Faith healing couple convicted

The faith healing couple that was charged with felony mistreatment of their daughter last year has been convicted:

An Oregon jury took just an hour Tuesday to convict a couple of felony criminal mistreatment for relying on faith healing instead of taking their infant daughter to a doctor.

Timothy and Rebecca Wyland’s daughter Alayna, born in December 2009, developed an abnormal growth of blood vessels that covered her left eye and threatened her vision. Now 1 1/2 years old, she has improved under state-ordered medical care. She remains in state custody but lives with her parents…

The couple had 6 ½ months to seek medical attention before the state intervened but they did not, [Prosecutor Christine] Landers said. Because of their faith, “they never would have,” she said.

In the past two years, Clackamas County has prosecuted two other couples from the same church whose children died from untreated ailments.

Oregon has been making great strides in the fight against this religious-based violence on children. It is currently in the process of developing and passing a law that takes away the defense of faith healing, it has this recent conviction, and as the article notes, it has convicted other Christian parents of their crimes. The only place where improvement is needed is in sentencing. While I am against using prison merely as a means of punishment (because that’s just petty, emotional revenge), it does serve a legitimate purpose to use real sentences as a deterrent. Most convicted faith healing parents receive short sentences or probation (which is likely for the Wylands), and what do we keep seeing? Parents who want to hide behind their religion when they neglect their children. It has to stop.

Thought of the day

I don’t see how anyone can think David Barton even resembles anything like an historian.

New Jersey, Tennessee, and emotional distress

New Jersey passed an excellent law earlier this year in partial response to the bullying-caused death of Tyler Clementi. (The process of developing the law began prior to Clementi’s tragic death.) Primarily directed at the junior high and high school levels, the law provides administrators easier ways of dealing with bullies. This follows from the basic premise that harassment is not okay, even between minors.

I mention New Jersey’s law for two reasons. First, it bears relevance to a recent law passed in Tennessee:

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines…

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the “emotionally distressed” individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

I say this bears relevance to the law in New Jersey because of the second reason I’m posting this. Some random scrotebag on a friend’s Facebook wall thinks the two laws are equally or nearly as bad as each other. It’s obvious this person is an idiot. The law in New Jersey protects individuals from systematic harassment. The law in Tennessee prevents people from posting offensive images. There really is no comparison. Opposition to one is a macho-bullshit exercise in chest-thumping for the small dicked whereas opposition to the other is premised in the U.S. constitution:

If you’re posting…say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group [then you’ve violated this law]…Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me.

It’s inane to me that people who can’t make such simple distinctions manage to dress themselves in the morning.

The other anti-vax crowd

By now we should all be familiar with the traditional anti-vax crowd. After all, they’ve been responsible for a number of deaths. But there is a secondary anti-vax crowd. These are the people who don’t object to vaccines based upon their unscientific views but instead because of their religion and conservatism:

Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents’ rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.

Emphasis mine.

Of course the usual suspects are out in force opposing Perry’s (rare) good decision, but the religious right is just as present. The concern is an illegitimate one: they believe their kids will start boning up a storm now that they don’t have those pesky cancer concerns, to put it gracefully. But as we know from failed abstinence-only programs and other pro-ignorant policies, keeping kids away from education and various safety methods only causes harm. Besides, does anyone think cervical cancer is really a big concern for kids who want to have sex? And even if it is, do we want to put them at risk? Think about it. These conservatives want to keep their kids from getting this vaccine because they think the threat of cancer is better than the idea that their kids might lose their virginity. Put in that light, these people are monstrous.

I’ve long been of the position that the general public absolutely does not appreciate the danger of cancer. I don’t know if it’s the “It won’t happen to me” mentality or if it’s general ignorance or if it’s something else, but there really is no appreciation. While Gov. Perry probably made his decision based upon lobbying efforts and campaign donations, we do ultimately have a decision that can be appreciated and lauded by the scientific community. This is good for Texas and its young girls, and I’m glad to see it happen.

Higher gay marriage/abortion support among younger generations

Support for gay marriage is significantly higher among younger generations while support for abortion rights is significantly higher among those under 65 (pdf):

I can’t say I’m surprised. Christians like to spend a lot of time making up lies about gays, but as time and people progress, these myths are being knocked down. In fact, I would be interested to see a survey that asked if homosexuality was all or mostly about sex. I suspect similar generational gaps would be present.

Another significant effect here is that it has become more and more acceptable to be critical of religion. This has brought atheists out of the religious closet. In fact, those claiming “None” when asked what religion they hold constitute the fastest growing proportion of the population. Of those, a significant number are atheist or agnostic. The gross grip of religion is loosening and we’re seeing the benefits of that. For this, at least in part, we have those evil Gnu atheists to thank.

I’m glad that even if there are bumps along the road, I can be confident this positive trend will continue in marriage. It’s just wrong that we deny civil rights to a group (didn’t we learn this 60 years ago?), and it’s even more wrong that we allow the religious to impose their unconstitutional ‘morality’ on the rest of us (didn’t we learn this 235 years ago?). Just as bad is their unscientific positions on abortion (didn’t Terrance promise a response “in a day or two”?). Somewhat surprisingly – and fortunately – the generational divide is not there for those under 65. Yet despite this fact, I’m less confident we can get a positive trend going here, especially with political ‘justices’ like Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court. But at least public opinion and the law are on the right side of the issue right now.

Thought of the day

One thing I’ve noticed in debates and conversations over FTSOS, Facebook, and elsewhere is that creationists love to throw around scientific terms. Of course, they have no idea what any of them really mean, but that doesn’t stop them. “Information” is a favorite, but there are even simpler ones. Unfortunately, when pressed to give definitions or in-depth explanations, there is little to no accountability. Don’t know what the hell you’re saying on Facebook? Someone challenge you? No worry. Just ignore it and move on. It’s the Internet. So in light of this, I’m instituting a personal policy of asking creationists to give me definitions of simple terms when I see them in person. Since these people obviously aren’t even interested in biology or any other science, it won’t be a fair fight, I know. But they have it coming.

Charles Barkley on the Miami Heat fans

Charles Barkley had this to say of Miami Heat fans:

“Yeah, they have the worst fans. No question. It’s not even loud in there. You’re at the game and you are like, ‘Man this place isn’t even loud.’ At least when you go to Chicago, it’s loud in there, it’s crazy down in Dallas but it’s not even loud in Miami.”

I agree with Barkley, but can’t this be said about any professional team’s ‘fans’ in Florida?

Where are you, Sean Hannity?!

According to Sean Hannity Logic, doesn’t this mean global warming is real? Why hasn’t he been talking about this weather just as much as he talks about unusually cold weather?

Dawkins and theology

One of the biggest whines I hear from theists about The God Delusion is that Richard Dawkins just doesn’t know enough about all that wonderful theology. Why, if only he knew more! Maybe then he would totally be a Christian.

But I’m wondering. What would that knowledge actually change? Aside from making Dawkins a great Jeopardy! player, it’s obvious the whiny little Christians really don’t have an answer. After all, just think about it. Has anyone even bothered to give a single example where having a deep theological background would have changed a single bit of The God Delusion?

The truth is, theology is nothing more than literary criticism with a narrow focus. What’s more – and here’s the kicker – Christian theology assumes God. Why in the hell would Dawkins ever defer to theologians? Using theology to prove God is classic question begging and has no place in a serious debate about the existence of God. I hardly believe anyone who says any different is even really interested in these sort of discussions.

Thought of the day

I was reading The A-Unicornist and I was wondering: when are the creationists intelligent design advocates going to produce some research?