 |
|
|
|
|
Greetings, Vol.4 No.5 THE LOW KEY APPROACH TO RESOLVING CHURCH-STATE
DISPUTES Sometimes the first inclination a religious skeptic has when confronted with a situation he knows is a violation of the Constitution—a display of a nativity scene in a courthouse, a creationist course being offered at a community college, proselytizing material being sent home with schoolchildren—is to file a lawsuit. Occasionally, litigation is the only way to proceed because the authorities responsible for the conduct in question are openly hostile to skeptics and are willing to thumb their nose at the Constitution. However, litigation should be the last resort, not the first one. Not only is litigation burdensome, but it is also unpredictable. You might think you have a solid case, but results do not always match expectations. Plus, once litigation is underway it may be more difficult to negotiate an acceptable resolution. Positions harden, the parties are reluctant to make concessions, and, if the defendants are public officials, there may be political pressure on them to take a tough stand against “atheists.” For all the foregoing reasons, when I am contacted about a church-state dispute, I often try to explore alternatives to litigation—phone calls, letters—to see if there is some way an appropriate resolution can be reached without going to court. This “low key” approach is not always successful, but it is successful often enough to make it worthwhile. Of course, it helps if you have the opportunity to work with an intelligent, persistent, patient person. One recent success story involves Michael Swanson, a Tennessee resident who contacted us last summer about being called to jury duty at the local county court and being asked to take a religious oath, without being offered the alternative of a nonreligious affirmation. When he contacted us, Mike Swanson had already written the attorney representing the local government to protest the policy and had been rebuffed. In fact, the local attorney (perhaps innocently) had mischaracterized Mr. Swanson’s complaint as a complaint about a religious oath being offered to jurors. No, that was not Mr. Swanson’s concern. Instead, he wanted those who were not religious to have the opportunity to indicate their willingness to undertake the responsibilities of a juror without having to take an oath referring to a deity in which they did not believe. In asserting this position, Swanson was on firm ground, under both the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. But knowing one is right and obtaining an appropriate change in practice are two different things. In any event, Mr. Swanson and I discussed what strategy to pursue and we both agreed that it was better “to work within the system” and see if we could obtain redress without being confrontational or resorting to a lawsuit. What followed over the next several months were a number of letters, written by both me and Mike Swanson, and a presentation that Mike Swanson made before the Judicial Council for Tennessee. I am happy to report that just the other week, Swanson received notification that Tennessee courts were going to modify their practices to make it clear to prospective jurors that they have the option of a nonreligious affirmation in lieu of a religious oath. I would provide more detail, but I am hoping that Mike Swanson can be persuaded to give a fuller account of the relevant events, either in a future newsletter or perhaps in a short article in Free Inquiry.This success is due almost entirely to Mike Swanson’s efforts, and it would be more appropriate for him to discuss it in his own words. However, I did want to mention this matter here not only to relay some good news, but also to emphasize the importance of approaching church-state disputes intelligently and prudently. Letter-writing and repeated phone calls can be frustrating when one seems to be making little headway, but as long as one is not easily discouraged, persistence can sometimes pay off. And at the end of the day, setting things right is more important than the often ephemeral satisfaction derived from filing a lawsuit. Ronald A. Lindsay is Vice President and General Counsel for CFI
THE FLORIDA ACADEMIC FREEDOM ACT If passed, the Academic Freedom Act (Senate Bill 2692/House Bill 1483) would provide fundamentalist religionists the opportunity to incorporate Bible-based religion into public school science curricula to be taught on equal footing with a scientific understanding of the biological, chemical and physical nature of the universe and their interrelationships. It is an attempt to introduce an ancient, pre-scientific era religious book – the bible – and, at least one scientifically discredited text – Of Pandas and People, into science classrooms for equal consideration along with modern scientific texts, despite the fact that the basic science in the bible is mathematically false and the science in Pandas is inaccurate and misrepresents evolutionary theory. The mathematical symbol Pi does not equal three as calculated in First Kings, 7: 23-24 and Second Chronicles 4: 2-3. If such a travesty were to become law, the consequences will be dire since it could impair students’ critical thinking skills and their ability to differentiate scientific from non-scientific information, thus negatively impacting their chances for success in the 21st century workplace. Florida’s Legislature is aware that national and state political and economic survival depends on the ability of our scientists and engineers to compete in a scientifically and technologically oriented world by continuously developing new knowledge which can be translated into technological growth. That is why Florida and Palm Beach County spent time and money recruiting Scripps Institute as a base around which to build a biotechnology industry. The intellectual and creative minds required for such activities depend on the early inculcation and cultivation of accurately represented scientific knowledge in our public school classrooms. The integrated knowledge gained from the biological, geological, and cosmological sciences provides the best explanation(s) for the history of the planet and the diversity of life found thereon. Although scientists continue to engage in research on all aspects of evolution and their myriad ramifications, there is near universal agreement that evolution is a fact. Evolution is every bit a fact as is gravity. Dozhansky stated, over 50 years ago: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Unlike the Biblically based science of Creationism or Intelligent design, the core elements of evolution, as presented in textbooks today, have been repeatedly tested and verified by scientists throughout the world. Florida legislators should be proud that they passed new science standards. These standards, if implemented properly, make Florida a paradigm of what enlightened legislators should be doing and what an enlightened public school science curriculum should consist of. Floridians – citizens and legislators – should not permit the dilution of these standards by pandering to ignorance. Science is not about beliefs: in our democratic society people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. However, belief is not scientific knowledge: science is about knowing and how to know. Students should be tested on their knowledge of well-understood concepts as embodied in the recently passed state science standards. Legislators should insist that teachers adhere to the new standards and ensure that students spend their valuable classroom time learning, through classwork and homework, the best knowledge that centuries of scientific investigation have placed before them. Citizens and legislators should not permit precious tax dollars to be wasted in frivolous lawsuits that are bound to occur should the Academic Freedom Act pass. That money could be better spent on computers, science laboratories, science equipment, and library resources. Eric Hoffer wrote: "We have rudiments of reverence for the human body but we consider as nothing the rape of the human mind." There is a forty-plus-year history of Supreme Court and lower court decisions in which it was pointed out time and again that Creationism is religion, not science. In the latest case, Kitzmiller v Dover..., Intelligent Design was shown to be biblically based and false. Intelligent Design has no place in public school science curricula. The time has come for the Florida legislators to protect Florida’s present and future: they must stop all attempts at deceiving the minds of Florida’s youth and to prevent unnecessary drainage of hard earned tax dollars for lawyers. The Academic Freedom Act must not pass. Sheldon F. Gottlieb, Ph.D. is the author of “ THE NAKED MIND” He can be reached at SheldonGottlieb@gmail.com
Hitchens vs Hitchens: On God, War, Politics, and
Culture In April, Center for Inquiry/Michigan, in partnership with the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University, hosted an historic debate between Christopher and Peter Hitchens. The brothers, long estranged and recently reconciled, had clashed before in print and on the radio. But this event marked the first time that they appeared together on stage, one-on-one, before a live audience, to debate religion and foreign policy. And this was not just any stage. This stage was set in Grand Rapids, home to the world’s largest Bible publisher, a half dozen Christian colleges, world headquarters of both the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church of America, and Mars Hill — a church so large they actually bought a shopping mall to hold 10,000 churchgoers each Sunday. This stage was housed in ultra-liberal Fountain Street Church, a speaking venue over the years for the likes of Clarence Darrow, Susan B. Anthony, Hellen Keller, Margaret Sanger, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robert Frost, Alan Watts, Malcolm X, Michael Moore, and many others. One wall of the sanctuary is lined with stained glass windows depicting traditional Biblical personalities. Windows on the opposite wall feature more enlightened figures such as Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Roger Williams, George Washington, Desiderius Erasmus, Louis Pasteur, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and yes, even Charles Darwin. It was on this stage that brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens stepped out before an audience of almost 1400 people anxious to see sibling rivalry at its finest. “Of all the places in all the world where I could have held what I think will be my last debate with my brother Christopher, Grand Rapids would have struck me as the least likely location,” Peter reflected later. “There is a very strong chance that this will be the last time we do this.” Christopher Hitchens’ name is, of course, well known to many naturalists and super-naturalists alike. His positions on religion and the War in Iraq are often polarizing and have created admirers and detractors on both sides. Younger brother, Peter, is a Londoner, and although less well known here in the States, is also an accomplished author, journalist, and media pundit in his own right. James McIntyre, a fellow journalist and friend to both brothers, described them this way: “As individuals, they could hardly seem more different. One [is] a conservative, traditionalist, church-going Anglican; the other a liberal, louche, drinking-and-smoking atheist.” Christopher, to be sure, knows how to rule the stage with a fierce and flamboyant erudition that could overshadow any younger sibling. But despite Peter Hitchens’ comparatively reserved demeanor and buttoned-up style, he displays a bit of Christopher’s acerbity and haughty charm when telling of the time that then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told him to “sit down and stop being bad.” The first blows of the evening were landed over the proposition “The Invasion of Iraq was wrong” with Peter winning the coin toss — and winning the audience’s allegiance for his position against the war. “I don’t want to make this too easy for myself,” Peter opined, “because it seems to me that it is actually a fantastically easy position to take.” And so it seemed to most of the crowd as Peter bemoaned “the rank stupidity of arguments in its favor” and recounted many examples to underline what he sees as the carelessness and callousness with which the war has been waged. Christopher’s rejoinder in support of “the Mesopotamian War” was rousing, sincere, and laced with its own share of moral revulsion — at Saddam Hussein’s brutality and the world community’s complacency for so long. His boldness may have transformed into hyperbole when he proffered that “The liberation of Iraq? will stand?as one of the greatest decisions of American statecraft? as one of the things that [the American people] will be proudest of in the future than any decision we’ve ever made.” In the end, some audience members observed that it was the most brilliant defense of the war they had ever heard — all the while remaining unconvinced by Christopher’s arguments. The final and most anticipated round of the brotherly brawl was over the proposition “God does not exist and he is not great”. “Okay, let me see,” Christopher began, “I don’t think it’s going to take 10 minutes to disprove the existence of God.” After Christopher had “rehearsed” a number of arguments against God’s existence for the crowd, he went on to emphasize that, not only is believing in a “celestial dictator” absurd, but he’s “glad that it’s not true.” Religion is, Christopher asserts, the desire for a tyrannical authority who can, indeed must, “subject you to total surveillance around the clock? and even worse, and where the fun really begins, after you’re dead — a celestial North Korea.” “Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?” he asks. “I’ve been to North Korea? It has a dead man as its president? Kim Jong-Il is only head of the party, not head of the government or the state. That office belongs to his deceased father.” What’s more, “It’s a necrocracy,” says Christopher. “The son is a reincarnation of the father. It is the most revolting, and utter, and absolute, and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved. But at least you can die and leave North Korea.” To hear Peter Hitchen’s response, and view the entire debate, visit http://cfimichigan.org/ Jeff Seaver is the Executive Director of
Center for Inquiry/Michigan. He can be reached at
John Shook Discusses Naturalism and the Scientific
Outlook In
this "Point of Inquiry" discussion with D.J. Grothe, Shook
describes the relationship of naturalism to the worldview based
upon the sciences. He explores whether the sciences necessarily
lead to naturalism, and to what extent the sciences can yield
truth about human morality and the good life. He details a
recent debate he had with the famous Christian philosopher
William Lane Craig, and responds to some of Craig's challenges
against naturalism and arguments in support of supernaturalism.
And he examined what possible meaning -- ultimate and
otherwise -- human life can have if there is no
supernatural, "cosmic" significance.
CFI/CSH In the Media:
SAVE THE DATE! Don't Miss These UPCOMING CFI/TRANSNATIONAL EVENTS! Please note the following events and courses and spread the news within your communities: Summer Session 2008: From Religion to
Science, Camp Inquiry '08, July 13-19 in Holland, New
York For more details, call 1-716-636-4869, ext, 407.
Secular Humanism Online News is edited by Nathan
Bupp, Vice President of Communications for the Council for
Secular Humanism and the Center for Inquiry. nbupp@centerforinquiry.net |
