From the October 30, 2006, edition of the Tuscaloosa News:
'Religious test' won't help this country
Dear Editor: 'God will hold you accountable if you vote for someone who endorses such evil [by the writer's thinking], and Democrats take an oath to support their platform.' So states M.G. McDonald in the Oct. 23 letter: Vote for Christians, not Democrats.
This declaration only demonstrates that McDonald's Christianity and its vindictive God are a danger to the secular principles and practices that made this a great country of individual liberties.
It reflects the religious attitude that brought the world the Crusades, Inquisition, relentless attacks on science and reason and continues spewing forth intolerance, hatred and hypocrisy in the Bible Belt. Would our born-again, "pro-life" president have waged a war of aggression against a Christian nation? Not likely.
In "Notes on Virginia," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity."
If it were not for our secular laws, what would "God's laws" be doing to our citizenry today?
Christian conservatives are obsessed with making America religiously uniform -- with their brand of religion. Fortunately, our Constitution supports religious pluralism. While McDonald may demand a test, Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test as qualification for federal office holders.
Our "wayward nation" will be saved by ethical people of reason regardless of their religious beliefs; and not be the corrupt, dishonest and unqualified incumbents who have passed McDonald's religious test for office.
David N. Miles
From the October 28, 2006, edition of the Montgomery Advertiser:
Church not wrongly restricted
In his Oct. 16 letter Phillip W. Wood correctly states that throughout our history churches have often taken political roles. During the contentious presidential campaign of 1800 venom spewed forth from the pulpit with the same intensity as the ecclesiastical acrimony of the 2004 election.
The Congregational Church in New England reviled the deist Thomas Jefferson (ironically Adams was also a deist) and vehemently opposed his election. The Dutch Reform minister William Linn called on Christian voters "to reject one who has so little regard for Christianity and the Bible." Jefferson's opponents said voters had a clear choice: "God -- and a religious president ... or Jefferson -- and no God."
Fortunately for the future of America, bluster from the pulpit in 1800 didn't have the effect on the populace that it has today.
Wood is incorrect in stating, "Churches have been prohibited from preaching concerning political causes." Churches can preach anything they want; but as non-profit organizations they must abide by certain IRS provisions in order to maintain their preferential tax treatment. Why should a taxpayer subsidize priestly harangues for a cause he or she doesn't support?
Sanctimonious, ill-conceived sanctions emanating from the pulpit are an unfortunate part of church history in America. In 1852 Frederick Douglass noted, "The church is responsible for the persistence of slavery. It has shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system." In fairness, there were clergy who opposed slavery.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach
From the October 25, 2006, edition of the Anniston Star:
Re: 'Pray for area students' (Speak Out, Sept. 27)
Wonder Ingram Osborne's plea for prayer to help students in the Anniston City School System is alarming. It implies that the school system has no ability to improve itself and/or the students neither have the capacity nor the will to learn. Any person making such a plea at an Ivy League university would be laughed off the campus. Learning is a rational process requiring personal effort from both educators and students. Reliance on ineffectual fantasy can only impede the learning process. If praying to learn is commonplace in Alabama, the state will continue to rank at the bottom education wise.
While there is not one legitimate documentation of a causal connection between prayer and the outcome of an event, Osborne offers Biblical quotes to "prove" that "When a believing person prays, great things happen." She can also use the Bible to "prove" that our planet is inhabited by: four legged chickens, (Leviticus 11:20); unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17); a talking ass (Numbers 22:27-33); and a forest where trees talk to each other (Judges 9:8-15).
Osborne says, "Let's give God a chance to turn things around." He's been given ample chance. It's time for hard work and reason.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach
From the October 23, 2006, edition of the Cleveland Scene:
Betty Montgomery: No friend of consumers
The Republican candidate for attorney general, Betty Montgomery, claims that
she ran an outstanding consumer protection section when she previously held
the office. Large corporate interests probably thought so, but the public had
little reason to.
Montgomery's lack of concern for consumers was shown when a Cleveland law
firm filed a class-action lawsuit accusing many hospitals of violating the
Consumer Sales Practices Act. The firm wanted to stop them from charging fees
ranging from 95 cents to $23 a page for copies of medical records.
As attorney general, Montgomery had the primary responsibility for enforcing
the law, but she declined to enter the lawsuit and, in effect, sided with the
hospitals. She took that position even though the federal government, after
extensive hearings, had determined that 7 cents a page was fair compensation
when hospitals provide copies of medical records to peer review organizations.
Montgomery also was unmoved by reports that the fees were so high that some
persons could not afford access to their medical records. She knew they likely
needed the records to enforce their rights in civil actions, workers'
compensation claims, Social Security determinations or other legal proceedings.
The hospitals eventually settled the case by agreeing to lower their fees
substantially. They also agreed to support efforts to change the law to limit the
fees, which ultimately happened. But Montgomery declined to back those
efforts too.
If Montgomery had her way, hospitals would still be charging consumers
outrageous fees for medical records. To have an attorney general who is on the side
of the public, voters should reject Montgomery's attempt to regain the office
and instead support Democrat Marc Dann.
Joseph C. Sommer
Columbus
From the October 22, 2006, edition of the Times Daily:
More Reason?
In his Nov. 20 letter, "Mobilize for cause," Richard Taylor parrots the hackneyed lament of the religious right that the liberals "have been taking our population away from God for many years."
But not since the Puritans were persecuting Baptists, Quakers and witches have the people of these shores embraced God with more devotion and fervor.
The Pew Research Center noted, "For the past generation, religion has come to be woven more deeply into the fabric of partisan politics than ever before." America's born-again president repeats the slogan "God bless America" ad nauseam, supports teaching creationism and opposes stem-cell research. Ninety-nine senators stood on the steps of the Capitol and bellowed "under God."
Some members of the Supreme Court have called "separation of church and state" a myth. Polls show an atheist cannot be elected to public office.
In the industrialized world, America ranks with Poland and Ireland as the most religious nation; and a study by the Pew Research Center found that America's religiosity is closer to that of Third World countries than to industrialized nations. During the past century, church membership has grown from 25 percent to a record 65 percent of the population.
Taylor states that, "The moral stamina of our country has declined so rapidly in recent years." If an overtly Christian government and fanatically God-fearing citizenry, coupled with the alleged omnipotence of God, has been unable to stem our nation's perceived moral decline, then the solution has to be less God and more reason.
A report just released by the United Nations ranked Norway, Iceland and Sweden as three of the best five countries to live in. Interestingly, church attendance in Scandinavia ranks at the bottom for industrialized nations and the percentage of atheists is approximately three times that of the eighth ranking United States.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach
From the October 17, 2006, edition of the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette:
Montgomery falsely claims she ran an outstanding section
The Republican candidate for attorney general, Betty Montgomery, claims she ran an outstanding consumer protection section when she previously held the office. It's not true.
Montgomery's lack of concern for consumers was shown when a Cleveland firm filed a class-action lawsuit accusing many hospitals of violating the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The lawsuit ultimately stopped them from charging fees as high as $23 a page for copies of medical records.
As attorney general, Montgomery had the primary responsibility for enforcing the law. But she declined to enter the lawsuit and, in effect, sided with the powerful hospital lobby. She did so even though the federal government had determined that 7 cents a page was fair compensation when hospitals provide copies of medical records to peer review organizations.
Montgomery also was unmoved by reports that the fees were so high that some persons could not afford access to their medical records. She knew they needed the records to enforce various legal rights.
It was unconscionable that Montgomery allowed such outrageous fees to continue. To have an attorney general who is on the public's side, voters should support Democrat Marc Dann.
Joseph C. Sommer
Attorney-at-law
Lancaster
From the October 16, 2006, edition of the Pensacola News Journal:
God tolerant
After a letter to the editor expressing my opinion concerning a biblical intolerance, irrationality or untruth, responses are printed that contain one or more of the following:
1) A biblical quote allegedly proving the Bible's inerrancy. 2) A declaration that all-merciful God will subject me to eternal torment. 3) An unsupported "Out of context!" 4) A plea such as, "Pray that God will open his eyes."
The use of prayer to make my beliefs conform to one's own is an insulting act of arrogance and naivete, and a poor substitute for a factual, well-written letter that logically challenges my opinion. My reliance on rationalism and empiricism, rather than mysticism and authoritarianism, cannot be prayed away.
The myriad of prayers aimed at altering my beliefs have had absolutely no effect. I still regard the Bible as mythology. I eschew prayer and superstition; and I require empirical evidence, or a darn good reason, before I will accept a tenet as the truth.
These unanswered prayers indicate to me that, if there is a God, he ignores religious zealotry and is more tolerant of a diversity of viewpoints than is generally believed.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Ala.
From the October 10, 2006, edition of the Boston Globe:
Morality meets hypocrisy in congressional page scandal
ELLEN GOODMAN correctly points out the hypocrisy of the religious right surrounding the Mark Foley congressional scandal ("Courtesy of GOP, voters finally get 'it', " op-ed, Oct. 6), but to fully understand this issue we need to take her analysis one step further.
Not only should we be skeptical of politicians using religiosity to proclaim moral superiority, but we should be more open to the idea of nontheistic, humanistic values in the public arena.
When an openly nontheistic candidate can be elected to higher office in America (an unfathomable thought here, but a common occurrence in most of the rest of the developed world), rational public policy might actually be within grasp.
DAVID A. NIOSE
Fitchburg
September 25 Letter to the Editor, Free Mind:
Peace Pledge
Dear Free Mind Editor:
I must say I am concerned about the AHA endorsement of the Declaration of Peace Pledge. I would like to see AHA, itself a democratic organization, refrain from taking an official pacifist position without (1) a democratic poll of the membership on this issue, and (2) a better plan for addressing the reality of the situation in the Middle East. Although I applaud AHA for its idealism, we are supposed to be a rational group that fights for church/state separation and the civil rights of Americans above all else. How does conceding power to radical Islamic sects in the Middle East jibe with those core principles? "Peace now" is wishful thinking.
Shouldn't we be concerned that members of the largest group of non-humanists in the world committed blatant aggression against our country on 9/11/01? Shouldn't we be concerned that they have organized violent action to wipe out modernism and establish theocracies that would exert a strangle hold on oil supplies that are now sold freely to us? Shouldn't we have a pledge to fight those radicals?
Yes, I know that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11/01, but we need bases somewhere in the Middle East to (1) protect our right to buy oil, (2) help defend Israel, and (3) keep terrorist focused on their principle aggravation - our presence in their "holy land." I know, too, that we should be independent of Arab oil, an effort I actively supported in the 1970s, but that is not going to happen overnight, if ever. Yes, I know that the establishment of Israel in 1947 was probably not the wisest step by the victors of WWII, but until Israelis and Palestinians give up the myth of "holy land," we aren't going to see either government quit their hostilities
I also know that our duly elected President (Gore did concede, after all) and the overwhelming majority of our democratically elected Congress voted to occupy Iraq for the above mentioned reasons (although there were other pretenses). It may seem that "our continued military presence in Iraq will do more harm than good," but how do we know that? We as Humanists know there are relative evils. Iraq is not America, and it may be that stability there is too much to expect. Perhaps all we can do is kill off the worst radicals day by day. Oh, are Humanists opposed to killing anyone? Ideally, yes, but rational thought says we must preserve our modern free society from backward fanatics, don't you think? Certainly these are complex issues, and I don't think AHA's simple answer is necessarily the right one.
Ron Herman
Albuquerque, NM
From the September 20, 2006, edition of the Pensacola News Journal:
Teach the Bible
The Bible should be taught in school -- but objectively.
A Gallup Poll found that Americans are woefully ignorant of biblical content. If students were familiar with the Bible, they would realize it is not the absolute authority for rational, moral and ethical behavior; and it is less likely they would be duped by those who quote the Bible to promote their own agendas.
While our Constitution's First Amendment grants us religion freedoms, the Bible dictates that worshippers of other gods, people who work on the Sabbath, and blasphemers shall be put to death. The Bible's unfortunate attitude toward women would come to light. Students might be puzzled by Moses' dictate -- kill all non-virgins, but all women who are virgins keep alive for yourself. African-American students may be surprised to learn that the New Testament fails to condemn slavery; and Exodus 21 actually condones slavery.
Seeing the evils of Bible-based theocracies, e.g., the Dark Ages, Puritan America, will emphasize the importance of separation of church and state. If a truly objective Bible course is offered, Christian conservatives will find that education, and not the ACLU, is their nemesis.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Ala.
From the September, 2006, edition of the Columbus Monthly:
Madam
The June article on the million-dollar madam indicates her Grandview brothel was a basically harmless business that provided a good income for many women and likely helped the local economy. Sex businesses also can benefit customers, such as people who have difficulties with relationships.
In a free society, people should be able to provide and obtain such benefits without harassment from the police or nosy neighbors. That's a reason why many nations have legalized prostitution, and our "land of the free" should do the same.
Joseph C. Sommer
Columbus