A friend just sent me an interesting Wall Street Journal article entitled "Look Who's Irrational Now."
Basically, it notes the recent books and screeds by the militant "New Atheists" about how crazy and untrustworthy all religious believers are, but reports on a recent survey showing how those involved in more than weekly religious worship, especially members of conservative Protestant denominations, are much less likely than the non-religious to believe in such "paranormal" things as Bigfoot, Nessie, Atlantis, and haunted houses. Apparently, this demographic discrepancy has been noted at various times in previous years.
It also reports that Bill Maher, whose new movie coming out next week promotes his message that "The plain fact is religion must die for man to live," has himself recently boasted of not believing in Western medicine.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wishing Ye a Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day!
Avast, ye scurvy scallywags! This today be the International Talk Like a Pirate Day. This varrrry 'portant hol'daybe a-spreading the seven seas so that even ye landlubbers arrrrrrrr now obliged to be marrrrrrking today by such means as only a-googling with Google Pirate and answering the phone properly, if ye don't want an earrrrrrly date wit Davy Jones' locker!
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Which Candidates REALLY Care?
With this election cycle yet again featuring opposing candidates challenging each other to publicly release their income-tax returns, the public is now privy to very interesting info about the various candidates' widely differing levels of personal generosity.
Here's how they rank in terms of percentage of gross adjusted income given to charity in 2006 and 2007:
-Sen. John McCain gave 27.3% - 28.6%
-Sen. Hillary Clinton gave 10.0% - 14.7%
-the Obamas gave 5.8% - 6.1%
-of the 89% of American households giving to charity, the average contribution is 3.1%
-since 1998, the Bidens have given 0.06% - 0.31%
-there appears to be no such public records (yet) from Gov. Sarah Palin
But how much could they each afford to give to others? The plot thickens:
-Sen. Clinton earned $20,400,000 in 2007 and $15,858,422 in 2006 (adjusted gross income)
-Sen. Obama earned $4,139,965 in 2007 and $983,826 in 2006
-Sen. McCain earned $386,527 in 2007 and $338,809 in 2006
-Sen. Biden earned $319,853 in 2007 and $248,859 in 2006
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median annual household income for 2006-2007 was $49,901
It's easy for politicians to be generous with other people's money. Self-sacrifice is another matter.
Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog
Here's how they rank in terms of percentage of gross adjusted income given to charity in 2006 and 2007:
-Sen. John McCain gave 27.3% - 28.6%
-Sen. Hillary Clinton gave 10.0% - 14.7%
-the Obamas gave 5.8% - 6.1%
-of the 89% of American households giving to charity, the average contribution is 3.1%
-since 1998, the Bidens have given 0.06% - 0.31%
-there appears to be no such public records (yet) from Gov. Sarah Palin
But how much could they each afford to give to others? The plot thickens:
-Sen. Clinton earned $20,400,000 in 2007 and $15,858,422 in 2006 (adjusted gross income)
-Sen. Obama earned $4,139,965 in 2007 and $983,826 in 2006
-Sen. McCain earned $386,527 in 2007 and $338,809 in 2006
-Sen. Biden earned $319,853 in 2007 and $248,859 in 2006
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median annual household income for 2006-2007 was $49,901
It's easy for politicians to be generous with other people's money. Self-sacrifice is another matter.
Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Some Thoughts on the Bristol Palin pregnancy
By now, there's been a lot public discourse on the recently revealed pregnancy of a 17-year-old girl named Bristol Palin, who happens to be the daughter of GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
An initial observation I had was how much of the rhetoric seems to boil down to little more than: "SHOCK AND SCANDAL!! Somebody Related to VP Candidate has Pre-Marital Sex!!!!" (And that's amazing in this day and age because ... why?)
John the Methodist has a good post responding to the suggestion that this revelation may somehow "drive off Christian voters."
At another level, many of us have been impressed by the powerful pro-life witness of Bristol's decision to not "hide" it but rather keep the baby and marry his or her father. Many have also noted the obvious contrast with Senator Obama's groundbreaking extremism on abortion and his callously saying that he would support the killing of his own grandchild.
There's been a good deal of sometimes acrimonious debate over whether or not Bristol's pregnancy is "fair game" for media coverage related to evaluating Governor Palin as a VP candidate. While Republican talking heads have understandably been taking the line that this is a private family matter that is NOT fair game, I cannot help but recall how in the 2000 election (the first in which I voted), some conservatives seemed eager to make an issue of a run-in with the law by Al Gore's son, suggesting that it showed that the Democratic nominee hadn't raised his son right and therefore lacked the requisite character for the White House.
On the one hand, there is some biblical warrant for the behavior of children reflecting on their parents (though the context of that passage seems to be with younger children). On the other hand, how many of us would really want ourselves to be held personally responsible for mistakes our offspring may make in their late teenage years?
The election season is heating up with the majority of voting Americans having already decided who they will vote for. An inevitable part of this process involves making criticisms of the candidate who we plan to vote against. May this be a reminder of all of us to not do so without first asking ourselves: if folk from the other side were criticizing my candidate on similar grounds, would I consider this to be fair?
An initial observation I had was how much of the rhetoric seems to boil down to little more than: "SHOCK AND SCANDAL!! Somebody Related to VP Candidate has Pre-Marital Sex!!!!" (And that's amazing in this day and age because ... why?)
John the Methodist has a good post responding to the suggestion that this revelation may somehow "drive off Christian voters."
At another level, many of us have been impressed by the powerful pro-life witness of Bristol's decision to not "hide" it but rather keep the baby and marry his or her father. Many have also noted the obvious contrast with Senator Obama's groundbreaking extremism on abortion and his callously saying that he would support the killing of his own grandchild.
There's been a good deal of sometimes acrimonious debate over whether or not Bristol's pregnancy is "fair game" for media coverage related to evaluating Governor Palin as a VP candidate. While Republican talking heads have understandably been taking the line that this is a private family matter that is NOT fair game, I cannot help but recall how in the 2000 election (the first in which I voted), some conservatives seemed eager to make an issue of a run-in with the law by Al Gore's son, suggesting that it showed that the Democratic nominee hadn't raised his son right and therefore lacked the requisite character for the White House.
On the one hand, there is some biblical warrant for the behavior of children reflecting on their parents (though the context of that passage seems to be with younger children). On the other hand, how many of us would really want ourselves to be held personally responsible for mistakes our offspring may make in their late teenage years?
The election season is heating up with the majority of voting Americans having already decided who they will vote for. An inevitable part of this process involves making criticisms of the candidate who we plan to vote against. May this be a reminder of all of us to not do so without first asking ourselves: if folk from the other side were criticizing my candidate on similar grounds, would I consider this to be fair?
Quote of the Week
"The difference between a [theologically] liberal Baptist and a 'Christian Unitarian Universalist' is really not that big."
-a Unitarian Universalist (UU) seminarian, in a recent chat
-a Unitarian Universalist (UU) seminarian, in a recent chat
Monday, September 1, 2008
IRD + MFSA to merge into new "Institute of Methodists Federated for Religion, Democracy, & Social Action" (IMFRDSA)
Well, not quite.
But one of the tasks I and others did for my former employer, the UMAction program of the Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD) at the 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church was hand out copies of our daily GC newsletter to delegates and others as the entered the convention center.
Among those alongside us were many folk similarly handing out newsletters and leaflets from other United Methodist caucus groups with radically different perspectives like the Reconciling Ministries Network, the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), and Affirmation.
While one of these, Jeremy! Smith, was always friendly and never rude during our few interactions (which is much more than what can be said for several of his fellow liberal hand-out distributors!), our worldviews appear to be about as far as the East is from the West.
So it seemed noteworthy that he recently made a point on his blog with which I actually happen to strongly agree, namely that a lottery amounts to "a tax on those who are poor that is disguised as a chance to achieve the American Dream."
The context of his post is a thoughtful discussion on the more complex ethical question of churches profiting from lottery money.
But one of the tasks I and others did for my former employer, the UMAction program of the Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD) at the 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church was hand out copies of our daily GC newsletter to delegates and others as the entered the convention center.
Among those alongside us were many folk similarly handing out newsletters and leaflets from other United Methodist caucus groups with radically different perspectives like the Reconciling Ministries Network, the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), and Affirmation.
While one of these, Jeremy! Smith, was always friendly and never rude during our few interactions (which is much more than what can be said for several of his fellow liberal hand-out distributors!), our worldviews appear to be about as far as the East is from the West.
So it seemed noteworthy that he recently made a point on his blog with which I actually happen to strongly agree, namely that a lottery amounts to "a tax on those who are poor that is disguised as a chance to achieve the American Dream."
The context of his post is a thoughtful discussion on the more complex ethical question of churches profiting from lottery money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)