https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/July_August-2023-Ezine.pdf
​White Christian Nationalists frequently say “they” are coming after your children. But who are “they,” and how are they doing it? “They” are often liberal teachers and media who supposedly are turning students away from Christianity and toward Marxism, or “they” are gays recruiting children to become gay or trans.  “They” also favor illegal immigration, taking away your legal guns, and trying to convince pregnant women to obtain abortions. In addition, “they” are  purportedly talking young people into voting for Democrats. Obsessing over such issues suggests that these religious conservatives are unwilling to allow their own children to grow up and think for themselves. Imagined conspiracies about liberals trying to “indoctrinate” kids are usually based on liberals trying to educate kids and offering  them support for who they are. Liberals are interested in engaging with students and teaching them critical thinking, not in trying to mold them into unthinking automatons. White Christian Nationalists worry about liberal indoctrination because they, themselves, are guilty of religious indoctrination, often trying to recruit other people’s children and frightening their own children about the dangers of exploring thoughts outside of the ones approved by their inflexible ideologies. Some of these parents and family members refuse to acknowledge that their children are gay and claim that gender dysphoria is a liberal hoax. 
 

​My family shed “tears of joy” on May 14, 1948, when the Jewish State of Israel was established as a safe haven for Jews. I was five at the time and didn’t quite understand its significance, but I had been taught that an integral part of Judaism was anti anti-Semitism. A number of Jewish displaced persons (DPs) lived in my neighborhood, some of whom had been in concentration camps. I also had relatives who had died in the Holocaust, and my parents warned me to never trust the Goyim (Gentiles). When I grew up and evolved from Orthodox to Humanistic Jew, I still felt a non-religious affinity to my Jewish “homeland.” I had no desire to make Israel my actual home, but I viewed it as a prophylactic against future Holocausts. When I learned that the establishment of Israel was not a day of unadulterated joy for everyone because Jews had settled in a country inhabited by other people, and forced many of them to leave their homeland. In other words, Israel created Palestinian DPs. Nevertheless, I continued to support Israel, focusing mostly on the anti-Semitism of countries in the Middle East that denied Israel’s right to exist. However, I had a more nuanced view that required balancing security for Israelis with human rights for Palestinians. 

​https://thehumanist.com/commentary/what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it 
During the Watergate investigation, Sen. Howard Baker (R- TN) famously asked the question about President Richard Nixon. The resultant scandal caused Nixon to resign the presidency on August 8, 1974. We can ask the same question of the biblical god about everything. Religious fundamentalists have a fundamental dilemma to resolve. Can God really be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good)? Biblical literalists usually try to explain away the problem of evil by saying that God gave us free will so we could choose good over evil. But what about natural (God-made?) evils over which humans have no control, like earthquakes, tornadoes, and babies born with half a brain who can only live in agony for a few hours before dying? The traditional reply is “God works in strange and mysterious ways his wonders to perform.” One wonders how belief in a strange and mysterious god can coexist with a belief in the absolute certainty of God’s goodness and his plan for humans throughout eternity.
 

 
https://shj.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HJ-Spring-2023-Member-Subscriber.pdf
​
Growing up Jewish, I recognized at an early age that I was different from the goyim (gentiles) without knowing quite why. Our Jewish kinship seemed to come from a mutual fear of anti-Semitism. In Hebrew school, I learned that the “Shema,” which literally means “Hear,” was the major contribution Jews had given the world—the philosophy to live by. I was taught that the statement, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” transformed the world from polytheism to monotheism—from worshipping many false gods to worshipping the one true God. There are three paragraphs in the full Shema. Jews are biblically commanded to recite the  “Shema” twice daily (morning and evening) and to inscribe it on the doorposts of their homes. I felt proud of the gift we Jews gave to humanity. I unquestioningly accepted that there was exactly one God and that any other belief was both false and immoral. As a Humanistic Jew who believes in no gods, I guess you can say that I’m closer to monotheism than to polytheism (one is closer to zero than to many). However, were I to make the unwarranted assumption that the world actually was created, I expect it would have been by a committee of creators rather than a single creator. After all, most great scientific discoveries require some kind of team work. Even more important, I can no longer make a case that reducing from many to one the number of acceptable gods has improved human behavior. On the contrary, paganism is a more tolerant faith. As long as people are free to worship and follow their favorite gods, room can always be made for a new deity, but a belief in one jealous and vindictive god can easily lead to barbarous acts. 

​https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/May-June-2023-Ezine.pdf
 
Jesus allegedly said in Mark 12: 29-31: “The first of all commandments is to love thy God, and the second is to love thy neighbor as thyself. No commandments are greater than these.” I think the second of these commandments is an excellent one and should be the foundation of our morality. We need to distinguish between crimes against humanity and crimes against “God.” Murder is a crime against humanity and universally condemned by everyone, regardless of religious belief.  On the other hand, some religious believers commit crimes against humanity by following the first commandment when their “holy” book tells them to do so. Some will argue that the Crusades represented misguided Christianity and that true Christians would never do such a thing. However, at the time, it was easy for Christians to justify Crusades with their holy book. It’s terrifying to see how much evil can be justified in the name of God’s teaching in holy books. Bottom line: Commandment two is excellent, Commandment one sucks.
 

https://secularhumanism.org/2023/04/letters-april-may-2023/
 
Published in Free Inquiry magazine

Re: “Lacktheism and the Burden of Proof,” by George Williamson, FI, December 2022/January 2023. I agree with George Williamson that the burden of proof is on the theist to give evidence for claims, not on the atheist to show why there are no gods. While I can’t disagree with him that an atheist lacks a belief in a theistic god, I dislike such terminology. I prefer saying that an atheist is without a belief in any gods. Dictionary definitions of lack include wanting or missing, showing a deficiency, not having something you need, or having less than a desirable quantity of something. I view not believing in any gods as a gain rather than a lack or a loss. I’ve gained freedom from religious superstition. 

I also don’t like it when someone tells me I’ve abandoned religion as one abandons a child. I matured and put aside my childhood religious beliefs. Another term I don’t like is nonbeliever. I believe in many things. I just don’t believe in any gods.
 
 

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letters-you-re-never-too-old-to-make-plans-for-cooper-river-bridge-run/article_264032ea-c4d2-11ed-b13c-07f59724f3c6.html 
 
Abortion Bill Extreme
​ 
A recent Post and Courier article reported that a South Carolina House bill proposes that women who get an abortion could be eligible for the death penalty. In opposing the bill, state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Columbia, said this would be a stronger penalty for abortion than even the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan, where the penalty for abortion is seven years in prison. 

Why is a member of our Legislature trying to out-Taliban the Taliban? 

Do you think government should be based on religious doctrine, that women should have fewer rights than men, that homosexuality should be outlawed, that religious doctrine trumps science, that there should be no separation of church and state, that religion should be taught in public schools, and that abortion should be illegal? These positions are held not only by extremist Muslims, but also by some extremists trying to control our state’s Republic Republican Party. 

If you don’t want Sharia, don’t vote Republican.
 
 

​https://thehumanist.com/magazine/spring-2023/commentary/herbs-corner-religion-in-foreign-policy
 
 
Problems usually arise when a country applies religion to its foreign policy. United States foreign policy should always be secular. At the same time, we should learn about the religious and cultural beliefs of people in countries where we are engaged, so we can communicate effectively and determine rational strategies to accomplish our mission. 
 
It’s helpful to look at what hasn’t worked, and not repeat it. This includes, but is not limited to, making assumptions like the following:
 
1. God is on our side, which means Satan is on the other side. This turns the engagement into a binary and simplistic battle between good and evil, with no room for compromise or negotiation.

2. American exceptionalism makes us a role model for the world, and we can judge other countries and cultures on the extent to which they adopt our values. 
3. All religions are good, and adherents who act in a manner we dislike are acting contrary to their religious doctrines.
4. Government officials may proselytize here and elsewhere, favor one religion over another, or religion in general over non-religion.
5. If we satisfy powerful religious leaders or factions, then we may ignore human rights. 
6. We must either go it alone or take the lead when we act in coalition with other countries. 
7. We can occupy a country indefinitely. 
8. Perceived economic benefit is sufficient justification for foreign engagement. 

9. We should do more talking than listening.
10. There will be no unintended consequences.
 

 
Here’s what we should do (with credit to Rabbi Hillel, who summed up the Jewish religion around 30 BCE): “What is hateful to you, do not do to others.” How’s that for a reasonable foreign policy idea? Practice a version of the Golden Rule, a core value of both religious and secular people. This would rule out almost all war, as well as occupation, domination, and exploitation. It would rule in cooperation, assistance, and leadership by good example. We’ve done this pretty well at times, and not so well at others.
 
A prime is a number whose only divisors are 1 and itself. The complete history of even primes is very short: the number 2. An argument can be made that the number of even primes is all that is needed for the complete history of “just” wars: World War 2.
 
It’s easier to count the number of just holy wars: 0. The holiest of holy wars in Western “Civilization” were the Crusades, typified by the Cathar Wars. Abbot Arrnaud Amaury, legate for the ironically named Pope Innocent III, was a military adviser during the Crusades. His troops succeeded in carrying out the Abbott’s 1209 battle orders, “Kill them all. God will know His own.” Amaury was rewarded in 1212 for his holy war service with an appointment to archbishop.
 
No country goes to war thinking its cause is unjust. While wars are viewed as “just” going in, the story is often different going out. We can’t bring back the lives of those who died in unjust wars. Any criteria for a “just war” will always have close calls. I would rather err on the side of it not being “just” enough to enter.
 
We started a war in Iraq after President George W. Bush consulted a “higher” father, rather than his “lower” father and former president who likely would have advised against it. Some government officials interpret freedom of religion as the right to promote and proselytize for Christianity at home and abroad. This could be why other cultures might rightly view us as imperialists.
 
People who choose to die in the name of their gods are free to do so, but they have no right to take innocent victims. They may believe that “the one true god” is on their side and the other side are infidels in a black and white world with no shades of gray. They may argue that this life is a dress rehearsal for an imagined afterlife, with extra eternal benefits earned for killing and being killed in the name of their god. A fictional character in Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov implies that “Without God, all things are possible.” Unfortunately, many real characters show that “With God, all violent things are possible.”
 
Shortly after moving to South Carolina in 1976, I saw the silent movie classic, Birth of a Nation. I was appalled by this horribly racist film made in 1915 that portrays Ku Klux Klan members as heroes. But then, as the Civil War was coming to an end in Griffith’s film, the camera panned a field of endless graves, with a moving caption: “War’s Peace.” We’ve seen “war’s peace” too many times. 

A peace negotiation usually requires compromise, but religious fundamentalists tend to espouse an uncompromising and absolute worldview. Territorial disputes could be practical problems to solve, but not when opponents believe their god is in the real estate business and promised the same piece of land to different religions. We must recognize the role religion plays for many conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Peace-loving people must work to marginalize those whose religious beliefs lead them to kill innocent human beings over land claims or anything else.

I won’t presume to give “proper” interpretations of so-called holy books, since passages can be found to justify either A or not A, for almost any action. But I wish religious leaders would focus on interpretations that give peace a chance. Maybe loving instead of arming against your neighbor would be a good start. 
​
Recently, I walked through a lovely park near Charleston, South Carolina. My moment of peaceful bliss abruptly ended when I saw yet another prominent War Memorial. Our country formed a War Department in 1789, which euphemistically morphed into a
Department of Defense in 1947. Perhaps now it’s time to form a Department of Peace that would move war memorials to cemeteries and place Peace Memorials in local parks.
 
People who put deeds above creeds and compassion above dogma, regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious, are our allies against those who put the needs of an imagined god above the needs of humans. This should be a cornerstone of our country’s foreign policy.
 
 
 
 

​https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/March-April-2023-Ezine-to-post.pdf
Technology is our present and our future. Young people need to and, for the most part, are embracing it. Being tech-savvy is becoming a necessity for job seekers. Schools must educate students for this reality so they can transition into the work world. And workers need to be able to master new technology, expect frequent updates/changes to software, and learn how to stay on top of those advances.  Technological improvements had usually come about by chance, trial and error, or inspiration. The modern scientific enterprise matured in the Enlightenment and concerned itself primarily with fundamental questions about the natural world. Research and development directed toward immediate technical application arose during the Industrial Revolution and became commonplace in the twentieth century. Science deals with theories, principles, and laws, while technology deals with products, processes, and designs. Science has helped us gain considerable knowledge of the universe such that we can make accurate predictions on future outcomes. Technology simplifies our work by providing us with products that help us get better results in less time.

Since Nikki Haley is gaining some traction for the Republican nomination for president in 2024, Here's a piece I wrote in 2015 for the Huffington Post when Haley was Governor of South Carolina. It mentions her relationship with African Americans and the Confederate flag.
 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-naacp-and-me_b_8136402
 
In 1976 I accepted an offer to teach at the College of Charleston in Charleston, South Carolina, where the Civil War (also known as “The War of Northern Aggression”) began and was still a symbol of Southern pride. The Confederate battle flag had been placed on the South Carolina State Capitol dome by an all-white legislature in 1962, at the height of the civil rights movement, purportedly to commemorate the Civil War centennial. It remained there despite many protests. Two slight racial improvements occurred in 2000. South Carolina made Martin Luther King's birthday an official state holiday, the last state to do so. (At the same time, the state also made Confederate Memorial Day an official state holiday.) Also, the state General Assembly agreed to move the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol dome to the Statehouse grounds. This flag “compromise” continued to ignite protests. The state NAACP called for a tourism boycott of South Carolina until the flag was removed from Capitol grounds. To give you an idea of the negative public response to the boycott, state Senator Arthur Ravenel, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, called the NAACP the “National Association For Retarded People.” He later apologized—to the mentally handicapped for comparing them to the NAACP. I had long been a silent supporter of the NAACP, but around this time my wife Sharon and I felt compelled to join the organization and add our voices to the protests.