On contraception and religious right troglodytes

Sometimes I think it's easier just to look forward and try to put behind us the regressive and ridiculous policies of the past decade, and especially social conservatism spearheaded by religious right troglodytes. However, we have to raise awareness of the real harm done by programs run by people like this. For example, in many nations, people are so poor they scavenge garbage dumps but are not given access to birth control (and are threatened with excommunication) because of the shameful and absurd Catholic Church. In Africa, millions are dying from AIDS and hunger but Bush's programs (for all the legacy spin) cause more death because they place all emphasis on "abstinence" and do not provide the sort of comprehensive sex ed and contraception options that are effective.

Bush appointed a birth control opponent to head the agency in charge of family planning: the Dept. of Health and Human Services. The religious right doesn't just want to prevent abortion. They want to control your reproductive rights. Specifically, they want to end all forms of birth control and there's a clear (although perhaps subconscious) reason why: religion is hereditary. The one surefire way to increase the number of parishioners in the church is to breed them. The church could care the less what quality life your children have -- that's between you and Jesus -- but they want to make sure you have children who are in the pews.

If the religious right was actually interested in human welfare, they'd support comprehensive sex ed and realize that countries with no reproductive rights are those with the highest rates of abortion. But they don't live in the reality-based community.

*UPDATE: Add another study to document the failure of "abstinence pledges" to do anything but increase STDs and teen pregnancies*

Godless money

Dole is losing to Kay Hagan in NC, and thus is using fear of us mean evil atheists to scare people away from her opponent. I just didn't know that there was such a thing as "godless money" lol.

Seed Magazine endorsed Obama. No surprise there.

A new article in Newsweek discusses belief in the paranormal and supernatural as a coping mechanism.

Hitchens debated the guy who wrote, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".

17 yo unwed Bristol Palin is pregnant

Bristol Palin is five months pregnant. The McCain camp claims they knew...

...great judgment, McCain ;-)

In seriousness, I read the rumors that she (rather than her mom) had been pregnant with Trig with a lot of skepticism but a little bit of hope from a purely political perspective: I thought that such a scandal would be good for November. After talking to a friend of mine, I started to realize that the RR would just say, "It's better than an abortion." The same probably applies here.

The absurd policies of the Religious Right bear rotten fruit: 1 in 4 teenage girls who are sexually active have at least one STD. The rates of teen pregnancy are rising again after years of decline during the Clinton years with comprehensive sex ed. There's also a sad race gap: more than one half of black girls have one, compared to only 20% of whites and Latinos. The teenagers themselves aren't in the least surprised. See this or this piece of mine for more stats related to "abstinence only" education and abortions.

See this excellent item on the RR's policies of "marriage promotion" as well.

Obama panders to religious

Apparently, having "faith-based bullshit" underwrite government policies for the last 7 years wasn't enough: Barack promises to continue and expand federal tax dollars funneled to religious orgs.

PS: Tom Shaller argues that Obama should whistle past Dixie. I agree. Completely.

The Democratic Party's winning strategy will consist of high turnout in urban areas. Period. Whistle past Dixie, and spend time in the city.

Virginia follows Texas with NCBCPS

A year ago to the day, I reported that the sectarian proselytizing tool known as NCBCPS was receiving its first legal challenge in Texas. Luckily, that case ended well for our civil liberties as the state saw its unconstitutional adoption of this tool would lead to further lawsuits and dropped it from the curriculum.

Virginians have now followed in Texans' footsteps. All it will take to remedy this one, as well, are some courageous parents who actually think the Constitution matters and are willing to act to enforce it. Craig County is smack dab in the heart of, you guessed it, Appalachia! More glorious progress for science education in the Bible Belt.

It should be aggravating

But instead it gives me a goddam*ed belly laugh!

Notice how the sheep in the video bleat at every inflection of the pastor's voice.

It should be aggravating to see government resources squandered on stupid religious superstition. Larry Langford, mayor of Birmingham, is currently undertaking a "sackcloth and ashes" campaign to counter the city's violence and crime. I'm sure it will work very well -- much better than, say, hiring police officers or spending on after-school programs for youth. I'd love to see a non-punitive lawsuit come out of this; a judge scolding the mayor and setting the record straight on our Constitution would be very welcome. Idiots wasting time and resources on magic with tax dollars pisses me off mightily. Did the 2,000 sack cloths magically appear? Do it on your day off, mayor.

The city logo of Birmingham is apparently affixed to a shiny folder holding the proclamation for the special sackcloths...

To many Christians, sackcloth and ashes symbolize humility and repentance, but the mayor’s decree came dressed with the usual accoutrements - printed on fine, invitation-stock paper and wrapped in a bright silver folder, adorned by the magic hat logo Langford commissioned for the city last year.

Here is that logo:

More magic than ever!

bwahahahahahaha

You just can't make this stuff up! (H/T: PZ & TCR)

**PS: On a related note, the National Day of Prayer is 5/1 -- it should be renamed the National Obnoxious Fundamentalist Christians use Government to Push Their Agenda Day.**

The Virginian-Pilot's Bill Sizemore on Pat Robertson

My friend and yours, American Talibanist Pat Robertson, was exposed a while back for his role in denying compensation to a sponsor of his "age-defying shake" and threatening him when he chose to use legal means to recoup $. The Virginian-Pilot exposed Robertson, and he threatened to sue them...only to come back some time later (after talking to a lawyer who told him we have this pesky thing called "freedom of the press" -- Robertson never passed the bar exam after getting his JD in 1955) and try to buy off the paper.

The author of the original expose, Bill Sizemore, now has another great article on Robertson's past and details on how he came into the ministry and got involved with TV.

From Sizemore's piece:

In the decade between the time The 700 Club became a daily program and the midseventies, CBN purchased a new facility in Portsmouth with a 175,000-watt transmitter, then a staggering 2.25-million-watt transmitter that could reach most of the mid-Atlantic coastline. Robertson also purchased five radio stations in New York State and new TV stations in Atlanta and Dallas. Then, in 1976, CBN bought a satellite and, months later, broadcast its first feed from Jerusalem. Robertson’s teleministry was now big business. In 1972, Robertson wrote that you can’t “worry about technical production when the cameraman is caught up in the Spirit and begins to weep over someone’s testimony . . . Who cares about the time if God is moving?” But only a few years later, CBN’s brand of production had become distinctly professional. No longer were broadcast slots subject to whim. No more was airtime filled with homemade puppet shows.

Along with the increasingly political slant of the show came more and more secularized programming, aimed at broadening the network’s appeal. CBN began showing family-friendly reruns like Lassie to help finance pricey advertisements for The 700 Club on other networks. Soon, secular shows took up the bulk of CBN’s airtime. This shift led to Robertson’s first run-in with the government, when the state of Massachusetts realized that the programming on WXNE-TV in Boston, purchased by CBN in 1977, was more than 50 percent secular. The station could be tax-exempt only if it functioned as a church instead of a business. Robertson subsequently shifted his holdings to a new company, Continental Broadcasting—some said this shift was to prevent the state from accessing CBN’s financial records.

This glitch did little to slow CBN’s progress, however. The station was finally beginning to turn a profit, after years of surviving on charity from Robertson’s father and local donors. The gifts had often been generous (a local car dealer, for example, once gave Robertson a free Lincoln), but Robertson’s wife still had to work in a local hospital to support their four children—two boys and two girls. By the middle seventies, though, Robertson’s risky decision to “renounce wealth and privilege” to pursue a life of Christian televangelism was suddenly paying off in a whole lot of wealth and privilege.

Robertson is one of the loudest Religious Right figures, and IMHO, there is more reason for him to be investigated more than the six that Grassley has recently focused on. Why? He's used non-profit resources to push his own for-profit ventures for years now. Even with the shake, for-profit, which he promotes on a tax-free non-profit religious channel. The lines between churches and businesses have become far too blurred, and it's about damned time to levy taxes against churches who sell lots of products and make lots of money -- they forfeit their right to claim tax exemption when they start running like a for-profit entity.

He and Dobson have for years opposed the McCain-Feingold Finance Reforms that put a dent in their ability to buy influence in DC. Not that Robertson doesn't still have enormous clout there, especially with Bush in the WH and a huge percentage of Regent grads in Washington (but not Adam Key). I think much of the public is misinformed: the overwhelming majority of people do want church-state separation, not the other way around. Here are some of Robertson's greatest hits:

“I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Hugo Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” [Link]

Robertson suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s recent stroke was the result of Sharon’s policy, which he claimed is “dividing God’s land.” [Link]

“You know some of them [college professors] are killers!” [Link]

“I believe it’s [Islam] motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with. … [T]he goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination.” [Link]

[The following are from the American Taliban]:

"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers?"

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."

"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns."

Gotta love him.

A few faith-related notes

More from Mother Jones on the McCain-Hagee-Parsley connections.

A priest-cosmologist won the Templeton Prize. Although it's "faith-based", at least they distance themselves from ID.

Finally, the absurd policies of the Religious Right bear more rotten fruit: 1 in 4 teenage girls who are sexually active have at least one STD. There's also a sad race gap: more than one half of black girls have one, compared to only 20% of whites and Latinos. The teenagers themselves aren't in the least surprised. See an older piece of mine for more stats related to "abstinence only" education and abortions.

UPDATE: See this excellent item on the RR's policies of "marriage promotion" as well.

McCain's ties to Rod Parsley and John Hagee in TAP

**UPDATE: This story has legs.**

Two articles by The American Prospect on the link between McCain and two of the nuttiest religious nutballs out there -- Rod Parsley and John Hagee (also this):

1. McCain's "Spiritual Guide" (on Parsley)
2. McCain's Apocalyptic Support (on Hagee)

PS: Also see this and this.

And here are the two articles' full-text:

1. McCain's "Spiritual Guide" (on Parsley)

Yesterday at a rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, John McCain was flanked by Rod Parsley, who called the candidate "strong, true, consistent conservative," according to the Columbus Dispatch. McCain referred to Parsley, who preaches the same word of faith doctrine as the televangelists under investigation by McCain's fellow Republican Senator Charles Grassley, a "spiritual guide."

Later, according to the Dispatch:


Parsley said he supports McCain because the senator will be tough on national security and "protect the unborn."


The megachurch pastor, criticized in the past for mixing religion and politics, acknowledged that McCain isn't the ideal candidate for evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly backed President Bush in 2004.

"Yet at the same time, when you put John McCain up against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the ideological and philosophical differences are overwhelming," Parsley said.

In conservative circles, Parsley's considered one of the religious kingmakers in the 2008 presidential race. While he's not universally loved in evangelical circles by any stretch of the imagination, McCain is likely very pleased with the, er -- shall we call it an endorsement? Add John Hagee, the chairman of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), along with McCain-endorser Gary Bauer, who serves on CUFI's board, and Parsley, who is a CUFI regional director, and it looks like McCain is lining up the support of a contingent of the Christian right that could make McCain's off-the-cuff bomb-bomb-Iran and 100 years in Iraq remarks seem, well, prophetic.


--Sarah Posner

Posted by Sarah Posner on February 27, 2008 10:56 AM

2. McCain's Apocalyptic Support (on Hagee)

John McCain picked up the endorsement yesterday of San Antonio televangelist and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) founder John Hagee, who cited the candidate's opposition to abortion and "support" of Israel.

Even though Hagee hosted Mike Huckabee for a guest sermon at his church last December, his support for McCain is not a huge surprise. Last year, Hagee and McCain had a private breakfast in San Antonio after which Hagee declared McCain "solidly pro-Israel", which, in CUFI parlance, is code for opposition to a two-state solution. Hagee contributed $1,000 to McCain's campaign (although he also later contributed to Huckabee's as well.)

This past summer, McCain appeared at CUFI's annual summit, where he "joked" about how hard it is to do God's work in the city of Satan. (He repeated a similar line earlier this week at a town hall event in Cincinnati at which McCain "spiritual guide" Rod Parsley shared the stage.) While McCain might be able to laugh this off as a little quip about the foibles of Washington, to followers of Hagee and Parsley, "spiritual warfare" is a very real part of everyday life, in which they, as godly people, do battle with Satanic forces. When talking about CUFI, though, talking about battles is really no joking matter, since Hagee has been beating the drum for war with Iran -- which he believes will result in the world-ending battle at Armageddon -- for over two years.

At the CUFI summit, McCain got a lukewarm reception, and many participants I spoke with were skeptical about his socially conservative credentials -- although Israel was a top issue, abortion was also high on their lists. Most I spoke to supported Huckabee, who at that point (July 2007) was still an asterisk, and some others Sam Brownback -- who is now supporting McCain. But as far as Hagee's endorsement goes, I guess there's not much of a question now what Hagee's upcoming sermon is going to be about.

--Sarah Posner


Posted by Sarah Posner on February 28, 2008 8:37 AM

Hagee is probably worse than Parsley, although it's a tough call. The former is in love with the idea of starting WW3 with Iran. I love how even the most supposedly "independent" and "maverick" members of the GOP are still groveling suckers at the feet of these fat hypocritical preachers.

Baby Bible Bashers

**UPDATE: There is more attention on this now, and you can watch the full program clips here (as of now)**

As if you need more incentive to gag than seeing young kids scared out of their minds by religious bullshit: demons, hellfire, God's anger...then take a gander at Samuel Boutwell and other "pint-sized preachers" featured in Channel 4's "Baby Bible Bashers" series. They are placed outside of abortion clinics, made to scream at the "homersexshuls" that are ruining our country and using gay penguins to transform us into Sodom...

You can watch a lot of this on YouTube, or see a clip of him here.

We've seen this little brainwashed joker Boutwell before, and in his interview with Juju Chang on ABCNews, which you can see the extended version of on YouTube (see another clip here), when asked why he was preaching, he admitted that his dad wanted him to. When she asked him further questions, he was stumped. It became painfully obvious he was regurgitating the shit he'd been programmed to.

"everything is dark-sided" Jesus freak special

I'm as sick as a dog, so it really hurt to watch this:

UPDATE: Now I feel really bad.

Contrast: "Biblical Science" v. Science

This is fantastic:

(H/T: PZ)

Some politics notes

A few notes from politics and beyond:

So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).

The Obama smear piece didn't work out so well.

The GOP's philosophy: "the government which governs least, governs best" -- boy, do they prove that one wrong.

The GOP's sex-ed policy proves itself an utter failure (yet again).

Paul Krugman explains why comparisons between Darth Vader and Cheney are unfair:

Back when Hillary Clinton described Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, a number of people pointed out that this was an unfair comparison. For example, Darth Vader once served in the military.

Here’s another reason the comparison is invalid: the contractors Darth Vader hired to build the Death Star actually got the job done.

In climate change-related news, hybrid sales are rocketing, the US is under mounting pressure to actually do something at Bali to help solve the global CO₂ problem, and the WSJ really is doing well in its new role as Fox News Lite:

WSJ editor insults scientists, attacks Gore.

In an op-ed this morning mocking former Vice President Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “attacks the international scientific consensus without providing a single piece of counterevidence.” In order to cast doubt on the consensus, Jenkins insults the entire scientific community as people who “do not wait for proof“:

It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn’t. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.

Climate Progress ably takes Jenkins to task for his insults and distortions.

Murdoch has certainly done well placing such editorials there.

Don't forget to Buy Blue this season (the site is undergoing reconstruction, so use the web archive links). I will.

Consider supporting some godless charities this holiday season, rather than giving money to organizations that proselytize.

A few religion-related things

Stanley Fish has redeemed himself a little since his last foray into comment on religion. This time, he emphasizes sound legal logic:

...the issues Locke identified and analyzed will never be resolved. In her dissent in Boerne, Justice O’Connor wrote, “Our Nation’s Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, not a secular society in which religious expression is tolerated only when it does not conflict with generally applicable law.”

Yes, that’s the question. Do we begin by assuming the special status of religious expression and reason from there? Or do we begin with the rule of law and look with suspicion on any claim to be exempt for it, even if the claim is made in the name of apparently benign religious motives? [emphasis mine]

His language is tilted towards the former policy, and that means he's gained back a little of my respect.

Also, a great day for the Constitution and church-state separation as the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state-sponsored religious program of Chuck Colson in prisons.

And on another religious note, there's an interesting new analysis of the Gospel of Judas, and one which claims the other interpretations are thoroughly wrong:

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons — an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians’ belief in the atoning value of Jesus’ death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

The author strongly criticizes National Geographic for getting it wrong. Interesting, but not very likely to impact the scholarly Christian rejection of the document either way. Mainstream Evangelicals would probably be more likely to support the document now, though, since it jives better with their interpretation of Judas.

You probably won't hear this from them

A new study shows that sexual dysfunction is directly correlated to abstaining from sex until later in life. You probably won't hear about this from the "abstinence-only" crowd:

While past research has linked early sexual activity to health problems, a new study suggests that waiting too long to start having sex carries risks of its own.

Those who lose their virginity at a later age -- around 21 to 23 years of age -- tend to be more likely to experience sexual dysfunction problems later, say researchers at Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute's HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies.

The study will appear in the January 2008 issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Men who lose their virginity in their 20s, in particular, seemed to be more likely to experience sexual problems that include difficulty becoming sexually aroused and reaching orgasm.

Who wants to bet that this study will be conveniently ignored by the RR? Keep in mind that this is the same crew who buried the government report showing the failure of their "wait until marriage" programs. As I said a few months ago, it isn't about the facts, but about religious control of people's sexual freedom:

Anti-choicers would do well to read up on the facts, and a new WHO study shows that abortion rates are highest in countries where it is illegal, and lowest in countries which have comprehensive sex ed programs and abundant contraception choices. Contrary to all the spin and stupidity, although the US is much more religious than European countries, we have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions than them. Why? Because the religiosity of our country blinds people to the reality that curtailing these things is only accomplished through sex ed for teens and widely-available contraceptive choices. In other words, if they really care about "saving" fetuses, they should be pushing contraception. Instead, they push failed "abstinence-only" policies that lead to more teen pregnancies and STDs. These people don't care about other people, just about controlling them.

In addition to that:

Faith-based programs are nothing but a sham to buy the votes of religious-right knuckle-draggers. These programs have no evidence to demonstrate their veracity, and in some cases, evidence to the contrary (i.e., "abstinence-only education" -- "According to a study released in March at the National STD Prevention Conference, 88 percent of 12,000 teenagers who took an abstinence pledge reported having sexual intercourse before they married. Although they delayed intercourse for up to 18 months, when they became sexually active, those who signed pledges were less likely to use condoms and less likely to seek medical help for STD infections than their peers.").

On the same topic -- 237 reasons why we "do it".

Child preachers, abortion & the RR, oh my!

1. This video on child preachers just makes me sad. Check out Marjoe. I did.


2. The new documentary, "Lake of Fire," has stirred up some controversy. Anti-choicers would do well to read up on the facts, and a new WHO study shows that abortion rates are highest in countries where it is illegal, and lowest in countries which have comprehensive sex ed programs and abundant contraception choices. Contrary to all the spin and stupidity, although the US is much more religious than European countries, we have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions than them. Why? Because the religiosity of our country blinds people to the reality that curtailing these things is only accomplished through sex ed for teens and widely-available contraceptive choices. In other words, if they really care about "saving" fetuses, they should be pushing contraception. Instead, they push failed "abstinence-only" policies that lead to more teen pregnancies and STDs. These people don't care about other people, just about controlling them.


3. The RR still doesn't know quite what to do: back the serial-adulterer Giuliani with a liberal track-record on judicial appointments, Mormon "Magic Underwear" Romney -- someone they know only became "pro-life" 5 minutes ago (both he and Giuiliani fit into this category), or someone they know will not win? Dobson swears he'll choose the latter.
   

Religion Today

Faith-based programs are nothing but a sham to buy the votes of religious-right knuckle-draggers. These programs have no evidence to demonstrate their veracity, and in some cases, evidence to the contrary (i.e., "abstinence-only education" -- "According to a study released in March at the National STD Prevention Conference, 88 percent of 12,000 teenagers who took an abstinence pledge reported having sexual intercourse before they married. Although they delayed intercourse for up to 18 months, when they became sexually active, those who signed pledges were less likely to use condoms and less likely to seek medical help for STD infections than their peers.").

Now, we find that Jebus doesn't make criminals less likely to end back up in prison. Surprise, surprise:

A study prepared for the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission by the Criminal Justice Resource Center “shows little difference between recidivism among participants in Genesis One and other inmates leaving the prison system,” the AP reported.

One of my favorite most roundly-criticized theocrats is now signing off -- D. James Kennedy.

I guess some hope remains for these RR troglodytes: they could pray their opponents into an early grave.

So Depressing

So sad to read about Hein v. FFRF.

SCOTUS is just what the theocrats had wet dreams it would be -- completely unmoved by the idea that the Executive Branch using tax money to further religion is unconstitutional.

Taxpayers, he said, "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" by allowing such faith-based funding to continue, suggesting the federal government could build a national house of worship, or buy Jewish Stars of David and distribute them to public employees.

"Of course none of these things has happened," said Alito, and "in the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in."

*sigh*

Things very similar to this have happened -- the government funds appropriated for "abstinence-based sex ed" have been used to promote religious ideology over scientific fact at the expense of the health of millions of people. The exponential rise of AIDS in Africa can rightly be framed as a serious implication of such policies, in concert with Vatican dogma against condom usage.

Alito is the author of the unitary executive legal theory which all but confers dictatorial powers to the President, which he has cited numerous times in his usage of "signing statements" to bypass him having to actually obey the law. This should come with little surprise. Everyone knew that Kennedy was the swing vote.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state, Politics

"Author of a Controversial Paper on the Medical Benefits of Prayer Is Accused of Plagiarizing"

And I'm not surprised in the least. How else could you find evidence for a phenomenon that doesn't exist (the healing power of prayer), except to fabricate it?

Author of a Controversial Paper on the Medical Benefits of Prayer Is Accused of Plagiarizing

By ELYSE ASHBURN

A controversial study that claimed to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer in medicine has suffered yet another blow to its credibility, as one of its authors now stands accused of plagiarism in another published paper.

Doctors were flummoxed in 2001, when Columbia University researchers published a study in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine that found that strangers' prayers could double the chances that a woman would get pregnant using in-vitro fertilization. In the years that followed, however, the lead author removed his name from the paper, saying that he had not contributed to the study, and a second author went to jail on unrelated fraud charges.

Meanwhile, many scientists and doctors have written to the journal criticizing the study, and at least one doctor has published papers debunking its findings.

Now the third author of the controversial paper, Kwang Y. Cha, has been accused of plagiarizing a paper published in the journal Fertility and Sterility in December 2005. Alan DeCherney, editor of Fertility and Sterility and director of the reproductive biology and medicine branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said on Monday that it was clear to him that Dr. Cha, who has since left Columbia, plagiarized the work of a South Korean doctoral student for a paper he published on detecting women who are at risk of premature menopause.

Jeong Hwan Kim, then a student at Korea University, in Seoul, had published the same paper in a South Korean journal in January 2004, according to Sunday's Los Angeles Times. Mr. Kim brought the matter to the attention of Fertility and Sterility in the spring of 2006, Dr. DeCherney said. In an interview on Monday, he said he had spent the intervening time confirming the accusations.

Dr. DeCherney said he would recommend that the journal's oversight committee publish a statement saying that the paper was plagiarized and bar Dr. Cha, who appeared as the lead author on the paper, and the five other listed authors from publishing in the journal for three years. The publication committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, which oversees the journal, is expected to decide on the issue in April.

Dr. Cha, a businessman whose company owns fertility clinics in Los Angeles and Seoul, could not be reached for comment on Monday. He also did not return calls from the Los Angeles Times, according to that newspaper's report.

Dr. DeCherney said that he had compiled a list of other papers Dr. Cha has published in Fertility and Sterility, and that he would review the list if other complaints arose. As for the validity of the 2001 paper on the efficacy of prayer, Dr. DeCherney said his journal had declined to publish the findings in the first place.

"It's baloney," he said. "That's not in question."

Editors at The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, which is affiliated with several organizations including the Martin L. Stone Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of the New York Medical College, did not return calls for comment on Monday. Lawrence D. Devoe, the journal's editor in chief, said in 2004 that the journal was further scrutinizing the paper (The Chronicle, December 2, 2004).

But Bruce L. Flamm, a researcher who has worked for years to debunk the 2001 paper, said the plagiarism accusations against Dr. Cha should leave the Journal of Reproductive Medicine with no choice but to retract it.

"I'm convinced that paper is fraudulent," said Dr. Flamm, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Irvine. "And over the years, everything that has happened has confirmed that opinion, not moved me away from it."

There simply is no magical correlation between faith and health. Sorry, folks, but facts are facts.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion,

Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine

We have all heard the various arguments that religion is good for your health in some way or another. We have all heard that there are "numerous studies that show/support this"...where is the proof?

Some time back, I took a serious look at this question, and found, with no exception whatsoever, that no study had ever established any such correlation. (Make sure to check out the comments section of that post)

The problems with all studies purporting to support this correlation are consistently demographic and sociological in nature -- for example: studies that show that older people who attend church are twice as likely to be healthy as those who don't are flawed when they do not take into account the question of whether those who do not attend are still religious, and those who physically cannot go out to church because they are sick. That is, it is cherry-picking an already-healthy group (those who can go out [at all] every week) and comparing them to a group that certainly contains some bedridden and shut-in elderly persons.

These sorts of flaws pervade the studies claimed to support the contention that I have looked at, without exception. The best-controlled studies show no statistical significant effects of prayer or religion upon health, and many show the converse. The researchers are quick to point out that many sick persons adopt more religious beliefs as their illness progresses, though, in order to "protect" cherry-picking in the opposite way from that mentioned before. Also, the newest and most comprehensive studies on intercessory prayer proved to have no good effect whatsoever upon those being prayed for. See here for serious analysis of that study.

I have also pointed out that the correlation between health and religion is one we expect, given the numerous promises to "covenant health" throughout the Bible. Dr. Richard Sloan has done more research in this field than any other medical doctor I'm aware of, and he agrees that the bottom line is, "no evidence":

When you suggest that religious activity is associated with better health, you implicitly suggest quite the opposite: that poor health is a product of insufficient devotion, insufficient faith. It's bad enough to be sick. It's worse still to be catastrophically ill. To add the burden of guilt and remorse on top of that is simply unconscionable. And that happens all the time.

So for a variety of ethical reasons, it seems clear to me, regardless of what the empirical evidence is, that bringing religion into medicine not only makes no sense, it's simply wrong to do, even if there were solid evidence--which, of course, there isn't.

So . . . there's just no solid evidence, and the ethical problems are so serious they have to be addressed. We should simply not tolerate attempts to bring religion into medicine until these matters have been resolved.

I am posting below an excerpt from the Chronicle from his new book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, which takes the longest and most comprehensive look at the connection between medicine and religion that has ever been published. It will not help give the religious any more faith, and will instead present unequivocal evidence that their prayers are being uttered to uncaring, dead, empty space, rather than an all-loving and knowing Being. But, those I know who waste their time wailing to walls and uncaring air are somewhat unlikely to allow empirical evidence to sway their supernatural "feelings".

The Critical Distinction Between Science and Religion
By RICHARD P. SLOAN
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i11/11b01301.htm

The view that all human experience can be reduced to the function of biological activity may be satisfying to scientists, but it is anathema to theologians. The researchers Marguerite Lederberg and George Fitchett recognize this problem in an interesting article with the provocative title "Can You Measure a Sunbeam With a Ruler?" In it, they explore the scientific problems with attempts to reduce the experience of religion to the measurable quantities of science. The point of their title is to reiterate a longstanding concern in science: the difficulty of quantifying human experience. By attempting to measure a sunbeam and in so doing reduce it to that which can be quantified by a ruler, we lose the character of the sunbeam itself. While such measurement may be possible, it cannot capture the essence of the sunbeam and in fact may distort it.

Trying to quantify religious experience by counting the number of times a person reports attending church, the most commonly used index of religious involvement, is like trying to measure a sunbeam with a ruler: It may be possible, but the essential character of the experience is lost in the process. It is like trying to quantify the aesthetic experience of listening to a Beethoven symphony by counting the number of times a listener smiles. No doubt we could conduct brain-imaging studies to demonstrate differences in the activity of cerebral structures while listening to the Ninth Symphony and to white noise. Would that tell us anything about the aesthetic experience? Would it mean that this experience is explained by the activity of that specific brain region? Is that all there is to it? Is the majesty of listening to Beethoven, viewing the Grand Canyon, or appreciating the vastness of the universe merely the product of increased activity of certain regions in the brain? And could we reproduce these experiences simply by administering the right medication or electrical stimulation?

As productive as this strategy of reductionism has been and as promising as it continues to be for science, we ought to question seriously what insights it yields in the study of religion. Religion and science are independent approaches to knowledge, and neither can be reduced to the other. Religion and science are fundamentally different, with the former relying on faith as a source of wisdom and the latter demanding evidence. Religious truths generally are considered to be enduring and not subject to change. Scientific truths, on the other hand, are completely dependent on evidence, and as new evidence emerges, scientific truths change accordingly.

For these reasons, attempts to understand religious experience by scientific means can never be satisfying to religion. They can satisfy only science.

Using the methods of science to examine religion has another seemingly unintended consequence: It has led to attempts to establish the relative merits of different religious traditions by scientific means. After all, if we can determine scientifically whether frequency of attendance or frequency of prayer is associated with health outcomes, then shouldn't we begin to test whether the type of service makes a difference? If we are truly interested in collecting information relevant to health outcomes, then we should want to know whether it is better for our health to attend a Catholic mass or a Quaker meeting. Are Orthodox Jewish services better for our health than Reform services? Is there a health advantage to praying five times a day, as Muslims do, as opposed to the three times of Orthodox Jews? Why is it acceptable to determine that more-frequent attendance at religious services is better for your health than less-frequent attendance, but it is not acceptable to determine that Christian services are better for your health than attending Jewish or Muslim services?

Most researchers in the field of religion and health do not address this matter. My guess is that if they were asked, they would oppose contrasting the health benefits of different religious denominations. But why should they object? Presumably, the objection to studying the different health effects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for example, is that it would be offensive if we discovered that one religion was superior to the other two. The offense lies in the implication that those who practice the medically less beneficial religions would be better off converting to the medically more beneficial one.

Such a recommendation would be seen as out of bounds by most people. But why should it be? Attending services at an Orthodox synagogue or a Catholic church is a religious behavior that we can measure, just like attending services more or less frequently. Why is recommending conversion from one religious denomination to another for hypothetical health benefits more offensive than recommending that people who attend services only once per month attend more frequently because the latter, some believe, is better for their health, or recommending that people increase the amount of time spent praying?

We are on dangerous ground here, and the danger lies once again in a critical distinction between science and religion. It is a distinction that proponents of the religion-health connection obliterate, whether they intend to or not. Science permits us, in principle, to answer these questions. Without a doubt, we could conduct a study contrasting the health effects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for example. It could be done in precisely the same way that researchers have examined the effects of higher versus lower frequency of attendance at religious services, or greater or lower frequency of private prayer or reading the Bible or listening to religious radio programming. From the scientific perspective, there is no fundamental difference between using religious denomination or religious attendance as the predictor variable.

Although science allows us to conduct such a study, ethics and religion ought to tell us how ridiculous such a comparison would be. In today's world (and in the past as well), we have ample evidence of religious strife. This should not diminish the value that religion has for many people, but no one can dismiss the fact that religious factionalism has been responsible for conflict at the societal and familial level for thousands of years. Even if we could, hypothetically, demonstrate that Protestant prayer is better for one's health than Catholic prayer, why would we ever want to do so?

It undoubtedly is true that we can submit religious ritual and experiences to scientific study to determine if they are associated with beneficial health outcomes. But to do so runs the risk of trivializing the religious experience, making it no different from other medical recommendations made by physicians. If attending religious services becomes no different than consuming a low-fat diet or getting regular exercise, a great deal will have been lost. Bringing religion into the world of the scientist must by definition reduce religion to measurable indices that strip it of the sense of transcendence that distinguishes it from other aspects of our lives. Doing this dumbs religion down, making it so bland and universally acceptable that it has lost all of its meaning.

Ironically, this reductionism is precisely the problem that many in the religious community have railed against. Steven Goldberg, author of Seduced by Science, wrote, "When prayer is innocuous, it is no rival to the materialistic view of the world." Bringing religion into the "laboratory" of the scientist cannot help but contribute to the inevitable comparisons of the "scientifically established" virtues of one religion, or one type of religious practice, over others. In a world riven with religious factionalism and strife, it's hard to think of a worse idea.

Richard P. Sloan is a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University. This essay is excerpted from Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, published this month by St. Martin's Press.

The Chronicle Review
Volume 53, Issue 11, Page B13
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion