The politics of fear and loathing

Religionistas: Islamophobia and Christophobia

On August 24, 2010, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released the results of a recent opinion survey. 35% of Americans believe Islam encourages violence to a greater degree than other religions. Eight years ago, only months after the attacks of September 11, 2001 that figure stood at 25%.

45% offer the opposing opinion, saying that Islam does not encourage more violence than other religions, while 24% have no opinion.  The survey also revealed that 38% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam, compared to just 30% with a favorable view and 32% with no opinion. Recent events, small and large, have put this fear and the reaction to it on front-page display.

A taxi driver in Manhattan was savagely attacked merely because the assailant believed him to be Muslim. A proposed expansion of an Islamic center located a couple blocks away from the World Trade Center site causes volcanic levels of hysteria in the right-wing media and blogosphere. A nut-job minister in Gainesville, FL and about 50 of his followers grabs center stage by threatening to burn copies of the Quran. In Tennessee, federal investigators believe arsonists torched construction equipment at the site of a future mosque in Murfreesboro. In New York State, a Muslim community in Waterport has been targeted and harassed by teenagers.

Politicians, pundits and preachers are fanning the flames of Islamophobia, repeatedly insisting that all of Islam be responsible for the actions of a handful of extremists. Inversely, across the pond, Christians are feeling the brunt of similar fear and loathing, stoked mostly by radical Islamic clerics, religious extremists and leftist politicians.

In Muslim countries practicing Sharia law, discrimination against Christians and Jews is not just practiced, it is codified into law.  Egypt is one of the more secular and moderate of the Muslim countries with a sizable religious minority of Coptic Christians, yet Egyptian law stipulates that a "Muslim man may marry a Christian woman but the opposite is forbidden; and if a Muslim woman does marry a Christian man, both the husband and the wife would be considered adulterers". 

However, it is not only the Muslim countries where we find anti-Christian sentiment. Christophobia is rampant across Northern Europe and England, and in Israel the sentiment is strong.

In May of 2007 a Baptist church in Brighton, England, was invaded by anti-Christian squatters who promptly wrecked the place with garbage and graffiti. In May of 2008, the mayor of a small city near Tel Aviv ordered hundreds of New Testaments confiscated from his citizens. These were later burned. Since the early 90’s, nine Christian churches have been burned in Norway.

In 2009 a Vienna, Austria based security organization issued a report confirming that Christophobia has become not only wide-spread, but perfectly acceptable in Asia, Africa and Europe, much as Islamophobia has become perfectly acceptable in America, Germany, the Netherlands and Great Brittan.  

The struggle isn’t new. Along with Judaism, these philosophies have been doing battle on one front or another for thousands of years, locked in an ongoing struggle for control of the Western World. The holy books of each of these commands adherents to engage the infidels, and to establish nations under Islamic law/Biblical law/The Law of Moses… whatever.

It is all nonsense.

Some 235 years ago a group of wise men recognized the futility of these millennial struggles and, seeking to create a more perfect union, devised a political system outside of any religious law. The framers of our Constitution and the Founders of our republic crafted a constitution that specifically excluded religion of any stripe. The only language in our Constitution that even mentions religion is exclusionary.

Article VI Paragraph 3 of our Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Then there are the two First Amendment clauses commonly known as the "religion clauses" are the Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and the Free Exercise Clause "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Now, after all these years, we find Christian extremists twisting the words of our Founders in an attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause, promoting the myth that America was created as a Christian nation, while viral political rhetoric has created a de facto religious test for public office. In the process they are attempting to backdoor Biblical law and, with the help of FOX News and the right wingnut blogosphere, establish the accepted discrimination of Muslims and others who are not “like us.”

The 6,000 year-old struggle progresses unabated while fear and loathing stokes the flames of hatred and violence. One of these days we may discover, perhaps too late, that religion in any form is corrosive to peace and individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson was a visionary.

~~

It's raining

Quite the little rain. These are intermittent storms stemming from what is left of Hermine. As you can see the water sheeting across the pasture and drive is several inches deep, and my little pond, which was nearing dry just yesterday, is cresting the dam. If there had been any fish in there, they'd be somewhere in the next county by now.

But we needed it. It's been dry.
~~

Verbatim

Perhaps we should title this story out of Washington... Clueless in Helena

Helena teen looking to buy pot pushes wrong number on phone, accidentally texts sherif

Published September 03, 2010 | Independent Record

- - - General rule of thumb: when looking to buy marijuana, don't text the sheriff.

Authorities say a Helena teen sent out a text message last week in search of pot, but instead of contacting the drug dealer, he hit a wrong number and inadvertently sent the message to Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton.

The text read, "Hey Dawg, do you have a $20 I can buy right now?"

Dutton told the Helena Independent Record he initially thought it was a joke, but he quickly realized it was a real request for drugs. He responded to the text, and a detective pretending to be the dealer organized a meeting with the boy last Wednesday.

"The kids knew that they were going to be at a particular store at a particular time," Dutton told The Associated Press.

The detective spotted two teenage boys and a man at the store and called the phone number three times to make sure he had the right person. Dutton said when the detective showed the teens his badge, their faces turned white and their knees began to wobble. One of the boys even fainted.

The man in the group was the father of one of the teens and was "unaware of what was going on," Dutton said.

No citations were issued after the parents of the boys, who were 15 and 16, got involved.

"Trying to buy drugs is a crime, but it's probably worse that they had to face their parents," Dutton said.

~ ~ ~

Then there is this uplifting story out of The Citizen, Cheltingham, Gloucestershire, England

Cheltenham is pioneer of the invisible bra which lasts a lifetime

Published September 03, 2010 | This is Gloucestershire

PIONEERING surgeons in Cheltenham have discovered an uplifting solution to boost women's confidence – the invisible bra.

The breast lift miracle, called Breform, is a soft sponge mesh which is placed under the skin and acts in the same way as a bra without the need for implants.

And unlike silicone surgery, Breform lasts forever.

However, it isn't cheap – it costs £5,900 for both breasts.

The procedure is now available at Nuffield Health in Hatherley Lane where out of the six trained surgeons in the country, four are based in Cheltenham.

Consultant breast surgeon Fiona Court said Breform worked by attaching the mesh to the chest wall.

"What happens is over time with gravity and the pressures on the breast tissue the skin stretches and you get recurrent drooping," she said.

"The Breform supports the breast tissue into its new position, this also reduces the scarring."

This is not a new idea. It was first investigated by a plastic surgeon in the 1980s who used a mesh similar to those used in hernia repairs.

But the fiddly procedure never took off, until Breform developed a breast-shaped mesh, which currently goes up to a D-cup.

Fiona said: "It is a very safe mesh and you cannot feel it when it is under the skin. It is effectively a thin layer of sponge but it has enough strength to support the breast tissue."

Mesh has been used in the body for more than 40 years and doctors know it is safe, inert and does not cause a reaction.

Some women will be unsuitable for the invisible bra, for example women who have implants or want more children.

And a mammogram may have to be carried out first depending on the woman's age.

Fiona, who also works for the NHS as a breast cancer surgeon, said she could see how the internal bra would help those who had undergone radiotherapy treatment and then lost a lot of the shape in their bust.

"A lot of people will think why would somebody subject themselves to surgery when they don't need it," she said.

"I am always upfront with people and give them all the information and let them decide.

"There are many women out there who are lacking in self-esteem because of problems with their breasts, after giving birth for example, and they don't feel womanly anymore.

"It can have an impact on their marriage."

She added: "I never judge anybody who wants to have cosmetic surgery."
~~

UPDATE: Because of Bob's comment, photos have been added. Bob, if you want more graphic photos, I'm sure AD could recommend some hyperlinks. ;~)
~~

Monday Music

One hit wonders. Brother and sister.

First we have Terry Jacks with Season in the Sun...

Terry had been performing for twelve years before this solo tune hit #1 on the U.S. charts in 1974, but considering that he played with the Canadian group called The Chessmen, and that group had four top-ten hits in Canada in the mid to late 60's, perhaps we can't say he was a one hit wonder. 

You remember the Chessmen, don't you?

Terry's sister performed with the Poppy Family, producing several down-chart recordings. Here she is singing her only top-ten work, Which way you're going, Billy.

These weren't the only songs the two recorded, even if they were the only hits. Terry also covered the Jacques Brel tune, If you go away.

...while Susan continued performing with the Poppy Family, cutting a few albums with the group and some by herself. She even ventured into the country genre.

Brother and sister actually performed together every now and then. Here they are doing an unknown tune at a Poppy Family reunion concert.

Brother and sister both disappeared from the U.S. music scene in the late 70's, but Terry had a song on the Canadian charts as recently as 1987. Unfortunately I am unable to locate a video clip.

 ~~

Sunday Funnies

It is forbidden to urinate here. The penalty is *bang*

Sign located in Bohol, in the central Philippines

H/T

Saved the best for last! Worlds most talented dog.

Long, busy weekend ahead

The traditional Labor Day festivities are coming up on Saturday, so I may be a little preoccupied. Lots of plans and preparations for a big, outdoor party will leave me with not much time on my hands. Once the soirée winds down rest assured I'll kick back into the swing of things, but until then...

Cheers!

~~

Verbatim, from the magazine

By JOHN CLOUD – TIME Magazine – Mon Aug 30

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that - for reasons that aren't entirely clear - abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers. (See pictures of booze under a microscope.)

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use  (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors - job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables - socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on - the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers. (Watch TIME's Video "Taste Test: Beer With Extra Buzz.")

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

I'll second that. In fact, I'll buy the first round.
~~