UPDATED: Death by bullying.

Did bullying push teen to suicide?: wivb.com

Sadly, another kid has killed himself after bullying over his sexuality. Yet the Right-wing continues to deny bullying is a problem and tries to downplay what is happening. Here is a second video on the story.

Jamey, according to press reports, "routinely blogged about school bullying." Routine! What was done about it? "I always say how bullied I am, but no one listens. What do I have to do so people will listen to me?" Another day this month he wrote: "No one in my school cares about preventing suicide, while you're the ones calling me faggot and tearing me down."

But the bullies followed him posting anonymous messages on his blog. One said, "JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT, ANND UGLY. HE MUST DIE!" Another wrote, "I wouldn't care if you died. No one would. So just do it : ) It would make everyone WAY more happier!"

The boy's parents say he was having a hard time because of his sexuality. Most particular he was concerned about how much worse the bullying would get in high school. Jamey's mother said that because of his sexuality "some of his classmates used those issues as an excuse to say horrible and malicious things about him."

Now, I want to say this loud and clear: NO, BULLYING IS NOT A RITE OF PASSAGE. And, if you call this sort of bullying "normal" then your moral compass needs adjustment. This is a real problem in the schools, where kids are warehoused by the state and where thugs, some of them teachers, have free reign. Every libertarian should be aware this is going on, and that kids are forced by state law to endure these things because of mandatory attendance laws. As long as kids are required to attend government schools then the first obligation of the school is to protect them from thuggery.

I look at the response from Jamey's school and I'm appalled. They speak about all the counseling they are offering to the students who are still alive—I assume that includes the little thugs who told Jamey to go kill himself as well. The school speaks about everything it does to counsel—counseling provides jobs and the teacher's unions love that. What they need to do is remove the students who do the bullying. But, the school didn't say a single thing about what they tried to do to prevent the bullying. So, the bureaucrats are there to hold the hands of bullies after their victim dies. How nice! Next time, do something about it before you have a dead body on your hands.

There is one other issue that Jamey's death raises. And I know some people won't like it. Tough shit, I'm not in the mood, not when another kid has killed himself. Jamey wrote about the death of a beloved relative and a friend. He wrote that he would soon be with them and was looking forward to seeing them again. The belief that there is a life after this one is not only false, but malicious. It devalues this life by pretending there is a better one waiting for people. I know that is not popular because most Americans believe this crap, but it has to be said. Telling kids, some of whom are suicidal, that there is a "better life" awaiting them after they are dead is only encouraging them to take their life.

Now, here we have a Christian activist giving their line about such issues. His view is that bullying is hardly an issue that we should be concerned about and that it's just part of growing up. NO! IT'S NOT!! When kids are bullied and kill themselves it is something we should be concerned about. And, whether this is normal is not the issue. Throughout history many horrible things were normal, which no longer are so. So it ought to be with bullying.

Should we accommodate religious intolerance?

Some years ago I owned a business, and as is normal, it was open to the public. A man enters and moves from one section of the business to another and then comes out to complain that a black man was in the other section. He literally demanded to know why I was “letting people like that” come into the business. The black man had done nothing wrong, he had a skin color this bigot found offensive.

It took me a few seconds to figure out what was actually happening. I think it took a bit longer than normal simply because I couldn’t fathom someone actually complaining that I allowed black people to enter my business. I just assumed it had to be something else and not something so blatantly ugly and hateful. But, it was ugly and hateful; it wasn’t something else. When that dawned on me, I, in no uncertain terms, told the bigot that my business was open to everyone and if he didn’t like it he was invited him to leave and he would not be missed.

Now, what if the man told me he held sincere religious beliefs about the inferiority of black people and that they pose a threat to his world-view because God damns them? Does god-talk mean we have to cut people slack?

Racism in the West often had a religious foundation to it. Having escaped fundamentalist Christianity I can assure you that I heard Baptist preachers claiming that the Biblical “curse of Ham” damned the black race to an inferior position for eternity. This wasn’t all that long ago either. Mormons were rather racist and claimed it was all about theology as well. Of course, after the civil rights movement the Mormon “prophet” faked a revelation from God that said black men were now allowed to join the Mormon priesthood—which is open to all other men, but not women, no matter their race.


Recently some Orthodox rabbis in Israel were making a stink about the military because at various events female soldiers were allowed to sing. Apparently, and I admit I did not know this, it is Orthodox religious law that men may not listen to a woman sing in person. Apparently God made exceptions for CDs, radios, DVDs and the like—which is rather progressive of him. The rabbis want male soldiers exempted from events where women might sing.

Admittedly I’ve heard some female singers that were rather offensive, but it just never dawned on me that some god-monger might invent a deity that finds all female singers a problem. But this controversy is going on now in Israel.

Closer to home we have a woman who is a rather fanatical Catholic and a prolific breeder as well, having seven children—not allowing birth control will do that. In the mode of the insane Jennifer Roback Morse, this woman, Stacy Trasancos, is deeply offended that gay people exist and that she sometimes has to look at them.

Stacy says seeing gay people means they “are imposing immorality on me” and that now she has a “hard time even leaving my home anymore to do something as simple as visit the park. And this is freedom?” Stacy is deathly afraid she will see gay people. This Massachusetts baby-maker is very upset that she went to a public pool and “there were homosexual couples with children” present. Apparently that may cause her kids to ask questions, “I’m not ready to answer.” As for the pool, “The truth is, now I don’t really want to go back.”

Later she saw a gay couple with kids at the park and now laments “I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. …I can’t even to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality.” By the way, she then also laments the presence of immigrants as well, but bigotry is rarely limited to just one group.BTW: she really doesn't know if the people are gay or not and I imagine that she imagines gay people far more often than is the case. The women in the park rubbed each others back and that clued told her they were lesbians. Of course, I see straight women do that with other straight women. Perhaps the two women were sisters? But when you imagine gays to be monsters you see monsters everywhere.

Having to see gay people is to Stacy being forced to “tolerate immorality.” Okay, let’s run with that. Am I being forced to tolerate irrationality every time I see some Jesus-addict pray in a restaurant? Does the church I drive by force me to tolerate irrationality? I think these religious people are irrational and often, particularly in this case, rather creepy and pathetic. To obsess that one may see a gay couple in public, and to hide in one’s home to avoid this, is actually rather sad. It is her right to be fearful and terrified, but given her tendency to produce litters of children she should be aware that with each additional child the chances that one of them would be gay grows. With seven kids there is already a decent chance one of them is an embryonic homosexual and then she won’t even be safe in her own home either.

We are told we should “tolerate” such things. More importantly we are supposed to give way to these prejudices precisely because they are religious. For instance, we are supposed to accommodate religious beliefs in employment. So, if someone won't work on one particular day, because they imagine a deity told them to chant and lament the state of the world on that day, employers are supposed to alter work schedules to fit that belief.

We have an entire political campaign run by the dowdy, porcine Maggie Gallagher that argues that American marriage law should be founded entirely on the imagined god that lives in Gallagher’s head.

Constantly the rest of the country is being told they must accommodate the religious fantasies of the god-snorters. Yet, we also must not question these beliefs. We are told that sincere religious beliefs are immune from criticism and questioning. But what is a religious belief?

At the basis it is a belief that someone holds and which he or she claim is religious. That is all. We can’t say it is based on God’s revelation to them since they all differ about what their God wants and we have zero evidence a god revealed anything to them. All we have are their claims. The mere fact that someone calls a belief religious is supposedly enough to make it immune from scrutiny. Now, if someone says that they believe in evolution, because of various facts, that is science. If they say they believe in creation because God said to, that is not science; that is religion.

Religion is claimed knowledge about reality based on imaginary sources, not rooted in reality, and supposedly exempt from rational inquiry or criticism.

And, the Republicans want us to base the law of the nation on such notions. Most Republicans would laugh at the idea that female singers are offensive. But many of them would applaud this paranoid baby-machine in Massachusetts. To them the belief that female singers are offensive is just plain silly, but the belief that seeing gay people in public is offensive makes perfect sense. Why? Because they don’t believe the nonsense of Jewish orthodoxy, but they do believe the nonsense in Christian orthodoxy, that’s why.

The bigoted theology that says the black race is cursed by God to be servants to the white race doesn’t establish American legal policy. Nor should it. So, why do we allow any theology to determine the law? We don’t just need separation of church and state, we need separation of theology and state. Just because your god is a teetotaler is no reason to impose prohibition on others. And, just because you imagine God wanted marriage to between one man and one woman (if you are Maggie Gallagher) or one man and many women (if you are Joseph Smith), doesn't mean the law should deny marriage contracts to gay couples.

Now, I have to applaud fearful Stacy in one sense. If she doesn’t like seeing gay people then she shouldn’t go in public. And yes, Stacy, that is freedom. The equal freedom of all people to use the public parks is part of freedom. Just because Klanners don’t like seeing blacks doesn’t mean we are infringing on their liberty by not hiding blacks away. And, just because you hate gay people so much that even seeing one causes emotional pain, does not justify anti-gay policies, though it may justify therapy. I’m just hinting, for what it’s worth. A little less time on your knees and a little more time on the couch might do you a world of good and, it might make you a better mother—just in case one of your own turns out gay.

God hates herring!

Here is the sort of nonsense you get when you replace science with superstition. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, whose faith requires him to look as if an emaciated possum crawled onto his face and died. This hate-filled Rabbi goes into lie after lie to try to prove that his loving God is killing people because God hates gay people as much as the Rabbi does. I find it interesting that when people invent deities they invent ones with all the stupid, petty prejudices that inflict themselves.

I still stand by my observation that when a person invents a god, they invent one that is really a grand version of them self. Bigots like Levin invent gods that are as bigoted as they are. Catholics think God is a big version of the Pope, though I'm not sure he hides the scandals as actively as the Pope does.

Levin says that the earthquake in Haiti was about gays. How? Well, Haiti has a high HIV rate and apparently the silly rabbi doesn't realize it can be spread heterosexually. Actually, contrary to the rants from the Right, HIV is mainly spread heterosexually, not homosexually. Most the HIV victims in the world are heterosexual. Of course, you had that fake libertarian, Ron Paul, telling readers of his hate newsletters that the only way they could not get AIDS unless they "are deliberately infected by a malicious gay." (Gee, what does that House Gay, JR, who licks Ron Paul's boots today, have to say about that? Wasn't he the same person who wrote a book claiming AIDS was a government conspiracy. Today he just engages in cheap anti-Semitism on behalf of Ronnie and Lew.)

Levin now argues that the earthquake on the East Coast was God punishing New York for gay marriage. Apparently God has bad eyesight—which would explain why God doesn't smite Levin for that hideous, scraggly looking beard.

God screwed up. He sent the earthquake to a town called Mineral, Virginia. Now, give or take a few miles, Mineral is 300 miles from New York. So, the malignant being that Levin invents decides to punish New York by sending an earthquake to a small town in Virginia 300 miles. And Virginia is just as anti-gay as the Rabbi. This is divine justice! New York got the residual effects, nothing more. They got shaken up a little bit by an entirely natural process.

Here are the facts, put in terms that even a God-besotted, crazed rabbi can understand. Earthquakes happen every day. They happen all over the world, every day. They happen in places that hate gays, the way the Rabbi demands, and they happen in places where people don't hate gays. Today we had significant earthquakes in Toga, Peru, Turkey, Mexico, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not a tolerant place for gay people nor are Peru and Toga known for their "gay scene." There were three large quakes today in the Norwegian Sea, which is hardly a hotbed of gay activity. All that happens there is shipping, fishing and oil rigs. God hates herring!

Yesterday we had significant earthquakes in such "gay friendly" places as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Colombia and New Guinea. In the past week Vanuatu has had 19 significant earthquakes. They get over 2,000 "seismic events" per year. I checked with "Gay Vanuatu" to see what could be causing all this shaking. Their site says, "there is no active 'gay scene' in Vanuatu." Gee, with 2,000 seismic events per year, and 19 significant earthquakes in the last week, according to the crazy Rabbi's theory they should be buggering on the beaches as we speak.

The god of Levin is clearly a buffoon. And if he did exist he should sue Levin and those like him for lible. This is laughable, or at least it would be, if it weren't so clearly animated by hatred for gay people. Rabbi Levin is a theological clown, which may explain that beard.

Guilt and fried chicken

I picked up some fried chicken at the grocery store and had it on the check out counter waiting for them to finish with the people in line before me. The woman behind was a bit oddly dressed, very odd looking baggy pants, two-toned hair and a piercing of some sort on her face that I didn’t pay much attention to. I would have thought nothing of it until she commented about the chicken.

She asked if that was my chicken on the counter and I said it was. She told me that it smelled so good and told me how much she liked the chicken from this store. And then she said something odd: “But it makes me feel so guilty.”

I assumed she was using guilt in the sense of feeling bad about a diet and was speaking about her health. Otherwise, guilt was an odd word. I certainly understand the concept of guilt, as in hurting someone else. I don’t believe people should feel guilty merely for violating the law. Hell, considering the law guilty ought to be attached to obeying it, not violating it. In the legal sense, guilt is something I attach to violating the rights of others.

The only other form of guilt that I can understand is that attached to religion. Typically this is associated with the pleasures of life. Some guilt is attached to hurting others; in the line of thou shalt not steal. But, in my experience, guilt is too often involved with things such as “thou shalt not feel sexual pleasure,” “thou shalt not enjoy life,” and so forth. This guilt is attached to NOT denying the flesh.

I couldn’t think of a religious reason to feel guilt over fried chicken. Nor was it something that violated the rights of others. So I naturally assumed it had to do with diet, and the impact of fried chicken on weight and other issues. So I responded:

“Nothing to feel guilty about. It’s your body, your business, so you may as well enjoy it.”

But then she started explaining why she felt guilty. She really, really likes fried chicken. But it isn’t “natural.” She talked about hormones and the unnatural way food is processed, etc. It was precisely the kind of lecture I’ve heard from many advocates of “green” living.

Everything she said contrasted things created by humans to the “natural” and assumed the natural was good while human creation was not. Perhaps it was sinful thus explaining the guilt.

I was wrong when I thought she was discussing diet. She didn’t mention calories or any of the items associated with diet. Instead she discussed the bad nature of anthropogenic food versus “natural” items. Chemistry was evil, ignoring the fact that the natural is full of chemicals. It was a faith statement not dissimilar to the belief that there was a perfect garden that humans lost because of their own sinful nature. And that fried chicken was a symbol of the evil side of humanity versus the good that comes from naturally raised chicken, even though it tastes so good. Perhaps, because it tastes so good, the sin is even greater—much the way Puritans implored us to feel guilty about the pleasures of the flesh.

The warped inhumanity of faith.

Normally I don't run videos of faith addicts like this one. But watch it, watch the joy on her face as she describes the massive earthquake in Japan. This is just monstrous and contemptible. (It is also very well done satire but it very well done precisely because it so accurately catches the attitudes of many of the people I knew back in the old days.)

The logic doesn't surprise me. On one had she says that the earthquake was an answered prayer to show the world that God loves them. God apparently showed his loved by raining destruction on Japan. She actually takes this a proof that God is love, because he killed all those people.

A man, with multiple children, beats a small child to death. Does that prove his love? What sort of sick masochistic personality would argued that beating children to death is a loving thing? (Oops, I forgot, the Bible certainly endorses beating them, just as long as you stay shy of actually killing them.)

The faith-inflicted reinterpret reality to fit their religion. She prayed that God would show he was loving, thousands of people are killed in a natural disaster, and that is proof that God answered her prayer. It takes a thoroughly demented mind to say that, but it illustrates the length to which believers will go in order to convince themselves that their is proof that their imaginary friend is real.

I'm an atheist, not that you haven't figured that out already. Does this dingbat really think that a god with bloody hands would convince me he existed and was loving? Anyone who would inflict such misery is not loving but a monster. Now, obviously I don't think it was a god who did this. I think it was the forces of nature acting in accordance with physical laws. Plates shift in the earth, they do it all the time. When they do, the ground shakes. Sometimes that causes tsunamis. All too often, people die.

Nature is full of forces which act in ways that are inimical to life. They are not the thoughtful actions of a thinking entity. If they were the actions of a thinking entity then the entity in question can not be reasonably called loving.

The only reason this disaster triggers this sick mental reasoning in this silly woman is that the disaster took place after "Lent" began, when Christians were asking God to prove his love to atheists. The Christchurch earthquake a few weeks earlier apparently was not involved because the Christians weren't on their knees instructing their deity how to behave.

Of all the Christian beliefs prayer, to me, makes the least amount of sense. Why do they need to pray? Can they possibly be telling their God anything he doesn't already allegedly know? How can their actions change his mind? Doesn't he already know precisely everything that will happen? I honestly see a Christians belief in prayer as a way to feel in control of the God they claim to believe in. It is like a belief in magic. It is a means by which impotent people convince themselves that they can direct the universe, or it's creator, to behave in certain ways that are commensurate with their own desires.

And why Japan? How does God, beating up on the Japanese, convince atheists of anything? No answer is giving. She just assumes atheists will look at this horrendous tragedy and think her twisted faith was responsible for it. Surely there are areas of the world where, if God were tapping on the shoulders of atheists, it might be more noticeable. An earthquake in Japan isn't exactly uncommon. It is actually rather anticipated. Now and then they are much bigger than one would expect, but this is no divine sign.

Clearly God is loosing his umph, if anything. If he wanted my attention a fireball dancing across the sky spelling out "repent" might do it. An earthquake in Japan doesn't surprise me, given that the fault lines run through that region of the world. No earthquakes there for decades would be impressive. A god who can't act in a manner inconsistent with what we already know about the nature of reality is not impressive.

And when I think of God sending natural disasters, at least in the United States, he seems to spend more time hitting the God-believing regions of the United States. The most religious area in America is the South followed by the Midwest. The least religious areas are the New England states and the West. So where did God send the worst natural disasters in American history?

• Galveston, Texas, 1900. A hurricane in this part of the Bible-belt killed somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 people.

• San Francisco, 1906. Earthquake kills 3,000 to 6,000.

• Florida, 1928. Hurricane hits this Bible belt state killing 2,500.

• Louisiana, 1893. Hurricane hits this Bible belt state killing around 2,000.

• Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, 2005. Hurricane hits Bible belt states killing 1,836.

• Central and Southern US, 1980. Heat wave kills 1,700 in the two prime religious areas of the country.

• Fire, 1870. A huge fire sweeps rural Wisconsin killing somewhere between 1,200 and 2,500 people.

• Heatwave, Chicago region, 1995. Some 739 people die in this Midwestern heatwave.

• Tornadoes, 1925, Midwest and South. Tornadoes hit killing around 700.

• Hurricane, Florida, 1919. Some 600 killed.

• Hurricane, New England, 1938. 600 killed.

I stopped at disasters with over 500 fatalities or more simply because this can go on and on but the pattern does not change significantly. If I look at natural disaster with over 100 deaths and under 500 the regional count still shows God punishing the parts of the country that contain the highest number of Bible-believing Christians. There were 19 such disasters in the Midwest and South and only 3 in New England and the West. Another two straddled both sections of the country.

There are reasons that natural forces cluster such disasters in specific areas. The South gets hurricanes because borders warm ocean waters. The West gets earthquakes because the most active fault lines are there. Blizzards hit the Midwest because it gets cold enough, and moist enough, to cause them. Weather patterns favor tornadoes in the Midwest more than in Oregon or Alaska. Natural, explainable reasons determine where natural disasters strike. A tsunami isn't going to hit Utah -- if it does we're all in trouble and THAT would truly be spectacular but I wouldn't count on it proving God existence anytime soon.

But, if there is an intelligent designer intentionally inflicting these disasters, then the pattern he uses in the US would indicate he isn't the god of Christians. He keeps hitting them the hardest.

Religion and the inequality of rights.

My view tends to go along the lines that all people should have the same legal rights as everyone else unless there is a damn good reason otherwise.

But I keep running into religious exemptions to this rule. If you don't show up for work when scheduled you can be fired, unless you claim that a deity has ordered you to do something else that day. In those cases the employer has to accommodate your claim to divine revelation. Now my view is that employers ought to have the right to NOT hire individuals who will inflict higher costs on them by demanding special considerations due to their beliefs. I would honor a religious employer's right to not hire gay people just as I would honor the right of a gay establishment to refuse to hire born-again Christians.

I ran across another very interesting legal right to discriminate which is granted to religious people only.

According to the Federal Communication Commission any radio or television station is strictly banned from discriminating "in employment... because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." Plain and simple, if you are an atheist and don't want to hire a fundamentalist then you are forbidden from indulging your own preferences. You may NOT discriminate against the Christian.

But, if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were an atheist seeking employment, a Christian station is explicitly granted permission to discriminate against you. "Religious radio broadcasters may establish religious belief and affiliation as a job qualification for all station employees."

So, the same law that forbids secular stations from refusing to hire Christian employees grants Christian stations the right to refuse to hire secular employees. Next time some Right-wing religious nut whines to you about how they are being persecuted by the nasty secularists ask them about this federal law which grants them legal rights denied to non-religious people.

PC madness: motes and eyes

Here is an unusual story out New Zealand. Te Papa is the national museum on the Wellington water front. As far as museums go it is a fair collection, and certainly a lovely building. I attended the "Lord of the Rings" showing there as well as a banquet with Bjorn Lomborg, so I know the place.

Recently they sent out invitations to regional museums for a "behind-the-scenes" tour, which would included the Taonga Maori collection. The museum, however, informed guests that women would be excluded, if they are either pregnant or menstruating. Maori religious beliefs consider this a taboo.

Feminist writer Deborah Russel, who I often don't agree with, said: "I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people. It's fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don't harm others, but the state shouldn't be imposing those practices on other people."

Let me be clear—this taboo is irrational superstition belonging to a primitive era, not to the modern age. And, it most certainly is not a taboo that a state museum ought to be imposing.

A spokeswoman for the museum, Jane Keig, offered the irrational explanation that the "policy is in place to protect the women from these objects." That is, since some of the items were weapons used to kill people, and since woman are cursed if they are pregnant or menstruating, then their near presence to the weapons could harm them. In other words, Keig is protecting them from supernatural occurrences in the same way that one would intervene if a thug were stabbing a woman.

That, of course, is known in technical jargon as bullshit.

But, this is religious bullshit and there seems to be an exception granted to irrationality provided it has religious justifications. Invent some god or demon and you can't get away with anything.

Of course, Western types will gloat a bit, and look on this incident as a silly manifestation of the tolerance provided primitive religionists with their irrational, and utterly stupid, beliefs.

But, before the West gloats too much, they should remember to check the moat in their own eye, before condemning the splinter in the eye of another.

Consider a recent controversy with Tea Party Republican Carl Paladino, who wants to be governor of New York. Like about 100% of the other Tea Party candidates, Paladino is anti-libertarian when it comes to certain people.

Recently Paladino addressed ultra-fundamentalist Jews and launched into an attack on gay people, which included claims that gays are perverts after children. Some of the worst aspects of the attack were removed from the verbal presentation but appeared in the earlier written draft.

Paladino, of course, attacked equal legal rights for gay people, while incoherently claiming he opposes all forms of discrimination. Right! He's opposed to discrimination except for when he favors it.

So, why this attack on gay people? According to Paladino he was just expressing his religious viewpoint. But why do that? He's running for governor, not pope. He seems to think he is being elected in order to impose Catholic theology on people.

When obsessive anti-gay bigots, like Maggie Gallagher or Jenny Roback Morse, start screaming about gay people they want their own obsessive religious beliefs imposed on the entire nation. Morse is quite clear that she thinks gays shouldn't marry because her increasingly bizarre Catholicism forbids it.

What Te Papa did in comparison is rather mild. The museum wanted to enforce a Maori superstition on women "to protect" them from the curses associated with the artifacts used in Maori slaughters of the past. Given the limited number of invites that went out for this tour it is likely that only a small number of women were disadvantaged by the requirement. And, since Te Papa wasn't planning on vaginal inspections, any women who wished to ignore the silly edict could pretty much do so.

Not so when rabid Christians, like Paladino, Gallagher or Morse, have their way. What they specifically demand is that US law deny equality of rights to one group of people because the superstition that they cling to rules these people to be taboo. This isn't really that different from the BS associated with Maori superstition, except it hurts more people.

I know of one brilliant economist who will not drink water during a speech unless his own wife has poured it. Otherwise he sees it as violating a Jewish taboo. My Catholic grandmother spent much of her life shunning meat on Fridays because Catholic tradition said so.

We have Mormons walking around in magic underwear, meant to protect them from harm.

Without religious taboos, the drive to deny gay people legal equality would be over. It relies almost entirely on the Christian equivalent of what Te Papa did in the name of Maori superstition. One difference is that Maori taboo is not imposed by the force of law, whereas Christian taboo is. Of course, Christians who imposed such laws, like Paladino, Gallagher, and Morse, believe their "faith" is superior. When the Maori do it, it's superstition, when they do it, it's God's will. Why is it so easy to see the absurdity in other people's religions, while we seem to think our own makes perfect sense?

Father: Forgive Yourself, You Need It.

Now and then curiosity gets the best of me. I go to Google news to see which priests got arrested for what in the last 30 days. Given how the Vatican state likes to pontificate to the world about what is or isn't moral I like to see how they are practicing morality themselves.

According to a Google news search the following are a sampling of what Catholic priests have been up to recently. I have choosen to only report on US cases and not go international with this report.

Father Kevin Gray was arrested in Connecticut for stealing $1.3 million dollars from his parish, over the last seven years, in order to pay for male escorts and hotels. Maybe he needed his luggage lifted? But $1.3 million? That's $185,000 per year or $3,571 per week. Exactly how many rent boys was Father hiring at a time? Either this priest was hiring another "escort" every night of the week, along with an expensive hotel room, or he isn't being entirely truthful about his spending habits. And that raises an interesting question: What else could he be doing with the money if claiming he spent it all on male prostitutes is the preferred excuse?

In West Virginia, Father Felix Owino was arrested for aggravated sexual battery against an 11-year-old girl.

Father Patrick Umberger apparently was ejected from a waterpark last year because he kept following small boys into the toilets. A police report was filed against him at the time. He said he had prostrate problems. Now he has legal problems as he was arrested for child porn.

Father William Casey, in Tennessee, pled guilty to "crimes against nature." (An absurd phrase if ever there was one. Apparently this has something to do with molestation charges against the priest.

Parents in North Carolina say that a church choirmaster was molesting their daughter. When this accusation was made known to the local priest, Father John Schneider he went to the apartment of the choirmaster to delete photographic evidence of the assaults from the man's computer. The priest was called when the man was arrested and left a school board meeting in order to destroy the evidence.

Mark Campobello was a priest, now he is a former inmate. This priest was released from prison a few days ago, no doubt to make room for other priests. Campobello served his sentence for sexually assualting two teenage girls.

Father James Grady was sentenced to prison for possession of child porn of underage females. He supposedly came to the attention of police when he responded to an undercover operation offering children for commercial sex.

In an ecumenical spirit I feel I should discuss the actions of Protestant ministers as well. Rev. Lawrence Brown, of Louisiana, was arrested for "indecent behavior with a juvenile and soliciting for prostitution" regarding a 15-year-old girl. In Middletown, NY, Rev. Robert Burke was arrested for third-degree rape. Steven Breed was a graduate of a Baptist seminary and briefly served as a youth minister before becoming a teacher. He was arrested for getting real estate agents to show him homes, where he would steal valuables on an inspection.

Pastor Kenneth Kleckner, in West Ocala, FL, was arrested for soliciting a police offer online. He thought the officer was an underaged girl. Baptist pastor Christopher Daniels was arrested again, after he escaped a jail work team. He was previously found guilty of arson and fraud charges. In South Carolina, Pastor Grady Ponds and his wife, Rhonda, were both arrested on child porn charges.

In Indiana Pastor Christian Johnson was arrested for possession of meth and his wife was arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle. Also in Indiana a minister, Wayne Harris, Jr., was arrested. He borrowed funds from a charity that helps orphans, supposedly to build a church. He bought a Mercedes and a mink coat instead and never paid back the money. In Louisiana a Baptist minister was arrested for sending threatening emails and text messages. Rev. Bill Vandergraph was arrested for sexual penetration of minor under the age of 13.

Baptist pastor Christopher Settlemoir was arrested for sexually attacking teenaged boys. Pastor Thurman Leonard was arrested for assault and battery and felony abduction. Gerald Laneaux, a youth minister, was arrested for sexually molesting a 4-year-old.

I think I've had enough—there's more but one can only spend so much time in sewer. What I love is that these people are in the forefront of the fight against gay people committing to each other for life, because they deem that to be immoral.

Catholics, Protestants, Hispanics and Gays

First I wish to cover some poll numbers that are not surprising. Next I will follow with how a major Religious Right leader takes those numbers and makes an incredibly silly statement because of it, even by fundamentalist standards.

A survey of Californians was taken which showed that the Latino community was divided on the topic of marriage equality, with a small plurality of Latinos being supportive. But, it was found that Catholic Latinos were far more supportive of marriage rights than were Protestant Latinos. Among Catholics, 57% said they supported marriage equality while only 22% of Latino Protestants held that view.

I suspect the reason for this stark divide is that Latino Protestants tend to be fundamentalists, often Pentecostals. It is fundamentalist Protestantism that has most strongly infiltrated the Hispanic community. Non-fundamentalist Protestants tend to be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, both extremely antigay religions. According to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, 85% of Latino Protestants are members of fundamentalist sects.

That Hispanic Catholics tend to be supportive of marriage rights for everyone upsets the Religious Right loon Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association. (Note that fundamentalists use "family" much the way the Klan uses "race," as code for hate.) Fisher notes that a Baptist leader, Richard Land, has said he wants a way for immigrants (without permission slips) to become citizens.

Is this Southern Baptist mellowing and recognizing the common humanity of others as the source of all rights? No, not at all. His reasoning is that Hispanic values are conservative.

"Hispanics are hard-wired to be like us on sanctity of life, marriage and issues of faith," Land told CNN recently, describing political similarities between Hispanics and white Southern Baptists. "I'm concerned about being perceived as being unwelcoming to them."

Fischer says that Land thinks Hispanics "will be the natural allies of the conservative movement." In other words, Land isn't concerned about the rights of these people, just hoping to enlist them in a movement to deny other people rights and as a way of imposing "biblical" values on the country through coercive government.

But Fischer is aware of the polls showing Catholic Latinos are supportive of the rights of gay people while Protestant Latinos are the only safe enclave of bigotry that conservatives can count upon. So Fischer suggests that "perhaps Dr. Land can be persuaded to amend his recommendation and give preference to Protestant illegal aliens." But Fischer says that illegitimacy rates may show that Hispanic "pro-family values" are not "as strong... as Dr. Land wants to believe."

The idea that only Protestant immigrants should be given a path to citizenship is astounding if you think about it but consistent with the historic values of American fundamentalism. It is no accident that the virulently anti-immigration Ku Klux Klan was heavily fundamentalist in religious make up. If there has been one trend among fundamentalists over the last century is their unique ability to always hate some identifiable group. Over the years different groups have jockeyed for their attention and often the emphasis has changed but favorite targets of organized hate campaigns have been blacks, Jews, immigrants, Mexican immigrants in particular, gays, Catholics, "liberals," and feminists.

The error that Fischer and his fellow fundies make is that they equate "pro-family" with a fundamentalist morality system. Prof. Joseph Palacios, of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University said that the pro-family attitudes of Latino Catholics is precisely the reason so many support rights for gay people.

Latino Catholics orient their social lives around the family and extended family even in the context of high Latino single-parent households (estimated 33% of all U.S. Latino households; 36% of all Latino Children in California live in single-parent households). Family solidarity is strong and even though children may not follow "traditional family values" as projected by the church and the U.S. society, parents want to keep their children within the family. It is not surprising that Catholics in general and Latino Catholics in particular, as the Public Religion Research study shows, see that parents learn about gay issues from their children. Their moral and ethical judgments are primarily made through this social reality rather than abstract pronouncements from their church leaders.

While the Vatican wouldn't approve, these Catholics see marriage as a way of binding families and they want their gay relatives bound to the family as much as their straight relatives. In truth marriage equality is the pro-family position. It is fundamentalism that pushes people to reject family members and splinter families in the name of morality. Parents in fundamentalist sects are encourage to reject and cast out family members for a variety of sins including being Catholic.

One of the great ironies of modern politics is that the pro-family movement is made up of sects that are inherently anti-family. Fundamentalism puts adherence to the faith ahead of family unity. The "you're no son of mine" mentality is rampant in such circles. Daughters who get pregnant are often pushed out to fend on their own, sons who are gay are rejected and told to leave the family. Over and over high profile fundamentalists have rejected their own children because of their perceived moral shortcomings.

Fundamentalism is not pro-family at all. It is a force that rips families apart. Latino Catholics don't necessarily follow the fundamentalist moral code but they do embrace their families. And their families include homosexuals. One indication is that Catholics are more likely to listen to the views of family members regarding this issue than are fundamentalists, who are more likely to take their views from a church leader. The family, especially for Latino Catholics tends to be source for moral values, while for Protestant Latinos (read fundamentalists for the most part) tend to take religious dogma over family.

Prof. Palacios also has an observation that is of interest to my readers in particular.

It is important to note that modern Latin Catholicism has a dual nature: it is "conservative" in the sense of family communalism and tradition that the church offers, yet it is classically "liberal" in the sense of not wanting the Catholic Church to have power in political life-- particularly after the long historical experience of the Latin American Church "meddling in politics." As Mexicans put it: "No meta en la política." A sizeable majority of U.S. Latino Catholics shares these attitudes with them. Increasingly they are joining their Latin counterparts in accepting gays and lesbians as part of the social family that is both Catholic and liberal.

This is a simple truth that fundamentalists have trouble understanding. One can be supportive of basic moral values without wanting to a church/state alliance forcing people to be moral. One can be personally conservative and classically liberal politically. Just because a moral principle is a good one to follow doesn't mean that it must be imposed at the point of the gun.

Note: For the record, Argentina has now legalized gay marriage, joining Spain and Portugal and parts of Mexico, with Uruguay next most likely to include gays in marriage laws. The photo is from Argentina.

Missionaries of Hate

The above video is well worth watching.

I tire of hearing how Christianity is "different" from Islam and that fundamentalist Christians aren't like fundamentalist Muslims. I disagree. They are very, very much alike, and I say that as someone who knows these people well. The tendency toward violence exists in both camps. The main difference is that fundamentalist Christianity is contrained by the culture that surrounds it. It is not as evil as it wants to be.

The question that must be asked is not about how Christian fundamentalists act today, in modern America, but: How would they act in a culture if they were the dominant force? Certainly the fundamentalists who have spoken about a "Christian America based on God's law" envision a society where millions of people would be susceptible to the death penalty.

This video, about the hate campaigns in Uganda, fueled by American fundamentalists, is an indication of how these radical Christians would act in America, if they had the opportunity. The lack of opportunity should not be construed as a lack of will.

Now that I've thoroughly offended the Right allow me to comment on issues that will offend the Left.

The situation in Uganda is clearly a bad one. It is made worse because so much of African culture is thoroughly dysfunctional. All cultures are not equal, no matter what the cultural relativists say. What saves America from going too far down the theocratic road is that our nation still has one foot firmly rooted in the Enligtenment. Admitted the other is in the Dark Ages and ruled by superstition and faith, but America is sufficiently enlightened to avoid the worst excesses of faith-driven politics.

Africa is another case completely. African culture doesn't have one foot in the Enlightenment, it is more like one toe—and the little one at that. In my years in Africa what I saw was the worst forms of superstitition. Young girls were raped because the sangomas (witch doctors) said that raping a virgin could cure AIDS. I watched a soccer match on television where a small cat ran on the field. The players pursued it and stamped it to death, claiming it must be a witch sent to curse them. Every year hundres, if not thousands, of individuals are burned to death becasue the locals believe they are witches placing curses on their neighbors.

The worst excesses of the witch hunts in Salem, or in Europe before that, are nothing in comparison to the witch hunts that take place every year, year-in and year-out, even now in the 21st century. Consider these cases:

• Kenya, 2008: a mob of 300 men attacks and burns to death 11 people. "The gang moved from home to home through two villages, identifying their victims by using a list of names of suspected witches and wizards and the kind of spells they were believed to have cast..." They sometimes slit the throats of the victims first, or beat them to death with clubs. "Most of the victims were between 70 and 90 years old..."

• Nigeria, 2009: Fundamentalist churches denounce hundreds of children as "witch children" which leads to "exorcism" by forcing acid down the throats of the children. Nwanaokwo Edet, was just 9 when the acid was forced down his throat. It spilled, buring away his face, and he died from the "treatment" inflicted by his church and his father. Over 200 such children were identified by 13 fundamentalist Christian churches as witches. In all of Nigeria it is estimated that 15,000 children have been accussed of being witches and over 1,000 were killed by the Christians sent to exorcise them.

• Burundi, 2009. Watch this report on how albinos throughout East Africa are being hunted down and slaughtered so that their body parts can be used to make "good luck" charms. Where I lived in Africa this was called "muti." Shops existed selling portions and charms made by local sangomas




• South Africa, 2009: Ntombizanele Combo, 45, died when her home was set alight by witch hunters. Her six-year-old granddaughter, Sibulele Combo tried to escape but was forced back into the burning hut by the mob. Not far from the secne a 57-year-old man was hacked to death by the mob. Police say that the mob was hunting witches.

This sort of Dark-Ages thinking was rampant throughout Africa. The closest the West has to this sort of "magical" thinking is fundamentalist Christianity, so it is no wonder that this form of extremists religion is on the rise in Africa. What makes this even worse, is that many Africans see this sort of witch hunting being sanctioned by the West, as Christianity is associated with Western thinking. The Bible clearly says: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. It also commands the execution of male homosexuals—though not lesbians. The "Western" concept of Christainity is seen as endorsing the worst excesses of the African culture. People who have no problem executing small children in the name of Jesus, certainly won't be appalled at the idea of killing homosexuals.

Bob Barr is at it again.

For a brief period of time Bob Barr pretended to be a libertarian so that the desperate Libertarian Party would nominate him and fellow con man, Wayne Root, as their national candidates. That was the absolute low point for the LP ideologically and one that can only be made worse if they nominate Root again.

One of Barr's campaigns, when in Congress, was to bash Wiccan. Of course, he was most famous for being the author of the viciously antigay Defense of Marriage Act. Barr had argued that the US military shouldn't allow individuals to practice Wiccan beliefs. He says he later rethought the matter and decided that being Wiccan doesn't necessarily mean one is bad for the military. But he says he was always worried "just how far such tolerance should extend." Yep, Bob, wouldn't want too much tolerance around, would we?

I wish Barr would get a life. I won't say get a wife, he's had three, hence his desire to protect marriage so badly.

Now Barr is whining that the US Air Force Academy "has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level." What is Barr saying by calling religious tolerance a "notion?" A notion is fanciful idea, or a whim. It's just an opinion and not a very serious one. Barr dismisses tolerance of the religion of others to be just a "notion."

The Air Force Academy, allowed some of the Pagans who attend there, to set up an outdoor worship site. Paganism, is a earth religion. Sure, it's silly, but no more silly than the other beliefs that are widespread. Pagans at the academy used to hold worship indoors and prefer the outdoors so the Academy accommodated them. Barr is outraged.

Barr wrote a column attacking this notion of tolerance. He launched an attack on the Academy by defining Pagan in his own way. He says a Pagan is someone who has "little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods." This is just not an accurate portrayal of the Pagans at the Academy. Actually I think this version of "pagan" makes a lot more sense myself.

Barr then bitches about "being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion." But again, this isn't Paganism. Barr's entire attack is based on a false interpretation of the religion that these folk are practicing. Barr says, of their religion,"this truly is hilarious." Sure it is. Religion itself is hilarious.

A con man claims to have peep stones, gets visited by an angel and says he given golden plates, that is hilarious. It is also Mormonism.

People claim to worship a god-man, who was born of a virgin, died but rose from the dead. This is hilarious. But it is Christianity.

Some claim, that the god-man gave them wafers and wine but these things magically turn into the actual, physical body and blood of the god-man, which his followers are supposed to eat. Hilarious, and a tad bit gross, but this is Catholicism.

All of it is a bit silly, if you ask me. But, if the magic wafer eaters can have services at the Air Force Academy I don't see why people worshipping around a circle of stones should be denied the right to practice their beliefs.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like it. But Barr seems to be implying that these Pagans shouldn't even be allowed in the the military. Or perhaps he just wants a Don't Ask, Don't Chant policy for them. Barr says that if he were in the military he'd "be more than a little worried about following" a Pagan into battle. Personally, if I were going into battle I'd have a slightly different priority about what things would worry me, and the religious fantasies of others, wouldn't be very high on the list. The Paganism of the commander seems no worse to me than if the commander were a Baptist, a Catholic, or a Mormon.

All of them practice things that seem absolutely hilarious to me—come on, baptism for the dead! I find the non-religious, hedonist who likes the material world and pleasure, a lot more palatable than that.

Thomas Jefferson, someone Bob Barr should study, put it well: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

When it comes to practitioners of earth-based religions, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If anything I prefer these Pagans to Catholics, Baptists and certainly, to Mormons. After all, these Pagans aren't engaged in any concerted campaign to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. I can't say the same thing about the three sects that I just mentioned.

Photo: Barr with his most recent wife, I think, but I haven't checked lately.

How the most religious states fare.

The Pew Survey has released information on the most religious states in the United States and the least religious. They look at four factors to rate the depth of religious belief. The four questions rate the importance of religion, worship attendance, frequency of prayer and certainty in the existence of a god. I’m not convinced that the middle issues are as important as the other two. Using the two more important factors the top ten most religious states would be: Mississippi; Alabama; Arkansas; South Carolina; Tennessee; Louisiana; Georgia; Kentucky; North Carolina; and Oklahoma. Using all four survey questions wouldn't appear to change the ranking significantly.

The ten least religious states would be: New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, California, Nevada and Colorado.

With this in mind we can test a claim made by religious folk the when people are more religious society is more moral, stable, peaceful and prosperous. These are objective claims that can be investigated. So I did.
Blessings from God?

First, let’s investigate the claim that religious people receive material blessings from their deity because they are religious. This claim is quite prevalent. I heard it from the pulpit frequently, especially by the top leaders of the Religious Right. You will often hear it said that America is prosperous because has been a “Christian nation.” And the Bible clearly indicates that long-life is one blessing from Jehovah to his followers. If this is true we would expect those states with higher levels of religious fervor to more prosperous than those with lower levels of religious belief.

I looked at two different statistics that would indicate some sort of benevolent blessing to the believing states as opposed to the more secular states. First, I thought the poverty rate would be a good place to start. If the Christian deity increases prosperity due to one’s faith then the more religious states ought to have lower poverty rates and the more secular states ought to have higher poverty rates. Unfortunately it seems the deity got it backwards: the percentage of people living below the poverty line in the ten most religious states averaged out to 16.67%. In the more secular states the percentage below the poverty line was 10.3%—at least according to the Census Bureau.

So would the deity do better with life expectancy. Many Christians make the claim that believing and surrendering to God will increase life expectancy. Once again, if this is true then the most religious states ought to have an longer average life expectancy than do the least religious states. Again it seems the deity got things backwards. The average life expectancy in the ten most religious states was 74.9 but in the least religious states it was 77.8. Of course I don’t think religion has anything to do with life expectancy, but if it did, then it would appear that religion lowers life expectancy instead of increasing it.

Personal Morality

One of the most persistent claims I hear from Christians is that without the belief in some sort of deity it is not possible to be live a moral life. They are quite blunt that a belief in God is necessary otherwise people will live immorally and violently. First, lets look at some firm numbers that will indicate if this is true.

Christians are very adamant about sexual morality. It is an absolute sin to have sex outside marriage—this is a widespread belief most likely believed by the dominant conservative sects. The smaller “liberal” denominations are a bit more flexible. So does religion increase, or decrease, the likelihood of having sex outside marriage? First I looked at the data for the number of teenage births as a percentage of all births in the state. If belief in a god acts as some divine chastity belt then the teen pregnancy rates ought to be lower in the ten most religious states. In those religious states teen pregnancies made up 16.7% of all pregnancies. In the less religious states it was 10.3%. A different way of measure teen pregnancy rates can be found here, but it comes to similar results.

I also looked at the percentage of all pregnancies for unwed women. This is one of the key moral messages that the conservative Christians preach. So how’s it working out for them on that front? In the religious states 39% of all pregnancies were to single women. In the least religious states it was 33.8%.

Christians preach the “sanctity of marriage” very loudly. They say marriage is so sacred that gay people can’t have it because they would “degrade” it. I was a bit worried that the least religious states might lose out on this one because the Pew Survey listed Nevada as one of the least religious states. Nevada is a divorce mecca because it has the easiest divorce laws in the United States. So people go to Nevada for the express purpose of getting a divorce. That means Nevada has the highest divorce rate in the country, as you would expect giving the circumstances. What I found was the divorce rate per 1,000 people, in the most religious states, was 3.95 and in the least religious states it was 3.91. If I exclude Nevada’s high divorce rate the less religious states have an average of 3.62 per 1,000. So, even with Nevada included the less religious states have lower levels of divorce. Excluding Nevada the difference is even more pronounced.

Please remember I’m not particularly opposed to divorce nor am I opposed to sex before marriage. I’m even in favor of sex after marriage. I am just using criteria that Christians emphasize and showing that their belief system doesn’t even seem to support the results they say they want.

Morality Toward Others

To me the real test of morality isn’t whether you get pregnant, or have sex outside marriage, or even get a divorce. The real test of morality is how you treat others. Many believers tell me that without a god then there is no objective morality about things like rape and murder. So I looked specifically at the issues of violent offenses against other people. If religion makes people moral than the more religious states ought to have less violent crime while the less religious states ought to have more violent crime.

First, I looked at violent crime in general. The Census Bureau keeps such statistics on the basis of the numbers of such crimes per 100,000 people. In the religious states there are an average of 520.7 violent crimes per 100,000. In the less religious states the number is significantly lower: 370.3. What about forcible rape? That really ought to be a double taboo since it includes violence and sex outside marriage (usually). In the ten most religious states the average number of rapes, per 1,000 population was 30.3; in the less religious states it was 24.5. So, far this wasn’t looking good for the religious states.

I then decided to check out murder rates. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve heard believers argue that murder is only wrong because God says it is, and since unbelievers don’t believe in a god then they have no moral restraint on killing others. I was doubtful of that myself. So I checked the murder rate per 100,000 population. In the ten most religious states the rate was 7 murders per 100,000 people. In the less religious states it was 2.49. That’s almost a 3 to 1 ratio.

Conclusions

I looked at two main areas. The first is whether believers are somehow blessed by their deity for believing. That they have higher poverty rates and shorter life expectancy in states that are more religious than in those that are less religious seems to contradict that idea.

The second area regards the larger realm of personal morality. That two has two areas. The first of them was how people in religious states act according to the moral teachings of their own religion. We see that that what most conservative Christians would describe as “sexual sin” is more prevalent in religious states than in the less religious states. And divorce, which strikes at the very heart of the “sanctity of marriage” believe is higher in the religious states and lower in the more secular state. It would seem that the people in the least religious states are more likely to live up to “Christian morality” than the people in the more Christian states.

The second area of morality was how people act toward others. For that we looked at violent crime in general, violent rape and murder. There is little question about the immorality of these actions and widespread consensus that such acts are wrong and should be outlawed. What we saw was that stronger religious beliefs did not lower the rate for these crimes at all. The states with highest “faith” rating had more violence, rape and murder than the state with the lowest rating.

There are other ways to checking how these states compare. We could use VD rates as a proxy for morality indicators. I believe if we do the more religious states would lose out again. We can look at polls on things like torture—but polls done on that topic showed support for torture higher among religious people than non-religious people. We could look at the well-being of children in the two groups. A quick look at the “Kids Count” index of the Anne E. Casey Foundation shows that the religious states doing less well than the less religious states. Alabama ranks 48th; Arkansas 47th, Georgia 42nd, Kentucky 41st, Louisiana 49th, Mississippi 50th, North Carolina 37th, Oklahoma 44th, South Carolina 45th, and Tennessee 46th. In comparison the less religious states did as follows: Alaska 35th, California 20th, Colorado 22nd, Connecticut 4th, Maine 12th, Masschusetts 5th, Nevada 39th, New Hampshire 1st, Rhode Island 15th, and Vermont 8th. (I can’t say whether I agree with these ratings, they are used just as an example. Child abuse rates could be used as well.)

If you think there are other valid data sets to use suggest them in the comment section. I’d be curious to see how these two sets of states compare to one another across a wide range of measurements. I picked ones I thought were obvious and uncontroversial and didn’t know precisely what current statistics would show when applied to the states in the Pew Survey. I did not pick the states, I use the Pew data. Pew doesn’t rate the kind of religious beliefs well here though other surveys they have done do indicate the kind of Christianity that predominates. So, you will find that many of the professed Christians in the less religious states actually tend to be “liberals” in theology while the Christians in the more religious states tend to be more fundamentalist. That would indicate a wide divergence of religious intensity than is showing here. The divergence is because these numbers make the less religious states appear more religious than they are while underestimating the fervency of the believers in the more religious states.
Notes on methodology: In all cases I used percentages or rates per 100,000 (or per 1,000) population. This standardizes the rating so that the numbers take into account the varying population sizes. All the numbers used are unaffected by population differences. I took the statistics for all 10 of the most religious states and averaged them to one number. I then did the same for the 10 least religious states. This averaging out allows to compare the differences between the two groups as a whole. To duplicate my spreadsheet go to the sources listed and take down the data for the 20 states being studied. (I did this by one set of data for the most religious states and another for the least religious states.) Total up the numbers and average them out. Unless there is a typo in my spreadsheet, and I tried to check it carefully, then you should get the same results.

The pieces don't seem to fit.

Right-wing Catholic writer, Mary Eberstadt, has tried to explain the rise of secularization in the West. And she tries to do it and promote a Catholic view of things at the same time. Having babies is important, it is the only justification for sex, according to the Catholic sect. She argues that secularization of a society follows the decline in population growth. As people stop having more and more babies they cease to be religious.

Because families are smaller today than they used to be that is promoting a change in beliefs. Her evidence, in my opinion, is pretty flimsy. She also assumes that a smaller family is a "decline of the family." Big Catholic families ("every little sperm is sacred" - see video below for fun) would be described as a successful family. Having fewer children is not the decline of the family. It is just smaller families. People stil have families. Even just a couple who love each other are a family. But the Catholics are quite obsessive about reproducing—odd since their priests are so bad at it—though not for a lack of trying in some case. But altar boys just don't get pregnant.



Eberstadt theorizes that family sizes fell in Europe and then religion declined as a result. And, this is pretty much true. But corrallation is not causation. She says: "In France, for example — where secularism has been a ferocious social and political force for centuries — people generally stopped having babies much sooner than they did elsewhere on the Continent."

So, she assumes the one causes the other. And then to prove it says: "Once we allow that family decline is at least partly responsible for religious decline, we can do a better job of explaining the 'exceptions' in the literature than does secularization theory itself. Specifically, we can explain the largest problem that has bedeviled the theory all along: i.e., the difference in religiousity between Europe and the United States."

This is Eberstadt's proof. Since the U.S. is more religious and has higher birth rates than Europe then "changes in marrying and having babies are helping to drive changes in religiosity..." She claims that: "While fertility has plummeted in most of the rest of the industrialized world, to take one example, in the United States it remains the same, even registering a slight increase."

According to the The World Factbook, compiled by the CIA the fertility rate, that is the average number of children that a woman will give birth to in her lifetime, is 2.05 for the United States. For the "secular" French it is 1.98. The difference is rather small. So the drop in French fertility rates, as compared to the U.S. is all of 0.07. Basically that means for every 1 million American women there are 2,050,000 births and for every 1 million French women there are 1.980,000 births. Is a birth difference of just 70,000 per million women enough to drive the French to secularism while Americans are religious?

It is also curious, if the CIA numbers are correct, why cultures that are far more secular than the United States can have higher fertility rates? For instance, Greenland, a Danish outpost, has a birth rate of 2.19. The difference between Greenland and the United States is much greater than the difference between the United States and France (0.14 vs 0.07). If family size drives religiosity to some degree then we would have to presume that Greenland is even more religious than the United States. Unfortunately, for the theory, that isn't the case.

Another example is New Zealand. The fertility rate in New Zealand is 2.1, which is higher than in the United States. But church attendance in New Zealand is on levels well below the United States. Only 7.5% of the Kiwis are in church on any given Sunday. While surveys in the United States show about 20% of the population as saying they have "no religion," the New Zealand census showed that 32% of Kiwis claim to have no religion. Higher birth rates and higher secularization.

Eberstadt attempted to explain why the United States is the exception in religious trends around the world. She assumes that is the case. I don't think so. Religion is on the decline in the United States EVEN as birth rates remain steady or, as Eberstadt claimed "even registering a slight increase." She tries to explain exceptions to one theory and offers another that has even more exceptions that need explaining.

Take Cyprus as another example. Cypriots tend to be more religious than Americans. The percentage of Cypriots who claim to be members of Greek Orthodox church is greater than the number of Americans who claim to be Christian. Yet their birth rates are very low in comparison, just 1.77.

If Eberstadt's family-driving-religion theory made sense then the following ought to be true:

• Greenland ought to be more religious than the United States. In fact, it is less religious.

• New Zealand ought to be more religious than the United States. In fact, it too is less religious.

• Cyprus ought to be less religious than the United States but instead is more religous.

Now let us look at actual trends in the United States, trends that run counter to Eberstandt's theory.

Eberstadt notes that the U.S. has relatively higher birth rates compared to the rest of the West. She assumes religion causes that. Yet Americans today are far less religious than they were just a few years ago. The number of Americans who classify themselves as non-believers has doubled in recent years even as the birth rate has not declined, as would be expected if Eberstadt is correct. The most recent American Religous Identification Survey shows that currently 70% of Americans say they are Christian. In 1990 it was 86%. That is a substantial drop in a very short time that clearly is unrelated to birth rates. The Survey says: "The challenge to Christianity in the U.S. does not coe from other religions but rather from a rejection of all forms of organized religion."

The Survey said, in a press statement:

The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, had now increased to 15 percent. …Northern New England has now taken over the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the county, with Vermont, at 34 percent “Nones,’ leading all other states by a full 9 points. Ariela Keyser who helped conduct the survey said: “The Nones are the only group to have grown in every state of the union.”

The Survey says that statistical analysis indicates that a lot of people who decline to answer questions abour religion are more likely in the "None" category. They write, "we can observe that in 2008 one in five adults does not identify with a religion of any kind compared with one in ten in 1990." Clearly the secularization process is taking place in the United States, and at a relatively rapid pace, while birth rates are not declining. This ought not be happening if Eberstadt's theory makes sense. I conclude it doesn't.

Oddly Albert Mohler, comes to the defense of Eberstadt's theory. He says: "Mary Eberstadt is also surely right." He says that American "exceptionalism" is evidence of it. Southern Baptist Mohler is actually contradicting himself. In his own blog he previous claimed that "The worldview of most Americans is now thoroughly secularized..." He claimed the church was displaced as is "characteristic of the process of secularization which has now so thoroughly alterned the landscape of American culture." He goes as far as saying that America is a "post-Christian" nation. But if America is a post-Christian nation, as Mohler claimed, then Eberstadt's theory is wrong.

Poor Rev. Mohler, whatever you think of his theology, his logic is piss poor. He wants America to be the exception to the general theory and thus highly religious in one case. But in another case he claims religion has been displaced and America is now "post-Christian." I'm not surprised he has said contradictory things. His motives were different in each case. The artilce on "post-Christian" America was the typical doom and gloom you hear from fundamentalists. His cheerleading for Eberstadt's theory however, had a different agenda.

As Mohler sees it, and perhaps as Eberstadt does as well, this theory supposedly proved "the importance of preserving family structure and high rates of childbirth in light of spiritual commitments." When fundamentalist talk about "preserving family" you know that an old-fashioned gay bashing isn't far behind.

As Mohler wrote himself, America has entered a "post-Christian" era. Apparently he thinks America is still the "exception" to secularization while being a shining example of secularization simultaneously. It is one thing, and it's complete opposite, at the same time. In other words: A is not A. Now you know why I say he is poor at logic.

Both Mohler and Eberstadt have religious agendas. That's fine. We know they have them. But I think it is clear that they are trying to interpret reality to fit with their religion. Unfortunately for them reality doesn't work that way. It is what it is. Perhaps in Mohler's mind A can be non-A but in the real world A is A.

A few thoughts on the idea of intelligent design.

If one takes the conventional theological view of existence you end up with a story like this: Once upon a time there was a deity. This deity existed for all of eternity. At some point that deity created a universe, apparently for the purpose of making humans the central point of it.

I admit to not buying that story at all. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t contemplate the story and consider the ramifications of the theory. Doing so raises some interesting questions.

If a deity existed for all of past eternity, but he only created the universe and our species at some relatively recent time in the past, what was he doing for the rest of the eternal past? In terms of the eternal— whether you take the Creationists seriously, and accept that humans are a few thousand years old, or whether you take the scientists and accept that the universe is billions of years old—creation is a relatively recent event. So, for the blink of the eye the universe has existed and before that was an endless eternity of void, with a deity hanging around somewhere, though where is not exactly clear.

So, what was that deity doing for the billions and billions and billions of years before he acted to create all that is? And, whatever it was he was doing for all that time, why stop doing it in order to create a universe?

The most logical explanation, given the premises of theism, is that the being was perfect and hence had no need to do anything. He merely existed, content in his own perfection for all that time. That certainly would explain the lack of activity prior to existence coming into being. But it raises another difficulty. If this being were content in his own perfection, then why suddenly act to change existence?

The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises argued that every conscious action is taken to improve the actor’s satisfaction or well-being. This doesn’t apply to things acted upon, such as leaves being moved by the wind. Nor does it apply to unconscious entities like plants. But for life forms, animals or human, the being acts to improve its own condition.

If a deity existed in his own perfection then what sort of dissatisfaction could cause him to act in any manner? Surely, the perfectly content being has no reason to act at all. All action, in a state of perfect satisfaction, can only lead to less satisfaction, not more. Perfect satisfaction is that above which no greater satisfaction can exist. So no action can increase the perfection and it can rightfully be argued that every action must reduce it. There is no other possibility.

Such a theory of a perfected being may explain the inactivity of god for eternity, but it cannot explain his sudden need to act. What dissatisfaction could possible have existed to cause this deity to suddenly fling galaxies into existence?

A perfect being would not act. An imperfect being would act. Yet, theology tells us that the perfect being acted. In Genesis we are told he created all that exists and proclaimed it “good.” Apparently before it was created it was not good, he existed in an imperfect state that he acted to improve. But, can a perfect being, upon whom all that is depends, ever exist in an imperfect state? The whole thing seems to be one massive contradiction.

If a perfect being existed he would have no need to act. He would simply exist in his own perfection. The mere act of creation implies an imperfect being or a completely unintelligent source for the universe. Considering the contradictions of the theistic position I can only hold to a natural, explanation for all that is. A deity who acts is a contradiction in terms.