More Drivel Published As Fact-Going Rogue with Sarah Palin

Apparently the AP checked out some of the claims in Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue", only to find that much like her ability to think critically the book is full of crap.

Harsh, I know, but seems according to the AP to be true. It fits with all the other facts that had been discovered about the woman's behavior patterns before and after the elections that it's hard to write this off as confirmation bias.

The article is found here.

From the sounds of it, this is a pre-campaign rally cry and platform builder, laced with distortions and lies. For people who are already pro-neo-conservatives or don't care about little things like facts the book is preaching to the choir. For those who didn't trust her the first time around and prefer facts over rhetoric the book is yet another example of what is wrong with the current Republican party.

(Thought for the day: while skepticism isn't inherently liberal or conservative, I do think that there are certain things that attract like minded individuals, much like you don't find many Amish doing system administration...)

The Dystonia Cheerleader: a Followup

Steven Novella posted a followup to his blog entry about the cheerleader that supposedly suffered from Dystonia as a side effect of getting a flu shot. Anti-vax groups appear to be starting to back off as Dystonia advocates are coming forward to enlighten them with how much crap the anti-vaccination groups are full of.

I had pointed to Steve's blog post here a few days ago. It's sad how quickly she was foisted up as a poster child for the anti-vax people, just long enough to get five minutes of fame for their cause, then back off just as the media is no longer paying any attention to the story and so the truth will probably never get advertised. The stigma for getting flu shots will stay in the public awareness while never hearing the followup...basically, "whoops, we screwed up!"

The fact is that she needs help and hopefully she'll get it. The anti-vax'ers aren't the ones to give it, though.

On Religion: Questions and Doublethink

I apologize in advance that this is a rather rambling bit. This chronicles a line of thought I was having one morning as I was pondering an idea. I think it's a fair question. Some might find it offensive. Others may think they have an answer. I've yet to hear an answer that truly answers the questions posed. But if you'd like you can leave comments. Maybe it'll give you something to think about. Maybe you believe in something contrary and are comfortable with what I perceive to be holes in reasoning. This isn't meant to change minds.

It was just something I was thinking about in the car one morning. Stuck in construction. So here it is.
*******
I was listening to a podcast that tends to be a bit on the offensive side when a question occurred to me. See, this particular podcast has a bit where the host has a conversation with Satan. The host was talking to him this time because in real life his father was in the hospital and he wanted to make sure there wasn't going to be any funny business by the Prince of Darkness. One comment made by Satan was that the host of the podcast didn't have a soul, so there wasn't really anything he had to offer.

That's when I began to wonder, why is it that Satan is portrayed as doing what he does?

Why does he take souls to Hell? I mean, is it like currency or something?

Is this supposed to be like spitting at God?

But...if God is almighty, he could wash it all away on a whim. I don't get it. It's not raising a fist of defiance at God since He's allowing it to happen. He coudl stop it at any time. It's not an annoyance.

And why would Satan keep doing this for eternity? Doesn't it get repetitive?

It seems as if Satan is providing quite a service, actually, as a boogeyman in stories told to children by religious parents. Behave, or you'll go to Hell! Behave, or Satan will take your soul!

It occurred to me that if Satan wanted to really get more souls, he should make some kind of resort down there in the underworld. Grant wishes. Let me win the lottery. I'll have more than a little loyalty for someone that makes my every financial stress evaporate. I mean, what's with the torture thing? I have never run across any explanation for why Satan has this infatuation with pain and misery. Especially for eternity. What's the deal with that?

It's not like he's trapped in Hell if he keeps supposedly coming to Earth to mess with humans. He could really just chill out for awhile at the Mall of America. I hear it's a fun place to visit.

I guess I don't understand what motivates him to do the whole taking souls thing.

Some had told me before that his motivations can't be discerned, like God's motivations and behaviors can't be understood by mere humans. I don't buy it. It's too convenient to say that; it's a brushoff. Why should humans love or swear loyalty to a being they can't hope to understand.

Also, if you can't hope to understand the motivations behind the behavior, that implies to me that the behavior doesn't follow any rules. It does what it does just...because. That means it's not intrinsically good or bad. It just is. So why is Satan evil, or God good, for that matter? Just because we define it that way? God is good simply because by definition what He does is good.

Why?

Under explanations that follow a rational way of living the act of murder is wrong, bad, because it acts in a way that does not respect an individual. It harms a collective group or community. It makes someone dangerous, and their behavior could mean that if Peter killed Bob without justification then Peter may kill me next. It's not because murder itself is intrinsically bad. We kill living beings all the time, telling ourselves that in that case it's okay because they're lower on the food chain, or it was an accident, or any of a number of reasons. There's always a reason that it's okay to eat that cheeseburger and it doesn't count as ending a life, or we can live with ourselves after we walk away from an accident that claimed someone else's life.

Under religion, it's just bad. There is no reason why other than we arbitrarily say so.

I find this to be a form of confusing doublethink. Maybe others don't. It's just one of a number of questions I've had that I think are quite reasonable but most Christians tend to eventually write off as "it's just the way it is," unable to provide a logical, reasoned answer. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

Is the Bible Outdated? Asperger Observations

This was interesting to me...and it may piss off some others who read it and happen to be religious. If you are religious and prone to getting bent out of shape by someone's opinion, skip to tomorrow's post or yesterday's. If you decide you're curious enough for this post then do us both a favor and read it the entire way through. If you want to respond, go ahead with the comments, as long as they're constructive and preferably have some reasoning to back up and support your view. I'd rather not close comments on the blog because someone wants to be an arse-head.

I mentioned previously that I had a wonderful time reading Look Me In the Eye by John Elder Robison. I really recommend it. I was about to put the book into my sacred storage area where I could have it for reference in the future...a bit of clutter programming in my head, I suppose, wherein I stash things I think I might want later because I really liked them...but instead I passed the copy on to my mother in law (and perhaps father in law) to read in hopes that they may understand me a little better. I believed that while I would love to put it into my storage area the book will be useful only if the words carry on in other people's minds, and the only way to do that is pass it along. So I did.

Moving on...I also mentioned in that blog post that John Elder has a blog. Well, he posted an interesting observation regarding religion. The question seemed to have been posted innocently, but it is one that I've often pondered in my own head and made observations regarding. It's a really touchy subject though. Big surprise. Usually when I've tried to explore it with other people...and I don't personally know other Aspies in realspace, since I'm rather isolated socially (and most Aspies aren't social butterflies anyway, another big surprise) I end up offending people which I find out after the fact. Or right to my face when they get really huffy and start getting petulant or just flat out angry or insulted, thinking I'm calling them stupid. It makes it really difficult to puzzle things out when other people from whom you're trying to get information and understanding aren't cooperative.

He (John Elder) stated that he's spiritual, but not in an organized religion of sorts. He was asked by a researcher why Aspergians tend to not follow religious organizations. On reflection it seemed that other Aspies he's met weren't religious either, and this researcher was actually collecting (or had collected) data regarding this topic and found that apparently most aren't religious. Coincidence?

Here's what I can say:
Aspergers seems to create a predisposition towards reason and logic. We prefer working for results, not warm fuzzy feelings. We prefer working with people we deem effective, not "nice".

I've been told by someone neurotypical and close to me that they have seen the trend where the more educated people tend to be liberal in their beliefs, and the less educated tend to be neo-Republican. The Republican party in the US is famous for their family value platform, Bible values platform, as well as their willingness to murder thousands of foreigners in war (as long as the guys in suits don't have to go and get shot at) and the all too common scandal of yet another affair from Republican figureheads. It's not limited to them, but they're the ones generally telling their supporters they'll burn in Hell on the pulpit...er, campaign platform...before retiring to their office for some alone time with their cute senate page. Have to make it a quickie though...they have to get to the floor in time to vote on the laws they proposed that make what they just did more illegal.

The poor tend to be more religious. Could that be part of the reason that the generally more impoverished live along the Bible Belt in the US?

Religion (speaking of Christian religion in Northeastern USA, since that is the kind I'm personally exposed to) is full of fallacies and contradictions. The Bible is wonderful in that it can justify everything from kindness to strangers and justifying banning abortions for the sanctity of life to killing homosexuals. If you have a view of something, chances are you and someone who disagrees with you will find some way the Bible supports your view.

But Barry! You said religion has fallacies and contradictions, but you talk about the Bible! The above mentioned the Bible in particular, but religion is worse, as it is basically an interpretation of the Bible by people. Many religions are based on the Bible yet there are how many sects you can join? There are the big ones, of course, like the Catholics and Baptists and Methodists. The major religions take potshots at groups like the Mormons for being a cult. But the even The Family is based on the Bible as well. Check them out if you want to see how wild things get.

Hypocrisy is rampant in various organized religions. I've known Mormons swigging caffeinated beverages and downing chocolate. Priests are in the news for turning altar boys into altar men. I know regular church attendees who hate particular people for their features or actions or traits...where's the Christian love Jesus was so fond of? I roomed with a guy in college who refused to utter a single swear word (even though I don't see the difference it made when he simply substituted another word for the curse...other than it annoyed the hell out of me. Frick this, frick that, gosh darnit...I wanted to punch him square in the mouth). This same guy was heard thumpin' the ceiling over the living room area of the common room of the college apartment when his girlfriend visited, and since she lived on campus, it was every, @#%-ing, night. I asked him how he could profess to be so religious when getting more tail than most prostitutes.

"I'm human and have failings. I ask for forgiveness for them."

So it's not religion that has the failings, it's the people...

I've also observed that the religious tend to not understand much of what they're talking about with issues related to their religion. I don't think most have any idea that Jesus, if he existed, didn't speak English. We still have people who every Christmastime insist that "Xmas" is trying to remove the Christ from Christmas. Makes a good headline and riles up the followers, but it's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Yet even when shown the proof I've had people insist their view was correct.

These are just some of the issues I had with religion while growing up.

If anything, I became a full atheist when I finally realized that with all the hypocrisy, contradictions, and ignorance I was encountering I simply couldn't live with what I felt were too many inconsistencies in the stories. I couldn't live with the idea that I would be living a lie. It came down to basically a question of would you rather be ignorant of what is happening and be happy, or know the truth and be miserable? It turns out that I'd rather know the truth.

I'm beginning to think this may be partially due to the Asperger's. There may also be a correlation between people being of liberal bias and having higher education, and true atheism and education (true atheism since I wouldn't count the people who have a "falling out" with God and thus say they're an atheist for it; they're just being pissy about something that happened to them, not seeking a higher truth). This correlation does not imply causation, but it does give one pause to scratch one's head a moment for some reflection.

This sounds arrogant. I'm simply stating what I've come to believe after a couple decades of observation and my own studies. Of course there's much more to it than I state here, but this is one facet of my understanding. And it pisses people off.

I don't know how to sugar coat it.

Even reactions to this give me a bit of a curiosity since in some cases it incites a lot of vitriol...when in most Christian sects, I'm supposed to be considered a wayward sheep in need of finding my way back with compassion. Another case of hypocrisy? I don't worry about it any more.

I don't know what the answers are with absolute certainty. But I do know what I've observed, and I know I've had many questions of religions that fail to have adequate answers. In the end people don't want to entertain the idea that they're wrong. They are happy with their beliefs. And I don't care what you believe as long as I don't suffer for what you believe. Myths, sky wizards, doublethink, whatever floats your boat. Just don't bother me unless you're willing to have an actual reasoned discussion. I have enough legislated morality to swim through in my world already.

I'll be interested to see what comments John Elder's blog post receives. I worry that some people will dismiss my opinions more then they already do if they associate my atheism with being "brain damaged" with Asperger's when perhaps it should give some pause to the fact that if there is a strong correlation, maybe they should wonder why people who are wired to see things through a nonemotional filter see religion as a sham, in general. But on the other hand maybe it's another reason to just leave my brain-damaged self alone.

Taking Advantage of People: Airborne

I was listening to a podcast that was discussing in part how celebrities are listened to for medical advice; in particular, Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccination tirades. The woman has no medical training and yet an endorsement from Oprah somehow makes her qualified as an authority figure for medical advice.

That got me to thinking about other things that are successfully marketed despite the information available publicly that the claims are baloney; they're successful because people want them to be true, and because of this the people making these products knowingly take advantage of the public. It's really quite disgusting.

Case in point: Airborne.

I was thinking of this because, oddly enough, I was in Walmart shortly after listening to said podcast dropping off a prescription and I saw this medication in the aisle. You've probably heard of it. It's a supplement that is supposed to fight off colds and flu, invented by a school teacher (being an elementary school teacher somehow carries over into being qualified to market medications...probably because there's an association between a room of kids and being covered in bacteria and virus laden snot, I suppose).

Now, the fact that they've been sued and lost over claims to their health effects should probably warn people about using it. From Wikipedia, the Federal Trade Commision sued them over false advertising and the company ended up paying 23 million dollars and another 7 million in class-action lawsuits.

Shouldn't it throw a warning flag up when the lab that supposedly tested the product turned out to be a two-man company created for the sole purpose of testing that one product?

Moreover, because it's marketed as an dietary supplement and not a drug there's no federal oversight on the claims made by the manufacturer...it's perfectly legal for them to knowingly sell something that is essentially a placebo. Worse, if you follow the directions you are overdosing on vitamin C which can cause other side effects with your kidneys.

I looked at the label on one of the Airborne products; you can see it here, on Amazon, for $17 (three 10-tablet tubes). Yum, zesty orange! Some facts (click nutrition information):

• One pill has 10% recommended intake of sodium. You're taking 10% of your recommended intake of salt with each pill. The instructions tell you to take it every three hours. Is that good?
• It has 2.8 mg Riboflavin
• 8 mg zinc
• 3 mg manganese
• 15 mcg selenium
• 5000IU vitamin A
• 1000 mg vitamin C
• 40 mg magnesium
• The rest are an herbal blend, which have no scienfic proof of being effective at healing or preventing disease.

All that for 30 tablets in this package for $17.

Let's look at a Centrum multivitamin, okay?

• According to the label off Amazon, there's no sodium.
• 1.7 mg riboflavin
• 15 mg zinc
• 2 mg manganese
• 20 mcg selenium
• 3500IU vitamin A
• 60 mg vitamin C (which is 100% of the recommended allowance)
• 100 mg Magnesium

And of course Centrum has a slew of other minerals and vitamins. This 250 pill bottle is $18.

$18 for 250 pills...versus $17 for 30 doses. And the Centrum has more minerals and vitamins in it. Hmm...

The real difference is that Airborne has herbs in it that haven't actually been shown to do anything, and before you poo-poo me for being anti-herbals, keep in mind that the company that makes Airborne commissioned a lab that consisted of two guys that had nothing to do with medicine (the "lab" was incorporated only to test this product, and they had no doctors, no researchers, nothing...ABC news discovered this in 2006). They never actually had any evidence that their own pills are actually effective under lab conditions. That should make your critical thinking caps start burning.

Sadly the sales of these things are still astronomical. It's a hugely expensive subset of what you get in a plain multivitamin (although...as I stated before...it has a dangerous level of vitamin C in it, which can HURT YOUR KIDNEYS as well as affect your absorbtion of other minerals in the body) for much less money.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if I'm a stupid person for not coming up with my own supplement concoction and selling it to an unsuspecting public. I could even bypass the whole claims thing from a fake lab so I can avoid bad publicity when skeptics like myself start digging into facts and tell people about the truth...

Scooby Doo as a Skeptical Role Model (Oh, and Happy Birthday)

This year is Scooby Doo's 40th birthday. Hard to believe.

At least he's older than I am.

Scooby premiered on September 13th, 1969. But you know the best part of the Scooby Doo cartoons? No, not the question of Velma's sexual orientation or what Fred and Daphne were doing when they weren't onscreen. Or even why Fred always wore that ascot.

Okay, maybe it was some of that.

What I was referring to was that the original incarnation of Scooby Doo was really an introduction for kids to think in a skeptical manner. Basically, skeptical thinking is just questioning an assertion before accepting it. It's integral to the scientific method; scientists must have proof for a claim and show that the idea is not pulled from their arses.

If you lived in a small island in the middle of the ocean that didn't happen to get television or popular media advertising for various toys in the past 40 years I'll tell you what Scooby Doo was; the premise was really very simple.

A bunch of teenagers (Fred, Shaggy, Velma and Daphne) drive around in a psychadelic van (the Mystery Machine) with their sentient talking dog with a speech impediment (Scooby Doo) until they arrive in a town of the week. In this town they encounter some ghost, creature or monster that is terrorizing some person, people, or townsfolk. This group of teenagers and their dog offer to investigate said monster, creature or ghost. Madcap chases ensue and eventually the monster, creature or ghost turns out to be a very human criminal trying to scare people away in order to commit or perpetuate some theft or scheme, which they would have gotten away with if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog.

In other words, they encounter some group that claims a ghost or monster is attacking their town and the Scooby gang investigates to find the truth behind the claim. Skeptical thinking for kids.

The early shows were just as much fun as they were formulaic. Later incarnations veered away from this and started getting more into the "woo" factor, incorporating "real monsters" and watering down the skeptical thinking to appeal more to the updated audience (or to distance the newer shows from the older ones).

But regardless of this straying from the concept, the original show was a fun romp for kids. I remember watching it as a kid and later on having fun with the in-jokes and yes, wondering what was up with Fred's fashion choices. I mean, an ascot? Geez, Freddie.

Happy birthday, Scooby. Thanks for the memories.

The Problem of Reasoning With Faith

There are a few points in my life when I really started to cement my philosophy of personal religious views.

One of them was when I realized the futility in arguing the nonexistence of a god. Primarily this is because theists can cite an argument that takes advantage of a flaw in inductive reasoning; namely, inductive reasoning proves what is probable, not what is infallible. For example we tend to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has in the past. There's some infintesimal chance that something could cause the sun to explode...but most people don't wake up thinking that is what will happen.

As is outlined in this paper this is a big reason that people will believe in something despite evidence to the contrary; you can't prove that it's not there because it's only probable that it's not there. For people that don't prefer to live by reason this is a perfect loophole.

For example...

Frank and Joe are friends who get together to have a chat. Frank tells Joe that there's a small invisible elephant named Nemo hovering over his head and that he controls the weather.

Joe is skeptical that there's a hovering Elephant named Nemo over Frank's head. "I don't see anything."

"He's invisible," says Frank.
"So how do you see him?"
"He wants me to so he lets me see him."
"Well...I want to see him. Can he show himself to me?"
"Not if he doesn't want to show you."
"What if I throw some paint above your head? Wouldn't that cover him so I could see him?"
"No, it'll pass through him."
"Does he make any sounds? Can I hear him?"
"Only if he lets you."
"So I can't hear him, I can't touch him, and I can't see him. How do I know he exists?"
"Easy! Look outside! Right there's the weather!"

This is how it is with theists discussing the existence of God; it's telling that basically in order for Joe to "see" Nemo he must first, like Frank, believe he's there and that way accept the shortcomings in the lack of evidence. Joe could tell Frank all about what is known regarding meterology; cold fronts, low pressure fronts, heating of oceans and humid air from the effects of the sun heating the ground and water, etc. etc...but see, it's complicated to understand those things. It's far more comforting to just say Nemo does it.

More accurately as science advances our understanding of weather Frank just will fall back on either Nemo wants us to believe that, or those are the mechanisms that Nemo uses to manipulate the weather. It's still Nemo controlling it.

No matter what there's still a fallback to dismiss these arguments. Science provides reproduceable results, testable hypothesis and theories, yet stacked against something whose abilities are believed to be...well, what amounts to magic...it's far simpler for Frank to dismiss Joe with a lot of hand-waving and he'll continue to take comfort in what he's already invested in believing. There's no way to definitively show that there is no Nemo above Frank's head because no matter what evidence Joe brings to the table Frank can dismiss that that's just how Nemo works or what Nemo wants. It's the power of the divine.

It is impossible to argue with people who don't want to hear what you're trying to say; don't even bother. It's uncomfortable for the majority of theists to listen to something that challenges what they've believed all their lives, something that comforts them, and for people like that comfort is more important than seeking truth.

Nontheists, the best approach is to simply be honest with yourself and others if asked. Don't push your ideas upon others; it'll be as unwelcome to them as when they push their beliefs on you. There are others who feel alienated because they are surrounded in their communities by theists and who question themselves because they are a minority in their own community. Finding others who are comfortable standing up and saying they don't believe in an organized religion can help you find others who share your perspective; you're not alone.

Creationism Bugs Me

I think I am beginning to understand one of the biggest reasons that the creationism movement bugs me so much. I got to thinking about it while skimming a book called Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul at a bookstore not long ago. It's the story of the semi-recent court battle over teaching Creationism in the classroom in Dover, PA. Sorry, Intelligent Design. Unfortunately there's a long history of bending semantics to try shoehorning the same idea into the curriculum of academia (see the evolution of the phrase "Creation Science").

What follows may be offensive to the more religious-minded. If you don't like having your ideas challenged you might as well quit reading now.

I have seen repeatedly that a significant percentage of atheists understand the Bible better than the majority of Christians. I don't necessarily mean quoting the Bible; I'm talking about understanding it. Anyone with time on their hands can memorize Shakespeare without understanding what Hamlet is really saying when telling Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunn'ry!" (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1) Getting into an argument over Biblical trivia is pointless.

The part that bugs me is quite simple. I would summarize Creationism thusly:
A magic being in the sky one day decided to create the Earth and various creatures on the Earth culminating in His ultimate creation, Man. Why he did it we don't know. He just did it. All creatures are the way they are because the magic invisible being just decided to do it.

This is, of course, paraphrasing. "Magic being" can be replaced with a number of different names, the most common of which in this area is God.

After poring over various Biblical passages the fundamentalists thus conclude that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Six thousand years ago God decided to create everything and at various points told people to record the events in a series of scrolls that later become the Bible (although most professing a strong belief in it don't seem to know the history of the Bible's origins)

That's pretty much it. Uncomplicated. Simple. Magic invisible being waved his magic stick and everything just popped into existence. The magic being has no origin, no end, nothing explaining where it came from. It's pretty simple to understand and any questions are usually dismissed with some vague hand waving.

Ask the good Creationist believer to summarize evolution and you usually get an equally vague explanation. Just some idea of creatures changing over time, if you're lucky, or the common one I had run into was that life just "sprang from nothing."

While the idea of Creationism is fantastically simple to understand...an invisible all powerful magic being who often is depicted looking like Milton Berle or Gandalf just decided one day that this is how things should be...evolution takes actual comprehension to understand. The people who want you to disregard the science usually have no idea what Evolution entails (especially the ones that say Evolution is bunk because life can't come from nothing; it's ironic both because they don't understand that evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life and also because these are the same people that say they believe in a magic being that has no origin, literally popping into existence from nothing. Or some idea of "always existing" or "exists outside this dimension". But evolution is simply way too crazy an idea for creationists to accept.

If you're going to cite that, demonstrate that you understand the math behind such an idea. Otherwise it's about as legitimate as The Force from Star Wars.

Unlike the idea of Creationism, Evolution has actual observable and provable hypothesis creating the foundation upon which it is based. It can be disproven; this is one of the fundamental ideas behind any empirical scientific theory. You can assert whatever you want. But it's not a scientific theory unless in some way it could be proven or disproven.

That is exactly why Creationism is not a science. It cannot be disproven or tested. This is a fundamental idea upon which science is based. How do you prove the nonexistence of God?

You can't.

Rather than rant or rave about that, here's my proposal. If a Creationist can accurately teach someone what evolution is, the actual science of evolution, so that that person understands evolution accurately then I would take them seriously in a discussion. They have to be able to teach evolutionary theory in their own words. Seems pretty simple.

The only way you can teach an idea to someone without simply regurgitating what a book states is to understand the idea. If you can teach someone else an idea in your own words; you understand the subject, and far too many people are proclaiming a strong believe in Creationism without having the faintest idea what they're talking about.

That is another bit of doublethink that leaves me baffled; if you are one of those people proclaiming a belief in an immortal soul, don't you kind of owe it to yourself to make sure you're right about your belief? I mean, that's quite a thing to leave to chance. So why hide behind dismissive hand waving and such when you probably should be devoting time to educating yourself about what you're investing your eternity in? Not just the memorization of Bible passages. Any goof can sit and memorize sequences of words. Rather, dedicate time to finding out what the other side is trying to tell about logical fallacies and mistakes, and understanding the history of the document which you are gambling your "soul" upon.

It's sad...there are far too many people who are entrenched in the idea that they are right about this magical history when they don't even know that the Bible wasn't a single document written in English.

Not that it matters much. True believers are often the move vehemently against exploring ideas that may contradict their belief system; they're too invested, emotionally, in the belief system to see beyond the world of comfort on which they rest their worldview. It may be psychologically damaging for them to entertain the idea that they are wrong about something so fundamental.

Or for many it's just easier to accept the simple explanation...magic, essentially...over learning what chromosomes and DNA are and how they work.

When Religion Kills

It seems religious tolerance is in fashion nowadays. There are those who try to spread the myth that Christians in the US are persecuted, as if they're the minority, and that atheists (or Christians of various sects) need to be tolerant of other people's views.

But what about situations where these religious beliefs lead to someone dying?

What if that someone was a child?

That's exactly what happened in this story where a woman was convicted for letting her child die from a condition that was easily and readily curable right up to the very end but instead of taking the child to a doctor she used prayer to save...well, not save...her eleven year old daughter.

I'm all about the philosophy of not caring what you do as long as you don't bother me. I don't care what you do behind closed doors. I don't care if you talk to invisible friends and I don't care about the plain brown wrappered boxes you have delivered to your home. If I don't hear it or smell it or have to participate and you don't disturb me, I could really not care less about what you do with your own time in your own home with consenting adults.

But when a person's religion ends up killing people, innocent people, I have an ethical problem with that. The most convenient bit of religious dogma is that all of this fits perfectly with the family's worldview; they pray for her to get well, and God would have saved her if He wanted her to live. She died, so it was His will to have this happen. Amen.

I see this as being superstitious nonsense akin to the murders in Africa happening today in the name of witchcraft; people are hunting and killing people because they're suspected of being witches. It's amazing what a lack of education can do. How can anyone see video footage like this and not condemn the perpetrators yet still call for tolerance for other people's beliefs leading to the death of children because of a preference for prayer over medical help? You can't have it both ways, saying there needs to be tolerance and respect for all other beliefs (although I'm led to believe that when someone says this, they actually mean respect and tolerance for their beliefs) while condemning some loons on a witchhunt in a remote village.

Unfortunately I would say that if I were to believe in the existence of a single Almighty God, I would have to also believe that since He allows all this to happen that it is all good. Otherwise He would have stepped in and done something about all of this. Since He hasn't, I'm led to believe that either He doesn't, in fact, exist, or it's okay since He's not intervening. One could argue about what He actually wants using passages from various scriptures but I'm afraid that without His clarification there is still room for you to be making interpretations of what is meant, meaning you could be wrong. The only authoritative conclusions would come from the horse's mouth. Seems pretty simple to boil it down. I've seen too many incidents similar to this to not have come to these conclusions.

Columbine and the Cassie Bernall Myth: I Believe in God!

My wife has been enthralled with the book Columbine by Dave Cullen. I haven't read it but as she hits interesting bits she's been sharing excerpts with me. She highly recommends it.

The bit she shared that really bugged me concerned the story of Cassie Bernall. If you followed the Columbine aftermath at all you heard this story; one of the killers looked Cassie in the face and asked her if she believed in God. She said yes. He shot her pointblank for it, martyring her.

The problem was that this story never happened. It was a myth. Fabricated. With evidence to back it up. And the press knew about it as they reported it. The local papers didn't even come out with the truth until after Misty Bernall published the book She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall about the mythical incident passing it off as truth.

Emily Wyant was an eyewitness, hiding under the table with Cassie at the time of the shooting. She said that there wasn't any such exchange before Cassie was shot...the killer slapped the table, said, "Peekaboo!", and shot her before walking away with a broken nose from the recoil of the weapon.

The Bernall family later came out with a press statement saying "'Our intent was to share Cassie's story in an effort to encourage parents and teenagers. If any of our actions have hurt or offended anyone, we sincerely apologize.'"

The truth is that the story was hijacked from a young woman named Valeen Schnurr. From the Salon article:

**********
Schnurr was down on her hands and knees bleeding, already hit by 34 shotgun pellets, when one of the killers approached her. She was saying, "Oh, my God, oh, my God, don't let me die," and he asked her if she believed in God. She said yes; he asked why. "Because I believe and my parents brought me up that way," she said. He reloaded, but didn't shoot again. She crawled away.
**********

According to Cullen's book Schnurr, when telling the truth of the incident, was accused of trying to steal attention from Bernall. She was ridiculed and threatened.

Worse, the church, despite later knowing the truth, continued to perpetuate the myth because it served their purpose of recruiting more followers on the tail of the tragedy. Members with only a small shred of decency to respect truth over hype at most concede that it's the symbolism behind the story that's important, not the truth (NOTE: the link I put in here is from someone who is reviewing Cullen's book and stated that he regrets perpetuating the myth to a youth group upon learning the truth...this isn't accusing him of being one of those against which I'm spearing here. Read his entry for the section regarding his thoughts on that incident).

This is one more illustration of my "problem" with the state of organized religion in the US. Reason, truth...they don't mean much to the institution. Here it's illustrated that they'll knowingly perpetuate myths and falsehoods in order to further the collective agenda while even marginalizing or denigrating, in this case, a young woman who was actually victimized. They essentially victimized her twice, once through the Columbine incident, once by having a Christian institution try to silence the truth.

It's horrible to me seeing such cognitive dissonance among self-proclaimed believers as well; it hardly strikes me as Christian to see this kind of behavior from the church. Yet it doesn't merit a second thought from congregations.

Shameful.

Gay Marriage and History

Beauty contestant Carrie Prejean was bashed for her silly off-the-cuff answer, which she apparently characterized as biblically correct instead of politically correct, to a question from Perez Hilton about her opinion of same-sex marriage rights in states.

Too often I hear people justify the anti-same-sex stance as being anti-biblical.

Just today I ran across a couple articles that may question the validity of that idea...or at least give a little history lesson on the origins of marriage.