age.
I:
I don't deny that that has been the case so
far.
But I can nevertheless perceive throughout history an overall trend of solid
progress. There's no cosmic law that says that this time it will be no different
- that the pendulum must
once again swing back.
Look
at the Internet - it's a revolutionary, unprecedented way of disseminating
information. Much like the invention of the printing press was followed not too
long afterwards by the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, the
Information Revolution makes it pretty difficult for civic and industrial
leaders to withhold information about their self-serving shenanigans from the
public.
P:
That would be much more significant if the public was really paying attention.
But the public is much more interested in being entertained
than in being educated.
For instance, the average viewer finds that it's much more fun to watch a
"documentary" in which the landing by the Americans on the moon is
being questioned, than it is to listen to a lecture or read an article about how
the mainstream media puts a spin on its "documentaries" in order to
boost its ratings and therefore its profits. If more people found it more
entertaining to learn about the shenanigans which some "documentary"
producers engage in, pretty soon there would be more true documentaries flowing
through the information channels!
The masses rail against all forms of oppression.
The masses clamor for all kinds of freedom. And yet, as soon as they are
given the freedom to make their own decisions, they proceed to make decisions
which jeopardize the very freedoms they have been given.
Also,
the Internet is possible only because of the existence of a very complex
infrastructure. Should significant damage -
whether intentional or not - to that infrastructure occur, its ability to inform
the public would be put in jeopardy.
Also,
keep in mind that sometimes revealing certain truths at the wrong time or in the
wrong way can cause more harm than good.
I:
So, what would you suggest?
P:
Know thyself! Devote the bulk of your efforts to your own improvement.
Develop
a peaceful attitude. Teach mainly through your own example.
Demonstrate
that education - both your own and that of others - can be fun.
Live
in the moment - neither feeling guilty for the past, nor afraid of the future.
Act
as spontaneously as possible. This does not mean acting thoughtlessly or
recklessly. It means that you do not regard yourself, driven by your own
personal desires, as the doer, but
rather that the doer is a representative of the interests of all.
Renounce
the fruits of your actions. This means that you are not looking forward to any
reward for your good deeds other than the satisfaction that comes naturally from
knowing that you have done your best. If there's any reward other than that,
it's just frosting on the cake.
Resist
the temptation to compare yourself with others. Rather, compare today's edition
of yourself with past editions of yourself.
But
do ask others how today's edition compares with past editions.
Remember that the truth ( whatever it is ) will prevail in the end -
irrespective of any opinions as to what it is or what it is not. That’s what
distinguishes the truth from what is not true.
Theologians appear. Theologians disappear. Big deal!
Philosophers appear. Philosophers disappear. Big deal!
Time relentlessly moves on.
Or perhaps time stays, and everything else moves on. Who can say?
I:
How come you seem to know so much?
P:
I used to be an Investigator myself.
I:
Thank you.
P:
You're welcome.
On
Thelemanngasse
The history of a Vienna property teaches that nothing is forever, and it
provides a warning on the dangers of national vanity.
( From
Los
Angeles Times ,Feb.
20, 2006
)
By
Frederic Morton, the author, most recently, of "Runaway Waltz: A Memoir
from Vienna to New York." His books "The Rothschilds" and "A
Nervous Splendor: Vienna 1888-1889," were National Book Award finalists.
LAST
MONTH, I boarded the No. 43 tram again, right after unpacking in my hotel. At
the eighth stop I got off, walked one block south and one block west, came to a
halt, and then just stood there. Stood there for minutes on end to look at a
plain spot in an otherwise flamboyant city, a backwater street called
Thelemanngasse.
I
was born here and, in fact, I still own the house I was facing. On cobblestones
long since asphalted, I once hopscotched, misbehaved, sulked, tumbled for the
tousled first 13 years of my life. And now I was loitering on the sidewalk, a
doleful baldy, reminiscing.
This
time, though, the ritual visit to native ground turned into something beyond
nostalgia. Remembrance of Vienna's past became brooding over America's future.
It wasn't just the dark news out of Iraq that caused the connection. It was that
I happened to have reached Thelemanngasse at the right hour. From the ground
floor of the building before me came a wail, a low chant, a murmuring choir. I,
a Jew, am the landlord of a mosque.
The
sound conjured not only that paradox but a much larger one: the affinity between
the fortunes of the world's dominant power and those of a drab little street in
Mitteleuropa.
At
the end of the 19th century, my grandfather, Bernhard Mandelbaum, started a
workshop on Thelemanngasse devoted to the cultivation of glory. He made medals
that Emperor Franz Joseph awarded to champions of Habsburg luster.
There
was much luster and many medals. My grandfather, prospering, bought the
building, Thelemanngasse No. 8, then bought a second building, No. 4, to
establish a factory producing yet more triumphal tokens.
The
space vacated at No. 8 he turned over to a synagogue whose congregation sang
God's praises for anointing them his special people, and as such petitioned him
to preserve the monarch and his dominions, plumed as they were with the pedigree
of the Holy Roman Empire.
Nevertheless,
the emperor died. World War I shattered his realm. Out of the ruins crept the
small, threadbare Austrian Republic. At Thelemanngasse No. 4, my father, after
my grandfather's passing, manufactured badges for political parties, most of
them promising to restore the radiance that was no more.
Indeed,
Vienna did shine again, with the glow of greatness redux — the glow of the
Greater German Reich. In 1938, Hitler's tanks rumbled through the city's
jubilant streets, cannons polished and beflagged. A Nazi mob hacked to pieces
the pews and the torahs at No. 8. Where cantors once chanted kaddish, where
Muslims would later invoke Allah, brownshirts sang "Deutschland,
Deutschland über alles," celebrating Germany's manifest destiny. Swastikas
bloomed in buttonholes, tens of thousands of them produced by the factory at No.
4, "Aryanized" by an Obersturmbannfuehrer.
Seven
years more, and this plant turning out Nazi decorations was bombed to pieces.
However, a sample line of the medals of "the thousand-year Reich"
survived. Iron Crosses, Ehrenorden and Ritter-kreuze were left behind at the
Thelemanngasse property, which was returned to my father, Franz Mandelbaum (by
then Frank Morton). He in turn passed them on to me, his son, who astounds his
Upper West Side friends with a nightmare's glittering relics.
And
who last month lingered on the Thelemanngasse corner, listening to a muezzin's
wail, struck by transmogrifications so routine to history, so confounding to us.
It was at that point that I wondered if some clue couldn't be retrieved from the
very confoundment; some lesson about the conquistadorial dimension of Islam,
about the imperatives of Israel acting as God's chosen and, most urgently, about
the global righteousness of American power. An instruction, moreover, suggested
by the writ inspiring all three, the Old Testament.
From
Ecclesiastes 9:11 (fateful digits and all): "The race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong … but time and chance happen to them all."
Or, more profanely expressed, "History is a web of unintended
consequences."
Nothing
is stronger, thought this bald Jew, loitering and listening on Thelemanngasse,
nothing in the world is stronger or swifter than the arsenal commanded by the
Pentagon. And yet how unintended the consequences of unleashing that strength
and that speed!
The
sound of prayer followed me as I walked away from my little street. What
whispered in my ear, though, was not a sura from the Koran but Ecclesiastes
again: "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher … all is vanity."
Whereupon
I asked some prayerful questions myself. Couldn't America profit from its
chastening by time and chance? Would it wean itself from the messianism of its
hegemony, its military, economic and political grandeurs? For God's sake, wasn't
it high time to shock the world by being — just a bit, for starters —
humble?
Humility,
saith Thelemanngasse, is more than scriptural wisdom. It's a survival skill.