|
Letters and Articles on Religion & Government
Unless otherwise noted, letters were submitted to the
Lawrence Eagle-Tribune newspaper
School Prayer
27 September 2001
A number of letters published recently claim that the recent
terrorist attacks call for a revival of school prayer. This is
exactly what is NOT needed. Imposing religion in public schools
would only exacerbate the problem. Whose prayers would be used
-- Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, B'hai, Hindu, pagan, a
rotation among them? Whichever is used will offend someone,
because even "voluntary" prayer imposes a specific religious
practice on the student. In my experience, when people talk
about school prayer, they usually mean Christian or
Judeo/Christian prayer. My own religion, Ethical Culture, does
not have prayer at all and would, therefore, be ignored. And
what about our fellow atheist citizens?
If a child's parents believe that prayer provides comfort, let
them practice at home and take the child to the house of worship
the parents favor. As far as I am concerned, school prayer
violates the First Amendment prohibition against establishing a
state religion. Recent events only serve to highlight the need
for maintaining this separation of church and state.
There have also been letters saying we are "one nation, under
God." I heartily agree that we are "one nation", but before 1954
our nation was not "under God". That is the year the Knights of
Columbus pushed a bill through Congress adding those words to
the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, at the time, the
granddaughter of the Pledge's author, Rev. Francis
Bellamy, said that he would have objected to the change.
Teenagers and Religion
Sent to Dr. Larry Larson, whose column is
published in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
9 May 2003
Dear Dr. Larson,
I must take issue with the advice you gave to Faithful Mom in
your May 4 column. If, at 15 years of age, a person is
considered to be old enough to have the knowledge and
understanding to consciously accept his parents' religion, then
he must also be considered mature enough to give reasoned
consideration to rejecting it. His parents should accept this
and not ram their religion down his throat. If they have had 15
years to indoctrinate their son and he still does not believe in
it, then they would be better served to either let him be or
engage him in reasoned dialog, respecting his views.
I must also disagree with your assertion that people need
religion in order to have a rudder in life. I was raised atheist
and was still given a very strong ethical and moral rudder based
on the principle that all people have intrinsic worth and we
should act accordingly. This is the basic tenet of my adopted
religion, Ethical Culture. Perhaps this young man should seek
out
such an alternative.
In contrast to the above, as I understand traditional Catholic
teaching, their central assertion is that we are born unworthy
and in sin and must be redeemed or go to Hell. Perhaps Faithful
Mom's son has more faith in his humanity than do his parents (or
you) and rejects such a psychologically damaging and limiting
belief system.
"Under God" Does Establish Religion
9 November 2003
Dan Thomasson betrays his lack of understanding of the
Constitution and the concept of separation of church and state.
Using "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does violate the
establishment clause of the First Amendment and excludes far
more people than just atheists, agnostics, and members of
Ethical Culture such as myself (who are far more numerous than
he apparently wishes to admit). It also excludes the millions of
members of such mainstream religions as Buddhists, Hindus,
Wiccans, and Native Americans.
He ignores the fact that small children in school do not realize
that a ritual performed by an authority figure such as their
teacher might be optional. It wasn't until high school that I
was aware enough to leave it out.
Mr. Thomasson forgets that our Bill of Rights was intended to
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Official
religious rites have no place in government and public
institutions. This includes prayer in schools, "under God" in
the Pledge, "in God we trust" on the money (added in 1957),
opening sessions of legislatures with a prayer, having an
official Congressional chaplain (somehow always a Protestant),
swearing to God in court, or giving taxpayer money to
"faith-based" charities so that they can proselytize while
providing social services to those desperate for help.
Some of these things have been done for a long time, but that
does not mean they are right. During our history we have
discarded may practices as we matured and came to realize they
were wrong.
Gay Marriage Opponents Cherry Pick the
Bible
9 February 2004
It appears that most opponents to gay marriage base their
position on the Bible, even when they try to hide behind "family
values" and "child welfare." However, consistency then demands
that we also observe its other dictates such as polygamy,
slavery, and genocide -- all practices encouraged by God.
Indeed, while we're at it, we should also restore execution of
homosexuals. If you truly believe, then you don't get to pick
and choose. The reality is that a document written 3,500 years
ago by a group of nomadic herders cannot serve as the primary
basis for life in our complex 21st Century society. Please don't
force your narrow-minded religious views on all of us.
Christians Doth Protest Too Much
2 November 2005
Those poor, poor Christians continue to be marginalized by
society. No matter that they control Congress and the White
House as well as school boards in half a dozen states, own
dozens of television and radio stations, have the entertainment
industry afraid to air any programs that espouse an atheist
worldview, and have people swearing oaths to their God in court
and when taking public office. I doubt that an avowed atheist
could ever be elected to public office. Such domination of our
culture isn't enough? I guess writers like Arthur Catton won't
be satisfied until we are a theocracy like back in the good old
Puritan days.
Tithing
20 May 2010
I was absolutely appalled by Dave Ramsey's advice (May 2) urging
a financially struggling couple to continue tithing to their
church while attempting to dig out from a crushing and, most
likely, very expensive debt burden. This is a perfect example of
the distortions to values and priorities caused by religious
belief. You are effectively asking them to extend their period
of indebtedness and, indeed, to spend far more money in interest
to a usurious corporation paying it off (due to interest over a
longer period of time) just so that they can give more to their
church. This hardly reflects the compassion that Christianity
likes to claim it is noted for. Instead, it exposes the flaw in
rigid and excessive religious belief that holds doctrine above
the reality of people's lives.
His reasoning is also quite contorted. God does not need money.
Only churches do.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I am an
agnostic leaning heavily atheist. I belong to a religion called
Ethical Culture whose core belief is in the worth and dignity of
human beings. This requires us to put human needs above giving
us money. Our contribution guidelines are flexible and take
account of a member's ability to pay, apparently unlike Mr.
Ramsey's church.
Religion Exacerbates Overpopulation
22 March 2011
Kudos to Bonnie Erbe for daring to point out that the biggest
problem the world faces is overpopulation and one of the major
causes is conservative religions that prohibit birth control.
That is why we keep reading stories of poor, third-world
families who struggle to take care of their 11 children. I will
add that this religious agenda has driven American aid policies
that refuse to fund any women's health organization that might
even mention (gasp!) abortion. This then starves their other
programs that could reduce birth rates and infant mortality. I
wanted to get this in before the predictable deluge of hate
mail.
Religion Should not Be Forced on Teenager
28 June 2017
In response to 25 June 2017 column by
Larry Larson in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Dear Dr. Larsen,
I am very disturbed by your recommendation in your column this
week that the parents of a boy who is now atheist should force
him to go to church. Such a practice is tantamount to torture
or abuse. As a confirmed non-believer myself, I find prayers at
otherwise secular events and attending church services to be
extremely grating against my sensibilities. It is cruel and
totally inappropriate to force religious observance on a young
man who, through reason and serious consideration, no longer
shares those beliefs. Young people should be encouraged to
grow into their own individuality, not forced in their parents'
mold.
The column makes no mention of where they live, but I am sure
that alternate, age-appropriate, non-religious activities could
be found for him to participate in on Sunday mornings. His
school may have a Secular Student Alliance chapter or an Ethical
Culture Society may exist nearby. Both can provide a good
ethical grounding without the baggage of religious belief.
Sincerely,
Michael Bleiweiss
Original Article:
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/lifestyles/family-matters-son-should-practice-respect-in-good-faith/article_b3130bb4-3a5c-555e-9b5b-31b610f5efd3.html
Abortion Bans not about Protecting Babies
29 May 2019
Republican controlled states are rushing at top speed to outlaw
abortion. But, don't be deceived -- this has nothing to do with
the welfare of babies because they abandon them as soon as they
are born. These are the same states that refuse to raise the
minimum wage that would help poor parents to raise them or
extend Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act that would provide
pre- and postnatal care or provide affordable daycare for
working mothers. They also don't adequately pay teachers
or fund schools to educate them or provide science-based sex
education to teach how to avoid pregnancy in the first place. It
does have everything to do with advancing the fundamentalist
Christian agenda to impose their version of Sharia law on
everyone and to punish those who engage in sex and to prevent
women from having control over their own bodies and lives. The
majority of the country does not believe as they do and we would
appreciate their keeping their religion out of our government.
Subject: Anti-Abortion Fanatics Don't Really Care about Babies
1 May 2022
As the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court appear
poised to prove that they are on a mission to impose
fundamentalist Christian dogma on everyone by overturning Roe
vs. Wade and revoking women's right to abortion, I have some
questions for abortion opponents.
Will you:
-
fully pay for the prenatal care and delivery costs for all
of the women with
unwanted pregnancies?
-
provide affordable child care so the women can work?
-
pay to raise all of these unwanted children through college?
-
if the baby has a serious birth defect requiring extensive
lifetime care, care for them
and pay their medical bills while the mother works to earn a
living?
-
If the woman was raped, force the man to pay child support
while denying him parental
rights?
-
facilitate access to birth control to prevent them from
getting pregnant
in the first place?
If you are really "pro-life," then you should also be working to
provide cradle to grave affordable healthcare, paid family
leave, affordable daycare, quality public education, clean air
and water, and protecting the environment for future
generations. However, the Republican politicians who grandstand
and pander to fundamentalist Christians are also against all of
the above. Once the fetuses are born, they lose interest in
them. Their hypocrisy is glaring.
The anti-abortion movement is actually about pushing a worldview
that sex is evil and women (but not men) need to be punished for
engaging in it as demonstrated by their opposition to birth
control and science-based sex education. Finally, since rich
women will always find a way to get an abortion, it's also about
keeping poor women (especially women of color) that way.
Michael Bleiweiss
Subject: Anti-Abortion History
25 May 2022
It's time for a history lesson about abortion in America.
In 1954, the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision
and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 outlawed racial segregation in
public schools. In response, many whites fled to newly created,
private "segregation academies" (leaving many public schools
almost all black). Many were run by evangelical Christian
groups. Also, the segregationist southern Democrats converted,
en masse, to Republicans.
When the Court issued its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing
abortion, most of the country accepted it and moved on and the
issue wasn't really a thing anymore. Even the extremely
conservative Southern Baptist conference decided to take no
official position.
However, in the late 1970s, the IRS began to question the
tax-exempt status of the segregation academies due to their
violation of civil rights laws. Liberty University, led by
televangelist Jerry Falwell, decided that they needed to divert
the government's attention. So, he started the modern
anti-abortion movement and got the Republican party, then led by
Ronald Reagan, to start using it as a campaign issue. Everything
snowballed from there. The strategy succeeded -- Republicans got
elected and these white supremacist academies are still going
strong.
So, Republicans and white supremacist evangelical Christians are
ruining the lives of tens of millions of women just because they
needed a distraction. You've got to love them.
Michael Bleiweiss
|
