Literally, a cure for cancer

I just got out of a public forum/panel discussion at the library about the issue of HPV vaccine and legislation in Michigan for mandatory vaccination for 6th grade (11-12 year old) girls. While I respect that opinions, personal beliefs differ about vaccination, we're talking about literally A CURE FOR CANCER. (ok, a prevention, but still...)

The anti-science factions (and thanks to Dr. Timothy Johnson for specifically calling it what it is - which is a supernatural anti-science, anti-reason movement) that oppose vaccination neglect to notice that Polio is not longer an epidemic, and tetanus is no longer prevalent in the US. Some will ask "what's Merck's motivation, and aren't they just profiteering?" Yes, they are a company, and yes they need to make money. But I ask - what is the motivation of the anti-vaccine, anti-science crowd? To build a theocracy? I will be more than happy to deal with opposing a company - that's not scary. A country run by religious believers in the supernatural and lacking even the pretense of reason? That would DEFINITELY be scary.

They make their arguments about a vaccine that teenagers would get which might promote sexual activity... Hey, guess what - 77% of teenage girls under the age of 19 have had vaginal sex. And even if they're a virgin until their wedding night and maintain a monogamous relationship with their husband forever and ever, that doesn't mean that he hasn't been infected with HPV and could give it to her (resulting in her cervical cancer). Another applicable statistic: 80% of Americans, by the age of 50, are carrying some form of HPV around in their bodies. You, me, and those boys and girls over there. Think about that for a second. Oh yeah, and then there's the developing world, where even access to a pap smear is an issue. How many people are dying there that could be saved by a vaccine?

a little book you should read...

A tiny little book, with so many good bits in it: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. Written as an open letter from a philosopher atheist to the religious fundamentalists of the USA, it's something that's really worth your time whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, pagan, neo-spiritualist, or whatever. Essentially, in its 91 easy-reading pages it makes a good case about the former benefits and current detriments of religion in modern society, and how it is not tenable to be neutral about religion anymore. There were many notable points, and I'll try not to quote the whole book:

pg 27: "One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality of human and animal suffering... religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral... expend[ing] more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide... preaching against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from AIDS there each year"

pg 44: "Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence' it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality...[Harris goes on with comparisons of percent-believers and crime/social disfunction in areas of the world and USA]... Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality... however, these statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society's health."

pg 18: "In assessing the moral wisdom of the Bible, it is useful to consider moral questions that have been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Consider the question of slavery. The entire world now agrees that slavery is an abomination... Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves: 'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you... and they may be your property...' Leviticus 25:44-46"

Heck, I could go on and on - he makes many good points.

I've leave you with this: have a look at this book. If you don't want to spend the cash, see if your library has it. If they don't have it, ask them to get it.

the edge of the First Ammendment

Recently heard on the news of a muslim woman who was granted a new trial in small-claims court after her previous case was dismissed because she wore a scarf and veil in court, only revealing her eyes.

I'm all for religious freedoms. More specifically, I'm more for freedom FROM religion, but that's another post. However if a person can't be identified as a matter of course of their religious beliefs, how can the state/court provide justice for the offenses against them? The state/court needs to know WHOM it's serving. There are some technical issues to this argument which I'll overlook for the moment (she could be identified by fingerprints I'd assume, if that's not a modesty issue). There's the potential solution that the case be tried by a female judge, but that would prevent men from being in attendance in the court, which would put court operations in secret, violating the rights of more people in the public by inducing gender discrimination... right?

Of course, now I'm really curious about other photo-ID based issues surrounding muslim women that wear the niqab or burqa... Can one get a driver's license? What's the point of photo ID when your face is covered? And even if driving is not an issue because the woman is not allowed to drive (due to familial or religious restrictions), what about writing a check? Or getting on a plane or train? (I'm of course ignoring some other important issues here in that the woman in the news was in court contesting damages to a rental car - how did she rent the car without showing her face?)

There's lots of issues here with women's rights in what may (or may not) be perceived as oppressive religious lifestyles. Those issues may (or may not) be relieved by the women, in their religious beliefs, giving up control of their lives by their own consent (which brings up even more issues about whether a sound-body-and-mind adult citizen can legally reliquish consent i.e. the Spanner case).

I suspect you can't actually buy TPE on ebay, but it's kind of funny that it was a sponsored link when searching for a link to the UK court case.

But really what I mean to throw out there is: We live in a world where photos of people's faces are the de-facto standard for identification and person-to-person authentication. Can an individual expect all of the rights and privileges afforded others while not revealing their face? Must an alternate means of identification become available and pervasive, like ADA provisions, to serve citizens with specific religious beliefs?

I'm kind of curious about both Muslim religious leaders as well as what the courts have to say, I'm sure that this has come up before...

MegaChurches - cults in the making

Having been a creeped out by MegaChurches for a while, this article just pushes it over onto full-blown heebee-geebees. As they grow and grow and encompass more and more of their parishoner's lives - how is it indistinguishable from a cult? I understand that people may want to live a religious life, but how exactly do some of these things in Table 3 make any sense mixing with a church, unless it's the need to influence or control every minutia of parishoner's lives? Auto repair clinic? (let's say a prayer so that Jesus will bless this carburetor rebuild) kickboxing class? (Who Would Jesus Roundhouse Kick?)

The closing of the article says it well:
"The megachurch phenomenon is, above all, an awesome tool. I fear the day when its wielders decide just what they mean to use it for."

Kansas Board of Ed. - no flying spaghetti monster?

It appears that there's been a shift in the new makeup of the Kansas State Board of Education - AWAY from the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" (hooray!). While this gives me great joy simply in the hearing of it and the apparent success of reasonable people (see also the voting-out of the Dover School board after the I.D. controversy), the only problem is then... since the I.D. people were pushing the all-possible-theories-for-life-on-this-planet should be taught (to leave room for religion), what about the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? It was through the Kansas Board of Ed. that FSM could have been taught... but now what's a Pastafarian to do?