Letters

Reason allows us to discern what is moral

by Adam C. LaMonica

From the May 19, 2008, edition of the Observer-Dispatch:

A recent letter writer attributed the lack of morals and common sense in modern society to getting rid of the Ten Commandments, atheism and the teaching of evolution. Common sense should make it obvious that those things have nothing to do with immorality whatsoever.

Simply put, evolution explains the process through which life developed over time. Exactly how does accepting this make one immoral? Using this logic, one could assume that our children’s biology teachers are an unscrupulous lot.

Ironically, the Bible provides us with instances supporting a barbaric sense of morality, which most Christians have since outgrown. For example, would you consider stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin when married as ethical?

Despite what religious texts tell us, it is ultimately our reason and common sense which allows us to discern and fairly discuss what is moral.

A. C. LaMonica

unPublished Letters (or yet to be)

Re: God, not evolutionism, responsible for creation

Click links below to view

- ABORTION - A Search for Certainty

- Following Global Floods and Creationist "Logic"

- FAQ's About Atheism

- Simple Steps to Combat Global Warming

- Religious Ignorance and Hatred Destroy Love...Once Again

- Anthems for Atheists

- Creationism and Dinosaurs

- The Lost Tomb of Jesus

No Umbrella Needed Here!

by Adam C. LaMonica

From the March/April 2008 issue of The Humanist:

While I like the idea of trying to be more inclusive and less “threatening” with an umbrella term like “post-theological,” (“The Post-Theological Umbrella,” January/February 2008) I wonder if it is a constructive step in the right direction. Should we continue to cloak ourselves in ambiguous terms in an effort to appeal to a prejudiced society?

Whether we are to act under the banner of humanists, skeptics, rationalists, freethinkers, or post-theologicals, people will see through to the core of what these titles truly lack: a god belief.

For example, I could easily hear the question asked as, “So are post-theologicals atheists?”

Some of us wish to mask our atheism in order to appease those afraid of the dreaded "a-word" and I can understand that. It is difficult to say if this attitude will do more harm than good in the long run. Regardless, all non-theists must cooperate, speak up when necessary, and get involved in putting a positive face on atheism.

Adam C. LaMonica

'Anti-Catholic' movie grossly exaggerated

by Adam C. LaMonica

Articles may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, copied or otherwise distributed without permission. Please visit the Contact page to send requests for permission.

From the November 18, 2007, edition of the Utica Observer-Dispatch:

The Catholic League recently called for a boycott of "The Golden Compass", a movie based on the first of three children’s fantasy books by Philip Pullman. The author, an open atheist, is accused of trying to “sell atheism to kids” and “bash Catholicism.”

This boycott is grossly exaggerated and severely misinformed.

The Catholic League says that atheism is “fueled by hate,” further spreading the prejudiced connotation. Sweeping statements like this are made throughout this campaign and reveal their intolerance of free thought and demonization of intellectual curiosity.

At the very least, the protesters must concede that the good and bad happen with and without the backing of religion. We should teach our children to embrace stories for the lessons they teach, not for who’s teaching them. I think that the Catholic League’s time would be better spent protesting the moral inadequacies within their own church.

A. C. LaMonica

Letter to the Editor printed in the Observer-Dispatch (link to letter)

God, not evolutionism, responsible for creation

A Dec. 13 article praises evolutionism as being responsible for God’s creative design in the composition of pregnant women.

“Evolution provided them with slight differences from men in their lower backs.” As we see in science, nature, and in the Bible, it was actually God who created both male and female, different and with distinctive features.

It is God who is responsible for “those slight changes” that “allow women to carry the additional and growing load without toppling over,” and it is certainly not the religion of evolutionism. The end of the article discredits God’s wonderful design of child-bearing women, and states that it’s evolutionism that’s “absolutely beautiful.”

This of course is enormously false as well as scientifically absurd. In actually, it’s our magnificent Creator, God, that’s “absolutely beautiful,” when He created the summa cum laude of all creation – Mankind.

RON GERMAN JR.

New Hartford

Re: God, not evolutionism, responsible for creation

by Adam C. LaMonica

Unpublished Letter in response to the letter above.

I was somewhat disturbed by Ron German Jr’s comments on the article regarding the evolution of a woman’s body in adjusting to the additional weight of pregnancy.

It is certainly his right to reject the evidence of evolution but to claim that the proposed evidence is “scientifically absurd” is an absolute absurdity in itself. His arbitrary conclusion is not based in science but rather his own religious beliefs. Mr. German’s unusual assessment of evolution as a religion further demonstrates his ignorance on what is commonly accepted and understood as what it truly is; a scientific theory.

Until science shows us that it is a god(s) who “created both male and female, different and with distinctive features,” I recommend Mr. German and other anti-evolutionary sympathizers do their research scientifically. Present the world with objective and empirical evidence of god(s) as the creator and make believers of us all.

A. C. LaMonica