Commentaries: Recent Episodes

View Details

00409.mp3 I have three adopted children. They are from the same family with birth parents who horribly abused them. They are adults now, each making their way in the world, but that kind of abuse leaves permanent scars, and sometimes being with them is hard. When new people join our family through marriage or friendship, my adopted children can be difficult to get to know.

So I was at lunch with one of these dear friends, and she was having trouble understanding my daughter. She was intimidated by her and wanted to avoid her. This woman is conservative, however, you want to take that, and I asked her if, considering the abuse, my daughter suffered at the hands of her birth family, would it have been better if she hadn’t been born? No, she protested, I would never say that.

So then, I said, we are obligated to create a world she can succeed in, we are obligated to treat her with dignity even when she doesn’t seem to deserve it. We are obligated to love her.

Let me be clear that I don’t believe anyone has a right to dictate to me my health care choices. I am grateful every day that my particular choices are not impacted by violence, abuse, shame, poverty, or lack of service options. Let me be clear that I cherish every life, and work for a life that has dignity and quality and options for all.

My particular experience as an adoptive parent has meant having to fight for the rights and dignity of my children their entire lives. They came to us at ages 6,4 and 3. I have sat through hours of phone calls trying to get them the services they needed, driven hours and miles to get them the right mental health care. I have pled with school administrators motivated to save money that putting my developmentally disabled child in a regular biology class is abusive. I have watched my children wonder about the value of their lives.

I watched my son leave Ohio because the one short-term benefit he needed to get started in life, to get his trucking license and become a taxpayer, wasn’t available to him here. I have watched my daughter negotiate with benefits providers when she couldn’t read the requirements so she could understand them. I have seen her try to get safe housing and childcare that she could afford. It’s brutal out there if you have any challenges. Our government is not fair.

So if you are one of the few people who think that being born is the most important thing, I ask you to consider a much bigger picture. We are all obligated, every citizen of this country, to create a hopeful life for every person, filled with possibility. We are obligated to create a safe world, where children can grow up confident and whole. We are obligated to make sure everyone has food, housing, education, and jobs- the basic things that make life good.

It is not a triumph to control another person or their choices, especially if you intend to take no responsibility for what happens in their future. We are looking at this the wrong way. We are looking at one moment instead of building a healthy community for a lifetime. My adopted children are surviving but they could be thriving. Maybe someday we will see that our lives are only as good and safe and healthy as those who have the least in our community.

Let’s change the narrative and care about the whole person for their whole life.

View Details

0052.mp3 One of the most important lessons a child can learn is not how to succeed, but how to fail. I know that sounds counterintuitive. We want children to have plenty of examples and opportunities to learn how to live a good and happy life. That is important. We also want our children to admire us, and think we are wise. And we are human, so we make mistakes, we make bad choices, we all inevitably fail.

The example of how to do that well, how to deal with the inevitable pitfalls in life in a way that shows character, is a lesson that needs to be learned. Our children need to learn humility, how to make amends, how to genuinely express remorse, and to do better next time. They need to learn how to earn the forgiveness of others and become better for it. None of this is fun. But we all know people who have not learned these lessons. And we probably don’t like them.

Such hard work, but critical to becoming human. People who model this are the people that I want as friends, people who ask for forgiveness, and people who are gracious enough to realize that we all make mistakes and to forgive me when I deserve it. These are the people we also want as our leaders.

It makes sense that we need to learn these things not only as individuals in our relationships and work but also as a society and a country. We look to history to show us, leaders, who have done well, who inspire us, who have lead with strength of character. We also see people who we do not admire, who have to lead us where we should not have gone. I know that opinions will differ but we can agree that history teaches us valuable lessons about people and policies and that mistakes have been made.

So when it comes to teaching history, we have to be honest with our children. They have the right to know about racism, about the Holocaust, about the struggles for justice among minorities and women. How will they be able to even form an opinion if they don’t know the truth as we currently understand it? Our children need to be prepared to be citizens as well as leaders, and they deserve to be respected as the intelligent and inquisitive people they are. Our children will not be ready to function in our complicated world if they are not grounded in reality. Mistakes have been made. We don’t have to make them again.

We may be concerned about interpretation. I had a professor in college who was highly charismatic, an excellent teacher, and had definite political and religious opinions. He asked me to dinner one time to try to understand my faith. He wasn’t trying to talk me out of it, he just didn’t understand it. We had a wonderful discussion that helped me come to clarity about some of my beliefs. It didn’t threaten me or God that I talked about it. In fact, I left the discussion proud of the way I had held my own, and I know the professor admired me for that as well.

We are not threatened when our children learn about systemic racism. In fact, it might help us gain some clarity about the history of institutional racism in our country. Maybe when our grandchildren talk about what they are learning, we can see ways to be an ally we had not considered. There is history and current reality that we would all benefit from knowing more about. Maybe we will stop making the same mistakes.

We don’t have to be afraid of letting teachers do the wonderful job of teaching that they do. We don’t have to legislate what they say. We don’t need to prove anyone’s loyalty or right belief. We do have to trust one another, listen, be willing to learn ourselves. We have to commit to making our world better, not continuing the oppression.

View Details

0051.mp3 These are all critical questions, and I am grateful for those who are trying to find ways to answer them. However, if we are going to be successful in creating a more peaceful city, we have to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves some hard questions.

Primarily, how are we modeling respect for life, every life, in our community? People move to violence when they are desperate. Violence is rarely the first choice or the preferred option. People choose violence because they have tried other ways because they are tired of the way things are because they have nothing to lose.

Imagine that for a moment, a life that is so hard, so desperate, that you have nothing to lose. I don’t have that life. I hope you don’t either. And because of that, it is hard to walk in those shoes. But certainly, we have heard the pieces that add up to this. We know the poverty level in this city is outrageously high. Some of our neighbors live without basic services. The pandemic has only made things worse. Racism makes things worse. How long do you have to live in extreme poverty to become desperate?

We know that there are very few options for buying food in our city. You have to drive to the suburbs for good food in most cases, and if you don’t have a car if you can’t drive because of health conditions if the one car in your family is claimed by the person who is working, what do you do? A bus is a good option if you don’t have small children or a disability if you have time to wait. How long do you have to live without access to healthy food to become desperate?

There are other problems in our community that are also easy to overlook or to say we are working on. Promises are made, initiatives are started, small successes are celebrated. Good work is being done. But if you are poor in this city, and so many people are, it is a tough life. And if that life is all you have known, if you have been raised in desperation, then despair and nothing to lose are not far behind.

I want the young people in our community to know they are cared about not because we are afraid of them, but because we value them. And we show we value them by making sure they are well cared for. We show they matter by listening and including them in solutions that work. Let’s be careful as we try to solve the problem of violence that we are listening, and then acting on what will make a tangible difference in the lives of our fellow citizens. We must address the reasons for desperation and offer real hope.

View Details

00148.mp3 My oldest grandson has started Kindergarten. We have been anticipating this for a while: taking him out to buy scissors and crayons, talking about learning to read as a necessary prelude to becoming a paleontologist, giving tips for riding the bus. Of course, no one knew exactly how school would be until last week, and now we know it is in person. And so I am terrified, even as I deeply respect the hard decisions everyone has had to make.

I called him after his first day. Grandma, he said, there is a huuuuge playground, and we got to go twice to play!!! Twice Grandma!!! As he showed me his dinosaur lunchbox, it was clear that recess will be his favorite class. His innocent excitement warmed my heart. His parents have done a great job managing anxiety and promoting things that are helpful, like wearing a mask and liberal use of sanitizer.

As I come to terms with the pros and cons of in school learning it is clear to me that the only way it will work is if everyone, and I mean everyone, cooperates. If everyone wears a mask, if everyone stays home when they are sick, if everyone washes hands regularly, and all the other precautions. I ask myself how I can be sure that everyone in that school will see my grandson as precious, will see him as I see him—irreplaceable.

But I also have to acknowledge that this pandemic is wearing on me. I am grateful that I no longer have to wash my groceries and I am reasonably assured that take out for supper is OK. I also know that I used to disinfect my house every day and I don’t do that now. I am a relentless mask wearer, but many times I get out of the car and realize half way to my destination that I have forgotten the mask in the car and have to give myself a pep talk to walk back to get it. I am not as careful, not as sharp, even though I know we haven’t even made it out of Phase 1.

So now I have a new focus, and that is my grandson. I use him to remember that everyone is someone’s grandson, that everyone is precious to someone. It motivates me to remember to be cautious, to socially distance, to not take chances with other people’s lives or my own. I have to rely on people in Indiana, where my little guy lives, to protect him. And it is hard for me, really hard, to trust them. And I remember that someone from Indiana, or wherever, is trusting me, counting on my behavior to protect their beloved.

Maybe it is an occupational hazard that I see death a lot, I see illness a lot. I see the devastation of loss on a regular basis. And senseless loss is the worst. It is senseless loss when our loved ones and neighbor’s get sick because someone else couldn’t bother to be careful. We must rely on science. We must be proactive in our precautions. We can’t let our guard down. COVID 19 is real, it is deadly and it has killed 170,000 in our country as of this writing.
You don’t know my grandson. He is amazing. Please wear a mask, practice safety, and invest yourself intentionally in the common good.

View Details

00148.mp3 In early July, the federal government attempted to leverage international student visas in an effort to force colleges and universities to hold classes face-to-face. On July 6th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rescinded a policy that permitted international students to maintain their visas even if their programs shifted to online instruction due to the pandemic. The earlier policy was to have remained “in effect for the duration of the emergency.”

Though the pandemic had not ended, international students whose universities or colleges went fully online would have faced a choice: either transfer to another institution — which may not have been possible — or depart the country.

Students who couldn’t arrange to transfer and who failed to leave may have faced deportation and, potentially, a 10-year ban on reentry to the USA

The policy reversal also would have hurt US institutions of higher learning. International students currently compose 5.5 percent of the national student body, and 350 students from 50 countries at Youngstown State University. They contribute immeasurably to our academic and local communities through intellectual production and cultural diversity.

By July 14th there was reason to believe that this anti-student measure had been defeated, thanks to a number of high profile lawsuits brought by major universities. But the celebrations were short-lived. On July 24th, it was reported that the COVID accommodations would apply only to students who currently hold visas or who are already physically located in the USA. New visa applicantswill still have to show that their program of study includes significant face-to-face instruction. This policy flip-flop means that incoming international students, who are already accepted to their programs of study, and who have made arrangements to move internationally to enroll in U.S. institutions, have been betrayed, their lives upended.

In light of what may nowbe considered a partial and precarious victory at best, we must remain both attentive and active around immigration issues, which have taken a particular form under President Trump.

We are deeply concerned about Preesident Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric which inspires hate across the country. He has stated he supports immigrants, provided they immigrate legally. Yet he has paired these statements with measures that have limited the scope of legal immigration.

For instance, the Trump administration has lowered the annual cap for refugee admittance from 85,000 to 15,000. It also placed legal asylum seekers in camps and forced others to wait for asylum hearings in Mexico. Trump has made clear that he opposes family reunification and cast doubt upon the entire life-saving asylum process, Furthermore, under the cover of the pandemic, the administration has selectively suspended multiple types of work visas, and temporarily ceased issuing new green cards,. The President's policies have favored white-Christian immigrants, often from more advanced economies, while placing major obstacles in front of Muslims and people of color.

If this unsettles you, here’s what you can do. Vote! Make sure you are registered and register others. Stay informed by following local and national immigrants rights organizations, and pass on what you learn. Donate to them if you have the means. Contact your state and federal representatives regularly.

We are also effective when we act locally, as many people in the Mahoning Valley did in response to ICE raids in Sandusky and Salem in the summer of 2019. Local support was also offered to asylum seekers released after wrongful internment in the CoreCivic prison right in our backyards.

These actions, in support international students, refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants, not only make economic sense. More importantly they’re the right thing to do.

(The views expressed are those of the authors alone and are not necessarily shared by YSU or any of its academic or administrative units.)

View Details

00148.mp3 When my son Phil was about 8, his elementary school started a wrestling
club. He and his brothers were interested so we signed them up. It was
right after school and I would watch them practice when I could. I always
saw the same thing.

At the start of the practice the coach would demonstrate whatever he
wanted them to learn, and then broke them up into smaller groups and had
them work on the new skill. When I watched Phil, he would always lose the
first round, and then he would pin that person the second time around in
about a minute. Then the opponent would win, and then Phil would win. It
was clear that Phil was almost always the better wrestler by far, and not
just because I am his mother. But he would always let the opponent win as
much as he did.

As I caught on to what was actually happening I casually mentioned to Phil
that this was not how it was supposed to go. You know, winning was the
point. And he would just smile, like I had a lot to learn. His gentle
generosity has always been a moving example for me, and I am grateful for
it.

In so many ways right now, winning seems to be the most important thing.
There are no concessions, and very little discussion. You either agree with
me or you are wrong, and if you disagree with me enough, I will block you
and find an opinion more to my liking. Our country has lost its ability to
listen with reasonable respect. We have lost the center and live in the
extremes, and it is literally killing us.

What I find most disheartening is the binary view that there are nice people
or not nice people, good people or bad people. We see this represented in
the choice to wear masks, how you imagine the future of policing, or views
on racism. Depending on your point of view, you are good and the other
person is bad. And we can’t seem to get past that.

I know people who hold views and make choices very different from my
own. I know they are good people who do good things in the world.

The blessing of knowing them is the reminder that there are not just two
choices, good and bad, right and wrong, my way or the highway. I see that
they are wonderful parents, generous to the community, kind to elders,
reading the same book I am reading. I see that there are more potential
connections than I might have realized but only because I looked past what
we disagree on.

But we have to look, I have to want to find this connection and respect. It is
certainly easier to say that they are “them” and dismiss them as tragically
mislead. I am not saying that we have to then come to an agreement on
everything. I will probably not change my position much. That isn’t the goal.
The goal is respect and seeing good in everyone and believing in the good
in everyone. The goal is the possibility of compromise and civility in a world
that is desperate for just that. Maybe the goal is staying in a conversation
for more than a few minutes.

Here is the bottom line, it doesn’t matter who wins in November if we don’t
do the work of becoming a democracy again. A democracy where everyone
is valued, where everyone has a right to their own opinion, where the
common good is our goal, where we don’t have to agree but we have to
take care of each other. If we don’t do this, we will continue this freefall into
selfishness and worship of our individual rights that can only lead to violent
tyranny.

So how do we do this? We listen more than we talk, we don’t dismiss
people because we know they are different. We hold to a standard of
kindness and compassion that moves us past judgement. But mostly we
have conversations that are specifically about finding what we share and
value, finding the connections. There is a deep bond that is created when
we listen to someone’s story.

I am tired of the hatred, tired of the meanness, tired of the cruelty. I am
ready to listen. Tell me your story. There is more to be done, but we can
start there.

View Details

00148.mp3 Youngstown must become more “autobiographical”. Our way forward relies on it. So let me explain why. I chose the word ‘Autobiography’ as a polite way of saying to anyone hearing this, that in my attempts to #DefendYoungstown, the city of my birth and full affection, that those attempts fully include a passion and drive to call out as many of the “outside” inaccuracies and “damaging” accounts of life here in the city of Youngstown as I can. Should you not have the proper context, perspective and/or qualifications to give a proper account of the lives of the residents here - it’s my intent to help every resident here arrive at a place where we’re going to call you out. Every time!

So many of the stories that I read about Youngstown, are written by people who aren’t from or have never been TO Youngstown, and may of whom may not even be fully educated or aware of what’s going on IN Youngstown. Anyone who even so much as inadvertently creates a ‘Biography’ of events on our behalf will soon be met with a Youngstown that’s being taught to fight for the right to author our own, self-written accounts of our city.

As often as I can, I intentionally spend time hammering the point home, to the amazing people here, that we must author and own our own narrative. False narratives, misreported stories and political “hit-pieces” all do the kind of damage that sinks deep into Youngstown’s soul. They rob us of what’s most essential to our progressive efforts; which is our culture and our identity. They actually serve to kill us twice over, by damaging our reputation and traumatizing our bright future.

No other city’s story will do. We’ve got to see our city’s law enforcement, our local racial justice dialogue, we’ve got to own our educational challenges our job opportunity obstacles, our low income housing crisis, our 36.8% poverty levels that we need to eradicate. We cannot afford to allow the outside views of others, to muddy our waters.

In a world full of “clickbait” and quick glances, where so many don’t read past a certain point, we can see how a simple choice of words in an article’s title can serve to reinforce the negative perceptions of Youngstown. My work to end these kinds of overt & covert things is so that we can move forward in truth and reconciliation as we look to solve our many issues.

Youngstown is continually made to bear its soul and to expose the stains of its issues for all to see (locally, regionally & nationally). So many of our surrounding suburbs work tirelessly to maintain their ‘inviting’ appearance. It’s my desire that no community have these kinds of issues. But how we report them, to the residents of Youngstown, about the Valley or any community matters. It should be done thoughtfully and with care and concern for all who consume it. We are all different, yet in so many ways, the same. We are ALL human. We are all wonderfully made & full of potential. We also are all fallible & imperfect. And we all have a choice in how we transparently share our story and our struggles. My hope for us ALL is that we recognize that some places are not as “bad” and some places are not as “good” as they appear. If we work together, honest about our challenges and issues, we can win this fight for a better future — together.

So time & time again, I’ll remind Youngstown (and the world) of who we are! That can be difficult when we ourselves can often forget. But a few things remain. There are NO perfect places. There are NO perfect people. I’ve simply come by to tell you that Youngstown has hope. I’ve seen it. The faith we have in our future comes from the people here, giving their firsthand accounts of their Youngstown. So mark my words, “the Youngstown I see, will be an ‘autobiographical’ example to the nation.”

In a Share It! WYSU Commentary, Derrick McDowell, founder of the Youngstown Flea, community engagement and inclusion coordinator for the Youngstown Foundation Amphitheatre, and assistant director of the Mahoning Valley Sojourn to the Past.

View Details

A Personal Story.mp3

Last week one of my younger members called me in distress. They had talked to a family member about the children in detention, and the discussion did not go well. After talking through the frustration of not being heard, I suggested that the most effective way of helping people understand your position is to tell them your story. People’s hearts are moved by a personal story. So this is mine.

Three of my children are adopted. They are siblings and we got them because they had been removed for the final time from their biological parents for abuse and neglect. It took a few weeks, but eventually, I noticed that the middle child, my son Tim, the back of his head was flat. Flat. Still is.

I asked the social worker about this, and she put the pieces together for me. She said that when Tim was 6 months, he was dying. They admitted him to the hospital and diagnosed him with Failure to Thrive. After investigating it was discovered that he was never picked up except to be fed, and even then they would prop a bottle most of the time. He wasn’t touched, he wasn’t comforted. He was simply ignored.

All three of my adopted children have problems stemming from the abuse and neglect they received as small children in their biological family even today. What we might not realize or understand is that abuse and neglect cause permanent damage. Permanent. This is something that doctors cannot fix or medicate, it cannot be undone.

And it is not lost on me when I witness the abuse and neglect of children in the human detention camps who have been removed from their parents, that they are being permanently damaged. That the longer these children remain in these camps, underfed, under-resourced, emotionally neglected, the smaller becomes the chance that they will ever recover from this trauma. We are permanently damaging other people’s children.

It is also not lost on me that when this horrific treatment happened to my adopted children, it was considered unsafe and against the law. The law protects children in the United States from being treated this way. The law sends people to jail who perpetrate these crimes against children. And yet, here is our government, who is supposed to protect people, perpetrating these crimes.

My heart just breaks.

As a country, we are better than this. We stand for freedom, we stand for human rights, we stand for justice. And we stand for these things not just for our citizens, not just for people with power and money, but for everyone. And certainly for innocent children. Certainly for people who want to be a part of what makes our country the place of innovation and prosperity and common good to which we aspire. We are better than this.

We live in a democracy. And each voice counts. I know not all of you agree with me on this issue, and I respect that. However, you stand on this issue, contact your Congressperson, your Senator and your President. Your voice matters.

Now my children are all grown and I am a grandmother. My grand kids are lively and trusting, smart and funny. They are little, and they depend on the adults in their lives to protect and provide for them. That is how they grow into people who will protect and care for others. I want them to see our country as a good and welcoming place. I don’t want them to be tainted by hate and injustice. I want them to be people of hope.

We have to create that world, and we are all responsible for making that happen. It is our moral and civic responsibility that we make sure all people are treated with dignity and decency, that all children are safe regardless of their color- that our country lives up to its moral obligations.

View Details

00005.mp3 Once again as a nation we find ourselves in a crisis of compassion. In the wake of

the government shutdown, the closing of car plants, the uncertain economy,

some of our family and friends are in trouble. And it is in times like these when we

are called by whatever we believe in to become more than we are, to be our best

selves. It is in times like these we see people’s hearts. And sometimes it is

disappointing.

While I have my opinions on all of the crises we face, this is not a political

commentary. It is a plea for community. It is an invitation to step up, not to step

back, to commit to caring, and to act on it.

Maybe your neighbor is a contractor with the federal government who has no

current income. Maybe your mother lives alone and is going to be snowed in.

Maybe your cousin is on food stamps because they are developmentally delayed,

and they don’t know if they will get food stamps because of the shutdown.

Maybe your best friend works at the GM plant and has no clue about their future.

I guarantee you that you know someone who is hurting or afraid right now,

someone who needs you.

I listen to the news, and I hear the meanness. I hear the judgement. I hear the

anger. And I get some of it. People are frustrated, people want change, people

want their lives to be safe and healthy and stable. And…in a democracy we cannot

achieve those things by putting others at risk or taking away our neighbor’s

security. We cannot build our own security or wealth on the insecurity of others.

In a democracy we are as secure and stable as the one who is the least secure and

stable. We are essentially working against our best interests when we allow

others to suffer.

Some people say that it is human nature to judge or put people into categories of

us and them. They say that we can’t help it, we have to look down on others to

feel good about ourselves. Some people say this country was built on those in

power taking from those who are not, that ensuring our own power and

advantages are just how things go. Those people who say that are simply wrong.

Again, in a democracy, we have a vested interest in each other, and we have to

act for the good of everyone.

I know that some hearts will remain closed. But for those of us who believe that

we can make a difference, that goodness matters, and that practicing kindness

makes us whole, there are some things that we can do.

First, call your neighbors, friends, family who you know are at risk and ask them

how you can help. They might have no idea, but the fact that you asked, that they

know you are on their team and that they matter to you, sometimes that makes

all the difference. Be a supporter!

Second, be nice. Flippant remarks hurt people. Being casual or callous about the

suffering of others is cruel. Frankly meanness doesn’t look good on anyone. Thank

people who are kind. Say no when you are invited to be mean or when jokes are

not funny. Be the example you want to see, or as wisdom tells us, treat other

people as you would want to be treated.

Finally, be honest. Most of us are one or two paychecks from disaster. So refrain

from judgement. Understand that most people carry sorrows and worries that

you do not know about. Life is precious and precarious. You never know what will

happen next.

If you are one of those who are suffering, who need help, let someone know. Call

the 211 hotline and see what is available in your area. There is help for you. Don’t

be afraid to ask for it.

This is a time when we need to pull together, to be the compassion we want to

see. Don’t be distracted or seduced by meanness. We need each other. Let’s be

the caring community that we know we are.

View Details

Joey.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

Foreign Workers.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

00005.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

GayleCatinella.mp3 I work in a building filled with statues and monuments. There are statues of famous people who have touched our lives by the way they led their own. There are windows that remind us of events in our history, ancient and modern. There are plaques dedicated to loved ones who died serving our country or who died as children, dedicated to those who generously gave of themselves and should be remembered.

And each of these monuments, large and small, before they were built, were first submitted to the community. Some committee looked at the offering and decided if it represented what we wanted to stand for, how we wanted people to come to a deeper understanding of our values and beliefs. The committee rendered an opinion that was then affirmed or argued by other groups and committees until a decision was made. We looked for a wisdom deeper and broader than one person or perspective could offer.

As I contemplate these monuments, I am also thinking about the statues and monuments in the south, the statues of Confederate leaders that are being removed or relocated. As a person who has studied and appreciates history, I have wrestled with what is right, with the original intent of the statute, and what it means today.

What struck me was how easy it is to pick and choose what parts and events in history we want to call to the attention of others. It reminds me of people who will choose a passage from the Christian Scriptures completely out of context to make their point. You can find almost anything in the Bible to justify what you want to do or believe, especially if you limit the passage to a sentence or two. The Bible needs to be read in its entirety, needs to be understood in the biggest picture. Otherwise, it loses its holiness and becomes an opportunity to glorify a person or idea rather than God.

I see the same thing happening in our country. We are picking and choosing the parts of history that make the point we want to make, that supports ideas that we think are right or true or even sacred. And frankly, that is easy. The history of our country is so rich and diverse that we can find an incident or a quote to support just about anything, especially if we take it out of its context. Looking at the bigger picture is more of a discipline, more complicated, and much more honest.

If we are wise, we will be big picture thinkers. Many people have encouraged us to know history in order to learn from it. But just like we limit ourselves when we follow only the news outlets that agree with our way of thinking, we lose our focus if we don’t put historical events in their broadest context, and that includes submitting our interpretation to a community of scholars who can help us to understand deeper implications.

In our own area, I see a lot of confederate flags hanging from homes and I wonder about the intention. What are the bearers of these flags trying to tell us about who they are and what they believe? I understand these flags to be a symbol of racism. Maybe I don’t see the full picture. But that is the problem with monuments and symbols. So often we cannot even remember the original ideas they represent because we have co-opted them into our current debates.

When any symbol becomes recognized as a means of oppression, as a way to offend or hurt, as a sign of superiority, it stands against democracy. Hate, supremacy, racism—these cannot be political positions in our country because democracy stands for the good of all people, one nation under God. As a nation, we need to come together, to be united, to recognize how great this country is now and continue building it up. Any other action hurts all of us, equally. How long will we stand for the division and what sacrifices are we willing to make to repair our broken nation?

View Details

00399.mp3 I am not worried about November 8. On election day, people will walk into their local polling places, see their neighbors, talk about their lives. They will see Republicans and Democrats, people that they know and trust, standing guard over a process that has been tested and tried and almost always turns out OK. People who go to vote will feel proud that they have done their civic duty. All will be well.

It is November 9th that worries me. And the day after that, and the day after that. Because on November 9th, we are going to have to figure out how to repair the damage that has come from the rhetoric and contention of this election. There have been some nasty things said and done. And yet we are still going to be neighbors, going to shop at the same grocery store, sit in the same pews.

Each candidate cast a vision that set them apart, a set of hopes and ideas that they believed would best shape the future. But on November 9th we are going to have to figure out how to bring the pieces together into a whole, create a civil context where good can happen for all people. How are we going to accomplish this? In other words, how are we going to do the hard work of democracy?

I would suggest several things are going to be critical. Because not only are we learning how to operate for the common good, we are teaching our children to do so as well. One of the lessons that my children had to be taught was how to be a gracious winner and a gracious loser. Many a soccer tournament and cross country meet provided opportunities to test our ability to let go, to be kind when we are frustrated, to take personal responsibility for peace. Now on a national scale, there will be winners and losers. That is the democratic way. And we will have to be kind and calm. We will have to congratulate and concede.

Of course we practice this every two years. But this election cycle has exposed frustrations and complaints that could permanently divide us, and we cannot afford to let this happen. There will be winners and there will be losers. And wherever we fall, we will have to be adults. Gracious and civil adults.

Another critical practice that our society will need to engage is to envision ourselves as whole again. Envision what is the common good. It seems to me, I deeply hope, that our differences are about how to get to common good. We have a wide range of ideas about that. But our ideas cannot become ends in themselves. They have to lead somewhere, be adapted into progress. We cannot make our ideas into ditches that we are willing to die in. There is enough violence, and not enough useful and meaningful compromise.

In order to envision our common good, we need to talk to one another. Not shout, not dismiss, not search for the worst, not broadcast the failures. One lesson we have to learn is that we all have faults and failures. If that is what we are going to focus on, we will spiral into a cycle of constant revenge and nastiness and inertia.

By talk, I mean face to face, meaningful, interactive civil conversations. Conversations that Krista Tippett would say must include generous listening, humility, patience and hospitality. Let’s be honest, we have a very hard time with this. We have been taught to put being right ahead of being kind. But being right can be a very lonely victory. We need each other. Everyone has value and important contributions to make. We are wasting a lot of time being right. It certainly hasn’t created a better world for all people.

So, we have to be gracious, to have important and productive conversation, and we have to move on. Personally I am tired of the stuckness of the political system, tired of a lack of compromise that leads nowhere. How we will forgive some of the things that have been said, some of the distasteful things we have seen, some of the hurt that we have experienced, I don’t know. But we have to. Again, we are adults. We reconcile. Or we stay frustrated and stuck.

What I am certain of is that we all have to participate. I heard a quote recently by Rev. Otis Moss of Cleveland. He was speaking on racism but I think it applies to the bigger picture as well. He said, “Some of us are guilty, all of us are responsible.” In the healing of this nation, beginning November 9, all of us are responsible. What will you to do heal and recreate our country into a place where we can be proud to belong?

View Details

00399.mp3 I think we are asking the wrong question. When we hear the horrifying reports of the killings of black men and attacks on police officers, we want to know who to blame. There has to be someone at fault. But the deeper question is, why do we make decisions in our society based on fear. Because fear changes us, it makes normally good people make very bad choices, and it creates an atmosphere where everyone is a potential enemy.

I am a police chaplain, and I have ridden with officers who ground their actions in their integrity. I participate in interracial dialogues. I have heard the legitimate and heartbreaking anger from years of oppression. It is simply too easy to say that one group of people is bad or wrong. It is simply too easy to create a world of us and them. Barriers and walls do not protect us.

The only way out that makes sense to me is to build community, not to destroy it; to foster relationship and conversation that change us. We have to start by listening to each other. Asking to hear people’s stories. And really paying attention. Not trying to fix or dismiss or compare. Not hearing only the mistakes, because we have all made them. When we listen with an open heart, we no longer see someone as a category, but as a person. We find the connections and the commonalities.

And it changes us. I started by saying we should question why our society let’s fear dictate responses, reacting, usually badly. The other question we are prone to ask is who is going to do something. The government, the justice system, the protesters and seekers of justice? But it cannot always be someone else. We need to be asking what we can do. Now. Today.

When we are changed by the conversations we have with people, and we no longer see people as black or white, young or old, male or female, gay or straight, but instead see them as our community, our family, we realize that we cannot be the same, we cannot live the same. To see someone we now care about in pain moves us to action.

We start by admitting our own privilege and prejudice. We all have prejudices, and we have to be honest about that. We have to own our ways of thinking and believing that are destroying us, and be willing to grow past them. Until we admit that we benefit from a system that institutionalizes racism and other forms of oppression, no change is possible.

There are several efforts at discussion around racial reconciliation happening in the Youngstown area. Are you attending? Will you make time for this opportunity for a stronger community? Do you know the community police officer in your area? Have you built a relationship with the people who have sworn to protect you? Again I will say that dialogue and building relationships make a difference. We need to start seeing people as potential friends and not as potential enemies.

I am certain that violence, more guns, and higher levels of anxiety and fear are not the answer. You are. I am. Committing to opening our hearts to each other and creating the community we want together. That is the answer.

View Details

00240.mp3 Faith

Tom Shipka (2015)

Religious people often refer to faith as a precious gift from God which they cherish. (1) But what exactly is this gift called faith? And is it really precious? According to Webster’s dictionary, faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” (2) By contrast, knowledge is belief in something for which there is proof. Thus, if you believe in the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the resurrection, and heaven and hell, you have faith, and if you believe that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, that smoking cigarettes is harmful to a person, that regular exercise is helpful to a person, that there are over seven billion humans today on the planet earth, and that you should stop when a traffic signal is red, you have knowledge. Faith is the foundation of religion while reason and science are the foundation of knowledge.

Having said this, let’s acknowledge, however, that faith does play a role in science. A scientist often embraces a belief without proof tentatively as a hypothesis, sometimes based on a mere hunch, to test whether it is supported by evidence. If the hypothesis turns out to be confirmed by the evidence, he or she then publishes the results of the research to peers so that they can evaluate the validity of the test and duplicate its findings. This type of provisional “faith” is markedly different from that exhibited in religion where believers typically embrace a belief as a certainty with no intent (or even possibility) to test it as scientists do.

While faith is held in high regard by tens of millions of Americans, the fact is that once we endorse faith, once we authorize people to believe without proof, we open a Pandora’s Box, (3) for faith takes people down many different paths, including harmful and destructive ones. Consider a few representative examples from Christianity and Islam in today’s world (4):

*Some Christians, following a passage in the Epistle of James (5:14), rely exclusively on prayer and never on doctors, to heal the sick. This results in the avoidable death of hundreds, if not thousands, in the U.S. every year, especially children;

*Some Christians, believing that God directs them to stop abortions at any cost, murder employees and patients at women’s clinics; (5)

*Some Muslims, following passages in the Qur’an (Sura 4:76 and Sura 8:12) and the Hadith (Muslim 1:20), the teachings and deeds of the prophet Muhammed, seek to murder non-Muslims - infidels - even at the cost of their own lives, resulting in violent attacks around the world; (6) and

*In many majority-Muslim nations, Sharia, a legal system based on the Qur’an and the Haddith, provides that the rape of a woman can be proven only by admission of the rapist or the testimony of four male witnesses. (7) The victim’s testimony is inadmissible. Further, Sharia also provides that a man determined to be a rapist need only pay his victim a fee and, remarkably, that a woman whose claim of rape is not corroborated by the rapist or four witnesses is subject to punishment as a fornicator or adulterer. (8)

As bad as these expressions of faith are, the situation could be worse. This is because the faithful often cherry-pick scriptures and religious teachings. For instance, if Christians followed the Bible to the letter,

*They would own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5); (9)

*They would murder homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), unruly children (Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17), non-virgin brides (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), and adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22-24); (10) and

*They would condemn divorce (Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18) and tattoos (Leviticus 19:28). (11)

So, what is the lesson here? It’s the same lesson taught in the 19th century by W.K. Clifford, a British mathematician. (12) Recognizing that our beliefs translate into actions which can cause harm to ourselves and others, Clifford insisted that we acquire proof – what he called “sufficient evidence” – before we embrace and act upon a belief. For Clifford, this requires the path of reason and science, not the path of faith. In essence, Clifford warns that the path of faith is a dead end – literally and figuratively.

I have little hope that a majority of humans near or far will heed Clifford’s warning any time soon. Those who believe that they speak and act on the commands of Christianity’s God or Islam’s Allah or some other god, or their messenger, will obey those commands at any cost. The proof that reason demands is irrelevant to them.

…..

1.Many Christians whom I know tell me that their faith prompts them to support their church, pay their debts, obey the law, respect others, engage in prayer and forgiveness, give to charity, retain hope in the face of illness and setbacks, and do volunteer work in the community. Further, many believers insist that faith in divine justice in the hereafter is essential to a moral life on earth and that faith in God’s power and love can cure addiction, crime, and violence. On the issue of whether religion is indispensable to moral behavior in a society, see Phil Zuckerman, Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, New York University Press, 2008. This study of Denmark and Sweden, where most people are atheist or agnostic, shows that violent crime is very low and overall societal health is very high compared to religious nations such as the United States.

2.Webster’s Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 418.

3.According to an ancient Greek myth, the gods bestowed gifts upon the beautiful Pandora in a box but instructed her never to open it. When her curiosity won out, however, she opened the box only to discover to her shock that she unleashed illnesses and hardships galore upon the human race.

4.The focus here is contemporary faith-based beliefs. Poignant examples are available from the past, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, persecution of Jews by Christians in Europe, human sacrifice in South America, etc.

5.Other examples from Christianity include these. Some Christians, following Proverbs 22:15, beat their children, and in many Christian families, following Ephesians 5:22-24, wives are subservient to their husbands;

6.The Qur’an says: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (Sura 8:12) and “The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan.” (Sura 4:76) Also, the Hadith says: “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no God but Allah.” (Muslim 1:30)

7.Needless to say, if they witnessed the rape, they were complicit in it.

8.Other examples from Islam include the following: In many majority-Muslim nations, Sharia forbids criticism of Islam, and calls for jail, torture, or death for those deemed apostates or heretics; Saudi Arabia, a wealthy Muslim nation, promotes Wahhabism, an extreme form of Islam, and sponsors madrassas around the world, “schools,” which often exclude girls and where the curriculum consists mainly of memorizing the Qur’an and studying Islam; and violence periodically breaks out in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia Muslims who consider one another heretics.

9.The Qur’an also permits the owning of slaves. See Sura 5:89 and Sura 23:1.

10.Thus, the Christian county official in Kentucky who refused to sign marriage permits for same-sex couples in 2015 violated Biblical commands by doing too little.

11.Examples of faith-based nonsense in other countries include these: In at least three nations in Africa – Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea – the spread of Ebola is fueled by family members and friends washing and dressing the body of the deceased and mourners at the funeral touching it to make sure that the dead don’t return to haunt the living; in India, where believers take their own religion as superior to others, violence regularly breaks out among Hindus, Christians, and Muslims; and following Hindu tradition, some women whose husbands die choose to immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre even if they have young children.

12.See W.K. Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief,” Contemporary Review, 1877.

View Details

00149.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

00122.mp3 This commentary about Ash Wednesday is from the Reverend Gayle Catinella, Rector at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Youngstown. 

View Details

00003.mp3 Prisons, America’s ‘new asylums’

A new report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit dedicated to the treatment of the mentally ill, found that the number of individuals with serious mental illness in prisons and jails now exceeds the number in state psychiatric hospitals by a factor of ten.
In 2012, there were more than 356,000 inmates with severe mental illness in prisons and jails nationwide. There were only 35,000 mentally ill individuals in state psychiatric hospitals.

The report entitled The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails suggests that prisons and jails have become America’s “new asylums.”
In 44 of 50 states a prison or jail holds more individuals with serious mental illness than the largest remaining state psychiatric hospital in those states.

Mental health agencies are not the only entities sounding the alarm. Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Tom Dart contends that society has cast aside the mentally ill, and that is the primary reason why prisons are overcrowded.
The Cook County Jail is currently the largest mental health facility in the United States with 30-35 percent of its roughly 9,000 inmates living with a serious mental illness.

Bob Carolla, a spokesman for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, told the Chicago Defender, without access to “adequate and effective” mental health treatment people will simply end up in the prison system.

Untreated psychiatric illness often gets worse. The problems are not just inside the prison walls. Many inmates with mental health problems leave prison more unstable than when they entered. The treatment of inmates with mental illness can be very costly and is often a strain on corrections’ budgets.
Just as important, inmates who are transitioning back into the community need to have immediate and seamless mental health services. Without adequate treatment the results can be catastrophic.

Last weekend in Brooklyn, a man with a history of psychiatric commitments, was accused of stabbing two children in an elevator, fatally wounding one. Investigators said he may not have connected with mental health services after being released from prison a week earlier.
Last December, President Barack Obama told an audience at the National Conference on Mental Health, “[L]ess than 40 percent of people with mental illness receive treatment.”

Why?

It is extremely difficult to find a bed for a seriously mentally ill person who needs to be hospitalized. In 1955 there was one psychiatric bed for every 300 Americans. In 2005 there was one psychiatric bed for every 3,000 Americans.
The Treatment Advocacy Center found that one of the driving forces behind the closure of state mental hospitals is based on the premise that it saves money.
Those savings may be illusory.

The Center makes a cogent argument for an unbiased cost assessment that identifies the comprehensive expense of incarcerating mentally ill individuals and provide public officials with a more accurate basis for making mental illness treatment policy.

(Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)

View Details

00457.mp3 Let’s begin with a question. Which of the following rose in cost the most over the past thirty years: housing, medical care, or higher education? The correct answer is higher education. (1) Over this period, housing went up 375%, medical care 600%, and higher education an astonishing 1,120%. (2) At the same time, financial aid provided by the federal government and institutions of higher education also shot up but so did “net cost,” that is, what students and their families must pay after grants, scholarships, and tax credits are subtracted. (3)

The rise in net cost also explains the student loan debt picture. Institutions of higher education enroll more than twenty million students a year and two thirds of them supplement financial aid with loans from Uncle Sam or banks. Student loan debt now hovers around $1 trillion and the average student leaves college with a loan debt of $27,000. Among bachelor degree recipients, borrowers in a recent year included 62% at public institutions (such as Youngstown State University), 72% at private non-profit institutions (such as Hiram College), and 96% at private for-profit institutions (such as the University of Phoenix). Today there are 37,000,000 student loan borrowers with outstanding student loan debt. The average debt balance for all borrowers from all types of schools is over $24,000. Moreover, the delinquency and default rates are very high (4) but borrowers can find no relief in bankruptcy because the U.S. bankruptcy code exempts nearly all cases of student loan debt from discharge. (5)

75% of the college students in the U.S. attend public institutions, so let’s focus on them. A major reason that cost has skyrocketed in the public sector is the steady decline in state support. In Ohio, for instance, state support has dropped from more than 70% of the operating costs of the public universities in 1970 to less than 20% today. In this regard, Ohio is a microcosm of the nation. All states have reduced spending in higher education to cover other mushrooming costs, especially Medicaid and prisons. On a national basis, state support per student at public universities, adjusted for inflation, dropped from $8,500 in 1987 to $5,900 in 2013. (6)

Understandably, public institutions across the nation have turned to tuition increases to compensate for declining state support. Consider these facts:

• In 1987 tuition provided 23% of the revenue of public institutions; today it provides 47% - nearly half;
• From 2008 to 2012, as state support per student shrunk 27%, average tuition rose 20%; and
• In the year 2000, the average family spent 25% of its income to cover the cost of college for a family member; today it spends 40%.

Two obvious questions remain: “Is college worth it?” and “What can we do to contain the cost of college?” I’ll address these in my next commentary.

1. This commentary draws information from many sources, including the following: Davis Educational Foundation, “An Inquiry into the Rising Cost of Higher Education: Summary of Responses from Seventy College and University Presidents,” 2012; Helen Li, “The Rising Cost of Higher Education: A Supply and Demand Analysis,” Bachelor Thesis, New York University, 2013; William Trombley, “The Rising Price of Higher Education: College Affordability in Jeopardy,” 2003; Allie Bidwell, “The Rise in Tuition Is Slowing, But College Still Costs More,” U.S. News & World Report, online edition, October 24, 2013; Beckie Supiano, “Evaluating the Payoff of a College Degree,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 24, 2014; Pew Research, Social & Demographic Trends, “The Rising Cost of Not Going to College,” February 11, 2014; and American Student Assistance (www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats).
2. Over the past decade, college tuition has risen three times as fast as the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and twice as fast as medical care.
3. See Allie Bidwell, “The Rise in Tuition is Slowing, But College Still Costs More,” October 24, 2013, US News & World Report online. The actual average in-state tuition at four-year public institutions in 2012-2013 was $8,893 while the average net cost of tuition was $3,120, and the actual average tuition at four-year private institutions in 2012-2013 was $30,090 while the average net cost of tuition was $12,460. The federal government currently spends about $40 billion a year for Pell Grants. One estimate is that financial aid has gone up since 1970 fifty-fold.
4. For instance, among students from for-profit institutions and public two-year institutions, the delinquency and default rate is about 50%.
5. See Kayla Webley, “Why You Can’t Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy,” Time, February 9, 2012.
6. State support in actual dollars has gone up typically in the states annually in recent decades but support measured by percentage of operating costs and in real dollars per student, however, has declined sharply. Real dollars are dollars adjusted for inflation. A slight exaggeration by one public university president summarizes the national subsidy trend nicely. He said, “When I came here, my school was state-supported, then it was state-assisted, and now it’s state-located.”

View Details

00456.mp3 Never before has the flush of a toilet sounded so lovely. Like the burbling brook after weeks of drought, running water is a welcome gift on the first evening of the New Year.

No water? A voice at the other end of the line told us repairmen were working overtime to fix the problem but they didn’t know how long it would take. My heart went out to the crews repairing the line in the bitter cold on a holiday.

Our eight hours of inconvenience may have seemed like an eternity to us, but as I sank into a tub of warm water that night, I could only think of the millions of people in our world who have never known the luxuries we take for granted.

I recalled the story of a friend building a school on a mission trip to Haiti several years ago. After pounding nails and hauling lumber in the heat all day, she looked forward to a shower in the outdoor shack built for that purpose.

As the cool liquid poured down on her head, she felt renewed in body and spirit --until she poked her head out and discovered the source of her water supply was a woman carrying a jug of water on her head. She’d have no more showers that week.

I drank a glass of tap water and thought of the members of Frackfree Mahoning Valley protesting and persisting to protect our water supply. As geologists and environmentalists, they realize the possible damage that comes from breaking the bones of Mother Earth.

While this is a complicated issue, one fact is clear and one question remains. Fact : Ohio and surrounding states are blessed with an abundance of fresh water. Question: Will the natural gas industry agents cut corners when out of sight to make more money more quickly and possibly poison our water?

Consider the president of D&L Energy. He directed an employee to discharge thousands of gallons of drilling mud and brine into a sewer that empties into the Mahoning River Watershed. After dark.

According to news reports, a chemical spill due to negligence in West Virginia spoiled the water for more than 300,000 people in nine counties.

According to the United Nations, “approximately 1.1 billion people people globally do not have access to safe water. As a result, many children around the world do not survive needlessly.”

A U.N. Development Program reports that a person taking a five-minute shower in the United States used more water than the average person in a developing country uses in an entire day.

World Water Day will be celebrated March 22 and the internet is flowing with good information. Awareness, after all, is the beginning of action.

View Details

00398.mp3 Who is the greatest hitter in the history of professional baseball? My nominee is Ted Williams. Let’s take a look at his career and his life.

Although the career of Ted Williams spanned the period from 1939 to 1960, he lost five seasons during his prime to military service (1) and parts of two others to injuries. Despite the lost years, his career statistics are staggering. His lifetime batting average was .344. He hit 541 home runs, placing him tenth on the all-time list. (2) He hit twenty or more home runs in sixteen seasons, an American League record that he holds with Babe Ruth and Reggie Jackson. He is the last batter to hit .400 for a season. (3) He won the American League batting championship six times, including 1957 when he was thirty-eight and 1958 when he was thirty-nine. He won the Triple Crown twice and he was named American League MVP twice. (4) He led the American League in both homes runs and RBIs four times and he led the majors in runs scored four times. Further, Williams made seventeen All-Star Game appearances and he set a dozen All-Star Game records. (5) To no one’s surprise, he was voted into the Hall of Fame in 1966 in his first year of eligibility. (6)

As for his personal life, Williams grew up in San Diego, the son of a Mexican-American mother and an American father. (7) Though he lived in a poor neighborhood, it had one important asset, a lighted playground, where he practiced hitting daily late into the night. (8) He struggled in school but, as he aged, he developed a love for histories and biographies. After high school, he played one year in the minor leagues, (9) then moved on to Boston where he formed a love/hate relationship with the media and fans. He married three times and fathered two daughters and a son. His marriages suffered from his foul mouth and extended absences for road trips or fishing. He had an arm’s length relationship to his children until late in his life. (10) After his third marriage collapsed, he lived happily with Louise Kaufman, a divorced woman.

When it came to money, Ted Williams was an enigma. On the one hand, he would boycott expensive restaurants and pay his tab at many others with a check in the hope that the proprietor would display it rather than cash it. On the other hand, when he found out that a former major leaguer was destitute, he quietly deposited $10,000 into his bank account. And he did this many times! (11) What’s more, he raised millions of dollars over the years for the Boston-based Jimmy Fund, which serves children with cancer and their families, and he helped players with drug and alcohol problems, such as Daryl Strawberry, who lived with Ted and Louise during his recovery. Further, he went out of his way to welcome and encourage the first black players, Larry Doby among them. (12)

We have to take Ted Williams warts and all. Despite the failure of his marriages and his personality quirks, he was as gifted an athlete and as generous a person as we’re likely to find.

1. Initially Williams applied for a military deferment. When it was denied, he enlisted. He turned down opportunities to play on military baseball teams and, after training, served as a pilot and instructor in two wars. In Korea Williams flew in a unit with John Glenn who described Williams as one of the best pilots he knew. Williams flew as Glenn’s wingman for roughly the last half of his missions in Korea.
2. Most sports historians are confident that Williams would have broken Babe Ruth’s home run record had he not spent five years in the military.
3. This was in 1941.
4. The fact that he was league MVP only two times is due almost certainly to his sour relationship with a number of baseball writers.
5. Williams’s nineteen All-Star Game appearances tie him for the American League lead with Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken. He leads the American League in career All –Star Game hits, runs scored, extra-base hits, total bases, home runs, RBIs, and walks. Also, he holds single game All-Star Game records for both leagues in hits, runs scored, home runs, and RBIs.
6. Williams was also named to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team and All-Time Team. He and Babe Ruth are the only two players honored with a statue in Cooperstown.
7. Fearful that his Mexican heritage could harm his career, he kept it a secret as much as he could.
8. Williams reportedly bragged to his friends at this playground that he would become “the greatest hitter who ever lived.” See Richard Ben Cramer, What Do You Think of Ted Williams Now? A Remembrance, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 85.
9. During his one year in the minors, Williams led the league in batting average, home runs, and RBIs.
10. Sadly, his son, John Henry Williams, exploited his father’s change of heart to promote John Henry’s company which sold various items with Ted’s autograph. Even after Ted had a stroke, he would sign autographs many hours a day at his son’s insistence. John Henry and one of Ted’s daughters also arranged for Ted’s head to be cryogenically preserved despite the fact that Ted’s will provided for cremation.
11. Richard Ben Cramer, What Do You Think…, p. 9. According to Cramer, to get the bank account number, Williams phoned the person on the pretext of soliciting a contribution to the Jimmy Fund, and after hearing his story about falling on hard times, Williams said, “OK, so send me a check for $10. Don’t tell me you can’t afford that!” Once he got the check, Williams contacted the bank and made a $10,000 deposit.
12. Doby, the first black player in the American League, reported that on his first visit to Fenway Park, Williams congratulated him and wished him good luck. See Richard Ben Cramer, What do You Think…, p. 96. Also, at his induction into the Hall of Fame in 1966, Williams made special mention in his talk that Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, and other great black players should be voted into the Hall.

View Details

00399.mp3 I find it disturbing that people who rely on the Meander Reservoir for their drinking water aren’t outraged by ODNR’s permitting of frack wells in our protected watershed. I suppose it is possible that they don’t know where their water comes from. Heads up, people of Canfield, Boardman, Austintown, Youngstown, Niles, Jackson Township etc. It’s more likely that they drank the industry and ODNR Kool-Aid, and believe that unconventional shale gas hydro fracking is safe—it is not. They no doubt believe there are plenty of regulations in place that will protect them.

Actually, there are many laws and regulations in place. Unfortunately, they are designed to protect the industry- not the people. ODNR’s job is to oversee and facilitate the use of Ohio’s natural resources. They have done a great job of facilitating, but a really poor job of oversight. Remember the earthquakes? ODNR dragged their feet for months, before they finally conceded that Northstar 1 was the cause. Also, it was a whistle blower that exposed D&L for dumping toxic flow back down a storm drain. ODNR very publicly took the credit for job well done.

So if ODNR won’t protect our water, who will? Maybe the Ohio EPA? Nope. They are only authorized to step in after an environmental accident has occurred. How about our local government officials? Can we count on them to act in the best interest of we the people? Nope. Their authority to regulate oil and gas extraction via zoning was stripped by the state legislature in 2004. Besides, most local officials are as clueless about unconventional gas extraction from shale as are their constituents. For example, our Mahoning County Commissioners sold 8.25 million gallons of our Meander water to CNX to frack in our watershed. Also, tanker trucks, many from out of state, were regularly filling up with our treated water from a hydrant in front of the Youngstown Water Department. The water department has recently built a filling station on their property to enable the sale of MORE water.

Now, For the Really Bad News. Consider the tragic spill that occurred in the Elk River in West Virginia. There had been no federal or state inspections of the facility since 1991. Also, not much is known about either of the two chemicals that spilled- how to remove it from water or its effects on the people who ingested it. Fortunately the flow of the Elk River carried most of the toxic chemicals downstream. So what if, God forbid a spill or blow-out were to occur that rendered our Meander water undrinkable? THERE IS NO DOWNSTREAM. IT DOESN”T FLOW. One significant spill of a substance that can’t be removed from water (and there are many used in the fracking process) and its GAME OVER!

View Details

00398.mp3 In 2006, Jim Henderson, a Christian minister, (1) turned to an unusual source for help with his project to improve churches. He outbid more than a dozen competitors in an eBay auction in which Hemant Mehta, a self-described “friendly atheist,” offered to attend churches and evaluate their services and programs. Thus was born a religious version of the odd couple. (2)

Over the next few months, Mehta visited fifteen Christian churches of differing sizes in four states. (3) So, what did an atheist have to say about them? (4) Here are eight of his major findings and recommendations:

• One. There are very few female pastors and speakers. Churches need to do more to identify and recruit gifted women for these roles;
• Two. Some churches overdo music and singing. As a result, many members, by their own admission, show up late or tune out in midstream. Time devoted to music and singing should be reduced;
• Three. Common rituals, such as frequent standing and sitting, and scripted group responses, are typically mechanical and meaningless. Some rituals should be phased out; the history, meaning, and value of those that are kept should be fully explained to the congregation;
• Four. Pastors often quote the Bible without giving any clarification of its relevance to day-to-day life. A greater effort should be made to show a connection between Bible verses and the actual issues and challenges which people face in their lives; (5)
• Five. Some churches invest significant resources in missionary work in faraway places but do little to help those in need locally. Part of the mission of all churches should be to improve living conditions in their own community for all residents; (6)
• Six. Some pastors tend to attack virtually everything they oppose as part of a war on Christianity. Examples are evolution, gay marriage, and objections to religious displays on public property. This practice demonizes many good people, closes off the possibility of honest dialogue, and needlessly fosters a bunker mentality. Pastors need to tone down the rhetoric and work harder to understand, tolerate, and respect people with whom they differ;
• Seven. Many pastors and other speakers, especially those at mega-churches, are very effective communicators. They give instructive and entertaining talks, they focus on one central theme, and they use humor. By contrast, some pastors are poor communicators who do none of this. They would benefit from a refresher course in public speaking; (7) and
• Eight. Many churches need an infusion of energy and excitement. To this end, they should institute programming such as inviting “a compelling speaker”; sponsoring debates on critical issues, featuring opposing viewpoints; (8) holding question-and-answer sessions; organizing volunteers for community service; and donating funds to a charity that helps all people, not just Christians. (9)

As the project drew to a close, Henderson and Mehta learned that Mehta’s reports resonated with many of the congregations that Mehta visited and many others. Thus, the eBay collaboration was a win-win venture for this odd couple. (10)

1. Henderson is also author of Evangelism Without Additives, WaterBrook Press, 2005, 2007.
2. Eventually Mehta wrote a book about his project entitled I Sold My Soul on eBay, WaterBrook Press, 2007. The forward is by Rob Bell, a well-known evangelist. WaterBrook Press serves the Christian book market. Subsequently, Mehta published two books: Friendly Atheist, which is available from Amazon in a kindle edition, and The Young Atheist’s Survival Guide, Patheos Press, 2012. Also, see his website - FriendlyAtheist.com. Money was not the reason that Mehta opted for the eBay auction. In fact, he donated his proceeds to a secular organization, the Secular Student Alliance, “an umbrella organization for atheist and agnostic college groups.” I Sold My Soul on eBay, p. 49. His primary motivation was to learn more about Christianity. Although he grew up in Chicago, Mehta’s exposure to Christianity was minimal because his family was part of a “committed Jain community”; his secondary motivation was to promote dialogue between believers and non-believers.
3. At each site, Mehta looked and listened, used a tape recorder, took notes, and in many cases talked with pastors and church members.
4. Mehta submitted his reports online on off-the-map.org.
5. See p. 146. On scriptural relevance, Mehta writes: “One thing I always found effective in the churches I visited was that certain pastors followed their retelling of a Bible story with a variety of current applications: Here’s how we can be like Joseph at our workplace. Here’s how we can emulate Jesus in our relationships. Are you having trouble handling the amount of your school work? Let me point your to a relevant passage in the Bible.” (p. 147)
6. Mehta gives high marks in this regard to the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, an African American church, which has brought “social services, commercial enterprises, health services, educational opportunities, job skills assistance, and much more to an underserved area in Houston.” (p. 95) On the other hand, Mehta is critical of churches which establish explicitly “Christian” schools “in parts of town where students are struggling,” allegedly to improve education. He opines that the same goal can be accomplished simply by “pitching in to help improve the work being done at existing (public) schools in the neighborhood.” (p. 142) Overall, Mehta says that “the churches that made a big impact on me were the ones that knew their ‘church’ was not limited to a building. They made it a priority to spread the values of Christianity by serving the real needs of people around them. In this case, actions speak louder than preaching.” (p. 143)
7. Mehta has a fascinating suggestion for pastors to gauge their effectiveness as speakers. They should videotape their sermons with the camera directed not at them but at the audience. When they review the tape, they should ask “Are the people attentive? Are they taking notes? Are they smiling? Or are they staring at the same page in the day’s program for extended periods of time?” (pp. 140-141) This technique is likely to work, however, only if the audience does not know about it.
8. See pp. 143-144. On the need for speakers who differ with many Christians, Mehta writes: “If the church has the correct stance on, say, Intelligent Design, then there should be no problem with bringing in a credible evolutionary biologist who can explain the scientific view.” “Bring in someone from the gay community when gay marriage issues arise. Bring in a leader from the Muslim community when you’re discussing Islam. Bring in a pacifist when you’re considering issues of war, national defense, and militarism.” (p. 145)
9. Mehta submitted many other findings and recommendations beyond these eight. Among the others are these two: a) Some pastors urge congregants to seek forgiveness from God when they mistreat people. Pastors should also urge them to seek forgiveness from the people whom they mistreated; b) Some pastors condemn the distribution of condoms to young people despite the fact that they impede the spread of STDs and AIDS and that calls for abstinence don’t work. Pastors need to be more practical and realistic.
10. Henderson was so pleased with Mehta’s work that he hired another atheist, Matt Casper, and together they visited and evaluated twelve more churches. This later collaboration resulted in two books: Jim Henderson and Matt Casper, Jim and Casper Go to Church, Tyndale House Publishers, 2007, and Saving Casper, Tyndale House Publishers, 2013.

View Details

commentary20140101090550.mp3 The human brain, which weighs only three-pounds, is on duty round the clock whether we're awake or asleep, conscious or unconscious. Electrical and chemical messages fly around it constantly. It regulates all the other organs in our body and makes possible every action that we perform.

Fortunately, there are steps that we can take to make and keep our brain fit. In fact, as science writer Guy P. Harrison points out in his new book entitled Think, they are the same steps that benefit our overall health. (1) According to Harrison, here is what we should do for our brain:

ONE: Eat well. (2) Since the food that we consume is the brain's fuel, the performance of the brain can be helped or hindered by the quality and quantity of its fuel. So, we should eat the right foods in moderation. Specifically, he suggests...

• that we reduce red meat, alcohol, and candy;
• that we avoid hot dogs, sausage, fried potatoes, and sugary soft drinks; and
• that we increase wild salmon, baked chicken, green vegetables (especially spinach and broccoli), fruit (especially blueberries and blackberries), nuts, trail mix, and non-sugary soft drinks.

TWO: Exercise. (3) Harrison likens the brain to a "three-pound vampire" which craves blood. (4) Exercise stimulates blood flow and delivers nutrients to the brain. It causes the brain to grow new cells and, over the long haul, it helps us cope with "stress, anxiety, depression, and age-related problems such as dementia." (5) Harrison offers these recommendations on exercise:

• Exercise at least twenty minutes a day at least six days a week;
• Select the type of exercise which works for you, whether it is walking, running, swimming, cycling, sit-ups, push-ups, jumping jacks, or a combination;
• Lift weights twice a week to strengthen bones and muscles; and
• Avoid prolonged sitting at home or at work; stand up and move about regularly. (6)

THREE: Get plenty of sleep. (7) According to Harrison, science has shown that a rested brain functions well and a tired one doesn't. Too little sleep reduces alertness and concentration, and diminishes the ability to learn, to solve problems, and to remember. (8) When it comes to sleep, Harrison concedes, one size doesn't fit all. For some people, six or seven hours may suffice; for others, eight or more may be necessary. Harrison therefore recommends keeping a sleep diary in which you log how many hours you sleep on a given night and how you feel and function the next day. (9) He also recommends brief naps when circumstances permit; and (10)

FOUR: Use it or lose it. (11) Harrison cites studies which show that active brains prosper while inactive ones "wither and weaken." (12) So, it is essential that we keep thinking, learning, and solving problems. According to Harrison, if you want to be good at running, then you must run, and if you want to be good at thinking, then you must think. The secret to a healthy brain, he assures us, lies in reading and writing, learning new skills (especially a second language), exploring nature, studying the universe, travelling (preferably to distant places), and visiting museums. (13)

Harrison challenges us to accept responsibility for the well-being of the most important organ in our body. For those of us who are couch potatoes, the start of a new year gives us a perfect opportunity to take up his challenge.

1. Guy P. Harrison, Think: Why You Should Question Everything, Prometheus Books, 2013. Although Think is a primer on critical thinking that deals with the usual topics found in a book on critical thinking (see below), it could be subtitled The Care and Feeding of the Brain because of the attention which it devotes to the brain. See especially Chapter 2, "Pay a Visit to the Strange Thing That Lives Inside Your Head," pp. 55-85, and Chapter 4, "The Proper Care and Feeding of a Thinking Machine," pp. 167-183. Chapter 2 does a fine job of pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the brain. On the latter, he notes: "Unfortunately, most people know little or nothing about how the brain operates so they make incorrect assumptions about its reliability. The brutal truth is that human brains do a poor job of separating truth from fiction. This leads to many false beliefs." Think, p. 55. Harrison's four main recommendations to promote the efficiency of the brain are given in Chapter 4.

The topics covered in Think which are often found in books on critical thinking include the value of skepticism, the importance of science, the need for intellectual self-reliance, our susceptibility to common thinking errors, the gullibility that pervades all strata of society, examples of unproven or discredited beliefs that remain popular, and the rewards of effective thinking.

Harrison's previous books are 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (2008), Race and Reality: What Everyone Should Know about Our Biological Diversity (2010), 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True (2012), and 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian (2013). Think incorporates some material from his previous books. 2. On food, see pp. 170-173. 3. On exercise, see pp. 173-176. 4. Think, p. 173. Although the brain weighs only three pounds, it uses twenty percent of the body's blood. 5. Think, p. 173. 6. To those who protest that they don't have the time to exercise, Harrison observes that "the average American spends nearly forty hours per week watching television." (pp. 174-175) He adds: "If nothing else, do jumping jacks and push-ups in your living room during one thirty-minute episode of your favorite TV show every evening." (p. 175) 7. On sleep, see pp. 176-178. 8. Think, p. 177. Further, Harrison notes that sleep deprivation over extended periods has been linked to "significantly higher risk for heart attack, cancer, diabetes, stroke, and obesity." (p. 177) 9. Think, p. 177. 10. Think, p. 177. 11. On Use it or Lose it, see pp. 178-182. 12. Think, p. 179. 13. Think, pp. 178-182. Harrison recommends combining several of these experiences when possible. He writes: "One of the best things you can do for your brain on a regular basis is join exercise, thinking, and nature into one outing. The closest thing to a miracle tonic for the brain might be something like a vigorous walk/run on a previously unexplored mountain trail or along a new stretch of beach, during which one notices and photographs an unusual plant or insect to research after returning home. That would be a good day for any brain." (p. 181) In this same segment of his book, Harrison insists that those who believe that they can help their brain through products sold at a health food store or promoted on infomercials are wasting their time and money.

View Details

commentary20131220022553.mp3 For many thousands of years, human beings in this hemisphere have acknowledged, through prayer and ritual, the sacred power of this season—the power of the long dark and the first glimmer of light’s increase. There is something about this time of year. These are the halcyon days, around the time of the winter solstice, named after the great bird of folklore who built her nest on the surface of the ocean and was able to quiet the winds while her eggs were hatching.

All is calm. The nights stretch out in quiet and cold. Beneath the earth, seeds begin to stir, just as we are stirred by this seasonal pivot of the light. The year hinges on this. We feel the turning.

Much has been said about the over-commercialization of the holidays. We stress the malls (and ourselves) in the frenzied rush to be jolly right now, before it’s too late, before we miss it.

While some sing of comfort and joy, hospitals and psychiatric facilities fill with the broken and despairing. Perhaps we should take guidance from the season itself. This is a slow time. The creatures are sleeping. Growing goes on, but very gently, gradually, in time with the breathing of winter.

A few suggestions, then, for a safer and less stressful celebration, whatever your religion or ritual for honoring this time.

Spend time with evergreens. They have been keeping their promises for eons. Whether you bring them inside and fill them with glimmering or leave them outside to be decked with more fleeting decor, they can reassure you that life goes on and on.

Warm yourselves. Gather before the hearth or light candles or just spend ten minutes with both hands wrapped around a mug of cocoa.

And be still. Keep vigil. Although we celebrate new birth, new light, new life in the world, we also sit joined with one another through the long night’s anticipation. If we are to create peace on earth, it begins with waiting together again through the long dark.

View Details

commentary20131219094655.mp3 In popular culture there are two sharply contrasting views about religion and the founding fathers. One is that the founders were devout Christians who read the Bible and prayed daily. The other is that they were products of the Enlightenment who abandoned religion for reason and science. So, which view is accurate? Neither! If we could take a snapshot of religion in the colonies in 1770, here is what we would find:

1. The founders were born into a Christian culture. Nearly all of the 3,000,000 residents of the colonies were Christians, nine of the thirteen colonies had an official state church, and nine of the ten existing colleges were founded by religious groups to train their clergy and lay leaders;
2. Religious diversity was a fact of life. There were over twenty Christian sects in the colonies with strong differences on issues of faith; (2)
3. Religious toleration was more the exception than the rule. Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams, and Pennsylvania, founded by William Penn, were the only colonies that welcomed all stripes of Christians and non-Christians; (3)
4. Deism, which originated in Europe, had infiltrated colonial culture among the educated class and challenged traditional religion. According to Deists:Reason, not faith, is the path to knowledge;The universe was designed by God, a Grand Architect, a First Cause whoimbued it with natural laws and then retreated from it;If one wishes to know God, one must study God’s complex handiwork, theuniverse;The Bible is a collection of myths and fables triggered by superstition;Jesus was an inspiring moral teacher but neither a god nor a savior; andContrary to the teachings of Calvin, humans are neither depraved norpredestined;
5. Nearly all of the founders modified their Christian beliefs to a greater or lesser extent to accommodate Deism. As a result, the religious views of the founders were scattered across a spectrum with traditional Christianity on one end and Deism on the other. The founders fell into three groups – traditional Christians, Christian Deists, and Non-Christian Deists. The majority were Christian Deists; (4) and
6. Despite their absorption of Deism, all of the founders but Benjamin Franklin attended their ancestral church at least occasionally, most of them never abandoned their ancestral church, and the wives and daughters of most of them remained traditional Christians.Thus, the founders were religious hybrids and their religious views were complex and diverse. Commentators who paint a different picture, according to historian Robert Holmes, “revise history to align the founders’ beliefs with their own.” (5)

Given this broad range of religious views, it is all the more remarkable that the founders reached a consensus on key issues as the new nation emerged. They prized personal liberty; they opposed religious dogmatism, intolerance, and coercion; they valued civic virtue; they opposed compulsory support of churches; they sought to separate government from the churches; and they embraced the doctrines of natural rights, government by consent, limited government, the separation of powers, and majority rule.

1. I rely here mainly on David L. Holmes, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, Oxford University Press, 2006. Holmes is Walter G. Mason Professor of Religious Studies, Emeritus, at the College of William and Mary. Holmes spent 46 years at William and Mary. Among his other books are A Brief History of the Episcopal Church (1993) and The Faiths of the Postwar Presidents: From Truman to Obama (2012). The Faiths… has won praise among historians but has gotten little notice outside of academe.
2. Among the sects were Anglicans, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Baptists, Dutch Reformed, Quakers, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Mennonites, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, the Brethren, Sandemanians, Antinomians, Arminians, Shakers, Universalists, Antisabbatarians, Socinians, and Ranters.
3. For example, Maryland imposed severe penalties by law on anyone who denied the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, or the virgin birth.
4. Traditional Christians included Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot, and John Jay. Christian Deists included John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. Non-Christian Deists included Tom Paine and Ethan Allen.5. David L. Holmes, The Faiths…, p. 17)
5. The founders were all deeply influenced by the writings of John Locke (1632-1704), including his Letter Concerning Toleration, First Treatise of Government, and Second Treatise of Government.

View Details

commentary20131205024143.mp3 In the United States over the past decade, the rate of suicide has risen sharply. Although it rose among all age groups during this period, it shot up dramatically in two groups:

• in the 35-64 age group, suicide increased 30 percent, and
• among men in their fifties, it increased 50 percent.

Today, suicide deaths per year (38,364) exceed deaths per year due to auto accidents (33,687). (1)

These sobering facts have prompted poet, historian, and philosopher, Jennifer Hecht, to call for a national conversation on suicide in a recent book entitled Stay.(2) She also proposes that the conversation focus on two key arguments against suicide, one based on hope, the other on community. Let’s consider each. (3)

On hope, Hecht cites studies of near-suicide cases which show a clear pattern. Most of those who nearly took their own lives find that their later lives are "full and rich beyond expectation." (4) She sees three lessons in this:

• a suicidal mood is often temporary,
• one’s situation is likely to improve as time passes, and
• suicide is a mistake because it closes off the possibility of improvement.

We must learn, Hecht argues, that moments of happiness in our past are likely to return if we show the patience and courage to endure the sorrow-filled moments of the present. (5) Once we grasp this, she reasons, we will not allow ourselves to be victims of the mood of the moment. (6)

On community, Hecht argues that we have a duty to others, near and far, to stay alive. This is because humanity is "profoundly interconnected." (7) Each of us matters. Each of us contributes in some way to helping others, and when we help others, we promote their happiness and our own.

For Hecht, the choice to live says that you care about yourself, your family and friends, and others while the choice to die says that you don’t. For Hecht, the choice to live is an acceptance of responsibility and a commitment to help others while the choice to die is a rejection of responsibility and a commitment to harm them.

The harm which suicide causes has been the subject of scientific studies for decades. Hecht addresses two types of harm.

• The first is the sense of loss among those who value or depend on the deceased. A sudden and unexpected death results in sorrow for the survivors in virtually all cases. When the death is self-inflicted, though, the sorrow is much deeper. In most suicides the one who takes his or her life is not the only victim. (8)
• The second is the ripple effect. The evidence is strong that one suicide invites others. The reason is that it legitimates suicide as a response to the shocks, troubles, disappointments, and setbacks that are part of the human condition. It serves as a disincentive to endure a storm. (9)

I applaud Hecht for her attempt to bring suicide out of the shadows. Since anti-suicide programs currently offered by government are not well known and haven’t had much impact, I hope that Stay will be a catalyst for a fuller understanding of suicide among all age groups and for initiatives to reduce suicide across our culture by schools and colleges, religious groups, the private sector, the media, entertainment, sports, and others.

1. New York Times, May 2, 2013. Also, many sources report that suicides in the military now exceed combat deaths.
2. Yale University Press, 2013. Hecht is prudent in calling for nation-wide attention to suicide. Here’s why:
   1. The U.S. Government already has a multi-agency program aimed at stemming the trend toward more suicides and that doesn’t seem to be working;
   2. Most other nations with much higher suicide rates than the U.S. also have anti-suicide government programs which don’t seem to be working. Examples are Greenland, which leads the world with 108.1 suicides per 100,000 population, and South Korea, which is second in the world with 31.7 suicides per 100,000 population. In Greenland, estimates are that one out of four or one out of five people attempts suicide. In South Korea, suicide is the most common form of death for those under 40. The suicide rate in the U.S., which ranks 33rd among the 107 nations for which data are available, is 12.0 per 100,000 population.
3. While Hecht aims to reduce the suicide rate among the general population, she seems to approve of suicide in most cases of dying people who wish to hasten death.
4. Stay, p. 175.
5. Hecht quotes talk-show host Phil Donahue as follows: "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem." See Stay, p. 192.
6. On this point, Hecht quotes Voltaire: "The man who in a fit of melancholy, kills himself to-day, would have wished to live had he waited a week." Stay, p. 176. Here, Voltaire is overly optimistic. While many suicidal moods may pass in a week, many don’t. On extricating oneself from a suicidal mood, Hecht opines that most of us can do this on our own or by talking with a close friend; she concedes, however, that some of us may require professional help. See Stay, p. 213.
7. Here Hecht quotes the poet John Donne: "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main...(A)ny man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- Meditation XVII, 1623, quoted in Stay, p. 121.
8. On the harm caused by suicide, Hecht quotes the 17th Century French Enlightenment philosopher Julien Offray de La Mettrie: "What sort of monster is someone who, afflicted with a momentary pain, tears himself away from his family, his friends, and his homeland, and has no other aim but to deliver himself from his most sacred duties." The quote is from de La Mettrie’s "Epicurean System," and it appears in Stay, p. 132. The realization that one’s voluntary, premature death can cause significant harm to others can dissuade a person from suicide. For instance, one man whom I know was deterred from an imminent suicide by a friend who convinced him that his death would be a cruel and hateful legacy to his young daughter who loved him dearly. Incidentally, as time passed, the man’s situation improved markedly so that today he is a different person from the one on the verge of suicide. This anecdote illustrates the wisdom of both of Hecht’s arguments against suicide.
9. Hecht uses this reasoning to argue that suicide is immoral: as a social being, you may perform an act provided that it is covered by a maxim (rule) that you can wish to universalize (endorse for everyone to follow). The maxim covering suicide is "I may take my life when it becomes too heavy a burden." According to Hecht, you cannot universalize this maxim. Since all humans sooner or later confront heavy burdens in life, doing so would result in the extinction of the human race, an outcome that no rational person could support. This, of course, originated with Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century. See Stay, p. 138.

View Details

commentary20131122031414.mp3 Today marks the 50th anniversary of the most infamous crime of the 20th century.

The murder of President Kennedy continues to fascinate and disturb people around the globe. The killing has been investigated and analyzed; reviewed and written about; video-taped and dramatized; unequivocally the most talked about criminal event in the last 100 years.

Although Kennedy’s death is seared into the American psyche, there is so much more to the man than his demise. The image of Jaqueline Kennedy crawling across the trunk of the presidential limousine as a secret service agent jumped on board remains as vivid today as it was 50 years ago.

Yet Kennedy’s manner, his swagger his confidence in himself and his country should not be forgotten, it should be celebrated and revered.

Kennedy’s murder remains unsolved. The Warren Commission concluded a lone assassin was responsible, the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassination concluded it was “probably” a conspiracy.

All we know for sure about November 22, 1963 is that JFK was fatally wounded while sitting in an open car traveling slowly on through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. John Connelly, the governor of Texas was wounded as well. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested that day and charged with Kennedy’s murder and the murder of a Dallas Police Officer.

Today is the somber anniversary of JFK’s death—but it can be more, a celebration of an extraordinary life.

For Americans, and admirers around the world, JFK is forever young and vibrant. His charisma was second only to his intellect. He was a leader who inspired a generation and continues to inspire today.

His heroism in war; his audacity to challenge Americans to do for their country; his tenacity to stand up to the Soviet’s during the successful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis; and his vision to launch us on a successful race to the moon—are all testaments to his leadership.

Today, and the days leading up to today have been filled with theories of conspiracy and treachery. The news has been filled with stories of investigations gone awry and a government too inept to solve the murder of its very leader.

Today is also about what could have been. Had Kennedy survived the remainder of his term and maybe won a second term what would America be like today?

We can only imagine an America in the 1960’s without Vietnam. Where would we be today if a young and vibrant president could have fully embraced the civil rights movement? How about a visionary peace movement in place of raucous anti-war protests? What if Watergate was just the name of another Washington, DC office building?

Kennedy modeled a pragmatic approach to problem solving instead of partisan back-biting that we’ve come to know as leadership. JFK once said, “A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.”

Today, our nation can reveal a lot about itself. If, instead of wallowing in the unresolved murder of a president, it celebrated a life well lived and country that glowed in the light of that well lived life.

(Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. He is the former district attorney for Lawrence County and former member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino).

View Details

herbal supplements.mp3 In a recent commentary I argued that we should be skeptical about alternative medicine because, contrary to conventional medicine, its claims are not confirmed by science and it is unregulated by the FDA (Food and Drug Admistration). New evidence has now surfaced about herbal supplements, a staple in alternative medicine, which underscores the need for such skepticism. The evidence appears in an important research study in Canada which was published last month in the journal BMC Medicine (1) and reported this month in The New York Times (2).

The study was led by Steven G. Newmaster of the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario at the University of Guelph. He and his colleagues genetically tested forty-four bottles of popular herbal supplements sold by twelve companies in Canada and the United States. Here is what they found:

• The products of only two of the twelve companies contained the ingredients listed on the label while the products of the other ten companies contained substitutions or adulteration with fillers, such as rice, soybean, or wheat, which were not listed on the label. In fact, the products of two of these ten companies contained none of the ingredients listed on the label. (3)
• Bottles of Echinacea, a supplement used by millions to prevent or treat colds, were found to include a bitter weed and a plant which has been linked to rashes, nausea, and flatulence. (4)
• Two bottles sold as St. John’s wort, a supplement widely used to treat depression, were found to include none of this herb. One bottle contained rice and the other an Egyptian shrub called Alexandrian senna which is a powerful laxative. (5)
• Bottles of gingko biloba, a supplement marketed as a memory enhancer, were found to include fillers and black walnut, a hazard to people who are allergic to nuts. (6)
• A bottle sold as black cohosh, a supplement used to treat hot flashes and other problems associated with menopause, turned out to be a bottle of a plant – Actaea asiatica - that can be toxic to humans; and (7)
• One-third of the supplements tested showed "outright substitution," that is, there was "no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle." (8)

And what was the reaction to the study? On the one hand, a senior nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest - David Schardt - concluded that the study shows such a serious lack of quality control that people who recommend herbal supplements should stop doing so. On the other hand, spokespersons for the supplement industry - Stefan Gafner of the American Botanical Council and Duffy McKay of the Council for Responsible Nutrition - insisted that the study exaggerated the problem and that the herbal supplement industry can improve quality control without government interference. (9)

Meanwhile, in the wake of the study, three things seem clear:

• Firstly, herbal supplements may be both ineffective and dangerous,
• Secondly, there are very few safeguards in place to protect supplement users, and
• Thirdly, given the political clout of the National Health Federation and other organizations which promote the interests of alternative medicine, change is unlikely.

So, to buyers of herbal supplements, I invoke a Latin warning from the 1500s: Caveat emptor! - "Let the buyer beware!"

1. Steven G. Newmaster et al., "DNA Barcoding Detects Contamination and Substitution in North American Herbal Supplements," BMC Medicine, October 2013, 11:22.
2. Anahad O’Connor, "Pills That Aren’t What They Seem," The New York Times, November 5, 2013, p. D1, p. D5.
3. Ibid., p. D5.
4. Ibid., p. D1.
5. Ibid., p. D1.
6. Ibid., p. D1, p. D5.
7. Ibid., p. D5.
8. Ibid., p. D5.
9. Ibid., p. D5.

View Details

the fiscal cliff.mp3 Dr. Keith Lepak is an Associate Professor teaching Politics and International Relations in the Political Science Department at Youngstown State University.  In this commentary, he provides his insights on the looming Fiscal Cliff.

View Details

We begin with a question. Who is the TV investigative reporter whose career spans forty-three years, who has won no fewer than nineteen Emmys and five National Press Club awards, and who is a libertarian who celebrates free markets and denigrates government? If you answered "John Stossel," you're right on the money. (1) Although it is now six years old, Stossel's book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, (2) remains the best distillation of his body of work over the years. Let's focus on parts of his discussion of two topics in this book - the media and public schools. (3)Stossel pulls no punches with his journalistic peers. Many, he says, are scaremongers. They file stories that instill fear because "fear sells." What's more, he insists, when it comes to science and economics, reporters are "clueless." Of the many examples that he cites, here are two.

We often get news stories about potentially fatal carcinogens in thousands of food products due to pesticides. To evaluate these stories, Stossel interviewed the scientist who invented the tests to screen for carcinogens in food and other products. He is Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of California at Berkeley. In the interview, Dr. Ames assured Stossel and the TV audience that worries about foods causing cancer are silly because the level of pesticides in them is so low.

Next, virtually every time that gas prices go up, reporters sound the alarm that they are "going through the roof." "Hold on," Stossel objects. If reporters took the time to figure out how to adjust gas prices for inflation, they would discover that the cost of gas in recent years is actually cheaper that it was eighty years ago!

As for America's public schools, Stossel charges that they are failing by any reasonable standard. The reason? They are government-run monopolies which perform like any other monopoly – poorly. To make his case, he cites data from international tests which show two things: U.S. students of all age groups place far down the list from their peers in many other nations, including those which spend much less per-pupil than we do, and the longer students spend in our public schools, the worse they perform in such tests. (4) There is only one way to salvage education in America, according to Stossel - competition. To achieve this, he says, Government should give all parents vouchers so that they can select their child's school, secular or religious, or opt for home schooling. "Vouchers," he is confident, "will make all schools better." (5) Thus, for Stossel, we need government-funded but not government-run schools.

Are Stossel's attacks on reporters justified and are vouchers the key to progress? Certainly accuracy takes a back seat to speed and audience impact in many cases, (6) and some reporters lack the knowledge to tackle some assignments competently. But, should we blame only reporters for these problems? How about management? As for vouchers, we've had over two decades of experience with voucher-driven competition and there is little evidence that they have triggered significant overall improvement in education across the nation.

A few years ago John Stossel moved from ABC, where he worked for twenty-eight years, to Fox News. (7) Despite the move, he remains an irreverent and often infuriating gadfly who finds a way to offend virtually everyone sooner or later.

1. When Stossel graduated from Princeton in 1969 with a degree in political science, he had a stutter which he overcame with the help of a clinic in Roanoke,Virginia. After stints as a TV news reporter in Portland, Oregon, and New York City, Roone Arledge hired him at ABC in 1981 where he won national acclaim.
2. Hyperion, 2006. The subtitle is Get Out the Shovel – Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
3. Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity has twelve chapters in which Stossel defends or disputes no fewer than 228 claims.
4. Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, pp. 108-109.
5. Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity..., p. 135. As long as parents receive the vouchers and choose their child's school, even if religious, vouchers do not violate the separation of church and state, according to Stossel.
6. The saying in the news industry is "If it bleeds, it leads.
7. "Stossel joined Fox News in 2009. At Fox News, he writes a blog called "John Stossel's Take," hosts his own prime time news show on Thursdays, and appears as a weekly guest on The O'Reilly Factor. He also writes a syndicated newspaper column.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20121129093823.mp3 There are two basic and opposed interpretations of the term "race" which I will label Race One and Race Two. Let's clarify each.

According to Race One, race is biological. Nature divides the human species into a variety of distinct biological groups which we can identify by their physical features. (1) Race One tells us that all of humanity fits into one of several "gigantic boxes." (2) Although the exact number of these boxes has fluctuated over the years, a popular recurring number is six – Asians, blacks, whites, Latinos, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. (3) Further, Race One tells us that "each race is loaded with unique abilities and limitations, as well as personality and moral tendencies." (4) This is because each race has "genetic determiners" (5) which set the potential for its members in all areas of human endeavor.

Next, Race Two. According to Race Two, race is cultural, not biological. It is a "social construct," not a product of nature. According to science writer Guy P. Harrison, in his book, Race and Reality, the claim of Race One that nature produces distinct biological groups is a myth which has no scientific credibility. (6) He cites a 1998 statement on race by the American Anthropological Association which makes these points, among others:

1. In the United States people have been "conditioned" to perceive races as "natural and separate divisions within the human species" based on physical features;
2. "(T)he vast expansion of scientific knowledge" in the twentieth century has shown, however, that humans are not divided into biologically distinct groups and that the "folk" view of races is a "myth";
3. Evidence from genetics, especially DNA, shows that there is significant variation within so-called racial groups, about 94%, but very, very little between them, about 6%; in other words, people of the same race differ from one another more than they differ from people of another race;
4. "(P)hysical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them"; and
5. To understand the behavior of any group of humans, we must look primarily to their culture. (7)

Thus, for Race Two, "All human beings living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent... There is great genetic diversity within all human populations" and races as "genetically homogeneous populations" simply do not exist. (8)

If biological race has no merit, why, one wonders, does the notion of race persist? It persists, according to Harrison, because race feeds the human proclivity to build psychological fences between in-groups and out-groups, between those who are similar to us in some way and those who are not, whether it be physical features, language, religion, geography, gender, sexual preference, standard of living, beliefs, practices, or something else. (9) Some of these fences are relatively innocent; they pose no danger to peace, tolerance, and co-existence, but many others are not so innocent, as events past and present demonstrate so clearly. (10) Thus, we all have a stake in whether Race One, the voice of tradition, or Race Two, the voice of science, prevails.

1. Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves, Jr., who rejects what I have labeled Race One, cites these as the key factors for those who believe in biologically determined, static races, in Guy P. Harrison, Race and Reality, Prometheus Books, 2010, p. 45. Subsequent references to this book are by page number. (Harrison opposes what I have called Race One and supports what I have called Race Two.)
2. Race and Reality, p. 33.
3. Race and Reality, p. 36
4. Race and Reality, p. 33.
5. Race and Reality, p. 44.
6. Race One, Harrison writes, "rests on a foundation of mistakes, lies, ignorance, pseudoscience, and delusion." See Race and Reality, p. 15.
7. Quoted in Race and Reality, p. 23.
8. The quotation is from a statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropology, quoted by Harrison on p. 25.
9. This is one of the main themes that runs through Race and Reality.
10. In the United States, for instance, Race One first produced slavery, then segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, parks, restaurants, lodging, and clubs, and a legal system with a double standard – one for whites and one for blacks.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20121115034047.mp3 There is a new convert to the belief that consciousness is not produced by or dependent on the brain. He is Eben Alexander, M.D., a distinguished neurosurgeon who spent much of his career on the Harvard medical faculty and who has authored 150 publications and delivered over 200 papers. (1) And what prompted this conversion? It was Dr. Alexander's near-death-experience in 2008 at age 54 while in a seven-day coma when he battled the rarest of illnesses – bacterial meningitis caused by E. coli. (2)

During his coma, the neo-cortex of Dr. Alexander's brain, which "is responsible for memory, language, emotion, visual and auditory awareness, and logic," shut down completely, making conscious experience, he says, impossible. Nevertheless, inexplicably, he began a spiritual journey that took him to three destinations. The first was a dark, Jello-O like, red-brown "muck," a mud pool with a rhythmic, pounding sound, that he calls "the Realm of the Earthworm's Eye." The second, which he calls the "Gateway," featured a bright light, captivating music and song, and an angel guide, a beautiful woman with high cheekbones, blue eyes, and golden-brown hair. Here, with his companion, he found himself in clouds flying over trees, fields, streams, waterfalls, and people. (3) The third, which he calls the "Core," was the culmination of his journey. In the Core, which he describes as "an orb-like ball of light," he encountered God, the all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing Creator, who gave him this message:

• God loves him and all others unconditionally;
• Evil is necessary on earth because without it human free will and human growth are impossible; (4) and
• Love will triumph over evil.

Remarkably, after his visit to the spiritual world, Dr. Alexander's "triple intravenous antibiotics" defeated the E. coli and, slowly but surely, he awoke from the coma, rediscovered his earthly self, which had been absent during his journey, and eventually resumed his professional practice. But he was now a changed person with an urgent mission: to share his journey with others - lay people, medical professionals, and scientists - to teach four lessons. They are that God loves all of us unconditionally, we are "spiritual beings currently inhabiting our evolutionarily developed mortal brains and bodies," we "get closer" to our genuine spiritual selves "by manifesting love and compassion" on earth, and the materialistic worldview embraced by many scientists is "mistaken." Scientists, he hoped, would learn, as he did on his journey, that: "The physical side of the universe is as a speck of dust compared to the invisible and spiritual part." (p. 82)

Although Dr. Alexander is convinced that his spiritual journey could not have been a hallucination (5), there are, as you would expect, plenty of skeptics, neurosurgeons among them. He invites skeptics near and far to do what he failed to do before his transformative journey, that is, to keep an open mind and to investigate the voluminous and ever-growing body of research on near-death and out-of-body experience. Only time will tell if skeptics will accept his invitation and, if they do, whether their doubts will fade. (6)

1. Eben Alexander, M.D., Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2012, p. 20. Future references to this book are by page number.
2. When the antibiotics which Dr. Alexander received didn't seem to have an impact, his condition deteriorated to a point that his doctors saw only two possible outcomes – death or survival in a persistent vegetative state.
3. Along the way, the angel guide, whom he calls "the Girl on the Butterfly Wing," revealed to him that he is loved unconditionally and that after his visit to the spiritual world, he would return to the earthly one.
4. Philosophers will point out that there are at least two fundamental problems with this claim. The first is that it is not clear how an all-powerful God can bestow power on humans via free will and still remain all-powerful. The second is that, assuming free will exists, it helps to explain moral evil, that is, suffering caused by humans (e.g., murder, rape, burglary, identity theft, etc.) but not natural evil, that is, suffering caused by nature (e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc.). The latter suffering remains God's doing and seems incompatible with the unconditional love which Alexander attributes to God.
5. Alexander examines and dismisses a series of traditional neurological hypotheses to explain his experience while in a coma. See pp. 140-146 and Appendix B, pp. 185-188.
6. A testimony to the importance of Alexander's case comes from Raymond A. Moody, Jr.,

M.D., Ph.D., whose Life After Life in 1975 brought NDEs to public attention. Moody writes: "Dr. Eben Alexander's near-death experience is the most astounding I have heard in more than four decades of studying this phenomenon. (He) is living proof of an afterlife."

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20121108032320.mp3 After years of interviewing hundreds of believers of more than a dozen religions around the world, Guy P. Harrison has written a book entitled 50 reasons people give for believing in a god (1) in which he strives to be a kinder and gentler religious skeptic than the so-called "new atheists." (2) Harrison writes:

This (book) is a respectful reply to the friendly people around the world who shared with me their reasons for believing... My fifty replies to common justifications for belief can be read as friendly chats designed to do nothing more than stimulate critical thinking. (p. 14)

Let's take a look at three of the reasons which believers gave Harrison and his replies.

Firstly, believers say, it is obvious that god exists. After all, god is everywhere, god made everything, god answers prayers, and god runs the universe. But how can god's existence be so obvious, Harrison asks, when you consider that between 500 million and 750 million people on our planet are non-believers and that 93% of the elite scientists in the United States are non-believers? And how do you explain that beliefs about god in the two largest religions – Christianity and Islam – contradict one another? Christians insist that Jesus is god and the Bible is god's revelation while Muslims insist that Allah is god and the Koran is god's revelation. (3) (pp. 17-22)

Secondly, believers claim that "Society would fall apart without religion." (p. 295) If this is true, Harrison replies, then we would expect to find the least religious nations to be "bastions of crime, poverty and disease" and the most religious ones to be "models of societal health" but this isn't the case. He cites reports by the United Nations and research by social scientists which show that indicators of societal health are highest in the least religious nations and lowest in the most religious ones. The most secular nations – Sweden, Norway, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada – lead the world in life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and the status of women, and have the lowest rates of homicides, AIDS, and HIV. By contrast, the worst performing nations on these same indicators are among the most religious ones. (pp. 295-301)

Thirdly, believers say that the age of their religion is evidence of its merit. "A lie or a mistake," they declare, "could not have endured for so long." (p. 303) The problem with this justification, Harrison argues, is that many religions are old and many are not. If age is pivotal, he notes, we should all be Hindus because Hinduism is at least 6,000 years old and has roots in prehistory, and we should abandon "relatively young religions" such as Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology. (pp. 303-307)

During his travels and interviews, Harrison made important discoveries. One is that, when it comes to religion, comparison shopping is non-existent. Nearly all believers follow the religion of their parents and their geographical region. Another is that most followers of a given religion have little or no knowledge of other religions. (4)

It remains to be seen whether Harrison's 50 reasons will spur the self-assessment and critical thinking that he hopes for in religious circles. That aside, the book is a helpful and informative guide to the deeply felt convictions of believers around the world and one observer's measured response to them.

1. Prometheus Books, 2008, p. 14. Future references to this book are by page number.
2. The "new atheists" include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Many readers, both religious and non-religious, have judged their work to be arrogant, dismissive, and insulting. For instance, see John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism, Westminister John Knox Press, 2008, and Chris Hedges, I Don't Believe in Atheists, Free Press, 2008.
3. Harrison also notes that half the world's population rejects both Jesus and Allah.
4. Harrison also mentions a third, namely, most believers rely on faith and have little interest in formulating or evaluating arguments. (p. 13)

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20121026032413.mp3 For the first time in nearly 40 years, the number of state prisoners in the United States has declined, according to the Department of Justice. While local jails have also experienced a modest decrease, those numbers may change with the diversion of state prisoners from state correctional facilities to local jails.

Why the diversion? State budget woes. However, local governments have not fared better. State aid and property taxes, which together account for more than half of local revenues, are dropping simultaneously for the first time since 1980.

A significant amount of local revenue goes toward corrections— the local county jail—and half of those costs can be attributed to inmates in pretrial detention. Those are individuals who have been arrested, accused of a crime—not convicted—who remain in jail awaiting trial.

Pretrial detention increased at the same time "get tough" policies drove prison populations through the roof. In the ten years between 1996 and 2006, the number of people held in pretrial detention in local jails increased by more than 20 percent.

Failure to grant pretrial release comes in the form of setting a bond beyond the defendant's ability to post. Bond need not be a million dollars to be excessive. For some defendants posting a couple hundred dollars is beyond reach.

What does that mean for taxpayers? A defendant unable to post bond leaves the public on the hook.

In the five counties surrounding Youngstown it costs between $65 and $80 a day to house an inmate.

An inmate unable to post bond who sits in jail for six months awaiting trial costs the taxpayers—about $12,000. As of October 1, Lawrence County had 239 inmates; Trumbull County had 292 and Mahoning County had 520. All three institutions estimate that more than half of those inmates are in pretrial detention.

That is not just a local trend. In 2011 about 61 percent of inmates in local jails nationwide were awaiting trial.

Some defendants being held pretrial belong in jail. Some are a legitimate flight risk while others are a danger to society. However, as many as 65 percent of those detained pretrial simply can't afford the bond.

We need to figure out who needs to be detained so we can explore detention diversions for those who shouldn't be. House arrest, electronic monitoring and day reporting are all much more cost effective than being locked away awaiting trial.

(Matthew T. Mangino is the former district attorney for Lawrence County and just completed a six year term on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. You can read his column every month in the Youngstown Vindicator. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on twitter @MatthewTMangino)

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20121025013716.mp3 In 1997 two psychologists designed an experiment in which they directed a group of volunteers to view a film that lasted less than a minute in which people assembled in a circle pass a basketball to one another. The viewers were asked to count the exact number of passes. Because they focused their attention on the movement of the ball, over half of them failed to notice something that they didn't expect. Midway through the film, a person dressed in a gorilla suit walked through the circle, stopped, faced the camera, beat its chest, and walked off, spending a full nine seconds in the film. The experiment has been repeated hundreds of times with the same results. (1) Recently, the two psychologists, Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons, published a book which expands on the gorilla experiment. Entitled The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us, (2) it demonstrates that all of us are victims of six illusions – attention, memory, confidence, knowledge, cause, and potential.

In the illusion of attention, highlighted in the gorilla experiment, we assume that we see far more of our visual field than we actually do. (3) In this connection, the authors urge people to discontinue the use of both hand-held and hands-free cell phones while driving because studies show that using a cell phone dramatically impairs our ability to perceive unexpected events. (4)

In the illusion of memory, we assume that we remember the past far more accurately than we actually do. (5) For instance, a former basketball player at Indiana University vividly remembered that Coach Bobby Knight had choked him in a rage of anger at a practice but a videotape of the event which surfaced later contradicted the player's story. (6)

In the illusion of confidence, we assume that self-assured people are competent people. (7) Studies show, however, that "the confidence that people project, whether they are diagnosing a patient, making decisions about foreign policy, or testifying in court" is no guarantee that they are as well-informed as they believe. (8)

In the illusion of knowledge, we assume that we know more about a topic than we usually do, whether we're talking about a bicycle, a toilet, a car, or a computer. If we're pressed for explanations, we usually come up short. (9)

In the illusion of cause, we mistake correlation with causality. (10) For instance, because many autistic children are first diagnosed soon after their vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella, many parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, despite the fact that dozens of studies with hundreds of thousands of children show that there is no causal link between autism and vaccinations. (11)

Finally, in the illusion of potential, we assume that "simple tricks can unleash the untapped potential" in our minds. (12) For instance, many parents play classical music to their babies to enhance their IQ, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support such a belief. (13)

In a nutshell, then, Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons challenge all of us to be on the lookout for the invisible gorillas, the everyday illusions that haunt us. To succeed, of course, we must first acknowledge that they exist.

1. This experiment demonstrates "Inattention blindness," our tendency to miss unexpected objects in our surroundings because our attention is directed elsewhere. When this film was shown at a conference that I attended in Las Vegas in January 2005, most of the audience, myself included, missed the gorilla.
2. Broadway Paperbacks, 2009.
3. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 7.
4. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 25.
5. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 241.
6. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 73.
7. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 231.
8. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 82. In fact, the authors contend that "the most incompetent among us tend to be the most overconfident." (p. 95) An example of unjustified confidence that the authors use is George Tenet's answer to President George W. Bush's question as to whether Saddam Hussein really had weapons of mass destruction. Tenet replied: "It's a slam dunk." As it turned out, Tenet was wrong. (p. 95)
9. The Invisible Gorilla, pp. 121-123.
10. The Invisible Gorilla, pp. 231.
11. The Invisible Gorilla, pp. 174-176, p. 179. The authors note that "Despite the now-overwhelming evidence that vaccinations are not at all associated with autism, 29 percent of people in our national survey agreed with the statement 'vaccines given to children are partly responsible for causing autism.'" (p. 183)
12. The Invisible Gorilla, p. 242.
13. The Invisible Gorilla, pp. 185-197.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20121016041254.mp3 Did you know that 27% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 have doubts that NASA astronauts really landed on the Moon? (1) And that 4 of 10 parents in the United States refuse to give their children one or more traditional vaccinations for fear of autism? (2) These are two of the surprising revelations in a new book by science writer, Guy P. Harrison, entitled 50 popular beliefs that people think are true. In this book Harrison examines dozens of beliefs which, despite their hold on millions, lack one important ingredient – evidence. (3)Let's focus here on beliefs about the Moon landings and vaccinations.

According to many NASA doubters, the Moon landings were a NASA hoax to embarrass the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Their case consists of three points: one - photographs of the astronauts on the Moon show no stars in the background as they should; two - there should be a crater under the lunar landing module caused by its descent but photos show none; and three - the flag placed on the Moon by the astronauts should not have been waving, as it did for a time, because there is no wind on the Moon. Harrison rebuts each:

• The stars in the sky behind the astronauts were absent for a reason that any experienced photographer understands, he says. When the camera's exposure was set to highlight the astronauts, it lost the faint light of stars in the sky behind them. (4)
• The reason that there was no crater under the lunar landing module, he explains, is that the module's powerful engine was "throttled back, way back, on descent..." to ensure a safe landing. (5)
• Next, the reason that the flag waved, he points out, is due to "vibrations and twisting" caused when the astronauts drove the flag pole into the Moon surface. (6)

Beyond this, Harrison makes two further points: if the Apollo program were a hoax to embarrass the Soviets, their extensive intelligence apparatus surely would have discovered and publicized it, and given the fact that thousands of people were involved in the Apollo program, at least one participant would have confessed by now but none has. (7)

Next, do vaccinations for measles, whooping cough, and other health threats pose a risk of autism for children, as many believe? Harrison's answer is a decisive "No!" He points out that extensive, continuing research shows no link between vaccinations and autism (8) and he complains that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children put them and others at needless risk because "vaccinations have probably saved more lives than any other form of medicine in history." (9)

Fear of vaccinations began, Harrison explains, with publication of an article in 1998 in the Lancet, a British medical journal,by Andrew Wakefield, a doctor, which claimed that the measles vaccination causes autism. Despite the fact that:

• Wakefield's research was subsequently discredited by research teams around the world,
• the Lancet later retracted his article, and
• Wakefield lost his medical license,

the fear that his article triggered remains. (10)

Harrison's 50 popular beliefs that people think are true reminds all of us that we are susceptible to speculation and myth, (11) and that the only responsible basis of our beliefs is evidence. I hope that it gets the huge, multi-national audience that it deserves.

1. See Guy P. Harrison, 50 popular beliefs that people think are true, Prometheus Books, 2012, pp. 97-98. Future references to this book are by page number. Harrison points out that many doubters have been influenced by a "pseudo-documentary" entitled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? which first aired on the Fox network in 2001.
2. P. 235.
3. Among the beliefs that Harrison evaluates in his book are: there is an afterlife; psychics can read our minds; intelligence is innate and fixed; a Bible code reveals the future; all humans live many times (reincarnation); some people have extrasensory perception; psychic detectives solve crimes; Nostradamus predicted many current events centuries ago; there are miracles; space travelers visited Earth thousands of years ago; UFOs are visitors from other worlds; a flying saucer crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947; aliens have abducted humans; the position of the planets at the time of one's birth determines one's personality (astrology); the Holocaust never happened; global warming is a myth; TV news gives us an accurate picture of the world; biological races are real; alternative medicine works; faith healers cure the sick; my religion is the only true one; the Biblical account of creation is true; Biblical prophecies have come to pass; prayer works; archaeologists have discovered Noah's Ark; holy relics possess supernatural powers; there are ghosts; bigfoot lives; there are angels; there are witches who can harm us; a lost city of Atlantis is buried in an ocean; there is a heaven and a hell; the Bermuda Triangle is an especially dangerous area for planes, ships, and boats; the U.S. Government keeps aliens in Area 51 in Nevada; the end of the world will occur on December 21, 2012; and the Rapture will occur soon.
4. Pp. 85-86. Harrison, by the way, is an award-winning photographer.
5. P. 96.
6. P. 97.
7. Pp. 92-93.
8. P. 237, p. 240.
9. P. 235.
10. Harrison also explains that many governments have taken steps to placate fearful parents. For instance, some have removed or reduced to trace amounts in vaccines a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal and some have replaced the so-called "vaccine cocktail" with single vaccines. Despite this, the incidence of autism continues to climb, as does that of measles and other diseases, especially among the unvaccinated. (pp. 236-237, p. 240)
11. Harrison points out that all of us, including "intelligent and educated people," are tempted to believe without proof. For instance, renowned scientist, Jane Goodall, is a Bigfoot believer. (p. 24)

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20120913022324.mp3 In September 1967 in Detroit, Mike Abbott and Kathy Adams, recent high school graduates, welcomed Jim, their first child, into the world. Their marriage, fifteen days later, was subdued because Jim was born without a right hand. (1) With the help of their parents, Mike and Kathy overcame their doubts about their ability to raise a child with a handicap and helped Jim cope with challenges galore – putting on his clothes, tying his shoes, (2) blending in with peers, coping with jokes and insults, and opting for perseverance over self-pity. (3)

Early on it became clear that baseball was Jim's best sport. He excelled as a pitcher. He had a fast ball called a "cutter." As it approached the plate, it dropped sharply toward right hand batters. But he had to overcome a major hurdle. A pitcher is also a fielder. If he was to succeed, he had to learn to switch his glove quickly after a pitch from his right side, where he pinned the glove against his chest with his right arm, to his left hand, so that he could catch grounders, especially bunts, and throw out the runner. Virtually every team he pitched against early in his career tried to bunt early in the game to test his fielding skills. With the help of coaches, however, Jim mastered the glove transfer technique and opponents eventually abandoned the bunt strategy.

As the years passed, Jim had remarkable success:

• In three years at the University of Michigan, Jim won 26 games and lost 8, with an ERA of 3.03;
• In 1987 he won the Sullivan Award as the top amateur athlete in the nation and in the same year, as a member of the U.S.A. national team, he became the first U.S. pitcher to defeat Cuba in Cuba in twenty-five years; (4)
• In the next year -1988 - Jim was named the Big Ten Conference Male Athlete of the Year, he pitched the entire game in the U.S. victory over South Korea in the gold medal game at the Olympics, (5) and the California Angels, the first of five teams for which he would pitch, drafted him in the first round as the eighth player selected;
• In 1991, Jim won eighteen games and finished third in the voting for the American League Cy Young Award; and
• As a member of the New York Yankees, Jim pitched a no-hitter in Yankee Stadium on September 4, 1993, against a Cleveland Indians team with formidable hitters, including Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton, Sandy Alomar, Jr., and Carlos Baerga. (6)

Alas, the speed of Jim's cutter faded during his ten years as a pro so that his success was measured. (7) His crowning achievement, however, was off the mound. At ballparks across the nation, year after year, before and after games, win or lose, he met with thousands of disabled children and their families, and every season he answered stack after stack of letters from them. He was as much an inspiration to them as they were to him. (8)

Today, Jim Abbott, at age 45 and married with two daughters, is a motivational speaker who gets rave reviews from audiences, to the surprise of no one who crossed his path over the years. It is difficult to imagine a person better suited to give hope to people, young or old, facing challenges. (8)

1. Jim Abbott and Tim Brown, Imperfect: An Improbable Life, Ballantine Books, 2012, p. 40. Future references to this autobiography are by page number. Most of the information in this commentary comes from this book, Abbott's website (see jimabbott.net), and Wikipedia.
2. Abbott's third-grade teacher, Mr. Clarkson, actually figured out a way for Abbott to tie his shoes by himself and he taught the technique to him. (pp. 62-63)
3. Abbott reports that he encountered hundreds of people worse off than he was. For instance, as a child his parents took him to Mary Free Bed Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to be fitted for a prosthetic arm with a mechanical hand with a hook. There he saw and met children "with no legs, or no arms and no legs, or various combinations thereof." (pp. 53-54) Abbott later abandoned the prosthetic device. Abbott opines that "There was more heroism in an afternoon at Mary Free Bed than there is in a decade of baseball games." (p. 56)
4. Fidel Castro met Abbott and his teammates during this seven game series. Later, when Abbott was a pro, Castro contacted him with a request for a signed baseball, which Abbott granted.
5. Baseball was then a demonstration sport but is no longer played in the Olympics.
6. To add to this, in his senior year in high school, Jim won ten games with three no-hitters. He had an earned run average of 0.76 and struck out two batters per inning on average. He also hit .427 with seven home runs and thirty-six RBIs.
7. Abbott finished his professional pitching career with a record of 87-108 and a 4.25 earned run average. (p. 251)
8. Pp. 182-187.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20120719032847.mp3 As I collapse into my recliner to watch a network newscast, I recall the ones available, and then, without coercion, I consciously select the one I want. In other words, my choice is free. Or is it? Let's see if an experiment will tell us. Suppose that Sue, a scientist, instructs me to look at pictures on a screen and to press a button with my right or left hand within five seconds after a sailboat appears. Suppose, further, that while I'm doing this, Sue uses a neuroimaging device to track the activity in the prefrontal cortex of my brain. After the sailboat appears a dozen times, Sue shows me that brain waves in the two hemispheres revealed which button I would press before I consciously chose to do so.

In fact, variations of this experiment have been performed hundreds of times by dozens of researchers with similar results. (1) And what does this research tell us?

According to many scientists, it tells us that free will is an illusion. Among them is Sam Harris, a neuroscientist. Harris writes:

Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next – a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please – your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this 'decision' and believe that you are in the process of making it. (2)

Thus, for Harris, my choice to watch Diane Sawyer on ABC last night was triggered by unconscious events in my brain beyond my control. Indeed, all our choices, he insists, are the product of "background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control." (3)

What are we to make of this? Here are three points that we should consider.

• Firstly, the research done so far deals with simple choices covering a few seconds. Many of our choices, however, are complex and drawn-out. They often involve careful reflection on options, evaluation of likely results, and sometimes confusion, stress, and reassessment. The research on simple choices may not apply to complex ones.
• Secondly, as philosopher Alfred Mele argues, even if an action begins before we are conscious of it, our conscious self may still retain the power to "approve, modify, or ... cancel ... the action." (4) In this connection, all of us can probably recall instances when we suppressed urges toward anger or violence.
• Thirdly, whether choices are free or not, people need to be held accountable. If behavior reflects nature and nurture, as science tells us, then we must structure an environment which promotes civility. This means three things: punishment of wrongdoers to deter them and others from crime; rehabilitation of those wrongdoers for whom there is hope; and long-term imprisonment, or perhaps death, for those hardened criminals for whom there is no hope. A serial murderer must be stopped whether he acts freely or compulsively. (5)

Finally, if the sharp exchanges about these issues in the scientific and philosophical literature today are a clue, there is no end in sight to the centuries-old debate over free will versus determinism.

1. Benjamin Libet pioneered this research in the 1980s. For information about Libet and subsequent research, see Sam Harris, Free Will, Free Press, 2012, pp. 8-9, and pp. 69-76, and the "Neuroscience of Free Will," Wikipedia, pp. 1-15.
2. Harris, p. 9.
3. Harris, p. 5.
4. Wikipedia, p. 8. The power of the conscious self to veto an unconscious impulse or urge is sometimes called "free won't." Libet, arguably the first to link conscious choices with unconscious causes experimentally, claimed that the conscious self retains this power. Sam Harris, however, challenges it.
5. Harris, a determinist, concedes the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and, to some extent, retribution. See pp. 56 et ff.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20120628094542.mp3 People who gush with hope and optimism about the future are few and far between. One of them is Peter Diamandis, a fifty-one year old aerospace engineer and medical doctor, who gives us an upbeat assessment in his book, Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. (1) The key to a prosperous planetary future, according to Diamandis, is to "raise global standards of living," with special focus on the worst off, mainly Africans, whom he calls the "bottom billion." Abundance, he holds, starts with satisfying the basic needs of everyone on the planet, a goal toward which, he claims, significant progress has already begun. While Diamandis expects the developed nations and the U.N. to support the quest for abundance, he argues that three other ingredients are essential.

The first is Do-It-Yourself "maverick innovators" who relish a challenge and who work in small groups, usually independent of government and universities, to develop technological marvels. Since technology matures exponentially, he argues, it has a "staggering potential" to improve global standards of living. Diamandis gives dozens of examples of Do-It-Yourselfers who have changed the world. For instance, Dean Kamen built a device that purifies water with miniscule amounts of energy; Burt Rutan inaugurated private space travel; Chris Anderson invented the drone; and a small group of friends in California, who dubbed themselves the Homebrew Computer Club, spawned twenty-three companies, including Apple. (2)

The second is a new breed of wealthy and generous benefactors who are committed to improving the world. Most of them earned fortunes early in life, mainly in computers and mobile phones. He calls them techno-philanthropists. For instance, Bill Gates of Microsoft is spreading a vaccine around the world to combat malaria, and Jeff Skoal of e-Bay has awarded $250 million to eighty-one entrepreneurs working to improve life on five continents. (3)

The third is significant cash prizes, sponsored by techno-philanthropists, foundations, governments, and corporations, to induce competition among teams of Do-It-Yourselfers to tackle formidable global challenges. Diamandis cites many historical examples of the success of such prizes. For instance, the lure for Charles Lindbergh'sNew YorktoParisflight in 1927 was a $25,000 prize. Diamandis is convinced that such incentives can produce technological breakthroughs to bring the entire world safe water, abundant food, electricity, toilets and sewers, basic health care, housing, education, modern banking and transportation, and hundreds of low-cost products.

Diamandis's message is refreshing, even inspiring, but he may be written off as a

modern-day Dr. Pangloss, the pie-in-the-sky optimist in Voltaire's Candide, unless he overcomes a major hurdle - funding. Although his X PRIZE Foundation has attracted sponsors of cash prizes for six projects so far, it hopes to secure funding for more than eighty others. One wonders how much nations stricken with debts and deficits can help. Hopefully, many more of the world's wealthy, including the one-thousand billionaires, will step up to the plate.

1. Free Press, 2012, 386 pages. Steven Kotler, a science journalist, assisted Diamandis with the book, and is listed as a co-author. Diamandis established theInternationalSpaceUniversityto promote space exploration, the X PRIZE Foundation to provide incentives for discoveries that can benefit millions of people, andSingularityUniversityto offer courses, degrees, and conferences about problems facing the world and their potential solutions. He took undergraduate and graduate engineering degrees from MIT and a M.D. from Harvard.
2. Also, Tony Spear came up with the proposal to use air bags to cushion the landing of an unmanned rover on Mars, which worked, and Craig Venter fully sequenced the human genome in less that one year for less than $100 million. By contrast, the U.S. Government spent ten years and $1.5 billion to do this. Venter is now developing synthetic life that can manufacture ultra-low-cost fuels.
3. Techno-philanthropists also subsidize dozens of organizations such as Camfed, led by Ann Cotton, which has educated over a quarter million girls in Africa, and the Acumen Fund, led by Jacqueline Novogratz, which has invested $75 million in seventy companies in South Asia andAfricato deliver affordable health care, water, housing, and energy to the poor.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20120308081745.mp3 In 1929 Bertrand Russell published a book entitled Marriage and Morals (1) which brought an outcry from traditional moralists. What did he say which infuriated so many? Here are nine of his key points.

1. Russell points out that early in civilization, it was believed that spirits, not men, impregnated women. When this myth prevailed, women had a relatively benign status. Once fatherhood was understood, this changed. Men forced women to withdraw from society as virtual prisoners "to make sure of the legitimacy of their children." (p. 27) Moreover, as time passed, men practiced polygyny because their wives and children were valuable property. (p. 132)
2. Patriarchy brought a double standard. Virtuous males could have sex before and after marriage with multiple partners except for another man's wife. Virtuous females, however, had to abstain from sex before marriage and restrict sex after marriage to their husband. (p. 47)
3. Christianity, according to Russell, brought two new factors into the picture. The first, following St. Paul, is the view that all sex is lustful and that celibacy is the highest calling. Those who cannot abstain, however, St. Paul advises, should marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn." (2) The second is the view that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. (p. 52) Indeed, sex without the intent to propagate is sin. (pp. 53-54) These novelties, Russell says, furthered the subordination of women and divorced sex from romance, intimacy, and pleasure.
4. In modern times, Russell observes, women are rebelling successfully against asceticism and the double standard. They demand that the moral freedom which is permitted to men must be permitted also to them. (p. 84) The old inducements to virtue among women – the fear of hell-fire and the fear of pregnancy - no longer work. According to Russell, the former fell victim to "the decay of theological orthodoxy" and the latter to contraceptives. (p. 84)
5. Russell says that it is time to retire the stork. Sex education should move from the alley to the school and the home. (p. 102, p. 195) At the same time, obscenity laws which prohibit sex education and the distribution of art and literature should be repealed. (pp. 93-117)
6. Sexual experience prior to marriage, including cohabitation in some cases, should be encouraged to foster sexual learning, sexual fulfillment, and economic benefits, and to help people understand the distinction between sex and love. (pp. 78-92, pp. 165-166)
7. Given the fact that women outnumber men, and that as a result many women will never marry, unmarried women should be deprived neither of sexual intimacy nor the role of a parent, if they so choose. (pp. 86-88)
8. It should be easy for couples without children to divorce but not so easy for couples with children to do so. (p. 142, p. 163, pp. 234-235) Russell argues that married couples with children should strive for a "lifelong" bond for the sake of their and their children's happiness. This will require both partners to learn how to balance family, on the one hand, and career and money, on the other. (pp. 118-122, pp. 142-144)
9. Russell predicted that patriarchy in the West would gradually collapse and that the influence of father over mother and child would decline sharply. I

Indeed, he anticipated that there would be a great many absentee fathers. (p. 187)

Whether you agree with Russell or not, one thing is certain. For good or ill, the West has moved significantly in his direction. Though he would bristle at the suggestion, Bertrand Russell was a prophet.

1. Liveright Publishing Company, 1929. References which follow will be by page number.
2. I Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verse 9. Quoted by Russell, p. 45.
3. Other key points include these: As sexual relations in and out of marriage improve, prostitution should decline because it causes physical and psychological harm (p. 149); and an occasional affair of a married person should be tolerated by the partner and should not put the marriage in jeopardy. (p. 230)

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

The year was 1934. In his new book, A Common Faith, (1) John Dewey assured his readers that traditional religion was drifting into oblivion and that it would soon be a matter of interest only to history buffs. Given Dewey's stature, this assessment deserved attention. After all, Dewey was one of the world's leading philosophers and psychologists, he revolutionized the theory and practice of education, he published forty books and more than seven-hundred journal articles, and he served as president of both the American Philosophical Association and the American Psychological Association. Today, however, some four generations later, we can say with confidence that Dewey's crystal ball was cloudy.

Where did Dewey go wrong? He assumed that just as the automobile had supplanted the horse and buggy, so science would supplant religion. The writing was on the wall, so to speak. Astronomy had discredited "ascent into heaven." Geology had discredited creation in six days. Biology had dispatched the soul and the afterlife. Anthropology, history, and literary criticism had shown that revered religious figures and their deeds, if founded in fact at all, were embellished to the point of fiction. (p. 31) And psychology had shown that mystical and religious experience had a natural explanation. (p. 31) As a result, Dewey expected that more and more educated people would abandon religion and its supernatural cast (God, salvation, grace, prayer, heaven, hell, the sacraments, clergy, revelation, the devil, etc.). (p. 30) (2)

To help believers cope with their loss, Dewey proposed a secular makeover of religion. This involves two changes. The first change is that religious experience will no longer be a mystical encounter with a higher power but a courageous and persisting devotion to desirable social goals. Dewey writes:

Any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal end against obstacles and in spite of threats of personal loss because of conviction of its general and enduring value is religious in quality. (p. 27)

Thus, a saint will no longer be a hermit who mortifies the flesh but an activist who collaborates with others near and far to improve life on the planet. (pp. 27-28) The second change is that the term "God" will no longer apply to a deity but, in Dewey's words, to "the unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and action." (p. 42)

To some extent, Dewey was on target:

• In the west religion has subsided.
• In Europe and the United States, the percentage of believers has dropped while the percentage of seculars has grown, (3) and church membership and attendance has declined sharply, especially among the young, (4) and
• Most scientists are atheists or agnostics.

At the same time, however:

• Huge numbers of educated, scientifically literate people have not abandoned religion.
• The loss in mainline Protestant churches in America has been offset by the gain in Pentecostal ones.
• The principal beneficiary of charitable giving in America is our churches.The great majority of Americans report on surveys that they believe in God and that they will never vote for an atheist candidate for public office, (5) and
• Religion continues to grow dramatically in most parts of the world outside Europe and America.

Thus, despite his brilliance, John Dewey, like many before and after him, severely underestimated the staying power of religion.

1. It was published by Yale University Press in 1934, runs for a mere 87 pages, and is based on his Terry Lectures at Yale University.
2. a) Dewey acknowledged, however, that some believers – "fundamentalists" - are immune to science. (p. 63)b) Dewey felt that the decline in religiosity in society was reflected in the increase in the role of secular institutions vis-à-vis religious ones. (pp. 61-62) (For example, Super Bowl XLVI, played on Sunday, February 5, 2012, captured a record TV audience of 111.5 million and produced billions of dollars in wagering. Super Bowl Sunday is not the only Sunday when religion takes a back seat to secular interests.)c) Dewey also rejected the view advanced by some believers that science and religion are not really at odds because they are distinct paths to truth, the former illuminating the natural realm, the latter illuminating the spiritual one. (p. 34) He wrote: There is but one sure road of access to truth – the road of patient, cooperative inquiry operating by means of observation, experiment, record and controlled reflection. (p. 32) For Dewey, the method of science is the only reliable path to knowledge and religious claims are no longer tenable. (p. 34) Dewey would have been highly critical of the late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), who supported the compatibility of science and religion in his book Rock of Ages, published in 1999. Gould referred to science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria.
3. The percentage of atheists in American may be as high as 20%, depending on which study one uses. Virtually all studies show that the percentage in Europe is much higher.
4. The Pew Forum in recent years has published a series of studies which confirm these trends. Also, a Gallup poll in 1937 showed that 73% of Americans reported church membership; a recent one shows a drop to 63% to 65%. Of those claiming church membership, only one-third report regular church attendance.
5. A March 2007 Newsweek poll reveals that 62% of Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20120119113924.mp3 Michael Shermer is a psychologist, historian of science, columnist for Scientific American, and public intellectual. (1) His most recent book is entitled The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies – How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. (2) It draws from extensive research over the past thirty years.

According to Shermer, "We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional,and psychological reasons in the context of environments created byfamily, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after formingour beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host ofintellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations." (3)

In a nutshell, "beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow." (4) Shermer calls this theory "belief-dependent realism." (5)Shermer is not merely repeating what we've heard from other psychologists for decades, namely, that all of us are victims of a variety of cognitive biases. (6) What he argues is that one bias, the confirmation bias, is "the mother of all biases." (7) The confirmation bias is our tendency to seek and find evidence which supports our existing beliefs and to tune out (or reinterpret) evidence which does not. (8) According to Shermer, it explains why so many people prefer unsubstantiated or discredited claims (e.g., ESP) to well-established ones (e.g., evolution). (10)

Shermer sees the origin of cognitive biases in the way our brain functions. The brain, he proposes, is a "belief engine." (11) It generates beliefs as it looks for patterns, real or imagined, and causal agents, real or imagined. For this we have evolution to thank. He writes:Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patternsthat explain why things happen. These meaningful patterns become beliefs, andthese beliefs shape our understanding of reality. (12)

Once beliefs are formed, we look for evidence to confirm them. As we find what passes for evidence, our confidence in the beliefs deepens. (13) Simultaneously, we tend to form coalitions with those who share our beliefs and demonize those who don't. (14)

Is Shermer endorsing epistemological relativism? Is he saying that all beliefs are equal and "everybody's reality deserves respect"? He is not. On the contrary, he insists that there is a reality out there but that "it is rarely obvious and almost never foolproof." (15) So, how do we discover reality? What is the antidote to belief-dependent realism? It's called science. Shermer sees science as a human baloney-detection machine which tells us the difference between "what we would like to be true and what is actually true." (16) Science is "the best tool ever devised" for finding truth (17) and "the only surefire method of proper pattern recognition." (18) And why is this? Mainly because science demands skepticism. In science "a claim is untrue unless proven otherwise." (19)

The Believing Brain sends us two important messages: We're not the rational and objective creatures that we like to think we are, and If we hope to acquire knowledge - true, justified belief - we need to value skepticism much more than we do.

1. Shermer is founder and editor of Skeptic magazine, producer and co-host of the TV series Exploring the Unknown, founder and head of the Skeptics Society, which has 55,000 members, director of a speakers series at the California Institute of Technology, a blogger (Skeptic.com), a prolific author, turning out a new book every two years or so, a regular lecturer on campuses across the nation, an interviewee on TV documentaries, a guest on a variety of TV shows, among them Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, Penn and Teller, Dennis Miller, Larry King Live, the Colbert Report, Dateline, 20/20, and Nightline, and an adjunct professor at The Claremont Graduate School. Also, Shermer was a competitive long-distance bicyclist from 1979 to 1989. During that same decade, he co-founded the Race Across America, a 3,000 mile event in which he competed five times. He also produced a series of documentaries on cycling. A neck disorder common to long-distance bicyclists is named after him – Shermer's Neck. (See michaelshermer.com and Michael Shermer, Wikipedia.)
2. Times Books, 2011, 385 pages.
3. The Believing Brain, p. 5. He restates this thesis in many parts of the book. This is from page 36:The Enlightenment ideal of Homo rationalis has us sitting down before a table of facts, weighing them in the balance of pro and con, and then employing logic and reason to determine which set of facts best supports this or that theory. This is not at all how we form beliefs. What happens is that the facts of the world are filtered by our brains through the colored lenses of worldviews, paradigms, theories, hypotheses, conjectures, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through living. We then sort through the facts and select those that confirm what we already believe and ignore or rationalize away those that contradict our beliefs.
4. Ibid., p. 5.
5. Ibid., p. 5, p. 21.
6. Shermer discusses the self-justification bias, the framing effect, the sunk-cost bias, the status quo bias, the endowment effect, the anchoring bias, and others, which he says, are offspring of the confirmation bias. See Chapter 12, "Confirmation of Beliefs," pp. 256-279.
7. Ibid., p. 259.
8. Ibid., p. 259.
9. Ibid., p. 259.Ibid., pp. 2-4. In the same pages, Shermer cites a 2009 Harris Poll of 2,303 Americans which revealed that more people believe in angels (72%) and the devil (60%) than believe in evolution (45%). Surveys elsewhere show similar trends. For instance, in England, a 2006 Reader's Digest survey of 2,006 people found that 43% believe they can read other people's minds, over 50% believed they had a dream or premonition of an event that later occurred, nearly 70% said they could feel when someone was looking at them, 62% said they could tell who was calling them before them picked up the phone, 20% said they had seen a ghost, and 26% said they could tell when a loved one was in trouble.
10. Ibid., p. 5.
11. Ibid., p. 5.
12. Ibid., p. 5.
13. Ibid., pp. 6-7.
14. Ibid., p. 2.
15. Ibid., p. 7.
16. Ibid., p. 7.
17. Ibid., p. 62. Shermer is quick to point out that scientists, as the rest of us, are subject to "the whims of emotion and the pull of cognitive biases..." (p. 6) This is why scientists must critique their own and one another's findings.
18. Ibid., p. 135.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110728114912.mp3 When Marriage Disappears is the title of a recent study on the status of marriage in America. (1) According to the study, marriage is "stable" in only one segment of our society - the highly-educated - which comprises about 30% of the population. (p. ix) (2) In the rest of society, marriage is on life support - the divorce rate is high, the number of unwed mothers continues to grow, cohabitation has skyrocketed, fewer children live with both of their parents, and satisfaction with marriage is declining. (p. 14) Let's focus on each.

Divorce: Over the past fifty years, the rate of divorce has nearly doubled. In 1960, the number of divorces per 1,000 married women was 9.2; today it is 16.4. (p. 69) Given the steady increase in divorces over this period, the percentage of divorced persons in society has also increased. In fact, it has quadrupled. (p. 71) In 1960, the percentage of divorced men in society was 1.8; today it is 8.5. In 1960, the percentage of divorced women in society was 2.5; today it is 10.8. (p. 70) (3) Those who marry today for the first time face a probability of divorce or separation between 40 and 50 percent. (p. 71)

Unwed Mothers: Since 1960, the percentage of births overall to never-married women in America jumped from one in twenty births (5.3%) to eight in twenty births (40.6%). (p. 91) Since 1982, taking race into account, the percentage of births to never-married least-educated white women increased from 21% to 43% and the percentage of births to never-married least-educated black women increased from 77% to 96%. At the same time, the percentage of births to never-married moderately-educated white women rose from 5% to 34% and the percentage of births to never-married moderately-educated black women rose from 48% to 75%. (p. 56)

Cohabitation: In 1960, less than half a million unmarried couples cohabited; today around seven million couples do. (p. 75) Also, about 40% of these cohabiting couples today are raising one or more children. (p. 92) Further, since 1988, the percentage of unmarried couples who cohabit has gone from 51% to 75% among the least-educated; from 39% to 68% among the moderately-educated; and from 35% to 50% among the highly-educated. (p. 22)

One Parent Households: Over the past half century, the percentage of children living with a single parent has risen 17%. (p. 89) Today, 20% of white children and 51% of black children live with a single parent. (p. 89)

Declining Satisfaction: Since 1973, satisfaction with marriage among married couples has declined about 7%. (p. 65) In a recent survey, in response to the statement, "Marriage hasn't worked out for most people that I know," 53% of the least-educated, 43% of the moderately-educated, and 17% of the highly-educated, agreed.

(p. 40) Also, since 1976, approval by high school seniors of childbearing outside of marriage and cohabitation before marriage has increased significantly. (p. 102) (4)

As if to add insult to injury for supporters of traditional marriage, the study concludes on a pessimistic note, saying that there are no signs yet of a cultural shift that could lead to a "reversal of the nation's recent retreat from marriage." (p. 106)

1. Published in 2010, it is a collaboration of the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute of American Values and the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. ISBN 978-1-931764-22-3. The study reports data gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau and the General Social Survey as well as dozens of other researchers.
2. The study defines the affluent or highly-educated as those with college degrees, the moderately-educated as those with high school degrees but not four-year college degrees, and the least-educated as high school dropouts.
3. Another way to see the decline of marriage through the increase in divorce, the increase in cohabitation, and the deferral of marriage, is to look at the trend in the percentage of adults in intact first marriages. Over the past forty years, the percentage of adults in intact first marriages declined precipitously. Among the highly-educated, it dropped 17 points (from 73% to 56%); among the moderately-educated, it dropped 28 points (from 73% to 45%); and among the least-educated it dropped 28 points (from 67% to 39%). (p. 21)
4. From 1976 to today, approval of childbearing without marriage rose among senior boys from 41.2% to 55.9% and among senior girls from 33.3% to 55.8%, (p. 102) and approval of cohabitation before marriage rose among senior boys from 44.9% to 68.8% and among senior girls from 32.3% to 63%. (p. 103)

© 2011 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110714114931.mp3 Rob Bell is a charismatic 40-year old pastor of the Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, which attracts over 10,000 people for Sunday services, and which "emphasizes discussion rather than dogmatic teaching." (1) Although Bell was well-known in religious circles before the publication this year of his latest book, (2) Love Wins, this book has catapulted him into a pastoral rock star. (3) His celebrity was sealed when Time magazine did a cover story on him in the April 25th issue this year.

Love Wins stirred up a theological hornet's nest. One of its critics, a prominent seminary president, attacked it as "theologically disastrous." (4) So, what did Bell say which ignited controversy? In a nutshell, he said that what most Christians believe about heaven and hell is wrong! He signals his attack on orthodoxy in the Preface:

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better... This (teaching) is misguided and toxic (emphasis mine) and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus's message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (5)

To show how the "misguided" notion of hell has gripped people, Bell recounts a story about an art show in his church in which one artist included in her exhibit a quotation by Mohandas Gandhi, a Hindu. Bell was shocked to find a note attached to the quote by a visitor which said: "Reality check: He's in hell." The idea that a loving God could consign one of the world's greatest peacemakers to hell struck Bell as absurd. Similarly, Bell reasons, it is inconceivable that a loving God could condemn any other compassionate and responsible person, even an atheist, to eternal torment. (6) Bell says that those Christians who close heaven to non-Christians fail to understand that Jesus offered a message of love, peace, and forgiveness to the entire world and not merely to one tribe, culture, or religion. (7)

But Bell doesn't stop there. For Bell, heaven and hell are not distant places somewhere "out there" where people go forever after they die. Heaven and hell, he insists, are conditions in the here and now. You are in heaven when you freely embrace God's love and you are in hell when you don't. (8) Those who embrace God's love, Bell says, shower love on others, especially those who suffer, and those who reject God's love are indifferent or cruel to others. (9)

Love Wins has many shortcomings.

• It fails to deal with two philosophical conundrums: why does a loving and powerful God allow tsunamis, floods, cancer, AIDS, starvation, dementia, and crime? And are divine omnipotence and human free will reconcilable?
• It makes selective use of the Bible.
• It fails to explain what happens at death if, as Bell says, heaven and hell are in the here and now; and
• It lacks the technical arguments that one looks for in a serious discussion of religion.

Nevertheless, Bell's book is a bold assault on conventional religion from within which will inspire a great many to take a fresh look at their beliefs and practices. (10)

1. See Jon Meachem, "Is Hell Dead?" Time, April 25, 2011, p. 38.
2. In 2007 Bell was named No. 10 in a list of "The 50 Most Influential Christians in America" as chosen by the readers of "The Church Report.com." See Rob Bell, Wikipedia. Bell has written several books, conducted successful speaking tours in the United States and abroad, and made appearances in a series of short films entitled NOOMA.
3. HarperOne, 2011. The subtitle is A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.
4. The critic is R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. See Time, April 25, 2011, p. 40. Another attack came from The Evangelical Alliance, the oldest organization of Evangelicals in the world, through its spokesperson, Derek Tidball, former Principal of the London School of Theology. Tidball charged that the book is "full of confusing half-truths" and that it "lacks clarity." See Karen Peake, the online edition of Christian Today, March 30, 2011. Also, Love Wins was so suspect in the Bible Belt that a young pastor in North Carolina who recommended it lost his job. See Time, April 25, 2011, p. 40.
5. Love Wins, Preface, viii. Also, see p. 95 According to Bell, the view that heaven is reserved for Christians is not "a central truth of the Christian faith" and to reject it is not "to reject Jesus." (Preface, viii)
6. Love Wins, pp. 1-4. Also, on p. 151, Bell writes: Jesus wants us to be "growing progressively in generosity, forgiveness, honesty, courage, truth telling, and responsibility." (p. 51) Further, on p. 97, he writes: "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
7. Bell writes: a) Jesus came for Jews and Gentiles, that is, "everybody else" (p. 149); b) "...Jesus is bigger than any one religion" (p. 150); c) Jesus aims to save, rescue, and redeem "everybody" (pp. 150-151); and d) "(Jesus) is for all people, and...he refused to be co-opted or owned by any one culture." (p. 151)
8. See Love Wins, p. 117, p. 169, p. 170, and p. 194. This is typical: "...every single one of us is endlessly being invited to trust, accept, believe, embrace, and experience (God's love)." (p. 194) Even if you reject God's love, Bell insists, God, through Jesus, sustains love for you and forgives you without your asking. Thus, for Bell, the welcome mat to heaven is always out. See pp. 188-189. Although Bell does not explicitly endorse universalism, the doctrine that all people are saved, he seems to endorse it implicitly.
9. Bell holds that countless people suffer "hells on earth." Examples are a molested child, a raped woman, a drug addict, a victim of dementia, etc. (p. 78) He sees this incongruity among Christians: "Often the people most concerned about others going to hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while the people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about hell after death." (pp. 78-79)
10. Hopefully, NPR and PBS will soon focus attention on Bell and his book in their programming.

© 2011 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110704114713.mp3 On a recent weekend, the Ursuline High School Class of 1961 gathered at a reunion to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of our graduation. During four events – a social Friday night, a tour of the school Saturday afternoon, a banquet Saturday night, and a brunch Sunday - we got reacquainted with one another, we reminisced, and, of course, we gauged the impact of the years on one another. If I had to pick one word to characterize the weekend, it would be change.

The change in us was obvious. With few exceptions, our thin bodies were gone. In fact, one plump gentleman, whom I did not recognize across the room, waved a photo of a stick of a boy as he approached people. It was his picture from the year book. Further, dozens of heads sported white hair or none at all. A blind person could tell our ages by simply eavesdropping on our conversations. All of them led inexorably to two topics – our grandchildren and our health afflictions.

Similarly, our school had changed a lot. The nuns and priests who taught us and ran the school were largely gone, replaced by laity. The classroom where many of us learned an invaluable skill – how to type – was now a computer lab. Further, the enrollment had gone down over the half century, from over 1,200 students in 1961 to just over 400 today, while the tuition had gone up, from $110 a year to $6,500 a year.

During the weekend my classmates and I talked a lot about other changes, for good or ill, since we graduated. Here's a partial list of what arrived and what departed.

1. The arrivals since 1961 include CD's, the Super Bowl, AIDS, satellite radio and TV, cruise control, bar codes, cell phones, caller-ID, computers, the internet, Google, Microsoft, kindles, iPods and iPads, YouTube, Facebook, HD TV, the GPS, Wal-Mart, the ubiquitous "Made in China" label, microwaves, MRI's, telemarketers, right-turn-on-red, the Youngstown freeway, malls, international terrorists, drug trafficking, reality TV, a decline in marriage, an explosion in cohabitation, GM Lordstown, the Exal Corporation, V&M Star, Turning Technologies, the Covelli Center, Botox, and Viagra.
2. The departures since 1961 include Idora Park, the Toddle House, the Broadway Diner, the 20th Century Restaurant, the Mural Room, the Ringside, the Brass Rail, Strouss-Hirschberg's, McKelvey's, Livingston's, General Fireproofing, Youngstown Sheet & Tube, U.S. Steel, Republic Steel, the car dealerships called "The Wick Six," the Ohio and Tod Hotels, the Warner, Palace, State, Paramount, Strand, and Regent theaters and the Park burlesque, nearly all the drive-in theaters, a single digit divorce rate, a busy airport, and the car bombing known as the "Youngstown tune-up." (1)

Finally, I want to mention the classmate who was the undisputed center of attention at the reunion. At 67 years of age, he is the father of six-year old triplets. He transports them and their young mother in a stretch limousine which he bought on e-bay. Although his new family has reenergized him, there is a downside. His retirement is on indefinite hold.

1. The "Youngstown tune-up" refers to an explosion due to a bomb planted inside a car, usually under the hood. In the war between two factions of organized crime between 1955 and 1963, there were 75 Youngstown tune-ups. This prompted a cover story on Youngstown in The Saturday Evening Post in 1963 entitled Murdertown USA.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110420114613.mp3 In a new book entitled Fading Faith – The Rise of the Secular Age, (1)James A. Haught proposes that there is a significant decline in religion in the developed nations. (2) In France, for instance, less than 7% of adults attend church regularly. In Denmark and Sweden the figure drops to 5%. Across Europe only 15% of adults attend church. In England, the percentage of children attending Sunday School dropped from 50% in 1900 to 4% in 2000. In a recent poll in England which asked people to identify the most inspirational figures in history, only 1% named Jesus; 65% named Nelson Mandela. In Ireland, the Archdiocese of Dublin ordained only one priest in 2004 and none in 2005. The pattern is much the same in Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Israel. (3)

At first glance it would seem that the United States is an exception to this trend. After all, faith-based programs continue in the White House. Few seculars win elections. (4) Mega-churches proliferate. Religion-driven referenda, such as prohibitions against gay marriage, pass by huge margins. Religious schools get thumbs up from the U.S. Supreme Court on vouchers and tax credits. Contributions to religious groups continue to increase. (5) Sectarian prayers begin the meetings of countless public bodies and we have a National Day of Prayer. Faith-healers who deny traditional medical care to their sick children are immune from prosecution by law in dozens of states. Finally, 45% of Americans reject evolution in favor of divine creation. (6)

According to Haught, however, America is not an exception to the secular trend. He cites the following:

• NONES, those who have no religious affiliation, have grown to 45 million and are the second largest segment of the adult population in America after Catholics;
• NONES make up 30% to 40% of young Americans;
• Since 1990, 20 million Catholics left the church. Today, 10% of American adults are lapsed Catholics;
• In the past fifty years in the United States, 20,000 Catholic priests left the priesthood and the number of Catholic seminarians dropped from 10,000 in 1965 to 3,400 in 2002;
• One out of four Americans say that "religion has no place in their lives" and one-half report that they seldom or never attend church (7);
• In the past fifty years the seven main Protestant sects in America lost 10 million members. The Methodist Church, in fact, lost an average of 1,000 members per week for nearly fifty years; and
• The percentage of Christians in the U.S. population has declined by 10% since 1990. (8)

Is Haught right about rising secularism in America? In my judgment, he is. Although the decline in religion in America is less severe than in Europe, the trend is clear. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that it will continue. In 1965 Harvard theologian Harvey Cox predicted the demise of traditional religion in America in a book entitled The Secular City. Soon after its release, there was a dramatic religious resurgence. Perhaps another one is around the corner.

1. Gustav Broukal Press, 2010. Haught is editor of The Charleston Gazette, West Virginia's largest newspaper. Fading Faith is his ninth book. He has won twenty national journalism awards.
2. Haught acknowledges that religion remains strong in the Third World, in Muslim nations, and in immigrant communities in Europe and North America.
3. Haught, pp. 11-16. In Canada from 1990 to 2000, the Anglican Church lost half its members, the United Church of Christ lost 39%, and the Presbyterian Church lost 35%.
4. Some secular candidates camouflage their views lest they incite opposition from believers. One Ohio legislator that I knew, an agnostic, gave the invocation at the legislative prayer breakfasts.
5. In 2004 Americans contributed some $88 billion to religious groups.
6. One can add to this list. For instance, the Ten Commandments grace many public buildings, including City Hall in Youngstown, Ohio, crosses and Christmas nativity scenes are found on public property in many communities, and creationist literature is sold in some national parks.
7. This is from a 2009 survey by Parade magazine. See Haught, p. 25.
8. Yet it remains high. Around 76% self-identify as Christian, even though many of these have no official connection to a Christian sect or attend church regularly. Haught draws most of the points reported here mainly from reports by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and Trinity College's American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), two highly respected sources.

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110323114556.mp3 Danny Thomas (1) is one of America's most popular and famous entertainers and the pride of Lebanese-Americans. But in 1986 he learned that he was not the only show business success in his family. On the same night that year, Danny's son and daughter made history - each received a Grammy. Tony Thomas won as producer of the Best Comedy Series, The Golden Girls,(2) and Marlo Thomas as Best Dramatic Actress in a TV movie, Nobody's Child. (3) These are a few of the hundreds of facts that we learn in Marlo Thomas's new memoir - Growing Up Laughing: My Story and the Story of Funny. (4) Growing Up Laughing offers us an intimate portrait of Danny Thomas and his remarkable family, (5) in-depth interviews by Marlo of twenty-three of America's most famous comedians, (6) and hundreds of jokes, mostly one-liners, inserted between the chapters. (7)Here are some of Marlo's revelations about her family in Growing Up Laughing:

• Danny Thomas's spouse, Rose Marie Cassaniti, a Sicilian-American, was a gifted singer. At age 19 she had a 15-minute radio show called "The Sweet Singer of Sweet Songs." In fact, she first met Danny when he auditioned to be the announcer on this program. After she and Danny married, she abandoned her career, although she continued to sing at family events. Danny and Rose Marie's daughter, Terre, was also a singer and actress, but like mom, she too abandoned her career after marriage.
• Many of Danny Thomas's stories on stage were embellishments of stories told him by his barber – Harry Gelbert. When Danny used one of Harry's stories as the basis for one of his own, he always gave Harry credit. (8)
• When Danny Thomas was struggling as a young comic, he prayed to St. Jude, patron of hopeless causes, to help him, promising that if he would, Danny would one day build a shrine in his honor. Once Danny made it, he kept his promise. He founded St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis in 1962 and dedicated years to raising funds for it. (9)
• Marlo discovered that in the sixteen marriages in her family the husbands ruled the roost. When their wives had complaints, the men replied "Where's she gonna go?" Marlo felt that the women suffered, in her words, "the everyday drip, drip of dissolving self-esteem." "Marriage," she concluded, "is like living with a jailer you have to please" and she vowed that she would never marry. Her parents nicknamed her "Miss Independence." When she was offered a role in That Girl as a wife, she refused it, demanding instead that she be a single, independent woman, to which ABC acquiesced. At the same time, she read Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, she met and befriended Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug, and she co-founded the Ms. Foundation. Her no-marriage vow collapsed, however, when she met Phil Donahue as a guest on his show in Chicago in 1977. They married in 1980 and remain married today.
• At Danny Thomas's funeral in 1991, Roger Williams played Danny's favorite piece, "Autumn Leaves," two presidents – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan – spoke, and Milton Berle and Bob Hope gave eulogies. In his remarks Bob Hope quipped that Danny Thomas was so religious that "he had stained glass windows in his car."

Growing Up Laughing is a touching reminder that our nation is filled with remarkably talented immigrant families who crossed an ocean to start anew. How fortunate we are that they did so. (10)

1. Danny Thomas is the stage name of Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yakhoob which was later Anglicized to Amos Jacobs.
2. In addition to The Golden Girls, Tony Thomas's TV credits include Nurses, The Practice, Soap, Benson, Beauty and the Beast, Empty Nest, Herman's Head, Nurses, and The John Laroquette Show, among others. His film credits include The Dead Poet's Society and Final Analysis, among others.
3. Marlo's competition in this category included Vanessa Redgrave and Katherine Hepburn. Marlo's reputation soared with her TV sitcom That Girl, which ran from 1966 to 1971, but she has also appeared in over 100 films, TV series and specials, and live theater productions, and she has authored five books. In addition to her Grammy, she has received Four Emmys, a Golden Globe, and a Peabody, and she is an inductee into the Broadcasting Hall of Fame.
4. Hyperion, 2010.
5. When Marlo grew up in Beverly Hills, her dad's buddies frequented their house for dinner and after dinner banter. Among the regulars were Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner, Jan Murray, George Burns, Bob Hope, and Don Rickles. Danny's two best friends were Sid Caesar and Milton Berle. When the three of them were in their seventies, they formed an act called "Legends of Comedy" and played all the major night clubs and casinos for over a year.
6. Those interviewed include Alan Alda, Joy Behar, Sid Caesar, Stephen Colbert, Billy Crystal, Tina Fey, Larry Gelbart, Whoopi Goldberg, Kathy Griffin, Jay Leno, George Lopez, Elaine May, Conan O'Brien, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, Ben and Jerry Stiller, Lily Tomlin, Robin Williams, and Steven Wright.

7. Some of the jokes inspire groans, others belly laughs. Here's a sample:

   • "If a man speaks in a forest and no woman can hear him, is he still wrong?"
   • "What are the three words a woman never wants to hear when she's making love? 'Honey, I'm home.'"
   • "I just got back from a pleasure trip. I took my mother-in-law to the airport."
   • "Two Beverly Hills women are shopping on Rodeo Drive when one of them notices a child in a baby carriage. 'Oh, look at that beautiful baby!' says the first woman. 'Aww, how adorable,' says her friend. 'Oh, my God, that's my baby!' 'How do you know?' 'I recognize the nanny.'"
   • "Elizabeth Taylor has more chins than a Chinese phone book."
   • "Women like silent men. They think they're listening."
   • "What's the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jewish mother? Eventually, a Rottweiler let's go."
   • "I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done."
   • "Marriages don't last. When I meet a guy, the first question I ask myself is: Is this the man I want my children to spend their weekends with?"
   • "When I eventually met Mr. Right, I had no idea that his first name was Always."
   • "My husband said he needed more space. So I locked him outside."
   • "Two peanuts were walking down the street and one was a-salted."
   • Mice infested a synagogue. Everyone was terrified. 'Don't worry," said the rabbi, 'I'll take care of it.' The next day all the mice were gone. An older man asked the rabbi, "How did you get rid of all the mice?' "Easy,' the rabbi said, 'I Bar Mitzvahed them. As everyone knows, once they're Bar Mitzvahed, they never come back."
   • "Fund-raising is the second oldest profession in the world."
   • Harry Gelbert's son, Larry, became a comedy writer whose credits include MASH.
   • Danny Thomas was helped immensely in fund-raising for St. Jude's by dozens of his show business friends. In fact, most of them continued to help St. Jude's after Danny's death.
   • When one counts the dozens of awards that Danny, Tony, and Marlo Thomas received for their achievements in show business, it is clear that the Thomas family is the single most honored family in the history of American entertainment. (Danny won four Emmys for his TV series, Make Room for Daddy, as well as many other awards.) See footnotes 2 and 3 above.

© 2011 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110314105334.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary20110224105358.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary20110216114536.mp3 A number of high profile Americans have worked to improve life for Africans. Among them are Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Oprah Winfrey. Their generosity has received plenty of attention by news organizations. By contrast, Americans who are not celebrities but have undertaken humanitarian projects in Africa and elsewhere have done so with little fanfare. One example is philosopher Robert Paul Wolff. In 1990 he established University Scholarships for South African Students, a foundation which has helped over twelve hundred young Africans earn college degrees. Another example is close to home – Richard P. Stevens of New Castle, Pennsylvania. (1)

Born in June 1931, Stevens followed World War II via maps of the world which he collected. As he learned about distant places, he vowed to visit them when he was older. He listened intently to the radio as Edward R. Murrow reported from London on the war. In high school he organized a group which he called the Junior Defense Army to recycle materials for the war.

Early on, this curious and perceptive child also detected flaws in American society linked to race. He observed that there were no people of color in his church, his neighborhood, or his grade school, that his parish priest never addressed racial discrimination from the pulpit, and that a local hotel and the cafeteria of the local YMCA were off limits to blacks. He also found it odd that his parish would support missions to spread Catholicism among people of color thousands of miles away but not at home. (2) All of this prompted Stevens to set his mission in life – to help people of color near and far.

After completing a doctorate in history at Georgetown University, Stevens accepted a faculty position at Lincoln University in southeastern Pennsylvania. Lincoln is a historically black institution whose graduates include writer Langston Hughes and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He soon took the first of a series of leaves from Lincoln to teach in Africa at half his Lincoln salary. (3) In Africa he saw apartheid first hand and joined efforts to abolish it at considerable personal risk. He also met thousands of young people in his classes and during his extensive travel across the continent. He helped scores of students complete their education in Africa, secure employment, enroll in graduate programs in Europe and America, or take up permanent residence in the United States. His extended family of beneficiaries includes college presidents, corporate executives, entrepreneurs, university professors, ambassadors, cabinet ministers, and an attorney general. Stevens continues to open his house to former students and their families for short or long stays.

Over the years Stevens became so knowledgeable about Africa that the U.S. State Department and the Congress sought his counsel. He returned to Africa many times, including a stint as a visiting professor in the Sudan where he strove to substitute critical thinking for rote memorization of the Koran by his Muslim students. (4)

Today Richard Stevens, humanitarian and globetrotter, lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where he shares a house with a family from the Sudan. Few people of any race can match his record of service and dedication to people of color.

1. The main source of information for this commentary is Richard P. Stevens, A Journey Into The World: Reflections of An Itinerant Professor, iUniverse, 2010.
2. Stevens also wondered why during the war our government locked up Japanese Americans but not Italian Americans or German Americans.
3. When Stevens informed his fiancée of his plans, she broke off the engagement.
4. Africa was not the only focus of Stevens' attention. He spent over a year helping to launch a new university in Kuwait and assisting young people in Central and South America to pursue higher education in the United States. After seeing the impact of drug cartels during his many visits south of the border, Stevens concluded regrettably that the only solution to crime, corruption, and political instability there lay in the legalization of drugs in the United States.

© 2011 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20110117105551.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary20101229114439.mp3 Krista Tippett is known to regular NPR listeners as host of a weekly program about religion which first aired nationally in 2001 and which is distributed and produced by American Public Media. Recently she changed the name of the program from "Speaking of Faith" to "Being." Her work as an interviewer has brought her three major journalism awards, including a Peabody. In a book entitled Speaking of Faith, she tells us about the circuitous path that she has taken personally and professionally. (1)

Born in Oklahoma in 1960, Krista grew up under the stern rule of her grandfather, a fundamentalist Baptist minister. (1) When she left Oklahoma to attend Brown University, however, she also left behind the religion of her youth. A history student, she did a summer abroad program in Communist East Germany, and after graduation, returned to Europe as a stringer for the New York Times and several other publications. Subsequently, she entered diplomatic service, initially as an assistant to the senior U.S. diplomat in East Berlin and later as an assistant to the U.S. ambassador to Germany. At this stage of her life, geopolitics was her passion.

After resigning her diplomatic position, Krista spent two years of self-assessment on the island of Mallorca off Spain, where her faith was resuscitated. There, she says, she rediscovered the Bible as neither "a catalogue of absolutes," nor "a document of fantasy," but, instead, a statement of truth in "multiple forms" and "multiple layers." (2)

Soon after Mallorca, Krista married a Scotsman, Michael Tippett, with whom she had two children, and from whom she eventually divorced. (3) She later took a Master of Divinity from Yale. She also worked in New Haven as a chaplain on an Alzheimer's floor of a hospital. Afterwards, Krista ran a global oral history project on religion at St. John's Abbey in Minnesota where she developed the approach to interviewing for which she has become famous. (4)

Over the years, under the influence of theologians Reinhold Niebuhr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karen Armstrong, among others, Krista reached three important conclusions which helped to shape her life and her radio program. They are these: firstly, although religious people obviously do evil things, religion inspires far more good than evil; secondly, a religion should be interpreted and judged not by its extremists, a minority who practice "a radically superficial" and literalist version of their faith, but by its moderates who compose a significant majority; and thirdly, because every religion provides to its followers a genuine path to the truth for them, all of us need to respect and value religions other than our own.

Tippett also reveals her own demons in Speaking of Faith. These include bouts of clinical depression, significant weight loss, and insomnia. (5) She also candidly acknowledges her most troubling theological puzzle – reconciling the enormity of suffering in the world with God's goodness.

Critics accuse Tippett of relativism, fuzzy thinking, and "irrationality disguised as profundity." (6) Nevertheless, if Tippett's growing NPR audience – she is now on 240 stations – and her popularity as a speaker are any measure, her admirers far outnumber her detractors. (7) Hundreds of thousands find that her program broadens and deepens their grasp of religion and religious diversity in today's world.

1. Krista Tippett, Speaking of Faith, Viking, 2007. This is first of two books by Tippett and she is writing a third.
2. During the Mallorca period, and for some time afterward, she tells us that she chose not to read newspapers because they were filled with so much bad news.
3. In her book she tells us next to nothing about how she came to marry or divorce, about her two children, or about her estrangement from her parents. She needs to write a book entitled Speaking of Me.
4. See Krista Tippett, Wikipedia.
5. Tippett claims that these personal struggles have helped her to be a more effective interviewer and to see the humanity in people from diverse backgrounds.
6. See the blog "Rationally Speaking" maintained by Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy at the City University of New York. As for me, I have two issues with Tippett. In her effort to empathize with diverse religious practitioners, she is silent about irresponsible and foolish aspects, as in the case of faith healers who deny medical treatment to their children; and, to my knowledge, she has never interviewed a secular critic of religion. On the latter point, perhaps over the years she invited seculars and they declined.
7. Tippett's program is also heard internationally via the web and podcast.

View Details

commentary20101221105644.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary20101124031840.mp3 In his autobiography, entitled Wins, Losses, and Lessons, (1) Coach Lou Holtz recounts two incidents in his senior year of high school which were a turning point in his life. In the first incident, Lou's high school coach visited his parents and urged them to send him to college to earn a degree so that he could become a football coach. The coach explained to them that Lou had a special gift for learning and teaching football and that he would excel in that profession. This came as a shock to Lou's parents. On the one hand, he had been a weak student all along and, on the other, they were already struggling to make ends meet and taking on the additional burden of college expenses could be overwhelming. In the second incident, in a neighborhood grocery in East Liverpool, Lou overheard two of his mother's friends bemoan his parents' decision to enroll him at Kent State University. They agreed that it was a terrible waste of money because Lou simply wasn't college material. Holtz writes that the vote of confidence by his coach and the insult by his neighbors steeled his resolve to succeed at Kent.

And succeed he did. He declared a major in history, he joined ROTC, and he earned his degree with a 3.0 GPA. But he didn't turn into a bookworm. During his Kent years, Lou joined a fraternity, worked part-time as a janitor, coached the freshman football team at Ravenna High School to a perfect 11-0 record, fell in love with a coed named Edie, played linebacker for Kent State for two years at a scrawny 165 pounds, helped coach the Kent State freshman football team, and hitchhiked home regularly to visit his family and friends. He also formed strong views about how to coach. He decided that good teachers and good coaches have three things in common: they know their subject inside and out, they are able to present their knowledge in a cohesive and interesting way, and they have enthusiasm. (2)

Although Lou and Edie parted ways, Lou found a new love, Beth Barcus, and in summer 2011 they will celebrate their golden wedding anniversary. Lou's career took him, Beth, and their four children to twelve stops in his forty years of coaching. Among the highs was a national championship at Notre Dame in 1988; among the lows was a debacle with the New York Jets in 1976 and getting fired at Arkansas in 1983. (3) Incidentally, at Arkansas Lou was successfully represented by a young Attorney General named Bill Clinton in a lawsuit against him by three players. Now retired from coaching with a long list of career accomplishments and soon to turn 74, Lou spends his time as an ESPN college football analyst, a motivational speaker, an amateur magician, and a golfer, and he continues to practice his Catholicism.

Can one find any flaws in Lou Holtz's autobiography? I find two. The first is that he works both sides of the philosophical street. In some places he tells us that God has a plan for each of us that we cannot alter. (4) In others, he proclaims that whether a person succeeds or fails is entirely up to that person. (5) The second is that, despite his frequent emphasis on the importance of religion in his life, he ducks the strongest challenge to religion: the problem of evil. How do we explain how an all-powerful and all-good God allows so much suffering to afflict humankind, young and old?

1. Lou Holtz, Wins, Losses, and Lessons: An Autobiography (Harper Paperback, 2007.)
2. Wins, Losses, and Lessons, p. 29.
3. In Wins, Losses, and Lessons, Holtz often expresses his admiration for Notre Dame and the privilege it was to coach there for eleven years, but, somewhat uncharacteristically, he criticizes Kevin Rooney, the school's Director of Admissions, during Holtz's years there. Holtz admits that he was so angry with Rooney that he didn't speak to him during his last eight years at Notre Dame. According to Holtz, Rooney hurt his recruiting by turning down many academically qualified prospects and he permitted an official scholarship offer to be made only in the spring, months after competitor football programs had already extended theirs. The Notre Dame administration supported Rooney on these matters with a single exception. See pp. 231-233.
4. See Wins, Losses, and Lessons..., p. 45, pp. 51-52, p. 67, p. 175, p. 228, p. 284.
5. See Wins, Losses, and Lessons..., p. 31, p. 39

© 2010 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20101027.mp3 Born in 1969, she lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya. A devout Muslim, she attended a madrassa, wore a hijab, supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, (1) underwent a cliterodectomy at age six, (2) and dutifully endured beatings by family members for alleged moral lapses. (3) Fast forward to 2010. Soon to turn forty-one, having lived in the West since 1992, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is today a secular and a stern critic of Islam. Her most recent book, Nomad: From Islam to America, subtitled A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations,is a wake-up call to the West, a jeremiad which prophesies a bloody, violent future for the planet unless Islam is transformed, the human rights of Muslim women are recognized, and Westerners come to their senses.

What exactly are Hirsi Ali's issues with the faith of her youth?

Firstly, she says that Muslims have a naie, literalist, and unhistorical understanding of the Quran. The Quran, she insists, was written by humans over hundreds of years and not, as Muslims believe, dictated to Mohammed by God's messenger. (4) She sees a desperate need for the historico-critical method that was applied to the Bible in recent generations to be applied to the Quran.

Secondly, she says that Islam is misogynistic. Women in most Muslim countries are the literal property of their fathers and enjoy few rights compared to men. They are subject to beatings, disfigurement, or death for real or imagined improprieties.

Thirdly, Islam is theocratic, she says. In most Muslim societies, the church trumps the state. Anyone who dares to raise questions about Islam or the prophet Mohammed is persecuted. Curiosity and skepticism are heresy.

Fourthly, Islam poses a long-term threat to Western institutions, she insists, because Muslim immigrants in the West settle in enclaves and refuse to integrate physically, psychologically, or politically. Immigrants carry their tribal culture with them, she says. (5) They home school their children or they establish private religious schools, often with government subsidies, they follow Sharia instead of the civil law, and they abuse public welfare benefits.

And what does Hirsi Ali propose as a remedy? First and foremost, she argues that Westerners need to become vocal about gender discrimination in majority-Muslim countries. She calls out Western feminists and multiculturalists for their silence about the violations of the human rights of Muslim girls and women. (6) Further, she proposes that the Christian church, especially the Vatican, stop pursuing dialogue with Muslims and work to convert them. How ironic. For Hirsi Ali, an atheist, Christianity and the Christian God are far preferable to Islam and Allah. (7) Also, Western governments need to stop allowing Muslim immigrants to create ghettoes insulated from the wider society, they need to stop subsidizing madrassas, and they need to help Muslim immigrants become engaged citizens.

It is no surprise that Hirsi Ali requires round-the-clock security. Although many find her message offensive, we ignore it at our peril.

1. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wikipedia.
2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nomad: a Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations, Free Press, 2010, p. 20. Most of the information in this commentary is drawn from this volume.
3. Nomad..., p. 55.
4. Nomad..., p. 206.
5. Nomad..., p. 79.
6. Nomad..., p. 224. Hirsi Ali also criticizes Muslim women who attend colleges in the West, many of whom confront her at her public appearances, for their naivete. She writes: "If (they) lived in Saudi Arabia, under Sharia law, these college girls in their pretty scarves wouldn't be free to study, to work, to drive, (or) to walk around. (p. 133)
7. Nomad..., p. 238, p. 244.

© 2010 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20100921031932.mp3 Thomas Jefferson affirmed that a democratic republic can survive and prosper only if the citizens are literate and well-informed. This is why he proposed tax-supported schools in every community and founded the University of Virginia. So, how is the America of 2010 faring by Jefferson's standard? We don't have Jefferson to ask but we do have Chris Hedges. In his seventh book, entitled Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Hedges, a recipient of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on global terrorism, takes a sober look at literacy in America (1). His book is fundamentally a literacy report card and he gives America an F. Consider these facts which Hedges cites:

• 7 million Americans are illiterate and the number grows by 2 million a year
• 30 million Americans cannot read a sentence
• Among those who read, 50 million read at the 4th to 5th grade level
• In 2007, 80% of U.S. families did not buy or read a book
• One-third of those Americans who graduate from high school never read a single book after high school for the rest of their lives, and 42% of those who graduate from college never read a single book after college for the rest of their lives.

These jarring facts lead Hedges to indict our schools and colleges for training students to be compliant, money-driven careerists instead of critical thinkers who value autonomy and curiosity and who see the need to challenge the idols of the tribe.If Americans care little today about the pursuit of knowledge through books, magazines, and newspapers, what do we care about? Hedges claims that most of us care about entertainment in order to escape from reality.

Certainly TV serves this purpose. The average American watches TV four hours a day and in the average household the TV is on for six hours forty-seven minutes a day. But TV is not alone. Professional wrestling, celebrity worship, pornography, and many other diversions supplement it. Let's focus on pornography. Hedges points out the following:

• Over 13,000 porno films are produced in America a year
• There are 4.2 million porno websites. This amounts to 12% of the total number of websites
• One out of four daily search engine requests, or 68 million a day, is for porno material
• In 2006, the pornography industry raked in a staggering $97 billion worldwide. This is more than the combined revenues of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Apple, NetFlix, Earth Link, and Yahoo!
• Approximately 80% of all porn dollars spent by Americans go to Broadband, Comcast, and Direct TV, which is owned by General Motors
• The principal users of Internet porn are between the ages of twelve and seventeen.

Hedges says much more than I can report here on topics such as corporate influence in politics and journalism, NAFTA, Ivy League colleges, and others. Empire of Illusion is worth your time, as are his other books, especially the ones on American evangelicals and the new breed of in-your-face atheists. Few can match his analytical powers.

1. All the data cited in this commentary are taken from this book.

© 2010 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20100826.mp3 Recently Tiger Woods posted an 18-over 268 at Firestone, a course where he has won seven times. He did worse than all eighty golfers save one. The world's undisputed top golfer for years, Woods enjoyed an image as a mature, responsible father and husband. He was a hero to millions of young people and corporations paid millions of dollars a year for his endorsement. Suddenly, as revelations about his private life hit the news, Woods's world imploded. A loving, faithful husband turned out to be a playboy. His image in shreds, his market value collapsing, his personal and professional life in turmoil, Woods became the star in an American tragedy of his own creation. Whether Woods can recover his game and his adulation remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Woods has plenty of company.

Consider these parallels. A famous Christian evangelist rails against homosexuality from the pulpit at a Sunday service, then boards a plane for a dalliance with a male prostitute. A county prosecutor enriches himself by reducing or dropping charges against criminal suspects for the right price. A banker selects appraisers who agree to artificially inflate their appraisals so that he can give huge loans to select customers at great risk to his bank. A legendary motorcycle builder who is married to a wealthy, famous, and beautiful actress, takes time-out at work two to three times a day to enjoy sex with his mistress. A U.S. Senator who cultivates an image of love and support for his cancerous wife fathers an illegitimate child with another woman during a protracted affair. A political wunderkind who shocks the political world by beating a heavily favored opponent for state Attorney General joins his cronies after work for regular bouts of sex and alcohol with young women in his employ. A popular Governor who is among the top prospects for his party's presidential nomination regularly leaves his family and his state to cavort with a South American lover. Like Tiger Woods, all of these individuals, and thousands more, ruined their reputations and careers through reckless and imprudent actions.

What can one say about people who self-destruct? Some excuse them on the grounds that they were victims of broken families, or abusive parents, or sex addiction, or malicious journalists, or political enemies, or the devil, or fate, or a divinity with a plan.

In my view, these are simply rationalizations. The individuals referred to succumbed to temptations for instant gratification, for short-term pleasure and excitement, the future be damned. They all failed to take the long view. Had they taken the long view, they would have understood that happiness and success require self-restraint, prudence, and loyalty, that a fulfilling life requires earning and keeping the respect of oneself and one's family and associates, that the fact that you can do something does not mean that you should do it, and that in today's world there are very, very few secrets. In other words, they would have cultivated practical and moral wisdom. In this respect, Tiger has a long way to go.

© 2010 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20091215.mp3 There is an old saying that the outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man. Wonder and exhilaration in looking at a pulsing, muscular animal eager to take you away. And that means taking you away physically as well as mentally. In art and literature horses have represented many things such as life and they are still the stuff of dreams and wishing.

Other things can illicit a similar feeling and I think this wonder and exhilaration is what John Muir experienced as he walked his beloved Sierra Nevada Mountains . This Scotsman saw in these wild American mountains something that kept him writing for the rest of his life trying to put into words these feelings. Theodore Roosevelt also knew that keeping these wild places was important, as habitat for animals but also as a place where people could go for, shall I say - renewal.

Seeing hese places on television is lovely but being there, smelling the earth, plants, rocks, trees and shrubs; feeling the breeze and lifting your face to the sun, shinning unique to this place; stirs up all these primal emotions. Of course it could be raining or begin to rain, be cloudy and damp but you are there, not sitting comfortably inside; and you will take away something, something like that wonder and exhilaration that John Muir felt. He and Theodore Roosevelt helped preserve a lot of these habitats, habitats that we can visit today.

I do not walk the Sierra Nevada Mountains every day but the wetlands and woods that I do walk in Ohio produce what I feel is the same response that Muir felt. I understand him. When I was younger I roamed the woods imagining I was the first explorer, the first person to see a big tree, now I think I must go there for exercise but I go there for the same reasons John Muir expressed. A day of lightning and downpour or blizzard when I don't walk the woods, I feel restless, undirected, unorganized; I need a list of things to do. And feeling so comfortable in the woods I can think, I become inspired and that inspiration follows me all day.

Of course encounters with animals and birds are always welcomed and many of these encounters can only be experienced on their home ground. We are trespassers in their habitat and we must respect them as we must respect the weather – also - poison ivy. I always remember where it grows, for the irritating oil is present in winter but - I always look at the thick vines and the white berries it produces, for warblers even Pileated Woodpeckers eat these berries. Without wild places there would not be this wild food. Sometimes I think that poison ivy might be a barrier for human intrusion, but you don't get the rash for a day or so later, so it isn't a direct block.

Signs in many parks say, Stay on the Path, - Leave only Footprints, take only Photographs. Good reminders for good behavior in wild places.

View Details

commentary20091015.mp3 Millions of dollars are spent on litigation annually over disputes about religion in the public schools. A great many of these lawsuits could be avoided if school officials and parents had a better understanding of the key laws and court decisions governing this area. Fortunately, a book has just been published which can promote such an understanding and help all parties comply with the law and minimize litigation. It is entitled Religion in the Public Schools: A Road Map for Avoiding Lawsuits and Respecting Parents' Legal Rights. The author is Anne Marie Lofaso who teaches in the College of Law at West Virginia University. (1)

• Religion in the Public Schools deals with all the hot button legal issues in our public schools, including prayer, moments of silence, meditation, and invocations,
• dress codes,
• Bible study groups,
• censorship of student publications,
• use of school facilities by non-curricular and non-school groups,
• alternatives to evolution such as creation science and intelligent design,
• courses on religious scriptures or world religions,
• requests to accommodate religious holidays and religious dietary practices, and
• the right of students to opt-out of material in classes to which they or their parents object, among others.

Let's focus here on just one of these, prayer in the public schools. Professor Lofaso points out that decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts place strict limits on prayer in school because of the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits government entities from endorsing or promoting religion. She writes:Under Supreme Court decisional law, it is unconstitutional for public school officials to write prayers for recitation by students, select prayers for recitation by students, start each day with a reading from the Bible, set aside moments for silent prayer or meditation if the purpose of such a moment is clearly to foster prayer, invite outside clergy to graduation to give a prayer or an invocation, or develop a selection process for students to vote on which students may give a prayer...before high school football games over the school's public address system. (2)Even prayer at school board meetings is unconstitutional. (3) Does any prayer on school property pass constitutional muster? Yes! An individual student may pray on his or her own at any time "before, during, or after the school day." (4) Further, prayer which is initiated by students and which is voluntary, such as early morning prayer meetings around a flagpole or a pre-game prayer, is permissible provided that school officials, including coaches, do not promote or lead it. (5)

Professor Lofaso's book should be required reading for future public school administrators and teachers who are matriculating in the nation's colleges of education. It should also be read and kept for reference by superintendents, principals, members of boards of education, attorneys who practice public school law, teachers, and parents. It is thorough, accessible, clear, and extensively documented. Indeed, Religion in the Public Schools is a model of discipline-related public service for which Anne Marie Lofaso deserves the gratitude of everyone with an interest in public education.

1. 2009, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. ISBN 978-0-615-31001-5.
2. Pages 26-27.
3. Page 33.
4. Pages 37-38.
5. Page 38. "Where the conduct is genuinely student-initiated activity and not fostered or supported by public school staff, that conduct is constitutionally permissible." (Page 37) At the same time, though, there is no consensus among the courts whether teachers and other school representatives may legally participate in such student-initiated prayer meetings. See pages 38-39.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090924.mp3 In the United States today health care reform is front and center. President Obama has stumped for reform in dozens of appearances across the nation, an address to the Congress, and no fewer than five televised news shows last Sunday. On a daily basis the media report the latest wrinkles in a spate of health care proposals under discussion in the Congress and speculate on the political prospects of the President's preferred "public option."

In the health care debate, as in the government bailout of failing banks and two major U.S. auto producers, some critics of the White House invoke the "S" word – socialism. They warn that America is abandoning its historic commitment to limited government, private ownership, and the free market in favor of a welfare state, public ownership, and a planned economy. Such critics, including those attending TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties, seem to share Ronald Reagan's distrust of government. Government, they believe, is the problem, not the solution. Government, they tell us, is inept, it covets more and more power, it steals from producers to support parasites, it threatens our liberties, and it saddles future generations with enormous debt. (1) Setting aside the voices of dissent from the radical fringe - the birthers, the conspiracy theorists, those who vilify the President as a liar, and those who construe his pep talk to the nation's students as socialist propaganda - let's engage the central issue: Is the United States abandoning capitalism for socialism?

Let us understand that under socialism the government owns and administers the productive apparatus of society and provides all the goods and services, and by contrast, under capitalism individuals and companies own and administer the productive apparatus of society and provide all the goods and services with the possible exception of law enforcement and national defense. Now, where can we find examples of these two systems in practice? The fact is that we can't because the dominant economic system in the world today is a mixed one. A mixed economy incorporates elements of socialism and capitalism, although the mix differs from nation to nation. When a good or service is provided by a public source in a society, there is a socialist component; when a good or service is provided by a private source in a society, there is a capitalist component.

Thus, if you want to see socialist components in the United States, look no farther than the Grand Canyon National Park, Social Security, Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, the U.S. Postal Service, food stamps, police and fire departments, Youngstown State University, the Canfield public schools, the Public Library of Youngstown and Mahoning County, and the Mill Creek Metroparks. (2) Similarly, if you want to see capitalist components in the United States, look no farther than Disney World, the stock market, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Omaha Steaks, UPS, ESPN, Grove City College, Farmers National Bank, the Exal Corporation, and Handel's Ice Cream.

It seems clear to me that the U.S. is not abandoning capitalism for socialism. Rather, it continues to blend elements of both systems. Although the specific jurisdictions of the public and private sectors in America will change in the future as they have in the past, our economic hybrid is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

1. See, for instance, the recent statements of the Atlas Society, a group which seeks to perpetuate the ideas of Ayn Rand, an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. See www.atlassociety.org.
2. One of the ironies in recent weeks is a mother objecting to her child hearing a talk in his public school by President Obama because she wanted to shield him from "socialist propaganda." Public schools are a socialist component in America. If Americans were pure capitalists, there would be only private schools.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090903.mp3 The 19th century British philosopher John Stuart Mill is recognized in modern philosophy chiefly for two reasons. He refined the Utilitarian tradition of philosophy established by Jeremy Bentham and he reemphasized the primacy of individual liberty and self-determination against the inroads of the majority in democratic societies. One part of Mill's contribution has been largely overlooked, however. It is his call for legal and social equality for women in an 1861 volume entitled The Subjection of Women. (1)

Mill lived in an era when women were subordinate to men by law and custom. They were expected to marry, rear children, and devote themselves to their families. In most cases they could not pursue a formal education, own property or amass wealth, vote, serve on juries, practice a profession or trade, seek a divorce, even from an abusive husband, or travel alone. Women lived in the shadow of their de facto masters, their husbands.

Mill's case for women's equality reflects his Utilitarian roots. The subordination of women, he argues, is not only "wrong in itself" but "one of the chief hindrances to human improvement." (p. 7) By denying women the same opportunities as men, he says, society not only impedes the development of roughly half the population but denies itself the benefit of their talents. (pp. 88-89) Why is such a foolish practice followed? Mill asks. Because, he says, our customs and laws are a carryover of the law of the strongest. (pp. 10-11) The fact that men are typically superior to women in physical strength leads to the presumption that men are superior to women in all areas, despite the fact that there is no proof to support the claim. (p. 10) In this respect, Mill says, the predicament of women parallels that of slaves. (p. 11, p. 18)

Mill argues that the progress of society requires that all people, men and women, not be imprisoned in the "fixed social position" in which they are born but instead be given opportunities to develop their talents and to pursue their desires as long as they pose no threat to the rights of others. (pp. 22-23) To the naysayer who doubts the potential of women to match the achievements of men in literature, science, government, medicine, education, and the arts, Mill retorts that this is self-serving speculation. The only way to measure the potential of women is to free them from domestic bondage, give them the same opportunities as men, and observe the results. (p. 22, p. 26, p. 62, p. 74) History confirms that Mill's confidence in the outcome was prescient. To the skeptic who opines that the liberation of women will destroy marriage and the family, Mill answers that a marriage which is attractive to women, one based on equality and mutual respect instead of subordination, will prosper indefinitely. (pp. 33-34) To those who argue that authority to make decisions in any organization must ultimately rest in a single person, Mill replies that this is certainly not the case in successful partnerships in business, and that even if it were, this does not mean that the controlling voice on a given matter must be the husband's. (p. 45)

In a nutshell, then, Mill argued nearly 150 years ago that the liberation of women will produce two important results. It will benefit society by triggering the contributions of women in many fields, and it will benefit women by granting them the autonomy that is essential to happiness. In my view he was right on both counts.

1. The edition used here is Prometheus Books, Great Books in Philosophy Series, 1986 (ISBN 0-87975-335-8). References are by page numbers.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090820.mp3 I submit a simple moral principle for your consideration. A person who poses an avoidable and unnecessary threat of harm to innocent people should take steps promptly to end the threat.

If you embrace this principle but you use a cellphone while driving, you should stop doing so because cell phones distract drivers and significantly increase the likelihood of accidents. This is clear from the extensive laboratory and road research on drivers and cellphones which was reported this summer in a series of articles in The New York Times. (1) Here are some of the revelations in the series:

• In 2003, in order to avoid antagonizing members of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suppressed research that showed that cellphone usage by drivers was becoming a serious and growing threat on America's roadways.
• Drivers significantly overestimate their ability to multitask.
• Cellphones are now the number one distraction for drivers in the United States.
• Drivers who use cellphones cause far more fatalities than drivers distracted by all other causes combined.
• Drivers who use cellphones are four times as likely to cause a crash as drivers who do not use them.
• Cellphone users who are sober perform in laboratory tests with the same driving efficiency as drivers who are legally drunk.
• Headsets and other hands-free phones do not materially reduce the risks of a crash because the conversation itself takes a driver's attention off the road.
• Cellphone distractions cause at least 2,000 traffic deaths a year and 330,000 accidents a year.
• In the United States at any given moment, 12% of drivers are using cell- phones to talk, text, or e-mail.
• Drivers who text while driving often focus on their screens instead of the road for stretches of more than five seconds.
• Finally, truck drivers who text while driving are 23 times more likely to have an accident than when they are not texting.

One of the ironies surrounding the use of cellphones while driving is that a high percentage of the very same people who acknowledge that using cellphones while driving is dangerous admit that they continue to do so anyhow. This includes people who caused accidents in the past because they were distracted by their cellphones. (2)

Despite the proven dangers of cellphone usage by drivers, there is no imminent prospect of legal reform. Cellphones are so popular that legislators are reluctant to take a stand for safety over convenience. This year one-hundred seventy bills restricting cellphone usage while driving were introduced in the various states but only ten were adopted. One reason for this is that legislators themselves typically use cellphones while driving. Another is that the cellphone industry lobbies effectively against bans. Moreover, where there are legal restrictions, enforcement is usually lax; for instance, taxi drivers in New York City largely ignore the city's ten-year old ban on the use of cellphones by cabbies and usually the police don't interfere. (3)

So, be proactive. Protect yourself, your passengers, and other drivers. Pull over to a safe spot before you use your cellphone. It is the responsible thing to do. If you wait for government to cower you into doing so, you may wait a long, long time. Meanwhile, thousands of people will suffer or die needlessly. And you or a loved one could be one of them!

1. See The New York Times, July 19, 2009, July 21, 2009, July 28, 2009, and August 4, 2009.
2. For instance, see the case of Christopher Hill in The New York Times, July 19, 2008.
3. See The New York Times, August 4, 2009.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090806.mp3 Imagine a health affliction that ends a career but not a life: a surgeon contracts Parkinson's disease, a NASCAR driver goes blind, a world class sprinter acquires rheumatoid arthritis, or an orchestra conductor goes deaf. My last example is not hypothetical. It happened to Dr. Isaiah Jackson, music director of the Youngstown Symphony from 1996 to 2006. Isaiah, as he likes to be called, came to the Mahoning Valley with impressive credentials:

• He had studied music since the age of four.
• He had earned degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and the Juilliard School.
• His mentors included Leopold Stokowski and Leonard Bernstein.
• He had served conducting apprenticeships in major orchestras in the United States and Europe.
• He had been guest conductor of celebrated orchestras in Toronto, New York, Rome, Los Angeles, Taiwan, Dallas, Cleveland, Boston, Washington, Vienna, Geneva, Australia, the Soviet Union, Prague, Stockholm, Berlin, Hong Kong, Cape Town, and Israel; and
• He had served as music director of the University of Rochester Symphony, the Flint Symphony, The Royal Ballet in London, and the Dayton Philharmonic. Audiences at Powers Auditorium found Isaiah to be a Renaissance man at once erudite, witty, charming, and charismatic, who wielded the baton with grace, confidence, and energy. As is often the case with conductors, however, Isaiah's support within the organization faded as time passed due in part to personnel decisions that he made and critiques that he delivered during rehearsals, so that he had to move on before he wanted to.Isaiah's hearing loss came in two stages. In September 1995 he lost hearing in is right ear and in June 2004 he lost hearing in his left ear, a victim of what is called Sudden Sensory-Neural Hearing Loss. Thus, for years he led two orchestras, the Youngstown Symphony and the Pro Arte Chamber Orchestra of Boston, with partial or total hearing loss, thanks to his resilience and to state-of-the-art hearing devices. His final performance as maestro was a concert in Boston in January 2007 which featured Yo-Yo Ma as guest artist.

A lesser person would be depressed and bitter after being wrenched from the podium by a hearing loss. This is not the case with Isaiah. He remains upbeat and engaged. His spouse Helen and their three children have been remarkably supportive, he finds strength in prayer, and he maintains a demanding professional schedule in the Boston area where he lives. He is president of a family music education enterprise called "Rhythm, Rhyme, Results" which produces innovative hip-hop and rap tracks to teach math, science, social studies, and language arts to middle school students. He also teaches a course entitled The Future of Music at Harvard, he teaches conducting classes at the Berklee College of Music and the Longy School, and he offers private conducting lessons to undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate students.

Isaiah has enriched the lives of hundreds of thousands of young and old over a career spanning four decades. Perhaps the most important contribution that he has made, though, is showing us how to cope with personal tragedy.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

Note: The sources of information for this commentary are Dr. Jackson in a recent online interview, a Wikipedia article about Dr. Jackson, several musicians who worked with Dr. Jackson, and the commentator's own experience as coordinator of Dr. Jackson's appointment as Scholar-in-Residence in the College of Arts and Sciences at Youngstown State University from 2002 to 2006.

View Details

commentary20090723.mp3 Richard A. Clarke served seven presidents in important national security posts from 1973 to 2003. His new book, Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters, (1) is two things, an expansion of his earlier criticisms of President George W. Bush's track record in national security and a wide-ranging evaluation of the current state of national security.

Clarke focuses much of his attention on the current war in Iraq. His position is that the war was a mistake from the start, a fool's errand in his words, (2) which provided a recruiting windfall for al Qaeda. Beyond this, he faults both the White House and the Pentagon for poor planning and execution. Specifically he charges that:

• They sent too few troops.
• Despite warnings by the CIA and the State Department, they failed to anticipate the insurgency, an unforgivable oversight after the debacle of Vietnam.
• They failed to equip many of our troops adequately.
• They filled key positions in the interim government with inexperienced Americans.
• They used torture in violation of domestic and international law, a tactic that undercut America's moral standing around the world.
• They failed to provide adequate medical treatment to tens of thousands wounded soldiers when they were sent home for treatment.
• And, they developed no exit strategy. (3)

Iraq aside, Clarke alleges that the overall security apparatus in the nation today is dysfunctional. (4) On the topic of terrorism, for instance, he cites extensive evidence to show that most of the same vulnerabilities that existed on 9/11 exist today. A major cause of this, Clarke argues, is that we have sixteen distinct federal intelligence agencies which collectively spend $50 billion a year. There is little coordination among these fiefdoms, he says, and they frequently duplicate efforts. Perhaps the most dramatic example of the lack of coordination which he cites is the fact that the CIA knew that two known al Qaeda terrorists were in the United States eighteen months prior to 9/11 but it failed to pass along this information to other intelligence agencies. (5) Clarke reminds us that the most sensible solution to this problem, the appointment of a strong intelligence czar to oversee all intelligence agencies, which the 9/11 Commission recommended, was blocked by Donald Rumsfeld when he was Secretary of Defense. (6)

Does the relatively new Department of Homeland Security offer us any hope? In a word, according to Clarke, no. It is an organizational nightmare, placing twenty-two agencies with fundamentally different missions under one umbrella; it excludes key intelligence agencies such as the FBI and the CIA; it is under-funded; and it has become the prime target of the Beltway Bandits, the private defense and security companies surrounding Washington. (7) Clarke is not alone in this appraisal. The Government Accountability Office issued a virtually identical one in a report in 2007. (8)

Clarke's book, while depressing, deserves serious attention by all of us. To ignore the informed views of one of the most experienced and respected veterans of national intelligence service would be a disservice to ourselves, our children, and our children's children. (9)

1. RAC Enterprises, 2008
2. Page 188.
3. Clarke also offers a critique of the planning and execution of the war in Afghanistan in several parts of the book which includes some of these same points. For instance, see page 51, pages 175-176, and page 199.
4. Page 137.
5. Pages 164-165.
6. Pages 138-140.
7. See pages 210-235.
8. Page 225.
9. While Clarke does not minimize the ongoing dangers of terrorism, he argues that the most serious threat to national security is climate change. See page 263 and pages 272-273.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

Commentary20090709.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary20090625.mp3 If you would like to learn about a contemporary admirer of Machiavelli, take a look at a book by James Moore and Wayne Slater, two long-time observers of the American political landscape, entitled The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power. (1)

Moore and Slater inform us that Rove signed on to the Republican agenda while still a student and that he left college early to pursue his passion for politics. After a time as a leader of national Young Republicans, he became a political consultant in Texas where he established a direct-mail company and compiled a long list of generous donors to Republican candidates and causes. Although he worked for many candidates, he saw in George W. Bush, whose religion helped him defeat alcoholism, the ideal candidate for state and national office. Rove not only guided Bush to two terms as Governor of Texas and two as President of the United States but he resuscitated a dormant Republican Party in Texas and many other states. How Rove accomplished all this is the topic of Moore and Slater's book.

The authors argue convincingly that for Rove whether a tactic is legal or moral is peripheral to whether it works. Among his favorite tactics is attacking opponents through surrogates. Ann Richards in 1994, John McCain in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004, among others, were victims of this strategy. In Kerry's case, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which was bankrolled by three Texas Republican billionaires, including T. Boone Pickens, sowed seeds of doubt among many voters about Kerry.

The authors also credit Rove with exploiting religion in an unprecedented way. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that Rove is an agnostic, one who holds that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and should therefore remain neutral on the issue. (2) To Rove religion is simply a political tool. He concluded early in his career, based on years of careful polling, that the more regularly a person attends church, the more likely that person is to vote Republican. He therefore used religion to energize religious conservatives to register, vote, volunteer, and contribute to Bush and other Republicans. He collaborated with Ralph Reed from the Christian Coalition and hundreds of other conservative religious leaders across the nation. He convinced them that George W. Bush shares their values and that, if elected, he will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and he will propose a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.

There are fascinating paradoxes in Rove's use of the religious right's antipathy to homosexuality in campaigns. One is that many Republican homosexuals, both those who had come out and those who had not, acquiesced in this strategy as necessary to win and to advance the overall Republican agenda. Among them was Ken Mehlman, chairman of the national Republican Party. (3) Another is that Rove had homosexuality in his own family. Rove's stepfather, whom he loved and respected, eventually came out of the closet. This may have been a factor in the later suicide of Rove's mother.

You'll find dozens more surprises in The Architect. Whether you consider Rove a hero or a villain, the book is worth reading because Rove is without peer as a political consultant in America today. And, at the age of fifty-nine, he is likely to ply his trade for many more years.

1. Crown Publishers, New York, 2006.
2. See page 19 and page 22, among others.
3. See pages 63-65 and the following.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090611.mp3 In 1899 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision on whether government may constitutionally grant public funds to a religious organization. In Bradfield v. Roberts the Court ruled that the District of Columbia could pay a hospital in Washington operated by an order of Catholic nuns to provide a secular service to the poor health care. (1) Under this ruling, many religious groups received public funds without controversy year after year. Typically such groups did not seek to proselytize their clients, only to serve them, and used no religious test in hiring and firing. When George W. Bush was elected President, however, he created a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives with the intent to distribute much more tax dollars to religious organizations and he issued executive orders which changed past practice. Now such groups could mix sectarian and secular activities and could use religious criteria to hire and fire. (2) Challenges to the Bush program in the courts were unsuccessful.

As a result, many who were opposed to President Bush's faith-based programs turned to candidate Barack Obama for hope and he seemed poised to deliver relief if elected. For instance, in a speech in Ohio on July 1, 2008, he said:

"First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that money to proselytize to the people that you help and you can't discriminate against them or against the people you hire " on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that gob directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work." (3)

Based in part on these affirmations, Mr. Obama won solid support from civil libertarians and other supporters of separation of church and state, including millions who identify themselves as secular or non-religious. No fewer than 75 percent of the secular community voted for him. (4)

Since his election, however, Mr. Obama seems to have done a U-turn. He has left the Bush executive orders intact, he has retained the Bush White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and he has hired a 26-year old Pentecostal minister to run it. Seculars are disappointed and angry. For example, the current issue of Free Inquiry, a magazine that has a huge readership in the secular community, features no fewer than five articles critical of President Obama's early decisions on faith-based programs. (5) Seculars are not the only ones concerned. The Pew Research Center reports that 73 percent of Americans object to religious groups being allowed to discriminate in hiring and firing, and 61 percent oppose proselytizing of clients by religious groups who receive public funds. (6)

President Obama should either shut down the faith-based programs altogether or issue new rules to prevent proselytizing and discrimination in employment in them. He should also order that such programs be evaluated by the General Accounting Office or some other competent agency to determine their effectiveness. Only programs which successfully achieve their secular goals should be refunded.

1. See Rob Boston, The Faith-Based Initiative 2.0: Can We Unplug It? Free Inquiry June/July 2009, p. 3.
2. President Bush denied that he authorized proselytizing but his failure to require monitoring of expenditures permitted and encouraged sectarian activities.
3. Quoted in Rob Boston, p. 34.
4. Rob Boston, p. 34.
5. See pp. 26-40, Free Inquiry June/July 2009. The authors are Daniel Horowitz and Ruth Mitchell, who present an official position paper of the Council for Secular Humanism; Rob Boston, a senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Susan Jacoby, a specialist in American intellectual history; D. J. Grothe, an associate editor of Free Inquiry; and Ronald A. Lindsay, a lawyer and bioethicist who is CEO of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.
6. Rob Boston, p. 34.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090529.mp3 Suicide terrorism in today's world began with an attack by Hezbollah against the U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. That attack drove Israel, France, and the United States out of Lebanon and convinced many groups, including the PLO, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, and the Tamil Tigers, among others, that suicide missions can be an effective tool to achieve their goals. (1) As suicide attacks proliferated, millions puzzled over what prompts a person to become a suicide terrorist. The popular speculations are that they are religious extremists, victims of poverty, impressionable youth, mentally ill, poorly educated, or low-achievers. (2) Based on a study of more than four-hundred suicide terrorists from 1980 to 2003 by Robert A. Pape and his associates from the University of Chicago, which is entitled Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, we know now that all of these explanations are mistaken. Here are some of the study's findings:

Firstly, the role of religion as a motivation to suicide terrorism is exaggerated. Fifty-seven percent of suicide attacks around the world during the period studied were perpetrated by seculars. For instance, in Lebanon, thirty of thirty-eight known suicide terrorists "were affiliated with groups opposed to Islamic fundamentalism." (3) Further, very few of those suicide attackers who were religious were inspired to violence by their religious beliefs. (4)

Secondly, most suicide terrorists are not impressionable adolescents. Only thirteen percent of suicide terrorists were between the ages of fifteen to eighteen. Fifty-five percent were between the ages of nineteen to twenty-three and the remaining thirty-two percent were age twenty-four or older. (5)

Thirdly, suicide terrorists as a group possess a favorable socioeconomic status.They score far better on educational attainment and income than the overall populations in their countries. (6)

And fourthly, "The main purpose of suicide terrorism is to use the threat ofpunishment to compel a target government to change policy, and most especially to cause democratic states to withdraw their forces from land the terrorists perceive as their national homeland." (7) These patriotic sentiments are typically shared across the local population and explain popular support for suicide terrorism. (8)

Based on these findings, Professor Pape issues recommendations as to how the United States can defeat suicide terrorism. His principal one is that the U.S. needs to withdraw its troops from majority Muslim nations and give up any hope of transforming them. (9) As it does this, the U.S. should "work with Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf states to ensure that they maintain the critical infrastructure for a rapid return of U.S. forces should that prove necessary" (10) and it should cultivate "the friendliest possible relations" with Iran. (11) Following this policy, Pape predicts, will "suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere that breeds anti-American suicide terrorism." (12)

Pape and his associates deserve credit for producing a fact-based study which demythologizes suicide terrorism and provides wise counsel to political leaders. I hope that the White House and the Pentagon are paying attention.

1. Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Random House, 2005, pp. 73-74.
2. Dying to Win, p. 200.
3. Dying to Win, p. 205.
4. Dying to Win, p 210.
5. Dying to Win, p. 207.
6. Dying to Win, pp. 212-213. The research team says "The bottom line, then, is that suicide attackers are not mainly poor, uneducated, immature religious zealots or social losers. Instead, suicide attackers are normally well-educated workers from both religious and secular backgrounds. Especially given their education, they resemble the kind of politically conscious individuals who might join a grassroots movement more than they do wayward adolescents or religious fanatics." (p. 216)
7. Dying to Win, p. 27. The study repeats this finding in many places. See p. 38, p.108, p.126, and p. 237.
8. Dying to Win, pp. 48-49.
9. Dying to Win, p. 241.
10. Dying to Win, p. 247.
11. Dying to Win, p. 248.
12. Dying to Win, p. 249.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090423.mp3 Last month researchers at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, published the results of a national survey of beliefs about religion called the American Religious Identification Survey, or ARIS for short. This is the third such survey from this group over an eighteen year span. (1) Perhaps the most startling finding in ARIS 2008 is about the Nones. That's N-O-N-E-S. The Nones are the non-religious among us. There are twenty million more Nones today than in 1990, an increase of 138 percent, and the percentage of Nones has jumped from 8.2 percent to 15 percent of the population. (p. 3) Indeed, Nones are the only group on the American religious landscape which has increased in numbers and percentage in every state in the past two decades. (p. 17)

Here are some of the survey's other findings:

1. While the majority of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the number of Christians in the nation has increased since 1990 by 22 million, the percentage of Christians in the adult population has dropped by more than 10 percent. (p. 3)
2. Mainline Protestants dropped from 18.7 percent to 12.9 percent of the population (p. 5) (2), and Baptists dropped from 19.3 percent to 12.9 percent of the population. (p. 5) At the same time, the number of Americans who self-identify as "generic Christians" or "non-denominational Christians" rose from less than 800,000 in 1990 to more than 8 million in 2008. (pp. 5-6)
3. 27 percent of Americans say that they do not expect to have a religious funeral or service when they die. (p. 10
4. )On the subject of divorce, except for Jews and Mormons, whose divorce rates are atypically low, Nones compare favorably to believers. The divorce rate for Catholics, Baptists, and Nones is 11 percent; other Christian groups, such as Pentecostals and generic Christians, have a higher divorce rate. (p. 13)
5. The influx of Hispanics, now the nation's largest minority, (p. 15) has contributed significantly to a huge increase in the Catholic populations of California, Texas, and Florida. (3) Over the past two decades, the Catholic population rose from 29 percent to 37 percent in California, from 23 percent to 32 percent in Texas, and from 23 percent to 27 percent in Florida. (pp. 20-22) Migration of Catholics from the northeast and the mid-west also contributed to this trend. (pp. 20-22)
6. The percentage of Catholics in New England declined from 50 percent in 1990 to 36 percent in 2008. At the same time, the percentage of Nones in New England grew from 8 percent to 22 percent. (p. 18)

Does all this mean that we are witnessing "The Decline and Fall of Christian America," as the cover of a recent issue (April 13, 2009) of Newsweek magazine suggests? Hardly. A significant majority of Americans remain Christians, more and larger mega-churches are built each month, Christian media reach over a hundred million of the faithful daily, Christian groups spend hundreds of millions each year to proselytize and to shape public policy, and, as is the case today, the occupant of the White House for the foreseeable future will be a person of faith.

1. The 1990 survey was published in 1993 under the title One Nation under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society, and the 2001 survey was published in 2006 under the title Religion in a Free Market: Religious and Non-Religious Americans. The principal investigator for all three is Barry Kosmin, a sociologist. For the 2008 survey, see www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org. ARIS 2008 follows on the heels of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey which was published in February of this year. This survey found that a) 28% of Americans have left the religion of their youth for another religion or no religion, b) the fastest growing segment of the population is those who say they are religious but connect with no particular church and those who say that they are atheist or agnostic, c) more than one in ten Catholics born in the United States are no longer Catholic, and d) those embracing Protestantism – mainline, evangelical, and historically black – have declined to a bare majority – 51%. See my WYSU commentary on this survey at www.wysu.org. Click on "Public Affairs," then "Commentaries." Both surveys have been reported extensively in the media and ARIS 2008 serves as the basis of the cover story in Newsweek, April 13, 2009, pp. 34-38.
2. Mainline Protestants are Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anglicans, and members of the United Church of Christ.
3. Surprisingly, the percentage of Catholics among Hispanics in America has declined from 66 percent in 1990 to 59 percent in 2008. Many Hispanics have gravitated to generic Christianity (from 8 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 2008) and to the Nones (from 6 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2008). (p. 14)

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090410.mp3 A team of reporters and an editor from The Boston Globe have published a book entitled Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy which gives us a thorough, objective study of Joseph and Rose Kennedy's youngest child. (1)

The reader will find in the Last Lion much that is familiar. Ted was born into a family of wealth and privilege in 1932 when his mother was forty-one because, as a devout Catholic, she refused to use birth control. (p. 13) Joe was often away making money, courting women, including actress Gloria Swanson, or serving as FDR's ambassador to Great Britain. (p. 17) Rose agreed to ignore Joe's adultery in exchange for what some euphemistically called "retail therapy," that is, shopping to her heart's content in the United States and Europe. (p. 29) Also, Joe set up a $1 million trust fund for each of his children in the hope that lifetime financial security would free them to devote themselves to public service. (p. 17)

Further, we learn that as Ted grew up, unlike his siblings, he struggled in school. His parents transferred him so often that by age eleven he had attended ten schools. (p. 26) Despite his mediocre academic record, Ted followed his brothers Jack and Bobby to Harvard where he was suspended during his first year for cheating on a Spanish test. (p. 38) After a stint in the U.S. Army, he returned to Harvard, completed his degree, and, following the family tradition, enrolled in law school at the University of Virginia where he and his partner eventually won the moot court competition. (p. 53) We also learn that after the death of Jack and Bobby, Ted became a surrogate father to their children with mixed results. After his first marriage failed, Ted married Vicki Reggie, a divorcee with two children, with whom he built a stable marriage which thrives today. (p. 290) We also learn much about Chappaquiddick but we still get no credible explanation of why the Senator waited nine hours to report the fatal accident to the local police. (pp. 145-168)

The reader of the Last Lion will also find some new and surprising information about Senator Kennedy's legislative record. During his forty-seven years in the Senate, he has authored some 2,500 bills, three-hundred of which are law. (p. 396, p. 403) He has played a pivotal role in the passage of virtually every law in the past half century in civil rights, health care, immigration, and education. His achievements include the Americans with Disabilities Act; Head Start; the Women, Infants, and Children program; Health Maintenance Organizations; the No Child Left Behind Law; increases in financial aid for college students and for cancer research; the Immigration Act of 1965; the Ryan White Act for AIDS research; and hundreds of others. Understandably, Senator John McCain has described Ted as "the most effective member of the Senate." (p. 387) Other senators from both sides of the aisle have echoed this tribute, including Orrin Hatch of Utah. (pp. 322-337, p. 387) (2)

Although many will remember Ted Kennedy for his family's tragedies and his personal excesses, his enduring legacy to the nation is a remarkable legislative record built on his personal charm and political savvy, his intense study of proposed legislation, his readiness to reach across the aisle, and his belief that a half a loaf is better than none.

1. Simon & Schuster, 2009. Senator John McCain's characterization of Kennedy as "the last lion in the Senate" accounts for the title of the book. The reporters are Bella English, Neil Swidey, Jenna Russell, Sam Allis, Joseph P. Kahn, Susan Milligan, and Don Aucoin and the editor is Peter S. Canellos.
2. Hatch tells a story about a letter he received from a senior citizen in southern Utah which said: "Senator Hatch, when we heard you might run for office, we supported you. When you actually ran for office, we voted for you. And when we heard that you were friends with Senator Kennedy, we prayed for you." (p. 332.)

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090319.mp3 Christopher Hitchens's most recent book is an in-your-face critique of religion entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. (1) Hitchens offers the reader a long list of complaints about religion, including:

• The teachings of religion about the origin of the cosmos and the origin and development of biological species contradict well-established science;
• All of the traditional arguments for the existence of God have significant defects;
• All of the traditional attempts to explain how the enormous suffering that afflicts sentient creatures is compatible with an all-powerful and all-good God are an exercise in sophistry;
• Religious scriptures amount to myths and fables that are contradictory, unhistorical, and, in the case of the Koran, largely plagiarized;
• Religion is patriarchal and denigrates women;
• Religion inflames tribal and ethnic hostility;
• Religions are intolerant of those who reject or question them, including seculars, heretics, and adherents of other religions;
• The moral codes which religions promote are shallow and incomplete, and in some cases, "positively immoral"; (2)
• Religion inflicts physical and psychological harm on children;
• Religion finds a problem for every sensible solution in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and elsewhere; and
• Prayer doesn't work.

Hitchens will find support on these points among most seculars, including myself, and among many religious. Yet his book has serious defects which detract from its value. While he blames religion for virtually every problem from erectile dysfunction to terrorism, he finds nothing at all praiseworthy in religion. He overlooks the fact that religion can change for the better. For instance, in the United States 175 years ago, thousands of clergy endorsed slavery; today none do. And for generations Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland carried on a bloody, senseless civil war; today a peace accord between these groups is holding up despite recent attempts by domestic terrorists to destroy it. Similarly, Hitchens ignores the fact that many religious organizations provide valuable humanitarian services to people in need. Take, for example, Habitat for Humanity, Goodwill Industries, Catholic Charities, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, among others, which help millions of young and old each year around the nation, and Beatitude House, Potter's Wheel, and Angela's Place, among others, which help hundreds of young and old each year locally. Further, Hitchens is silent about the thousands of American schools and colleges with religious affiliations that have educated millions over the generations. Finally, Hitchens mentions but downplays the harm produced by secular regimes in the past century such as Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. (3) All this points to serious blind spots. (4)

If you want to read a more balanced, less rhetorical critique of religion, take a look at The Transcendental Temptation. This classic was published 23 years ago by philosopher Paul Kurtz, a much kinder, gentler atheist than Hitchens.

1. Twelve, Hatchett Book Group USA, 2007.
2. Page 205.
3. Hitchens acknowledges that the excesses of communist dictators caused him to abandon the Marxism of his youth. See page 151. On the record of secular regimes, see Rabbi David J. Wolpe, Why Faith Matters, pp. 51-67. It is interesting to note that Hitchens has gone through multiple identities including Anglican, Methodist, Marxist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, and most recently atheist. One wonders if he's finished. See p. 195.
4. Hitchens's refusal to grant religion any credit is reflected in his comments about two twentieth-century leaders. After insisting that Mohandas Gandhi was only a minor force in the successful drive for independence in India, he tells us that Gandhi's Hinduism had little impact on his behavior. (See p. 184) Further, he informs us that Christianity provided no inspiration for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the U.S. civil rights struggle. (See p. 180) This amounts to historical revisionism.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090302.mp3 John F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian who specializes in religion and science and who has served on the faculty at Georgetown University for most of his career. His new book, God and the New Atheism, is a reply to recent assaults on religion by three popular religious skeptics - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. (1) Let's focus on three of the many issues which Haught raises.

Firstly, Haught charges that the unholy trio have only a superficial grasp of religion. (2) For them, Haught says, religion means Biblical literalism, creationism, and terrorism, "the most extreme forms of rabid religiosity." (3) As the New Atheists "unveil religion at its absolute ugliest," he says, they altogether ignore both theology and religious moderates. (4) In doing so, he writes, they miss the nuanced interpretations of religion of "biblically informed, critically reflective, religious thinkers" such as Paul Tillich, Alfred North Whitehead, Paul Ricoeur, Bernard Lonergan, and Karl Rahner, among others. (5) Had they done their theological homework, Haught says, they would have discovered that these seminal figures long ago critiqued and repudiated the literalist, anti-scientific, and violent expressions of religion which the New Atheists ridicule so tirelessly in their books.

Secondly, Haught says that the New Atheists commit methodological errors when they proclaim, on the one hand, that "science alone can be trusted to put our minds in touch with reality" (6) and, on the other, that a scientific explanation makes a religious one superfluous. (7) On the first claim, while conceding the importance of science, Haught observes that we often abandon the objective, analytical stance of science to discover reality. For instance, we rely on subjective, interpersonal experience to learn that we love a person and that he or she loves us. (8) The same happens, he says, in our encounter with a work of art or with beauty in nature. (9) Indeed, according to Haught, it is in our subjective intuition that a divine "Thou" is reaching out to us that we encounter God. (10) On the second claim, Haught argues that science does not trump religion because science and religion offer non-competing levels of interpretation. (11) Consider, he says, that a page in his book can be seen simultaneously as marks made by a printing press, as words used by him to convey ideas, and as the result of his publisher's request for a reply to the New Atheists. (12) Similarly, he notes, nature can be seen simultaneously without contradiction as unfolding dramas of natural selection and divinely inspired liberation. (13)

Thirdly, Haught argues that the New Atheists's disdain for faith is paradoxical in that the scientific enterprise is permeated by faith. For instance, he observes, scientists take it on faith that they can trust their minds, that nature is intelligible, and that truth is worth seeking. (14) Further, he adds, theology, not science, furnishes the only plausible justification of these assumptions, namely, they manifest the handiwork of a loving God. (15)Haught's reply to the New Atheists reflects his deep knowledge of science and theology. This is why both seculars and religious should read it and why it deserves a serious response by one or more of the New Atheists.

1. John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.
2. Page 36.
3. Page 28.
4. Page 29.
5. Page xii.
6. Page 41.
7. Page 83.
8. Pages 45-46.
9. Page 45.
10. Page 54, page 86.
11. Page 84.
12. Pages 84-85.
13. Page 85.
14. Page 46.
15. Pages 50-52; page 43; page 97.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090223.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary20090219.mp3 Suppose a child in the United States dies from a medically treatable condition because her parents prayed over her but did not take her to a doctor. Will criminal charges be filed against the parents? In most cases, no. American prosecutors have found it difficult to obtain convictions in such cases because the laws in most states exempt parents from prosecution for child neglect, child abuse, and manslaughter if their religion mandates spiritual healing. The statute in Wisconsin is typical. It says that a parent cannot be found guilty of a crime if "he or she provides a child with treatment (for sickness) by spiritual means alone...in lieu of medical or surgical treatment...in accordance with (a bona fide) religious method of healing." (1) Such statutes were adopted by states in the mid-1970's at the behest of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare when it issued new regulations which exempted parents who practice spiritual healing from criminal charges. States were required to adopt this exemption to receive federal funds for child protection programs. (2) Even though HEW rescinded this exemption in 1983, exemptions remain on the books in more than forty states. (3)

Many groups have called for the repeal of these exemptions, among them the United Methodist Church, the National District Attorneys Association, the American Medical Association, and dozens of child advocacy groups. (4) Thus far, however, only Massachusetts, Colorado, South Dakota, Maryland, and Hawaii have repealed them. (5)

Those who practice spiritual healing take their cue from the Epistle of James in the Bible. Chapter 5, verse 14, asks "Are any among you sick?" and then prescribes prayer by elders and anointing with oil. (6) Historian Shawn Francis Peters says that faith-healers interpret this passage to mean that Christians should turn only to God and never to doctors to heal the sick. (7) Many who promote healing by prayer alone, Peters says, believe that prayer is superior to medical science, (8) and that it drives out the root cause of illness – Satan. (9) This abandonment of medicine by faith-healers contrasts sharply with most well-known advocates of prayer as therapeutic who call for prayer and traditional medical care. Larry Dossey, Herbert Benson, Harold Koenig, William Parker, Randolph Byrd, and Dale Matthews are among this group. (10)

In his book Peters shows that thousands of children have died needlessly in England and America due to lack of medical treatment, and that prosecutors, the public, and the media in these two countries increasingly tolerate refusal of medical care by adults on the grounds of religious liberty but increasingly object to parents denying medical care to their children. We have reached a point in America where the Congress needs to adopt a law similar to one in England which provides severe penalties if a parent fails to provide "adequate food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging for (a) child..." (11) If and when our government sends a signal that it is ready to follow the British lead, we can expect vigorous resistance from various faith-healer groups, especially the Church of Christian Science. That resistance must be overcome for the sake of the most vulnerable among us, our children.

1. Shawn Francis Peters, When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 14-15. References to this book herein are by page number.
2. Peters, page 116. Rita Swan, head of the child advocacy group, CHILD, avers that the HEW exemption was promoted by Christian Science staff during the Nixon administration, including H. R. Haldeman and John Erlichman. See Peters, p. 116.
3. Peters, pages 112-116. Also, see "Christian Science," Wikipedia.
4. Peters, p. 15.
5. Peters, pages 197-202.
6. Peters, p. 30.
7. Peters, page 30.
8. Oddly, the playwright George Bernard Shaw, himself a religious skeptic, came to the defense of faith-healers in Great Britain who were being harassed by prosecutors by accusing the government of a double standard. He noted that "hundreds of children (in the care of doctors) die every day" but few doctors were charged with crimes. See Peters, p. 60. Also see p. 80.
9. Peters, page 33, page 72, and pages 78-79.
10. Peters, pages 42-44.
11. Quoted in Peters, p. 53.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090212.mp3 In his most recent book, Why Faith Matters (1), Rabbi David J. Wolpe makes the case for religion and rebuts recent critiques of religion by a quartet of prominent atheists called the New Atheists. (2) This is a book that deserves a large audience among religious and seculars because it is accessible, well-argued, and thought-provoking.

One of Rabbi Wolpe's main objectives is to defend religion from the charge that religion is the main cause of violence in the world. He argues that violence is due not to religion but to human nature. (p. 43, p. 52) All of us, whether religious or secular, he says, are prone to hostility. (p. 69) The Rabbi concedes that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and 9/11 demonstrate that religion "is capable of great evil" (p. 53), but he insists that seculars who believe that there will be peace without religion are naïve. (p. 71) He notes that most ancient tribal societies were at war continuously (p. 50) and that the great empires in history, from the Persian to the Assyrian to the Greek to the Roman, give us a "chronicle of cruelty." (p. 51) Further, he charges, secular movements have brought explosions of violence, not peace and love. On this score he cites the excesses of the French Revolution and the millions of deaths at the hands of Mao in China, Stalin in Russia, and Pol Pot in Cambodia. (pp. 65-67)(3) Here he is right on target. On the other hand, Rabbi Wolpe is silent on a critical issue: if humans are aggressive by nature, and God is the architect of human nature, doesn't God deserve a measure of blame for violence?

One part of Rabbi Wolpe's case for religion disappoints me - his use of Bertrand Russell as the poster child of secularism. Russell made important contributions to moral theory, logic, mathematics, and literature, but as the Rabbi properly points out, his private life was a "mess," with four marriages, "proudly proclaimed infidelities," and abandonment of his children. (p. 6) Russell prompted young David Wolpe to abandon his faith for ten years. Later, when the Rabbi discovered that his hero was irresponsible, he concluded that a life without religion is lonely, selfish, and hedonistic. (61) This is a classic case of hasty generalization. Russell is as representative of secularism as pedophile clerics are representative of religion. Has Rabbi Wolpe never heard of seculars such as world class cyclist Lance Armstrong, baseball Hall-of-Famer Ted Williams, media mogul Ted Turner, golfer Annika Sorenstam, investor Warren Buffett, actor Angelina Jolie, TV personality Andy Rooney, composer Irving Berlin, inventor Thomas Edison, computer entrepreneur Bill Gates, and countless others, whose talent, service, and generosity have enriched lives near and far?

Rabbi Wolpe's book also includes a series of insightful criticisms of what he views as the overblown attempt by the New Atheists to explain all human behavior through evolutionary theory. For instance, he argues that if, as Richard Dawkins holds, the key to human behavior is the drive to reproduce our genes, why do wealthier families who can afford many children have so few, and why do so many women opt for abortion when adoption is available? (p. 30)

Whether you are religious or not, you'll find much of value in David Wolpe's Why Faith Matters.

1. See David J. Wolpe, Why Faith Matters, HarperOne, 2008, with a Foreword by Rick Warren. References to this book herein are by page number. Wolpe is not alone in replying to the new atheists. Among other replies is John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.
2. He specifically identifies Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. See Sam Harris, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation; Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; and Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
3. He also mentions Hitler's Germany as an atheist regime (p. 67) but that is debatable.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090122.mp3 Sidney Poitier was the first black actor to win the Academy Award for Best Actor. He won it in 1963 for his role in Lilies of the Field. (1) Subsequently he received virtually every major honor which an actor can receive. (2) Poitier starred in some forty films, including Blackboard Jungle (1955); The Defiant Ones (1958); The Bedford Incident (1965); A Patch of Blue (1965); Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967); To Sir, With Love (1967); and In the Heat of the Night (1967). He also performed to critical acclaim on stage and on television and he directed nine films. (3)

Poitier's artistic success is nothing short of amazing when you consider his roots. He grew up on an island in the Bahamas without plumbing, electricity, paved roads, automobiles, or schools. He wore trousers which his mother made from flour sacks. His parents were tomato farmers whose business collapsed when the State of Florida banned tomato imports from the Bahamas in 1936. At that point the Poitier family moved to Nassau, a modern city, where Sidney attended school briefly, got in trouble with the law, and discovered race, class, and movie theaters. (4) At the age of 15 Poitier's father sent him to live with his older brother Cyril in Miami but racism there quickly drove him north to New York City. He lived in Harlem for fourteen years, many of them spent as a dishwasher. (5) His first try at acting at the American Negro Theater was a disaster. Poitier had had no training, he could barely read, and he had a "thick singsong Bahamian accent." (p. 56) He then undertook a program of self-improvement. With the help of an elderly Jewish waiter, he learned to read and speak by reciting the daily newspaper. (p. 57) He took acting classes (p. 58) and absorbed much from friends and fellow actors as well as radio and movie house newsreels. (6) Eventually he landed his first stage and film roles. (7)

Despite Poitier's growing success, none of the Hollywood movie companies sought to sign him to an exclusive contract. (p. 94) Poitier considered this an asset, however, because it allowed him to "pick and choose" his projects so that none of his roles would embarrass his family or contradict his own values. (p. 94) This independence explains why he turned down a leading role in a film in which his character was intimidated into silence about a crime (pp. 64-67), why he refused to sign loyalty oaths during the height of the cold war (pp. 93-99), and why he asked for and got a script change in a scene from In The Heat of the Night so that when a white man slapped him, he slapped back (pp. 136-137). (8)

How does one account for great artistic accomplishment by a person who grew up in a Third World culture, who had virtually no formal schooling, who had regular brushes with the law, and who couldn't read until his late teens? Poitier himself offers two speculations - that his gift for theater has genetic roots (p. 20) and that unseen mysterious forces - fate, if you will – guided him on his career path. (p. 61) Whatever the reasons, Sidney Poitier, who turns 82 next month, has given us a legacy of extraordinary films that will entertain, educate, and inspire young and old for many generations.

1. See Sidney Poitier, The Measure of A Man: A Spiritual Autobiography, HarperCollins, 2000. References to this book are by page number.
2. Among Poitier's awards are the Academy Award for Best Actor, the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama, the AFI Life Achievement Award, the SAG Life Achievement Award, the Cecile B. DeMille Award, Kennedy Center Honors, the NAACP Hall of Fame Award, the Marian Anderson Award, the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album, an Honorary Oscar, and Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (knighthood). See "Sidney Poitier," Wikipedia.
3. "Sidney Poitier," Wikipedia.
4. Poitier quit school at age 12. His aborted schooling in Nassau did play an important part in his later career because one of his teachers, Mr. Fox, became the model for his role in To Sir, With Love, a story about a teacher in an impoverished area of London. (p. 187) In Nassau, after Poitier saw a movie, he would return home and act out all the parts. (p. 33)
5. In New York, Poitier sometimes slept in a pay toilet or on a rooftop because he could not afford an apartment. When winter set in, he decided to join the U.S. Army so that he had food, clothing, and lodging. His career in the military was short-lived. To quicken his release, he feigned psychological problems and narrowly escaped a court martial. (See pp. 52-55)
6. Poitier says that his "teachers" included Paul Robeson, Dr. Ralph Bunche, A Philip Randolph, Adam Clayton Powell, Roy Wilkins, Mary McCloud Bethune, Walter White, Whitney Young, and Langston Hughes as well as contemporaries including Harry Belafonte, Leon Bibbs, and Philip and Doris Rose. (p. 76) He writes: "By their example and my own intense effort at reading the newspapers, I picked up useful bits of information every day." (p. 77) He also acknowledges Louise, a fellow acting student, who "taught me much, not the least of which was to appreciate how much a greater command of the language can enrich one's life." (p. 79) He credits a long list of actors with helping him to hone his acting skills, including Marlon Brando, Rod Steiger, Lee Grant, Ruby Dee, Alice Childress, Frank Silvera, Spencer Tracy, and Canada Lee, among others. (p. 144)
7. His parents viewed his first film, No Way Out, at a Nassau movie theater in 1950. (p. 60)
8. Poitier reports that the actor John Cassavetes helped to reinforce Poitier's strong feelings about roles. Cassavetes told him never to do an artistic favor for a friend. Cassavetes said "You've got to have one area of your life where there's no room for compromise." (p. 147) Poitier's pride and independence also help explain his consistent refusal to sign loyalty oaths at the request of film-makers and TV moguls at the height of the cold war. (See pp. 93-99.)

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20090108.mp3 Charles Curran, one of the most influential theologians of the past half century, grew up in Rochester, New York. He decided at the age of 13 to be a priest, earned two doctorates in theology in Rome, where he was also ordained, and accepted an appointment to the theology faculty at the Catholic University of America in 1965, a campus that would serve as the stage for an epic battle between Curran and the Vatican. (1)

The battle was joined when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968 which reaffirmed the church's rejection of what it called "artificial" birth control, despite a recommendation to the contrary by a majority of a panel which the Pope himself had established to study the issue. (p. 49)(2) This prompted the young theologian to organize a protest in which over six hundred Catholic theologians signed a statement disagreeing with the Pope's position on moral and theological grounds. (pp. 50-51)(3) The Vatican was not pleased.

Curran's differences with church teaching were anchored in his strongly held belief that "...the Catholic tradition is a living tradition and the work of Catholic theology involves ongoing revision." (p. 197)(4) Curran repeatedly pointed out that the church had revised its teaching sensibly on social issues including slavery, democracy, human rights, usury, capital punishment, and others, but on sexual matters it was paralyzed in a medieval neo-scholastic worldview which was fixated solely on the biological aspects of sex. (p. 5, p. 86, p. 199) Curran was relentless in calling for reform. Within a decade, in his books, articles, and speeches, he publicly challenged the church's traditional teaching on priestly celibacy, the ordination of women, birth control, homosexuality, sterilization, divorce, abortion, premarital sex, masturbation, and euthanasia. (5)

Criticism of Curran's work by the Vatican and other Catholic conservatives prompted his university to attempt to fire him in 1967 but school officials backed off after faculty and students rallied to his cause and staged a strike. But many years later, after he was officially condemned by the Vatican as a heretic in 1986, Catholic University managed to cuts its ties to him successfully. (p. 5)(6) Despite the church's actions, Curran's book sales shot up and his influence grew. (p. 244) After short-term stays at Cornell, the University of Southern California, and Auburn, Curran accepted an endowed chair in 1991 in human values at Southern Methodist University where he remains today.

If you ask Charles Curran why he stays in a church that condemned him, he will reply that only the hierarchy, not the church, condemned him. (p. 244) The church, he insists, is all the people of God and it "...is as much mine as the pope's." (p. 246) If you ask him what sustained him during the pitched battles with the Vatican and officials at Catholic University, he will cite a confident hope that the church will eventually change and a resilient sense of humor. (p. 251, p. 259) Fortunately, in America, dissent by a scholar is seldom punished as severely as Curran was. Let's hope that it stays that way.

1. References herein are by page number in Charles Curran, Loyal Dissent: Memoir of a Catholic Theologian, Georgetown University Press, 2006. One observation which Curran made in Rome was that the Vatican was filled with ambitious priests "trying to plot their careers" which showed that the church "was not only human but sinful." (p. 13) Curran also says that any doubts that the church is imperfect should have disappeared with the pedophilia scandal in which bishops "put institutional survival and 'the good name of the church' above the needs of innocent victims." (p. 239)
2. Curran notes that after the publication of Humanae vitae church attendance in America dropped by 11% and fully one-quarter of the graduates of Catholic colleges left the church. (p. 53)
3. The statement concluded that Catholics "could responsibly decide to use birth control" if it is necessary "to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of their marriage." (p. 52) Later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith charged that Curran's protest had robbed the encyclical "of its intended effect..." (p. 113)
4. Curran was deeply influenced in this view in Rome by one of his theology professors, Bernard Lonergan, a Canadian Jesuit. For more on Lonergan, see Joseph Flanagan, Quest for Self-Knowledge: An Essay in Lonergan's Philosophy, University of Toronto Press, 1997.
5. On the subject of the ordination of women as priests, Curran argues that the church's logic is flawed. It holds that women should not be ordained because all the apostles were men. This reflects the times, not divine law, according to Curran. By the church's logic, Curran notes, only Jews should be ordained priests since all the apostles were Jews. (p. 240)
6. Coincidentally, the head of the Vatican office which declared Curran unfit to teach Catholic theology – the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – was Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

© 2009 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20081226.mp3 In a recent book on the subject of religious literacy in America (1), Stephen Prothero, a historian of religion, argues that, paradoxically, "Americans are both deeply religious and profoundly ignorant about religion." (2) For instance, despite the fact that a huge majority of Americans are Christians, only half can name even one of the four Gospels (3), a majority cannot name the first book of the Bible (4), and only one-third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. (5) Americans are ignorant not only about Christianity but other religions as well. Only one-third of us can identify the founder of a religion other than Christianity and a vast majority of us are unfamiliar with the basic teachings of Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. (6)

How did Americans become so religiously illiterate? Prothero traces religious amnesia in America to two sources in the 19th century. The first is the rise of evangelicalism in the Second Great Awakening which catapulted emotion over reason and actively discouraged religious learning. The second is the growth in non- denominationalism within Protestant America, partly as a defense against waves of Catholic immigrants, which resulted in a lowest common-denominator faith and the removal of the Bible from most public schools. (7) Thus, believers, not secularists, were responsible for the flight of religion from the classrooms. (8)

So how does Professor Prothero propose to overcome religious illiteracy in America? He calls for two required courses in American public high schools, one in the Bible and one in world religions. (9) According to Prothero, studying the Bible, arguably the most influential book ever written, will help students understand American history and literature while studying world religions will give students insight into religious diversity in America and help them to grasp developments and events across the world. Prothero points out that, contrary to public perception, teaching about religion has been consistently ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. (10)

Prothero acknowledges that his proposal faces obstacles. Teacher training will have to be revamped so that each school system has teachers qualified to teach courses in the Bible and world religions; funds will have to be found to support the new courses; and teachers, administrators, and parents will need to be educated about the distinction between teaching and preaching. Nevertheless, Prothero argues, we need to confront these problems head on because we need religiously literate citizens in today's world. (11)

I am convinced that Prothero's picture of religious illiteracy in America is accurate and that his proposal to overcome it is sensible and timely. (12) Whether it will be adopted across the nation is, of course, another question altogether. My sense is that the only hope for implementation of Prothero's plan is if President-Elect Barack Obama, who seeks to bridge the gulf between evangelicals and seculars, to defuse the culture wars, and to upgrade public education, makes Prothero's agenda his own. (13)

1. Stephen Prothero, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and Doesn't, HarperCollins, 2007. References hereinafter are to this book. Prothero chairs the Department of Religion at Boston University.
2. Page 1. Prothero has a lot of company here. For instance, pollster George Gallup, after conducting dozens of surveys over decades, opines that the United States is "a nation of Biblical illiterates." (p. 6)
3. Page 6, page 30.
4. Page 30.
5. Page 30. Prothero also reports that the "vast majority" of his students at Boston University did not know that the First Amendment both guarantees citizens the right to practice religion and prohibits government from endorsing religion. (p. 29) He also says that members of the dozens of Protestant sects typically do not know what is unique to their denomination or what differentiates it from others: "Many Baptists cannot tell you how their denomination understands its signature rite of adult baptism. Many Methodists will simply shrug if you ask them about their denomination's distinctive doctrine of sanctification. And many Lutherans have no idea who Martin Luther is." (p. 33)
6. Page 33.
7. Pages 90-91.
8. Pages 89-103. The disappearance of religion from public schools is usually blamed, incorrectly, Prothero says, on late 20th century Supreme Court decisions banning prayer and devotional Bible reading in the schools (p. 88) or "diabolical secularists conspiring to banish religion from the public square." (p. 89)
9. Prothero also proposes a mandatory course in religious studies in all colleges. See pp. 139-141.
10. Page 129. For instance, see Justice Thomas Clark's majority opinion in Abington v. Schempp (1963). In a concurring opinion in the same case, Justice William Brennan wrote: "The holding of the Court today plainly does not foreclose teaching about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history. Indeed, whether or not the Bible is involved, it would be impossible to teach meaningfully many subjects in the social sciences or the humanities without some mention of religion." (p. 129) The constitutionality of teaching about religion in public schools is also affirmed in Stone v. Graham (1980) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). (p. 129) Prothero says that under the law teachers may neither proselytize for Christianity or crusade against it. (p. 133) He writes: "For this agenda to succeed, it is crucial that the distinction between religious studies and theology – between teaching and preaching – be maintained in required courses in higher and secondary education." (p. 141) For the content which Prothero recommends for his proposed high school course in the Bible, see pp. 132-135. Prothero points out that the recognition that we need religiously literate citizens and that teaching about religion is constitutional explains why thirty-five religious and secular groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Muslim Council, and the American Humanist Association, signed a statement in 1995 which endorses teaching about religion in the public schools. (p. 131)
11. Prothero argues that "a student ignorant of the Bible and the world's religions cannot be said to be ready for either college or citizenship" (p. 139) and "the costs of perpetuating religious ignorance are too high in a world in which faith moves, if not mountains, then at least elections and armies." (p. 145)
12. Recently, when my course in Introduction to Philosophy was taking up the segment on the Philosophy of Religion, I enumerated the major religions of the world and asked the students to raise their hands if they were followers of the one then mentioned. When I finished I noticed that one student had not raised his hand. I asked whether he was a secular. He replied that he didn't raise his hand because I hadn't mentioned his religion – Catholicism. He was oblivious to the fact that Christianity, which was first in the list, includes Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy.
13. One of the most valuable parts of Prothero's book is Chapter Six, "A Dictionary of Religious Literacy," which runs for more than eighty pages. It gives explanations of dozens and dozens of terms from the world's religions and is followed by a "Religious Literacy Quiz."

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20081211.mp3 The mobilization for World War II by the United States shows government planning at its best. During a four-year period the United States recruited, trained, and deployed eleven million soldiers; commissioned the production of countless aircraft, seacraft, trucks, jeeps, tanks, bombs, guns, and bullets; kept inflation low; and achieved full employment. (1) The result was victory over the Axis powers. By contrast, the devastation in New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina shows government planning at its worst. In New Orleans the levees were structurally flawed; residents remained in low-lying areas of the city at great risk; and the evacuation plan ignored those without automobiles. The result was that thousands died, hundreds of thousands fled, most permanently, and New Orleans today is "largely a ruin." (2)

These are the sentiments of James K. Galbraith, an economist, in his most recent book, The Predator State. In this book Galbraith gives us both a devastating critique of free market economics and a plea for a recommitment by government to planning. Galbraith argues that in a "properly designed (economic) system, planning and markets do not contradict each other" and "are not mutually exclusive." (3) Markets, he says, "distribute today's production to consumers...reasonably well" but are not equipped to deal with "the use of today's resources to meet tomorrow's needs" (4) because markets do not think ahead. (5) Thus, the interests of future generations must be provided for through government planning. (6)

Although Galbraith sees a need for effective planning by government in several areas, the one which he addresses with a special sense of urgency is global warming. Galbraith cites a 2007 report on this subject by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This report, he says, is a wake up call to the governments of the world to take individual and joint action on a par with the U.S. mobilization for World War II to prevent unprecedented global disaster. (7) According to this report, failure to act will cause carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reach levels within the next three generations that will cause the collapse of ice sheets in the West Antarctic and Greenland. If and when half these ice sheets melt, sea levels will rise by twenty feet around the world resulting in the loss due to flooding of "every beach, every low-lying island, every coastal marsh, and nearly every coastal city on the face of the globe, as well as the ports, airports, power plants, refineries, and other seaside infrastructure..." (8) To reduce greenhouse emissions, Galbraith argues, we will have to get gasoline out of cars and coal out of power plants and replace them with new, clean energy. (9) The unfettered market will do nothing to help us. Indeed, governments will have to take control of the sources and uses of energy from private corporations. (10) "Either the problem of climate change will be planned out, by a public authority acting with public power," Galbraith writes, "or it will be planned away, by private corporations whose priorities lie in selling coal, oil, and gas-burning cars." (11)

The science behind Galbraith's proposal on climate change is well-founded, despite the naysayers. Whether the more than six billion people across the world and their political leaders have the intelligence, responsibility, and courage to act in time, however, is another question altogether.

1. See James K. Galbraith, The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too, p. 172. References in footnotes are to this book. Galbraith is the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, famous Harvard economist and U.S. Ambassador to India, who died in 2006.
2. Pages 168-169.
3. Pages 164-165.
4. Page 165.
5. Page 167.
6. Pages 166-167. Galbraith cites two inherent market flaws: "Even if the market is perfectly efficient, it still suffers from two ineradicable defects. The first relates to the distribution of income and power: the market conveys signals only in proportion to the purchasing power of the individuals transmitting them. The poor do not matter to the market. The second relates to representation: people not yet born do not turn up at the stores. They send no market signals at all." (p. 166)
7. The report is Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, November 17, 2007. Galbraith opines that "In the IPCC, we can come as close as humanity has ever known to a trusted voice on a scientific matter." (Page 171)
8. Page 170.
9. Page 171.
10. Page 170.
11. Page 175.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

• During the years 2005 and 2006, American sociologist Phil Zuckerman spent fourteen months in Denmark and Sweden to study these two societies. In a recent book, he reports these findings: (1)
• Denmark and Sweden have among the lowest rates of violent crime in the world. (pp. 28-29) (2)
• Denmark and Sweden have the lowest rates of HIV and AIDS in the world. (p. 27)
• Sweden is third and Denmark is fifth in the world in economic competitiveness. (p. 27)
• On gender equality, Denmark is second and Sweden is third in the world. (p. 27)
• On access to the Internet, Sweden is third and Denmark is fourth in the world. (p. 28)
• Denmark and Sweden are tied for the lowest infant mortality rates in the world with Norway, Iceland, Japan, and Singapore. (p. 26)
• Denmark and Sweden are tied for first place with the Netherlands in the health and safety of children. (p. 26)
• Denmark ranks fourth and Sweden ranks eighth in the world in the standard of living. (p. 27)
• Political corruption is virtually non-existent in Denmark and Sweden. (p. 28)
• Denmark and Sweden are tied for first in the world in a recent international study of social justice (p. 30) (3), and
• Denmark ranks second and Sweden ranks third in the world in financial aid to poor nations. (p. 29)

Thus, according to Zuckerman, Danes and Swedes are among the most contented and generous people on the planet. But that's not all that Zuckerman has to report about these two nations. Remarkably, he notes, two of the most prosperous societies in the world are also two of the least religious. (4) Indeed, a huge majority in both countries are atheists or agnostics. Only 24% of Danes and 16% of Swedes believe in a personal God compared to more than 90% in the United States. (p. 24) Only 18% of Danes and 33% of Swedes believe in heaven compared to 80% of Americans. Only 10% of Danes and Swedes believe in hell compared to 75% of Americans. (p. 11, pp. 24-25) This is the lowest rate of belief in hell in the entire world! (p. 25) Next, only 7% of Danes and 3% of Swedes believe that the Bible is the literal word of God compared to 33% in the United States. (p. 25) Further, Danes and Swedes have the lowest church attendance in the world with only 3% of Danes and 7% of Swedes attending regularly. (p. 25, p. 162) (5) Also, only 8% of Danes and 15% of Swedes consider it important for a politician to believe in God compared to 64% of Americans who do (p. 12), and contrary to public and private practice in America, very few Danes and Swedes pray. (p. 2) Finally, more than 80% of Danes and Swedes accept evolution while less than half our population does. (p. 10) (6)

Professor Zuckerman sees an important lesson for us in his study of Denmark and Sweden. Contrary to what we've heard from "certain outspoken conservative Christians" (7), the sociologist suggests, a secular society need not be a scene of violence and depravity. (p. 4, pp. 17-18) Denmark and Sweden, he says, are not only "impressive models of societal health" (p. 17) but living proof that humans can survive and prosper without religion. (pp. 55-56) (8)

1. Zuckerman reports his findings in Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, New York University Press, 2008. All references hereinafter are to page numbers of this book.
2. For instance, in Aarhus, Denmark, a city of 250,000 residents, there was a total of one murder in 2004. (p. 6)
3. This study was done by a German group of social scientists associated with an institute called Hans-Bocker Stiftung. (p. 30) Denmark and Sweden are not without problems, however. Taxes are high, there is social friction due to recent waves of immigration, children eat too much candy, rates of bicycle thefts are high, fertility rates are low, and alcohol consumption is high. (p. 34)
4. Other irreligious societies are the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Estonia, France, Japan, Bulgaria, Norway, England, Scotland, Wales, Hungary, and Belgium. (p. 25) Zuckerman points out that in all of these relatively secular societies the citizens freely gravitated from a religious to an irreligious perspective unlike North Korea, the former Soviet Union, China, and Albania where the governments attempted to impose secularism on the citizens. Zuckerman says that forced secularism doesn't work. See pp. 20-22.
5. Paradoxically, despite the fact that most Danes and Swedes are atheists or agnostics and don't attend church regularly, 83% of Danes and 80% of Swedes continue voluntarily to pay a tax to the National Church, which is Lutheran (p. 112), and many hold traditional events such as weddings, baptisms, confirmations, and funerals in church. Zuckerman says that Danes and Swedes, while rejecting the supernatural dimensions of Christianity - Jesus performed miracles, Jesus was God, Jesus rose from the dead, the Bible is God's revelation, the Genesis account of creation is accurate, there is an afterlife with a heaven and a hell, etc. – maintain a "cultural religion" similar to many Jews. (pp. 153-155) Oddly, in Denmark a person may be a pastor and an atheist. (p. 154)
6. Despite the fact that Danes and Swedes are irreligious, they are not hostile to religion, they shun serious discussions of it, they deem a person's views about religion a private matter, and many non-believers dislike being labeled an atheist because they take the term to imply hostility to religion. Further, many non-believers self-identify as "Christians." When one asks them what it means to be a Christian, they say it means being kind, helping people who need help, not hurting others, etc. As a rule they reject the supernatural components. See Chapter 8, "Cultural Religion," pp. 150-166. Also, see pp. 97-109.
7. Zuckerman lists the following examples of Christian conservatives who claim that a society that is irreligious will fail: Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Schlesinger, William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, and Paul Weyrich. (p. 4, pp. 17-18)
8. American fundamentalists will no doubt object to Zuckerman's strongly favorable evaluation of Denmark and Sweden by noting that in these countries abortion has been legal for more than thirty years, prostitution is legal, and homosexuality is tolerated.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20081114.mp3 Consider the following facts about the American people:

• Only two out of five of us can identify the three branches of government;
• Less than half of us know which nation dropped the atomic bomb;
• Only one-third of us know that the Congress, not the President, declares war;
• Only 30% of us know that members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms and only 25% of us know that Senators serve six-year terms;
• Most Americans continue to believe that the 9/11 terrorists came from poverty or were neglected as children despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
• A generation ago presidential speeches were pitched at the level of twelfth graders. Today they are pitched at the level of seventh graders;
• Even after the 9/11 Commission had stated publicly that Saddam Hussein had provided no support to Al Qaeda, a poll showed that half the population still insisted that he had; and
• Only 25% of us can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment but more than 50% of us can name two members of the Simpson family. (1) These revelations, and many others, come from Rick Shenkman, an Emmy Award-winning reporter and historian, in his new book entitled Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter. (2) The vaunted wisdom of the American people, Shenkman says, is a myth. When it comes to government and politics, we are ignoramuses - ill-informed, apathetic, and easily manipulated. (3)

Shenkman says that while there was never a Golden Age in which the American electorate had extensive knowledge about our government and how it functions, the past sixty years has seen a persistent dumbing down of voters. Studies show that today "young Americans know far less about politics than their counterparts did a generation ago, even though they spend more time in school." (4) Ours has become a culture of entertainment and consumption dominated by television. (5) The invasion of the home by television brought superficiality, sound bites, slogans, and inane ads. By 1963 TV had supplanted newspapers as the primary source of news. (6) Newspapers had provided detail, subtlety, and nuance which were lost in TV news. With TV, images trump facts (7), politicians are "brands" to be marketed (8), and how people look and talk count for more than their knowledge, accomplishments, or problem-solving skills. (9) As time passed fewer and fewer Americans read about, talked about, and cared about public affairs. (10)

What does Shenkman propose to do to change all this? The most important change we need in America, he says, is to reintroduce civics as a mandatory subject in grade school, high school, and college. (11) The reading of newspapers and other news sources must be a part of this. (12) When proficiency tests are given, they must test for knowledge of government as well as knowledge of math and science. (13) All first year college students should be given weekly current events tests and those who pass with flying colors should receive federal tuition subsidies. (14) Finally, outside our schools and colleges we need "democracy parties," social gatherings where issues are discussed in depth. (15)

Shenkman says he is trying to be "the Paul Revere of American civics." (16) I, for one, hope that he succeeds.

1. The five freedoms granted by the First Amendment are speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. The Simpson family members are Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. The facts listed here are given in Rick Shenkman, Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, Basic Books, 2008. See pages 20, 20, 24, 19-20, 136, 17, 4, and 13 respectively. Other facts reported by Shenkman include these. Only half the population knows that President George W. Bush favors privatizing social security (p. 35). In 2006 36% of the population believed that the U.S. Government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attack despite the fact that there was no evidence to support such a view (p. 130). On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, only one in seven Americans could find Iraq on the map (p. 14). Most Americans cannot name their Congressional representative or their two U.S. Senators (p. 24).
2. Basic Books, 2008. Other books by Shenkman include Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths and Presidential Ambition. You can learn more about him on his blog entitled How Stupid? See http://howstupidblog.com. A good recent interview of Shenkman by Robin Lindley, a Seattle journalist, is at http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/55966.html.
3. Page 168.
4. Pages 117-118. See also p. 111.
5. Page 181.
6. Page 103. Today only one out of five Americans in the 18 to 34 age group read any part of a newspaper regularly. (p. 26)
7. Page 110.
8. Page 121.
9. Page 102.
10. Schenkman says that today "The People" find politics "boring," that they are "ignorant and irrational about public affairs," and that their opinions about politics are "usually muddled." (p. 76)
11. Page 177-178. Shenkman proposes that a non-partisan commission draw up national civics tests. (p. 180)
12. Page 179.
13. Page 178.
14. Page 179. The federal law setting up this fund, he says, can be called The Too Many Stupid Voters Act. (p. 179)
15. Page 180.
16. See the interview by Robin Lindley referred to above in footnote 2.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20081031.mp3 In a book published in 2006, journalist and author Chris Hedges pilloried religious fundamentalists in America, charging them with corrupting Christianity, undermining the Constitution, and promoting American imperialism. (1). In his most recent book, I Don't Believe in Atheists, (2) Hedges shifts to the opposite side of the ideological spectrum to critique a group which he calls the "new atheists" and which he considers secular fundamentalists. According to Hedges, the new atheists, among them Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, are as "intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted" as the Christian theocrats. (3) And what have these popular critics of religion said that Mr. Hedges finds so disturbing?

The new atheists, Hedges charges, are prisoners to the myth of progress. (4) They see the flow of history through rose-colored glasses, expecting the march of reason and science to unlock all mysteries, solve all problems, and usher in a post-religious global paradise bereft of gods and miracles. They ignore the fact that science is a tool for good and evil and that the selfish, aggressive and destructive side of human nature is here to stay. Based on the historical record, Hedges insists, it is folly for the new atheists to believe in moral progress. In the Twentieth Century, for instance, with ever-more sophisticated weapons made possible by science, humans butchered 130 million other humans and maimed many millions more in various conflicts. (5).

Hedges sees other problems among the new atheists beyond their naïve optimism. "They misuse the teachings of Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology," he writes, "just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible." (6) They demonize the one billion plus Muslims in the world when only "a tiny subset (of them) are criminals and terrorists." (7) Their knowledge of the Bible and the Koran is "shallow and haphazard" and they "are blind to the underlying human truth and reality expressed through religious myth." (8) In their self-appointed roles as "the saviors of civilization," (9) they exhibit an arrogance and superiority that belies their human fallibility. (10) They fail to understand that religion is indispensable to ethics. (11) And, finally, like their religious counterparts, the new atheists hold up the United States as "the paragon of human possibility and goodness" despite the fact that it is, in his judgment, a nation in decline. (12)

In his book, I believe, Chris Hedges aims to remind seculars that they, too, are human, and to a considerable extent, he succeeds. Yet the book is not without its flaws. In the first place, the author's knowledge of atheism is limited. Most of his criticisms of the handful of new atheists he has studied don't apply to many of the most distinguished old ones, John Dewey, Sidney Hook, and Paul Kurtz among them, none of whom gets even a mention in the book. Next, his view of religion as the foundation of morality has been challenged by legions of philosophers, I believe successfully, since the time of the ancient Greeks. And, finally, he overlooks the fact that there has been moral progress, witness the abolition of slavery and the liberation of women in America and elsewhere.

1. American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
2. Free Press, 2008.
3. I Don't Believe in Atheists, p. 1. (All subsequent references are to this book.)
4. Page 95.
5. Page 114.
6. Page 6.
7. Page 16.
8. Page 34.
9. Page 39.
10. Page 111.
11. Page 92.
12. Page 129. On this subject he writes: "The failed imperialist project in Iraq, along with the maintenance of a costly military machine and the arms industry that feeds off the American state, has likewise begun to take its toll. The United States is dependent on other countries, particularly those in the Middle East, for its natural resources. It is hostage to foreign states, which control the country's mounting debt. Its infrastructure is crumbling, its social services are in decline, and its educational system is in shambles. It is rotting from the inside out. And in the midst of this decline, our secular and religious fundamentalists hold our society up as the paragon of human possibility and goodness." (p. 129)

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20081010.mp3 The radical segment of American Evangelicals is the focus of the fourth book by Chris Hedges, a former war correspondent for The New York Times and co-recipient of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for reports on global terrorism. The book, entitled American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America, is a chilling expose and critique of the quest for theocracy, and its leaders, among them Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Timothy LaHaye, Rod Parsley, and others. (1) Hedges did his research for the book not only by reading publications and tuning into the broadcasts of the movement's celebrities, but by interviewing dozens of current and former radical Evangelicals, and attending worship services and workshops.

Hedges tells us that the radical religious right takes its cue from R. J. Rushdoony who published The Institutes of Biblical Law in 1973. According to Hedges, Rushdoony argues that:

Christians are the new chosen people of God and are called to do what Adam and Eve failed to do: create a godly, Christian state. The Jews, who neglected to fulfill God's commands in the Hebrew scriptures, have, in this belief system, forfeited their place as God's chosen people and been replaced by Christians...The world is to be subdued and ruled by a Christian United States. (2)

Further, Hedges says, Rushdoony proposes to strip the federal government of all its functions save national defense, to turn over education and social welfare to Christian churches, and to replace the secular legal code with "Biblical law." (3)

According to Hedges, the radical Religious Right thrives on the disappearance of community in American culture, the despair that has set in with the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, the plague of drug addiction and alcoholism, and various other crises. The vulnerable are systematically recruited by intoxicating preachers and their trained disciples who use virtually any tactic, moral or not, that works. (4)

And what happens to the newly saved? They join mega-churches which become the center of their lives; they tap into the huge Christian broadcasting industry for virtually all their news and entertainment; they send their children to Christian schools or home school them; they buy into the gospel of prosperity peddled by their spiritual leaders (5); they join the crusade to abolish the separation of church and state; they learn to hate gays, Muslims, abortionists and the rest of the unsaved; they embrace an agenda which seeks to "cure" homosexuals, outlaw abortion, restrict sex education to abstinence, deny global warming, and promote patriarchy in the family, the church, and the state; and they subscribe to the prophecy of the Rapture. (6) In this Rapture, "one day, without warning, the saved will be lifted into heaven and the unsaved left behind to suffer a seven-year period of torment and chaos known as the Tribulation." (7)

A mainstream Christian, Hedges charges that militant Evangelicals have turned a religion of love and peace into a religion of hate and power. He concludes his book with an entreaty to moderate Christians and all others committed to democracy and an open society "to give up passivity, to challenge aggressively this (extremist) movement's appropriation of Christianity and to do everything possible to defend tolerance." (8)

1. Free Press, 2006.
2. American Fascists, pp. 12-13. Rusdoony, Hedges say, takes his cue from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, published in 1536.
3. American Fascists, p. 13. Hedges claims that the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, established by President George W. Bush, is enacting many of Rushdoony's tenets. Hedges concedes that only a minority of the nation's 70 million Evangelicals today fully endorse Rushdoony's theocracy, but, he warns, this minority "is taking over the machinery of U.S. state and religious institutions" and he regrets that too often moderate Evangelicals defer to the radical minority. (p. 19) For a picture of the diversity among Evangelicals, see page 20.
4. American Fascists, p. 19. For comments on the diversity among Evangelicals, see p. 20.
5. The major televangelists, Hedges writes, "rule their fiefdoms as despotic potentates. They travel on private jets, have huge personal fortunes and descend on the faithful in limousines and surrounded by a small retinue of burly bodyguards. These tiny kingdoms, awash in the leadership cult, mirror on a smaller scale the America they seek to create." (p. 91)
6. At a seminar run by Dr. D. James Kennedy on how to win converts, Hedges reports the following: "The most susceptible people, we are told in the seminar, are those in crisis: people in the midst of a divorce, those who have lost a job or are grieving for the death of a close friend or relative; those suffering addictions they cannot control, illness, or the trauma of emotional or physical abuse." (p. 56)
7. See American Fascists, Chapter Three, "Conversion," Chapter Four, "The Cult of Masculinity," Chapter Six, "The War on Truth," and Chapter Seven, "The New Class." On the Christian broadcast industry, Hedges counts "5,500 Christian broadcasters... who reach, according to their figures, an estimated 141 million listeners and viewers across America." (p. 129) Probably the largest company is the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) of Paul and Jan Crouch. See Chapter Nine, "God: The Commercial," pp. 164-181. One reason that fundamentalists oppose hate-crime legislation, Hedges says, is that, if passed, it would inhibit them from spewing hate toward homosexuals and other enemies of God in their programming. (p. 139) On the gospel of prosperity, Hedges writes that, according to fundamentalists, "Wealth, fame, and power are manifestations of God's work, proof that God has a plan and design for believers." (pp. 132-133) Hedges notes in several places that fundamentalist preachers who subscribe to the gospel of prosperity have enjoyed the generous support of many titans of American business, among them the Waltons, Amway founder Richard DeVos, Sr., and beer baron Joseph Coors. For a summary of the moral agenda of fundamentalists, see Hedges' description of a church service led by Rod Parsley, head of the World Harvest Church, pp. 158-163.
8. American Fascists, p. 207.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20080930.mp3 Jim Tressel has been known as a remarkably successful college football coach. With the publication of The Winners Manual for the Game of Life, (1) he is now known in the sports world and beyond as a coach and author. The book is a distillation of a nearly four-hundred page handbook called The Winners Manual which Coach Tressel gives to his football team each year as they begin preparation for a new season. He changes it slightly each year. The heart of the handbook is "The Plan," a "step-by-step process of personal assessment and goal setting" for the players which includes "nineteen fundamentals" which the Coach has boiled down to ten in his book. (2)

Why would a busy coach with a crushing schedule take the time to write a book? It is certainly not to enrich himself. He is already wealthy and he is donating all proceeds from the book to an expansion of the Ohio State University library. His purpose, he tells us, is to help people become more productive and responsible. He writes:

I want to present ideas, principles, and truths in a way that will encourage you, lift you up when you're wrestling with life, and push you forward and motivate you to be a better person and a more vital part of whatever team you serve. (3)

I invite you to read the book and decide whether it offers you the road to improve your life personally and professionally. If it doesn't, I'll be surprised. The book is a mirror image of Tressel the person, a master of time management, organization, and problem-solving, who has an extraordinary gift for bringing people of diverse backgrounds together in a common cause. All of us can learn from him, no matter what our vocation, age or circumstance.

Anyone who reads The Winners Manual for the Game of Life will learn that Coach Tressel is a devout Christian and that his religion shapes his approach to coaching and to life. Yet his practice of religion is refreshingly tolerant and humble. Coach Tressel acknowledges that "non-religious people can be moral and religious people can be immoral" and he insists that "all people are to be loved, regardless of what they think or do..." even when they differ sharply with him. (4) He generously supports many non-religious charities, including colleges and hospitals. He is the antithesis of those strident and arrogant zealots who believe that they have a monopoly on morality and that God speaks directly and exclusively to them. His coaches and players know his religious commitment but he respects their autonomy. On religious issues, he is scrupulously non-coercive. Players may attend chapel services or participate in prayer or not, as they wish. (5) In the goals sheet that his players and coaches fill out in the spiritual/moral domain, about a quarter make no mention of religion at all. Many times he has held practice on Sunday. (5) Further, his book features quotations in the border taken from his team handbook which he carefully selects to inspire his players and to encourage them to think. More than a dozen of these quotes are by atheists and agnostics. Finally, one of his mentors, who receives considerable attention in the book, is an agnostic, and a number of essays in the handbook are by a friend of the Coach's who is an atheist. This friend once paid the Coach the ultimate compliment an atheist can bestow upon a believer when he told a huge banquet audience that "Jim Tressel gives religion a good name." (6)

1. With Chris Fabry, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008.
2. Pages xiv-xv. The ten fundamentals are attitude, discipline, excellence, faith and belief, work, handling adversity and success, love, responsibility, team, and hope. See p. xxii and pp. 39-241.
3. Page xvi.
4. Online interview of Coach Tressel, 9-18-08.
5. Online interview of Coach Tressel on 9-18-08 and interviews on 9-17-08 with Ken Conatser and Carmine Cassese, two of Coach Tressel's long-time associates.
6. The mentor and religious skeptic is Dr. Pat Spurgeon and the atheist friend is Dr. Tom Shipka. The compliment referred to was in an introduction of Coach Tressel at a banquet celebrating his remarkable success at Youngstown State University and his appointment as head football coach at the Ohio State University.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary20080912.mp3 In 2006 Oprah Winfrey endorsed a book by James Frey which was purported to be a memoir of his drug addiction and recovery. It was entitled A Million Little Pieces. Oprah's endorsement made the book an instant best-seller. As time passed an investigative website called "The Smoking Gun" and a journalist named Richard Cohen showed that Frey's story was fabricated. Initially Oprah reasserted her support for Frey. (1) The fact is that Oprah had been duped but she was intent on justifying her original decision and her credibility despite the facts. Remarkably, though, she made a 180 degree turnabout, publicly declared that Frey was a liar, apologized to the journalist, and chastised Frey in front of a national TV audience. (2)

Do most of us show the courage and candor which Oprah showed? No, say Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, psychologists and co-authors of a book entitled Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). Their book draws from hundreds of research studies of how people deal with their mistakes. It shows that most of us, to maintain our confidence and self-esteem, routinely fail to admit our mistakes and reject information that questions our beliefs, decisions, or preferences. We thrive on self-justification at the expense of the truth.
Early in the book, Tavris and Aronson cite a well-known recent example of a failure to admit mistakes. (3) The Bush administration sold the invasion of Iraq to the nation and the Congress on two principal claims, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he aided and abetted international terrorism. Both proved to be groundless. Not only did the White House fail to acknowledge this, but it shifted to new justifications for the invasion. (4) President Bush continues to assert his confidence in the wisdom of his decisions about Iraq to this day.

Tavris and Aronson show how bias, distortion of the past, and self-justification infiltrate all of our relationships, personal and professional. One of the most illuminating chapters is on marriage. It should be mandatory reading for all couples planning to start or end a marriage. The authors point out that stable, lasting marriages are only possible when a person is able "to put empathy for the partner ahead of defending their own territory" and able "to listen to the partner's criticisms, concerns, and suggestions undefensively." (5) Tavris and Aronson marshal persuasive evidence that successful marriages have "a ratio of five times as many positive interactions (such as expressions of love, affection and humor) to negative ones (such as expressions of annoyance and complaints)." (6) Once the "magic ratio" dips below 5 to 1, the marriage is in trouble. (7)

As one reads this book, one wonders if people can let go of self-justification and admit mistakes? The authors insist that we can and they furnish impressive examples of public figures who have done so. They tell us that the first steps to success are being aware of the tendency to self-justify (8) and reminding ourselves regularly that we are fallible. (9)

1. Oprah said, "The underlying message of redemption in James Frey's memoir still resonates with me..." and she blamed any problems on the publisher. See Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), Harcourt Books, 2007, p. 214. All references are to this book.
2. Page 215.
3. Pages 18-19.
4. The new justifications included "getting rid of a 'very bad guy,' fighting terrorists, promoting peace in the Middle East, bringing democracy to Iraq, increasing American security, and finishing 'the task (our troops) gave their lives for'." On the claim that the U.S. is in Iraq to fight terrorists, a report issued by sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that "the occupation of Iraq had actually increased Islamic radicalism and the risk of terrorism." Page 3.
5. Page 180.
6. Page 173.
7. Page 173.
8. They write: "The need to reduce dissonance is a universal mental mechanism, but that doesn't mean we are doomed to be controlled by it. Human beings may not be eager to change, but we have the ability to change, and the fact that many of our self-protective delusions and blind spots are built into the way the brain works is no justification for not trying... An appreciation of how dissonance works, in ourselves and others, gives us some ways to override our wiring. And protect us from those who can't." (Pages 222-223).
9. Page 228.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary081408.mp3 The most recent book of Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Garry Wills, is Head and Heart: American Christianities. The chapters on religion during the Revolutionary Era show how far the USA today has drifted from the plan of our founders (1).
Wills explains that the founders believed that to build an enduring republic they would have to minimize the impact of religion on government. They were keenly aware of the blood that was spilled in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of the Jews, and the religious wars in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they saw first hand religious intolerance in the colonies. They also agreed with British philosopher, John Locke, (2) that human beings have a natural right to form their own beliefs on religion based on reason and conscience, that the duly-constituted government must possess a monopoly of power, that churches are subordinate to the State and its laws, and that churches may use only admonitions and exhortations, and never coercion, in dealing with their members or non-members.
Wills tells us that Jefferson and Madison led the battle to build a lasting new republic based on the separation of government and religion. Jefferson's insistence on this is found in his "Bill to Establish Religious Freedom" in Virginia, his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, and his behavior as President. The Virginia statute disestablished the Anglican Church and ended the practice of taxing Virginians to support it (3). In his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson characterized the Virginia statute, and the Constitution, as erecting "a wall of separation between Church and state." During his presidency, he refused to issue prayer day proclamations (4). As for Madison, Father of the Constitution, the Constitution, his essay against compulsory taxation to support churches (5), the "Federalist Papers," and his behavior as President show his agreement with Jefferson. Madison insisted on religious liberty for all and required churches to tolerate one another. He also opposed a religious test for public office and government support for a particular church or for religion in general. Like Jefferson, he opposed prayer day proclamations (6). He also opposed paying chaplains with public funds, tax exemptions for churches, government-endorsement of religious charities, and allowing churches to acquire extensive wealth (7).
Thus, our founders were deeply fearful of sectarianism and they aimed to disentangle religion and government (8). Although contemporary political leaders pay lip service to Jefferson and Madison, few follow their lead. Today most politicians pander to religious groups and their leaders. The White House sends hundreds of millions of dollars to religious charities, the Justice Department hires only applicants who pass an evangelical litmus test, atheists or agnostics are unelectable to high office, pastors openly defy IRS rules about partisan political activity, forty states exempt parents who subscribe to faith-healing from prosecution for denying medical care to their sick children, embryonic stem cell research is halted, and Genesis myths trump science in many classrooms. The list goes on and on (9). Today, religion rules. Whatever happened to Jefferson and Madison?

1. See "Part Two: Enlightened Religion," Chapters 7-14, pp. 121-249.
2. Locke's writings had a powerful influence on our founders. The doctrines of natural rights, limited government, government by consent, majority rule, the separation of powers, the legitimacy of revolution or rebellion against an illegitimate government, the separation of church and state, and others, are found in his First Treatise of Government, Second Treatise of Government, and Letter Concerning Toleration.
3. Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" provides, in part, that "...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, workplace, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall (he) be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall (he) otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; ...all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (Quoted in Wills, p. 196)
4. Wills, p. 237.
5. "Memorial and Remonstrance." See Wills, pp. 207-222.
6. Madison reluctantly issued a prayer day proclamation during the War of 1812, a decision he later regretted.
7. Wills, pp. 242-247. On the issue of church wealth, Madison was fearful that wealthy churches would attempt to exert political influence.
8. Wills shares two "laments" with readers by individuals who recognized, and apparently regretted, the secular origins of our nation.
9. a. In 1812 Timothy Wright wrote:
10. "We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of God, without any recognition of His mercies to us as a people, of his government, or even of his existence. The Convention by which it was formed never asked, even once, his direction or his blessing upon their labors. Thus we commenced our national existence, under the present system, without God." (Quoted in Wills, p. 223)
11. b. In 1813 Chancey Lee wrote:
12. "Can we pause and reflect for a moment, with the mingled emotions of wonder and regret, that that public instrument which guarantees our political rights and freedom and independence - our Constitution of national government, framed by such an august, learned and able body of men, formally adopted by the solemn resolution of each state, and justly admired and celebrated for its consummate political wisdom - has not the impress of religion upon it, not the smallest recognition of the government or the being of God, or the dependence and accountability of men - be astonished, O Earth! - nothing by which a foreigner might certainly decide whether we believe in the one true God, or in any God." (Quoted in Wills, p. 223-224)
13. Other examples include vouchers and other forms of government support of religious schools, displays of nativity scenes on public property, allowance of Christian proselytizing in the military academies, support of proselytizing by Christian ministries in jails and prisons, prayer breakfasts sponsored by public officials, legislative prayers, office holders and candidates closing speeches with "God bless you and God bless America" or a variation, newly-elected presidents utilizing a Bible during their oath and adding "So help me God" to the presidential oath provided in the Constitution, highly publicized efforts by office-holders to block the disconnection of life support systems from individuals in persistent vegetative states, such as Terri Schiavo, stacking boards of education with evangelicals, evangelical opposition to bills promoting children's rights, state referenda defining marriage as the bond between one man and one women, "In God We Trust" on currency, "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, government "sex education" programs promoting abstinence only and ignoring condoms and the pill, the White House and others promoting the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution, opposition to casino gambling by evangelicals and their political patrons in some states, the placing by the State of Utah of 12-feet crosses at the sites of state highway patrol officers who died in the line of duty, a 36-year old "Free Day Away" program at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri where trainees may leave base provided that they participate in a religious program conducted by the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lebanon, Missouri, incorporation of religion into the health care programs of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, etc.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary080508.mp3 Fast forward fifty years to the United States of America 2058. Most of the cars and trucks run on natural gas, ethanol, or batteries, not gasoline or diesel fuel. Most of the nation's electricity is generated...

• by thousands of huge solar panels arrayed across the western states,
• by hundreds of nuclear power plants, and
• by thousands of windmills along a 400-mile wide corridor through the central states from North Dakota and Minnesota to Texas.

A huge new transmission grid spreads energy from these sources across the nation.
In a high school science class, a teacher explains to her students that the turning point in energy policy in America was summer 2008 when the cost of a gallon of gasoline surpassed $4 and two prominent Americans - Republican T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire oil man, and Democrat Al Gore, a former vice-president - released far-reaching energy reform plans a day apart in the month of July (a). These plans gained traction, the teacher says, for the following reasons:

1. Oil, a non-renewable source of energy, had become too expensive, and oil and coal were major causes of global pollution,
2. The White House, Congress, and the American people were willing to swallow the huge one-time cost of an energy overhaul - trillions of dollars - as a preferable alternative to sending $1 trillion a year every year to foreign oil producers,
3. Despite some differences, the Pickens and Gore plans shared a commitment to energy independence for the nation and much greater use of renewable and clean sources of energy (b),
4. The authors had far-reaching influence with different but important political constituencies,
5. The celebrity of the authors guaranteed extensive media exposure to their plans,
6. Support for greater reliance on renewable domestic sources of energy had been growing across the country when the reports surfaced,
7. Support for greater reliance on non-renewable but abundant domestic sources of energy had also been growing across the country when the reports surfaced,
8. The fact that two such disparate public figures as Pickens and Gore spoke with one voice on the need for an overhaul of energy production and distribution in America made people from all backgrounds pay attention, and
9. The energy overhaul had other important benefits for the nation, including the creation of tens of thousands of good-paying manufacturing and construction jobs and a surge in national pride and patriotism.
10. Now, back to 2008. The scenario just described is a possible future. Whether this possible future becomes an actual one depends on whether the American people and their leaders are prepared to accept the challenge of Mr. Pickens and Mr. Gore to launch a bold and expensive national initiative in the field of energy similar to the mobilization of the nation for World War II, the defeat of Hitler and his allies, the Marshall Plan, the construction of the interstate highway system, and Neil Armstrong's visit to the moon. Only time will tell.

• For the Pickens plan, see www.pickensplan.com and for the Gore plan, see www.wecansolveit.org. The two plans were released within a twenty-four hour period, the Pickens plan on July 17 and the Gore plan on July 18.
• As to differences between the plans, the Pickens Plan emphasizes wind power and the conversion of natural gas from the generation of electricity to transportation but is silent on the future of coal, solar power, and nuclear power while the Gore Plan emphasizes solar power, wind power, and electric cars and seems to call for a phase out of coal but is silent on natural gas and nuclear power. (See page 11 of the Gore Plan.) The silence of both plans on nuclear energy, which provides 75% of the electricity in France, is a serious flaw. Also, both plans are silent on various technical issues that stand in the way of implementation of their major proposals. For instance, how can we store surplus electricity generated by wind turbines until it is needed?

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary071708.mp3 With Americans mired in unprecedented debt, a group called the "Commission on Thrift" has issued a report with a plan to shrink debt and encourage saving among Americans of modest means. (1) Here are the highlights of the plan.

The Commission on Thrift proposes a National Thrift Initiative. This is mainly a public education campaign for thrift similar to campaigns to reduce drunk driving, reduce smoking, and encourage seatbelt wearing. (p. 49) (2) As part of this, the Commission calls for revival of National Thrift Week, which was celebrated in America from 1917 to 1966.

Another component of the thrift plan is the creation of a savings plan available to all Americans modeled on the U.S. Thrift Savings Plan. The U.S. Thrift Savings Plan was created by the federal government in 1986 for all federal workers and military personnel. It enables them to place a small portion of their earnings into diversified stock-and-bond index funds. (p. 50) These funds are managed by an independent board with oversight by public and private sectors. (p. 50) Currently the federal savings plan has 3.7 million participants, manages assets of approximately $225 billion, and operates at a much lower cost than commercially-run funds. The Commission on Thrift wants to extend this savings and investment opportunity to all American workers who would participate through their place of employment. (p. 51)

Next, the Commission proposes to craft community-based thrift institutions to compete against payday lenders and other anti-thrifts by offering opportunities and incentives to save and by providing access to credit at low cost. (p. 51) In some cases this means creating new organizations; in others it means expanding and diversifying existing ones, especially credit unions. The Commission proposes that these thrift institutions operate as non-for-profit cooperatives. As part of this, the Commission calls for significant growth in the number of Community Development Finance Institutions, which currently number about 1,000. (pp. 52-53) (3)

Another component of the plan involves a change in the services provided by state lotteries. While conceding that the popularity of lotteries with the public and legislators makes abolishing them unrealistic, the Commission proposes that lotteries enable customers to gamble and to save. In the future you can buy a scratch off or a "savings ticket." (p. 54) The report says that a good marketing slogan for such savings tickets can be "Every ticket wins!" (p. 54) But the report gives no details on how the proposed savings component would work.

Finally, the report offers a list of additional possible strategies that should be considered to promote thrift, such as reinstating low usury caps, banning credit card companies from college campuses, instituting school savings programs, coaxing banks to offer more services to low income customers, and many others. (pp. 55-59)
It remains to be seen whether the Commission on Thrift triggers the sweeping change that it hopes for. Those who benefit from the status quo are certainly going to oppose its plan aggressively. Nevertheless, the members are to be applauded for studying and acting on a crisis in America that begs for intelligent problem-solving.

1. For a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture, Institute for American Values, 2008. References to this report hereinafter are by page number.
2. One assumes that the Commission anticipates the use of public service announcements on radio and television for this purpose. However, PSAs which are critical of advertisers who pay for air time will likely object to them, in which case the Commission will need to turn to foundations and benefactors to provide funds to purchase ads. One also assumes that a comprehensive education initiative needs to involve schools but the report says very little about this aspect.
3. "Community Development Finance Institutions are supported by the CDFI Fund, established by the U.S. Congress in 1994. To date, this fund has awarded $820 million to local financial institutions." (p. 53)

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary070308.mp3 A report entitled For a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture was released recently in Washington, D.C. (1) Its sixty-two signatories, called the "Commission on Thrift," aim to reduce debt and to cultivate a habit of saving among Americans of modest means. Today I'll deal with the first part of the report which tell us what went wrong in our culture and next time I'll deal with the second part which outlines a cure.
For a New Thrift points out that America's pro-thrift culture (2) of the post-depression era has been transformed over the past generation by anti-thrift organizations. These include credit card companies, payday lenders, check cashing outlets, rent-to-own stores, auto title lenders, private student loan companies, franchise tax preparers, subprime mortgage brokers and lenders, and state lotteries. (p. 7) The sad outcome of all this for Americans in the lower economic tier of society, who are the prime target of these groups, is that they forego saving and amass huge debt. Let's focus on credit cards, payday lenders, and the lottery.
The report explains that credit cards were initially sent to financially solvent customers who paid off their balances in full when they received their monthly bills. Since this generated little profit for the industry, it chose a new target in the 1990s - "lower-income users" who wanted or needed credit "but would be likely to carry a monthly balance." (p. 16) This move resulted in a staggering increase in credit card usage and higher revenues in interest and fees. Last year credit card debt reached $937.5 billion - nearly $1 trillion - and nearly half of all credit card holders missed at least one payment. (p. 18) Today there are more than a billion credit cards in use in America. (p. 15)
Next, payday lenders target customers with annual incomes between $18,000 and $25,000. Over 20,000 payday loan outlets dispense so-called "fast cash" to 15 million people every month typically at three digit annual interest rates. (p. 23) Why are such exorbitant interest rates legal, you ask? Because in the 1980s most states eliminated usury caps. (p. 16) Further, "(S)ix out of ten (borrowers) take out at least twelve loans per year, each time paying a fee for their 'cash advance'." (p. 24)
As to lotteries, the report tells us that:

• 42 states and the District of Columbia run lotteries which generate $57 billion a year in revenues, (p. 25)
• Twenty percent of all Americans are frequent (lottery) players, (p. 25)
• "Three-quarters of state advertising dollars go to the lottery," (p. 26)
• Public approval of lotteries is high - around 75%, (p. 26) and
• Household income varies inversely with lottery spending. For instance, households with incomes under $12,400 a year spend an average of $645 a year on the lottery while households with incomes ten times that amount spend an average of only $419 a year or $226 less. (p. 28) (3)

How, then, does the Commission on Thrift propose to bring consumer debt under control and to restore a habit of regular saving among people of low income? I'll outline their plan next time.

1. © 2008 Institute for American Values. See http://www.newthrift.org/. References to this report hereinafter are by page number.
2. Pro-thrift institutions which the report lists include credit unions, mutual savings banks, savers' clubs, savings and loan associations, savings bond programs, labor-union sponsored savings plans, and low caps on loan interest rates mandated by law. (p. 6)
3. In Texas the lottery is targeting the 18 to 25 year old age group as the group most likely to produce greater revenues. In 2006 the median spending in this group was $50 a month, the highest level of lottery spending among all age groups. (p. 33)

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary061908.mp3 Filene's was a Boston-based department store chain founded by William Filene, a German Jewish immigrant, in 1881. When William became ill, his son Edward left Harvard in 1890 to run the business. Edward oversaw the expansion of the chain and the introduction of marketing innovations such as the bargain basement, money back guarantees, and automatic markdowns. With these markdowns, the cost of an item dropped the longer it remained on the selling floor. (1)
Although Edward Filene was a hugely successful entrepreneur, he was also deeply committed to his employees and their families. To promote the quality of their work and their life, Filene

• established "a profit sharing program..., a 40 hour work week, health clinics and paid vacations," (2) *lobbied for the first Workmen's Compensation Law in 1911,
• organized a community council to deal with urban problems such as crime and run-down housing, and
• submitted to collective bargaining and arbitration long before passage of federal law conferring the right to unionize on private sector workers. (3)

But Edward Filene's most important and lasting contribution to American workers is the credit union. Early in the twentieth century, few banks offered small loans to workers. Those who needed a loan usually turned to street lenders or loan sharks who charged excessive interest rates. To provide people of modest means with access to low-cost credit, and to help them cultivate a habit of saving, Filene launched the credit union movement in the United States, first in Massachusetts, with the passage of the Massachusetts Credit Union Act in 1909, and then state by state across the nation. (4)
One of Filene's smartest decisions was to hire Roy Bergengren, a Harvard-educated lawyer, to lead his nationwide campaign for credit unions. Bergengren joined the project in 1921. Within fourteen years his accomplishments were staggering. Thirty-eight states had credit union laws. A national credit union law had been signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. There were 3,600 credit unions in the nation with 750,000 members. Credit unions were growing at a pace of 100 per month. Each week brought 6,000 new credit union members. And a national credit union organization had been formed. It continues today as CUNA, the Credit Union National Association. (5) Filene spent more than $1 million of his own funds to bankroll this cultural revolution.
Today there are more than 8,100 credit unions which serve more than 86 million members. (6) Nevertheless, despite all the good that credit unions have done, Filene's goals for workers – low-cost credit and regular savings – are once again in jeopardy in America. As a people we are spending more than we save. Payday lenders, today's version of loan sharks, give $28 billion in loans a year at triple digit interest rates. Credit card debt is off the chart. And there is a national epidemic of foreclosures and bankruptcies. (7) One wonders if the heroic efforts of Edward Filene and Roy Bergengren were in vain. Next time we'll take a look at a group that believes it has a workable plan to revive Filene's hopes for American workers.

1. http://www.filenesbasement.com. Click on "Our Story."
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Filene
3. Ibid. Filene also established the Boston, U.S., and international chambers of commerce and a major philanthropic foundations which still exists.
4. For a New Thrift – Confronting the Debt Culture: A Report to the Nation, Institute for American Values, 2008, p. 44.
5. Ibid., p. 44
6. Ibid., p. 46
7. See For a New Thrift: An Appeal to Prospective Colleagues at www.NewThrift.org.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary060608.mp3 The Institute for American Values and three other groups dedicated to strengthening the family commissioned a study which was published recently. It is entitled The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: A Report to the Nation. (1) The principal investigator is economist Benjamin Scafidi. The report confirms that due to divorce and unwed childbearing, the institution of the family is in trouble in America, and the fragmented family comes with a staggering price tag which the report estimates, conservatively, at $112 billion a year. (2)
Although the rate of divorce in the United States has moderated in recent years, it is still very high. Moreover, one of three children born in America today is born outside of wedlock. 25% of non-Hispanic white babies are born to single mothers, 46% of Hispanic babies are born to single mothers, and 69% of African-American babies are born to single mothers. (p. 7) Over the past forty years, the proportion of children in America living with two married parents dropped by 17% from 85% to 68%. (p. 7)
One reason for the huge costs to taxpayers cited in the report is the link between single mothers and poverty. A huge percentage of single mothers and their children qualify for a variety of federal, state, and local programs that serve the poor. Among these programs is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Women, Infants, and Children Assistance (WIC), the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Head Start, and school breakfast and lunch programs. (pp. 12-13) According to the report, only 1 percent of women with an intact first marriage live in poverty while more than 24 percent of divorced mothers live in poverty. (p. 10) Further, if 60 percent of the single mothers were married, the number of people in poverty would decline by 31.7 percent and the number of children in poverty would decline by 36.1 percent. (p. 14) Surprisingly, lower-income married couples are far less likely to choose to use government benefits for which they are eligible than single-mother households. (p. 19)
Moreover, there is a link between single-mother households and crime, triggering huge costs in the criminal justice system. Boys raised in single-parent households are more than twice as likely to commit crimes than boys raised in married households. (p. 16, p. 28) Further, children from single-parent households, once adults, are more likely to be criminals than children raised in married households (p. 16)
Also, girls born in poverty are more likely to drop out of school, become pregnant as teenagers, and live unmarried than girls from intact marriage households. (p. 16) This report teaches us two lessons. Firstly, we Americans have to redouble our efforts to strengthen the family by reducing unnecessary divorce and childbearing and secondly, we should stop demonizing gay couples as a threat to the institution of marriage. Marriage in America has suffered not because gay couples, a tiny fraction of the population, seek civil unions or legal marriages but because millions of heterosexuals have failed to practice safe sex or have failed to build and maintain stable marriages. (3)

1. The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: A Report to the Nation, Benjamin Scafidi, Principal Investigator, © 2008 by Georgia Family Council and the Institute for American Values. Other sponsors are the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Families Northwest. See www.americanvalues.org. Subsequent references to this document will be by page number.
2. Of this amount, the federal government spends $70.1, the states spend $33.3 billion, and local governments spend $8.5 billion. Ohio ranks fourth among the states, spending $2.7 billion a year, while Pennsylvania ranks fifth, spending $2.3 billion. (p. 7)
3. The report does not say that all marriages must be saved. It acknowledges that about one-third of marriages ending in divorce are "high-conflict" marriages and that children in such families are usually "better off when those marriages end." (p. 12)

View Details

commentary052208.mp3 Every year in the spring the American Association of University Professors, an old and respected national organization of higher education faculty, publishes a report on the economic status of the profession. This year's report deals with two issues, faculty salaries and shifts in staffing. (1) The report was authored by economist Saranna Thornton of Hampden-Sydney College who chairs the AAUP Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession.
On faculty salaries, the AAUP report has plenty of bad news for current and prospective faculty:

• Faculty salary increases have lagged behind inflation in three of the past four years. (p. 9)
• The pay gap between faculty at private and public institutions continues to widen. In 1971 full professors at public institutions earned 91% of the salary of full professors at private institutions. Today that percentage has dropped by 15% to 76%. (p. 11)
• At universities with I-A football programs (2), head football coaches now earn 10 times more than the average full professor at those institutions. (p. 11)
• And, over the past ten years, the average salary increase of college presidents was more than 6 times the average salary increase of faculty. (p. 13)

What is more worrisome to would-be professors than data on salary, however, is the staffing trends cited in the AAUP report. Over the thirty-year period starting in 1976, as enrollment in American higher education grew by 60%, the number of employees grew by 84%. But the lowest growth - 17% - was in tenure-track faculty positions. The segments of the work force which grew the most were full-time non-faculty professional staff, which grew by 281%, and full-time administrators, which grew by 101%. (p. 16)

There were significant increases in faculty but only in part-time and non-tenure track positions which are characterized by low pay and a lack of job security. (3) Over the same period, the number of non-tenure track faculty grew by 223% and the number of part-time faculty grew by 214%. (pp. 15-16)

Simultaneously, American colleges were containing labor costs by outsourcing.

Many full-time jobs in food services, maintenance, grounds, janitorial services, and other areas - jobs which typically carried good wages and benefits - disappeared as private vendors came on campuses with employees at or near the minimum wage. (p. 17) Institutions which employed personnel in the skilled trades such as carpenters, electricians, and plumbers, reduced their numbers significantly and in some cases to zero. This trend prompted a comment many years ago by a YSU skilled trades worker who said: "When I came to YSU we had one provost and three plumbers. Now we have three provosts and one plumber." (4)

What can we gather from all this? One clear implication is that newly-minted Ph.D.'s will face heavy competition for tenure-track positions. After long years of schooling, they will likely find the academic marketplace cruel and hostile. If they insist on college teaching, many will have to settle for non-tenure track or part-time positions. (5) If they opt for part-time, they may find themselves working at three or four campuses and spending twelve to fifteen hours a week, or more, behind the wheel as academic nomads. What a far cry this is from the romanticized lives of professors furnished by Hollywood.

1. Where Are the Priorities? The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2007-2008. See www.aaup.org. References herein are by page number.
2. The designation I-A was changed several years ago to "Football Bowl Subdivision."
3. The AAUP estimates that many institutions can employ as many as eight part-time faculty, each teaching three courses a year, for approximately the same cost as one full-time tenure-track faculty member. (p. 17) Usually part-time faculty members have no insurance benefits.
4. This was said at a campus meeting called by a professional search firm who had been hired by YSU to identify suitable candidates to fill a vacancy in the post of provost.
5. Full-time non-tenure track and part-time faculty are now called "contingent" faculty.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary051508.mp3 There is no transcript available.

View Details

commentary050808.mp3 Next week at the Washington, D.C. Marriott, a national conference will be held with the theme "Confronting the Debt Culture." It is co-sponsored by five organizations, including the Institute for American Values and the New America Foundation. (1) The conference will attract consumers and consumer advocates, scholars, elected and appointed government officials, philanthropists, and representatives from foundations, banks and credit unions, among others. The highlight of the conference will be the release of a report entitled For a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture which the co-sponsors have been researching and writing for many months.
What prompts this conference? The conference co-sponsors are convinced that we Americans are living beyond our means and accumulating debt at a staggering, unprecedented rate, and that the time is ripe to transform a debt culture into a thrift culture. Consider these "debt facts" which they cite:
The subprime mortgage crisis, which is due to "over(ly) lenient lending and over(ly) exuberant borrowing," has resulted in millions of foreclosures and sharp declines in local property tax revenues. (2) In 2008 two million Americans will lose their homes. (3)

• In 2005 and 2006, for the first time since the Depression, Americans spent more than they saved. (4)
• "More than 20% of lower-income families spend at least 40 percent of their income in debt payments." (5)
• "One in seven families is dealing with a debt collector." (6)
• "Nearly half of all credit card holders have missed payments in the last year." (7)
• "One-of-four undergraduate students "carry credit card balances in excess of $3,000." (8)
• A typical college graduate completes his or her degree with $20,000 in debt, up from $9,000 a decade ago. (9)
• "More than 40 percent of college graduates who don't pursue graduate school blame student loan debt." (10)
• Two-thirds of Americans acknowledge that they don't save enough. (11)
• On the average Americans save less than citizens of nearly every other developed nation. (12)
• Payday loans doubled every year from 2001 to 2006 and topped $28 billion in 2006. (13)
• 36% of Americans say that they lost control over their finances at one point or another. 45% in the 30-49 age group admit this, as do 40% of parents with children under 18 and 46% of African-Americans. (14)

Although we have yet to see the blueprint to increase savings and decrease debt which will be released at the Washington conference, and we cannot judge whether the proposed strategies will work, we can anticipate strong opposition to the plan from predatory lenders and others who "feed upon and aggravate the debt culture," (15) and we can applaud the ambitious efforts of the Institute for American Values and its sister organizations for taking this initiative. Although debt is virtually unavoidable, even for the most frugal among us, America is on a protracted debt binge. Debt for an individual or a family can be reasonable and manageable or it can be crushing and out-of-control. When debt is overpowering, people are robbed of autonomy, pride, and the fruits of their labor. Hopefully the Washington conference and the report which it issues will be important first steps in resuscitating thrift in America.

1. The conference is May 12-13 at the Washington Marriott, 1221 22nd Street N.W. See www.NewThrift.org. The Institute for American Values is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which seeks to strengthen the American family and the virtues of competence, character, and citizenship. See www.americanvalues.org. The New American Foundation is a nonprofit public policy institute which seeks to bring new voices and new ideas to public discourse on domestic and global issues. See www.newamerica.net. Other co-sponsors of the conference are the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, University of Virginia; Demos; and Public Agenda.
2. For a New Thrift: An Appeal to Prospective Colleagues, page 4.
3. Ibid., p. 3
4. Ibid.,
5. Ibid.,
6. Ibid.,
7. Ibid.,
8. Ibid.,
9. Ibid.,
10. Ibid.,

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary042408.mp3 In February of this year, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released the results of one of the most extensive surveys in history of the views of Americans toward religion. The survey, titled the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, was conducted in 2007 among a sample of 35,000 adults. (a) Thousands of facts about believers and non-believers in America can be found in the narrative or tables in this 250 page document, including these:

• Members of historically black churches are least likely to be married (67)
• More men than women are likely to claim no religious affiliation (62)
• Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists have much larger percentages of members with high incomes and advanced education than members of other religious groups (9)
• Approximately one-in-twenty-five Americans are atheists or agnostics (24)

But these interesting revelations are peripheral to the principal findings of the survey. Let's focus on three such findings.
Firstly, "...religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely fluid." (5) More than one-quarter of us - 28% - have left the faith in which we were raised in favor of another religion or no religion. (5) The fastest growing segment of the population is the unaffiliated which comprises two groups - those who say they are religious but connect with no particular church and those who say they are atheist or agnostic. 16.1% of Americans fall into this unaffiliated category today. (5, 7) In the 18-29 age group, one-in-four Americans are unaffiliated. (5)
Secondly, the fluidity of the American religious landscape is particularly evident in the declines in Catholicism and Protestantism.
"Catholicism has lost more people to other religions or to no religion at all than any other single religious group." (19) While 31.4% of U.S. adults were raised Catholic, only 23.9% identify with the Catholic Church today. (23) More than one-in-ten Americans today who were raised Catholic no longer are. (25) Despite the huge loss of Catholics raised in this faith in the U.S., the Catholic Church, paradoxically, has retained its traditionally large share - 25% - of the American adult population. (19) This is due to immigration.

• Nearly half of all immigrants to our shores are Catholic. (36)
• Half of all adult Catholics in the U.S. under age forty are Hispanic. (45)
• One-in-five Catholics in the U.S. were born outside the U.S.; and of these, four-in-five are from Latin America and the Caribbean. (53)

Protestantism has also declined in America. Through the 1970s, 60% to 65% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant. (18) Today that figure has dropped to 51%, a bare majority. (18) Further, the survey divides Protestantism into three groups - mainline, evangelical, and historically black - and notes that "the proportion of the population identifying with the large mainline Protestant denominations has declined significantly in recent decades, while the proportion of Protestants identifying with the large evangelical denominations has increased." (18) Today only 18.1% of the U.S. adult population are members of mainline Protestant churches compared to 26.3% who are evangelicals. (10)

a. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 2008. See religions.pewforum.org for the online presentation of the findings of the survey. Quotes of the survey and reference to it herein are by page number.
b. Hindus and Mormons are most likely to be married - 78% and 71% respectively - and Hindus have the lowest divorce rate - 5%. Only 33% of members of historically black churches are married and 34% were never married. (67)

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary040308.mp3 A prominent ethical theory, cultural relativism, holds that the right or the good is the customary. Further, in that customs often differ from culture to culture, so right and wrong differ, and there is no objective, universally applicable moral law. "(T)here are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many." (1)
Cultural relativism gained currency in large part due to the published research by social scientists over the past century. For instance, writing in 1906, sociologist William Graham Sumner, affirmed:
The 'right' way is the way the ancestors used and which has been handed down. The tradition is it own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways. (2)
And writing in 1934, anthropologist Ruth Benedict said:
Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. (3)
Philosopher James Rachels has done a careful analysis and appraisal of cultural relativism in his modern classic entitled The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
One of Professor Rachels' key points is that cultural relativism is based on a faulty argument which he calls the cultural differences argument. Here is the argument:
Different cultures have different moral codes.
Therefore, there is no objective 'truth' in morality. (4)
Rachels holds that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. "The premise concerns what people believe. In some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies people believe differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case." (5) From the mere fact that people disagree on a subject, we cannot conclude that there is no objective truth on that subject. For instance, if one society believes that the earth is flat and another that it is spherical, we should not conclude that there is no objective truth about the shape of the earth. The fact is that one of the societies may simply be mistaken. As Rachels puts it, "There is no reason to think that if the world is round everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason to think that if there is moral truth everyone must know it." (6)
According to cultural relativism, if it is customary in a given culture to permit parents whose religion affirms faith-healing to pray over a sick child rather than take the child for medical care, then the parents who do this are acting morally. They may be exempt from prosecution because they have conformed to custom (and possibly law). (7) I would argue as a moral objectivist, on the contrary, that all parents in all cultures have a duty to provide medical care to sick children, local customs and laws notwithstanding. This duty is part of the general custodial duty of parents to help, instruct, and preserve their offspring, a duty addressed by British philosopher, John Locke, more than three hundred years ago in his Second Treatise of Government. (8) Parents who refuse medical care within their means to sick children are guilty of child abuse, negligence, and possibly manslaughter or murder and they deserve moral condemnation and legal prosecution. I believe, further, that modern international moral affirmations, such as the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, support my position. (9)

1. James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, in Shipka and Minton, Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery, Fifth Edition, p. 256
2. Quoted by Rachels in Shipka and Minton, p. 256.
3. Quoted by Rachels in Shipka and Minton, p. 254.
4. Shipka and Minton, p. 257.
5. Shipka and Minton, p. 258.
6. Shipka and Minton, p. 258
7. This is the case in Wisconsin where 11-year old Madeline Neumann died from a treatable diabetic condition when her parents chose prayer over medicine.
8. See John, Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Shipka and Minton, pp. 339-340. According to Locke, the duties of parents to their children and their authority over them cease when the children become adults.
9. There may be circumstances, such as isolated societies, in which suitable medical treatment is unavailable to parents or unknown to them and this may mitigate their moral responsibility.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary032408.mp3 Most Americans love their country and why shouldn't they; we are some of the riches, freest people in the world. However, it is very possible to love one's country and at the same time see its faults. Much as a mother loves her children while being fully aware of their shortcomings and past discretions. This is very much how I see the current accusations against Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright. I went to the web sites and listened to several of his sermons and yes to my very white ears they were sometimes harsh in deed. However, on consideration of his words, I find that for the most part I agree with him. We are a country that covers up our discretions with sweet sounding history, never taking responsibility for what we have done both in our own country and it other countries. We don't call what we did to the American Indian, Apartheid even though it is exactly what it was. We rarely recognize the corrupt, immoral dictators that we have helped put in power in foreign countries. We jailed Japanese Americans and kept slavery long after the rest of the industrialized world had abandoned this inhumane practice. Currently we are militarily involved in Columbia without media coverage or populous support. The United States spend less than one percent of its budget on foreign aid, while the United States People consider their country the most generous in the world. We continue to have the death penalty, while the majority of the world's first world nations have outlawed it as morally wrong. The United States caused havoc in Latin American during the Cold War without advancing democracy one iota. Our Black Brothers and Sisters were first slaves, then noncitizens, then second rate citizens; being treated in ways that none of us could possibly understand. And please don't compare The African American Experience to that of other immigrants, because even though the Irish, Italians, and all others were not treated equally and often unfairly, they were not slaves, they were educated and given jobs before our Black People. The Black Experience in the United States was singularly different. I believe that this is what Preacher Wright was saying, that this country has not always done what is right and moral and wonderful. I believe that it is time that that the citizens of this country dig their collective heads out of the sand and say,"Yes, I love this country but we have done some terrible things to many people and we need to work to not let that happen again." At a speech by Denise Kucinich, he spoke of peace in the world and spending more money on foreign aid rather than military aid. He said don't you want a country that you can be proud of again. Yes, I want a country that we all can be proud of. I am not proud of our current stand on torture or our involvement in Iran and other countries. All Minister Wright was saying is how dare we become outranged when we are attacked, without acknowledging the fact that we have often been aggressors. What he was saying was taken out of context in the worst possible way. It was taken out of context of the Black Community; a community that I hope I will get to know and understand better and perhaps even see represented in the White House. I am a mother, I love my sons and will always stand by them, but they are not perfect and never will be. At times I am very proud of them and at times I am not so proud. I will continually work to help them be decent human beings. I see my involvement in government, and the democratic process as one of the ways I instruct them. My final thoughts, do you believe that everyone in the United States agrees with what your minister said last Sunday? Is your spiritual leader always correct? Are we going to start going to church with all our political candidates? -- Regina Reynolds

View Details

commentary030608.mp3 Presidential aspirant Barack Obama tells us that he wants to overcome divisions in America and refocus Americans on the pressing problems that face the nation and the world. One such division is between evangelicals, on the one hand, and liberals and seculars, on the other. How exactly does the Senator hope to bridge this gulf? He answers this question in a chapter on religion in his book The Audacity of Hope. (1)
Senator Obama first tells us that he was not raised in a religious household. His father, originally a Muslim, was an atheist at the time of his marriage to Obama's mother, and his mother, the primary influence in his early life after his parents divorced when Obama was only two, gave him an anthropologist's perspective on religion, schooling him in the great religions and their scriptures, and teaching him to treat religion "with suitable respect" but also "with suitable detachment." But as he aged and got a job working "for a group of churches in Chicago that were trying to cope with joblessness, drugs, and hopelessness," he discovered the value of religion as a source of hope, stability, and personal responsibility, eventually submitting to baptism at Trinity United Church of Christ in south Chicago. (2)
As to his proposals to bridge the evangelical-liberal gulf, Senator Obama sees a need for self-evaluation in both camps. Liberals need to appreciate how broadly and deeply religion pervades American society, that religious people share their commitment to the next generation and the focus on "thou" and not just "I," and that liberals should stop squandering time, energy, and money trying to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency and "One Nation Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. As for evangelicals, he says that they fail to understand the rationale against entanglement of church and state of our founders and clergy (3), and fail to appreciate the dangers of sectarianism in America's religiously diverse society today. "Whatever we once were," he writes, "we are no longer a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." Moreover, the Senator observes, even if nearly all Americans were Christian, religious conflict would remain. "Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools," he asks, "James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" And which passages of scripture would we emphasize? Would it be Leviticus which approves slavery and condemns eating shellfish? Or Deuteronomy "which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?" Or the Sermon on the Mount, "a passage so radical," he says, "that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?"
Finally, Senator Obama admonishes evangelicals that it is not enough to "simply point to the teaching" of their church or "to invoke God's will" on an issue. Their proposals, the Senator insists, "must be subject to argument and amenable to reason." For instance, on abortion, he writes, "If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths" and "those with no faith at all."
Only time will tell whether Senator Obama succeeds in his quest to be President, and, if he does, whether evangelicals and liberals will respond to his call to dialogue and collaboration.

1. Crown Publishers, 2006, pp. 195-226.
2. His utilitarian view of religion also appears in other comments. For instance, he notes that "...faith can fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and the sense of reverence all young people should havefor the act of sexual intimacy." (p. 215)
3. He notes that "the religious right who rail against liberal judges don't understand that their fight is with the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the forebears of today's evangelical church." (p. 217) He gives special recognition to Baptist minister Reverend John Leland who campaigned for separation of church and state.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary022108.mp3 He wears elegant silk suits, he drives a $350,000 Bentley, he lives in a $10 million oceanfront mansion, and he flies around the world in a private jet. Is he a billionaire investor, a corporate CEO, or a Hollywood celebrity? None of the above, it turns out. He's a pastor of one of the six mega-churches which are a target of an investigation by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has requested a mountain of financial information from them. All six ministries preach the Gospel of Prosperity, the message that God bestows earthly riches on the faithful. (1) They are Benny Hinn's World Healing Center; the Rev. Creflo Dollar's World Changers Church; Paul and Randy White's Without Walls International Church; Joyce Meyer Ministries; Kenneth Copeland Ministries; and Bishop Eddie Long's Ministry.
Senator Grassley got leads about possible abuses of the tax-exempt status of these Gospel-of-Prosperity churches from reporters and whistleblowers. He assures us that his investigation is not "an attack on ministries in particular or tax-exempt groups in general. The strong majority of non-profit groups, including churches," the Senator says, "operate above-board and perform good works that make their tax exemption a bargain for the American people." (2) "(But), he continues, when I hear about leaders of charities being provided a $300,000 Bentley to drive around in, my fear is that it's the taxpayers who subsidize this charity who are really being taken for a ride." (3)
It will be difficult for the targeted ministries to impugn Senator Grassley's motives for three reasons: firstly, he is a darling of the religious right who got an 87% approval rating by the conservative Family Research Council in 2006; secondly, after 9/11 he spearheaded investigations into secular charities such as the Red Cross and the Smithsonian Institution; and thirdly, many members of the evangelical community are as suspicious about the targeted ministries as Senator Grassley is.
For instance, Ole Anthony, head of the Texas-based Trinity Foundation, an evangelical group which has spoken out for years against the lack of financial transparency by television ministries, welcomes Senator Grassley's initiative and says that it wouldn't be necessary if the established churches had stood up to the televangelists over the years. (4) Interestingly, none of the six targeted ministries belong to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, a voluntary oversight group of Christian ministries to ensure transparency and compliance with the law.
It remains to be seen whether the information sought by Senator Grassley will be provided by the mega-churches. A December 2007 deadline came and went with only two of the ministries submitting any of the requested documents. Rev. Dollar openly defied the request for information. Rev. Long said that he considers the Senator's request "an attack on...religious freedom and privacy rights." (5) Senator Grassley is unlikely to relent, however. He says that his goal is to ensure that money that is donated under the tax exemption is used according to the law for legitimate non-profit purposes and not to enrich church officials. (6) My suspicion is that we've seen only the first skirmish in a protracted war. In reminding evangelists that they are not above the law, Senator Grassley has taken an important step which deserves our support and encouragement.

1. Rob Boston, "Prophets, Profits, and Federal Tax Law," Church & State, January 2008, p. 7.
2. Ibid., p. 5.
3. Ibid., p. 4
4. Ibid., p. 6.
5. Ibid., p. 5.
6. Ibid., p. 5.

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary020708.mp3 There are powerful forces in America today promoting the entanglement of church and state. Dozens of religious organizations intrude into politics in defiance of the laws granting them tax-exempt status. (1) The courts are ever more receptive to entanglement as was shown last year when the Supreme Court approved President Bush's faith-based initiatives which distribute huge grants to religious organizations. (2) The Congress is ever more receptive to entanglement as was shown in December when the U.S. House of Representatives, anxious to pander to the religiosity of their constituents and to placate the religious right, approved a resolution "Recognizing the Importance of Christianity and the Christian Faith." (3) And mainstream America is also receptive to entanglement. Surveys show that 74 percent of Americans believe it is proper to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings year round and 83 percent believe that displays of Christian symbols should be allowed on government property during the Christmas season. (4)
So, what's wrong with church and state cozying up to one another? In 1984 Supreme Court Justice, William Brennan, an Irish Catholic, gave four major objections to church-state entanglement in his dissent in a 1984 decision which approved a nativity scene in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. (5)
Firstly, he wrote, it violates the Constitution. The Establishment Clause requires government to be neutral to religion, neither helping nor hindering it, and to treat all sects equally. A government display of Christian symbols goes beyond mere acknowledgement or accommodation of religion to an endorsement of it. Proof of this is found in the fact that governments which erect a display with religious symbols seldom if ever post a disclaimer alongside the display saying that the display does not imply endorsement of the religion.
Secondly, a government display of Christian symbols threatens religious diversity and marginalizes citizens of other faiths and no faith. Such displays send the message that they are outsiders whose views "are not similarly worthy of public recognition or entitled to public support."
Thirdly, the sectarian significance of a government-sponsored nativity scene is not diminished if secular components such as a Santa are added because a nativity scene "is the chief symbol" of the uniquely Christian belief that Jesus is "the divine Savior" who was brought into the world miraculously "to illuminate a path toward salvation and redemption."
Fourthly, just because Christmas is a national holiday does not imply that it is constitutionally proper for government to celebrate the holiday in a sectarian fashion. Government may "recognize the holiday's traditional secular elements of gift-giving, public festivities, and community spirit..." but it may not "embrace the distinctively sectarian aspects of the holiday" such as a nativity scene, a cross, or a Bible.
Jurists such as former Justice Brennan are swimming upstream in American culture today and that is all the more reason to summon his counsel. In America all of us have a constitutional right to display religious symbols at home, in our churches, and in our businesses. That should satisfy any reasonable believer. Those who work to entangle church and state are undermining the First Amendment, threatening religious diversity, and promoting the tyranny of the majority.

1. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State monitors and publicizesthis problem. See www.au.org.
2. Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., 2007
3. H. Res. 874, introduced by Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, had 51 co-sponsors and passed with 372 votes. 9 members voted "nay," 10 voted "present,' and 40 didn't vote. See News Release of the Freedom from Religion Foundation 12-14-07 at www.ffrf.org.
4. The Pew Forum of Religion & Public Life, June 2007, p. 1. In this vein, a newly constructed 9-11 memorial on public land in Austintown, Ohio, includes a mini-church adorned with a cross.
5. Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984

© 2008 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary121307.mp3 John Locke, America's philosophical father, cited as a key objective of government to provide "known and indifferent judge(s) with authority to determine all differences according to the established law..." (1) Locke's ideal of an independent judiciary guided only by the law has not always been realized in practice in the United States. One clear case in which it was involves federal Judge John E. Jones III who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued a 139-page ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
The case involved a challenge by eleven parents to a decision by the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to introduce the doctrine of intelligent design in ninth grade science classes as a plausible scientific alternative to evolution. The parents alleged that this constituted a violation of the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion because intelligent design is a religious doctrine and not a scientific one.
To rule on this case competently, Judge Jones was required to know and apply not only the relevant law, including the Constitution of the U.S., the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and dozens of complicated prior rulings, but also to understand the methodology of science, the theory of evolution, and the doctrine of intelligent design. To rule on this case fairly, Judge Jones was required to distance himself from the culture wars in America and from the intense passions which surrounded the case in Dover.
In his ruling Judge Jones found that intelligent design is not a testable scientific hypothesis but "a mere relabeling of creationism" that has no place in a public school science curriculum. His clear and cogent ruling followed weeks of testimony by expert witnesses to whom he obviously listened intently.
As Time magazine observed, "Had (Judge) Jones been a Democrat or an atheist, his judgment might have had less impact." (2) The fact that he was a Republican, a Bush-appointee, and a Lutheran, took a lot of the steam out of the intelligent-design movement nationally. (3)
In the conclusion of his ruling, Judge Jones hit upon a key point. He wrote that the proponents of intelligent design have made a "bedrock assumption which is utterly false," namely, that they must choose between God or science. (4) Drawing on the testimony of expert witnesses in the case, he insisted that evolution and other well-established scientific theories are compatible with "belief in the existence of a supreme being and religion in general." (5)
After Judge Jones issued his ruling, he and his family were put under the protection of federal marshals because of death threats and he was also rebuked by critics, such as Phyllis Schlafly, who said he had "stuck the knife in the backs" of evangelical Christians in Pennsylvania. (6) Judge Jones replied to Schlafly in a speech on February 10, 2006, in which he reminded all of us of that "judges must be impartial and that the independence of the judiciary is premised on a judge's pledge of freedom from partisan influences." (7)
Judge Jones's speech probably did not win over those disappointed by his ruling. Nevertheless, by his knowledge, courage, and devotion to judicial impartiality, he is a model to his peers and a judge who deserves consideration for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court when there is a vacancy.

_______

1. The Second Treatise of Government, Chapter IX, Of the Ends of Political Society and Government, 1690.
2. Matt Ridley, Time, April 30, 2006
3. Ibid.
4. Case No. 04cv2688, p. 136
5. Ibid. Two of the expert witnesses in the trial have written books aimed at showing the compatibility of evolution and belief in God. See Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God, and John F. Haught, God after Darwin. Miller is a cell biologist at Brown University and Haught is a theologian at Georgetown University. Both are Roman Catholics.
6. Phyllis Schlafly, Townhall.com, January 2, 2006
7. Speech by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to the Anti-Defamation League, National Executive Committee Meeting, Palm Beach, Florida, February 10, 2006. See www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp

© 2007 Tom Shipka

View Details

thanksgiving.mp3 On the fourth Thursday of November every year, we celebrate Thanksgiving in the United States to give thanks to the Almighty. This purpose has been affirmed and reaffirmed since colonial days. (1) On Thanksgiving millions of Americans enjoy a feast with their families, one usually featuring turkey, dressing, mashed potatoes, gravy, and rolls. Just before the meal, most families bow their heads in grateful prayer to God.

I know that it is impolitic to say so but I have a problem with Thanksgiving. My problem is not so much that Thanksgiving is a pretext for gluttony from New York to San Francisco. I see no problem with gluttony as long as it is infrequent. Nor is my problem that Thanksgiving ushers in a frenzy of shopping that increases family debt. Although all of us would like to be debt-free, debt is a fact of life for the typical family and debt acquired by shopping for self or loved ones is preferable to debt acquired by gambling, drugs, and alcohol. One problem I do have with Thanksgiving is that it glosses over the problem of evil, namely, “Is the God responsible for our blessings also responsible for our curses - epilepsy, cancer, deformed babies, Alzheimer’s, ALS, and weather disasters?” If the answer is yes, one wonders why we have Thanksgiving. (2) But, I digress. The problem of evil is not my main concern about Thanksgiving. So what exactly is my gripe? It is this. On Thanksgiving we applaud God but we are silent about the many people who have helped us and enriched our lives over the past year. On a day called Thanksgiving, we should acknowledge all our benefactors, not just one.

Some months ago a man in a late-model car, accompanied by two children, approached me in a parking lot near a local interstate to ask for help. He said that one of the cars driven by choir members from his church had broken down on I-80 and had to be towed to Akron, but that the group needed $20 more to pay for the tow. After I handed him $20, he instantly proclaimed “Hallelujah! Thanks be to God! Thank your, sir, and remember, when you are in trouble, trust in God, and He will rescue you just as He has rescued us.” And then he drove away.

I got the distinct impression that this gentleman was far more grateful to God than to me, and that he viewed my role as minor and insignificant. In his eyes I was only a tool that God had used, not an autonomous, generous person who freely chose to help.

I therefore propose that, on Thanksgiving, we spread out our gratitude. If we acknowledge God before the meal, perhaps we can acknowledge other benefactors during dessert. Perhaps each person around the table could identify one or two special benefactors and explain briefly how they helped. Thanks might go to an infectious disease specialist who saved a family member’s life, or a computer technician who recovered weeks of work from a diskette that had been invaded by a computer virus, or a scientist who discovered a medication that enables us to manage our arthritis, or a songwriter whose lyric gives us inspiration, or an author whose novels entertain us, or a friend whose sense of humor gives us a smile regularly.

On Thanksgiving I leave for you to decide if there’s a deity in the heavens who deserves your gratitude. I ask only that you also remember the caring and competent people on earth, near or far, who have made an important difference in your life over the past year. (3)

1. The explicit purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving to acknowledge the blessings of the Almighty was declared by colonists in Virginia and Massachusetts, and by the Continental Congress in 1777, George Washington in 1789, Abraham Lincoln in 1863, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939. During the Depression Roosevelt moved up the celebration of Thanksgiving by one week to “give merchants a longer period to sell goods before Christmas.” See Wikipedia, “Thanksgiving.”
2. In practice it seems that God gets all the credit for good things but none of the blame for bad ones.
3. In an early celebration of the fall harvest, the precursor of Thanksgiving, Pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts, “were particularly thankful to Squanto, the Native American who taught them how to catch eel and grow corn and who served as an interpreter for them… Without Squanto’s help the Pilgrims might not have survived in the New World.” Wikipedia, “Thanksgiving” In a sense, then, my modest proposal is a plea to return to our roots in America.

View Details

commentary110807.mp3 Next month marks the second anniversary of the landmark ruling by Judge John E. Jones III in the U. S. District Court in Harrisburg in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. (1) Tammy Kitzmiller was one of eleven parents of students in the public schools of Dover, a township about twenty miles south of Harrisburg, who sued the school district after the Board of Education adopted a policy requiring the reading of a statement in ninth-grade biology classes which cast doubt on the scientific adequacy of evolution, said that "Intelligent Design" is a plausible alternative explanation, and referred students to an intelligent-design textbook entitled Of Pandas and People. (2) Intelligent Design, or ID, holds that "living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of a higher force." (3) In their lawsuit, the first challenge to ID in the federal courts, the plaintiffs asked the Court to stop the reading of the pro-ID statement because ID is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.
In his 139-page ruling on December 20, 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs. He said that ID is not science but a thinly veiled form of creationism and that it is unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. (4)
Judge Jones learned a lot during the trial about science and the relation of science to religion, thanks to the testimony of expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, including Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist from Brown University, and John F. Haught, a theologian from Georgetown University, both of whom are practicing Roman Catholics. They pointed out that scientists seek natural causes of natural events, a strategy called methodological naturalism, and that ID violates this because it posits non-natural or supernatural causes. For this reason, Dr. Miller said, ID is a "science stopper."
We can illustrate this point with an example. Suppose you visit your doctor to seek relief of pain in your right arm, your doctor examines you and reviews the results of an MRI, and then reports that a herniated disk is the cause, a problem correctible with surgery. Here your doctor followed methodological naturalism. But suppose that instead of doing this, your doctor tells you that your pain has no cause within your body but is due to an evil spirit. By hypothesizing a non-natural or supernatural explanation of a natural condition, your doctor, like the advocates of ID, abandons science.
Judge Jones took no stance on whether the cosmos has an intelligent cause, declaring, properly, that such matters are outside the province of science. His ruling was informed and brave. And who appointed this Republican church-goer to the federal bench? None other than ID enthusiast President George W. Bush in 2002!
You can learn more about this famous case on NOVA on your local PBS station at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, when a two-hour film entitled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" will be aired.
______________________

1. Case No. 04cv2688.
2. The vote was 6-3. The three Board members who opposed the ID policy resigned in protest. At the next election, all of the Board members who voted for the ID policy and sought reelection were defeated by candidates opposed to the policy.
3. MSNBC.com, December 20, 2005.
4. Judge Jones also lambasted the members of the pro-ID faction of the Dover Board of Education who, he charged, lied under oath "time and again" to camouflage the religious motives behind the ID policy. See page 132 of the ruling. Judge Jones awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs, costing the school district over $1 million. The newly constituted Board declined to appeal Judge Jones's ruling.

© 2007 Tom Shipka

View Details

commentary102507.mp3 The United States is now the most religiously diverse nation in the world. Despite the fact that during their lives young Americans will deal with followers of religions other than their own, few of them know much about any religion except their own. Seven years ago Modesto, California, a city of 200,000 residents about ninety miles east of San Francisco, decided to do something about this. It was then that the Modesto public schools established a mandatory, semester-long course in world religions for ninth grade students. (1) Teacher-led committees, which designed the course with the help of the Arlington, Virginia-based First Amendment Center, consulted extensively with parents and clergy in the community served by the schools during each stage of development. (2) This strategy not only secured important input but also defused potential resistance.
The Modesto world religions course begins with an overview of First Amendment rights and responsibilities, then focuses on six religious traditions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. Each tradition gets the same amount of attention. Students study the history of each faith, its basic teachings, and its social impact. Teachers are forbidden from proselytizing or revealing their own faith stance, if any. Their job is to teach about religion in a fair and neutral way, not to promote it. "Every class in the district reads the same textbook, watches the same videos and follows the same scripted lesson plans." (p. 42) In every section students are encouraged "to share their own beliefs and (to) ask questions." (p. 42) Remarkably, over the seven years of the program's existence, only ten families have exercised an opt-out provision which excuses their children from the course.
Recently, the First Amendment Center evaluated the course. In the evaluation researchers interviewed students four times: prior to the course, during the course, immediately after the course, and six months after the course. Among other things, they found the following:

• Students became "more tolerant of other religions and more willing to protect the rights of other faiths." (p. 44)
• Students learned a lot about all six faith traditions studied.
• A significant number of students learned about aspects of their own religion that they had not known previously.
• Students who embraced a faith tradition at the start of the course also embraced it at the end of the course. Learning about other religions did not prompt students to abandon their own; and
• The greatest barrier to teaching about religion in the public schools is not the law, parents, or the community; rather, it is a scarcity of teachers qualified to teach the subject.
• Accordingly, researchers from the First Amendment Center recommend a world religions requirement in college teacher preparation programs for all social studies majors, and ongoing in-service training for teachers who are involved in a Modesto-like program. (p. 46)

Despite its benefits, the Modesto world religions course has two defects. Firstly, it ignores many religions with a significant following. Secondly, coverage of the non-religious perspective, atheism, is optional with the teacher. Nevertheless, the Modesto schools are to be congratulated for taking the lead in America in preparing their students to live and work in a religiously diverse world.

1. See Carrie Kilman, "One Nation, Many Gods," Teaching Tolerance, Fall 2007,
   pp. 38-46. References to this article hereinafter will be by page number.
2. See www.firstamendmentcenter.org.

© Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

commentary100407.mp3 empty

View Details

commentary092707.mp3 In a recent article and book, Mark Lilla, professor of humanities at Columbia University, gives us a refresher course in how the United States of America and European nations came to separate theology and politics while most other nations did not. (1) Lilla points out that the Reformation destroyed the unity of Christendom and left 16th century Europe a hodge-podge of churches and sects where doctrinal differences and political ambitions fueled each other. This led to the "madness" of a century and a half of religious wars in Europe in which, Lilla says, Christians killed one another with "maniacal fury." (2)
Facing a certain early death, the disparate and desperate Christians frantically sought a way to establish peace and preserve their lives. Aid came from an unlikely source, Thomas Hobbes, a materialist with repugnance for traditional religion, who seized on their fear to propose a path to mutual survival, namely, erecting through common consent an all-powerful political sovereign, a Leviathan, whose unbounded power would cower them into mutual tolerance. John Locke would amend this proposal significantly soon after with the introduction of limited government, the division of powers, majority rule, and human rights, but, even for Locke, secular power over a religiously diverse community would ensure peace and mutual toleration. Professor Lilla calls this separation of theology from politics by Hobbes and Locke "the Great Separation." "In order to escape the destructive passions of messianic faith," he notes, "political theology centered on God was replaced by political philosophy centered on man." (33)
Professor Lilla cautions us that the Great Separation is a work in progress, "an experiment," not a fait accomplit. Why? Because the temptation to inject religion into politics "can be reacquired by anyone who begins looking to the divine nexus of God, man and world to reveal the legitimate political order." (3)
Finally, Professor Lilla reflects on the prospects for a Great Separation among Muslims in today's world. He says that it is unlikely that Islam will take a path similar to Christianity in Europe because Muslims "believe that God has revealed a law governing the whole of human affairs" and "not some arbitrarily demarcated private sphere." (50, 54) Instead, Muslims "have to find the theological resources within their own traditions" to institute change. (54) Lilla is skeptical about the prospects of "liberal Muslims" to spark this because they don't fully grasp the theological currents at work in Islam and they are viewed by mainstream Muslims as deviants. Instead, Lilla sees a ray of hope in what he calls "renovators." Unlike liberals, "renovators," such as Khaled El Fadl, and Tariq Ramadan, "stand firmly within their faith and reinterpret political theology so believers can adapt without feeling themselves to be apostates." (54)
No doubt Mark Lilla can be faulted on one point or another. Nevertheless, in retelling how and why the Great Separation arose, and in reminding us that we need to find ways to manage the interplay of theology and politics if there is to be a future worth living, his work deserves our attention and our gratitude.

1. See "The Politics of God," The New York Times Magazine, August 19, 2007, and The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, 2007. Quotes herein are from "The Politics of God."
2. Each sect - Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, Fifth Monarchy Men, and others - had its own "path to salvation and blueprint for Christian society" which it struggled to impose at any cost. (33)
3. Page 50. Americans need to remember this, Lilla writes, as they face "potentially explosive religious differences over abortion, prayer in schools, censorship, euthanasia, biological research and countless other issues..." (50)

© Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

commentary092007 (1).mp3 empty

View Details

commentary091307.mp3 We're not far away from the holiday shopping season when all of us will be searching for gifts for special people in our lives. I have a suggestion of a gift that is inexpensive, educational, and entertaining and that is suitable for either adults or children aged twelve or older. It will also make a superb addition to the media collection of a local school or library. I'm referring to a forty-five minute film entitled The Power of Belief which first aired as an ABC News Special hosted by John Stossel on October 6, 1998. It can be purchased online in DVD or video tape format at abcnewsstore.com at a cost of $29.95 for home use and a higher price for institutional use.
The Power of Belief is four things: a critique of paranormal claims and practitioners, an illustration of self-delusion, a demonstration of how stubbornly we cling to cherished beliefs which lack evidence, and an invitation to critical thinking. It proposes that we use a double standard in evaluating claims. In some cases we demand proof. For instance, if I am buying a used car, I'll likely examine it carefully to make sure that it runs well and doesn't need expensive repairs. But in other cases, we don't demand proof. For instance, if I get a fatal cancer diagnosis and I'm told that an experimental drug available only in Mexico can save me, I'll quickly book a flight to Mexico. Here we suspend our critical faculties because we want to believe.
Each segment of the film illustrates one or more of these themes.
A stock broker convinces himself that he is levitating when he is actually only bouncing on a mattress.
Fire-walkers who believe that they have special powers discover to their amazement that anyone can fire-walk on wood embers simply because wood is a poor conductor of heat.
Psychics who claim to possess the power to move or change objects without touching them - psychokinesis - are unmasked by James Randi as conjurers.
A voodoo priest who puts a curse on John Stossel fails.
Therapeutic touch practitioners consistently fail to demonstrate their powers in a simple test designed by a nine-year old school girl.
The members of a group of students who are given a sugar pill but told that it is a stimulant report greater energy while the members of the group who are told that it is a sleeping pill report improved sleep.
A victim of Hodgkin's Disease dies after she abandons traditional treatment in favor of alternative medicine.
James Randi fools the media and hundreds of thousands of people in Australia into believing that a man that he has trained to pose as a channeler actually has the power to contact the dead.
A Texas police chief shows that a psychic detective is either self-deluded or a fraud.
A group of people who are given a horoscope of a mass murderer are convinced that it accurately describes them.
A U.S. Navy aerospace scientist offers a natural explanation of so-called near-death experiences based on his experience with pilots in a centrifuge.
Other segments deal with children who perceive a non-existent fox in a box, the use of cold and warm reading techniques by psychics, a faith healer, and the James Randi $1 Million Challenge. Despite the passage of time since The Power of Belief first aired, it remains an outstanding educational film which is worth your time and money.

© Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

commentary082907.mp3 In the current issue of Scientific American (September 2007), Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, sends an "open letter" to four religious skeptics - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. (1) Books by all four of these authors are currently on the New York Times best-seller list. In his letter Shermer warns the authors that the militant, in-your-face tone of their narratives is likely to be counterproductive. He writes: "It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind." (2) He counsels the authors against "passionate diatribes," urges them to be respectful and tolerant of religious moderates, and calls on them to supplement the case against religion with the case for humanism.
Is it possible to do what Shermer recommends? Is it possible for one to criticize religion without bashing people of faith? And is it possible to make a strong case that humanism is the path to morality, happiness, and social progress? If you reflect on the remarkable life and work of Paul Kurtz, the answer to both questions is a resounding "Yes!"
Paul Kurtz was born in Newark, New Jersey, in 1925. (3) After high school he enlisted in the U.S. Army and served in General Patton's army in Europe. He saw the horror of Dachau and Buchenwald with his own eyes and spent eighteen months in Germany in the army of occupation. After the war, Kurtz enrolled at New York University where he majored in philosophy, political science, and economics and took Sidney Hook's course entitled "Philosophy of Democracy" which had a powerful impact on him. Later he took his doctorate in philosophy at Columbia University where former students of John Dewey imbued him with Pragmatism, a philosophy that emphasizes the practical applications of ideas.
Kurtz then taught philosophy at a string of institutions and spent the last twenty-six years of his teaching career at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Along the way he published forty books and over six hundred articles and reviews. As a "public philosopher who refused to hibernate in his office," (4) Kurtz also edited the Humanist, a magazine for a general educated audience, appeared dozens of times on radio and television as a spokesperson for science and reason, established the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (1976) and the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (1980), and launched two successful magazines – Free Inquiry and the Skeptical Inquirer. What really sets Kurtz apart, though, is that, while he delivered a brilliant critique of religion in 1986 in his book The Transcendental Temptation, he simultaneously promoted dialogue between humanists and many religious groups, including Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and others, and he published dozens of books outlining the moral and intellectual foundations of secular humanism. My favorite is Embracing the Power of Humanism. (5)
In his open letter Michael Shermer closes with this comment: "Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion." (6)Paul Kurtz's life and work embody the principle of freedom with unmatched success. Reflecting on his eighty plus years, Kurtz says that "I have tried to get along with everyone on the basis of our common humanity." (7) In this he is a model to all of us, religious and secular.

1. "Rational Atheism, " p. 44, p. 46.
2. Ibid., p. 46.
3. This and other biographical material on Kurtz are from Brandon M. Stickney in Paul Kurtz, Embracing the Power of Humanism, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000, pp. ix-xvii
4. Stickney, p. xiv.
5. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.
6. Op. Cit., page 46.
7. Personal Interview by Tom Shipka, August 17, 2007.

© Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

commentary081707.mp3 On July 12 of this year, Hindu Chaplain Rajan Zed of Nevada gave the opening prayer in the U.S. Senate. The prayer was disrupted by Christian activists who called prayer in the Senate by a non-Christian an "abomination." The live protest had been preceded by virulent opposition to the invitation to a non-Christian by the Reverend Donald Wildmon, leader of the American Family Association, and David Barton, a "Christian nation" activist. (1)
This type of intolerance is not new to the Religious Right in the United States. Indeed, a sizeable segment of the Religious Right, Christian Reconstructionists, also called Dominionists, hopes to supplant democracy based on the separation of Church and State with theocracy. The laws, policies, and customs in this theocracy will be grounded in the Bible, including parts of the Old Testament that moderate Christians long ago repudiated, which require "the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, witches, incorrigible juvenile delinquents and those who spread false religions." (2)
In May of this year Christian Reconstructionists gathered for a four-day conference in Asheville, North Carolina, hosted by a large, wealthy group called American Vision which is based in Powder Springs, Georgia. It is a mistake to view American Vision as an isolated, fringe voice in the Religious Right because it has close ties with the Alliance Defense Fund, which promotes the agenda of the Religious Right in the courts, the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Liberty University School of Law, World magazine, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, and other influential groups. (3).
Speakers at the May conference were bold and clear about their hopes and wishes:
American Vision President Gary DeMar told the audience that it was time to restore "the sovereignty of God" at home and abroad.

Gary Cass called for Americans to proclaim that America "was and is a Christian nation..." with a mandate from God to Christianize the world.

The Reverend Voddie Baucham, Jr., and Doug Phillips called on all Christians to withdraw their children from public schools and to immerse them in a Bible-based worldview at home.

Jeff Ventrella and Ken Fletcher of the American Defense Fund assured the assembly that efforts to restore America's Christian heritage are being redoubled in the courts and that authentic Christians have a directive from God to "win the world for Christ."

Finally, Janet Folger, a lobbyist for fundamentalists, urged stronger efforts by Christian fundamentalists against gays and for a "values" candidate for President whose Supreme Court appointees will overturn Roe v. Wade. (3)
Christian Reconstructionists see America and the world at a critical point where the forces of good - the followers of Jesus, are arrayed against the forces of evil - seculars, lukewarm Christians, and non-Christians, and they promise salvation to all Christians who join the fray in the name of Jesus. All this sounds painfully familiar, doesn't it? It is time that all of us who are committed to Constitutional democracy, mutual respect and toleration, and the value of public schools learn that religious zealots in distant corners of our planet are not our only threat.
__________
1. Press Release, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, July 12, 2007.
2. Jeremy Leaming, "Fringe Festival," Church & State, July/August 2007, Vol. 60., No. 7, p. 10.
3. Leaming, p. 10.
4. Leaming., pp. 11-13.

Copyright © 2007 Tom Shipka

View Details

If you're one who believes that the Religious Right suffered a serious blow on May 15 when the Reverend Jerry Falwell died, you're badly mistaken, according to Rob Boston, a long-time student of the movement. In a recent issue of Church & State magazine, Boston reports that the Religious Right today is flourishing. (1)
After pointing out that Falwell's eminence in the Religious Right "waned" when he focused his efforts on Liberty University, Boston says that leaders of the Religious Right have learned important lessons from Falwell's mistakes. On the one hand, they have toned down their public rhetoric and abandoned Falwell's relish for notoriety, preferring instead to communicate with the faithful through their own media outlets instead of mainstream media. Indeed, some of the most influential organizations in the Religious Right, such as the Reverend Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, which owns 170 radio stations and generates $17 million in revenues annually, operate largely "beneath the mainstream media radar." (p. 5) On the other hand, they have prioritized grassroots organizing. By the time Falwell's Moral Majority collapsed in 1989, Boston observes, it was "essentially a large mailing list with little local presence." (p. 4) The new Religious Right, by contrast, immerses itself in races from the local to the national level by linking itself to the Republican Party and requiring candidates seeking its support to endorse its agenda. This works, Boston says, because evangelicals are a huge percentage of Republican voters, especially in primaries. (p. 5) This also explains why so many candidates seek the endorsement of leaders of the Religious Right and why so many members of Congress meet weekly with them to collaborate as a "Values Action Team." (p. 5)
Also, Boston observes, the Religious Right today continues to exploit large and small tax-exempt organizations effectively to promote its goals. Among the larger ones is Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family, a radio and publishing empire which took in $137 million in 2005, and the Reverend Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, which has nearly a million daily viewers and which took in $236 million in the same year. Among the smaller ones is Louis Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition, which has a budget of $6 million a year to lobby in Washington and California, its home base; Tony Perkins' Family Research Council, which draws on an annual budget of $10.8 million to lobby and to organize evangelical voters; The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based legal group, which uses its $27 million annual budget to promote the interests of the Religious Right in the courts (p. 5); and the American Center for Law and Justice, a $14.5 million a year operation, which, among other things, works to influence the White House's choice of nominees to the Supreme Court.
Thus, Jerry Falwell's quest for theocracy in America proceeds apace despite his absence. Indeed, the Religious Right has more resources than ever to ban abortions, block legal rights for gays, install creationism, Bible courses, and prayer in the schools, promote abstinence-only sex education, spend tax dollars on religious schools and ministries, pack the Supreme Court, and impede stem cell research. Only time will tell if these resources are up to the challenges from moderates and liberals which the Religious Right faces.
__________
1. Church & State, Vol. 60, No. 7, July/August 2007, pages 4-6.

© 2007 Tom Shipka

View Details

Suppose you pick up the daily newspaper and read that President George W. Bush has authorized the expenditure of $5,000,000 of public funds under his faith-based programs for construction of a new Baptist church in Texas by young Christians learning the skilled trades. You are incensed at what you see as a flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. But what can you do, legally, to stop the President and preserve the Constitution? You can write a letter to the editor, you can picket the White House, and you can unload on a blog. What you cannot do, however, as of June 25, 2007, the date of the Supreme Court ruling in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.(Case No. 06-157), is to file a lawsuit.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., which is dedicated to preserving the separation of church and state, had challenged the Bush administration's faith-based programs by filing suit against the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and the heads of eight additional faith-based offices in the executive branch. President Bush had created these by executive orders soon after he took office after attempts by the White House to get Congressional approval of them failed. In the 5-4 Hein ruling, the Court's right wing caucus - Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, - joined by swing-vote Kennedy, held that there is an important distinction between expenditures authorized by Congress and those authorized by the President. Taxpayers, the majority said, have standing to challenge the former but not the latter. Since "the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was set up by executive order rather than by congressional line item, the case was dismissed for lack of standing." (1)
Remarkably, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, didn't even try to defend this distinction. Justice Souter, in his dissent, said: "I see no basis for this distinction in either logic or precedent." Further, commentators by the dozens have attacked it. For instance, Vikram David Amar, professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, says that "The line the Hein Court draws - between Congress and Executive programs to promote religion - makes absolutely no sense." The reason, Professor Amar points out, is that the Constitution says that "no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriation made by Law." In other words "...all expenditures owe their legitimacy to Congressional authorization." Given this, "it makes little sense," he observes, "to distinguish between expenditures" explicitly directed by Congress and "those which arise from Executive discretion." "..Congress can be assumed to agree with (such Executive spending)," Professor Amar concludes, or "else it would cut off or limit the appropriations." (2)
As misguided as the Hein decision was, it could have been worse. Justices Scalia and Thomas sought, unsuccessfully, to persuade their peers to deny standing to taxpayers to challenge appropriations for religion by the Congress by overturning the Flask v. Cohen ruling of 1968. But stay tuned. The five justices who closed the court house doors to those seeking to block spending by a President to promote religion are relatively young and have many, many years to recast the law.
___________
1. Garrett Epps, "Free Speech for the Rich and Powerful," Salon, June 29, 2007.
2. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20070706.html

© Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

The popular view among religious people is that religion is indispensable to morality in that religion affirms the existence of a God who has revealed a law to direct humans how to live. (1) There are problems with this position, however, from the perspective of philosophy. Religion relies on faith while philosophy relies on reason. The three central beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which have a bearing on morality and which are embraced on faith are that 1) There is a God, 2) God is good and not evil, and 3) God has ordained rules for living which humans can learn. Although some believers past and present have accepted the challenge of philosophy to prove these beliefs by reason, their efforts have fared poorly in the judgment of professional philosophers.
The third belief - that God has issued a moral law which humans can learn - is particularly intriguing.
On the one hand, there are strong differences within and among the religious traditions as to where one should look to find this law. Shall we turn to scripture? If so, should we consult the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, or another holy writing? Shall we turn to a prophet? If so, should we consult the teachings of Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Bahaullah, or another holy person? Or shall we turn to our local pastor or a famous televangelist or to our central church administration or to ourselves?
On the other hand, within the same religion, it is difficult to find a moral consensus. There are often strong differences over issues such as divorce, plurality of spouses, the status of women, abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, birth control, stem cell research, and how to deal with followers of other religions, sects, and the non-religious. On this point consider the gulf between Episcopalians and Baptists in America, and Sunni and Shia in Iraq.
The fact is that religion is not nearly as important to morality as widely believed. Consider these points:
Firstly, some of the most perceptive and inspiring discussions of ethics in the past generation have come from seculars such as Paul Kurtz, Kai Nielsen, Peter Singer, and Arthur Kaplan.
Secondly, largely secular groups, such as scientists, and largely secular societies, such as the Netherlands, are at least as well-behaved as predominately religious groups and societies.
Thirdly, Utilitarianism (Always seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people) and Ethical Egoism (Always seek your own long-term happiness), the major classical teleological or consequence-based moral theories, and Kantianism (Always act on a maxim that you can wish to universalize), the major classical deontological or duty-based moral theory, are all products of reason.
Fourthly, the Constitution of the United States and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, documents which set out moral frameworks for modern living, make no reference to God or religion except to guarantee freedom to practice religion.
Fifthly, research by Harvard anthropologist Marc Hauser shows that religious and non-religious people have the same moral intuitions when faced with the same ethical dilemmas. (2)
Finally, the Golden Rule, the only moral rule which all the world's religions affirm, has been established on entirely rational grounds by Immanuel Kant, arguably the most important writer on ethics in modern history, as what he called the categorical imperative.
______
1. One prominent science, Stephen Jay Gould, also seems to support the view that we should turn to religion to learn how to live. See "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22. Here Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict for their teachings occupy different domains or magisteria. Science tells us how the universe works and religion tells us how to live. Science tells us how the heavens go and religion tells us how to get to heaven.
2. Marc Hauser, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. Also, see M. Hauser and P. Singer, "Morality without religion," Free Inquiry 26: 1, 2006, 18-19.

© Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

Through the 1970's a famous American political figure observed with deepening concern the increasing political activity of religious groups. He worried that religious groups posed a threat to individual liberty and jeopardized the separation of church and state. Finally, on September 15, 1981, he rose in the Senate chamber to warn the American people about the marriage of religion and politics. (1)
The Senator welcomed President Ronald Reagan's election as a sign that Americans had finally turned to true conservatism, one which prizes the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution over the promise of prosperity by a welfare state. But this rediscovery of the primacy of freedom in America, he predicted, will be short-lived if "single issue religious groups" continue to grow in influence and power. Before Americans inject religion into the affairs of state, he cautioned, they should reflect on the harm caused by religion in Northern Ireland, Iran, and Lebanon. He saw intolerance and factionalism on the horizon. He feared that compromise and the give-and-take essential to American political life were in serious danger. Here are his own words.
&(O)n religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls his supreme being.
But, like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using
their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their positions 100 percent.
In the past couple years, I have seen many news items that referred to the Moral Majority, pro-life, and other religious groups as "the new conservatism."
Well, I have spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the "old conservatism." And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these
groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.
Im frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A,"
"B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.
I am warning them today. I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
The great decisions of Government cannot be dictated by the concerns of religious factions. This was true in the days of Madison and it is just as true today.
We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of State separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we must not stop now.
To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
Now, who said all this? Who issued this warning about religion and politics? It
was, of course, the five-term U.S. Senator from Arizona and the Republican Party's nominee for president in 1964, Barry M. Goldwater.
I leave to your judgment whether Senator Goldwater's warning was justified, and, if it was, whether we Americans have heeded it.
1. All quotations and paraphrases are from Senator Barry Goldwater, "To Be Conservative," Congressional Record - Senate, September 15, 1981, pages 20589-20590.

Copyright

View Details

It was the summer of 1955. My friend Brian Trainor and I boarded an early morning train at the Erie Terminal in Youngstown for a trip to Cleveland to see the Indians play the Boston Red Sox on a perfect day for baseball. We were twelve years old. Our fathers bought our train tickets, gave us spending money, and instructed us to report to a Mr. Berry at the umpires' entrance at the stadium to pick up our tickets. After we arrived at the Terminal Tower in Cleveland, we walked about a mile to the stadium and tracked down Mr. Berry. Charley Berry, a long-time American League umpire, it turns out, had been a friend of Brian's father, Frank Trainor, since they grew up together in Massachusetts. After handing us complimentary tickets, Mr. Berry told Brian and me that he had a surprise for us. He escorted us through a tunnel to the Red Sox clubhouse where Ted Williams was waiting to greet us. We were awestruck. Brian and I assumed that he would shake our hands, sign an autograph, and send us on our way. How wrong we were.
After making sure that he had our names right, Ted Williams led us to the playing field and stationed us just behind the batting cage so that we could watch him and other players take batting practice. Later, on the field and in the dugouts, he introduced us to players on both teams.
Ted Williams spent about two hours with us that day. When game time arrived, he autographed two baseballs for each of us, pointed us in the direction of our seats, shook our hands, and said goodbye.
I don't remember which team won that day or how Ted Williams did at the plate. What I will never forget is the kindness and humility of Ted Williams.
Arguably the greatest batter in history had treated two young strangers as though they were his own kids. When Brian and I met him, Ted Williams was already headed to the Hall of Fame. He didn't need to do a favor for an umpire or anyone else. As I got older, I learned that Ted Williams spent many off-duty hours visiting sick children in hospitals without fanfare. I also learned that Ted Williams was an atheist. Here was a baseball legend that gave up five playing seasons during his prime to serve his nation in two wars. During World War II he was a flight instructor and during the Korean War he was a fighter pilot who flew thirty-eight missions alongside a fellow named John Glenn. (So much for the canard that there are no atheists in foxholes.) Here was the last man to hit .400 in a season. Here was a man with a lifetime batting average of .344. Here was a man who hit 521 home runs, who was a two-time MVP, who was a two-time Triple Crown winner, and who struck out during his career less than one in every ten times at bat. Here was a man who was the oldest batting champ in the Major Leagues at age 40 and who appeared in 17 All-Star games. Here was a man who set an on-base percentage record that lasted for 61 years. And here was a man who would be named to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team and All-Time Team. One can only imagine what his career totals would have been had his career not been interrupted by military service.
On that day in 1955 Ted Williams, an American icon, was simply a good person doing a kind deed. And Brian, now a banker in Europe, and I, will never forget him for it.

Copyright

View Details

Would you vote for an atheist or agnostic for President of the United States? If you would, you're a member of a distinct minority, particularly if you are religious.
This is the message sent by a recent study which appeared in the American Sociological Review. (1) This study reports the attitudes of religious people in the United States toward non-religious people. Based on a telephone survey of 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with 140 people, the study concludes that believers do not trust non-believers, view them as selfish and uncaring, and oppose their children marrying them. Religious faith, believers say, is central to being a good American and a good person. (2)
These views are worrisome, to put it mildly.
In the first place, they fly in the face of these facts:
1. Article VI of the Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
2. Our political system is built upon the separation of church and state.
3. The word "God" does not appear in the Constitution even once.
4. Many of our founders, including Jefferson, repudiated traditional religion.
5. Some 30,000,000 or more Americans profess no religion. (3)
In the second place, these views denigrate the many atheists and agnostics who compare favorably on the virtue scale with believers and who have made important contributions to our civilization.
On this point, let me drop the names of a few infidels.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two richest people in the world, are arguably the world's two greatest living philanthropists. Ted Turner, founder of CNN, gave $1,000,000,000 to the United Nations. Actor Angelina Jolie, a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador, has invested her time and treasure in refugees and children in Africa and Asia. Many other respected actors who have entertained us, past and present, are also non-believers. They include Diane Keaton, Keanu Reeves, Jodie Foster, Jack Nicholson, Margot Kidder, John Malkovich, Christopher Reeve, and Katherine Hepburn. Musicians Barry Manilow, Billy Joel, and James Taylor are non-believers, as are Las Vegas headliners Penn and Teller, comedians Julia Sweeney and George Carlin, humor columnist Dave Barry, 60 Minutes curmudgeon Andy Rooney, and golfer Annika Sorenstam. Non-believers also include Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson, co-discoverers of DNA, economist Milton Friedman, and chemist Linus Pauling. Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, was a non-believer. Cancer-survivor and cyclist extraordinaire, Lance Armstrong, and former Minnesota Vikings running back Robert Smith, are non-believers. Hall-of-Fame baseball player, Ted Williams, who gave up several years of baseball during his prime to serve his country as a fighter pilot in two wars, was a non-believer. Hundreds more names could be added to these.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all atheists and agnostics are pillars of virtue. Shock-jock Howard Stern, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, and Karl Rove, the President's alter ego, come to mind. (That"s right, friends, Karl Rove is an agnostic.) (4) I am saying that whether a person does or does not profess religion tells us nothing about his or her character or whether he or she enhances the lives of others. It's high time for people on both sides of the religious divide to recognize this.
____________________
1. April 2006
2. mndaily.com, March 24, 2006
3. American Religion Identification Survey
4. Interview with Wayne Slater on "Fresh Air," NPR September 5, 2006. Slater, with James Moore, wrote The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power.

Copyright
Tom Shipka 2007

View Details

Philosophers are often thought to be scholarly hermits who distance themselves from the practical world to produce books and papers accessible only by their peers. But there are exceptions, one of whom is Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University.
In 1975 Rollin was asked by his university to design and teach a course in veterinary ethics. This led not only to a new course but a new career path for Rollin. He immersed himself in ethical issues involving animals and eventually he became one of the most influential and respected practitioners of animal ethics in the world. Like other distinguished philosophers, Rollin has an impressive list of publications including fourteen books and over 300 articles and papers. But what sets Rollin apart from mainstream philosophers is a hands on approach in which he works with thousands of people around the world every year to improve the treatment of animals. Rollin moves comfortably and confidently among government officials, corporate executives, scientists, farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, and faculty, staff, and students on campuses. At last count Rollin has given over 1,100 talks on animals and ethics in thirty countries on six continents.
Not surprisingly, Rollin was the principal architect of federal legislation in 1986 dealing with the treatment of laboratory animals. But his focus is not restricted to the laboratory; he also addresses ethical issues involving companion animals, animals used in safety testing, animals used in product development, animals used for food, and animals used for sport.
Rollin's career is built upon two foundations. The first is the belief that animals are entitled to fulfill their natures. This means that they have rights to food, mobility, companionship, exercise, treatment of ailments, and freedom from avoidable pain, suffering, and distress. Surveys show that three of four Americans, while still wanting to continue using animals for food and other purposes, agree with him. The second is the belief that patiently working with stakeholders in the world of animals will lead to steady incremental improvement in the treatment of animals. Instead of finger-pointing at a distance, Rollin prefers to meet and talk with stakeholders and explore with them ways to achieve their goals which are compatible with the welfare of animals. After all, he points out, people who deal with animals are pursuing laudable goals such as, trying to cure diseases, protect the public from toxic substances, advance knowledge, or produce cheap and plentiful food. His most recent success is a decision by a huge pork producer to discontinue sow stalls and to shift to traditional grazing.
Rollin hopes that the United States will evolve to match the compassion for animals found in Europe, especially Sweden, but he admits that this will take time and cost Americans more at the super market, perhaps ten-percent to twenty-percent more. He also hopes that ethical sensitivity to animals will continue to grow among scientists, some of whom, he says, have been reluctant to abandon the Cartesian myth that animals are mere machines who experience no felt pain.
It's time to amend the old saying that a dog is a man's best friend. Bernard Rollin is the best friend of dogs, cats, mice, rats, cattle, horses, pigs, chickens, and hundreds of other animals to whom he has dedicated his life.

Copyright

View Details

Eugene Debs called him the "Shakespeare of oratory." After hearing him speak, Mark Twain said "What an organ is human speech when it is employed by a master." He was a hero to James Garfield, Walt Whitman, Ulysses Grant, Margaret Sanger, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Henry Ward Beecher, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Who was this remarkable man? Robert Green Ingersoll.

Born in 1833 in Dresden, New York, Ingersoll moved as a child with his family to Illinois where eventually he became a lawyer and state Attorney General. Originally a Democrat, he bolted to the Republican party to join in the crusade to end slavery. He was the speaker of choice among prominent Republicans who sought his aid during their campaigns. One of his greatest speeches was the "Plumed Knight" speech in Cincinnati at the Republican convention in 1876 in which he nominated James G. Blaine for president. Although Blaine lost, Ingersoll set the standard for nominating speeches.

Ingersoll's work as a lawyer included representing two clients accused of bribery in the so-called Star Route scandal which involved bidders who were accused of using bribes to get U.S. Post Office contracts. His clients were acquitted. He also worked pro bono for Charles B. Reynolds, a prominent freethinker who had been arrested in New Jersey and charged under an archaic blasphemy law. Although Reynolds was convicted and fined $50, which Ingersoll paid, Ingersolls arguments in court mocking blasphemy laws effectively put an end to blasphemy prosecutions in the nation.

In 1862, during the Civil War, Ingersoll raised the 11th Illinois Cavalry Regiment and was given the rank of Colonel. Forever after he would be called Colonel Bob. He and many of his troops were captured by Confederate soldiers in a battle in which they were vastly outnumbered but they were released in exchange for a promise that they would not return to combat.

Ingersolls career as an orator is unique. During an era when there was no public address system and no films, TV, or radio, Ingersoll drew spectacular crowds from every walk of life and every class who paid the then hefty sum of $1 to hear him. Although it is hard to believe, a Chicago newspaper reported in 1876 that no fewer than 50,000 people packed into an enormous tent there to hear him. Ingersoll had a photographic memory and committed thirty speeches to memory, some of which lasted as long as three to four hours. He sold out every auditorium, theater, and tent in the north, midwest, and west, where he spoke, and despite his anti-slavery mission, he even drew large crowds in the south. The only states in which he did not speak were Oklahoma, Mississippi, and North Carolina.

What is perhaps most remarkable is that Ingersoll was an abolitionist, an advocate of equal rights and equal pay for women, and an agnostic. Many of his talks openly poked fun at religion and were severely critical of the Bible as a moral guide. Can you imagine tens of thousands of Americans gathering today to hear a religious skeptic?

Ingersoll was a font of wise sayings. One of his most famous is this:
My creed is that happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so

If you'd like to know more about this extraordinary man, read Robert G. Ingersoll: A Life, by Frank Smith.

View Details

Author and director, Nora Ephron, who gave us When Harry Met Sally, Silkwood, and Sleepless in Seattle, has published a mini-autobiography entitled I Feel Bad About My Neck, in which she reflects with honesty and wit on the highs and lows in her life, the travails of aging, and the certainty of death.

The reader gets a picture of Ephron from her book as an obsessive person. One obsession is with her appearance. She admits that she spends long hours every week at "maintenance." (31) Part of the regimen involves a battery of moisturizers - cream for her face, lotions for her arms and legs, oil for her bath, and Vaseline for her feet. (47) She also dyes her hair and exercises in fits and spurts but with unwanted results. (35) "Every time I (try to) get into shape," she tells us, "something breaks." (44) "So far, in the breakage department, I have managed the following: I pulled my lower back doing sit-ups; I threw out my right hip on the treadmill; I got shin splits from jogging (and) frozen shoulders (from weight lifting)." (45-46) And what has all this attention to appearance produced? She estimates that at the age of sixty-six she looks "approximately one year younger" than she is. (139)

Another obsession is with her computer. She concedes that she is a "mouse potato." This is "someone who's as connected to her computer as couch potatoes are to their television sets." (95) Other obsessions are cooking, an apartment in the Apthorp Building on New York's upper west side, cabbage strudel, reading good books, purses, and psychoanalysis.

In a chapter entitled "What I Wish I'd Known," Ephron dispenses nuggets of wisdom culled from her own experience. Among them are these:
"Buy, don't rent." (123)
"The last four years of psychoanalysis are a waste of money." (124)
"At the age of fifty-five you will get a saggy roll just above your waist even if you are painfully thin." (124)
"The empty nest is underrated." (125)
"When your children are teenagers, it's important to have a dog so that someone in the house is happy to see you (when you come home)."(125)
And "There are no secrets." (126)

Ephron also engages the topics of suffering and death. She divulges that her father hastened her dying mother's death with an overdose of sleeping pills to end her suffering (103) but she doesn't tell us if she approved. She worries about her own future: "Is life too short, or is it going to be too long?" (132) She confesses that the death of Judy, her best friend and confidant, from cancer has riveted her attention on death. "Death," she writes, "is a sniper. It strikes people you love, people you like, people you know, it's everywhere. You could be next. Everybody dies." (131) Apparently a secular, Ephron finds none of the consolations in death which traditional religions provide.

Nora Ephron's I Feel Bad About My Neck is entertaining but it is too short and too selective. She says next to nothing about her children, her three marriages, or the genesis of her screenplays. Hopefully a longer version is in the works that will fill in the huge gaps in this volume.

Copyright © 2006 by Tom Shipka

View Details

Most high school graduates apply for admission to several colleges, as they should, because today the average income of college graduates is twice as much as non-graduates. (1) Once admitted, these young people and their parents face the daunting task of meeting the ever-rising costs of college : room, board, tuition, and other fees. The price tag at most private institutions is especially high. The average room, board, and tuition at private, non-profit colleges stands today at $30,367, far more than at public institutions, and costs at private schools rose 81% from 1993 to 2004, more than double the rate of inflation. (2) One private institution, George Washington University, actually charged students over $49,000 last year. Although public institutions cost less as a rule, their fees also predictably go up each year. This is usually attributed to a steady decline across the nation in appropriations by states to public colleges as a percentage of their operating costs. Although scholarships, grants, loans, and student jobs are available to a great many students at both private and public institutions, many graduates and their families find themselves paying off college debts long after commencement.

A key question about fees is what drives them? How are they set? Although there are no doubt some cases where institutions struggle to keep costs as low as possible, they are few and far between according to a recent series on American higher education published by The New York Times. (3) The Times reports, remarkably, that the popularity of a college rises with its cost! (4) For instance, at one private college in Pennsylvania which was losing applicants, the chairman of the Board of Trustees promoted a 17.6% increase in tuition and within four years the size of the first year class rose 35%. "Applicants," the Times points out, "had apparently concluded that if the college costs more, it must be better." (5) The Times observes that consumer perceived value is a prime factor at countless institutions of higher education which have "sharply increased tuition to match colleges they consider their rivals, while also providing more financial aid" lest they lose potential revenue or be perceived by prospective students as inferior. (6) For instance, Notre Dame tracks fees at Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt, and seventeen other schools when it sets fees. (7) Thus colleges exploit the perception of students and their families that there is a direct correlation between cost and quality. As a result, costs go up and up and up. When your customers believe that they get what they pay for, that more means better, charging them less, even if feasible, is institutionally self-defeating.

The research on college costs and types of colleges may surprise many of these families. On the one hand, there is no proven correlation between fees and actual quality. On the other hand, the type of college - public or private, large or small - has no significant effect on a college graduate's occupational achievements or income. (8) Despite this, I do not expect any change soon in consumer perceptions of value in higher education. The situation is somewhat similar to the world of motorcycles. Harley-Davidson cycles cost much more than comparable models of other manufacturers despite the fact that there is no proof that they are superior in design and performance. But this doesn't faze Harley owners and future owners.

1. Rudy Fenwick, "Report to the Ohio Faculty Council on the Effects of College Graduation on Individual Income: A Summary of Research Results in the Sociological Literature," February 2005.
2. The New York Times, December 12, 2006.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Fenwick, Op. Cit.

Copyright © 2006 by Tom Shipka

View Details

It is no surprise that George W. Bush made campaign promises to his political base - evangelicals. But, as a recent article in The New York Review of Books by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Garry Wills shows ("A Country Ruled by Faith," Nov. 16, 2006, pp. 8-12), the ambitious scope of the President's evangelical agenda is surprising.

The President began by ridding government of as many holdover liberals as possible and replacing them with evangelicals. To implement this plan, he appointed Kay Coles James head of the White House Office of Personnel. (8) James had worked for Pat Robertson and James Dobson, two evangelical major leaguers. (8) Also, the President picked key advisors and cabinet members, among them Condoleeza Rice, Karen Hughes, John Ashcroft, Andrew Card, and Michael Gerson, who shared his religious worldview. (8) Even appointees to the Iraqi Provisional Government came largely from a pool of evangelicals, Wills says. (11)

Next, President Bush gave evangelical leaders unprecedented access. Either the President or his key staff consulted them routinely on virtually all issues of interest to them.

Further, the President established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to funnel money to them. (8) Grants went to Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, and many others, including selected African-American clergy, such as Bishop Sedgwick Daniels of Milwaukee.

The President also carried the evangelical perspective to scientific and social issues. Saying that the jury is still out on evolution, he proposed teaching intelligent design, a version of creationism, alongside science in science classrooms. (10) Also, his administration ignored objections by scientists to the sale of a book at the Grand Canyon "claiming that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood," (10) and it scuttled publication of a draft guide for park employees which pointed out that the canyon was not formed in the alleged time period of the Flood. Additionally, to pacify the religious right, Wills says, the Bush administration
opposed embryonic stem cell research, in defiance of moderates in his own party,
ignored scientific warnings about global warming,
spent $170 million on abstinence-only sex education in the public schools while removing from the web site of The Centers for Disease Control the findings of a panel that abstinence-only programs don't work,
refused to make the morning-after pill available to women over-the-counter, despite the recommendations of the board of the Food and Drug Administration, sought a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage,
forbad the expenditure of U.S. foreign aid to any organization which distributed condoms or provided information to women about abortion, despite the fact that birth control and abortion remain legal in the U.S., and
*protected a controversial general who publicly characterized the war on terrorism as a battle of Christians against Satan. (10-11)

Wills' article shows that he views George W. Bush as a president on a mission to destroy the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Yet Wills overlooks an important fact: the President is not universally loved among evangelicals. Some have protested that he politicized the faith-based initiatives by spending mostly in battleground states to help Republicans and that there remains a huge gap between the billions which Bush promised to evangelicals and the millions which he actually delivered to them. And surely, if exit polls are accurate, many evangelicals deserted him in the recent elections.

Copyright © 2006 by Tom Shipka

View Details

In his first book, The End of Faith, published in 2004, Sam Harris - philosopher-neuroscientist-and religious skeptic wrote about religion. In his second book, Letter to a Christian Nation, published a few months ago, Harris writes to the religious, especially American Christians. Both books are New York Times bestsellers. In the Letter, which runs for a mere ninety-five pages, Harris outlines the alleged defects of religion and entreats believers to take a fresh look at their worldview so that, in his words, there can follow a "public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty." (87)

His critique of religion includes these points.

First, religions contradict one another, so they cannot all be true. (5-7)

Second, sizeable segments of the religious community defy the exhaustively confirmed findings of modern science on evolution. (x)

Third, the Bible is a bad place to look for a moral code. For instance, the Bible condones slavery, beating children and even killing them in certain cases, and stoning people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, and other deeds. A morally praiseworthy part of the Bible, the Golden Rule, was taught long before Jesus by Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, and Epictetus (8-11) and it amounts to nothing more than intelligent self-interest. (23-24)

Fourth, the stance of many believers on embryonic stem cell research, abortion, contraception, and vaccinations to prevent HPV (human papillomavirus) needlessly perpetuates suffering. (23-32)

Fifth, doing good does not require belief in God. For instance, many doctors "are moved simply to alleviate suffering, without any thought of God." (33) And surely the members of the National Academy of Science, ninety-three percent of whom reject belief in God, are "at least as well behaved as the general population." (39)

Sixth, secular societies in the world have a higher level of development and a lower level of crime than religious societies. (39-44)

Seventh, in the United States, the red states, which are populated by large numbers on the religious right who vote Republican, have higher crime rates than the blue states. (45)

Eighth, "Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth (which) they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage (which) they give in aid to the developing world." (46)

Ninth, there is no satisfactory solution to the classic problem of evil. The enormity of human and animal suffering in the world is incompatible with the notion of an all-good, all-powerful God. (52-57)

Tenth, beliefs should be based on sufficient evidence, not faith. "(F)aith (believing without evidence) is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." (66-67)

Eleventh, the traditional arguments for the existence of God are all fatally flawed. (66-79)

Twelfth, Our "competing religious certainties" are killing us, literally. Religious differences exacerbate conflict and impede the creation of stable governments and viable economies in at least thirteen areas of the world. (79-82)

Thirteenth, Islam is the greatest single threat to humanity's long-term survival and happiness. "The idea that Islam is 'a peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a fantasy" (85)

Obviously, Harris has given us a highly provocative polemic against religion. It remains to be seen whether believers in great numbers will read it, whether they will carefully evaluate his claims and arguments, and whether they will engage in the public discourse on religion that he recommends.

Copyright © 2006 by Tom Shipka

View Details

Thinking is like playing tennis, driving a car, or dieting. It can be done well or badly. In modern education jargon, good thinkers are called critical thinkers. Critical thinkers have a mix of attitudes, skills, and habits that set them apart from sloppy thinkers. Are you a critical thinker? Test yourself by answering these questions.

1. Are you a successful problem-solver?
2. When you face a problem or mystery, do you always seek the simplest adequate solution or explanation instead of a needlessly complex one?
3. Before you make a decision, do you first gather as many relevant facts as time permits?
4. Do you embrace a belief because it is supported by compelling evidence and sound arguments and not merely because it is popular or consoling?
5. Can you explain and defend your beliefs and practices capably?
6. Are your beliefs coherent so that some of them don't contradict others?
7. Do you use language with precision and clarity?
8. Are you a good listener?
9. Do you strive to be objective and even-handed in your evaluation of people, products, services, and organizations?
10. Are you aware that your perceptions can be distorted by your beliefs, expectations, biases, and state of mind?
11. Are you aware that your memory is selective and constructive and seldom provides a literal report of the past?
12. Are you willing to hear or read an elaboration or defense of a position that strikes you initially as weird, foolish, far-fetched, or immoral?
13. Do you have the courage to reevaluate a long-cherished belief and to acknowledge that it may be mistaken?
14. Do you successfully detect bias, special pleading, code words, propaganda, and exaggeration in what you hear or read?
15. Do you scrupulously avoid lying, exaggerating, and treating speculation, gossip, or rumor as fact, in order to influence or persuade others?
16. Are you aware that many TV programs, films, and publications deviate from the historical record and contradict well-established scientific laws and theories?
17. Do you regularly read books, newspapers, magazines, and other publications?
18. Do you balance your reading to expose yourself to a variety of views and perspectives?
19. Do you participate regularly in serious, civil conversations about significant issues in the news?
20. Do you detect common fallacies in reasoning such as stereotyping, hasty generalization, ad hominem, the slippery slope, and others? And finally,
21. Do you strive to avoid the use of such fallacies in your own reasoning?

You have now completed the self-evaluation stage of the critical thinking test. Hopefully you answered "yes" to every question. To complete the critical thinking test, you need to move to peer evaluation. Ask a person who knows you well and whom you consider to be a critical thinker to evaluate you using these same questions. Then, compare the two sets of answers. If there is a discrepancy between your answer and your peer evaluator's answer to a particular question, ask your peer evaluator for an explanation. Oops! I forgot one important question in the critical thinking test: "Do you welcome and act upon constructive criticism?"

© 2012 Tom Shipka

View Details

Many have expressed dismay over the Patriot Act and other laws and practices adopted by the United States since 9/11 to guard against the threat of terrorism. In essence, the critics charge that the U.S. is sacrificing liberty at the altar of security.

Although I, too, have misgivings about many features of the Patriot Act, not to mention poorly justified, planned, and executed military initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, I also believe that the line between prudent security measures and overzealous infringement of liberties is not as clear and distinct as one would hope, especially in a climate where suicidal religious zealots perceive every American death as strengthening their claim on heaven. I also recognize that without security there can be no liberty. Indeed, this is arguably the central insight of two of the greatest political theorists in history - Thomas Hobbes and John Locke - despite the fact that the former espoused the cause of Monarchy and absolute government, while the latter espoused the cause of Parliament and limited government, in 17th century England.

In his magnum opus, Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes tells us that liberty, the power to do as one wishes, is dependent upon security (CH XIV). Humans, he says, as pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding animals, will seek their own pleasure and advantage, even at the expense of their neighbors, unless there is a recognized law-maker who possesses sufficient power to make laws and to enforce them. Absent this, Hobbes says, "the life of man" is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Chapter XIII) Through an explicit or implicit social contract, Hobbes says, we collectively agree to establish and recognize a political sovereign, a leviathan, whose power protects our life, liberty, and possessions.

Similarly, in his Second Treatise of Government, published some 39 years after Hobbes' Leviathan, John Locke, though seeking to limit the powers of government, recognized, as Hobbes did, the necessity of government to provide security, and the link between security and liberty. Locke argues that in the absence of government, society suffers three serious defects ('wants'): 1) lack of a settled, known, established law; 2) lack of a fair and impartial judge; and 3) lack of the power to impose a proper sentence on a wrongdoer. The purpose of government, which people establish through a social contract, Locke says, is to overcome these defects. So essential is a stable and strong government to rights and liberties, Locke observes, that nearly all humans past and present "take sanctuary under the established laws of government and therein seek the preservation of their property." (Shipka, Minton, Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery, 5/e, p. 393) "Property" is Locke's term for our rights under the moral law to life, liberty, and possessions ("estate").

Can government err in the quest to secure us from terrorism and other threats to our welfare? Of course it can. Public discussion and debate are important to help us identify and correct these errors. Nevertheless, we should never forget that security is indispensable to liberty and that no one has a foolproof plan for the perfect blend of security and liberty in the dangerous world in which we live today.

Copyright © 2006 by Tom Shipka

View Details

For many Western political leaders, the problem in today's world is not Islam, which they see as a religion of peace, but religious extremists who subvert it. But this viewpoint is coming under fire from a growing list of writers (1), including Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Though a young woman at 36, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has received no less than a dozen major awards in Europe and the United States for her advocacy of Muslim women and in 2005 she was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people. Recently she was the subject of one of George F. Will's syndicated columns (September 21, 2006).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and raised a Muslim. She lived there and in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, until, at the age of 22, she ducked an arranged marriage to her father's cousin and settled in the Netherlands where she learned the language, completed her education, and eventually became a member of Parliament. In 2004 Ali published a book in Dutch which was recently translated and published in the West the under the title, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. Ali also wrote the script for a short film "Submission: Part I " which highlights passages in the Koran which disparage women. Theo van Gogh, director of the film, was murdered by a Muslim fundamentalist shortly after the film was shown and Ali was herself threatened with death. Ali holds that in the name of religion, Muslim women "are enslaved in their homes" (p. 7) (2) subjected to genital mutilation and "disownment" (or abandonment) by their families for any real or imagined offense, and denied education and other opportunities for personal and professional growth.

But Ali's critique of Islam goes beyond this. She says that Islamic culture most needs what it most abhors : skepticism. She calls for an enlightenment in the Islamic world much the same as the one in the Christian world centuries ago. She writes: "(W)e Muslims are already imbued with faith and superstition. What we need are schools of philosophy"(p. 15) "Let Us Have a Voltaire" is the title of a chapter in her book. (pp. 35-41) "(A)ll Muslims," she says, "share the conviction that the fundamental principles of Islam cannot be criticized, revised, or in any way contradicted." (p. 9) This dogmatism explains virtually all the defects in Islamic culture, she says, including the 'fanaticism' of terrorists, sectarian strife, lagging the West in "technology, finance, health, and culture" (p. 15), lack of respect for individual autonomy and women's rights (p. 14), the political authority of mullahs, the failure of Muslims to read important Western thinkers, the lack of "a credible and workable political model" (p. 19), and Muslim hypersensitivity to criticism. On the last point, she writes "I am outraged that Muslims are not more offended by the invocation of Allah and 'God is great' for murder (by terrorists) than by cartoons." (p. xv) Her own skepticism is evident. "I have come to realize," she writes, "that the existence of Allah, of angels, demons, and a life after death, is at the very least disputable." (xi)

Ali recently left Europe for her own safety and accepted an appointment at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., where she is now working on a new book in which the Prophet Muhammad has an imaginary dialogue with John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, and Karl Popper. No doubt we can expect more sparks to fly once she publishes it.

1. These include Muslims and non-Muslims such as Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasreen, Muhammad Abu Zaid, Bernard Lewis, and Sam Harris, among others.
2. Quotes are from "The Caged Virgin"

Copyright © 2006 by Tom Shipka