Recently, I was made privy to some communications that sickened me while providing me with additional evidence of the perversity and depth of a social disease pervading society.  This societal sickness is all pervasive.  It results from having been incorporated into the cultural DNA of society.  The successful cultural genetic encoding of this pathogenic gene derives from the eventual cultural adaptation to a long standing societal exposure of hate – the most powerful of human emotions.  This social gene seems to function somewhat similar to prophage (virus) in bacteria.  When a prophage in a bacterium is incorporated into the bacterial chromosome, it lies dormant – does not express itself – until activated.  Unfortunately, the human social counterpart is never really dormant and is always expressing itself, albeit at different levels of intensity and activity depending on the prevailing social/political climate.

When the dormant prophage genome in a bacterium is activated by some environmental factor, it is followed by a lysogenic cycle whereby the gene expresses itself and proliferates by forming viruses that kill the cell as the newly formed viruses  are released into the environment to infect other cells.  In the social arena, when the environmental factors are favorable, the social phage creates a virulent and vicious outbreak of a profound social disease – which may be local or wide-spread of epidemic or pandemic proportions.  Other times, the gene(s) lie(s) relatively dormant in the culture, similar to a prophage with a slight difference, in the general culture there is the continuous low grade infection present with the signs of the infection continuously, but not necessarily too threateningly, manifesting itself in all aspects of the culture.  However, this gene, when activated, gives rise to a hate that is not ordinary.  This hate has a very special driving force.  The all pervasive cultural hate derives, to a large extent, directly from its having been enshrined in the texts of the most sacred writings of two of the great religions of the world    As you will read in Gottlieb’s essay below, Maurice Samuels referred to this as ‘The Great Hate” and Harry Golden referred to it as “The One Constant In Western Civilization.”  Today, thanks to the word’s creation and popularization in the 1870-80s by the German journalist, Wilhelm Marr, we know this social disease – this specifically directed disease of  hate – which includes all of  its myriad manifestations, as antisemitism.

This essay will show how an innocent critique brought out the intense hatred of a member of an organization.  The story starts with a simple, traditional type request from an editor for a critique of a published article pertaining to a perceived decline of the west ((see below # 1) that the editor found interesting and somewhat troubling.   The critique was published in an on-line Secular Humanist journal (see below #2)..  It is at this point that the story takes a n interesting turn and elicits from me the emotional and intellectual reactions mentioned above.

After the critique of Dalrymple appeared, the editor apparently received a response from a subscriber:
“I was negatively impressed by Sheldon Gottlieb’s article in the March issue of the Council for Secular Humanism’s Online News.  This article was not only overly long and poorly written, but showed strong anti-Islamic, anti-Christian, pro-Jewish, and pro-Israel biases which I do not subscribe to and which I do not wish to be associated with.  If this reflects the views of the Council for Secular Humanism, then I no longer wish to be a member.  I agree with CSH’s advocacy of science, reason, separation of church and state, and respect for non-believers.  But the inclusion of this article in your newsletter causes me to wonder whether I can remain a member.  I look forward to your response.”

I have no idea what subsequently transpired between the editor and the subscriber.

However, I fashioned a response as if I had been asked to.
Had I been asked, this is what I would have said to the subscriber:

“I will take each of your comments in the order in which you made them.

In your second sentence you state: “This article was not only overly long…”  Yes, the article was long because it was a response to a fairly lengthy essay.  That the article would be long should have been expected as a given, instead of a negative.  At least the lengthy response and its nature would have indicated that I had read Dalrymple very carefully and was responding exactly to what he said.

I do not know why you would think a detailed, on point, response to an article is a negative, unless you like your information in sound bites.

Then you state: “and poorly written,…”  This is an interesting subjective critique since you provide no examples to substantiate your allegation.  Apparently the editors disagreed with you since the quality of the writing and the logic of the commentary met their standards and they, therefore, published it.  There was no obligation on their part to publish any analysis.  However, your unsubstantiated subjectivity made me wonder whether you think that just because you make a statement others are required to accept it as true.  Such thinking has a strong religious overtone to it, to which I, and I am quite certain that  The Center For Inquiry, does not subscribe.  I am, like the Center, devoted to rational inquiry and not to dogmatic statements that are expected to be accepted unconditionally.

The above subjective reactions on your part are relatively inconsequential as compared to what you state in your ensuing remarks:”but showed strong anti-Islamic, anti-Christian, pro-Jewish, and pro-Israel biases which I do not subscribe to and which I do not wish to be associated with.”  I interpret your statement, as written, to mean that you do not want to be associated with any statement that is anti-Islamic, anti-Christian and pro-Jewish and pro-Israel.

If ever I read a bigoted credo, your statement was it.  You state very clearly that you have very strong anti-Jewish and anti-Israel biases.   In other words you blatantly admit to being an anti-Semite.  You admit that you prefer having your admittedly anti-social and hateful ideology trump reason, despite your statement that you “agree with CSH’s advocacy of science, reason,…”.  Your words belie your claims.  You fit the profile of what Gottlieb railed against in his book THE NAKED MIND, i.e., the deadly influence of ideology in society, and which he spoke against in the article to which you responded so negatively.  You seem to be admitting that you will agree with any argument or group that expresses anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments.  I have no doubt that there exists numerous people who share your anti-social attitudes.

And, finally, your last statement: “But the inclusion of this article in your newsletter causes me to wonder whether I can remain a member” expresses a most interesting view, i.e., that one of the main reasons that you are a member of CSH (Council for Secular Humanism)) and receive the on-line journal is because you perceive CSH to share your anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideology.  Such an approach to membership in CSH indicates that you are very closed minded and, when it comes to the subject of Jews and Israel, you feel so threatened by anyone would say anything positive about Jews and Israel that the only way you could deal with it is to hide and distance yourself from it.

Thus, there is very little more I can say.  You said it all:  You do not think; you do not want to think; you hate; and, you prefer ideology and hatred to reason.”

find it endlessly fascinating the irrational hate that exists in some people and the ease in which it can be activated.  The metaphorical comparison with the behavior of bacteriophage is quite apt.

Article 1.
Dalrymple, Theodore.  Suicide of the West: Will America follow Europe into anomie and atheism? http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12062

Article 2.
Theodore Dalrymple and the Suicide of the West
by Sheldon F.  Gottlieb
SECULAR HUMANISM ONLINE NEWS: Vol.6 No.3  March 2010
https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#label/Bupp%2C+Nathan%3A+Dalrympile/1273e52163141b66

Theodore Dalrymple covers a lot of territory in his provocative recent essay “Suicide of the West: Will America follow Europe into anomie and atheism?”

In discussing the decline of influence of religion in Europe, Dalrymple seems to be referring solely or primarily to Western Europe (WE) since all the countries he mentions are those constituting the western portion of the continent. The situation in Eastern Europe (EE) may be somewhat different; perhaps it is at a much more juvenile phase of ridding itself of religious influences compared to the west. When my wife and I were touring EE a few years ago, we saw some of the most primitive religious behaviors that we had ever encountered—it was as if we had been transported back to the Middle Ages. In one case, numerous children were dressed in traditional religious garb for the ceremony that, fortuitously, was taking place that day, and the church was reinforcing the children’s indoctrination in orthodox Christian rituals and prayers. The churches in EE, unlike their counterparts in WE, were packed with parishioners, making it very difficult for tourists to make their way though the church while trying not to disrupt the services. (After all, this was part of the inevitable ABC tour—another bloody church, or, for the less sanguine and more tolerant, another beautiful cathedral—typical of European tours.) We saw people—mostly older women—prostrate themselves on the sidewalks of entrances to the churches and kiss the ground as they slowly wended their way to and through the church’s entrance.

When Dalrymple concluded that “God is dead in Europe,” I wonder if he should have limited that conclusion primarily to WE. God seemed to be quite alive in EE. Admittedly, there was evidence that EE is undergoing a vast social and economic change which undoubtedly—and somewhat hopefully—will parallel the changed intellectual pattern pertaining to religion as seen in WE. A secularized EE would go a long way in helping to diminish, if not quite overcome, the evil Roman Catholicism and its derivative Christian religions inflicted on the world. Aspects of that evil, which have been perpetrated for centuries, have become so deeply embedded in all aspects of western culture that it can be considered as having been encoded in the DNA of western civilization and, through the efforts of Islam, the UN, the political left, and the media, is flowing into the gene pool of cultures throughout the world.

It is interesting to note that the Islamic invasion of Europe is occurring primarily in WE, not EE, excepting Russia. Perhaps some of that phenomenon is due to the better economic opportunities in WE coupled with WE’s markedly reduced reproductive rates providing economic opportunity for immigration from the still over-reproducing Muslim nations. Perhaps part of that phenomenon is due to the greater Christian religiosity of EE in successfully—comparatively speaking—keeping the Muslims out. The Islamization of Europe and its potential effects on the future of religiosity, the future of WE’s self view of humans along with other possible social, political, and economic effects are issues Dalrymple does not discuss.

Dalrymple does “not see much chance of [religious] revival except in the wake of catastrophe.” I wonder whether the Islamization of WE—and eventually, perhaps also EE—may not be considered such a tragedy. Religion has always been a cancer in the world—that is partly the reason why society seems to be obsessed with it—but Islam is a rapidly growing, vicious malignancy that will have to be dealt with. The question is the same one I used to ask my colleagues in the early 1970s: Does Western Europe have what it takes to withstand a Muslim onslaught? One would think, or at least hope, that the loss of religiosity and increased secularization would carry over to wanting to see that Islam did not take hold and replace what seems to be the now discarded Christianity. I do not live in Europe and may not see what is actually occurring, but from my vantage point in the U.S., I conclude that thus far, the answer to my question seems to be no. How much of that no is related to the loss of religiosity, I cannot say.

However, irrespective of how my personal views would have framed further discussion, the fact is that Dalrymple took it in another direction and discussed how individuals think of themselves. He states that individuals still think of themselves “as being of unique importance, but without the countervailing humility of considering themselves as having duty toward the author of their being, a being inconceivably larger than themselves. Far from inducing a more modest conception of man, the loss of religious belief has inflamed his self-importance enormously.”

I tend to disagree with the assessment in the previous paragraph. I consider that humans have always thought of themselves as being unique long before organized religion came along and long before Christianity, or any of the Abrahamic religions, arose. I suspect that humans will always consider themselves unique.

I disagree with Dalrymple’s notion that religion may have provided a countervailing humility. I am more inclined to accept that religion (particularly Christianity) provided an even greater basis for humans to think of themselves as unique and added to human arrogance and conceit. Religion, as stated in sacred texts, claims special divine creation of humans and their special relationship with the divine (”the author of their being”) that is not available to any other living organism. After all, according to Christian belief, the divine had a son, following an assignation with a human female, who was later sacrificed for the sins of humans. How much more unique could one be considered? If anything, a true understanding of the common origin of all living species via evolution should provide a more humbling (”more modest”) conception of self than that offered through religion and, instead of inflaming human self-importance, should dampen it.

I also tend to disagree with Dalrymple’s view of persons “with no transcendent religious belief.” Dalrymple states: “…this life is all he has. He must therefore preserve and prolong it at all costs and live it to the full … living to the full means consuming as much as possible, having as many experiences as possible, and not only many experiences, the most extreme experiences possible.” After dissecting the problems associated with the attributes of living to the full, Dalrymple concludes with a pessimistic outlook of a “miserablism” that leads to indifference and hatred of the past. I have no doubt that there are people who fit Dalrymple’s profile. People who push laws and concepts to their limits will always exist.

However, as an atheist who is also a secular humanist and a gastronomic Jew, I, and many of my acquaintances, do not fit the profile detailed by Dalrymple. Most of us come out of an East European immigrant Jewish tradition. Judaism is a transcendent, ethically-based religion that has a concept of heaven and hell that plays a small role in the lives of most Jews. Judaism is a religion that concentrates on ethical behavior in the here and now. Adherents of the faith are supposed to behave morally not because of any rewards or punishments in the hereafter, but because it is the right thing to do. This view of Judaism was emphasized in the Talmud (Pirke Abot: The Sayings of the Fathers) by the beloved Rabbi Hillel and is pejoratively referred to by Christians as the Silver Rule: “Do not unto others as you would have others do not unto you.” There is such a marked philosophical difference between the silver and golden rules that I chose living under the philosophy of the silver rule. Summarized in Hillel’s adage is a moral way of life, devoid of a deity, that permits people to explore their innate talents and abilities while behaving morally towards others and not disrupting society and not terminating in a miserabilism.

Any miserabilism I manifest is not the result of not having lived a full or interesting life (I have)—within the confines of my genetics and environment without having to push limits—but the result of some age-related deterioration over which I have little to no control.

I have mixed reactions to Dalrymple’s conclusions that Europeans “because of their history, or rather their obsession with the worst aspects of that history … do not feel able to admit that they wish to preserve their own way of life.” That they are not able to admit that they do not wish to preserve their way of life goes back to the above question I asked my colleagues four decades ago about Europe having what it takes to withstand an Islamic onslaught. There is no doubt that the history of Europe is exceedingly sordid.  But there is also no doubt that the Europeans are quick to forget their past antisocial behavior as they now respond, in knee jerk fashion, to the call of that ancient, yet modern, social disease inherent in their cultural DNA, i.e., anti-Semitism—Maurice Samuel’s Great Hate and Harry Golden’s The One Constant in Western Civilization. European hatred of Israel, since at least 1967—especially that of the WE governments, the left leaning academicians and intellectuals (with very rare exceptions), and the Papacy (excepting Pope John XXIII)—has gone well beyond the realm of irrationality. Dalrymple would know what I am referring to since he previously had written so eloquently on this subject.

Dalrymple is right in his assessment of the U.S. and its susceptibility to a European-like meltdown and resulting miserabilism. However, Dalrymple does not offer any mechanism whereby America can learn from Europe and defend itself from an almost inevitable internal destruction and miserabilism other than to say it is necessary to defend “all that is best, and of all the achievement, in U.S. history” while implying that it is important to know how to change and conserve.

However, the success of the defense of culture enterprise depends on defining the best of American history and all of its achievements. How are they to be defined? And who will be doing the defining? What do we do with those aspects of American history that are not so savory? Certainly they cannot just be discarded and forgotten simply because they are embarrassing. Americans must avoid doing what Dalrymple claims Europeans have done, i.e., dwell on all of the evils of the European past. Being able to avoid dwelling on the evils of the past may depend, in part, on the outcome of the “culture wars” in America.

I was delighted that Dalrymple referred to culture wars, since the war in the U.S. is polygonal, with many of the sides having ties to fundamental religion. One of the most pernicious aspects of the culture wars is the breakdown of the first amendment—separation of church and state. Another is the lack of a coherent attack on world-wide, religiously (Islam) induced terrorism. A third is the loss of the “big umbrella” status of the two major political parties, resulting in the polarization of the American political parties. This phenomenon is of recent vintage and, to a large extent, it is related to fundamental religion. There is now room for at least one, if not two, new political parties—a “big umbrella” center party or center right and center left parties. A complete discussion of the culture wars is a topic for another day.

My usual answer for understanding and solving many social and political problems is education. Education, I suggest, is the best way to avoid dwelling on past evils. However, I cringe each time I offer this as a solution. I cannot help but think of our world in which ideological thought trumps evidence-based, rational thought. I can never forget that the Nazis had highly educated and “cultured” men in their entourage. I cannot forget the anti-Semitism emanating from the universities; the arrogant, self-labeled intellectuals throughout the WE and the Western World; and the media in WE—all presumably involving educated people. I am reminded that education in the U.S. is highly individualized and dependent on hundreds of independent school districts and fifty separate state departments of education who set standards for K-12 curricula. The mindless and needless creation-evolution (non)debate is a classic example of religious ideology running amok over rational thought. I am reminded of the questions: Who sets the curricula? How are the curricula determined? What information is to be included and what is the context whereby it will be taught? Etc. I cannot forget the news media with ideological biases and false reporting and manufactured news. In particular, I consider the anti-Semitic biases of the BBC in Great Britain and CNN in the U.S. classic examples of ideology trumping evidence and rational thought. And, with the rise of the Internet and alternate sources of rapid communication and dissemination of information—much of which is ideologically based political propaganda—I wonder if there will ever be a way to derive a consensus view of American history.

There is a cancer in society and that cancer is religion. A similar situation exists with religion as with the cancers.  Some cancers are more virulent than others.  And, yes, some religions are more virulent than others. This societal malignancy takes several forms: physical, social-political, economic, and intellectual.

What initiated the above and ensuing tirade was my reading of the article TEACHING AND LEARNING ABOUT EVOLUTION in the Nov-Dec, 2009, issue of NCSE REPORTS.  The NCSE  (National Center For Science Education) was recommending certain books that should help in appreciating and explaining the evidence of evolution and the nature of the scientific enterprise.  One of the books, whose existence I had forgotten existed,  is Defending Evolution in the Classroom by Brian J Alters and Sandra M. Alters.  It was this title that instantly ignited my polemical ire. I immediately asked myself a question about an issue I had been talking about for decades: Why are we (as a society) still talking about defending evolution as if it has to continue to prove itself,  when it is religion, the only institution that is at odds not only  with this great scientific insight but with intellectualism in general, that should be required to defend itself and, once and for all times,  to demonstrate to society with actual empirical data – not belief and dogma – that can be replicated independently by people throughout the world, that its claims as to the origin of the world, the age of the Earth and the non-evolutionary origin of species, i.e. that all species on earth today are as they were from the very beginning, are true?

For centuries religion has had essentially an unchallenged position in society in which to disseminate its views to populations and an unchallenged position from which to indoctrinate them with its mysticism, superstition, rituals, anti-intellectualism, fear, hate and its version of the origin of the universe and of the origin of species..  And, through alliances with government, religion was able to assure the maintenance of its privileged societal position and control over education, i.e., deciding what people can learn, how the material should be taught and exactly what the outcome of the educational experience should be.

The economic advantages of these social and political arrangements is what made the churches very wealthy.  The one thing that is certain in American society is that religion can be exploited very easily for generating great wealth.  The wealthy empires established by radio and television evangelists such as those built by Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Rex Humbard, Joel Osteen, Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, John Hagee, Peter Popoff. Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Herbert W Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Jack Van Impe, and Pat Robertson are just a few examples of the tremendous power religion exerts over people and the financial success that results from appealing to the ignorance and fears of people. Prior to these empires there were others who exerted their religious influence to preach hate – perhaps the most famous being Father Coughlin and, later, the preachers of the Christian Identity movement.

The contributions of religion over the  millennia to the betterment of humans and animals in all likelihood could not even be seen with the aid of electron microscope when compared to the great scientific and technological advances of the past 150 years,.  These advances brought to humanity everything from great increases in health benefits to the development of devices that improve the quality of life.

One would have hoped that by now society would finally have realized the importance of a scientific and technological education for survival and, that such an education, far exceeds any religious indoctrination.

Yet, despite all the obvious evidence, society is still encountering religion’s anti-intellectual barriers to the further enhancement of knowledge.  In the USA today – despite the separation of church and state – religious leaders, their acolytes and their vocal supporters are intensely  involved in  trying to downgrade the quality of science education in the K-12 curricula of the public school system by trying either to alter existing aims and objectives set by the state for each grade level or by influencing the nature of the aims and objectives .  Several years ago, Pope John Paul II tried to tell scientists exactly what aspects of the nervous system should be out of bounds for investigation since he considered those to be  in the domain of the church – the full account of this attempt at control of scientific investigation by religion was discussed by Gottlieb in his book, THE NAKED MIND.

Millions of dollars, many of which are precious tax dollars that could have been better used for educational purposes,  are wasted each year in these endeavors including frivolous law suits.  I say frivolous, because every time “religionists” challenged science education in the courts – usually the cases revolve around the teaching of evolution, religion has lost.   The irony in all of this wasted energy and valuable human and financial resources is that the very people who are engaged in these anti-social – anti-intellectual activities take personal advantage of the benefits resulting from the scientific and technological knowledge.

There is one aspect of life that religion outperforms science and technology and that is in engaging in antisocial behavior.  Too many wars were fought in the name of religion, not in the name of science.  Yes, the wars may involve the use of instruments of destruction that were developed as a result of science and technology but the wars were not fought for differences in scientific or technological ideology.  The development of such weapons are a perversion of the use of science that are based on political and economic decisions – all of which are greatly influenced by religion’s interference in the deliberative processes.  Thus, religion, which is supposed to humanize people and make them behave more civilly, in reality, creates great divisiveness and hatred.  The soils of the world are saturated with the blood of humans who were slaughtered in the name of religion.

The battlefields of science are the laboratories, the scholarly journals and various types of scientific meetings.  The famous French philosopher and mathematician, Poincare said: “Experiment is the sole source of truth. It alone can teach us anything new. It alone can give us certainty.”

Cancer in the body is treated by extirpation, chemotherapy and radiation.  Societal cancers can be removed by extirpation.  An alternative is  repression, i.e., the imposition of one religion over all the others by the forced removal of other conflicting belief systems.  This alternative does not really remove the cancer.  It just limits the disease to one massive malignancy instead of numerous malignancies fighting with each other.

Considering its deadly societal influence, religion, not science,  should be required to defend itself in the public arena and demonstrate the veracity of its methodology and teachings – especially those teachings and methodologies that impinge on the areas of science – as to why it should even have a say in matters pertaining to either education or science policy.  I am not referring to issues of ethics and morals.   Ethical and moral teachings can be taught without any reference to religion.  But that would be a topic for another day.

I opt for more laws and for an educational system that would limit religion to the realm of the personal while greatly diminishing its role in society in general.

As the great Louis Pasteur stated so accurately and concisely:
“I implore you, take some interest in those sacred dwellings meaningfully described as laboratories, There humanity grows greater, better, stronger, while humanity’s own works are too often those of barbarism, of fanaticism, and destruction.”