Your Published Letters

From the Feb. 27, 2006, edition of the Culpeper (Virginia) Star-Exponent:

Michael Webb's February 24 "How I See It" piece on the creationism/evolution controversy was confusing and misleading.

There is virtually total agreement among biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, geologists, and other scientists that evolution is the only valid explanation for the development of life on our planet. This unanimity is based on over 150 years of countless observations and experiments by many thousands of scientists that have never been found faulty by those who adhere to a literal understanding of the two different creation stories in Genesis.

There are more books supporting evolution than anyone could read in a lifetime, but the best, most recent, succinct, authoritative is "Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction" (2004) by Dr Eugenie Scott, head of the National Committee for Science Education (ncseweb.org).

Humanists may accept evolution but so too do vast numbers of devout Protestants, Catholics, and Jews who see no conflict between faith and what science says about evolution.

Creationism and "Intelligent Design" have had their days in court, all the way to the US Supreme Court, and the courts have squarely held that creationism is a particular religious view, definitely not science, and may not be taught in public school science classes.

Creationists and IDers might be taken seriously if they would actually conduct research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed science journals. We are waiting.

Mr Webb claims that "evolutionistic naturalism" has had "frightening results" but he fails to cite any.

If real faith and science come from the same Creator, how can they conflict?

Edd Doerr
President
Americans for Religious Liberty
Silver Spring, Maryland

From the Feb. 22, 2006, edition of the Worcester (Massachusetts) Telegram & Gazette:

Today's 'conservatives' have forsaken conservative values

AS I SEE IT

By David A. Niose

I'm not really sure what the word "conservative" means anymore. In the old days, it described someone who stood for slow change, someone who was skeptical of ideas that significantly altered the status quo. Over the years the term evolved to include anyone who opposes the notion of big government, one whose philosophy is consistent with a Jeffersonian, laissez-faire view.

None of this sounds very threatening. The problem, however, is that none of this describes the folks who prance around today claiming to be conservatives.

Conservatives get lots of mileage by accusing their opponents of being "tax-and-spend liberals." If liberals get elected, the argument goes, hang on to your wallet. The public has been convinced that fiscal responsibility is clearly the realm of so-called conservatives.

But if that's the case, then why was it that the administration headed by that "liberal" Bill Clinton gave us the only balanced budgets in decades? The current administration, headed by a man who ran as a "compassionate conservative," has produced the most massive deficits ever, budgets that hemorrhage red ink.

Of course, apologists have an explanation for the current state of the budget. Their mantra: "September 11 changed everything." What a great fallback - a national crisis that can be used as a catch-all for every act of poor judgment committed by the "conservatives" who sit in power.

And in the eyes of conservatives, Sept. 11 did indeed change everything, including their understanding of civil liberties. Whereas freedom was once at the core of conservatism, to the point where many conservatives considered themselves libertarians, today's conservatives aren't so concerned about civil liberties. In fact, they are leading the charge to give government the power to pry into the private lives of citizens, always under the guise of regulating morality or ensuring security.

Indeed, if there's a politician sticking his nose into your bedroom, trying to tell you what is moral and what is not, you can bet it is a conservative. If someone is trying to restrict access to birth control or other reproductive rights, almost certainly it's a conservative. And if there's a government agent tapping your phone without a warrant, you can be assured that he got his orders from a conservative. Yet, we are told, freedom is a conservative value.

It was a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, who warned, back in the days when conservatives arguably had real concerns about the scope of government, that America was threatened by a "military-industrial complex." Under today's conservatives, however, that military-industrial complex has become a behemoth, devouring tax dollars in the name of "national security" in a never-ending war against an elusive, faceless enemy.

Today's conservatives would make any Jeffersonian shudder, not just because of their lack of fiscal restraint, but also because of their moralizing. Traditional Jeffersonian conservatism has roots in the Enlightenment, where rational thinking was esteemed and outward displays of religiosity were discouraged. But that kind of talk is out-of-date for today's conservatives, who, unlike their forbearers, find the notion of secularism to be distasteful. Values can only be defined by conservative religion, they tell us.

Jefferson, of course, was pre-Darwin and lived long before the great modern discoveries that have explained many of the mysteries surrounding the origins of the universe and the evolution of life. Being a man of science, he would no doubt be fascinated by these great advances in human knowledge. Interestingly, however, even though he lived in an age that lacked today's advanced scientific knowledge, he was a religious skeptic and freethinker.

Today's conservatives, however, don't follow this scientific, rationalistic tradition. Sure, conservatives will sometimes use science pragmatically, paying experts to produce scientific opinions that support certain conservative positions (that global warming is a fiction, for example), but this is just a means to achieving policy goals. There is little interest in actually teaching science to children, especially if the facts aren't consistent with conservative religious views.

Hence, defined by today's standards, the word "conservative" means big-spending, fiscally irresponsible, pro-deficit, militaristic, righteous and anti-liberty.

And yet "liberal" is a dirty word?

David A. Niose is a Fitchburg (Massachusetts) lawyer and an officer of the Washington-based American Humanist Association.

From the Feb. 21, 2006, edition of the Washington Times:

Regarding religious freedom

Regarding the review of Kevin Hasson's "The Right to be Wrong" (Feb 19), Mr. Hasson is wrong if he thinks that the 14th Amendment did not apply the First Amendment to state and local government until the 1920s. The Congress that approved the 14th after the Civil War intended precisely that,though it took the Supreme Court 50 years to actually do it.

If Mr. Hasson believes that First Amendment free exercise is adequately protected, he should reread Justice Scalia's 1990 ruling in Oregon v Smith to see how free exercise has been diluted.

If he thinks that free exercise eliminates the need for the establishment clause, he is mistaken, as the history of religious freedom in the US makes clear.

Edd Doerr
President
Americans for Religious Liberty
Silver Spring, Maryland

From the Feb. 21, 2006, edition of the Washington Examiner:

Suspicion surrounds Catholic group

It's good that "Da Vinci Code" publisher Doubleday is bringing out an edition of Opus Dei founder Escriva's little book "The Way". Having read it in the original Spanish ("Camino") I can say that most readers will find it bizarre and hilariously medieval.

There is a vast literature about Opus Dei, most of it quite critical, by former members and other researchers.

Convicted spy and former FBI agent Robert Hanssen was an Opus Dei member. Since Hanssen told an Opus Dei priest, Robert Bucciarelli, about his spying for the Soviets, why didn't the priest notify the proper authorities, and what did Opus Dei do with the information? (See David Wise's book "Spy".)

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, Maryland

From the February 14, 2006, edition of the Pasadena Star-News:

Ode to Annie C.

Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter.

Did a Democrat jilt her

On a day long ago

When her heart was still pure?

What accounts for her vitriol,

Hatred and malice

Like what the Red Queen

Dumped on poor Alice?

Off with their heads!

Off with their heads!

They lack moral acuity!

They're in favor of promiscuity!

All Democrats are traitors

And they kill the unborned!

Hell hath no fury

Like a Republican scorned.

Ray Sherman
Duarte, California

From the February 9, 2006, edition of the Las Vegas Sun:

Islamic protests not surprising

As the Islamic world erupts in fury over European newspaper depictions of the prophet Muhammad, Americans and Europeans are a bit disingenuous to suggest that the Muslim reaction is simply a result of the Islamic world's failure to embrace liberal Western values such as freedom of the press.

Indeed, one must consider how Christians would react if mainstream newspapers began publishing cartoons blatantly insulting or ridiculing Jesus or the Virgin Mary - no doubt the outcry would be thunderous.

Hostile reaction to social or political commentary that boldly challenges traditional religious views is predictable and certainly not unique to the Muslim world. Although many Westerners don't like to admit it, Islam and Judeo-Christian religions are remarkably similar - both are founded on the notion that ancient men received special messages ("prophecy" or "revelation") from God. It's sad and ironic that some interpretations of these "divine" messages have left a trail of bloodshed through the pages of history.

Mel Lipman
Las Vegas

From the February 8, 2006, edition of The Idaho Statesman:

Weird beliefs

It was not surprising that a letter denying the Holocaust appeared in the same place as earlier letters denying the truth of evolution. In his excellent book, "Why People Believe Weird Things," Dr. Michael Shermer debunked Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers ("creationists") while showing their use of the same dishonest tactics.

Both Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers search for any errors in scholarship and if they find any they proclaim that all scholarship on the Holocaust and on evolution is wrong.

Both Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers quote scholars out of context and imply that the scholars are denying the Holocaust or evolution.

Both Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers take genuine and honest debate between scholars to mean that they doubt the Holocaust or evolution.

Both Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers trace their roots to the same foul well of ignorance and superstition: fundamentalism.

Historically, both have drawn their evil inspirations from that collection of myths, lies and deceptions known as the "Bible."

Borrowing a term from the great American orator Robert G. Ingersoll, this duplicity can be summed up by saying that only "ignorant bigots" now believe in the absolute truth of the Bible.

Gary Bennett
Emmett, Idaho