Issue 1 - Religion in New York

HMR The Horace Mann Review

Vol XV Issue I Fall 2005

Godless?

Religion in New York

Featuring: Interview with the High Priest of The Church of Satan Pg. 18

Billy Graham’s New York City Crusade: A HM Student’s Account

Pg. 34

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

The Horace Mann Review Volume XV , Issue I, Fall 2005

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture Maximilian D. C. Thompson Editor-in-Chief

Zachary Fryer-Biggs Matt Thurm Editorial Directors

Jacob Goldstein Alexandra Kass

Production Managers

Ali Shafei Rebecca Dell Managing Editors

Meghan Galligan, Blake Halperin, Aaron Krieger, Alex Sisti Senior Editors

Gopal Das, Kunal Malkani, Zach Malter Anoushka Vaswani Associate Editors

Genevieve Martin Artistic Director

Julia Wittes

Director of Photography Contributing Writers Kunal Malkani, Zach Malter, Ben Mishkin, Charles Stam, Alex Sisti, Rhonda Shafei, Johnathan Sarnoff, Alex Kass, Diana Greenwald, Katherine Kavaler, Anoushka Vaswni The Board of Trustees Daniel S. Levien, Bharat Das, Raj Hathiramani, Shaan Hathiramani, David Katz, Sabeel Rahman, Eric Todrys, Mark Todrys Faculty Advisors Dr. Sam Gellens, Mrs. Kunde, Dr. Barbara Tischler Cover Photography: Untitled, Julia Wittes TheReview@horacemann.org

The Horace Mann Review is printed quarterly during the academic year.

The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at TheReview@horacemann.org. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. © 2005, The Horace Mann Review

New Yorkers worship in synagogues, cathedrals, mosques, and Wall Street firms. Times Square is a mix of Babylon, Disneyland, and curbside preachers. Midtown Manhattan is home to both the headquarters of the International Church of Satan and the American Bible Association.

The Greek Titan Atlas shares Fifth Avenue with St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

The Media and most Americans draw an easy conclusion from these contradictions: New York is godless. However, the case is a little more complex and a little bit more nuanced.

In this issue, The Review explores trends and contradictions within New York City and urban Religion. The articles are as diverse as the city itself. Last July, while the Bronx Hispanic Christians Organization was staging the largest anti-gay protest in America’s history, Diana Greenwald, a Horace Mann junior, was talking to some of the 90,000 New Yorkers who attended Billy Graham’s Crusade in Queens. Her article reflects both her personal experience and her interviews. Rhonda Shafei explores the new relationship between minorities and conservative politics in “Evangelical Minorities.” Alexandra Kass investigates the growth of the Satmar Hasidic Community in Upstate New York. Anoushka Vaswani’s “Which One Is It?” focuses in on the debate over Intelligent Design. The Review’s interview with the High Priest of the International Church of Satan answers why New Yorkers and Satanism seem to match.

Outside of this issue’s “Godless” focus, The Review has comprehensive coverage of domestic and international politics. Ben Mishkin’s “FEMA’s Faith-Based Answer” covers the Former Head of FEMA’s testimony on faith-based disaster relief. Zach Malter writes about the political backgrounds of the writers for ABC’s new primetime show about a female President, “Commander-in-Chief.” Charles Stam covers Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Ma)’s 2008 ambitions.

International coverage includes Kunal Malkani’s opinion piece on creating a leaner and less socialist UN, Alex Sisti’s “Avian Flu Pandemic”, and Gopal Das’ “International Dictators Spotlight: Great Job Security, Great Benefits, Great Pay.”

The back page survey is a new feature that contrasts the viewpoints of the Horace Mann community with those of the American public. This issue’s survey focuses on the discrepancy in opinion about the Theory of Evolution that exists between Horace Mann Science teachers and the American population. With this new feature, we hope to expand our readers’ sense of the Horace Mann Community’s political and social orientation in the national context.

Lastly, the Editorial Board would like to thank The Review’s faculty advisors: Dr. Sam Gellens, Mrs. Sharon Kunde, and Dr. Barbara Tischler, as well as Dr. Glenn Wallach, our publication liaison, and the Horace Mann After-Hours Security Staff.

Maximilian D. C. Thompson Editor-in-Chief TheReview@horacemann.org

The Horace Mann Review FALL 2005

ReEngineering the UN’s DNA

Why the UN needs to shed its social programs and finally become effective

By Kunal Malkani Page 6

1st Female Precedent

“Commander in Chief” and its political writers, including a former Clinton staffer

By Zach Malter Page 8

To Turkey: “I Love All Kids”

Top Bush Diplomat Karen Hughes visits the Middle East

By Zach Malter Page 10

Dictator Spotlight

The Habits of 3 Eccentric Dictators from the Developing World

By Gopal Das Page 12

MA’s Conservative Governor

Profile of Conservative Massachusetts Governor Romney and his political ambitions for 2008

By Charles Stam Page 14

Avian Flu Virus

An Epidemic waiting in the wings

By Alex Sisti

Page 16

No Child Left Behind

The investigation into the Bush Administration’s ‘educational’ propaganda

By Zach Malter Page 29

Miers: Political Casualty The rise and fall of the Miers candidacy

By Jonathan Sarnoff

Page 30

Stem Cell Research Fact vs. Fiction

By Robby Shapiro

Page 38

Godless?

The Review Explores Religion in New York

The New York City Crusade

A Horace Mann Student’s First Hand Account of Billy Graham’s Flushing Meadows Park Crusade

By Diana Greenwald Page 34

Interview: Church of Satan

High Priest Magus Peter H. Gilmore talks with the Review about Satanism, Secrecy, Neitzsche, and Anton LeVay

The Review Page 18

Kiryas Joel: An American Story A Hasidic Community fights its neighbors and the Supreme Court to help build a new holy land

By Alexandra Kass Page 26

FEMA’s Faith Based Answer

FEMA former Chief believes that Churches not the Government need to take control of disaster relief

By Ben Mishkin Page 9

Evangelical Minorities: Conservative Inner Cities

Why Conservatism’s new coalition will be partially built on the urban, black demographic

By Rhonda Shafei Page 23

Which One Is It?

The Battle Between Evolution and Intelligent Design

By Anoushka Vaswani

Page 15

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

that allowed Saddam Hussein and others to make billions of dollars.

The controversial Oil-For-Food

The UN should start reforming itself by defining what the UN mission is not. The UN’s report states that “given the breadth of the mission is not to attempt to eliminate poverty. Programme, and the involvement of so many arms of the United Nations, the difficulties It is not to equally distribute power in the world. It is not to replace the United States as encountered- the politicization of the decisionthe world’s superpower. It is not to change the making, the managerial weakness, the ethical lapses- are symptomatic of systemic problems world‘s social, cultural, or economic order. in the United Nations administration.” The

The Oil-For-Food report, which covers the catastrophic failures of the UN in the now report admits that “incompetence is hard-wired into the institution’s DNA.” defunct Oil-For-Food program, exemplifies The UN has consistently failed to fulfill the UN as it functions now. The Oil-For-Food the most basic principles of its very charter program was originally designed to alleviate and mission: to “save future generations some of the humanitarian cost of sanctions from the scourge of war” and to “maintain on Iraq by allowing Iraq to trade its vast oil international peace and security… resources for food and medicine. [by] the prevention and removal of threats to

However, the project expanded out of the peace.” The UN has watched everything control as many of the UN’s social initiatives do. By the time the program collapsed, almost from genocide, to state aggression, to every division of the UN was involved in what terrorism, to illegal nuclear programs unfold across the world, but has offered only had become a complex operation of bribery

Page.

BY KUNAL MALKANI

The Horace Mann Review

empty words of condemnation or at best peacekeeping forces who are not allowed to fire a shot. Its record is characterized by hundreds of failures to act effectively during the crucial moments of the 20th century and the first moments of the 21st century.

Even after the embarrassing Oil-forFood Report, the UN continues to pursue goals and objectives that are at best tangential to its mission. Recently, it has embarked on The Millennium Goals, another social mission barely related to the charter. The goal of this mission is to cut poverty levels by 50% by 2015. It is because of lofty dreams like these that the UN is unable to perform the basic security functions that the world desperately needs.

“incompetence is hard-wired into the institution’s DNA.” (Oil for Food Report)

The UN is too bureaucratic, large, and sluggish to deal with rapidly changing crisis situations which demand immediate action. It is also too afraid, partisan, and paralyzed to deal with more protracted issues. Its answer has been to address only the uncontroversial problems with conceptual solutions: poverty, children’s suffering, disease, etc.

The UN has to do two things if it wants to effectively pursue its charter: it must eliminate those programs that are not directly connected to its goals and refocus those resources toward fighting new threats to international security and peace. The goals of the UN Development Program,

the UN Environmental Program, and the UN Population Fund are each examples of programs that are not central to the UN’s charter.

Counter-terrorism co-operation and proliferation programs should receive major funding.

They should be cut. In their place, counter-terrorism co-operation and proliferation programs should receive major funding. The UN must also accept that in today’s world, self-defense must include the ability to eliminate potential threats before they reach crisis level- specifically by using pre-emptive action.

The majority of member states recognize that terrorism affects the entire world and can only be effectively fought through co-operation and unity. Perhaps the urgency of terrorism will help the UN’s internal reform efforts, which hopefully start with the disassembling of programs that are too remote from the UN’s mission. As the newly coined struggle against (as opposed to “war on”) terrorism suggests, terrorism is best defeated not just by the military tactics of one nation, but also with multi-national diplomatic and political resolve, which the UN can facilitate better than any other single nation, even one as powerful as the United States.

Page.

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

1st

a few things from Allen; she is intelligent, humble, easy to relate to ( a wife and mother of three children), and in tune with America.

“Commander-In-Chief,” portrays a woman who is both able to keep her family together and handle the same responsibilities that men have handled since the founding fathers established this nation.

Other shows like “The West Wing,” have covered the Presidency, but a woman has never occupied the Oval Office on primetime. Like the fictionalized America The Writers and their Politics in “Commander-In-Chief,” the real United States has never elected a female President. behind “Commander in Chief” Allen is the closest that the American people have come to having a woman in the top job,

BY ZACH MALTER excluding VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro.

With the 2008 presidential election

Now that America has its first female drawing closer, that may change soon. Two President, or at least its first one on TV, many women, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Americans are tuning in to see what she’ll do Rice, are considered very serious contenders and possibly how they should vote come 2008. for the Presidency.

In the first two episodes of the new Despite Allen’s Independent political fictional television drama “Commander-In affiliation, the show’s scripts favor the liberal, Chief” (ABC), Mackenzie Allen played by Democratic wing of politics. After all, it Geena Davis, is a Vice President (I) who is was a diabolical Republican Speaker of the elevated to the Presidency after the President House who sabotaged Allen’s Inauguration.

(R) dies. Many Washington staffers, led by the Steve Cohen, now a head writer for the show, Republican Speaker of the House, pressure previously worked closely with First Lady Allen (Davis) to resign; after all, the female Hillary Clinton as her White House Deputy Vice President was only supposed to help Communications Director. balance the Republican ticket. In the pilot, Rod Lurie, the show’s creator, said that the Speaker and his cronies cut off Allen’s the election of a female president would be his teleprompter during her Inauguration. In a “dream.” However, “Commander-In-Chief” Hollywood twist, Allen delivers an even better only features the powerful opposition that a speech, ad lib. Her resolve to lead the nation female President would face once in office; strengthens through her tribulations.

Mackenzie Allen doesn’t have to get through In the second episode, both the the brutal, campaign criticism (at least in the Republicans and Democrats try to force first season) that Clinton or Rice would face Allen (I) to choose their candidate for Vice in 2008. Only time will tell whether America President, but Allen sticks to her guns. Today’s is ready to elect a female as “commander-inreal politicians, primarily men, could learn chief”, instead of just watching one on TV.

Female Precedent:

Page.

The Horace Mann Review

FEMA’s ( ) Answer Faith-Based

BY BEN MISHKIN

Most news outlets focused on stranded refugees from Hurricane Katrina and the imminent sequel hurricane, Rita. As a result, the Congressional hearings where former FEMA Director, Mike Brown, testified about the federal response went virtually unreported. Many Republicans facing mid-term elections are happy about that.

Among the most striking accusations Brown made in his testimony was that the poor overall response to Katrina was due to the lack of help from faith-based, disaster relief groups.

During the hearing Mr. Brown was questioned

by Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS), as follows:

Taylor: …The other thing that I find interesting is that in all of these scenarios that I’m sure you’ve thought out, did FEMA bother to realize that it’s the 28th of the month, a lot of people live on a fixed income, be it a Social Security check or a

retirement check? They’ve already made their necessary purchases for the month.

What they couldn’t envision is having to fill up their gas tank one more time -- at almost $3 a gallon -- just to get the heck out of there….

Brown responded to the question: Brown: …And while my heart goes out to people on fixed incomes, it is primarily a state and local responsibility. And in my opinion, it’s the responsibility of faith-based organizations, of churches and charities and others to help those people….

These comments pose two difficult questions for those who strongly believe in faith-based, federally supported groups: What responsibility comes along with the money that these religious organizations receive?

What government responsibilities will the Bush Administration not outsource?

The White House website on faith-based organizations currently claims that the priority populations of most faith-based organizations are at-risk youths, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, people with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.

These groups were also some of the hardest hit by the hurricane. According to Brown, a Bush Administration appointee, faith-based organizations should take on the role of providing expanded social services, especially to their priority populations, during disasters. In Brown’s model, FEMA would coordinate only large scale evacuation plans and reconstruction.

Up to this point the only government-affiliated or government- funded organization

Page.

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

whose purpose is to assist FEMA in disaster relief is the USA Freedom Corps, which was created by the President in 2002 following the September 11th terrorist attacks. The purpose of the USA Freedom Corps is to be a domestic Peace Corps, whose main focus is assisting in disaster relief, by coordinating and deploying civilian volunteers. This is not a faith-based group and it is also not affiliated with FEMA.

The President and his Administration have not yet made any moves toward including disaster relief responsibility as a priority for faith-based groups. In fact, the President has never even brought up faith-based groups when talking about disaster recovery.

Brown’s testimony showed his disconnect with the official government policy on the relationship between faith-based groups and the government in carrying out non-military responsibilites. Brown’s testimony has almost no relevance to what he has or has not done in terms of providing assistance to the people hurt by Hurricane Katrina. Simply put, his politics clouded his judgement on what FEMA’s mission was in Katrina.

The damage done by Brown’s misunderstanding of the role of faith-based organizations is unclear. However, it is clear that faith-based organizations will never have access to the resources necessary to cope with a massive disaster. It is still the job of the federal government and all of its resources – money, manpower, equipment, training, legal jurisdiction – to help all people who need assistance after a natural disaster, quickly and effectively.

The job of faith-based groups is not to help the people FEMA ignores. Let’s hope that the federal government continues to work in tandem with faith based organizations to accomplish the government’s long-term social goals. Let’s also hope that long term social goals aren’t confused with short term disaster relief.

Page. 10

“I love all kids...

That is something I have in common with the Turkish people.” - Karen Hughes Rebuilding Bridges to the Middle East

BY ZACH MALTER

Newly-appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes recently traveled to the Middle East in an effort to improve the relationship between the United States and Middle Eastern, Muslim countries. Her appointment is part of a new campaign to prove that America cares about other countries and that the Bush administration is sensitive and capable. At the time of the announcement that Karen Hughes would become the main spokesperson of America in the Middle East, the position had been vacant for more than six months.

Hughes met with many high level officals including the Prime Minister of Egypt, the King of Saudi Arabia, and the Foreign Minister of Turkey, as well as pre-selected groups of citizens. Upon returning to the States, Hughes summarized her diplomatic progress susinctly,

The Horace Mann Review

“I expected a lot of people to disagree with our policy and they did.”

Karen Hughes was an odd choice for the foreign relations job. A former Texas television reporter and a Bush confidante, Hughes has little experience in international politics or the Middle East. Her major contribution to the Bush Administration was the insertion of Biblical verses and references to God in the President’s early speeches about Afghanistan and Iraq; her critics claim that those speeches made America’s actions look far more like part of a religious crusade than a rational foreign policy.

On her first major trip, Hughes had considerable trouble relating to the people of the Middle East or even understanding them.

In addition to not speaking Arabic, Hughes is completely unfamiliar with the region. After forgetting that Egypt was technically a “democracy,” she was advised to carry around a reference card with basic facts about the Middle East.

Hughes was also startled by some of the sentiments that she heard expressed. She was speechless when she heard an elite, professional Saudi woman say that all women in Saudi Arabia were happy. The other women in the audience cheered. Most of the attendees, who were expected to talk about Femenism and Liberation, used their time to discuss America’s war and occupation of Iraq, the arrest of Cindy Sheehan during her march on the White House, and the Prison Abuse Scandal.

By the time Hughes arrived in Turkey, she was sticking to general statements and ignoring specific policy issues. At one point, she summared her diplomatic progress: “I love all kids...That is something I have in common with the Turkish people.” Apparently, Karen Hughes hasn’t discovered a whole lot of common ground in the Middle East.

Karen Hughes Talking Points Why you should LOVE Karen Hughes...

Her referencing of Psalms 23 and 27 after 9/11 comforted countless Americans who were looking for security, not cold rationalism, from their government.

Hughes can sell a message to religious Americans like no one else in the Bush Administration. “I think Karen missed her calling. She can preach,” says Condoleeza Rice.

The Constitution says “one nation under God” and many Presidents have cited God before.

Hughes claims she hasn’t really introduced something new to politics; she’s just better at using religion than anybody else who did before her.

“Sometimes you have to engage in combat in order to confront terrorists who want to kill you.”

Why you should HATE Karen Hughes...

She single-handedly makes the case (for Islamic fundamentalists) that America is targeting the Middle East, because of its religious tradition.

She described the US’s foreign policy goal for Palestine as letting Palestinians “have the experience of having children and families.”

“I don’t remember getting God very involved in that decision, but, of course, He does things that we don’t even know about.”

Page. 11

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

International Dictators Spotlight: Great Job Security, Great Benefits, Great Pay

BY GOPAL DAS Kim Jong Il considered peddling ballistic missiles and key nuclear ingredients to raise some cash and create international havoc. This violated a treaty he had signed in 1994 with Bill Clinton. The treaty stated that in exchange for American money, international aid, and two nuclear power plants, North Korea would stop its long-range missile development and research into nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Currently, North Korea is in a diplomatic stalemate with the international community concerning nuclear research centers.

Kim Jong Il (North Korea)

Former North Korean citizens describe Kim Jong Il as a “partying playboy” who guzzles cognac while his countrymen survive on roots. So, what exactly does Kim Jong Il spend his money on?

Kim Jong Il likes movies a lot. In 1978, he kidnapped movie director Shin Sang-ok from South Korea. Until he agreed to make a “Marxist version” of Godzilla, Sang-ok was forced to eat grass. Kim Jong Il’s massive movie collection now has over 20,000 videotapes, all of which are paid for by the people of North Korea. Daffy-Duck and James Bond are his favorites. He continues to support the arts in North Korea by spending extravagently on pagentry and financing movies.

In 1998 he placed a $10,000,000 order with Mercedes-Benz for 40 black, bullet proofed, S class sedans and a $25,000,000 personal rail road system (Kim Jong Il is very afraid of flying).

According to American Intelligence, Page. 12

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

(Equitorial Guinea)

Since grabbing control of Equatorial Guinea from his uncle, Francisco Macias Nguema, in 1979, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, 63, has held absolute power over his people. Despite inciting and participating

The Horace Mann Review

in genocide and money laundering, this dictator has grown rich off of the international community. Oil companies in Equatorial Guinea, now Sub-Sahara’s largest oil producer, line Mbasogo’s pockets with millions of dollars each year.

Since 1996, when oil was first extracted from Equitorial Guinea, President Mbasogo and his son Teodorin Nguema Obiang have enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. On a weekend trip to South Africa, the dictator’s son, now 35, spent $1,514,000 on a cream Bentley Mulliner, a MG Rover, a Lamborghini, and crate loads of Bollinger champagne to stock his Cape Town villa.

President Mbasogo’s international properties include a $7,000,000 villa in Malibu, California, large apartments in London, Paris, and Rio de Janeiro. His real estate is worth a total of $15,000,000. His biggest asset is a Hip-hop music label, TNO Entertainment. President Mbasogo’s networth is $900,000,000, most of which was robbed from his own country.

SAPARMURAT NIYAZOV

(Turkmenistan)

In Turkmenistan, the words for “bread” and “January” are the same. This is no coincidence. Both were renamed in honor of President Saparmurat Niyazov’s long lost mother.

Orphaned at an early age, Niyazov was raised in a Soviet orphanage. Niyazov started his career as an engineer at a power plant. He became an active member in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Niyazov quickly rose up the ranks; he was one of the key figures to oppose Mikhail Gorbachev. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Niyazov ran for and was elected the first President of Turkmenistan.

Niyazov sees himself as the cultural and political leader of the ethnic Turks. Government workers can lose their jobs if they don’t memorize the Ruhnama, The Book of the Soul, that President Niyazov wrote. It’s required reading in Turkmenistan and a part of the new culture Niyazov is creating for the ethnic Turks. Sketches by Max Thompson (2005)

Page. 13

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

MA’s Conservative Governor:

National budget deficits will probably be a major issue in 2008. Many political commentators believe that registered Democrats, across the country, will vote for Romney, because of his enormous strength on the issue of budget restraint. He also plays perfectly to the Evangelical groups that helped elected Bush. However, the single biggest factor that differentiates Romney is his personal fortune, an estimated at $500 to $600 million dollars, which he plans to use.

Romney joins a few other Republicans from the Northeast who are moving toward

BY CHARLES STAM conservative politics in trying to gain greater support across the country (Sen. Rick Santorum, Rudy Giuliani, and Gov. Pataki come to

Mitt Romney, the Republican Govermind). However, out of all of them, Romney nor of Massachusetts, is pro-life, pro-death is betting the most. During Bush’s reelection penalty, anti-gay marriage, and anti-stem cell campaign in 2004, Romney was invited to research. He graduated from Brigham Young University and is a devout Mormon. How did lead more than 4 prominent national speaking engagements, including a key speech at the he get elected in one of the bluest states in Republican Convention in New York.

America?

The “social politics” that make Romney

His liberal credentials are as strong as a favorite choice of Republican leadership for his conservative background. Romney is one 2008 threaten his immediate political future of the most educated governors in the counin Mass. In Massachusetts, 34 out of 40 State try. He collected both his JD and MBA from Senators and 139 out of 160 of State RepresenHarvard University, where he graduated cum tatives are Democrats. The State Legislator has laude from the Law School and in the top 5% grown increasingly bold in its thwarting of the of his class in the Business school. A selfGovernor’s conservative agenda. Romney’s described internationalist, Romney speaks veto of Massachusetts’s Emergency ContraFrench fluently and is conversational in sevceptive Bill was embarrassingly overturned by eral Bantu languages including Swahili.

Massachusetts’s voters picked Romney a large margin in the State Senate. Romney’s in 2002, because they associated his campaign numbers have also taken a hit after he suggested that Mosques should be wire taped for with balanced budgets. As a candidate for national security purposes.

Governor, his only public service experience

In terms of national support, Romney is was reengineering the 2002 Winter Olympics behind only four other candidates seeking the in Salt Lake City, which he rescued from a massive bribery scandal and financial misman- Republican Party’s Presidential Nomination.

He has recently opened an office in The Hanagement.

Unlike other 2008 Presidential contend- cock Tower, which he is unofficially using to generate political capital and money. ers, Romney’s appeal crosses political lines.

2008 Ambitions

Page. 14

The Horace Mann Review

taught.”

Most scientists are worried by the political clout that Intelligent Design has amassed.

Evolution is widely accepted by scientists and is supported by clearly documented, scientific evidence. Following President Bush’s plan for education, Ohio, New Mexico and Minnesota have incorporated teaching both Evolution and Intelligent Design in their public school curriculum.

Many scientists have disproved Intelligent Design; they argue that teaching this is in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. According to the First Amendment, schools are obliged to be religiously neutral.

They believe teaching Intelligent Design combines Church and State. Scientists believe that there is no evidence to support this concept.

Since science is defined as knowledge from empirical evidence, which Intelligent Design does not have, Intelligent Design does not

BY Anoushka Vaswani comply with the scientific method. It has no hypothesis, observations, nor data. On the other hand a majority of Americans seem to have

Dr. Michael J. Behe compares mousea different view regarding Intelligent Design. traps and blood clotting, when talking about A Pew Center poll found that nearly two thirds his support for Intelligent Design. If any one of Americans believe that creationism should piece of a mousetrap is removed, the mechanism stops functioning. If any one of the twen- be taught in schools. 38% stated that evolution be replaced completely and 48% believed ty proteins, which clot blood is missing, the that humans had evolved over time; although platelets will not work. It’s that simple.

18% said that this evolution was “guided by a

Dr. Behe is one of many critics of supreme being.”

Evolution who argue that unintentional, evo Darwin’s Theory of Evolution does lutionary procedures never could have crepresent some gaps, which should be discussed ated human life through small, progressive in the classroom; however, that is hardly an phenomena. Believers of Intelligent Design impetus for teaching of Intelligent Design are generally Creationists, who believe in the which lacks serious scientific credibility. Alliteral interpretation of the Biblical story. though the theory of Intelligent Design makes George Bush and Senate Leader Bill Frist no mention of God, it has an undeniable reboth assert that Creationism should be taught in America’s public schools. President Bush’s ligious connotation. The debate presents a official position is that “both sides [Evolution larger conflict: Is science just another religion that people use to explain our creation? and Intelligent Design] ought to be properly

Which One Is It?

Page. 15

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Over the past century, mankind has dealt with three such pandemics, each of varying severity: the worst was in 1918-19, 500,000 died within the U.S. alone, global deaths are now estimated at 50-100 million; a moderate outbreak occurred in 1957-58 killing 70,000 Americans; the “weakest” came in 196869 and took 34,000. Of these, only one was caused by an avian virus—unfortunately, it was the most devastating.

The H5N1 strain has already slaughtered hundreds of millions... of birds. This particularly lethal subtype has wreaked havoc on Asian poultry since late 2003. The first documented human case of the H5N1 strain came in 1997. As of October 10, the WHO reported 117 confirmed human infections with 60 deaths—a mortality rate of over 50%.

Researchers project that a mildly lethal human

BY ALEX SISTI strain would cause 2 million to 7.4 million deaths worldwide. Another “Great Influenza”

The influenza virus is not a new threat; every winter during flu season, it contributes to like that of 1918 would rival the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic (Source: Yale Global Onmillions of deaths worldwide—about 30,000 line). We do not, however, know exactly how to 50,000 occur in the U.S. (remember last deadly H5N1 will be. More importantly, the year’s flu vaccine fiasco?) Usually, it claims the lives of only those in fragile health: babies, crisis does not need to be inevitable.

Having recognized the threat of avian geriatrics, and the chronically ill. The rest of influenza, scientists, vaccine-manufacturers, us are shielded by our immune systems. We do not, however, possess any natural defenses and politicians are mounting a pre-emptive strike. Since influenza is a virus, it must be against avian illnesses. Normally, this isn’t a problem; unless, of course, a germ crosses the fought with a vaccine, which familiarizes the immune system with the invader and prepares species barrier. Meet the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the body’s defenses should it return. Scientists will not be able to produce the ideal vaccine three criterion must be met before our worst fears are realized: the virus mutates into a new for pandemic influenza until it emerges in its final form once that does happen, we can only subtype; it causes severe illness in humans; expect the first shots after a staggering six and it spreads easily and sustainably within months. “The current system of producing and our species. Bad news: the current strain, distributing influenza vaccine is broken, both H5N1, is on stage two. Infectious disease extechnically and financially,” observed Michael perts predict the third evolution is inevitable; T. Osterholm in a recent article in The it’s only a matter of time. Good news... I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance. New England Journal of Medicine. “At our current pace, it will take generations for mean-

Avian Flu Virus:

“ We really don’t see the pandemic itself as a market opportunity”

Page. 16

The Horace Mann Review

ingful advances [in influenza vaccine production] to be made.” Our 1950’s based technology, which is already operating at full capacity, could never make enough for everyone.

Stockpiling vaccine, however, is not a feasible option for poorer nations like Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam—the only countries where H5N1 has infected humans. The European Union, U.S. and other developed nations have formulated containment strategies for when (it’s no longer a question of “if”) the pandemic begins. Epidemiology research gives these initiatives a 30-day window in which to avert a crisis. According to WHO Flu Program director Klaus Stöhr, merely confirming an outbreak can take up to 20 days. During Hurricane Katrina, we saw how difficult it was coordinating National Guard operations on American Soil. Will it be possible to mount an effective resistance against a highly contagious virus, that means deploying vaccine, supplies, and men, in only 10 days?

If we miss this crucial opportunity the infection is likely to engulf the world’s populations in two to three waves, each lasting several months.

The human race is walking a razor’s edge. While our leaders and scientists try to devise the best plan of action for all of us, H5N1 is spreading through migrating birds, spreading and mutating. In the mean time, we would be wise to formulate a feasible, unified plan of attack. The ineptitude that characterized our rescue efforts in New Orleans will likely characterize our response. However, avian influenza is not just an American problem, or an Asian one, or a European one. It’s a global problem. The UK, having realized the futility of attempting to stockpile its antiviral drugs for protecting the uninfected, has pledged its supply of vaccine to treating patients, snuffing localized outbreaks before they become an international scourge. Our country

has yet to do the same. In fact, a recent article in Newsweek revealed just how skewed our priorities are: it discussed a bird flu presentation held by the Department of Health and Human Services and intelligence community for congressional leaders. The meeting took place in a secret room in the Capitol. The material was classified. Some slides were even labeled “Top Secret.” Apparently, there is some concern that terrorists might develop the technology to induce genetic mutations in avian influenza, unleashing a pandemic in America.

Terrorists?

Mankind may also suffer at the hands of vaccine manufacturers, who, in the event of a pandemic, will be faced with a fiscal and moral dilemma: whether to continue production of annual flu shots or to switch to a drug for the pandemic (only one can be pursued at a time).

James T. Matthews, an executive at a vaccine manufacturer, explained in chilling capitalist logic: “We really don’t see the pandemic itself as a market opportunity.” If our leaders are worried about Osama and our drug companies are worried about the bottom line, I would suggest making your own stockpile of antiviral medications; we aren’t going to get much help from them.

Authors Note: Surely those diligent researchers with their test tubes and lab coats aren’t as deluded as our politicians. As a Westerner, I have an unquestioning faith in the powers of science. It would seem that now, when I need it most, my optimism is disintegrating. Although immunology and public health research is being conducted with the utmost vigor, scientific progress takes time. These efforts may be too little, too late.

Page. 17

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

The International Church of Satan The Head of the International Church of Satan, High Priest Magus Peter H. Gilmore, Talks With The HM Review Gilmore succeedes Anton LeVay, the Church’s founder.

The Review: Do you think that it would be a mischaracterization to call believers in the church of Satan hedonists?

Church of Satan: Yes, because that’s not specific enough. We’re epicureans not hedonists. Hedonists are people who are “unbridledly” sensual. We are far more sophisticated than that. We believe in gratification of both the mind and the body, but in balance so that we don’t find that our indulgences lead into compulsions. You can delve into anything you like so long as it’s legal and as long as you are under control.

The Review: What do you think is the biggest misconception you’re faced with when talking about your church?

Church of Satan: They think that we’re Page. 18

“We use Satan in its Hebrew terminology.

It means adversary, it means the accuser, the “opposer”, one who might question.

We see ourselves as the “opposers” and the accusers and the questioners in the world.”

The Horace Mann Review

devil worshipers. A devil worshiper would be somebody who believes in god, and Satan, and Jesus, and the whole Christian mythology.

And then opts to do something by that philosophy: evil. We throw that whole philosophy out. There are some kooky folks out there who do choose to do that, probably misguided teenagers who feel that they’re being repressed or restricted in some way or another. And they feel that by rebelling, they can accept “the bad guy” in our philosophy and we just say that’s not us.

The Review: What separates Satanism and Atheism?

goofy trinket. It was a very good understanding of the human animal. So he got to see humanity at its most base. When he was older he was a photographer freelancing for the local San Francisco police department, so he would spend the day looking at victims and murdered people. He also played the organ and would perform at nightclubs. LeVay played all the old standards, and he really felt that he could watch how human emotions worked.

And a bar is, of course, a place where people are always depressed and they’re trying to use spirits to drown out any kind of problems they have. He got to see the reality of what it is to be a human animal.

Church of Satan: A Satanist above not believing in god places themselves as the god of their own universe. And sees Satan as a sym bol, which they feel comfortable with. In fact more than comfortable with, inspired by.

We start off with being atheists. We don’t believe in god, or the devil, or anything supernatural, but then we see ourselves as our own gods, as the center of our own subjective universes. We believe you should be your own master and in some ways we see each of ourselves as our own god. So, we’re I-theists.

The Review: Could you tell us a little about Anton LeVay, the founder of the Church of Satan?

Church of Satan: Anton LeVay had, you know, an interesting childhood. His parents were not particularly forcing him in a religious direction, and he spend a lot of time playing.

He ran away to the carnival [when he was 13 ].

From working in the circus he’d see out standing things and con artists, seeing people come and blow all of their money on some Photo by Zach Fryer-Biggs (2005)

Courtesy of The Church of Satan (2005)

The Review: Why did he feel he had to start a Church?

Church of Satan: He felt that there was no representation of [the human as animal] in any kind of religious way. I mean, there are philosophies. You look at Nietzsche. He’s got a great philosophy that’s very human centered and transcends the mundane [by encourag

(interview continues)

Page. 19

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

ing people to] set your own horizons. But he thought that you could take the symbol of Satan and make a religion that was more than just a philosophy. And that it hadn’t been done and it was high time that he did. So he did it.

It moved him to think about Satan as a kind of symbol and to tie [a religion] together from all these philosophical threads. And he thought that other people might enjoy it too. And he had a sort of magic circle of friends at that time who were exploring all kinds of unusual things.

The Review: What was LeVay’s experience with the occult?

Church of Satan: He would give lectures to make money, because he was very freelance too. He’d lecture on any kind of strange thing that he thought people might show up for: he did a lecture on Cannibalism, he did a lecture on ouiji boards and divination, just anything.

And he also spent time being like a ghost buster before there was such things as ghost busters. He would investigate stuff, like his friends at that police department would say ‘somebody is claiming their house is haunted why don’t you go over and see what it is.’ And he’d go and hear an “ooooo” sound and he’d go outside and look, and somebody had stuck in the wall the wind is blowing past the edge of it and that’s making the sound.

He never found a supernatural cause for anything. There was always a mundane cause.

But he found that people were very disappoint ed if you pointed out mundane causes. So he came to believe most people really wanted to have some kind of faith. They weren’t skeptical. So he would sometimes say you know, oh well, I did a little exorcism and now it’s going to go away, since he’d pulled the bottle out of the wall.

Page. 20

Courtesy of The Church of Satan (2005)

Founder Anton LeVay poses in an ad which was challenged by lawyers from Apple Computers Inc. for violation of copyright. The Church of Satan was the only member of the “Made with Macintosh” web badge program that was the target of a copyright lawsuit. Apple claimed that the “use of the MADE WITH MACINTOSH badge in this manner is likely to tarnish the goodwill associated with the APPLE Marks.” The image remains on the Church’s website.

Again it showed him that in many ways people wanted to be fooled, that religion could really be such a sham. So he wanted to create one that wasn’t a sham. One that was based on skepticism and earthiness, and not looking to some kind of spiritual here after and ridiculous idealism. Because idealism isn’t part of Satanism, pragmatism is. We’re absolutely pragmatic.

The Review: What role do you see Satanism playing in terms of the larger spectrum of all religions?

The Horace Mann Review

Church of Satan: We’re a niche. We don’t expect to ever become a broadly spread doctrine. This is basically because Satanism requires responsibility. We consider ourselves utterly and absolutely responsible for our own successes and failures. So we are not able to blame anybody else for when things go wrong or thank anybody else when things go right.

It’s rather demanding because of the emphasis it places on responsibility and individualism.

It’s really not something that’s ever going to be widely accepted.

So we’re going to stay a small niche religiously, but we expect that our people here and there will be movers and shakers for other things in the world. We have folks in Hollywood, we have people in law enforcement, and we have people in government, who are personally underground for the most part about their affiliation. So in a way I think that our well-placed members can move the world in an individualistic and secular way, such that we might have more of an effect than a small niche in general might have.

The Review: Could you talk about Satanic Imagery?

Church of Satan: I think today what we have is a kind of Satan fad going on, that started back when heavy metal started to become popular. And what we saw then was this imagery that’s Satanic. Devils and pentagrams and such, but generally the concept and substance wasn’t there. Marilyn Manson, who is one of our members, is in a similar position. His fans generally aren’t Satanists, but they’re fans of Satanic imagery. And I think that’s kind of broad based at the moment. It’s not something that we really reach out and say “Oh, we have to embrace these people.” You might like these things, but you really should read the

philosophy and come to understand it before making any kind of decision as to whether to call yourself a Satanist.

The Review: Why do you so carefully conceal information about your membership?

Church of Satan: Being shadowy and a little misunderstood: it’s kind of fun on a certain level to be the shunned folk. It gives you a certain kind of power that people would look at you, and maybe fear you in a certain way.

The folks who really want to understand, they come forward and ask. We’re happy to tell them. The rest of the folks, it’s good for them to keep their distance.

The Review: Have you rejected anyone who wants to join?

Church of Satan: People are writing us and saying ‘I want to worship the devil and kill animals’, you know like where’s my membership card? On that we can say, just go away.

Most of the kooks are pretty upfront about it.

You’d be amazed. They just think that this is the place where they can let it all hang out.

And when the crazy letters filled with scrawling and weird stuff come in. Well, even if they want to join we just say ‘go away.’

The Church of Satan does not discriminate on the basis of race, origin, sex, or sexual orientation. For more information about the Church of Satan, visit their website at www.churchofsatan.org.

Interview Conducted by Max Thompson, Editor in Chief, and Zachary Fryer-Biggs, Editorial Director on Wednesday 19, 2005 at Lincoln Center, New York, NY. Page. 21

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Page. 22

E

The Horace Mann Review

vangelical Minorities: The Key to Securing America’s Conservatism?

BY RHONDA SHAFEI

With the confirmation of the 17th American Chief Justice John Roberts over, Evangelists are anxious to see each and every step the conservative 50-year old Justice will make. With President George W. Bush pushing for the return of a ban on late-term abortion, Evangelists can only hope that their faith in God –and in fellow conservatives– will hold strong.

The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Evangelist Pat Robertson, called Judge Roberts “an exceptional choice,” and millions of Evangelicals: White, Black, and Latino, seem to agree with President Bush’s choice. Why?

For many years conservative politicians have been the only political group who adequately cover Evangelical issues which, consequently, Evangelist minorities care about. To understand the great connection between Republicans and Evangelists, one must understand what differentiates this

sect of Christianity from others.

Evangelicals can be separated from Catholics and other Protestants by their emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and a strict following of the demands of the New Testament. Evangelicals believe each individual must undergo a rebirth of spirit (“Born-Again Christian”), should confess to all sins, and must trust in Jesus as their savior. Evangelicals are best known for their zeal and fervor in worship which is usually carried out with singing and dancing.

Evangelism is attractive to minorities like Asians (South-Koreans are a large contingency), African Americans and Blacks, and Latinos, because of the revival of conservative values within Christianity in the face of growing, global secularism.

Millions of dollars are poured into minority neighborhoods around the nation by Evangelical organizations like the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). These evangelical outreach organizations research the demographics of regions where certain minorities reside, so that if they successfully convert residents, their converts open a portal for these organizations to the minorities’

Page. 23

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

international relatives, friends, and whole nations.

Some organizations, like the Church of Nazarene’s USA Evangelical Mission, distribute brochures filled with information on minorities. Some facts displayed on the Church’s website are “African-American population will grow from 32 million in 1992 to 62 million in 2050” and “The impact on our population will be that the non-Hispanic white population will drop from 75 percent of the total population in 1992 to 53 percent in 2050”.

Minorities are also attracted to evangelicalism by the new phenomenon of “Megachurches”, which bring social and commercial services into urban areas. These are stadiums, theaters, and arenas rented out or built by mainly evangelical pastors in an effort to attract massive numbers of Christians in one place, at one time. These are usually services of 2,000 or more people where the pastor uses music and dance to excite a crowd into reciting prayers and hymns along with him.

The pastors refuse to speak about controversial political issues like abortion and homosexuality in fear of upsetting a certain demographic or constituency of viewers/attendants.

To attract more minorities, some churches, like the Lakewood Church of Houston, introduce aspects of urban culture Page. 24

like hip-hop music and rock-and-roll to traditional prayers and hymns; using these sorts of music, the Lakewood Church attracts a congregation of 25,000 people each Sunday to a rented arena and an additional five million viewers on T.V. The statistics show that minorities make up an average of 45% of the congregations in Megachurches. Since evangelists believe in the concept of “Low-Church”, a concept seen in Anglican worship where less emphasis is placed on priesthood, strict ceremony in worship, and sacraments, Evangelicism is particularly suited to Mega-Chruches.

These Megachurches still face great criticism; the pastors refuse to speak about controversial political issues like abortion and homosexuality in fear of upsetting a certain demographic or constituency of viewers/attendants. Many Evangelical pastors criticize this form of worship calling it “Christianity Lite”, or say that these pastors are placing the viewers before god.

In 2004, the amount of Evangelicals grew by 5.4%, making Evangelicalism the second highest growing sect of Christianity behind Pentecostalism. While 33% of Evangelists reside in the United States, both South Korea and Brazil together hold 20% of the world’s Evangelists, Mexico and Taiwan 6%, and Indonesia 2%. In the US specifically, Evangelists make up 23% of the population with about 65 million Evangelical church members. With these numbers growing, Evangelicals have undoubtedly created a large voice for themselves in politics. The NAE released a plan to every member of the Congress last spring in hopes of influencing public policy; the plan included the association’s views on issues ranging from abortion to the environment. The NAE, which represents 30 million White, Black, Asian, and Latino Evangelicals in 45,000 churches, also

The Horace Mann Review

distributed “Toward an Evangelical Public Policy,” to each member of Congress, a 375page book which creates a biblical basis for political action and involvement. “This is the beginning of serious communal Evangelical reflection on public policy,” stated Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action and co-editor of the book. As a result of this Evangelical view in politics, there have been more clashes, now more than ever between the views of the Evangelical movement and its diverse contingents.

A Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll in 2004 found that blacks opposed gay marriage by a far larger margin than the overall population.

Evangelicals are known for their backing of Conservative views, which are consequently Republican. In addition, America’s Evangelicals were “by far the single most potent voting bloc in the electorate last year,” according to a “Trends 2005” background report by the Pew Research Center. But as white Evangelicals rank issues like abortion, gay marriage, and school praying at the top of their political concerns, black evangelicals ranked bread and butter issues like poverty and famine on the top of theirs.

This clash of views was in the poll results for the 2004 Presidential Election: 78% of White Evangelicals voted for President George W. Bush while 67% of Black Evangelicals voted for Senator John Kerry. Nevertheless, fewer blacks voted Democrat in the last

election then in that of 1996.

While Kerry won 67% of the Black Evangelical vote, that result was 20% less then that which Former Vice President Al Gore received in his race against President Bush. Although issues like poverty are front and center for Evangelical Blacks, this minority group has been swayed by many of the Evangelical Christian views on issues like homosexuality and abortion; a Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll in 2004 found that blacks opposed gay marriage by a far larger margin than the overall population.

This change in view is due to the outpour of white Evangelical efforts towards the black Evangelist minority. “It was not Evangelical Christians who stood next to Martin Luther King,” said Mrs. Skinner, who identified herself as a “pro-life Democrat” and a former top staffer with the Congressional Black Caucus. Evangelicalism has also had a great affect on Latino voters who once backed liberal, pro-choice candidates. Of the 85% of Latino Evangelicals in the US, 73% voted Bush in the past election for his plans on social issues.

“It was not Evangelical Christians who stood next to Martin Luther King,”

Overall, the Evangelists have had and will continue to have the power to change the fate of America at each and every election because of their growing impact on America’s minority population. While minorities become more politically active in an America of growing democracy, one wonders whether the Evangelicals have been converting minorities solely for reasons of spreading the faith of God or rather that of their political counterparts.

Page. 25

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Max Thompson (2005)

Kiryas Joel: A Hasidic Community’s Fight to Create (and expand) its Upstate NY “Promised Land”

BY ALEXANDRA KASS

Hasidism flourished in nineteenth century Europe, primarily because, its believers feel, it injects emotion and joy into the daily practice of Judaism. The largest sect, Satmar, located in the Hungarian town of Satu Mare, was destroyed in the holocaust. Joel Teitelbaum, its first Page. 26

Grand Rebbe, immigrated to the United States and founded a Hasidic enclave in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. When Williamsburg had no more room for growth, Teitelbaum bought land and founded a village in a rural Orange County. It became known as Kiryas

The Horace Mann Review

Joel, the Hebrew words for the “village of Joel.” With its singular vision, Satmar has maintained its traditions and doggedly resisted the outside world. The most recent census found that the Hasidic community of Williamsburg had grown to 35,000 members, and the number of inhabitants in Kiryas Joel reached nearly 20,000.

However, all is not well with the Satmars.

For decades, the urban restrictions of Williamsburg have boxed in the Hasidic community. Today the Satmars face conflict with another minority group. To the north of Broadway is a large Latino community.

In the 1960s thousands of Puerto Ricans came to Williamsburg attracted by the abundance of factory jobs. However, by the 1990s the decline in manufacturing left many Hispanics unemployed. This large and demoralized group has blocked the Satmars’ acquisition of much needed inexpensive housing. Satmars worry even more about young professionals and couples who within the last few years are invading the area. Developers have converted long abandoned factories to expensive apartments. New residents flock to the area because real estate prices are lower than those of Manhattan. While the Latinos worry that rising rents will drive them out of the area, the Hasid community is concerned about exposure to public drinking, drug use and sexual promiscuity.

Hasidic political efforts, including street demonstrations, have failed to slow these developments. In fact, in May 2005 New York City approved zoning changes that allow new open spaces, parks and housing.

This will catalyze the influx of additional outsiders and further threaten the insularity of the Satmars.

A different problem confronts the Satmars in Kiryas Joel. The community is expanding so rapidly that it impinges on and antagonizes the surrounding residents. Rapid growth is a part of the culture of the Kiryas Joel community.

Most marry by the age of 20 and have from 6 to 8 children, with families rarely moving outside the enclave. Neighbors of Kiryas Joel complain that private developers are acting in concert with the Satmars to acquire all available surrounding land. For example, the Satmars were accused recently of secretly buying an adjoining 140-acre farm.

Whereas most residents of Rockland County live in single-family homes surrounded by generous property, the Satmars build closely packed multifamily dwellings. Thus, neighbors feel that the Satmars are destroying the rural nature of the area. They complain that the Satmars are “blockbusting,” pressuring homeowners to sell and claiming that real estate prices are about to plummet.

The Satmars in turn accuse their critics of anti-Semitism. The Attorney General is now investigating these charges and countercharges.

The success of Kiryas Joel has led some to predict that there will be a proliferation of freestanding Hasidic communities in rural areas in New York.

The high birth rate among the Hasid’s and the lack of available space in New York City could provide the impetus: in upstate New York, a group of Viznitz Hasidim, having reached the critical population of 500 required by law, recently petitioned for recognition as an independent village. This would allow Page. 27

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

the community to pass a zoning ordinance to bunch multifamily dwellings around their synagogue.

To advance their cause, Satmars prefer either to seclude themselves within their enclaves or to work covertly to manipulate the political process. From its inception Satmar has been enmeshed in political activity, seeking good relations with secular officials.

Another sect of Hassidism is the Lubavitch. The Lubavitch, in sharp contrast to the Satmars, seek converts, raise money and spread their message on public streets and college campuses. Instead of creating a few isolated communities, the Lubavtich establish smaller Chabad Houses, religious and social centers that are embedded in secular residential areas.

Like the Satmars, the Lubavitch sometimes encounter stiff resistance. This year a group of local residents in Southampton, New York sued a Lubavitch Chabad. The Chabad had grown rapidly, and in violation of a town ordinance, housed religious and social gatherings that overflowed onto the streets.

Neighbors complained bitterly about the traffic and noise. Not willing to capitulate, the Lubavitch garnered support from some wealthy Hamponites. The conflict reached a boiling point when, in July of 2005 gossip about the conflict appeared in New York Magazine.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the Satmars is the succession of Rebbe Moses Teitelbaum. Spiritual head of Willimsburg and Kiryas Joel, Moses is 91 years old and in poor health. In the last few years two of his sons, Aaron and Zalman, have battled publicly for future Satmar leadership. Their conflict flared up recently in a court battle.

The court dispute ensued after the 2001 Page. 28

election for leadership of the main Brooklyn Congregation, Yetev Lev D’Satmar. The election ended in a deadlock, and followers of each brother held separate elections and declared victory. Finally, Moses placed Zalman in charge of Yetev Lev; Aaron was already in control of the smaller Kiryas Joel synagogue. In court, the judge ruled that the grand rebbe had endorsed Zalman, and that it was not in the court’s jurisdiction to challenge the rebbe’s authority. A month later, supporters of Aaron interrupted services at Yeter Lev, as Zalman led a procession of the Torah scrolls into the synagogue. A brawl ensured, and the police arrested several men, even as the singing and dancing continued inside the synagogue.

Escalating charges of fraud and harassment, as well as physical threats and violence, have created increased anxiety among the Satmars and tarnished their public image.

Satmar is an important force in American Jewish life. While some criticize the Satmar’s insularity, others give them credit not only for energizing their own community but also inspiring other Jews to maintain their religious values. According to Professor David Myers of UCLA, “Here’s a community which, on the one hand, secludes itself and completely rejects the values of the western society around it, but …on the other hand, does not hesitate to engage to the fullest the privileges and means that society has granted it.” However, while Williamsburg and Kiryas Joel have flourished, geographic constraints and increasingly hostile neighbors present significant challenges. From its earliest days, dynamic rebbes have been the hallmark of successful Hasidic communities. New York’s Satmars face the future with major concerns about leadership.

No Child Left Behind:

Investigation confirms Illegal Propaganda Campaign

BY ZACH MALTER

After reading a 2005 USA Today article that reported that conservative, AfricanAmerican commentator Armstrong Williams had been paid $240,000 by the government to propagandize No Child Left Behind (NCLB), outraged senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) ordered an investigation. The newly released reports on NCLB have confirmed that the Bush Administration was involved in illegal “covert propaganda,” that promoted the No Child Left Behind Act, its education bananza.

The deeply controversial No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was approved by the Senate in 2001 and signed into law by President Bush on January 8th, 2002. The act, among other things, requires schools to provide military recruiters with information about students, cuts spending on art and after school programs, and increases the frequency of standardized testing for public school students.

Armstrong Williams told his audiences

The Horace Mann Review

about the benefits of Bush’s education program on his television show, radio program, and in his newspaper column, without disclosing the payments he was recieving. Williams even held interviews with Education Secretary Rod Paige, which higlighted the “progress” of NCLB. The money paid to Williams was funneled through the public relations firm, Ketchum Inc, which received $186,000.

The Education Department also ordered the production of videos that promoted NCLB, which were disguised as programs made by independent news agencies. It stands accused of illegally using around $38,500 dollars to pay for that seperate propaganda campaign.

The recent investigation made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that the government had violated a propaganda prohibition. The prohibition advises states, “to avoid a violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, an agency must inform the viewing public that the government is the source of the information disseminate.”

Senator Kennedy proclaimed, “The taxpayer funded propaganda coming from the White House is another sign of the culture of corruption that pervades the White House and Republican leadership.” Following the GAO report, both Kennedy and Lautenberg demanded that the money used for the propaganda be returned to the United States government.

The No Child Left Behind scandal is perhaps the least covered political scandal in the major news media, despite being one of the Bush administration’s clearest violations of public trust and money. The Bush Administration simply broke government code to promote its initiatives. The leaders of our country sank to the level of propagandists to deceive the American people. Why doesn’t this scandal have front page status? Maybe the reason is that its not particularly shocking. Most of us have suspected it all along.

Page. 29

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Harriet Miers: Political Casualty

BY JONATHAN SARNOFF Page. 30

The Horace Mann Review

Recently, President Bush’s nomination of Harriet E. Miers as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ended with her withdrawing her name from consideration. The nomination was a political disaster, a rarity for a President known for his political skill. His first nomination to the Supreme Court reflected his political prowess, as the nominee, John G. Roberts, Jr., uneventfully sailed through the confirmation process and was confirmed with a commanding majority.

Most expected his second nomination to be equally successful. Virulent opposition, however, was mounted as soon as the nomination was announced; support beyond that of the President failed to materialize, and soon the nomination became a drain on Bush’s already-suffering popularity. Ultimately, the drawbacks of Miers’ nomination overcame what was on paper a strong candidacy.

The rationale for Miers’ nomination was very persuasive. The President’s administration was facing a crisis. Numerous events, ranging from corruption within the White House and Republican Party to growing public discontent with the War in Iraq conspired to place Bush in a political quagmire, possibly the worst of his presidency. In the aftermath of his reelection, the President spoke of having earned political capital.

His current difficulties, however, siphoned off a large amount of his political capital. With political capital scarce, the President did not want to burn his remaining capital on an ideological battle over a Supreme Court nominee. The President’s recent troubles also have caused his poll ratings to drop precipitously, mainly among moderate voters, whose approval of his performance had fallen 11% in the last month.

The moderate voters who were deserting the President were precisely those who have been further alienated by a fight for a conservative justice far removed from the mainstream. With perception of his performance so low, Bush could not afford further loss of these voters and further

ravaging of his political capital over a prolonged ideological battle.

In this light, the strength of the Miers nomination was simple: It was difficult to begin an ideological battle over a nominee whose ideology is unknown. Throughout her career, Miers had occupied positions from which she has rarely been called to make pronouncements on policy. She had no paper trail of opinions shedding light on her constitutional views as a judge on a lower court might. Nobody knew which principles would govern her jurisprudence. This lack of a paper trail ensured that her nomination couldn’t be attacked on ideological grounds—avoiding the ideological battle the President sought to avoid.

What little was known about Miers indicated, in fact, that she would have been the opposite of a divisive ideologue. In her tenure on the Dallas City Council, she earned a reputation as a pragmatist who worked to bridge ideological gaps in forming a consensus.

Pragmatic, non-ideological jurisprudence tends to be supported by the moderate voters among whom the President’s support was rapidly falling. The nomination of a pragmatist for this seat on the Court was especially appropriate because the seat’s previous occupant, Sandra Day O’Connor, was known for her pragmatism.

By nominating a pragmatic, consensus-building candidate with a blank record, the President spared himself the damage of an ideological conflict and appealed to the middle of the ideological spectrum, which, since he was in politically dire straits, was exactly the political goal he was seeking.

Miers’ other immediately apparent political strength was her personal qualifications. She was forced to overcome numerous challenges throughout her life.

Miers began attending law school in Texas in an era of extreme gender inequality. Her 97-member graduating class at Southern Page. 31

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Methodist University Law School contained only eight women. When she became president of the Dallas Bar Association, the Texas Bar Association, and a major Dallas Law firm, she was the first woman to hold each position.

In addition to the gender-related hurdles she overcame, she had also experienced economic hardship, as she was forced to put herself through law school when her father had a stroke during her freshman year. Her having prevailed over these obstacles boosted her nomination in that it gave her a perspective different from that of members of the court who grew up under more privileged circumstances. Furthermore, her experience in overcoming obstacles to gender equality would have made it difficult for Democrats to accuse her of insensitivity to women’s rights and civil rights, as they did with Chief Justice Roberts. Miers’ personal qualifications, therefore, were a strong political boost to her nomination.

Miers’ professional qualifications, however, were certainly not as strong, as she boasted neither an Ivy League education nor years of experience on the judicial bench. These deficits have been common in the history of the Court. The justice whose qualifications were the most similar to Miers’ was probably Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Like Miers, Powell attended both undergraduate and law school at a relatively undistinguished university, Washington & Lee (although he eventually earned a degree from Harvard). Furthermore, both were prominent corporate lawyers with no background in constitutional law and were active in bar associations, Miers as president of the Dallas and Texas bars, Powell as president of the American Bar Association. Although Miers’ professional qualifications were the weakness of her candidacy, the history of the Court indicated they were sufficient, so Bush gambled that the other strengths of her nomination would balance out this weakness.

Page. 32

Despite the many political strengths of the Miers nomination, it failed miserably as a political venture. One of the most cited causes for its failure is the venomous opposition Miers faced from extreme interest groups within the Republican Party. The effect of this opposition has been overstated as the nomination’s failure, in fact, stemmed primarily from Miers’ failure to demonstrate her competence to serve on the Court.

The conservative interest groups and right-wing intellectual commentators like Pat Buchanan, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill Kristol who opposed Miers’ nomination all argued that she lacked the proven track record of a conservative firebrand who would fight to move the court to the right—she was not conservative enough, and not enough of an ideologue. That which made Miers appeal to the center made her a weak candidate to the right-wing intellectual community; they wanted a candidate who had devoted his or her career to advancing conservative judicial philosophy and who therefore could be depended on to exert a strong conservative influence on the court.

Miers, by virtue of her empty record, lacked those characteristics. The disapproval of the elite right-wing intellectual community, which is small and extreme, is not terribly important to Bush. Bush’s base does not consist primarily of right-wing intellectuals; it consists instead of people similar to Miers—southern white evangelicals. Church leaders like James Dobson, whose influence is far larger than the intellectuals’, supported Miers. Mitch McConnell, the majority whip in the Senate, predicted “rock solid” support for Miers, saying, “I haven’t sensed any discontent of any consequence.” The night before Miers withdrew her nomination, Arlen Specter, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he “did not believe [the nomination] was

The Horace Mann Review

in trouble.” Clearly, the members of the Senate do not consider the dissent of conservative intellectuals to be important. By deliberately choosing a candidate who appealed to the center, Bush indicated that, for the most part, he agreed.

The day the nomination was announced, right-wing intellectuals across the country declared their opposition to the nomination, and furthermore, indicated that their minds were, essentially, unchangeable. Yet, Bush did not react by immediately pulling the nomination. When the nomination was withdrawn, little had changed among the far right. What changed, instead, were the opinions of Miers held by the politicalcenter.

The Miers nomination was conceived to appeal to the political center. What brought it down was the lack of support from the political center and from moderates within the Republican Party. When Miers’ nomination was announced, two sides emerged in the debate.

One side—conservative intellectuals—attacked the nomination. The other side—everyone else—adopted a “wait and see” approach. Not knowing enough about Miers to judge her candidacy, these people—among whom were most U.S. Senators—trusted the confirmation process to evaluate her nomination. The President hoped and anticipated that the second group would become supportive of Miers. That never happened, however, and the President was faced with a vocal group of opponents and no vocal support.

One of the prime original criticisms of the Miers nomination was that Miers was an otherwise unqualified crony of the President.

Of all the criticisms of her nomination, this was the most dangerous, as it appealed to all parts of the political spectrum, including the political center, whose support the nomination was intended to gain. In order to win confirmation, Miers had to demonstrate that the cronyism

charge was false by showing through the confirmation process, especially the Senate hearings, that she was fully competent in the realm of constitutional law. So demonstrating would have attracted broad support among intermediates and moderates of both parties, and would have ensured her confirmation.

She failed to do this. First, in her meetings with senators, she failed to impress any with her intellect or judicial knowledge. Next, the Judiciary Committee refused to accept her responses to its questionnaire because they were “insulting.” Furthermore, confidence within the White House that she would be highly persuasive at the hearings, which would have been the most important forum for demonstrating her competence, was very low.1 Miers was not able to demonstrate that she was fully qualified and competent, and therefore failed to attract meaningful support for her nomination and lent credence to charges of cronyism. The vociferous opposition of the far right compounded this damage. Had Sandra Day O’Connor’s clone, a respected lawyer with a centrist pragmatic philosophy who angered the extreme right and aced the Senate hearings, been nominated for this seat, she would have been confirmed, on the strength of the support she would have attracted throughout the political center. Harriet Miers did not demonstrate enough competence to attract such support, however, undermining an otherwise strong candidacy.

Now that Miers’ nomination has been withdrawn, the President’s response reflects an awareness of the changing political climate.

Because he lost support among his base by nominating Miers, Bush used his replacement for her, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to shore up that support. Alito is exactly what conservatives wanted all along—an ideological intellectual who will exert a strong conservative influence on American jurisprudence.

Page. 33

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

New York’s Crusade: A Horace Mann Student’s Personal Account of The Billy Graham Crusade in Flushing Meadows, Queens

By Diana Greenwald

It is hard to believe that 90,000 New Yorkers showed up to the

Billy Graham Crusade in June, 2005. This city, which is home to the largest Jewish population of any city in the world, the capitol of secular liberalism, burgeoning gay neighborhoods, and incidentally the Church of Satan headquarters (See Page 18 ), is not well known for Christian fervor.

Page. 34

Photo Courtesy of the Billy Graham Crusade (2005)

The Horace Mann Review (I was one of the 90,000 New Yorkers who attended)

I wandered in the scorching heat through the throngs of people who were also at the Crusade in Flushing Meadows Park, Brooklyn. There were roughly an equal number of men and women, ranging in age from toddlers in strollers to geriatrics in wheelchairs. As a life-long resident of New York City, America’s “melting pot,” I had never seen such a diverse crowd in my life. The events were translated into 13 different languages, including Urdu, in a space as large as Central Park.

A man shoved a cardboard fan into my hand, saying “Here you go, some real New York air-conditioning” in a heavy Brooklyn accent. He then handed an identical fan to a small Mexican woman behind me, repeating the phrase to her in perfect Spanish. “So,” I thought, “This is Christian evangelism, NewYork-style.”

Billy Graham’s Crusade scared me in prospect, because the politically motivated, Religious Right that claims God’s endorsement scares me. However, Billy Graham is not a hyper-political, über-conservative like fundamentalist Christians Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The distinction between the Falwell and Graham camps is as clear as the difference in their websites. Falwell’s homepage on July 5th declared, “We have no time to waste! With the sudden resignation last Friday of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, I am calling the Moral Majority Coalition into action.”

In the “Meet Dr. Falwell” section, he recalls a third-grade memory, “This was my first encounter with corporal punishment, in the form of a willow switch, administered by Miss Garbee while I was standing in front of the class with my pants legs pulled up. There was no court of appeal and no ACLU. They would

never have dared to challenge Miss Garbee…

As I look back, I consider Miss Garbee to be one of my finest teachers ever. There were many other fond memories at Mountain View Elementary School.”

Mr. Graham’s website is entirely focused on spiritual and religious matters, with links to a feature called “Steps to Peace with God” and an excerpt from Matthew that speaks of the coming of the Messiah. Falwell and his “Moral Majority Coalition” channel their religious fervor into political messages that many New Yorkers see as part of a frighteningly conservative political agenda, while Billy Graham is focused only on spreading the gospel.

Because of men like Jerry Falwell, I, as I think many other New Yorkers do, have a tendency to link evangelical Christianity to fundamentalist Christian men and women: stubborn bigots who among other things seek to deny teenagers sexual education and paraplegics the chance to walk again through stemcell research.

However, Mr. Graham leaves politics out of his message. He has said in an interview with the New York Times, “You won’t see me identified with any of the so-called religious right. I’m just neutral.” During his three sermons in this year’s crusade Graham “spoke not a word on stem-cell research, or abortion, or gay marriage, or even homosexuality,” though the biggest gay pride parade this side of San Francisco was going on not 15 miles away.

I do not enjoy having any kind of religion thrust upon me, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or whatever. I was annoyed by seeing Billy Graham’s wrinkled visage on either a billboard or phone booth on every other block in Manhattan. However, to be honest, while religious advertising was

Page. 35

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Courtesy of The Billy Graham Crusade (2005)

thrust upon on me, religion was not. In fact, my grandfather tries harder to make me a religious person than the volunteers at the crusade.

During my mile-long walk to the main pulpit, besides talking with 12 attendees, I had a large number of pessimistic Christian pamphlets shoved into my hands. Some noteworthy examples include “Earthquake” and “Will You Be In Hell?” However, to me there seemed to be very few people, most of whom were not officially associated with the crusade, handing out such pamphlets.

There were a handful of protesters.

Page. 36

“[Billy Graham] says he doesn’t understand why things like [9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing] happen because, he doesn’t understand that…God’s wrath caused [these things] to happen,” said one from Los Angeles. Another man, who was a senior member of “The Twelve Tribes”, a group dressed in Amish-like garb, told me, “that there is something lacking in the gospel that Mr. Graham preaches… we’re here to provide an alternative if you really want to serve God with all your heart, we’d love to help.”

However, most people were mainstream

The Horace Mann Review

Christians who came to see a “humble” man preach, who they felt was “spreading the word of Jesus.” A middle-aged group of four from Rockland County described their trip as a “nostalgia thing… [they] were all [there] to see him in New York in 1957…It’s like a reunion.” One of the four felt that Graham continues to return to New York because their “generation is still asking the same questions [all subsequent generations ask], ‘What is it all about?’” Collette, a 40-year-old West Indian immigrant, also from Rockland County, volunteered at the crusade because “as a good Christian, ‘God demands us to bring people to Christ and Christ’s message.” And Billy Graham is singularly one of the most successful people in the world at bringing people to Christianity.

Three volunteers at one of the many bookstore-tents, all from the Bronx and ranging in age from about 20 to 50, were at the crusade to “do work for the Lord,” but were also inspired “by [Billy Graham] being in New York again at his age.”

Throughout the day two themes regularly emerged in the interviews I had with the people at the crusade. The first was that Billy Graham was in New York because it is an incredibly diverse world center, from which he could broadcast the message of God and successfully carry out the “Lord’s work.” The second was that the attendees were all there as good Christians.

Though there was incredible reverence among them for the Reverend, they did not view him as a Christ-like or deity figure. To most of the pilgrims, Billy Graham was just a “magnetic” and “humble” person trying and succeeding in spreading what they see as “the good word.”

It was clear to me that Billy Graham

did what he thought would bring comfort to New Yorkers that live with headlines like “Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi”, “ Bomb Threat in the Subway”, and “Yankees in Second Place.” Though I am not sure an 86-year-old man beckoning me to Christ with the words, “This may be the last day of your life. You never know” is what I would call a source of comfort, who am I to tell the thousands of the faithful who invaded Flushing Meadows how to be happy.

There was a genuine respect that almost everyone in Flushing Meadows that day had for Billy Graham. For the participants and volunteers it was that he could so widely dissemi-

Courtesy of The Billy Graham Crusade (2005)

nate the word of God. For me, an observer of the proceedings, it was a shock that one old and sickly man could draw such a huge and varied crowd. By the end of the event, I grew more convinced that I was missing the point of the Billy Graham Crusade.

As a Latino guy in his twenties from the Bronx said to me, “It’s not the man, it’s the message” that created a crowd of thousands.

Page. 37

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

Stem Cell Research:

Fact and Fiction

BY ROBBY SHAPIRO

The Science: Despite the complexity of a living organism’s progression from single cell to developed adult, there is a simple, underlying concept to this process. All biological growth and development is maintained and regulated by embryonic stem cells (ES).

The ES cell is by nature one of biology’s most flexible components. Located within the zygote (the fertilized egg) 3-5 days after fertilization, ES cells have the remarkable potential to develop into any type of cell. This ability to differentiate into any of the body’s trillions of cell types is what the scientific community refers to as pluripotent. Furthermore, the ES cell is able to indefinitely self-replicate.

ES stem cells isolated from 3-5 day old zygotes can be used to create pluripotent stem cell “lines” —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in vitro. Once a stem cell line is established, it is essentially immortal. These stem cell lines can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely. Stem cell lines grown in the lab provide scientists with the opportunity to Page. 38

genetically engineer them for use in transplantation or treatment of diseases.

Scientists have only been able to engage in experiments with human ES cells since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to effectively isolate and culture these cells. Since 1998, groups have organized to oppose the use of stem cells from human embryos. These groups argue that life must be created only to be sacrificed to obtain human ES cells. To them, this presents a slippery slope that encourages the objectification of all human life.

Stem cells that can give rise to only a limited number of cell types are referred to as multipotent. Lacking the universal pluripotence of their embryonic counter parts, adult stem cell populations which are located within developed regions of the body such as the bone marrow and skin tissue are multipotent, This is the most uncontroversial area of stem cell research and currently the best funded.

The Horace Mann Review

The Decision:

in fiscal year 2001 and $35 million in fiscal year 2004. This funding is limited to research

The President has categorically support- on existing embryonic cell lines. Federal funded stem cell research in general and embryonic ing of adult stem cell research was over $200 stem cell research in specific. However, Bush million in fiscal year 2004 (see below). has cut off substantial federal funding for the sacrifice of future embryos to obtain embryonic stem cell lines, because of pressure from California: politically powerful interest groups and his

On November 3, 2004, the people of own moral convictions.

Currently, the US Government supports California passed Proposition 71. This legislation authorizes the state to sell $3 billion continued research on the twenty six existing in bonds and disperse nearly $300 million a stem cell lines. Distribution of these existing year for ten years to researchers for embryonic lines to all scientists, at home and abroad, is stem cell experiments. Exit polls showed that also supported. State and private funding of research as well as creation of new cell lines is supporters of Proposition 71 overwhelmingly believed that President Bush had banned all permitted in all 50 states. stem cell research in the United States.

The Big Lies:

Embryonic stem cell research is illegal in the United States. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been banned.

For four years, Bush has been credited with banning stem cell research in the United States. Voters who believe that stem cell research should be banned applaud Bush.

Other Americans charge that Bush has prevented millions of Americans from obtaining a cure that’s “right around the corner.” For these people, an enlightened and altruistic scientific community that currently has the technology to cure almost every disease is blocked by new laws making embryonic stem cell research illegal.

The Truth:

Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the United States. In fact, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was $10 million

South Korea:

On May 20, 2005, South Korean scientists created eleven new embryonic stem cell lines made from genetic material isolated from a donor in need of a transplant. The resultant cells were a perfect biological match for the donor, which has created tremendous enthusiasm for a future with transplants without the worry of immune rejection. The South Korean technique was successful in about one in twenty fertilized embryos, while the previous success rate was about one in 240. Ray Suarez of the Jim Lehrer News Hour interviewed Dr. David Scadden of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute the night of the South Korean breakthrough. Suarez wanted to know why the South Koreans had made this breakthrough instead of an American or European group. Dr. Scadden replied, “…that it’s not been able to be done here essentially at all because of the absence of our ability to use federal funding

Page. 39

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

for it… and the South Korean research is government funded.”

The American Breakthrough:

On August 22, 2005, Harvard researchers announced that they had found a way to The Next Big Lie: fuse adult skin cells with embryonic stem cells. This breakthrough revealed the potential The United States does not support stem cell research financially, while the rest of the world of a stem cell research path that avoids the issue around “sacrificing” human embryos. Such lavishly funds experimentation. a breakthrough could completely defuse the de bate surrounding the ethics of embryonic stem The Truth about South Korea: cell research. That same month, a team of Texas and British researchers produced a large Despite the stunning advances listed above, amount of embryonic stem cells from umbilithe South Korean government has spent only $9.58 million on all stem cell research in 2004. cal cord blood. It appears that these cordThe South Korean press is disturbed about how blood-derived, embryonic-like stem cells (CBE’s) have the same ability to multi-differ little the government is supporting Research entiate that ES cells have. and Development. South Korea granted oneeighteenth the percent of GDP that the U.S. has The Bottom Line: spent on stem cell research.

Almost every person wants to continue research into stem cells that may eventually cure or prevent genetic anomalies and devas It is also completely false that the rest tating illness. Both the Bush Administration of the world has embraced stem cell research. and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute have de Canada and Germany have completely ban hufacto endorsed using adult stem cells and alterman cloning to produce embryonic stem cells, natives to embryonic stem cells. This path aceven for private companies. The European commodates all political, moral, and religious Union officially supports embryonic stem cell objections. research, but only if the research is conducted

In the meantime, more research is bewithout government funding. ing funded at the federal, state, and private

In Europe, it is not the Right, but the Solevels in this country than in any other country cialist and Green parties on the Left that have in the world. The recent advances in South pushed for limiting and regulating every scienKorea were due to perseverance, risk taking, tific endeavor to the point of inactivity. As of and dedication rather than government fundApril 2005 the EU had only financed a total of ing. Scientists do need to change the stem cell two stem cell projects for a total of $625,000. research situation in America. However, the biggest changes they should make have little to do with government funding.

The Rest of the World:

Page. 40

The Horace Mann Review

Page. 41

Volume XV, Issue I, Fall 2005

HM: What Controversy?

An Evolution Question

Horace Mann Science Te achers

100%

Horace Mann Teachers

Humans were created exactly in their present form (0%) Human life is the product of Evolution (100%)

Survey Conducted by the Review (8 responses from HM science teachers)

American Population* 57% Humans were created exactly in their present form (33%) Human life is the product of Evolution (57%)

*Conducted by the Pew Center for the People and the Press (2005) *Poll reflects the opinions of those who answered.

Page. 42

The Horace Mann Review

Page. 43

The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, NY, 10471