Shocking News: Manipulating Statistics Leads to Largely Irrelevant Claims

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.
"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.
Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

Oh! Oh! Shocking! Homosexuals! Evil! Dire consequences for culture! Save the children! (swoons)

Well, except:

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

(skip a few paragraphs)

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays', Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture

(blinks)

That’s not the same. Per capita per OFFENDER? Come on. Your opening sentence just said per capita. Misleading much?

I’m also confused as to what I’m supposed to do with this information. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that homosexuals as a group (NOT just homosexual offenders as a group) have a per capita rate of molesting children that is higher than the same heterosexual rate. Except you don’t say such, which leads me to believe that you don’t have the numbers to back up that claim.

I’m going to begin conducting random statistical studies of my own. For example, after doing a brief survey of those living in this apartment, I’ve found that the average American is an atheist vegetarian. The number of football games watched per individual is extremely high, but only if you consider only those who actually watch football (other members of the household just fall asleep beside the football watching individuals as they are watching games). Those with a higher rate of football watching are also far more likely to eat potato chips on the way home rather than waiting for dinner than those with a lower rate. There is obviously a clear link between potato chip consumption and football watching. Goodness, statistics is fun!

Pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. Homosexuality is the attraction to people of the same gender. If we want to prevent child molestation, let’s work to prevent child molestation. Trying so hard to make tenuous links between your target age and target gender that you create misleading topic sentences and quote irrelevant statistics is a bit pitiful, eh?

Yes, yes, I realize that I should learn and just cease to read articles from worldnetdaily.com--- but what can I say? Clearly, not watching football leads to the masochistic tendency to read ridiculous news stories... and thus has dire consequences for our culture. I apologize for not doing my part.

PERA-noia, PERA-noia, the ACLU is coming to get me…

Please excuse my awful pun of a title. It’s a pera-dy (see that was a worse pun! I bet you didn’t think it could get worse than the title!) of the first line of Harvey Danger’s Flag Pole Sitta. Their version was a bit more sing-able than mine.

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- After impassioned debate on the separation of church and state Sept. 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it harder to sue the government for violations of church-state separation.

House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.

The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.

Supporters contended that the bill would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion.

The ACLU is not abusing the system. The government, when it violates the establishment clause, is abusing the system. The House, when passing this bill, just abused the system. The ACLU helps police the system. See the difference?

"Too often today, overzealous courts have infringed an individual's right to worship," Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a supporter of the measure, said on the House floor. "These attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous."

No. The courts have maintained our right to not have our noses shoved in your religious whatever. They aren’t frivolous lawsuits. They’re lawsuits to defend the rights of religious and nonreligious minorities.

But opponents said it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

"Mr. Speaker, let's be clear -- there's nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the First Amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect the religious freedom of every American," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas).

Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.

Yes.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said some such groups file lawsuits and use the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to pressure municipalities and states into settling before the case reaches court.

"Without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say to the mayor…we're going to sue, we're going to win, and you're going to have to pay our attorneys' fees, these cases will go to court," Hostettler said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.

(rolls eyes) Yes, yes, let’s drag the ACLU into it. Everyone likes to bash the ACLU! A note: you only have to reimburse the legal fees if they show you’ve violated the establishment clause. Don’t violate it, and you’ll be fine.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked the bill's supporters if they would feel the same way about limiting attorneys' fees in such cases if government agencies were being sued for advancing other religions.

"Let's assume in some town Sunni Muslims became a majority. And let's assume that everyone in that town…was forced to recite 'There is but one God, and Allah is his name,'" he said, quoting Islam's most common affirmation of faith.

"They think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate the local government or any government. Maybe so, but the whole reason we have the First Amendment is because you can't be sure."

(nods) Yes. However, I don’t think that’s the main issue. The main issue (for me at least) is that it’s not fair to squish the rights of minorities even if you have the power to do so.

Although a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, that body is virtually certain not to address it before Congress ends its current term.
- House passes measure to chill establishment-clause lawsuits

I hope not, as I still have hope that Dem’s might gain a Senate majority for the next term. Either way, write to your Senators!

***


On the same topic, but from slightly less sane sources:

… all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.

Oh! Oh! Veterans cemeteries! Veterans cemeteries! Emotional, non-touchable patriotism-related issue!!!!! ACLU! BAD! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!! ALCU! BAD!!!

AHHHHHHH!!!!!

What a great choice of issue to exploit to scare people into supporting this bill. ACLU ATTACKING FALLEN VETERNS! It’s ridiculous propaganda.

As a clarification, I’m certainly not bashing veterans. I support our former troops… especially in bed. As a clarification of my clarification, I suppose I only actually support one of them in this manner. However, this seems like a contribution at least on par with buying a few plastic flags or patriotic bumper stickers or the like, yes? ;)

(shrugs) Anyway, let’s continue. So, why do these lovely people believe veterans cemeteries are under attack?

The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been “deemed” constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever “deemed” that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.

So, seeing as the ACLU feels these displays are constitutional, it has just declared that it doesn’t feel the need for litigation, correct?

Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.

The ACLU defined why it felt this was a different issue: family choice of personal expression of personal religion on a personal gravestone.

Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.

I can see a clear difference between freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols and gravestones bearing religious symbols. While it isn’t an issue of utmost concern to me, I think the random, non-person-or-people-specific religious memorials should probably be removed from public grounds if they are causing upset. The cemeteries would still be there.

Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.

Erm, the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach in France? Somehow, I can’t picture the ACLU suing over this.

Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

- ACLU’s Disinformation On Public Expression Of Religion Act Exposed

Yes, because clearly this is how Islamist fanatics spread their message. Many congratulations for managing to raise your propaganda level at least a few points with the inclusion of the phrase, “Islamist fanatics.” Your target audience is now at least 32.452% more likely to write a letter to his or her congressman.

To see the ACLU’s response to the House passing PERA, read their press release. And write to your Senators!

Mr. FTP god and his blatant misuse of ropes

I was at my friend K’s apartment last night when she mentioned that she’d been left an exciting, fun-to-mock religious pamphlet on her car windshield at work on Monday. My car is never papered with such pamphlets, likely because I work in a small, well-to-do town where we shoot pamphleteers on site. Okay, perhaps not. But we’d probably at least give them a hefty ticket and force them to plant flowers on Main St as punishment. Regardless, K had accidentally thrown away the pamphlet. Possibly due to my having consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, or possibly simply an indication of my innate lunacy, I suggested we go dig it out of her dumpster. We did and found it was defiled only by the tiniest piece of (holy?) mold.

The tract is entitled

“What If You Had Been Here?
September 11, 2001
A Day That Began
Like Any Other Day”

and features a picture of the world trade center with various computer added (I’m guessing- it looks fairly unrealistic) mounds of smoke.

Do I even have to add that I think it’s total crap to exploit the fear of terrorist attack for religious (or, for that matter political) purposes?

Regardless, without further ado, I bring to you the words of the Fellowship Tract League (FTP):

WHAT IF YOU had been in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? What would have happened to YOU? YOU could have died, and YOU would have had to face God.

ME? Not only me, but in CAPITALS? Oh my… this FTP god is one serious critter.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27

That actually makes more sense this morning, sans vodka. However, I’m still not sure that I’d qualify it as good writing. Lots of people, even nonreligious ones, like to point to the Bible as “great literature”. I’ve read the Bible. Parts of it are quite lovely and might qualify as “great literature”. However, other parts just make the writing-tutor in me want to cringe and yell, “keep it short and to the point! Short and to the point!”

Sin is breaking God’s law. It is doing something God said not to do, or not doing something God said to do.

(blinks)

I suppose that makes sense. However, if I take this literally, I fear I shall have to take up arms against opposing tribes or something of that nature. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve used a sword. I’m not sure I’m up for it.

Sin is an offense against God.

Well then, perhaps Mr. FTP god just needs to get over it. I find people using adjectives as adverbs terribly offensive. However, I have yet to suggest that all people who do so be stoned to death. (the population of Ohio would dwindle to nothing, I fear)

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is as much God as if He had never become man and as much man as if He had never been God.

(blinks)

Well, it’s beyond my comprehension, so it must be true, right?

A gift is free. Eternal life is not anything we can earn, it is something we accept. Romans 6:23 gives us two choices. We can pay for our sin ourselves by dying and going to Hell, or we can accept God’s gift of eternal life and go to Heaven when we die.

Apparently the FTL god has bad management skills. Let’s say you have a group of workers making widgets. I’d imagine the best way to motivate them would be to say, well, you can work as hard as you’d like to make as many widgets as you'd like… however, the only factor used to determine if you’ll get paid is whether or not you ask for your check. I’m sure absolutely everyone will jump at the chance to make widgets, even though it as no effect whatsoever on whether or not they are paid.

Frankly, if there must be religion, I’d rather people feel compelled to do nice things in exchange for salvation.

For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Does calling "upon the name of the Lord" in bed count? I might be saved and not even know it!

Anytime you start telling people, all you have to do is this one religious whatever, and you’ll go to heaven, you open the door to awful interpretations of what that one thing might be. Well, in my version, god wants me to run planes into buildings or well, in my version, god wants me to go kill infidels and take their land.

To be saved, a person must be saved from something. If you were drowning, and someone threw you a rope, you would say that he had saved you from drowning.

(tilts head to the side and stares at the strange analogy)

Sure. So, since there isn’t so much in the way of reasons to believe in hell, I’m not drowning and that rope could obviously be put to better uses.


Thanks K!

Numerical Sin

The Cincinnati Enquirer
Without God, mayhem is possible
John F. Kippley

Without God, mayhem is possible. (nods)

Without God, ice cream is possible. (nods)

Without ice cream, art is possible (nods)

Without (almost any noun), (almost any noun) is possible (nods)

Possible is a pretty non-committal word, possibly?

Without logic, unwarranted conclusions are possible (double nod)

The discussion about the killings in Cincinnati does not seem to have raised the question, "What else should we expect?" That is, what is there in the education and upbringing of the murderers to cause them to think it is morally wrong to kill someone they don't like? Our public education system is one of practical atheism,

(blinks)

I'm pretty sure the schools, even with their bend toward 'practical atheism' (hah!) aren't teaching classes about the subjective nature of homicide. Perhaps I'm just not visiting the correct schools, however. I'm not above doing my duty, either way. In case any would-be murderers are reading this: it is morally wrong to kill someone you don't like (or even someone you do like). See? Now you don't have an excuse.

and as Dostoevsky had one of characters say, "If there is no God, I can do anything."

(ponders)

Really? I can't levitate.

Yes, I get it, got it, etc.... that's not what is being said. However... come on. Since I'm on a rewording kick, I shall reword the statement to read, "if I repent before I die, I can do anything."

Atheism doesn't give a free pass for immorality any more than religion automatically stops immorality. As an atheist, when I ponder whether or not to kill someone I don't like (or even someone I do like) the worry that I'll be struck by a lightening bolt (or end up in hell) doesn't even cross my mind. Yet I still don't kill the people! (I just torture small children- and only on weekdays)

This is aggravated by a widespread opinion that there is no punishment after death for unrepentant sinners. Some believe there is simply no life after death. Others believe that everyone goes to heaven no matter how many commandments he breaks or how unrepentant he is.

No matter how many? So I can break some? And it depends on my degree of repentance? I feel a function coming on!


f(x, y) where x = number of commandments broken and y = percent repentant.

f(x, y) = x - 8y + 3 while x <= 5

f(x, y) = x - 6y + 3 while 5 < x < 10

f(x, y) = No queston about it: you're going to hell! while x >= 10



If f(x, y) <= 5 you're going to heaven

If 5 < f(x, y) < 8 you're going to purgatory

If f(x,y) >= 8 you're going to hell



Let's say Johnny has broken 6 commandments and is 73% repentant. Since x (number of commandments broken) is between 5 and 10, we'll use the function f(x,y) = x - 4y + 3. The output of this function is found by starting with 6 (number of commandments broken), subtracting 6*.73 (adjustment for repentance) and adding 3 (original sin). This gives Johnny a sin function output of 4.62. Since 4.62 is less than five... he's going to heaven! (wild cheers)

Suzie on the other hand has been baaaaaad and doesn't really care. After deliberately misusing the name of god, not once, not twice, but niiiiiiine times and with a 10% repentance rating, Suzie is in trooouble. 9 - 6*.1 + 3 is a hefty score of 11.4. So, sorry Suzie, but you're going to HELL! (boo!!!)

See! Contrary to the opinion of most high school students, math IS relevant to every day life (death?). As noted here and here, however, god doesn't seem to be terribly good at math. He probably just uses the "heaven/hell" spinner Robertson gave him for Christmas a few years back. (waves hand dismissively) Oh well. I'd use a function. I'm definitely running in the next god-election.


*** *** *** ***

A quick note on the quoted article’s footnote:

John F. Kippley and his wife have spent 35 years promoting chaste natural family planning. The movement they founded and head, NFP International, is active throughout the United States and 20 other nations.

Natural family planning, eh? I've always seen natural family planning as the epitome of “traditional Catholic loop-hole"- a way to hold onto their DEEP SEATED CONVICTION that god abhors both latex and ortho-tri-cyclen and instead wants us to play Russian Roulette of the fertility variety (yet still have sex while attempting to avoid pregnancy). My oh-so-Catholic doctor is a very strong proponent of NFP. It’s not my kind of game though. Sorry, God. How about chess instead?

Ah yes, the old “atheism as a religion” argument… again

Michael Newdow's Religion

by Hans Zeiger

Every man has a god. Michael Newdow is his own god and that is a matter of his free choice. He is, to himself, the highest thing there is. I have in recent days been carrying on a correspondence with Mr. Newdow, who achieved notoriety for attempting to incite judicial tyranny against "under God" in the pledge of Allegiance.

I have contended to him that to dismantle the principle of "one nation under God" is to prepare our nation for the most cruel and violent of despotisms. If atheism were not a religion, it would not have a tyrannical effect. But Mr. Newdow concedes that it is a religion.

Mr. Newdow's belief system may be summarized in his own words: "I adhere to a religion. My religion denies the existence of any god ... My religious worldview is atheism." What conclusions can we draw from this profession of faith?

First, atheism is a religion. Most atheists deny this; Mr. Newdow freely admits that his "general view of the universe and man's relation to it" constitutes a religion.

I won't even pretend to know in what context Newdow made those comments and whether or not he might have been speaking metaphorically. Even if he wasn't... just because Newdow decides he wishes to call atheism a religion does not, indeed, mean that it is a religion. If I decided to call my dish washing machine a car, I would still have difficulty riding it into work (or church, as it may be). For further elucidation of the subject, I consulted dictionary.com.

god

1: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]
2: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity, divinity, immortal]
3: a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
4: a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [syn: idol, graven image]

- Dictionary.com

1: the supernatural (beep!) Supernatural! Not atheistic! Next please…
2: any supernatural (beep!) Supernatural! Not atheistic! Next please…
3: a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men" While I have met many men who have claimed to have such superior qualities, I have yet to meet one that I’d call “deity-like” (no matter how much he begged). Next please…
4: a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [syn: idol, graven image] While many people in general seem to have adopted the TV has such an object, I know from personal experience that this is not universal, among atheists or otherwise. Next please…

… wait, there aren’t anymore. Let’s take a look at religion:

religion

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

- Dictionary.com

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural> (beep!) Supernatural! Not atheistic! Next please…
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Refers to 1. Still not relevant to atheism. Oh well. Next please…
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. (shrugs) We have yet to establish that atheists belong to a religious order. Next please…
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual (beeeepppp!) You’re getting sick of the beeps by now, right?
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (cough) I can think of quite a few activities that I certainly pursue with both zeal and devotion that would certainly not qualify as religious, some of which would make Pat Robertson’s toes curl. Come now… zeal and devotion aren’t quite enough to constitute religion… (if they are, want to come worship with me?)


I'd also like to point out that dismantling "the principle of 'one nation under God'" doesn't seem likely to throw us into "the most cruel and violent of despotisms" (points for melodrama AND a big word though!). After all, we managed just fine before such phrases were merrily plastered all over our money (1837/1956) and inserted in the pledge (1954).

Back to the article…

Second, every man has a god, whether he accepts it or not. Mr. Newdow, like most atheists, would deny that he attributes divinity to anything at all. But there is something high above all else in our lives, whether it is our self or our wealth or our Maker.

(raises eyebrows) Really? Because I feel pretty balanced. Perhaps mockery of ridiculous statements is that "something high above all else" in my life. How am I supposed to resist it though when you make it so eaaaasy. You’re tempting me into false devotion! (grumbles at Hans Zeiger)

It is the first element of self-government that men have a relationship with their god. This cannot be written into our national constitution - as Mr. Newdow has reminded me it is not - because it is already inscribed in the constitution of our souls. If we exist, we are sure to serve our god, be it the Living God or something else.

(blinks)

(glances at soul)

(sees no writing)

(blinks again)

(shrugs and goes back to reading)

Third, the atheist attitude that denies a god in the loosest sense of the word leaves open the door for the worst kind of god in the strictest sense of the word. An atheist who refuses to admit that he serves a master will impose his secret master upon his fellow men. He will tell us that there is no god, only to thrust the god upon us under some other guise. We need only witness the determination with which the secular fundamentalists move within our midst these days to understand that there is a deep religious cause there.

(blinks again)

Please reference definition of religion above.

The rest of the article can be found at The Reality Check. I spent a lot of time blinking as I read it. I suppose it might be worth the effort to go blink at it for yourself.

Our War on Drugs

In a report commissioned by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Boston University economist Jeffrey A. Miron estimated that the federal government spent a cumulative total of $257 billion (in 2003 dollars) over three decades on anti-drug efforts, and some $3.67 billion in 2004 on programs designed to reduce marijuana use. Still, Miron wrote, "Marijuana-use rates are little different now than in 1975."

Republicans in Congress have been scrambling to cut federal spending to reduce a record deficit. Their 2006 Deficit Reduction Act would cut a paltry $40 billion over five years. If they want to find more savings, they should look to dubious spending on the dubious war on drugs -- to the high cost of incarcerating first-time nonviolent drug offenders, of mandating longer sentences for crack cocaine than powder cocaine and of using federal clout to raid medical-marijuana clubs, prosecute offenders and house them in prison. Cut these programs and Washington could move this country closer to what President H. W. Bush announced as his goal, "a kinder, gentler" America.

- Marijuana madness

***

Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers.

They had expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer.

Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the heaviest pot smokers. It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

- Study finds no marijuana link to lung cancer

***

“… a marijuana grower can land in prison for life without parole while a murderer might be in for eight years…”

“… now there are more folks in prison for marijuana than for violent crimes. More than for manslaughter or rape. This only makes sense in the fantasy world of Washington, where perception counts for more than reality. To an old Democrat, who takes a ground view of politics- What is the actual effect of this action on the lives of real people?- it is a foul tragedy that makes you feel guilty about enjoying your freedom.”

“If the State cuts off your right hand with a meat cleaver on my account and I don’t object, then it is my cleaver and my fingerprints on it.”

- Garrison Keillor, Homegrown Democrat, pg 101

Here’s to You Mr. Robertson

New predictions by Pat Robertson are out! Shockingly, I find once again that Ohio is not destined to be hit by a hurricane (though if it is, I take full responsibility). Doesn’t God get sick of sending water-based storms to areas near water? You’re getting predicable! If you insist on plaguing the coasts, why not mix it up a bit and drop manna or toads or the like instead?

****

In honor of the occasion, I decided to review the highlights of Robertson’s conversations with God from last January and consider how they played out during 2005:

“Well, the Lord has some very encouraging news for George Bush ... What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff. ... He'll have Social Security reform passed. He'll have tax reform passed.”

First of all, his second term is going to be one of triumph? By the poll numbers, this is yet another indication of God’s trouble with integers, as noted earlier in this blog. Second, Bush’s Social Security reform passed? Right. Sure. Uh huh.

“… his spirit is going to be touching the hearts of many in the Muslim world and they will be turning to the gospel, to Jesus Christ. I think many of them already are, but this is going to be an acceleration that will really amaze the world. ...”

One Afghani man who was reputed to be a bit less than mentally stable doesn’t count. I’m still waiting to be amazed (this is often something I’m waiting for).

“'I [God] will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith.'"

Yes, Bush has now had the chance to choose two justices. O’Connor could have been described as liberal, though she was appointed to the supreme court by a conservative president. One point for God/Robertson with the trade of O’Connor for Alito. However, Rehnquist could have hardly been one of the oh-so-liberal judges that Pat Robertson asked his followers to pray for the removal of. Did God misaim his smiting?

Overall, I am afraid that I must give God/Robertson a rather poor grade in the prediction department. Perhaps they just should stick to the far less disprovable game of explaining the cause of things that have already occurred… or possibly just harassing Chavez some more. (See this article for all above quotes.)

***

According to Robertson, natural disasters are often sent by God as punishment for various sins, generally committed by feminists, liberals, atheists, homosexuals, etc. However, after careful statistical analysis by the authors of the article I’ve quoted below, it appears God does not indeed hate homosexuals. If we go with Robertson's "correlation equals causation" hypothesis, God possibly hates “Baptists” and “Others”. But still not homosexuals.

“Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data. Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them--some only one or two a year, dozens in others. Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count (r = .04, p = .78 for you statisticians). So much for the "God hates gays" theory."

“God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation (r = -.28). For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)”

“Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true--that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters--then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list. Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71. This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000.”

“Protestants, of course, come in many flavors--we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Other. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem--no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation (r = .52, p = .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes. But Baptists and Others share the prize: both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency (r = .68, p = .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?). “

All of this is quoted from Do Unnatural Acts Cause Natural Disasters? Go read the rest. It’s funny.

Sex-ed should include… well.. education

According a recent letter to the editor, the local abstinence-only program told students that condoms break one out of seven times during sexual intercourse, thus leading to pregnancy and STDs.

…confused blinking…

…confused blinking…

…confused blinking…

Condoms break one out of seven times? Erm, that’s crap.

Distorting the facts to scare students into compliance seems like a poor idea. It’s not just inaccurate condom facts (condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy if correctly used, by the way). HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat?. Touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy? Half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus? Riiiggghhht.

Inaccuracies aside, perhaps abstinence-only education in general is a poor idea. Just telling teens they can’t engage in an activity at least as fun as most Play Station 2 games seems destined to fail. I had sex as a teenager, and I was one of the “good” kids. However, thanks to plenty of knowledge about contraceptives, I’ve remained STD and unwanted-pregnancy free. Students who take abstinence pledges have, in some studies, been shown to delay sexual activity. However, these same students are less likely to use contraceptives once they do start having sex than students who didn’t take abstinence pledges (for 88% of these students, this first time is still before marriage, irregardless of the abstinence pledge).
Other studies have shown no correlation between abstinence only education and the deference of sexual activity.

There are people out there who won't have sex until they are married. However, these are a) the minority and b) likely the people who have enough willpower to not have sex even if someone explains to them how a condom works. Perhaps some of the students who would have otherwise spent their prom night in the back of a car will be so inspired by their health teacher’s words of wisdom that they will swat away their dates’ roving hands. The rest will still be having sex, just without the knowledge they need to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Go ahead, parents and churches, explain to your children why they should wait until marriage to have sex (good luck- for many of them, you’ll need it). Education, however, seems as if it should be, well, educational. And accurate. And possibly even grounded in methods that have been proven effective, unlike abstinence only sex-ed.

Actually, I thought these sorts of programs would be mostly gone by now. I remember the big push by President Bush for abstinence-only programs about a year and a half ago…. and the subsequent studies that noted their ineffectiveness. I found it all quite funny back then. BUT WE ARE STILL FUNDING THESE SORTS OF PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF COMPREHENSIVE SEX-ED. For historical purposes, I’ve posted my… erm… "concerns" (okay, it's just a satire) about the entire fiasco below, as circulated about a year and a half ago. Apparently, important members of the government haven’t been closely reading and acting upon my opinions. I’ll overlook the discretion- this time.