The View from Number 80

October 4th 2005

October 7th 2005

Good News, Bad News - the media are full of the latest breakthrough in the fight against cancer, in this case cervical cancer. The Guardian tells us "Two major drug companies, Sanofi Pasteur and Merck and Co, which are jointly developing it, claim that the vaccine, called Gardasil, gives women 100% protection against the changes in cells lining the cervix that forewarn of cancer." It reportedly does this by targetting the human papilloma virus (HPV). If accurate, this is wonderful news for women at risk from the disease (and for the shareholders of the companies involved). This is obviously the aforementioned good news, but what could possibly be bad about this? It seems that HPV is spread by sexual intercourse and in order to be effective girls as young as 10 would need to vaccinated. Enter  conservative religionists in the US with their warped view of the world. They see this breakthrough as a threat to young girls' chastity, in that they believe vaccination would actually encourage them to have sex. Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council has said "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV. Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." This is not backed by any evidence but is based upon Maher and others' unhealthy obsession with what others do with their genitalia. Note that Maher seems to think that the potential harm of premarital sexual intercourse is more of a threat to young women than death from cervical cancer. Consequently these conservative Christians' answer to the lethal danger of this sexually transmitted disease is the teaching of abstinence, the effectiveness of which is much disputed.

So, let's see if we have this straight. Scientific research has come up with a treatment that looks to be, on the evidence so far, 100% effective against a deadly disease that in the UK kills 1300 mothers, sisters, wives, daughters and nieces every year. (In the US the death toll is approximately 3700.) Rather than welcome Gardasil as a reliable way to prevent these deaths, these religionists view it as a threat to girls' chastity and a possible incitement to become "sexually active". These fools are so fixated on the subject of sex and the religious regulation thereof that they cannot think of anything else - even to the point of opposing the use a treatment that could save thousands of lives. Culture of life? Don't make me sick.

The Hanged Banker - here's an item that should have the conspiracy theorists tingling with anticipation. The trial has begun in Rome of 5 people accused of the murder of Roberto Calvi in 1982. Calvi's body was found hanging by the neck under Blackfriars Bridge in London, the pockets of his suit stuffed with rocks and banknotes. Police initially thought it was suicide but later changed their minds, leaving the verdict open. Calvi, dubbed "God's banker" because of his close Vatican links, is thought to have been laundering money for the Mafia through his Banco Ambrosiano, then Italy's largest private bank, before its subsequent collapse and his prosecution. This explanation is far too straightforward for many, and web sites and books have detailed a vast conspiracy behind the murder involving a war between the dark forces of freemasonry and the Roman Catholic church. This rather dramatic-looking site, Freemasonrywatch, is typical of the sort of imaginative web-spinning that has surrounded the story. A rather more sober page from American Atheist tells the story as well, under the heading Through the Looking Glass, Vatican Politics, the Calvi Murder and Beyond.... The writer, Conrad Goeringer, weaves in not only freemasonry and the Vatican but also Mussolini, Juan Peron, the late Argentinian dictator, visions of Mary and Opus Dei. His final paragraph tells us "Calvi’s last days have been investigated, at least as much as they can be. Calvi had been sentenced to jail for the collapse of Ambrosiano, but was free on appeal. He sent his wife to Washington, DC telling her that he and the entire family were in danger. He obtained a false passport and in the company of Flavio Carboni made his way to Trieste, then to what is now Croatia, then Austria, where he called his daughter with instructions to meet him in Zurich. He never arrived. Five days later, Roberto Calvi was hanging from a rope underneath a bridge in London." Whether the murder trial validates any of the myriad connections that have been surmised between church, gangsters and dictators remains to be seen. 80 has tended to the cock-up rather than the conspiracy view of many supposed mysteries. The most likely explanation here is a sordid falling out among crooks which ended, as it often does, in murder. Experience tells 80 this will not satisfy the conspiracy theorists who could never settle for such a prosaic outcome. Expect the stories to continue, but embellished further by claims of a trial that was a smokescreen, generated to conceal those sinister forces which were really responsible.
 

Words of Comfort -  "Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these 10 things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send *you* to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you." -- George Carlin

Payback? - as George Bush's choice to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor, Harriet Miers is undergoing intense scrutiny of her opinions and beliefs. One item of great interest is why she was chosen by the President at all. E. J. Dionne Jr., writing in the Washington Post, calls her Bush's Dangerous Choice, and highlights one likely reason. As in the elevation of John Bolton to the UN ambassadorship it looks like another instance of a reward for past services. Bolton, aka Scary Mustache Guy, was instrumental in stopping the Florida recount in 2000, thereby ensuring Bush scraped into the White House. Miers has long been a faithful servant to Bush and rendered one service in particular which may go some way to explaining her appointment. Dionne tells us "At the very moment Bush is battling charges of cronyism, Bush has sought an appointee from about as deep inside his inner circle as he could go. No one will miss the fact that, back in 1998, it was Miers who was responsible for looking into Bush's Vietnam era draft record to prepare for damage control." Cronyism? Maybe - or just prudent action to keep sweet another person who knows where the bodies are buried. The President's comment on his choice was "I picked the best person I could find."
 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Blaise Pascal

October 9th 2005

That's the Spirit - here's an interesting review from the New Yorker about an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum devoted to spirit photography from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Entitled “The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult,” and featuring more than a hundred and twenty photos it illustrates what reviewer Vince Aletti calls "...an exercise in blind faith and outrageous fraud." He reasons that the popularity of spirit photos was aided initially by the great loss of life in the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War that left many relatives highly receptive to this method of apparent contact with their lost ones. A similar slaughter in the First World War made seances popular with many who were grieving, most notably Arthur Conan Doyle. (Talking of Conan Doyle, the exhibition features one of the Cottingley fairy pictures that so hoodwinked the gullible old chap. For more see James Randi's library page) This sense of bereavement coupled with public ignorance of the relatively new art of photography goes some way to explain why so many were taken in by these images. The enthusiasts who fill websites today with pictures of orbs, rods and other spurious photographic artifacts don't even have that excuse. Their ignorance is deliberate. Back in 2002, 80 looked at an online exhibition of spirit photographs from the American Museum of Photography called Spirit Photography 1868 - 1935, a good few of which feature ectoplasm, which to 80's untutored eye looks like the spirit world's answer to snot.

Charlie and the Nonsense Factory - it is no great surprise that the report commissioned by Charles, Prince of Quacks, on "complementary" therapies is at the center of a row over its credibility. (see Foolish Meddling) Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter's Peninsula Medical School made these damning observations "It looked to me as though the conclusions were written before the data were put in. These people admitted they were not experts in healthcare. They didn't understand anything of complementary medicine and, more importantly, they weren't even interested in learning." Ernst has said that he is in favor of using complementary medicine but follows it up with what has always been the showstopper for such treatments - they must be "backed up by good science." In other words they must be shown to be effective by the same standards applied to real, evidence-based medicine. A spokesman for the Prince tried to justify the report's recommendations that alternative/complementary treatments should be made available through the taxpayer-funded National Health Service (NHS) "Past research indicates that as many as 16 million people in the UK have used complementary treatments so there is a clear need for reliable information on this subject." A couple of observations can be made here. As 80 has said before, science is not a popularity contest, no matter how many millions of people think alternatives are a good idea. Also note the reference to "reliable information" - something Ernst claims the report is not.

Ernst is not alone in his concern over the pressure from Charles Windsor for the NHS to use unproven treatments. Dr Richard Horton, the editor of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, is even more forthright in his condemnation of the report saying "Let's be clear: this report contains dangerous nonsense." Horton voices concern at the "collusion and complacency shown by some doctors, notably Graeme Catto, president of the General Medical Council, who has welcomed the Prince of Wales's report on CAM." Horton cites the recommendation of the report that homeopathy could be used to treat asthma, which kills 1400 people a year in the UK, and says "The idea that homeopathy can replace conventional treatment, as the prince's report suggests, is absolutely wrong. Not one shred of reliable evidence exists to support this incredibly misjudged claim." His final paragraph sums up the worries of those who believe that medical treatments must be shown to work effectively by agreed scientific standards "We are losing our grip on a rational scientific medicine that has brought benefits to millions, and which is now being eroded by the complicity of doctors who should know better and a prince who seems to know nothing at all." The Prince of Quacks has all sorts of opinions he is keen to share, but he should restrict them to organic farming or architecture, to name a couple of his favorite hobbyhorses, and keep his aristocratic nose out of matters where his wilful ignorance and wishful thinking could endanger people's lives.

October 11th 2005

Fundamentalism - "Descent into the new Dark Ages" is the uncompromising title of a special report in the print edition of New Scientist (Vol 188 No 2520) magazine. Among some worrying and indeed frightening articles such as "The End of the Enlightenment" and "Enemy at the Gates", the editors have at least included some light relief. This comes in the form of an essay by Bryan Appleyard called "People in glass houses...." in which he shares with us his ignorance of just what the scientific method entails. This is obvious when, in the second paragraph, he tells us "Science is indeed the faith, system, theory, methodology - choose your own term - that sustains liberal democratic socialism." You cannot "choose your own term", at least not if you wish to be accurate. In addition, science does not sustain just liberal democratic socialism, it sustains the whole roiling, overpopulated planet irrespective of politics. Take away science (as the Bush administration seems bent on) and its medical and technological offspring and you would have a very sorry state of affairs indeed, one that humankind couldn't pray its way out of. Appleyard thinks that science should not be used to refute fundamentalist claims, even if this is possible, for fear of becoming fundamentalist itself. This smells of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria nonsense. Where religion makes claims that are testable by using the scientific method, why should they not be tested?

In order to make his point Appleyard then produces the bogeyman of scientism (in the strong sense) - one can almost hear him say "There are some things man is not meant to know". He seems to think that "God did it" as an explanation that while implausible is "at least complete". Completeness is no good if your argument is hogwash and merely offers, like Intelligent Design, a facile explanation that tells us nothing of how the real, physical world works. His main concern is with scientists/secularists (he seems to think these terms are interchangeable - they are not) who overreach themselves and make the "fatal extrapolation" by claiming that  science works therefore it is potentially "omnicompetent and omniscient". This particular straw man is a figment of Appleyard's imagination - such absurd claims belong to religion, not science. He defines what he calls scientific fundamentalism as the "...belief that the world is accessible to and ultimately controllable by human reason." This he rightly calls a "profoundly unscientific idea. It is neither provable nor refutable. Obviously it is a leap of faith to insist that human reason is capable of fully understanding the world." He seems to overlook that this "profoundly unscientific idea" is of his own making. Science, or more properly the scientific method, makes no claims as to absolute knowledge or even the possibility of achieving that goal. What it can offer are theories that, by making predictions that can be tested, result in ever more accurate approximations of physical reality. It is the religionists that are so arrogant as to proclaim certainty and perfectability. As for the dream of the world being "ultimately controllable" that is politics, not science.

Appleyard, having conjured up the specter of scientism appears to backtrack, saying "Now obviously I know - and I need to make this very clear- that most scientists do not hold this view." It is apparently down to a few bad apples, which he illustrates by Hitler's use of now discredited biological theories of Ernst Haeckel in Mein Kampf (no mention here of Hitler's religion) and the massacres perpetrated by Stalin and Mao. He seems totally unaware of the checks that are inherent in the scientific method - this is why we now know that Haeckel, Lysenko and others were wrong. Look for a similar self-correcting tendency in religion (or politics) and you will be wasting your time. Appleyard's vision of scientific fundamentalism is not reflected in the real world - it is a product of all the tales descended from Shelley's Frankenstein, of those frightened by science "unweaving the rainbow". It is a monster that, paradoxically, comforts those dissatisfied with the material world, those who hunger for something more. This attitude is described in another item that appeared in New Scientist last year in an interview with philosopher Jamie Whyte, when referring to people of "faith". "The weirdest manifestation of this new tendency is when people say: "I'm not a Christian but I believe in something." Then I say: "Of course, I believe in many things, like there is a chair there and a table. What are you talking about?" And they reply: "Well, you know, something more." But what "more"? What they mean is something more than we have any good reason to believe in." People can believe what they like - and many of them do - but when those beliefs have consequences that can be tested in the real, physical world by science they invariably come off the worse for the encounter. This is not scientific fundamentalism it is just science, working as it should.

In Their Own Words - for those of you who want more information than the press reports provide on the Dover School Board Evolution/Intelligent Design court case you can find transcripts of testimony here, courtesy of The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Also read Devolution by H. Allen Orr, writing in The New Yorker, for an excellent summary and dismissal of the nonscience that is Intelligent Design. Orr's final paragraph points up that this is not a case of competition between rival scientific theories - that would be conducted via peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals and backed by evidence. No, the simple fact that the venue is a courtroom emphasizes this is not a scientific dispute at all. "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. Meanwhile, more than eighty per cent of Americans say that God either created human beings in their present form or guided their development. As a succession of intelligent-design proponents appeared before the Kansas State Board of Education earlier this month, it was possible to wonder whether the movement’s scientific coherence was beside the point. Intelligent design has come this far by faith."
 

American Democracy in Trouble - click on over to Common Dreams and read a speech by Al Gore in which he surveys the current state of US politics and the media and concludes "It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse". Impassioned and erudite, Gore, the best president the US never had, voices his fears for the future of democracy. Far from being a jeremiad this is a clarion call to stop the rot before it is too late.

October 13th 2005

Unchurched - now what the hell does that mean? In the eyes of say, Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, the US Air Force's deputy chief of chaplains, it seems to mean unaffiliated or not belonging to any religious faith. 80 had not come across the word before but disliked it instantly. Why? Because it implies that those so described are somehow lacking something. This is offensive, not only to those who have a private belief and choose not to flaunt it in public displays, but most particularly those unencumbered by superstition, the god free. Not to believe in a vengeful. capricious sky fairy under whatever name, Yahweh, Allah etc. is not to feel deficient in any area. It is a release and a chance to stand on your own two feet, instead of appealing to holy writ to justify your actions. It is the pleasure of performing a good deed for its own sake, and not because some all-seeing deity is keeping score. It is to delight in the fact that you have been given the priceless opportunity of learning about the amazing Universe in which we find ourselves. It is the knowledge that you are the result of countless generations of ancestors who lived long enough and were healthy enough to breed, making you the product of a long line of winners, stretching back into deep time. You are not "unchurched".

In June of this year the superintendent of the US Air Force Academy acknowledged "..that religious intolerance permeates the military school." There were complaints that evangelicals harassed cadets who did not share their faith, and a top chaplain claimed to have been fired because she "..criticized what she saw as proselytizing at the academy." So, over 4 months later, has the USAF cleaned up its act? Partially, would be the charitable reply. According to the Washington Post, the Air Force, "...facing a lawsuit over alleged proselytizing, has withdrawn a document that permitted chaplains to evangelize military personnel who were not affiliated with any faith..." While never a part of Defense Department policy (it was drawn up by National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces (NCMAF), a private association of religious bodies that provide chaplains to the military) the fact that this document was handed out to serving chaplains could easily give that impression. Why should those wishing to serve in their country's armed forces have to endure anyone proselytizing them? Just what part of the job is that? Following a law suit by Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein, a 1977 Air Force Academy graduate who accuses the Academy's leaders of pressuring cadets to convert to evangelical Christianity, the USAF has now distanced itself from the document.

Among other evidence, Weinstein's suit cited the words of the aforementioned Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, which appeared in the New York Times, to wit "We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched." If this zealot is not going to bother anyone else, why pick on the "unchurched" - what if they are "unchurched" because they think religion is a load of hooey? Their opinions are at least as valid as Richardson's. The Air Force now has new guidelines on religious tolerance "...that discourage public prayers on all but rare occasions. They do not ban evangelizing but say chaplains "...must be as sensitive to those who do not welcome offerings of faith as they are generous in sharing their faith with those who do." This may be calling for a finer discrimination than these zealots can manage. It also does not go anywhere near far enough and is only a slight improvement on the previous state of affairs, but some, like Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, a special adviser to the secretary of the Air Force, think it is wonderful, even though he seems to miss the point entirely. He told the Post that the "..amazing, positive thing that people are missing.." about the new NCMAF code of ethics is that "even the most evangelical chaplains are agreeing not to try to change the religion of a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu -- anyone who has a religious faith." And what about the god free, "those who do not welcome offerings of faith"? Do these guidelines still allow them to be pestered by evangelists or not? The rights of those who choose not to display their faith overtly, and of those who are free from such irrationality altogether, are still not considered equal to the rights of the superstitious herd.

Us Ordinary Folk - "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow

Secularist of the Year - Maryam Namazie has deservedly won the National Secular Society's Irwin Prize for Secularist of the Year. See this page from Butterflies and Wheels for details of the award, and Maryam Namazie's acceptance speech. Update - here is a report from the NSS with pictures.

Try This One Out in Yer Faith Schools - a cartoon by Martin Rowson in the Guardian.

Rained Off - God showed his opinion of evangelicals on the opening day of DC Festival, a Christian evangelical gathering in Washington two years in preparation, when he rained on their parade. The lame excuses from the participants are, I suppose, a heartening demonstration of their faith. Evangelical preacher Luis Palau said "I'm not discouraged. I'm perplexed that the Lord would allow this rain to come and despite all our prayers...When we get to heaven . . . we'll find out why this happened." One participant added "Rain is not going to stop God's power."  All things considered, 80 reckons  they have gotten off lightly compared to what He did to New Orleans............. 

Quote - " As for their combined ability to contact the dead, they are about level with Spongebob Squarepants", from Tony Youens' Commentary, in which he reviews those unprincipled individuals who make a somewhat sordid living from appearing on stage and "contacting the dead". He looks at four mediums (media?) and rates them for, as he puts it, sheer entertainment value. See how Derek Acorah, Colin Fry, Tony Stockwell and Simon Peters fare in Youens' hit parade.........

October 15th 2005

Democratic Denmark - multiculturalism is all very well but it should not mean that minorities can dictate what is permissible for the majority. This is especially true with regard to what has sadly become in some people's eyes the sole defining feature of many cultures, religion. One reason this has happened is lazy or convenient labelling, as in UK politicians' frequent reference to the "Muslim community". The citizens of the UK who are Muslim are a diverse bunch and pinning the same label on them all leads to the mistaken perception that self-appointed groups, for example the Muslim Council of Britain, are representative of all co-religionists. Another reason is that fundamentalists have hijacked the language of democracy and disguise their unreasonable demands as "human rights", a concept they singularly fail to apply to members of other faiths or none. This problem is not confined to the UK but affects other countries in Europe, such as Denmark. It is well-known that, in general, followers of Islam do not hold with graphic likenesses of their prophet Mohammed. At various times in the past Christianity has had its own iconoclastic tendencies and there were even protests when Jesus was first depicted in movies, but generally these days the prevalent culture in western democracies allows the depictation of pretty much anyone and everything. If you are an immigrant to one of these countries it is arrogant to think that your religious views on imagery should supersede those obtaining locally. Now a Danish author has started a row by claiming that no one dared illustrate his book on Mohammed. A newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, rose to the challenge and asked cartoonists send in representations of the prophet - 12 did so. 80 has not tracked down the images anywhere, except one, and consequently cannot comment on their artistic merit or style*. The single example on Jyllands-Posten's website shows a bearded, turbaned man clutching a dagger, flanked by two burka-clad women whose eyes alone are visible, unlike the man whose eyes are blanked out. Given that Mohammed triggered a series of wars and conquests in the name of his religion the fact that the cartoon character is armed should not surprise anyone. As for the women, it is well-known that Islam values women less than men and its stricter interpretations insist they wear what are in effect ground-length hats. (*Update - all the cartoons may be seen here)

Aside from such embellishments, it is plain the very fact of the cartoons' existence was enough to rattle the cage of Islamic iconoclasts, in particular one Imam Raed Hlayhel who can't quite get his head around the idea of democracy. Jyllands-Posten quotes him as stating "This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims, Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world. We demand an apology!" By all means protest Imam if you, and some of your fellow religionists, find the images offensive but do not think in a democracy you can go further than that - and don't claim to speak for all Muslims in the world, unless you have checked with them all. Such hyperbole merely makes you sound silly.  Inflammatory language can only set off the inevitable hotheads - and so it has. The newspaper has received threats and has consequently hired security guards. A youth who phoned in a threat to one of the cartoonists has been arrested. Jyllands-Posten has, quite rightly in 80's view, refused demands for an apology. Flemming Rose, the paper's cultural editor, denied that the purpose of the request for cartoons had been to provoke Muslims but was a "...reaction to the rising number of situations where artists and writers censured themselves out of fear of radical Islamists." 

This worrying development can be seen in the aftermath of the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh, the craven behavior of London's Tate Britain gallery, and is not limited to Islamists - the play Behzti was closed down after riots and threats by Sikhs. The reaction to Jerry Springer the Opera from Christian Voice and others is also part of the same readiness of religionists to be offended by modern culture. If these people live in a democracy that allows them to express their own, often bigoted views, then they must acknowledge the right of others to free expression. In the UK right now the Blair government has taken the side of some religionists in attempting to legislate against the incitement to religious hatred, apparently oblivious to the chilling effect this ill thought-out law will have on public discourse and the arts. Other religious groups and secular organizations such as the National Secular Society recognize this threat to free speech and have publicly protested. The last word belongs to Flemming Rose, "Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock".

O.I.N.K. - since the above was written 80 has been made aware (thanks, Tony) of this opinion piece by Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph, which informs us "Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and "pig-related items" will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee's box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet." (Do "pig-related items" include the bacon sandwiches in the staff canteen? How about pigskin gloves?) Steyn quotes Councillor Mahbubur Rahman on the decision, "It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding," No, it is not a good thing, Mr Rahman, for at least two reasons. One is that pigs in pictures and stories have always been part of British culture and anyone who chooses to live in the country should accept that. Two, if this absurd ban is allowed to stand what other features of British everyday life will be deemed unacceptable or offensive in the light of someone's religious/superstitious beliefs? To commemorate Dudley Council's craven swinophobia, 80 is instituting an award for the most craven performance by a public body in accommodating offended religionists. In honor of the banned and harmless Piglet the award is to be called the OINK! Recipients are automatically enrolled in the Order of the Imbecilic Nincompoop Kowtowers. Should readers know of any public body, apart from Dudley Council, Tate Britain and Burger King that deserves to join this sad assemblage do let 80 know.

October 19th 2005

Lost In Translation - The Times reports that Cardinal Newman (1801-90) is in the running for a sainthood. Although the book has been open on the old boy since 1958 no reports of any miracles via his intercession had surfaced until recently, when, we are told, a deacon of "the Diocese of Boston in the United States had testified that he had recovered from a spinal disease after praying to Cardinal Newman." The deacon, 60, had earlier undergone an unsuccessful operation, but after prayers to Newman had "fully recovered his health and mobility". By way of explanation for this slow miracle rate, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, said "...the English are not very good at miracles. It’s not that we are not pious, but the English tend to think of God as a gentleman who should not be bullied." Loosely translated this means "In general the English are not given to religious hysteria which is why the miracle had to be outsourced to the USA". Murphy-O'Connor earned 80's undying contempt some time ago for his concealment of the actions of pedophile priests - see Whited Sepulchre and also here. Talking of pedophilia, here is a remark that illustrates the caring and compassionate side of Roman Catholicism. A spokesman for Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, who is also plugging Newman for sainthood, seemed amused that the miracle report came from the Diocese of Boston, a hotbed of priestly sexual abuse. He callously said "Perhaps that is God’s little joke." Nothing like a bit of child abuse and permanently scarred lives to keep the deity amused. These hypocrites are beyond belief.

Unholy Trinity - 80 has long been an enthusiastic recipient of Fraser Cain's Universe Today newsletter which is also syndicated elsewhere on this site. Regular readers cannot have failed to notice 80's frequent references to Tony Youens' skeptical Commentary, his cold reading expertise and his tireless promotion of a rational world view as a founding member of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry (ASKE). A recent happy discovery for 80 was Skepticality  and their fascinating, funny and informative podcasts. A short while back 80 mentioned that Tony was to feature in one of these. Now the The Unholy Trinity of a Skepticality podcast featuring Tony Youens interviewed by Fraser Cain is available online for your delectation - excellent! (80 is also delighted to hear of Derek's progress and wishes him a speedy return to the podwaves) Don't forget permanent links to the above-mentioned sites live in the sidebar of this page.

noitulovE - the makers of that fine, dark brew Guinness (or rather their ad company, Framestore CFC) have excelled themselves with this promotional video. Look for the download link under the center picture. It is about 6MB in size and is in Quicktime, which can be downloaded free here. Enjoy!

Faith Based Marketing - it's hardly the way to build confidence in their market research. Faith Based Marketing (PO Box 1055 Rockwall, TX 75087) were dumb enough to spam  rabid atheist 80 with an invitation (full text here) to register for the 1st Annual Faith Based Marketing Summit to be held on November 4th in Dallas. They offer advice on how smart folks can entice the dollars from the pockets of the faithful. "In recent years, the faith based community has played a major role in the success of numerous films such as The Passion of the Christ and the Left Behind series, and books like The Prayer of Jabez and Rick Warren’s best-seller Purpose-Driven Life. The 1st Annual Faith Based Marketing Summit will explore the role this influential segment of society can play, and help attendees learn what it takes to reach this integral group of consumers." Have they forgotten the words of St Paul? ".. the love of money is the root of all evil..." (1 Timothy 6:10) It certainly looks like it. Can we say hypocrites? Yes, I rather think we can. But wait, maybe we can't, for "A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things." (Ecclesiastes 10:19) So much for biblical inerrancy...
(thanks to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, bless 'em)

Quote - from the excellent Pharyngula blog, in a piece on Charles P Pierce's  Greetings from Idiot America, these words struck a resounding chord with 80. "You would be surprised at how much email is sent to me telling me to stop being so derisive, that harsh language and ridicule turn people off and repel the very ones we're trying to persuade. My reply is like the one above; by refusing to ridicule the ridiculous, by watering down every criticism into a mannered circumlocution, we have created an environment where idiots thrive unchallenged."

Windsor Whines - The Prince of Quacks sounds off again in an article from the Daily Telegraph "The prince moved on to address a group of GPs sympathetic to his holistic view of medicine. He said he did not promote complementary medicines "because of some self-indulgent pet projects, or because of some half-baked obsession with unsubstantiated quackery". He added: "I seem to have attracted a remarkable degree of controversy for something as apparently harmless as advocating a whole-person, holistic approach to health care." He has in fact attracted attention for promoting dangerous nonsense and using his privileged position to try and bypass the standards of evidence required for any real medical treatment. It is typical of Windsor that he has turned valid criticism from the likes of the editor of The Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, and the professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, Edzard Ernst, concerning his irresponsible meddling and the useless, misleading report he commissioned , into yet another whine about how misunderstood he is. He then added that complementary medicine was not about "quackery and witchery, hocus-pocus and snake oil" but about giving patients accurate information and letting them make informed choices. In the real world complementary medicine that is not "quackery and witchery, hocus-pocus and snake oil" is not "complementary" at all, it is just medicine. As for giving patients accurate information this is the very commodity from which his report is free - see Charlie and the Nonsense Factory. While on the subject of quackery and its endorsement by the medically unqualified, click on over to Tony Youens' Commentary for the story of the politician who is convinced on the flimsiest of evidence that homeopathy works. (Nice picture, Tony.) As has been said many times  before, the plural of anecdote is not data...

Pastafarian Proof - as if proof were needed that all the other religions are johnny-come-latelies here is the news that a votive offering to the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been found by archaeologists in China. The find, an upturned bowl of noodles at least 4000 years old, greatly strengthens the case made by devotees of the FSM for equal representation when religion finally takes its rightful place in the science curriculum. It is surely beyond doubt that the noodles "...about 50cm (20in) long and 3mm in diameter, appear similar in style to a traditional variety called La-Mian." are one of the first faltering attempts by early Pastafarians at depicting His Noodly Appendage. Perhaps this momentous discovery will finally convert those close-minded school boards who are resisting the fair and balanced inclusion of the FSM in  science classes.

US Constitution, Article VI - Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

President Bush - trying to quell a blistering assault from conservatives that has thrown Harriet Miers' nomination for the Supreme Court into doubt, said Wednesday that her religion is a factor in evaluating her. "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. ... And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." San Francisco Chronicle Also see Christopher Hitchens' piece in Slate, Miers and Brimstone, where he says "Let's stop pretending there's no religious test for nominees."

October 21st 2005

The Pop Star and the Parasite - here is the singularly revealing tale of a man who makes a living from the grief of others trying to hitch his rickety little wagon to the altogether more impressive vehicle of someone who actually possesses some talent - and achieving not fame and fortune by the association but richly deserved humiliation. Intrigued? How about if names such as Robert de Niro, Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman are featured? Click on over to Tony Youens' Commentary for the sordid details and be ready to laugh your socks off.

Unbelievable - 80 nearly missed this report from RTE News earlier this month. A Nigerian man, Osagie Igbinedion, resident in Kilkenny, Eire, performed a home circumcision. The result was that "...29-day-old Collis Osaighe ... died from haemorrhage and shock due to bleeding. He had been circumcised a number of hours previously by Mr Igbinedion." Mr Igbinedion was charged with reckless endangerment and appeared before Waterford Circuit Court court. He was found not guilty by the jury, which had assistance from the bench in reaching its conclusion. So far this seems a terrible tragedy that occurred over an operation that is not medically necessary but if Igbinedion was found not guilty in a properly constituted court then that would appear to be that. It is this paragraph from the RTE report that 80 finds stunning - "In directing the jury, Judge Kevin Haugh said that they could not bring what he called their white western values to bear when they were deciding this case." White western values? What exactly does the judge mean by that? Is it that black Nigerians should not be prosecuted under the laws of the country in which they are resident? Surely the death of a child is of deep concern in any culture, African or Irish? Does it mean that someone's ethnicity allows them to escape a penalty that would be imposed on someone else of a different background? It seems we have here a deeply unpleasant and dangerous mixture of insulting condescension by Judge Haugh, who appears to imply that black, African values regard a child's life as of lesser importance, and ridiculous obeisance to the idea of multiculturalism - an idea that is desperately in need of reassessment. In any country there should be one system of law equally applicable to all residents of that country. Had this been a case of the torture of a supposedly possessed child, similar to cases known in black religious communities in London, would the good judge decide there was no case to answer as we should not apply white western values? In Haugh's case the law is very definitely an ass.

Antipodean Quotes - "To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views -- be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions -- and crowd out the teaching of real science." From a letter signed by more than 70,000 scientists and science teachers in Australia opposing the introduction of so-called Intelligent Design into school science lessons, a move apparently favored by federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson. Perhaps this ignoramus should read a quote from Rosemary Sceats on the Victorian Skeptics web site, "No woman who has ever menstruated, had menstrual difficulties e.g. bleeding fibroids or endometriosis, been pregnant, given birth, with or without complications, suffered from repeated thrush and/or cystitis infections, and especially no woman to whom all of the above applies, could find the theory of so-called "intelligent design" anything but absurd. The female plumbing system provides gilt-edged evidence of the complete absence of design, intelligent or otherwise! And as for the male plumbing system, what sort of designer would put a sewer pipe right through the middle of a playground?"

Theodicy Idiocy - If you've not already seen it do take a look at the latest Humanist Network News (there is a permanent link in the sidebar). Always of a high standard, this week it features an extract from The Atheist Manifesto, penned by Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Harris looks at the so-called problem of evil - how a loving and omniscient God can permit all the suffering that so obviously exists - and not just from human actions but also the forces of nature, as in Katrina or the recent earthquake in Kashmir. "If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man." Highly recommended - while you are at the HNN site why not sign up for the newsletter? It's free.

Intense Dislike Anyone? - Here is the full text of Rowan Atkinson's speech to the House of Lords opposing the introduction of a bill to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, pointing out the very grave danger it poses for freedom of expression in the UK. He demonstrates that even the name of the measure is absurd, "The starting point for my objections to this Bill is to argue with its supposedly inarguable premise: the ‘ooh Yes Religious Hatred, that sounds like a bad thing, let’s have a law against that’. As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?" The government is still bent on pushing this absurd legislation forward, even over the objections of churchmen such as the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. His comments on the Life of Brian, a movie which may well have not been made under the proposed legislation, are revealing and welcome, "I love the film and I think it is good for religion to be knocked, to be criticised, to be challenged because we have done a lot of damage in the past". While he still clings to his illusions, saying "We know religion is a force for good ..." (who are we?) he tempers this with "...but I don't want to control a writer not to criticise me, because I may need that criticism." Surely, one may well think, even such an obdurate bunch as the Reverend Blair and chums will take notice of an opposition that, however briefly, unites religionists and atheists. Don't count on it - Blair's election time drivel that he would listen more in future has so far proved just that, drivel.

October 30th 2005

Can I Still Hate the Pope? - asks Carol Sarler in an opinion piece in The Observer on the proposed incitement to religious hatred legislation and its inherent threat to free speech. She goes on to say "Wholeheartedly, gut-wrenchingly hate him. I hate him for sitting around in his white frock, luxuriating in the infinite wealth of the Vatican while casually denying condoms to the dying of Africa. I hate him for condemning the poorest of women to early death by childbirth. And I pretty much hate, by extension, the Roman Catholics whose devotion permits his tyranny to thrive." 80 finds little to argue with there, or in the rest of the column, save only that 80 does not actually hate Ratzinger or the other targets of Sarler's wrath - but he does deeply despise them. Hatred does not seem to properly convey the utter contempt that such people so richly deserve. I suppose Blair and the other appeasers will come up with a law criminalizing religious despisal next....................
 

It's Miller Time - good news for those who are able to watch BBC 2 on Monday October 31st - the Beeb are showing Jonathan Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief at 7:00 pm. This excellent 3 part series was originally shown on digital channel BBC4 and is now available to a wider viewing public. Program One - "Shadows of Doubt, in which Jonathan Miller visits the absent Twin Towers to consider the religious implications of 9/11 and meets Arthur Miller and the philosopher Colin McGinn. He searches for evidence of the first 'unbelievers' in Ancient Greece and examines some of the modern theories around why people have always tended to believe in mythology and magic." Don't get too excited though, for as welcome as this rerun is, it does not appear to herald a change in BBC policy regarding the ridiculous amount of religious (mainly Christian) programming that is foisted on a largely secular populace.

Most Hokum Live - at last the deceitful drivel that is Living TV's Most Haunted Live is revealed for what it is in the Daily Mirror. To anyone who has followed Tony Youens' Commentary on the subject this comes as no surprise at all, as he exposed this nadir of cheap TV and its star turn, Derek Acorah and his performing tart Sam, some time ago. Still, it is nice when a national newspaper gives the story wider coverage. According to the Mirror the show's "resident parapsychologist Dr Ciaran O'Keeffe has sensationally lifted the lid on the ghosthunting series..." revealing that so-called paranormal events were faked and the "psychic" participants had been previously briefed on the "haunted" premises they visit. O'Keeffe caught Acorah out with a couple of fake deceased characters he invented for the purpose - even their names were derogatory anagrams about Acorah. The great psychic (and Sam the slut, of course) then obligingly contacted these imaginary spirits. As O'Keeffe says "In my professional opinion we're not dealing with a genuine medium. When Derek is possessed he is doing it consciously - all we are seeing is showmanship and dramatics." Acorah, when confronted on the allegations is quoted as saying "Not only do I believe that I am a genuine medium - I live my work 24 hours a day. If I thought that I wasn't a true medium, I wouldn't work as one." Is he just trying to brazen this out or is he really that deluded? Perhaps he can turn this into a business opportunity, unlike his "friendship" with singer Robbie Williams. A psychic who contacts fictional characters could have a whole new glittering career ahead of him. 80 can't wait to hear from the spirits of Fu Manchu, Pollyanna and Gertie the Dinosaur in the new, more honestly titled, Most Haunted Liars.

Telling It Like It Is - "We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies. These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews." 80, as regular readers know, enjoys the cathartic effect of a good rant. The opening inflammatory quote is from a posting that, at times, makes 80's efforts look more than a little staid. Read If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur and see if you too are nodding in agreement. Also scroll down the page to read the more than 300 comments that the piece has attracted. For those who think that Uygur is too strident and will only alienate readers note how many of the comments voice approval of the views expressed (although of course this may only reflect the makeup of the blog's readership). For more on Cenk Uygur see here.

November Ist 2005