Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Page: 1
Volume 4, Number 3 -- March 1997
Corvallis Secular Society is a Humanist and Freethought society for all nontheists of goodwill.
Corvallis Secular Society is a member of the Alliance of Secular Humanist Societies (ASHS),
which is affiliated with The Council for Secular Humanism.
Check out our Web page at: http://www.peak.org/~byersr/secular
From the President:
Upcoming CSS Events
Even though Reed now realizes that there will probably
never be a shortage of material to put into the
newsletter, I encourage readers to continue to send him
clippings for possible inclusion in future issues. Our
thanks to those who have submitted articles and letters;
we especially thank Laura Gansel, who regularly
provides us with clippings from the Eugene RegisterGuard. How about some articles from the Bend Bulletin
or other Central Oregon newspapers?
Saturday, Mar 15th, 2-4pm: General meeting at Corl
House (3975 NW Witham Hill Dr, Corvallis). The topic
will be History Re-examined. What are the crimes of
Christianity in American history? In world history?
Are any of these the acts of individuals, or must
Christianity itself bear the blame? How does
Christianity stand up to other religions in this regard?
I also want to encourage our readers to attend our
meetings when they can. February’s meeting had only
six attendees: Three from the Corvallis/Albany area,
and three from the Eugene/Cottage Grove area.
[Editor’s Note: What makes it worse is that the three
from Corvallis/Albany consisted only of John, his wife,
and myself — we were considering changing the name
to “Eugene Secular Society -- Corvallis Branch”!] If the
topics of discussion don’t appeal to you, then suggest
better ones!
Saturday, Apr 19th, 2-4pm: The topic will be The
Ten Commandments (since we never quite got around
to talking about this in September), and whether or not
they are a good a model for ethical behavior in modern
times.
Future Meetings:
How to Subscribe:
At our February meeting, we discussed “Modern
Conservatism in America”. One definition of liberal is:
“One who has, expresses, or follows views or policies
that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms, social
progress, tolerance, generosity, and the freedom of
individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of
their own choosing.” [American Heritage Dictionary,
Second College Edition.] A Conservative, according to
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth
Edition, has a political philosophy based on tradition
and social stability, stressing established institutions
and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
If you enjoy reading this newsletter, and are concerned about the
growing threat to the principle of Separation of Church and State
in this country, then please consider subscribing, joining as a member,
or simply making a donation to Corvallis Secular Society.
Perhaps we should all be moderates. “Good sense avoids
all extremes, and requires us to be soberly rational.”
[Moliere: The Misanthrope, I.i.] But on the other hand,
“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like
excess.” [Oscar Wilde: A Woman of No Importance III.]
You be the judge.
Contacting Us:
John S. Dearing
Subscriptions are $20 per calendar year.
Full Memberships are $25 per calendar year.
Household Memberships are $30 per calendar year.
All donations gladly accepted.
Please make checks out to “Corvallis Secular Society”, and mail
them to the Treasurer, whose address is listed below. We regret
that memberships cannot be renewed for more than one year at a
time; the reason for this policy is to keep our bookkeeping as
simple as possible. We look forward to hearing from you!
For general information and
to pay membership dues:
For newsletter information
and to submit articles:
President / Treasurer:
John S. Dearing
126 NW 21st St.
Corvallis, OR. 97330-5531
(541) 754-2557
Vice President / Editor:
Reed H. Byers
2754 SE 7th Ave #3
Albany, OR. 97321
(541) 924-9128
Reed prefers Email! Send to: [email protected]
Page: 2
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
From the Editor:
You may notice that the newsletter is coming to you a
tad early this time around. Normally it goes to press
the first week of the month; this time, however, I’ll be
out of town that week, so I’m rushing it out before I go.
Since February is a short month anyway, it feels like I
never stopped working on the last newsletter!
There are some great newspaper clippings this time
around (I wish to add my voice to John’s in thanking
Laura and all of the others who supply newspaper
clippings and articles for this newsletter), one page of
which is dedicated to the Skinner Butte cross dispute in
Eugene. An entire page of freethought-related comics
can be found on page 6, followed by the largest article I
EVER hope to publish in this newsletter. “God’s Will,
Newt’s Agenda” is reprinted from Church and State
Magazine, and is such a magnificent (and disturbing)
article that I couldn’t bear to summarize or excerpt it
for inclusion here.
Attendance was even skimpier than usual at the
February meeting. Where was everybody? It’s a wee
bit disconcerting when John and I are the only ones
there fifteen minutes into the meeting! If there’s
anything we can do to draw your interest or attract a
wider membership, we’d appreciate hearing your
suggestions.
As always, I’m interested in what you have to say about
the newsletter as well. Is there something I could be
doing better? Something you miss, that John always
used to include and I’m not doing? So far, I seem to be
weighing in with more articles and fewer comics,
humor, and quotes. This is not entirely intentional;
each month, I simply go with the content that I
personally find the most interesting or important, and
when I fill up eight pages, I force myself to quit (the
comics page in this issue was held over from last month
due to lack of space). But if there’s some change you’d
like to see, please let me know. This is your
newsletter, after all!
Next time, if space permits, I hope to include a list of
secular Web resources. (Is this something our readers
would find interesting? Do enough of our members
have Internet access to make this a valuable inclusion?)
The Internet is a wonderful source of information; I
highly encourage our readers to gain access to it if they
don’t already have it, and to see what’s out there.
Check out the Christian and Creationist pages as well;
nothing is so motivating for me as a half-hour spent
reading the incredible bunk that Creationists insist on
teaching to innocent children, and older intellectually or
emotionally vulnerable people.
Reed H. Byers
Letters to CSS
Sir:
On Feb. 1, 1997, the Oregonian ran a wire-service
report of a poll taken by the German publication Der
Spiegel (The Mirror): they found that a majority of all
Germans are atheist or agnostic, and also that 2/3 of
Germans under 30 in West Germany, and more than
that in former East Germany, say that, “God has no
place in their lives”!!! It is almost certain that the
present ruling coalition of two Christian parties will lose
the next elections, putting the seculars into control of
that country. This is a historic event: no large nation
has ever before had a secular majority, except under
communist dictatorships. The Germans have freely
chosen to be secular.
Charles M. Selby
Religion began when the first
knave met the first fool.
Voltaire
.
Sir:
There was a news report today that some Oregon
legislator is pushing the idea of privately-operated
prisons. Last year, some promoters in Lake County, at
least one of whom had been associated with the Oregon
Citizens Alliance, and the rest being active religionpushers of various sorts, tried to get such a prison put
here. They were promising a lot of local jobs, etc. in an
attempt to get support. However, I was able to obtain a
copy of a proposal which the main promoter had
previously tried to sell to the State Corrections Dept: it
includes plans to have the prisoners subjected to
Christian preaching (not their exact words, but the
clear intent). They are trying to claim that religion will
make the crooks into good citizens!
I don’t know whether the recent proposal is of the same
nature, but it seems likely. There are several private
prisons, mostly in Texas. One large stockholder in a
company which is in the prison business is Lamar
Alexander, ex-candidate for President, and a gung-ho
Christian.
Any such proposal should be very carefully examined for
any involvement of the Religious Right.
Charles M. Selby
P.S. A County referendum on the private prison was
defeated more than 2-1. The promoter, Hank Albertson
of Lakeview, is currently trying to promote some sort of
real estate deal near Klamath Falls, per a report on
KOBI-TV, Medford.
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Page: 3
Newspaper
Clippings
Page: 4
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Newspaper
Clippings
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Page: 5
Newspaper
Clippings
Page: 6
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Newspaper
Clippings
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Page: 7
God’s Will, Newt’s Agenda
by Rob Boston
(Reprinted from the Jan 97 issue of Church & State Magazine)
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a vision for America.
The country, he said in a Nov. 20 address to Republicans in
Congress, should be one that is “submissive to God’s will.” In
remarks following his re-election by acclamation as speaker,
Gingrich said, “We have an obligation to reassert...that this
nation comes from God, that it is in fact only successful when it is
submissive to God’s will.”
Continued the Georgia Republican, “This country will never
again be healthy if we don’t have the courage to confront the
spiritual and cultural and moral deficit that is an even greater
threat to our future than the economic deficit.”
In the weeks after the Nov. 5 election, Gingrich became a
veritable font of this type of “God talk,” sometimes sounding
more like a preacher than a politician. Speaking at a Heritage
Foundation dinner Dec. 3, for example, the House speaker
asserted that “we have to learn to aggressively but calmly bring
back to the public square the fact that we are a noble people
motivated by a deep faith in God.”
Despite the lofty bombast, Gingrich never bothered to spell out
exactly how “God’s will” will be determined and translated into
public policy. But if his past stance is any indication, he and
Majority Leader Dick Armey are likely to support a broad-based
anti-separation of church and state agenda in the 105th
Congress. As Congress returns to session this month, it is
inevitable that several contentious church-state issues will take
center stage.
During the next two years, the country is likely to witness
several protracted debates over issues ranging from religion in
public schools and religious school vouchers to church-based
welfare programs and “parental rights.” In addition, religious
liberty battles are expected in several state legislatures over
many of these same issues and others.
The political landscape may have changed in the past five years
—Republicans now control the Congress and Democrats the
White House —but disagreement over these quarrelsome issues
has not died down; if anything, it has intensified. Here is an
overview of the church-state issues Americans United expects to
see in Congress this term:
Religious School Vouchers: Voucher subsidies for parochial
and other private schools were a hot topic in Congress last term
and are expected to resurface this year. In November of 1995 the
House passed an “education reform” plan for the District of
Columbia that included a $42 million voucher component. The
proposal died in the Senate the following year when Republican
senators were unable to override a Democrat-led filibuster.
This term, with Republican ranks increased in the Senate, the
GOP may have a better shot at getting a program through.
(Many of the new GOP senators are pro-voucher.) What form it
will take remains unclear. Voucher boosters could aim another
program at D.C., or they could resurrect two voucher proposals
that were introduced last term but saw little movement. One of
those bills, the Low-Income School Choice Demonstration Act,
was sponsored by Sen. Daniel R. Coats (R-Ind.) and Sen. Joseph
I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). It called for allocating $30 million in
federal funds to pay for voucher “experiments” in selected states,
targeted at inner-city districts.
A voucher proposal also originated in the House last year. Tagged
an “urban renewal” bill, the American Community Renewal Act
promised vouchers worth $5 billion for low-income communities
as part of its package of programs. It was introduced by Rep.
James M. Talent (R-Mo.) and Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), but
despite a promised push from Gingrich did not move last year.
Parochial school aid proponents are also considering another
strategy. Education Week reported in November that some
advocacy groups are pressuring members of Congress to add a
tuition tax credit plan to President Bill Clinton’s proposal to give
tax credits for families with students attending college. The
Clinton college tax credit will be part of a wide-ranging budget bill
that also contains tax cuts and spending appropriations. Parochial
school aid advocates believe Clinton would not veto a measure
that contains so many of his own proposals just because it
included tax credits for religious and other private schools.
“The logic of it is impeccable,” said Denis P. Doyle of the Heritage
Foundation. “It’s the obvious thing to do. I don’t know who will do
it, but I’m sure somebody will.”
These most recent efforts underscore voucher proponents’
evolving strategy. Instead of introducing bills that would establish
full-blown voucher schemes, sympathetic lawmakers are much
more likely to cloak the measures as “urban renewal” programs
or say they are designed to help the poor. This strategy is being
mimicked by pro-voucher legislators in many states. Some
lawmakers who favor vouchers also suggest starting out
modestly. In the case of the Coats-Lieberman bill, the initial
outlay of tax aid was meager by Capitol Hill standards. That’s
probably deliberate. Some voucher advocates hope to start small
and gain a foothold for the voucher concept before trying more
broadly based, expensive plans.
Numerous right-wing think tanks intend to jump into the fray.
Empower America, founded by Jack Kemp and William Bennett
in 1993, plans a big push for vouchers this year. Former
Tennessee governor and Education Secretary Lamar Alexander
will head the effort. Voucher advocates in Washington still face a
president who says he does not favor the concept. During the
presidential debates, President Clinton reiterated his opposition
to vouchers, arguing that federal education dollars are too limited
to spend on vouchers. (Clinton added, however, that states are
free to use their own money to experiment with vouchers.)
Voucher measures that clear the House and Senate still face the
possibility of a presidential veto. But church-state separationists
don’t want to take that chance, especially with a White House
that has shown willingness to compromise on basic issues to
achieve its larger agenda.
“It’s always important for Americans United members to contact
their members of Congress and urge them to oppose voucher
schemes,” said Julie Segal, AU’s legislative counsel. “Congress
needs to know that we are not fooled by the pretext that
vouchers will help low-income families.”
Welfare/”Compassionate Choice”: Shifting social service
programs from the government to religious communities is all
the rage among the far right these days. The idea first took off
last year during deliberations over the new welfare bill after Sen.
John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a frequent Religious Right point man in
the Senate, added language to the bill requiring states to contract
with religious agencies to provide services for the needy.
Critics charge that the Ashcroft provision contains inadequate
church-state separation safeguards. For instance, it allows
religious groups to run blatantly sectarian programs while
receiving tax aid and could be construed to permit churches to
require the needy to participate in worship services before
getting help. Despite its deficiencies, the provision is considered a
model by other ultra-conservatives in Congress who plan to add
it to every social service bill to come up this term. Ashcroft and
Coats have joined forces with a number of other ultraconservative senators and House members to form a working
group to press the idea.
Advocates of church-state separation believe the strategy is part
of a long-term effort by conservatives to shift services that have
traditionally been provided by government to faith communities.
Although some religious groups have been using tax aid to help
the needy for many years, they have always had to meet
government regulations in the past to make sure the money is
not used for proselytism or sectarian activities. In most cases,
religious agencies have actually formed separate entities to
distribute the government aid to avoid excessive entanglement.
Ashcroft and his supporters want to lift as many of the controls
as possible, arguing that religious groups should not have to tone
down their sectarian characteristics to receive government
support. If their argument carries the day, massive government
funding of religious organizations for sectarian projects could
become commonplace.
Some of the most anti-separationist Republicans in the House
and Senate have formed a new group called the Renewal
Alliance, which will promote Ashcroft-style welfare plans,
vouchers and other ideas. Senate members include Ashcroft,
Coats, Spencer Abraham (Mich.), Paul Coverdell (Ga.) Rick
Santorum (Pa.) and Tim Hutchison (Ark.). House supporters
Page: 8
include Bob Inglis (S.C.), John R. Kasich (Ohio), David M.
McIntosh (Ind.), James M. Talent (Mo.) and J.C. Watts (Okla.).
The coalition intends to meet regularly with right-wing think
tanks in an effort to take the ideas of these organizations and
translate them into public policy.
In December Santorum told conservative syndicated columnist
Arianna Huffington that the group will not pursue its agenda
through one large omnibus bill. Rather, he said, “It will be more
of a building block process that will include charitable tax credits,
vouchers for poor kids, flextime for workers.”
“Religious Equality/Religious Freedom” Amendment: Two
years ago, Gingrich promised his Religious Right allies swift
action on a constitutional amendment designed to water down
the First Amendment’s church-state separation provisions. Three
proposals were introduced last term, but thanks to infighting by
Religious Right and Christian conservative groups, none faced a
vote. Another campaign is expected this year.
But opponents of separation of church and state are apparently
still divided over tactics. One camp, led by Concerned Women for
America, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and
the Traditional Values Coalition, is backing an amendment
introduced late in 1995 by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) that
would guarantee school-sponsored prayer, allow religious groups
to receive government aid and permit government to
acknowledge the “religious heritage, beliefs or traditions of the
people.”
Other groups, notably the Christian Legal Society (CLS) and the
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), say the Istook
proposal goes too far and favor a competing amendment
introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) that focuses primarily on
giving religious groups the right to receive government benefits
and access. (CLS and NAE say they do not favor teacher-led
prayer in public schools, arguing it would be coercive.)
The division between the two camps remains wide, and the
infighting has been bitter. Last September, evangelist Bill
Murray, son of the noted (and now missing) atheist Madalyn
Murray O’Hair, issued a newsletter through his “Government Is
Not God” political action committee attacking supporters of the
Hyde amendment.
Murray charged that CLS attorney Steven McFarland, NAE
attorney Forest Montgomery and Southern Baptist Convention
lobbyist Richard Land had launched “a conspiracy” to introduce
“their own politically correct version of a ‘school prayer’
amendment that is in no way a ‘school prayer’ amendment.”
Murray accused the three of subverting the goals of the rest of
the school prayer coalition and blamed them for the crusade’s
failure to progress.
Concludes Murray, “The only solution is a school prayer
amendment that specifically says that kids can pray in school....I
urge Dr. Land, Mr. McFarland and Mr. Montgomery to return to
the working group and to work on compromise language that
grants the school vouchers they are so interested in and at the
same time permits organized, student led, voluntary school
prayer.” Despite the feud, the drive for a religion amendment
could still pick up steam this term. A compromise could be
reached, one side could give up and withdraw its amendment or
the House GOP leadership could decide to line up behind one
version and give it a big push. The school prayer issue is
notoriously prone to political posturing, and that ensures that the
situation will remain volatile. In addition, Istook seems
determined to keep the issue alive.
“Parental Rights” Legislation: Last term sweeping “parental
rights” measures were introduced in both the House and Senate.
Sponsored by Religious Right stalwarts Sen. Charles E. Grassley
(R-Iowa) and Rep. Steve Largent (R-Okla.), the “Parental Rights
and Responsibilities Act” forbids government agencies, including
public schools, to “interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to
direct the upbringing of the child of the parent.”
Critics of the proposal charge it would open the door to vouchers
and allow sectarian activists to demand censorship in public
schools and libraries. (See “The Parent Trap,” June 1996 Church
& State.) The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight on a 4-3 vote last April but never came
to a floor vote in the House or Senate. It is expected to be
reintroduced this term.
GOP leaders clearly see “parental rights” as a wedge issue that
they hope will entice independent voters into supporting
Republicans. During the battle over a “parental rights”
amendment on the ballot in Colorado last November, the
Corvallis Secular Society Newsletter
Republican National Committee poured $50,000 into a front
group promoting the amendment in that state.
Religion in politics: Last term an unusual bipartisan House
duo teamed up to sponsor legislation giving churches and
religious non-profit groups greater leeway to intervene in
partisan politics. Rep. Philip M. Crane (R-Ill.) and Charles B.
Rangel (D-N.Y.) joined forces to introduce a euphemistically
named “Religious Political Freedom Act.” The legislation would
allow churches and religious non-profits to spend up to 5 percent
of their budgets on partisan political activity. (Current Internal
Revenue Service regulations bar certain non-profit groups from
intervening in elections, depending on the type of status they
have.)
The Crane-Rangel bill did not move last term but is expected to
reappear this year and receive support from Religious Right
groups like the Christian Coalition, which is under fire for
prodding churches to jump into partisan political campaigns.
State legislation: Bills with the potential to entangle and
government continue to appear in state legislatures. Last
October, Americans United’s Legislative Department surveyed all
50 states and found that numerous proposals had been
introduced in 1996, covering topics like vouchers, creationism
and “parental rights.” A round-up of what is on tap for 1997
follows:
Vouchers: Legislation to establish vouchers, tuition tax credits
or others forms of parochial school aid appeared in 26 states last
year. The issue is expected to resurface in many of those states
and others this year. Americans United expects especially strong
voucher/parochial school aid activity in Florida, Texas,
Pennsylvania, Arizona, Iowa, Washington, New Jersey, New
York, Utah, Vermont, Maryland, Colorado and possibly other
states in 1997. AU Legislative Coordinator Reese Aaron Isbell
notes that voucher legislation takes many forms in the states
these days. Some bills are aimed at “at-risk” or “low-income”
students, while others are called “demonstration projects.”
In addition, the Roman Catholic bishops have been busy forming
ostensibly parent-led front groups to lobby for religious school
subsidies in state legislatures. Three years ago the U.S. Catholic
Conference created a special Office for Catholic School Parents
Associations to advise state-based parochial school aid
movements. Some 20 states now have these types of “parent”
organizations.
“I lobby, but I am most effective when a legislator also has a stack
of pink message slips from parents who have called him,” Jane
Chiles, executive director of the Kentucky Catholic Conference,
told Education Week. “That’s why I think the bishops were
brilliant political strategists in thinking that if we’re ever going to
be competitive in education issues, we have to harness the power
of parents.”
“American Heritage” Bills: Legislation that would allow the
posting of religiously oriented “historical” documents in public
schools _ dubbed “the American Heritage Act” by its supporters _
was introduced in nine states last year. A bill cleared both
chambers of the Illinois legislature but was rejected by Gov. Jim
Edgar (R), who returned it to the legislature with suggestions for
changes, a process known as an “amendatory veto.” Religious
Right groups refused to accept Edgar’s church-state safeguards,
and the bill’s sponsor pulled the measure. Critics of the
“American Heritage” measure note that historical documents
with religious references may be used in public schools right now
and charge that the bill is an effort to get around the Supreme
Court’s 1980 decision barring government- mandated posting of
the Ten Commandments (or other religious works) in public
schools.
Creationism: Bills designed to gain a foothold for the teaching
of creationism in public schools were introduced in at least four
states last year. Since efforts to require “balanced treatment”
between evolution and the biblical account of creation have been
struck down by the Supreme Court, proponents have shifted
gears. They now call their idea “intelligent design” or seek to
have “evidence against evolution” introduced into science
classrooms.
“Parental Rights”: Legislation or state constitutional
amendments dealing with “parental rights” were introduced in 21
states last year. (Only one bill, a Kansas proposal, made it into
law.) A “parental rights” constitutional amendment was defeated
by Colorado voters in November, but that hasn’t slowed down the
movement’s backers. Of The People, an Arlington, Va.-based
Religious Right group that bankrolls the “parental rights”
campaign, promises to have “parental rights” proposals
reintroduced into dozens of states this year. With so much
activity in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures, 1997
looks to be a busy year for church-state separationists.
Americans United anticipates heightened activity by the
Religious Right and is gearing up for it, especially at the federal
level. Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn notes