In fact, while most atheists do seem to favor the return of Elian to his father, it is unlikely that the raiding party was composed of atheist agents.  I have communicated with two atheists, one in Wisconsin and one in California, who, before the raid, believed strongly that our government should move to protect 

     So while most atheists, like most non-atheist Americans, believe the ends justified the means when Elian and his father, Juan Miguel, were reunited, certainly no more than one or two of those who raided the home of Lazaro Gonzalez were atheist!

James Dew
AAW President

     The AAI convention competed with the American Atheist convention, that was held the same weekend in San Francisco and the Counsel for Secular Humanism conference in Los Angeles that was held a week later.

     Hi! My husband and I live out here in Plymouth, and have been members for  almost a year now. The monthly meetings are a bit far to attend, but we hope  to join you for the solstice celebration in the summer again.

     Sorry I'm so late on this, but last December I wrote a Letter to the  Editor to a local paper complaining about a religious editorial cartoon that  seemed to insult non- Christians, and I recently realized that AAW might want to print this in the Reasonings newsletter, since it's on topic, and by a  member. It was printed in January.  I'm cut and pasting it below.

     Incidentally, your newsletters have been very good, recently.  I especially enjoyed the essay on humanism, and look forward to reading Part 2.  But who  wrote it?  I don't see a writer's name anywhere. It's too good to go  unaccredited.

     Take care, 
     Sue Strandberg
~~~~~~~~~~~
Editor's Note: The author of the Humanism article that is currently running in four parts is  by Frederick Edwords. My thanks to Sue for bringing to my attention that I had  inadvertently omitted proper attribution.  What follows now is Sue's  excellent letter to the Plymouth Review.

To the Editor:

    It seems that the Review has decided to air its opinions on religion on the editorial page. As one might expect, this can lead to confusion.

    Although I usually enjoy Mr. Vaughn Larson's editorial cartoons, the "As We See It"  cartoon of Thursday, December 23 puzzled me a great deal. It showed a man  asking God what he got from him for Christmas, and then exulting when he is told he has Eternal Life. But wait -- when told that the "gift won't work unless you believe that Christ is your Savior" the man turns away,  disgruntled over having to buy a "warranty package." 

     Whatever can Mr. Larson be saying here?  Obviously, the man in the cartoon is not a Christian.  He is told by what he himself recognizes as God that Christianity is the One True Path to Eternal Life, and yet he rejects it, presumably because he is too  cheap, stupid, or lazy to "buy the warranty" and believe in Christ. 

      People hold their beliefs, evidently, not because they carefully consider facts and  arrive at conclusions they think true, but because belief is a price paid for benefits, sort of like tossing some extra money towards a purchase.

      From what I can tell, then, the cartoon is trying to say that all non-Christians, (i.e. all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, New Agers, Secular Humanists, Objectivists, etc.) really DO believe in Christianity, but they just don't want to go to the bother of actually admitting it.  Or, perhaps, the cartoon is asserting that non- Christians wouldn't believe in Jesus no matter what the evidence.

      A Muslim acquaintance of mine, explaining religious diversity, once assured me that deep down all Christians recognize the Truth of Islam and the vile blasphemy of claiming that God was once a man here on earth, but they persist in their religion because they are blinded by selfish pride.  I  thought that a remarkably silly argument. Although I am neither Christian nor Muslim myself,  I have no difficulty recognizing that Christians are Christian  because they do indeed think Christianity is true, and that a Christian way of life will lead to virtue on earth and reward in heaven.  And that they are not part of some dark plot to rebel against Allah in order to avoid the  inconvenience of bowing to Mecca three times a day.

      I think Mr. Larson's argument, if you can call it that, is also remarkably silly.  It is the same argument, reversed, and is no more convincing to non-Christians than it sounds to Christians.  If he wishes to forgo local politics and topical events to evangelize on the editorial page that is his prerogative, of course.  But his cartoon doesn't really appear to be an attempt to persuade non-Christians that they are mistaken and Christianity is true: it looks like an attempt to reassure fellow Christians that what appears to be honest and reasonable disagreement on religious matters is  really just a smokescreen to hide a lack of character.  And this looks a lot like bigotry.

      All too many people share the fond delusion that "religion brings people  together." It does not. Religion brings congregations together, and often draws them closer by making it very clear that there are outsiders, and these outsiders can't really be the right sort of people or they would have picked  the right sort of metaphysical beliefs and joined the congregation.  The  Review has chosen to express the opinion that the existence, nature, and  desires of God are well-established facts, and in doing so has confused  personal conjectures with public knowledge. 

       I think that a brief review of  the religious bloodbaths, oppressions, and intolerance of past and current  history will show that it can be a very foolish and dangerous thing to divide  the world with smug conviction into two separate and distinct groups: those people who agree with Us -- and those people who disagree with God.

-- Sue Strandberg
~~~~~~~~~~~~

     In the March 2, 1989, edition of the New York Review, he explained that,  in The Satanic Verses he: "...tried to give a secular, humanist vision of the  birth of a great world religion. For this, apparently, I should be  tried.... ‘Battle lines are being drawn today,' one of my characters remarks.  ‘Secular versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose which  side you are on.'"

    The Secular Humanist tradition is a tradition of defiance, a tradition  that dates back to ancient Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology,  Humanist themes that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies  of other cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern  religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus.

    Prometheus stands out because he was idolized by ancient Greeks as the  one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth.   For this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is the root of the Humanist challenge to authority.

        The next time we see a truly heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the Devil. He is evil. Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken.

        Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of "God's moral standards." I said, "If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!" 

    Only a Humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is good?

        After all, much of Human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightening or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called "acts of God." When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth's gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, according to Jerry Falwell, thwart "God's punishment of homosexuals."

        Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights, and even the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the tradition.

    Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism's historical exemplar is Socrates.   Why Socrates? Because, after all this time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammed, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth.

     It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know nothing. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method. 

        Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian who said: "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?" That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by ancient Jerusalem.

        But don't assume from this that Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of Robert G. Ingersoll: 
 

     Enough to make a Secular Humanist shout "hallelujah!"

     The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox.  Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether.  The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason.  Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.