Month: December 2012

The Promise by Chaim Potok

Posted on by gthumanists_admin

The Promise book coverJanuary 2013

Reuven Malter lives in Brooklyn, he’s in love, and he’s studying to be a rabbi. He also keeps challenging the strict interpretations of his teachers, and if he keeps it up, his dream of becoming a rabbi may die.

One day, worried about a disturbed, unhappy boy named Michael, Reuven takes him sailing and cloud-watching. Reuven also introduces him to an old friend, Danny Saunders–now a psychologist with a growing reputation. Reconnected by their shared concern for Michael, Reuven and Danny each learns what it is to take on life–whether sacred truths or a troubled child–according to his own lights, not just established authority.

In a passionate, energetic narrative, The Promise brilliantly dramatizes what it is to master and use knowledge to make one’s own way in the world

Blake Page, West Point Cadet, Quits Military Academy Over Religion

Posted on by gthumanists_admin

ALBANY, N.Y. — A cadet quitting West Point less than six months before graduation says he could no longer be part of a culture that promotes prayers and religious activities and disrespects nonreligious cadets.

Blake Page announced his decision to quit the U.S. Military Academy this week in a much-discussed online post that echoed the sentiments of soldiers and airmen at other military installations. The 24-year-old told The Associated Press that a determination this semester that he could not become an officer because of clinical depression played a role in his public protest against what he calls the unconstitutional prevalence of religion in the military.

“I’ve been trying since I found that out: What can I do? What can I possibly do to initiate the change that I want to see and so many other people want to see?” Page said. “I realized that this is one way I can make that change happen.”

Page criticized a culture where cadets stand silently for prayers, where nonreligious cadets were jokingly called “heathens” by instructors at basic training and where one officer told him he’d never be a leader until he filled the hole in his heart. In announcing his resignation this week on The Huffington Post, he denounced “criminals” in the military who violate the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution.

“I don’t want to be a part of West Point knowing that the leadership here is OK with just shrugging off and shirking off respect and good order and discipline and obeying the law and defending the Constitution and doing their job,” he told the AP.

West Point officials on Wednesday disputed those assertions. Spokeswoman Theresa Brinkerhoff said prayer is voluntary at events where invocations and benedictions are conducted and noted the academy has a Secular Student Alliance club, where Page served as president.

Maj. Nicholas Utzig, the faculty adviser to the secular club, said he doesn’t doubt some of the moments Page described, but he doesn’t believe there is systematic discrimination against nonreligious cadets.

“I think it represents his own personal experience and perhaps it might not be as universal as he suggests,” said Utzig, who teaches English literature.

One of Page’s secularist classmates went further, calling his characterization of West Point unfair.

“I think it’s true that the majority of West Point cadets are of a very conservative, Christian orientation,” said senior cadet Andrew Houchin. “I don’t think that’s unique to West Point. But more broadly, I’ve never had that even be a problem with those of us who are secular.”

There have been complaints over the years that the wall between church and state is not always observed in the military. The Air Force Academy in Colorado in particular has been scrutinized for years over allegations from non-Christian students that they faced intolerance. A retired four-star general was asked last year to conduct an independent review of the overall religious climate at the academy.

There also has been a growing willingness in recent years by some service members to publicly identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or humanists and to seek the same recognition granted to Christians, Jews and other believers. Earlier this year, there was an event at Fort Bragg that was the first known event in U.S. military history to cater to nonbelievers.

Page said he hears about the plight of other nonreligious cadets in part through his involvement with the West Point affiliate of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The founder and president of that advocacy group said Page’s action is a milestone in the fight against “fanatical religiosity” in the military.

“This is an extraordinary act of courage that I do compare directly to what Rosa Parks did,” said Mikey Weinstein.

Page, who is from Stockbridge, Ga., and who was accepted into West Point after serving in the Army, said he was notified Tuesday of his honorable discharge. He faces no military commitment and will not have to reimburse the cost of his education.

West Point confirmed that it approved his resignation and that Page had been meeting the academic standards and was not undergoing any disciplinary actions. Page said he had been medically disqualified this semester from receiving a commission in the Army as a second lieutenant – like his classmates will receive in May – because of clinical depression and anxiety. He said his condition has gotten worse since his father killed himself last year.

It’s not unusual for cadets to drop out of West Point, an institution known for its rigorous academic and physical demands. But the window for dropping out without the potential for a penalty is in the first two years. Dropouts are rare after that point.

Page expects to leave for his grandparents’ home in Wright County, Minn., in the coming days. He plans to remain an activist on the role of religion in the military.

“I’d really love to be able to do this for the rest of my life,” he said.

Pat Robertson: Young-Earth Creationism Is “Not the Bible”

Posted on by gthumanists_admin

Noted televangelist Pat Robertson firmly rejected young-earth creationism on “The 700 Club.” As CNN reports, when asked by a viewer how to respond to those who believe “the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs,” Robertson suggested his viewers should not “fight science.”

“You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”

If Robertson truly doesn’t want his viewers to “fight science,” he should also dissuade them from pushing “intelligent design.” The bills attacking evolution and pushing ID pseudo-science keep coming. As HuffPo notes, a newly elected Montana state representative announced plans to require the teaching of “intelligent design” alongside evolution under the guise of “teaching the controversy.” The one federal court to consider the question rightly concluded that “intelligent design” is creationism in pseudo-scientific drag.

Neither young earth creationism nor the rejection of evolution is required by the Bible. As Dr. Joshua Swamidass, “a Christian and career scientist,” noted in the WSJ last week:

the age of the Earth and the rejection of evolution aren’t core Christian beliefs. Neither appears in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed. Nor did Jesus teach them. Historical Christianity has not focused on how God created the universe, but on how God saves humanity through Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . .

there is simply no controversy in the scientific world about the age of the Earth or evolution. Evidence points to a billion-year-old planet.

The evidence for evolution is just as strong. In the past, evolution rested on ambiguous fossil evidence, but now it rests on much clearer DNA evidence that increases exponentially every month. Fully appreciating this evidence takes a lot of time, reading and patience. And it is not appropriate to “teach the controversy” in science class because there is no ongoing debate in the scientific community comparable to the theological debate.

The evolution debate is not a scientific controversy, but a theological controversy about a non-central Christian doctrine.

Religious leaders should no more try to deny evolution or the age of the earth than scientists should preach about Biblical commandments. Politicians, too, should stop pandering to scientific ignorance, even when grounded in religious belief — though this may be difficult. Polling suggests nearly 50 percent of Americans (58 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats) believe the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. As Beth Reinhard notes, “It’s not easy to reconcile matters of faith with matters of science, but smart public policy demands it.”

Inside the First Amendment: Christmas Wars

Posted on by gthumanists_admin

by Charles Haynes, director of Religious Freedom Education Project

——

In the angry eyes of Christians in Santa Monica, Calif., Damon Vix is the atheist who stole Christmas.

Vix is blamed for the city’s decision to ban all private displays in Palisades Park, ending a tradition of 14 Nativity scenes erected by church groups in the park every December for the last 60 years.

The Santa Monica Christmas controversy began several years ago when Vix decided to counter the crèches by posting a sign with a quotation mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

“Religions are all alike — founded upon fables and mythologies.” Other atheists joined Vix to demand space, forcing the city to set up a lottery to divvy up slots in the park. Tensions mounted in the community last December after atheist groups flooded the lottery pool and won most of the available space. Many of their displays were vandalized.

In June, frustrated city officials tried to end the holiday war by banning all private displays in the park. Churches fought back with a lawsuit. But last week they lost round one when a federal judge allowed the ban to take effect.

The dueling displays in Santa Monica are the latest example of a trend across the country.

Atheists are employing a new strategy to challenge the presence of religion in the public square: Wherever religious messages are allowed in public parks or government buildings, atheist groups increasingly demand equal time and space.

Of course, Vix and many other atheists would prefer to see all religious symbols banned from public property, even when privately sponsored, as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In their view, a Nativity scene on public property sends a message of government endorsement of religion.

But the U.S. Supreme Court sees it differently.

Although government may not promote a religious message, the Court has ruled that private religious expression in a public forum doesn’t violate the establishment clause as long as other expression is allowed on equal terms.

So Santa Monica may constitutionally allow churches’ Nativity displays in the park if, and only if, the city allows other groups to display their messages.

The only other option open to city officials is to shut down the forum for all nongovernment expression, which is what Santa Monica decided to do.

Savvy atheists have figured out that the best way to beat them is to join them: Counter religious messages with anti-religious messages — and government officials have no choice but to allow all or nothing.

The strategy seems to be working. A few years ago, Washington state barred all nongovernment displays in the Capitol building after atheist groups put up signs mocking religion next to religious displays in December.

In Arkansas, it took an order by a federal judge to force the state to allow atheists to erect a “winter solstice” display next to a privately sponsored Nativity scene at the Capitol. Similar conflicts have broken out across America.

Beyond the angry rhetoric, both sides in this battle have made valid — and valuable — constitutional points:

Religious groups have established that the First Amendment separates church from state, but not religious expression from public spaces. Whenever government creates a public forum, it can’t bar purely private religious expression.

Atheists have established that the First Amendment creates a level playing field. If religious groups get space in public parks or government buildings, then so must other groups — including in December.

So now that we all understand that a right for one is a right for all, maybe it’s time for atheist groups to declare victory and stay home for the holidays. Let Christian groups set up Nativity displays in public spaces unanswered in December — and save the atheist messages for another time of year.

Yes, I understand why atheists want to make sure that religion isn’t privileged by government in the public square (as it has been for much of our history). But at some point (and Santa Monica has surely reached it) in-your-face tactics become counterproductive and needlessly divisive.

After all, whether we celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, the winter solstice or none of the above, we can all benefit from a more civil and peaceful public square.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001; on the web at: firstamendmentcenter.org; by email at: chaynes@freedomforum.org.