Co-signer of Ten Commandments Bill Can't Name Commandments

This is hysterical.



Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia was able to name three ("Don't murder," "Don't lie," "Don't steal") before giving up. This guy co-sponsored a bill which reads in part as follows:

Resolved, That if the Supreme Court of the United States holds in either the case of Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500 (TX) or the case of McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693 (KY) that the display of the Ten Commandments in public places by State and local governments constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, thereby ruling against religious freedom and diminishing the importance of the Ten Commandments to the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall provide for the display of the Ten Commandments in the chamber of the House of Representatives.

Obvious: maybe he wants them posted because he can't remember them!

Can you believe this person is a congressman? I can see blanking on one or two of them if put on the spot, but giving up after three? Hysterical.

(via Boing Boing, among others.)

What Goes On in "Social Conservatives'" Heads

I've been having an interesting conversation with Half Sigma over the course of a few of his posts about assuming the worst about people. He assumes that liberals act out of guilt rather than caring, for example, while I argue the reverse is more often the case.

I'm often tempted to assume that the people against civil unions and gay marriage are acting out of prejudice, and I'm sure it's true for a lot of them, but not all. With the immigration issue, I'd like to believe that most who oppose any sort of amnesty are acting out of a strongly-held belief in law and order or a legitimate fear that our economy can't absorb so many immigrants.

My instincts are to give people the benefit of the doubt. As I've mentioned before, for example, I've always assumed that Bush is neither racist nor particularly homophobic. It's hard to imagine in these modern times that people -- particularly educated ones -- could still hold such hateful views.

But we must remember that it's not as implausible as you might think.

Here's Nixon on gays:

I don't mind the homosexuality, I understand it . . . Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddamn it, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that so was Socrates.

...

You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They (had sex with) the nuns, that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell, three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain, it happened earlier to France.

Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, (Atty. Gen. John) Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove (an elite, secrecy-filled gathering outside San Francisco), which I attend from time to time. It is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.

This is Richard Nixon, as president, not that long ago, in 1971, talking about "Negroes" and Mexicans:



And let's not forget his anti-semitic rantings:

NIXON: "What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews, Bob."

HALDEMAN: "What we ought to do is get a zealot who dislikes those people."

NIXON:"Go after them like a son of a bitch."

Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"

Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us."
(Slate.)

What goes on in today's closed-door meetings? What do current "conservatives" say when nobody's listening? It's impossible to know what goes on in people's minds (unless they're dumb enough to speak their darkest thoughts on tape.) But I think that any African-Americans, Jews, Latinos, homosexuals, or White Christians who aren't racist or homophobic, do a dangerous thing in trusting that social conservatives' motives are pure. Today's Federal Marriage Amendment is yesterday's Anti-Miscegenation Amendment. Today's homophobia is yesterday's racism. And much of the anti-immigrant movement is today's racism.

Deeply Disturbing: A New Generation of Praying Children

Wow. At first I thought this was an over-the-top parody. But it seems genuine. It was originally created and posted by a woman going by the name of Hidden in Him. I don't know who the preaching child is, but I'm scared for her. And of her.

Says the creator of the video:

I got the mp3 of the children praying on Fire on the Altar.....I used the mp3 to make the video....These children possess a complete abandonment to Holy Spirit....A passion and a fire to run into the arms of Jesus without dely....They are zealous for more of him....This is what true worship is all about....This is worshipping in spirit and in truth...This is what loving your enemies, neighbors, brothers and sisters, the lost, dying is all about.....Who will stand in the gap? Who will cry out for the lost? If we won't, he will find someone who will....even if it is a two year old, a four year old, an eight year old, or a twelve year old.....Isaiah the prophet told us...."And a little child will lead them all." Let's take their lead and follow them on this journey of pouring ourselves out in intercession before the Lord of Glory!

Religion can be a scary, scary thing.

(via Religious Freaks, via Bacon Eating Atheist Jew.)

The Danger of Religious Thinking: American "Treatment" of Addiction

William Miller and Reid Hester, editors of the most comprehensive and most methodologically sound evaluation of treatment methods ever published, state that, "We were pleased to see that a number of treatment methods were consistently supported by controlled scientific research." But they continue, "On the other hand, we were dismayed to realize that virtually none of these treatment methods was in common use within alcohol treatment programs in the United States." (Source.)

I've previously written positive things about some aspects of twelve-step programs. However, despite some things they do right, twelve-step programs in America may serve as the prime example of the danger involved with religion and religious thinking.

What separates religious thinking from scientific thinking?

1) The reliance on faith.
2) The trusting of authority.
3) The reliance on anecdotal data.

For example, Christianity places great emphasis on faith, while Catholicism maintains that the Pope is infallible, and Orthodox Judaism maintains that the great sages of previous generations were closer to the truth than we can be today. Anecdotal data is used quite often in support of religion, describing personal visions, near-death experiences, unlikely coincidences, faith healings, and alleged conversations with God Himself.

Scientific thinking recognizes none of these methods of argument. With regard to faith, science doesn't ask us to believe anything because it "feels" a certain way. (The closest thing is the assumption that empiricism is rational, but even that is somewhat self-evident.) Regarding authority, no-one is infallible, nor is anyone trusted on their word alone. Although Einstein was a luminary, he was wrong about quantum mechanics, and science moved on without him. Although Newton was a scientific giant, he also believed in all sorts of bizarre alchemy, which science has since rejected. Finally, science completely rejects anecdotal data, which is why most scientific thinkers still disbelieve in UFO abductions, telekinesis, and faith healings.

Instead of faith, authority, and anecdote, science relies on testable, repeatable experimentation. It is this experimentation which has led us to discover many of the secrets of gravity, relativity, intertia, medicine, and astronomy. Science's record of success is unparalleled by any other system of thought or investigation.

As Carl Sagan asked,

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy... Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?

So how does this all tie in with Twelve-Step Programs (TSPs?)

Well, I argue that the phenomenal popularity of TSPs despite evidence that they are ineffective is due to the prevalence of religious, rather than scientific, thinking.

First, the evidence against TSPs' efficacy. Here are a few sources:

The National Longitudinal Alcoholism Epidemiological Survey was de­signed and sponsored by the NIAAA and was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. It was notable both for its size (4,585 subjects) and its study period (20 years). Its subjects were divided into a treated group and an untreated group. All of the study’s subjects “had to have satisfied the criteria for prior-to-past year DSM-IV alcohol dependence by meeting at least 3 of the 7 DSM-IV criteria for dependence: tolerance; withdrawal (including relief or avoidance of withdrawal); persistent desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down on or stop drinking; much time spent drinking, obtaining alcohol or recovering from its effects; reduction or cessation of important activities in favor of drinking; impaired control over drinking; and continued use despite physical or psychological problems caused by drinking.”xxxiv

The study’s findings were surprising: At 20 years after onset of symptoms, 80% of those who had undergone treatment were either abstinent or “drink­ing without abuse or dependence.” But those who had never undergone treatment were doing even better: 90% of them were either abstinent or drinking nonproblematically. That is, 10% of those who had never been treated were still drinking abusively 20 years after the onset of symptoms, as were 20% of those who had been treated. In other words, twice as many of those who had undergone treatment were drinking abusively as those who had never been treated. (Source.)

There have been at least three randomized clinical trials that studied the effectiveness of AA. Specifically: Ditman et al. 1967; Brandsma et al. 1980; Walsh et al. 1991.

* Dr. Ditman found that participation in A.A. increased the alcoholics' rate of rearrest for public drunkenness.[1]
* Dr. Brandsma found that A.A. increased the rate of binge drinking. After several months of indoctrination with A.A. 12-Step dogma, the alcoholics in A.A. were doing five times as much binge drinking as a control group that got no treatment at all, and nine times as much binge drinking as another group that got Rational Behavior Therapy. Brandsma alleges that teaching people that they are alcoholics who are powerless over alcohol yields very bad results and that it becomes a self-fulfilling prediction -- they relapse and binge drink as if they really were powerless over alcohol.[2]
* And Dr. Walsh found that the so-called "free" A.A. program was actually very expensive -- it messed up patients so that they required longer periods of costly hospitalization later on.[3]

While AA acknowledged in the foreword to the second edition of the Big Book that "we surely have no monopoly", one of the stories following the main text of the book still claims that AA is "the only remedy" to alcohol abuse (BB, pg. 259. Emphasis added.), despite some current research which shows that high percentages of alcohol abusers recover without medical treatment (Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction -- Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.). Another study suggests that AA may be "no better than the natural history of the disease" in keeping people alive and sober (The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, George E. Vaillant, pgs. 283-286.)(Source.)

So why is AA so popular? Because most Americans put their trust in faith ("Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity," "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him") authority (the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous is treated as a Bible,) and anecdotal data ("but these people are sober and they've done it through AA!")

I wonder how many lives we could save, of alcoholics, of victims of drunk drivers, of victims of the War on Drugs, if we were more scientific than religious.

Some theists fear an atheistic world without meaning. I fear a theistic one without knowledge.

More Moral Bankruptcy from the Religious Right

DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.

The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus. (New Scientist, via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

When I read something like "girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries," I think of countries like Saudi Arabia or the Sudan, not the freaking U.S. What a disgrace.