Secular Sanity

While waiting in the doctor’s office, I decided to pass the time by perusing NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and came across a striking example of why religion is dysfunctional.  In an article by Laurence Gonzales entitled “How to survive almost anything” in the September, 2008 issue, I read that Illinois had 50% more tornadoes than Alabama.  Yet, although Illinois has a larger population than Alabama, far fewer Illinois residents died in tornadoes as did Alabamans.  The author wrote that this was because Alabamans had a fatalistic attitude and believed whatever happened to them was in God’s hands, while Illinoisans tended to believe what happened to them was up to them.
Robert Halfhill

1 Comment »

There is just no end of religious-proselytizing-as-news in the paper. Aug. 23 the Strib had a near-half-page article making it out that the Shroud of Turin might be authentic. This is a letter sent by Marie Alena Castle in response. Will it get printed? Doubtful!

Will the media ever stop promoting the Shroud of Turin as possibly authentic, as in your Aug. 23 article? Here’s all anyone needs to know to debunk claims of authenticity:

• The Shroud appeared around 1355 in Lirey, France. In 1389, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of that diocese wrote to Pope Clement VII objecting to treating the Shroud as genuine. He said a church official at Lirey had, “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, . . .” Bishop d’Arcis said a predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers, had “discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, . . .”

• The image on the back shows a full bloody footprint, requiring the knee to be bent. The front image shows the leg straight. The legs are disproportionately long.

• The hair and blood flow straight downward instead of toward the back, as when a body is lying down. The blood is not running into the hair and matting it but flowing over it.

• Read Looking for a Miracle by Joe Nickell and see how easy it is to create a “Shroud” image. Making a fake Shroud was no problem for a medieval artist.

6 Comments »

Evangelical Christians have been asked to pray for “rain of biblical proportions” to fall on Senator Barack Obama as he accepts the Democratic nomination.

By Toby Harnden in Washington 
Last Updated: 8:20PM BST 13 Aug 2008

Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family, one of America’s leading evangelical groups, was shown in a video filmed at Denver’s Invesco Field, where 75,000 are expected to cheer Mr Obama on Aug 28, asking Christians to pray for “torrential” rain.

“I’m talking ‘umbrella-ain’t-going-to-help-you rain,” the former pastor and television meteorologist said. He explained on the video: “I’m still pro life, and I’m still in favour of marriage as being between one man and one woman. And I would like the next president who will select justices for the next Supreme Court to agree.”

Mr Shepard, director of digital media at Focus Action, the political arm of Focus on the Family, insisted the video was supposed to be “mildly humorous”. But it was hastily removed by Focus on the Family after complaints from at least a dozen of its members. “If people took it seriously, we regret it,” said Tom Minnery, a spokesman.

In an interview with KOAA television Mr Shepard said: “Sure it’s boyish humour perhaps to wish for something like that. But at the same time it’s something people feel very strongly about. They’re concerned about where he would take the nation.”

John Morse, a Democratic state senator in Denver and an Obama supporter said: “Is praying for rain wrong? No, it’s not wrong, it’s soulless.”

He added: “It’s going to be an amazing moment in American history. Rain or shine.”

Members of Focus on the Family, led by James Dobson, one of the most powerful evangelical figures in America, heavily backed George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections, when the Religious Right was credited with delivering him his narrow victories.

But Mr Obama’s opponent John McCain has had a testy relationship with evangelicals, calling the leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000. He has attempted to rebuild bridges since then but in January Dr Dobson said he would not vote for the Arizona senator.

Dr Dobson relented last month saying that he might endorse Mr McCain but Republican operatives worry that a lack of enthusiasm for Mr McCain among evangelicals could seriously damage him in November.

A poll released by the Barna Group, a Christian research firm, found that Mr Obama had a nine point lead over Republican John McCain among Christians, though the Republican enjoyed a narrow advantage among evangelicals.

The pollsters noted that Mr Obama led among the “born again vote”, an outcome that could lead to Mr McCain being the first Republican in two decades to lose among that sector of the population.

In an indication of the importance of the candidates are placing on the evangelical vote, both will appear at the Saddleback megachurch, which is led by Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, in California on Saturday. It will be the first joint event they have attended during the 2008 campaign.

3 Comments »

Republican candidates proclaim their “prolife” position loud and clear, but Democrats tip-toe around the issue, as with Obama saying that determining the “human rights” of a fetus is “above my pay grade.” As an abortion rights advocate, just once I’d like to hear Obama (and Franken, and all prochoice candidates) say something like this:

“On the matter of abortion, my position is 100% in support of women. To politicize their childbearing ability, and attempt to penalize them for that in so many ways, and sic the law on them so they must continue a pregnancy that is making their lives a living hell is unconscionable.

“If you don’t care if they are the victims of rape or their health or life is endangered or the fetus is severely damaged or they’ll be beaten by disapproving parents or lose their jobs or find getting a college degree so much harder, then I don’t see how you can care to the point of zealotry about what happens to a microscopic speck of undifferentiated cells  or a partially developed fetus that may or may not become an actual human being—especially since you seem to have so little concern for the right of actual born children to a decent life and healthcare and education. If you can worry about whether using embryonic stem cells for medical research to cure diseases is “humane” yet not worry one bit about the inhumanity of your assaults on women’s autonomy, you have no standing to even discuss this matter.

“In fact, regardless of what any of us think of abortion, NONE of us has standing! The only ones with standing are the women involved. Whether or not to have an abortion is ALL of their business and NONE of mine, NONE of yours, and NONE of anyone else’s. Women are NOT a public utility and I will have no part in helping you make them one.

“So my position is this: I’m standing with and for the women. They’re not a bunch of airheads. If they need help, I’ll give it, but they don’t need me or you or anyone else to tell them what to do about a disastrous pregnancy. Thank you.”In Defense of Women

Comment by Bud:
Way to go Marie, you told them off in terms even a republican could understand !

.

1 Comment »

Medical professionals who cannot put the wellbeing of patients ahead of their irrational religious beliefs should find another line of work. It is a strange conscience indeed that would sacrifice a rape victim-a real live human being-to doctrinal notions about the supposed personhood of a microscopic speck of undifferentiated cells that has only the possibility of becoming an actual human being. It’s the same kind of conscience that, in the Middle Ages, sent real live human beings to the stake to preserve irrational religious beliefs about the existence of witches. It takes a seriously perverted moral compass to justify inflicting real harm on real people in the real world to preserve the figments of one’s imagination.

2 Comments »