Waxing theoretic with a secular outlook

JOSEPH N. BELL

I’m an avid reader of the In Theory columns on the Forum page of the

Daily Pilot. Although Rabbi Mark Miller is the only member of the

contributing group I’ve related to directly, I feel I know the others

through their writings. I play this little game of predicting where

each one will come down on any given subject. And the pleasure of the

game is that they aren’t always predictable. Mostly, but not always.

It has occurred to me that what is missing from this spectrum of

opinion is the secular view. It could be argued, I suppose, that this

newspaper is mostly devoted to secular reporting and commentary, but

much of the subject matter of In Theory is not dealt with elsewhere

in the Pilot -- except, possibly, on the Forum page.

The dictionary tells us that “secular” means: “Not controlled by a

religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters.”

Secular does not imply atheism or agnosticism. When we say we are a

secular society, it means simply that there is no state religion and

therefore no weighing of particular religious credos in going about

the business of state. But there is also no reason that the secular

can’t reside -- if sometimes uncomfortably -- with the spiritual,

each in its own sphere, within that society. It’s when they encroach

on each other that we get into trouble. That would be when the state

interferes with the practice of any religion that is operating within

the law. Or when a particular religion tries to enact laws that would

impose its views on society as a whole.

So every once in awhile, I’ll get into the In Theory mix with a

secular comment or two. Like In Theory’s recent debate on the stand

of a Chicago pharmacist who refused -- on religious grounds -- to

fill prescriptions for the “morning-after pill.” Although it is but

one small step removed from birth control pills and is a potent

weapon against abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies, the

morning-after pill has been strongly opposed by Christian

fundamentalists as closet abortion -- and that’s where the pharmacist

hung his hat.

Wisely, none of the Forum panelists chose to argue against the

pill, itself, since the validity of the pharmacist’s objections to

the pill isn’t an issue here. The issue is whether he should have to

suffer consequences for refusing to perform the duties required of

his job. And the answer must be: absolutely.

Pastor Ric Olsen calls this “secular fundamentalism” (a nice turn

of phrase) on the grounds that “no one should be forced to violate

their conscience in order to work, live, eat or exist.” What he

doesn’t add is that there is always a price for taking such a stand,

and the conscientious objector -- however righteous he sees his cause

-- must be prepared to pay it.

That’s as true of pharmacists as it was of Henry David Thoreau,

sitting in a prison cell because he refused to pay a poll tax to

support the Mexican War or the 25,000 World War II conscientious

objectors who were drafted into the military and ended up in a

Civilian Public Service Camp.

Or -- to bring it closer to home -- taxpayers like me who are

funding government activities we detest.

Although I’m not prepared to go to prison as the price for

refusing to pay the taxes that support these activities, the

pharmacist is apparently made of sterner stuff.

He’s suing the state of Illinois because the legislature recently

passed a law requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions for

contraceptives, thus -- he says -- violating his right to act on his

religious beliefs.

While all this is getting sorted out, a lot of the pharmacy’s

customers are reportedly going elsewhere.

*

A recent letter from Rob Yardley on the Forum page set up the

parameters of this year’s annual debate on evolution versus

creationism, now and henceforth to be referred to as Intelligent

Design. It’s all about science now, and the creationists have wheeled

into the arena a battery of their own experts to buttress their

position. They say they can now argue that Intelligent Design merits

equal time with evolution in high school science classes strictly on

the basis of the validity of the science involved. (I should point

out that evolution isn’t capitalized because it lacks the divine

origin of Intelligent Design.)

This is going to turn out to be a bad piece of strategy for the

creationists because it puts the dispute into an arena where they are

rather badly overmatched.

If you want evidence that this is true, I would refer you to an

article entitled “Devolution” in the May 20 issue of the New Yorker

magazine.

The author, a biology professor at the Univ. of Rochester,

examines in considerable detail the arguments and credentials of

several of the experts quoted by Yardley. I won’t attempt to

summarize them here, but if you’re at all interested in exploring

this matter and your position is not already fixed, I strongly

recommend this article.

I might even go so far as to suggest it as required reading for

the members of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District board of

trustees, who will inevitably have to deal with it again.

And again.

*

I saw “Cinderella Man” last week, a fine film that hit close to

home for me. I can still remember rather vividly huddling over a

radio in our living room listening to the quintessential American

up-from-poverty hero James J. Braddock beat up on the evil German,

Max Baer. Gave the whole country a lift, as the movie caught

beautifully.

But what the movie caught even better was the gritty, desperate

feel of those Depression years.

This is the one period of my life that I’ve never been able to

explain to people who didn’t experience it. The incongruity of

middle-class Americans in bread lines is simply beyond their reach.

Seldom have I seen the breadth and despair of the Depression dealt

with in any depth in the movies. “Cinderella Man” at least gets well

beyond the edges. It is also a very good movie.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.