Health and prayer, and why God can't lose

The job I started last year takes me into a lot of hospitals, and a large percentage of them are actually religious institutions - and all of these religious facilities are Christian. I find these latter hospitals strangely contradictory places that, without knowing it, are particularly damning of the idea that prayer works. I've been going to these places for a few months now and had the vague feeling I wanted to blog about them but wasn't sure how and why, until recently when a number of things intersected and gave me a direction to take. One day I saw a picture in one facility that, in equal measures, creeped me out, made me laugh out loud and certainly cemented my decision never to have surgery there. Just before I saw the picture and afterwards, there were then a number of medical scares to close family members (one of my children and my dad) and finally I've been reading "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" Which I've linked to before and flicked through but never taken the time, until now, to read in its entirety.

In all honesty, if you've ever taken the time to read "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" then none of this should be new to you. But it is my take on some of the ideas presented there with a couple of new bits thrown in. If you haven't read it then why the hell not? It is much better than anything I've ever written on the topic!

Syvlia Browne fans - why so quiet?

A quick look at my Sitemeter statistics at the foot of the page tells me that by far the overwhelming number of visitors to my blog are people who search for some variation of "Sylvia Browne 2010 predictions". And I mean overwhelming. In fact, almost every visitor to the blog comes from someone searching for Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions. Yet none of them seem to stay very long once they get to my page talking about Sylvia Browne's 2010 "predictions" and only one person has ever left a comment that tried to defend her.

Why is that? No-one wants to defend the indefensible? They don't like having their delusions shattered so disappear in a huff? They think I'm wrong? They have absolute proof of Browne's powers so ignore the ranting of a know nothing skeptic? Or are they scared? Are they scared that the house of cards they built and called their belief system will come tumbling down if just for one moment they actually have to think about what they believe? Is it because deep down they know I am right about Browne and people like her?

Are these people so scared of having to think that they run away every time they are challenged?

Why are Sylvia Browne's fans so quiet?

Here's what I think - Browne's fans don't have an answer to what skeptics say about her, so they just ignore the criticisms and hope they go away because they can't handle the truth. Reality is just to scary for them.

Browne fans: prove me wrong. Have the guts to actually say something that isn't a childish insult or unthinking devotion.

I dare you.

How well do you really think accommadationism works?

Today is the 55th anniversary of Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her bus seat in Montgomery, Alabama - a pivotal event in the civil rights movement that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott. So, whilst I was sitting in traffic listening to NPR on the subject I started to think about the blogging topic that's been on my mind lately - accommadationism and the whole "You're doing it wrong, don't be a dick" crowd.

And it occurred to me: where would most successful social reform movements be if they had listened to their own versions of the "Be nice, not pushy. Don't be rude. Couldn't you just talk to the more moderate of our opponents." people?

How can you call yourself a skeptic if...

... you accept things on faith or believe in the supernatural? The answer is, I believe, you can't. And you don't get to call yourself a critical thinker either. What you would be is a hypocrite. Or, maybe a little more charitably, a part timer. At best, you'd be someone capable of fooling yourself.

Thinking about writing this post is what prompted me to write yesterday's post as well, and its all about getting my thoughts down on this whole silly shit about accommadationism and people trying to exclude atheism from skepticism, and those people trying to define who the real skeptics are and who gets to join in and how they should do it (this last I covered yesterday). So here goes.

Fuck you. And other thoughts on being 'a dick'

Not for the first time I am late to the party on this.

For quite some time there's been an argument raging around the skeptical blogosphere that comes down to, as Dr. Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) describes it, "Don't be a dick." You can find the talk he gave on the subject on YouTube, in three parts. Basically, it's an argument about tone - why do we have to be mean? Why are we insulting? Why do we use bad words? Your demeanour gets in the way, why can't you be nice when shattering people's ignorance and delusions?

Really America? I mean, really?

The 2010 midterm elections in the USA have, at different times and with varying measure, filled me with despair, disgust and disillusionment. I've also been reminded of three quotes from two great men:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
                                                                                                                -- Albert Einstein

And:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
                                                                                                            -- Winston Churchill

And finally:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
                                                                                                               -- Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, I don't see much of the right thing happening, plenty of the same thinking that got us into this mess and then democracy in all its horrendous glory.

One bunch of right wing nuts spent eight years fucking everything up, and then a large portion of the voting population of the USA gave the next bunch of slightly less right wing nuts just 2 years to turn absolutely everything around, and when that didn't happen instantly they went for a bunch of extremely right wing nuts as if that would fix things. Hence the ridiculous corporate entity referred to as the Tea Party, brought to you by the Koch brothers. Grassroots political movement my arse. Like everything else in this country, it's all about money. The Tea Party isn't fighting the establishment, it IS the establishment. Same shit, different name.

Trade deficit under Bush? Going up. Unemployment under Bush? Going up. Wall Street bailout that everyone was so angry about? Bush administration (although Obama added to it). The National Debt the Tea Baggers were so worried about? Doubled under Bush. Where was the outrage then? If it was the ideology of rampant free markets and relaxed regulation that contributed to the current economic disaster, how would a bunch of people even more fanatical about said ideology help? If all these economic woes are the cause for the backlash against Obama's administration then where were these champions of America when Bush fucked it all up in the first place?

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it probably isn't chocolate.

How is it that problems that took 8 years to create under Bush and the Republicans are now being blamed on Obama and the Democrats after just 2?

The answer, it would seem, is that a large proportion of the American voting population is either irredeemably stupid or shamefully ignorant. Or possibly both. How else can politicians get away with campaign adverts that are blatant lies AND still have people vote for them? How else can people proclaiming their lack of experience make them seem like ideal candidates for the job? How else can a politician that doesn't know what the First Amendment is even get on the ballot anywhere, never mind be a serious contender? How else could a misogynist fascist prick like Ken Buck come a very close second in a race for a position in the Senate? OK, fascist might be an exaggeration, but not by much. How else can the people that caused this mess be exonerated and greeted like saviours?

But the Democrats have to accept some of the blame - they didn't vote or didn't engage their base and get them out. And of course, Obama couldn't ever live up to the hype, he's a politician. Business as usual. In the end what you had was old privileged white people voting for privileged white people. And privileged white people came out the winners. What a surprise. I thought a couple of weeks ago that the Democrats were being too soft but I was wrong. The Democrats basically just rolled over and died. If you don't vote, you get the government you deserve.

And as for it being about the economy? Fuck off. If it was, then shouldn't the $4 billion dollars spent on campaign ads be a source of shame? At a time when unemployment falls somewhere between 9 and 20%, depending on how it is measured, shouldn't that tell you that the political system here is broken? Politicians spend $4 billion dollars on TV ads packed with lies and slurs whilst also claiming to have the economic interests of Americans at heart? Never mind the secretive nature of the people behind most of the adverts - this campaign has all the hallmarks of being bought and paid for by big business. This was not democracy in action, it was the vested interests of big business and special interest groups doing what they do best. Buying people and buying votes.

As a non-voting resident I have one question: why do you put up with this? As a result of this election I have to ask:

What the fuck is wrong with this country, and how long will it take it to try everything else?

You know what else isn't in the Constitution, Christine?

Carbine, Handgun, Rifle ('the right to bear arms' who could mistake that?), Abortion, God, Jesus, Christian, Gay, Lesbian, Homosexual, Marriage, Pornography, Torture, Lord appears only in the common contemporary usage as part of the date, the phrase "Death Penalty", the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell",  the phrase "Special Rendition", the phrase "Patriot Act", the phrase "Intelligent Design",  the phrase "Tax Cut", the phrase "Tea Party", the phrase "War on Terror", the phrase "Everyone has the right to own an automobile", the phrase "Everyone has the right to shop where they want to", the phrase "Everyone has the right to choose which doughnut is their favourite",

These exact phrases or words don't appear either, what was your point Christine? I confess, I don't really see what she was trying to get at other than trying to make herself look stupid and appealing to the sorts of people who are likewise ignorant of the Constitution.

Was she trying to say that since these exact words aren't in the Constitution it has nothing to say about the principle outlined by them? That since the exact words "seperation of church and state" are not present in the Constitution or the Amendments to it that there is nothing in them about that subject, that the Constitution does not guarantee the separation of church and state? As far as I can see that would rule out an awful lot, wouldn't it? It would rule out an awful lot of things that Republicans and Tea Baggers seem to hold dear, in fact.

Or was Christine O'Donnell really trying to imply that there is nothing regarding the separation of church and state in the Constitution at all, not just the specific words? Is she that, well, ignorant? Shouldn't someone who is going to take an oath to uphold the Constitution actually understand what is in it? Indeed, if you watch the video of the debate she does in fact seem surprised that the first amendment does guarantee the separation of church and state. She doesn't seem to know about one of the most important aspects of the first amendment. Wow.

Or was she simply making, as she is now trying to claim, the banal point that those words just don't appear in the Constitution? Yes we know, we can read to - why even make that point as if it was important? The word "buttock" doesn't appear either, what is the relevance? Saying those words don't appear is hardly a rebuttal to someone pointing out the nature of the establishment clause, so it just seems childish.

Here is a crazy idea. Could it be you actually have to read the Constitution and its Amendments in order to actually understand what is in them, rather than just believing what some people equally as ignorant have told you is in them (like Rush Limbaugh)? Let me explain it for you (and I've mentioned it in the past). Yes Christine, on the purely superficial and banal level you are right, those words don't appear, but the exact wording of the First Amendment establishes the principle of separation of church and state, and the framers of the Constitution were quite clear about it, as the MSNBC article points out.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means that Congress stays out of religion. The state cannot interfere with the church. The two shall remain separate. The state can favour no particular religion. The state shall remain seperate from the church - it was a principle Jefferson and Madison held dear, and fully intended.

To say otherwise proves you ignorant and unfit for office.

Not that this is a surprise. Please tell me people see through all of this, that the right wing isn't going to make massive gains in the upcoming elections. PLEASE.

If only there was a deity to pray to....

Don't talk bollocks, cancer isn't 'man made' and did exist in the ancient world

Every now and then when I'm looking for something to write about I come across or I'm sent something so spectacularly stupid that really a new word needs to be invented to describe it, and this article on a study published in Nature Review: Cancer is no exception. I am fairly certain that just by reading it a portion of my intelligence was sucked away, So thanks to my brother David and his friend Clare for making me stupiderer.

Focusing on your goals - it is really not a new thing

This is a long playing record for me:

Perhaps it is because I am not a cynical, greedy and uncaring author willing to make a quick buck off the desperate, lazy, uncritical or grief stricken but I really don't understand how it has been possible to take this very old idea:

Focus on your goals

And turn it into something that everyone seems to think is a brand new idea, whilst part of the selling point of your fake brand new idea is that it is indeed an old idea that has been around for ages.

If nothing else, I have to admire the sheer brass bollocksness of getting away with it.

Nazis, atheists and a Pope

With a title like that, you know this one has got to be interesting. Right? OK, maybe not. But this post will put me in the schizophrenic position of kicking the Pope in the arse and then picking him up and fetching him a cup of tea afterwards.

It may or may not have escaped your notice that the Pope recently visited the UK, an event that had the BBC falling all over itself to cover favourably. Anyway, whilst the child rape covering up pontiff was there he made a statement that was guaranteed to set off both the atheist and the historian in me.