Santa Barbara Humanist Society Newsletter for December 2001

• Chairman Schlueter's Column
• Guest Editorial by David Woolford
• Getting to Know You - Laura Edick

• Social Scene
• Upcoming Events
• Here and There - This and That
• Web Site of the Month

ELAYNE BRILL

RONALD KRONENBERG

WILLIAM McCURDY

BEVERLY WOOLSEY

REFRESHMENTS AT MEETINGS - Cookie Sign-ups for the upcoming meetings. Anne will call you one week prior to the meeting to remind you of your date. Please bring 4 to 5 dozen small but nice cookies (half each if two are bringing). If for some reason you have to miss your date please arrange with someone who has another month. Thank you for your cooperation:

Nearly 100 years ago, M. Bakunin in "God and the State" wrote: "The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice." In the intervening period we have witnessed so many major conflicts among supporters of various god-based religions, and so many ethnic cleansing campaigns against religious minorities, that the truth of this statement may hardly be disputed. The culmination of these internecine confrontations was the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Justification for the attack was based on the despoiling of the lands of Islam by the Christian infidels, and the continued support of the Jewish state of Israel by the USA. Although many in the Islamic world deplored the attack, there was a widely held sense of justice, accompanied by shouts of "Allah is great" by the rioting masses. The reaction in the USA has been a confused babble of anguish, fear, patriotism and religious fervor, as well as a massive military attack on an elusive enemy.

The "God bless America" juggernaut that is now sweeping this country is bard to understand. Is this primarily a statement of defiance or a plea to the deity for help? At the same time religious leaders are trying to explain God's role in the WTC attack. Was he simply not paying attention, or was he out of the loop through the free will argument, or was this his godly way of sending a wakeup call to Americans? Or, could it possibly be that he actually prefers Islam out of a bunch of imperfect interpretations of his word?

Apart from being the root cause of many of the major conflicts of recorded history, and a primary justification of murder and terrorism, the major god-based religions are harmful in many other ways. They are a huge financial and work burden on mankind, they have exacerbated the population, poverty and pollution problems, and to various degrees, they have denigrated and subjugated one half of the world's population, women.

The spread of these religions has in part been dependent on fear and ignorance on the one hand and a desire for comfort and security on the other. However, the primary driver in the modern world has been the spread of what social scientists call parasitic memes, i.e. packets of information that are spread among groups and are harmful to their recipients. This generally involves the indoctrination of children. The success of this process is demonstrated by the rarity of switches in faith. Although the occasional change from catholic to protestant or vice versa occurs in adult life, changes in faith across major religions are extremely rare. We must conclude that an adult's religious preferences are established not by careful evaluation and comparison, but rather by early exposure to a rigid framework of beliefs.

Long before this first major attack by Muslim extremists on American soil, the Christian extremists have perpetrated attacks commensurate in ruthlessness although lacking in the monstrous creativity of the airliner missiles. The most insidious of these terrorist acts have, for many years, been committed against the family planning clinics and women's health facilities in this country .The organization responsible for intimidation and murder goes by the name of "Army of God." These dangerous loonies are stimulated by the strident preaching against choice, homosexuality and atheism of the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Does anyone doubt these individuals are qualitatively, if not quantitatively, as perverted as Osama Bin Laden - each invokes God to support his anti- humanity agendas?

Religions might be considered neutral in their effect on society provided they said nothing about the desired behavior of beiievers in society, and accepted all rival religions as equally relevant. Neither of these conditions is acceptable to any of the god-based religions. Moreover, leaders of all these religions claim to know what God loves and what he hates. They also claim to know what God expects in terms of faith and worship. Unfortunately, faith means belief without supporting evidence, and worship means to honor the divine with religious rites. There is clearly no room for discussion and no room for compromise. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Baron von Humboldt in 1813, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

Our one hope in the long term seems to be that religions have grown and withered throughout history. The present God of the major religions replaced common female gods of the ancients, and multiple gods of the Greeks and Romans, with a superhuman father figure that was clearly conceived and created by men. Akhough all the thousands of earlier gods were presumably manmade, the present god is considered by monotheists to be the true and unique creator. As our knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena has increased, the nature of God has indeed evolved. However, it is still astonishing how many people are able to compartmentalize their thinking. They may act as rational and logical beings for six days, and become believers in the supernatural on the seventh. Nevertheless, in much of Europe today the god-based religions are already moribund. In the United Kingdom, a recent survey showed only twenty percent of the population believed in God. Unfortunately, a similar survey showed 80% of Americans still believe in angels. This is inconsistent with the adage that if you must assume something assume something easy to test.

This nation was founded as a nation of individual reason by such freethinkers as Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Franklin. Rather than seeking spirituality within ourselves, we are in danger of lapsing into a nation of bible thumpers and group followers, and reverting to medieval mores. We need to reject a god concept that cannot be tested. One of the more disturbing aspects of the horror of September 11 was to hear some people claim that God caused them to change their plans and thus avoid death. If God chose to save some people, surely he must have selected others to die. The young lady on her second day of work in the Windows on the World restaurant is a case in point. A god that gets all of the credit and none of the blame should be discounted as a useful concept. The elimination of god-based religions, by reason rather than by conflict, would effectively eliminate terrorism.

I am writing as a follow up to an article in the Tuesday, October 30th edition ot the Santa Barbara News Press entitled "Religious invocations at meetings stir debate." You are cited as believing that "... the invocation sets a tone of unity ..." I strongly disagree with this viewpoint. In the remainder of this letter I will explain my own view and request that you reconsider how the Board conducts its meetings.

The best way to illustrate the problem may be to slightly shift the perspective. Suppose for example, opening remarks were made that relied solely upon Joseph Smith's (founder of Mormonism) personal revelations and dogma of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Certainly non-Mormons in the audience would not sense "a tone of unity". Or consider an even more topical example in which a Muslim asked everyone to turn toward Mecca as he intoned an Islamic prayer; each and every non-Muslim in the audience would immediately feel like an outsider. In addition, I am sure that you personally would feel uncomfortable hearing such comments, especially as an elected representative of all members of your District.

With that perspective, let us now return to nontheists. You can now see how we do not feel a "tone of unity" when religious passages are read or, especially, when prayers are said. In fact, we feel excluded and our religious rights trampled upon. We are essentially coerced into participating in a ritual which we find inherently offensive.

You should not think that this is the complaint of a tiny portion of your constituency. Demographics widely accepted by the various mainstream religions and social scientists indicate that there are more nontheists than Mormons and Muslims, combined in the United States. This segment of the population deserves consideration of its First Amendment rights no less than the religious segment.

You may argue that we can opt out of participation or leave the room and, as a theoretical matter, you may be correct. But such action is not actually practical. Suppose an invocation becomes a prayer. It would be intrusive for me to interrupt proceedings by pushing my way to the nearest aisle and exit, only to return as soon as the prayer was finished. Moreover, by doing so, if I were a petitioner on some matter before the Board, I would rightly believe that my standing and credibility before some members of the Board could be jeopardized.

The Supreme Court has focused on just this jeopardy in their many rulings on church state issues. Justice Kennedy, delivering the opinion of the Court in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) wrote. The Establishment Clause "...is violated whenever government action 'creates an identification of the state with a religion, or with religion in general' or when 'the effect of the governmental action is to endorse one religion over another, or to endorse religion in general.'" I contend that reading from the bible and saying prayers by County employees on County time in a County facility at official County functions does, in fact, "endorse religion in general."

Kennedy further wrote, "What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." I suggest this is true not just in a school context, but in any governmental context.

Kennedy spoke eloquently for nontheists in the following: "It [a prayer] is, we concede, a brief exercise during which the individual can concentrate on joining its message, meditate on her own religion, or let her mind wander. But the embarrassment and the intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that these prayers, and similar ones to be said in the future, are of a de minimis character."

"That the intrusion was in the course of promulgating religion that sought to be civic or nonsectarian, rather than pertaining to one sect, does not lessen the offense or isolation to the objectors. At best it narrows their number, at worst, increases their sense of isolation and affront."

Justice Blackmun writing in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing quoted Jefferson, "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'" Even in dissenting with the Court's decision, members of the Court reemphasized the point, "The Amendment's purpose...was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion" (emphasis added). Blackmum noted, "There can be 'no doubt' that the 'invocation of God's blessings' is a religious activity."

I am not arguing that the current practice of the Board is technically unconstitutional. However, I am asserting that current Board practice violates the spirit of Constitutional intent as conveyed in numerous Supreme Court rulings. And, to come back to your belief that the practice creates a tone of unity, I would hope that you can now see that it certainly does not for many, many of your constituents.

I recommend that the Board alter or eliminate its current practice. I would prefer the latter, but if some kind of opening ceremony is deemed necessary, I suggest that a procedure similar to that used by the Santa Barbara City Council.

Sincerely,

Roger S. Schlueter, Chairman
Humanist Society of Santa Barbara