====================================================================== MITAAH News -- Volume #3 / Issue #3 -- December 4, 1998 (sent sporadically to mitaah-announce@mit.edu mailing list) Pseudo-random samplings of information that may relate to atheism, agnosticism, humanism, freethought, or church-state separation issues. Please send any promising material to reagan@mit.edu. http://www.mit.edu/~mitaah/ ====================================================================== In this issue: * Events * News and views -Court battle over creche in Somerset, MA -Give Papal Indulgences for Christmas! * Mailing lists -How to participate ====================================================================== Recent and Upcoming Events -------------------------- * Study breaks When would be the best time for everyone to get together for one last _Cosmos_ marathon? Studying for days without a break can't be all that productive, so why not waste some time and absorb some classic PBS? * Media blitz MITAAH and CFA have been in the news lately! First there was the Boston Globe article (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml /300/On_campus__nonreligious_movement_ha.shtml) featuring a few of our officers, then an AP story for national distribution on the CFA. Now, reporters from smaller papers have been emailing us to get input from MIT freethinkers. Thanks to those who responded to the Millenium question--your answers have been forwarded! ======================================================================= News and Views Excerpts from mailing lists and news sources -------------------------------------------- This section of the newsletter contains excerpts from internet-based listservs, with a focus on political and social activism. We currently subscribe to American Atheists News, Church-State Issues, Secular Humanism Discussion, Internet Infidels News, CFA Announcement and Discussion, and People for the American Way News. ---------- (AANews #509) ATHEIST DIRECTOR WINS JUDGMENT AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS NATIVITY CRECHE American Atheists Regional Director Gil lawrence Amancio won his battle early today to challenge the constitutionality of a nativity scene displayed in a public park in Somerset, Massachusetts. With the help of the local American Civil Liberties Union, Amancio argued that the creche endorsed a specific religious belief, advanced religion, and thus violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Judge Richard G. Stearns of the US District Court of Massachusetts agreed, and sent word that judgment had been entered in favor of the plaintiff. The decision is an important one on several counts. When they learned that Amancio was considering legal action last year, town officials belatedly attempted to "secularize" the Somerset display by adding a plastic Santa Clause. The other elements included holiday lights, a large Christmas tree, and a wreath. In his decision, Judge Stearns cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING (1947) case which stated: "The 'establishment of religion' clause ... means at least this: Neither a state nor a Federal Government can set up a religion. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Stearns also referred to the important "three pronged" test outlined by the high court in LEMON v. KURTZMAN (1971): "Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, a statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion ...; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'" Despite those guidelines, though, both religious groups and governments have tried to constitutionally sanitize religion-based displays (especially during the Christmas season) by including what are clearly secular symbols and trappings such as lights, Santa Clause statues, plastic candy canes and other holiday items. The tighter interpretations of the First Amendment used by the earlier court shifted during later years, and in LYNCH v. DONNELLY (1984), Chief Justice Burger, writing on behalf of a 5-4 majority, upheld the constitutionality of a Christian creche in Pawtucket, Rhode Island when it was "secularized" in that fashion, by the mixing of other non-religious symbols. The city owned manger scene was included with Santa Clause, a 40-foot high tree, depictions of carolers, candy canes, a "wishing well," a banner declaring SEASONS GREETINGS, clowns, a dancing elephant, teddy bear and finally, a robot. The Burger court, in this slim majority, suggested that the overwhelming presence of such holiday kitsch vitiated "whatever benefit there (was) to one faith or religion or to all religions..." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed, arguing that the religious symbolism in Pawtucket was somehow effectively muted by the presence of these other holiday artifacts. Five years later, though, the Court seemed to change course. In COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY v. ACLU, the justices examined a Christian nativity creche erected on the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pennsylvania. The creche had been donated by a local Catholic group, but was decorated with poinsettia plants around the periphery paid for by the county. Justice Blackmun, who had dissented in LYNCH, wrote for a new majority and declared that "nothing in the context of the display detracts from the creche's religious message." He added that because of the lack of overwhelming secular artifacts, and the position of the creche, "(no) viewer could reasonably think that it occupies this location, without the support and approval of the government." Another question examined in ALLEGHENY was an 18-foot Chanukah menorah, placed outside the County-City Building next to a 45-foot high Christmas Tree. Again, this menorah was owned by an outside group, although the city stored, erected and dismantled the display each year. The court ruled that while the menorah "is a religious symbol," it's message "is not exclusively religious," and had both religious and secular dimensions. Unfortunately, despite the firm guidelines of LYNCH and later LEMON v. KURTZMAN, the US Supreme Court and other judicial bodies have relied increasingly on the "context" of these religious displays -- whether or not they are diluted by the inclusion of seasonal and secular items like candy canes and plastic Santa Clause images. There is also a growing emphasis on whether or not a religious display activity happens to "favor" one religion over another, and seeming de-emphasis on whether or not religious belief in general is being promoted. Back in Somerset... Mr. Amancio's case is an important victory, though, because it still holds governments to a high standard in trying to "secularize" what are clearly religious displays. Judge Stearns noted, "I am constrained to conclude that Somerset's display violates the Establishment Clause because the centrality of its Nativity scene conveys to a reasonable viewer the constitutionally forbidden message that the Town of Somerset officially supports Christianity." Unfortunately, though, even Judge Stearns -- despite the overwhelming admonition of the establishment clause, LYNCH, and LEMON v. KURTZMAN -- felt compelled to essentially apologize for his constitutional reasoning. He added, at the end of his Order, "I recognize that this decision may seem a cruel blow to a sixty year tradition of celebrating a holiday that apart from its religious significance heralds a universal message of peace and goodwill." He then goes on to argue, "But to insist that government respect the separation of church and state is not to discriminate against religion, indeed it promotes a respect for religion by refusing to single out one or two creeds for official favor at the expense of others." The Downside: Court Orders as "Instruction Manuals" or "With enough candy canes..." The court ruling in ALLEGHENY, and even subsequent decisions which have ruled certain religious displays as unconstitutional, may not end up being the best which church-state separations and Atheists might want. Unfortunately, decisions like the current District Court ruling can be interpreted as "instruction manuals" for city governments and religious groups on how to successfully maintain these religious displays. Any group interested in putting up such a display, or maintaining a current one need to: * Include "ecumenical" symbols from other faiths. Add some token religious symbols for Jews, Hindus and/or Muslims. * "Sanitize" the display by mixing it with an abundance of seasonal and secular artifacts, including plastic Santa Clause figures, lights, trees, wreaths, candy canes and other items not specifically and directly associated with religion. * Try to avoid making the religious display a "central" feature, as was the case in Somerset. For Atheists, this reasoning leaves much to be desired. The presence of Jewish symbols at Christmas time, for instance, often reflects a technical ploy to sanitize a Christian religious display. Does it really matter, in terms of the full "three pronged" test of LEMON v. KURTZMAN, if other religious symbols from, say, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, Muslims or any other sect, is included? Government may not be "favoring" one religion over another, but such an interfaith display would clearly violate the prohibition of advancing religious belief in general, and would result in "excessive entanglement." The court's flirtation with selective aspects of the LEMON test, and its increasingly narrowed view of how the establishment clause is to be interpreted, suggests that continued vigilance by separationists is required. At this time, it is not known if Judge Stearns has ordered the removal of the Somerset nativity creche. Although declared in violation of the First Amendment, officials in the town could have the option of secularizing their display with a sufficient volume of candy canes or other items. For Gil Lawrence Amancio, though, this court ruling is "sweet justice" and an important victory for state-church separation. ---------- (AANews #510) TOWN COUNCIL TO DEFY COURT, ERECT NATIVITY An Enormous 45' Santa, 8' Menorah Will "Secularize" Religious Display Officials in Somerset, Massachusetts announced last night that they will defy a federal court order, and proceed with plans to erect a Christian nativity scene in front of the Town Hall. This follows a victory earlier this week by American Atheists Regional Director Gil Lawrence Amancio, who with the help of the ACLU successfully challenged the display as an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity, and a violation of the First Amendment. Judge Richard D. Stearns of the US District Court of Massachusetts cited landmark Supreme Court cases, including LEMON v. KURTZMAN (1971) and EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1947); he ruled that the "centrality" of the nativity creche "conveys to a reasonable observer the constitutionally forbidden message that the Town of Somerset officially supports Christianity..." As a meeting last evening in Somerset, though, the three Town Selectmen opened a public gathering at the government hall, then promptly announced that they were going into a secret "executive" session. After approximately 25 minutes, they reconvened in front of the public and a battery of news cameras, an announced that they would erect the nativity scene and, if necessary, appeal the Amancio case. Knowing that they have lost a key battle to maintain the nativity scene, though, the Selectmen now propose to "secularize" the Somerset religious display by the addition of non-religious holiday symbols. Town leaders announced that they would be relocating an enormous 45-foot high Santa Clause from the Somerset Fire Department building to the Town Hall -- a distance of approximately a mile, according to AA Regional Director Gil Amancio. Somerset will also be using a Jewish menorah about 8-feet in height, as well as several more Christmas trees and strings of colored lights in hopes of rendering the nativity capable of passing constitutional muster. "They're hoping that Santa Clause and the other items will detract from the 'centrality' of the nativity scene so that they can sneak it under the wire of the First Amendment," observed Mr. Amancio. "This is just another ploy to try and 'save the creche' and continue to make what is clearly a religious statement." The strategy of trying to "secularize" a religious display on government property, though, by adding layers of other holiday symbols -- or gratuitously including symbols from other religious faiths -- has not been looked upon favorably by the courts. Last year, for instance, the City of Jersey City, New Jersey failed in its attempt to "secularize" a religious display that included a Christian nativity and menorah by hastily including a snowman figure and plastic Santa Clause. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging this symbolic amalgam observed, "however confusing the presence of a snowman in Bethlehem may be from a canonical perspective, a reasonable observer ... would inevitably characterize (Frosty, Santa and the sleigh) for what they are -- attempts at evasion of constitutional prohibitions through superficial secular tokenism. Other rulings, however, have suggested that the further jurists stray from the establishment clause and the need to avoid state-church entanglement, the more confusing court decision can become. The US Supreme Court ruled in split 5-4 decision in LYNCH v. DONNELLY (1984) that a Christian creche in Pawtucket, Rhode Island had been "secularized" by the inclusion of other non-religious symbols. The city owned a manger scene, but mixed in a plastic Santa, 40-foot high tree, candy canes, a "wishing well," animated clowns and other seasonal kitsch. Justice Warren Burger observed that the overwhelming presence of such seasonal items eroded "whatever benefit there (was) to one faith or religion or to all religions." Mr. Amancio's victory, while a cause for celebration by Atheists and state- church separationists, is unfortunately also fueling a backlash of threats and hostility. Gil reports that he has been receiving threatening phone calls. Earlier this week, a broadcaster in Boston used a segment of his program to comment on Amancio's court win, and suggest that listeners "send him a Christmas card." The remarks were made by Gary LaPierre, co-anchor of the morning news program on WBZ radio. "Gary is an angry young man today!!" notes the lead-in to the transcript of LaPierre's broadcast on the stations internet web site. La Pierre remarked... "And just one more, speaking of getting over it. The Atheist in Somerset, Mass. who was successful in forcing the town firefighters to take down the nativity scene in front of town hall. And Judge Richard Stearns, shame on you too. The Atheist who doesn't believe and apparently doesn't think anybody else should either, destroys a 60-year tradition in Somerset. What a shame. His name by the way is Gil Lawrence Amancio in Somerset just in case you'd like to send him a Christmas card." According to Mr. Amancio, the law firm which has represented him in the Somerset case yesterday contacted WBZ, asking for a taped transcript of LaPierre's program which is titled "LaPierre on the Loose." The firm also reports that it has received threatening phone calls, although no connection has been established between those calls and Mr. LaPierre's remarks. At the very least, the statement mentioning Mr. Amancio and "send him a Christmas card," is personally directed, and not a discussion of the important constitutional issues involved. In the meantime, the Town of Somerset is proceeding with plans to defy Judge Stearn's ruling. Somerset was represented by a pro bono attorney in the original case, although it is not known if tax monies will be necessary to finance any subsequent appeal. Amancio says he will continue to oppose the Christian creche display. ---------- (church-state-d #234) San Jose Mercury News 11/10/98 Religious incorporation not needed for exemption SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A non-profit hospital run by a religious group does not need to organize as a religious corporation to be protected from employment discrimination suits under state law, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday. The high court's 7-0 ruling, written by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, reversed the state Court of Appeal, which had overturned a ruling by a Superior Court judge who rejected the original suit. In that suit, nurse June McKeon sued Mercy Healthcare Sacramento, a hospital founded, operated and run by the Roman Catholic Church. McKeon, who is black, alleged the hospital hired two white men for supervisory positions instead of promoting her. The Sacramento County Superior Court rejected the suit, ruling that the hospital was protected by an exemption to the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act given to "a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit." McKeon argued, and the appellate court agreed, that since the hospital was organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law instead of the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, it was not entitled to the FEHA exemption. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the hospital was organized as a non-profit corporation by the church, that it followed the tenets of the church and of the Sisters of Mercy of Auburn and that its bylaws require that all activities at the hospital be "carried on subject to the moral and ethical principles of the Roman Catholic Church." In addition, the court said, the hospital is exempt from federal taxes as a religious organization, according to a ruling by the IRS. As the court interpreted the statute, ". . . an entity apparently need only be `religious' and `not organized for private profit.' " "To read the statute as McKeon would read it -- to require incorporation under a particular California law -- makes no sense when the statute does not appear to require incorporation at all," the court said. The ruling is S054783, June McKeon vs. Mercy Healthcare Sacramento. ---------- (AANews #506) CHURCH TRIED TO STOP "60 MINUTES" BROADCAST OF KEVORKIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE Roman Catholic officials tried vainly yesterday to prevent a CBS "60 Minutes" segment which showed Dr. Jack Kevorkian injecting a man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease with a lethal mixture of drugs, from airing. Kevorkian, who has attracted national attention for his support of physician assisted suicide, termed the measure a form of "active euthanasia." The euthanasia was carried out on September 17 and videotaped. When CBS announced that it would carry the program, which included comments by Kevorkian as well as critics, advocacy groups and the Roman Catholic Church denounced the move. Local stations in San Antonio, St. Louis, New Orleans, Spokane and Tulsa decided to carry local news while the Kevorkian segment aired, then returned to the rest of the "60-Minutes" show. Kevorkian, who has assisted more than 130 people end their lives, said "This is the ultimate self determination, to decide how and when you're going to die when you're suffering." The patient was identified as Thomas Youk, age 52 of Waterford, Michigan. Toward the end of his illness, Youk was unable to use his limbs and reportedly was terrified of choking to death. He indicated on tape that he wanted to die. Kevorkian's actions met with approval from both Youk's mother and brothers. His wife told reporters, "I was grateful to know someone would relieve him of his suffering," adding "I don't consider it (euthanasia) murder. I consider it humane." A survey by AANEWS indicated that a variety of organizations, including Catholic Church officials and local level representatives from the Family Research Council, spoke out against the program and pressured local media throughout the country to censor the "60 Minutes" report. On Friday, for instance, the Catholic Archdiocese in Detroit -- fresh from a November ballot victory which struck down an assisted suicide measure -- demanded that all CBS stations and the local affiliates not carry the "60 Minutes" segment on Kevorkian. But the strongest stand we know of so far appears to have been made in Philadelphia, where Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua made a "last- minute" appeal to CBS and its local affiliate, KYW-TV, and according to one news station was ready to take legal action if necessary to prevent the broadcast. Bevilacqua, head of one of the largest Catholic Archdiocese in the nation, described the program as "horrendous" and a "low in journalism," even though he had not viewed it and did not intend to watch the tape. According to an NBC local affiliate, though, the Archdiocese was ready to take legal action in court to stop the program, until attorneys informed Bevilacqua that it was unlikely any injunction would be granted due to the First Amendment. The Cardinal joined with spokespersons from the local Urban Family Council in denouncing both Dr. Kevorkian and CBS. "God put Adam to sleep before he took a rib out, which is sort of a divine anesthetic," Bevilacqua told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We should be helping a person live without pain, not eliminating the person." Bishop McHugh of the neighboring Diocese of Camden expressed similar sentiments. "As a Roman Catholic bishop, I'm opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. But at least I'm willing to sit down at the table and discuss the ethical question and various ethical approaches to it." McHugh charged, "Kevorkian doesn't do that. He assumes that he's right and everyone else wrong, and he's going to do whatever he wants to do..." So far, however, prosecutors have been unable to convict Dr. Kevorkian of murder charges despite the heated rhetoric that surrounds the issue. Kevorkian declared that one result of the broadcast he was hoping for was to force a "showdown" in the courts over physician assisted euthanasia and suicide. "I want to be prosecuted for euthanasia," Kevorkian told the Oakland Press of Michigan. "I am going to prove that this is not a crime, ever, regardless of what words are written on paper." Oakland County (MI) prosecutor David Gorcyca said that his office would review tapes of the broadcast, and that among the issues to be considered would be whether Youk clearly gave his consent to have Dr. Kevorkian help him to die. Kevorkian has lost his license to practice medicine in Michigan and California; but he has beaten charges related to the deaths of five persons in Michigan on three separate occasions. "I am tired of all the hypocrisy," Kevorkian told the New York Times, "and we're going to end this one way or another." For the Roman Catholic Bishops, the "60 Minutes" program may fuel efforts to move so-called "life issues" such as euthanasia, abortion and even fetal- tissue research to the top of their social action agenda. Meeting last week in Washington, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops stopped short of a proposal made by Archbishop Anthony Maida of Detroit that would have threatened damnation and even excommunication for any Catholic government officials who did not obey the church's teachings on abortion and related issues. ---------- (AANews #508) Citing the argument that the Ten Commandments have served as a foundational "guide" for the nation, Florida State Senator John Grant (R-Tampa) has introduced legislation that would permit the display of the Decalogue in courtrooms, public school classrooms, and in other government buildings. Grant says that he decided to propose his bill after hearing a talk by David Barton of the "Wall Builders" organization. Barton is a leading popularizer of the theme that America is a Christian nation, founded upon biblical principles, and that state-church separation "has no basis" in either American law or history. Barton's group circulates books, videos and other materials including "The Myth of Separation," which has been attacked by constitutional scholars for its lack of scholarship and taking quotes out of context. An early edition of "Myth of Separation" also attributed quotes to various Founders and other historical figures which have been shown to be fraudulent or highly suspect. . . . No state legislature has enacted any of the proposed Ten Commandments bills which have appeared throughout the nation. Christian groups supporting Decalogue displays often say they are supporting the case of Alabama county judge Roy Moore, who has a hand carved Commandments plaque above his courtroom dais in Etowah County. ** Pressure from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has led to cancellation of a World AIDS Day event scheduled for next week. Among the slated activities was a 35-foot Christmas tree decorated with condoms to be located near the Central Park skating rink, and a benefit concert. The "Tree of Life" was to be a statement on the need to practice safe sex, and was sponsored by Levi Strauss & Co. The private subcontractor for the event, though, decided to cancel the program after the Catholic group threatened to organize a boycott of Levi products. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani agreed with the decision, telling reporters "I think Christmas trees have a certain symbolic importance ... to a lot of people. I think what they were suggesting would probably be inconsistent with that." ** IN TIME FOR MILLENNIUM HOOPLA, VATICAN RESURRECTS INDULGENCES There's the 30-year mortgage, debit cards and banking by phone. Now, the Roman Catholic Church has brought back a practice which even many of its followers had consigned to the historical dustbin as both obsolete thinking and an embarrassment, even an overt expressionism of greed and commercialism, which the playwright Geoffrey Chaucer had mocked in "The Canterbury Tales." On Sunday, Pope John Paul II officially declared the year 2000 as a "Great Jubilee" for believers, and announced that god would be honoring "indulgences" -- credit earned toward punishment time in purgatory (a realm which the Vatican teaches is almost as unpleasant as hell, but only temporary in its duration)-- after one has died. Church teachings insist that the living may earn credit through the indulgence system for time spent by others, or later by themselves, in the tortures of that unpleasant hereafter. With the exception of saints (who presumably take an express track to heaven), all Catholics, including clerics and the most sanctimonious, must serve some time in purgatory for their sins. Those sent to hell for the most serious transgressions, though, dubbed "mortal sins" cannot for some unfathomable reason benefit from the indulgence system. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mailing Lists ------------- Remember to be careful--the mitaah-announce list is an announcement list only. Discussion needs to stay on the discussion lists, and specific requests should go to the officers. Due to repeated spams, we've renamed the announcement list and discontinued publicizing these lists outside of MIT. Once again, we have the following lists for your reading pleasure: mitaah-announce Official announcements mitaah-discussion Free-form discussion mitaah-gcf-forum AAH-Graduate Christian Fellowship discussion forum To add/remove yourself from any of the lists, use the following command from your athena% prompt: 'blanche $USER' Switches are '-a' to add, '-d' to remove. Your request will not be processed until 2am the next morning, so there may be up to a 26 hour wait for changes to take effect. *Please do not send requests to the list itself*, and remember that you are responsible for your own list maintenance. Other AAH lists include: mitaah-officers Feedback to the officers mitaah-planning Feedback to the planning board Send questions or problems to . --------------------------------------------------------------------------