Why just President Bush?

[Just thinking]

Why does Randi reference his inspired prayer to the President alone? Surely he must have seen the numerous photos of student prayer vigils that were orchestrated by other believers of their loving God. Has he not heard or read any of the personal interviews by fellow students that expressed similar if not identical beliefs -- especially those much closer to the tragedy? Why is there no reaction to their behavior ... after all, these are the future citizens of America. Plus, why has Randi left out the help offered by the President in making available any and all efforts the federal government can do for the university? Also, I have heard politicians on both sides of the political spectrum offer up prayers (I'll assume to the same loving God) to those fallen students -- yet no comment on them as well?

Yes, Randi does make mention of others in his prayer, but his inspiration is credited only to the President, when clearly he was only one voice among millions (of which some were clearly heard) who I'm sure have similar if not stronger convictions than he.

[Darat]

Perhaps because President Bush's words tend to get a bit more publicity then others....

[Just thinking]

Perhaps because President Bush's words tend to get a bit more publicity then others....

You must be living where you only receive the President Channel on TV. Just about every coverage I've seen focused on those directly or indirectly involved to the tragedy. There has been far more coverage on the killer, the vigils and the individual students than anything else -- the President has had far less coverage than any of the above on this matter.

Plus, you've only addressed one concern of mine -- like Randi, why not the other?

[SomeGuy]

Maybe because president Bush is the head of the secular goverment of the United States of America.

When he speaks at occasions like this he speaks on behalf of all citizens, not just that part of the nation that shares his beliefs.

Prayer vigils by other people (students) are not carried out on behalf of (amongst 100 million others) James Randi. So he has more right to comment on the President's vigil than on the other's in my humble opinion.

Just because the President doesn't think he represent atheists means the constitution agress with him.

[Darat]

You must be living where you only receive the President Channel on TV. Just about every coverage I've seen focused on those directly or indirectly involved to the tragedy. There has been far more coverage on the killer, the vigils and the individual students than anything else -- the President has had far less coverage than any of the above on this matter.

Plus, you've only addressed one concern of mine -- like Randi, why not the other?

Well the only person I remember making a call to a "loving god" is President Bush so perhaps I watch the same telly as Randi. But I'm not sure how your point can be addressed beyond what I posted. After all how does inspiration work? Why does the sight or sound of one thing inspire different things in different people? I think that's probably a question for the "Science..." section. All we can say in this instance is that it was the widely reported comment from President Bush that was the inspiration for Randi's "prayer" and not something else.

And I did not know I was obliged to address every single thing you post, just like I did not know Randi was obliged to address every single thing that interests you.

I suspect your opening post doesn't ask what you wanted it to ask.

[Just thinking]

Maybe because president Bush is the head of the secular goverment of the United States of America.

When he speaks at occasions like this he speaks on behalf of all citizens, not just that part of the nation that shares his beliefs.

And this prevents him from expressing personal feelings? Yes, there are atheists in the US (like me), and many others that are religious (like him) -- I expect the tone of one's expressions to match those of the individual. By the way ... were you or anyone you know of required to pray? I wasn't.

Prayer vigils by other people (students) are not carried out on behalf of (amongst 100 million others) James Randi. So he has more right to comment on the President's vigil than on the other's in my humble opinion.

That is true ... and the President spoke on behalf of the nation's grief. Many Presidents have reflected on God during tragedies -- this is nothing new at all. This is more straw than anything. And like Randi, why no comment on the President's offer to help?

Just because the President doesn't think he represent atheists means the constitution agress with him.

This is plain wrong, as I've heard the President make the statement time and again that he understands this to be a country of many beliefs -- including those that have no religious beliefs.

[Just thinking]

I suspect your opening post doesn't ask what you wanted it to ask.

Doesn't it?

Plus, why has Randi left out the help offered by the President in making available any and all efforts the federal government can do for the university?

[SomeGuy]

And this prevents him from expressing personal feelings? Yes, there are atheists in the US (like me), and many others that are religious (like him) -- I expect the tone of one's expressions to match those of the individual. By the way ... we're you or anyone you know of required to pray? I wasn't.


It depends on the situation, in this occasion he was obviously speaking as the President and not as citizen George W. Bush.


That is true ... and the President spoke on behalf of the nation's grief. Many Presidents have reflected on God during tragedies -- this is nothing new at all. This is more straw than anything. And like Randi, why no comment on the President's offer to help?


I have disagreed with all those President just like I abhor the swearing in on the bible.


This is plain wrong, as I've heard the President make the statement time and again that he understands this to be a country of many beliefs -- including those that have no religious beliefs.

I have never said that he doesn't belief there is a place for non-believers in this country, just that he seems to be oblivious to the fact that he is supposed to also represent them, rather than tolerate them.

It's obvious that you are a supporter of Bush, and that you think my message is personall against him. It isn't, and having seen the people he's run up against (Kerry and Gore), I'm very certain they'd have made similar mistakes.

He (Bush) is wrong in using this terrible thing as a convenient situation to tell us about his wonderful loving god, he is doubly wrong because he is doing it in his position as head of the secular goverment.

[Just thinking]

It depends on the situation, in this occasion he was obviously speaking as the President and not as citizen George W. Bush.

When can he (Bush) ever speak as a person and not the President? He has been critiqued by reporters even when ordering food in a restaurant.

I have disagreed with all those President just like I abhor the swearing in on the bible.

At least then you are being consistent. But just for my own curiosity, can you point me to any of those critiques?

I have never said that he doesn't belief there is a place for non-believers in this country, just that he seems to be oblivious to the fact that he is supposed to also represent them, rather than tolerate them.

That sounds more like an opinion than statement of fact. Using words like 'seems' doesn't really carry much weight -- but I'll respect your opinion as I'm sure you'll respect mine.

It's obvious that you are a supporter of Bush, and that you think my message is personall against him. It isn't, and having seen the people he's run up against (Kerry and Gore), I'm very certain they'd have made similar mistakes.

How is this a support of Bush? Which agenda of his am I in agreement with here? What policy of his am I condoning? I have never complained about any President's personal religious beliefs nor their expression of same.

He (Bush) is wrong in using this terrible thing as a convenient situation to tell us about his wonderful loving god, he is doubly wrong because he is doing it in his position as head of the secular goverment.

I agree that there is likely no loving God looking things over -- but beyond his mentioning of Him, what is he claiming of this God? How is he explaining away all the evils of the world? How is Bush giving you no option of your belief in this God?

And why does this other issue I've asked still not get answered?

[H3LL]

When The President doesn't represent the USA, isn't the Head of State, doesn't act as Chief of Government and isn't the offical head of the US Military and Randi is, be sure to let me know.

Which part of each 24 hours does The President relinquish the above duties and become plain old 'Mr'?

While you are at it, let me know when The President gets the title Defender of the Faith like the UK monarch.

.

.

[Just thinking]

When The President doesn't represent the USA, isn't the Head of State, doesn't act as Chief of Government and isn't the offical head of the US Military and Randi is, be sure to let me know.

I'd like to know too -- my point exactly.

Which part of each 24 hours does The President relinquish the above duties and become plain old 'Mr'?

Never -- maybe not even when his term expires. I mean his duites expire, but his title doesn't. Like all past presidents, he will always be Mr. President or President Bush.

While you are at it, let me know when The President gets the title Defender of the Faith like the UK monarch.

He never does nor ever will.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think ANY of the previous presidents ever claimed that God wanted him to be president. Any historians know otherwise?

I also don't think any president has done more to undo the separation of church and state or to purposely influence (or hide) scientific research and findings to fit with his mostly religious-based policies (abstinence only to combat AIDS, as just one example).

[Just thinking]

I don't think ANY of the previous presidents ever claimed that God wanted him to be president. Any historians know otherwise?

I also don't think any president has done more to undo the separation of church and state or to purposely influence (or hide) scientific research and findings to fit with his mostly religious-based policies (abstinence only to combat AIDS, as just one example).

And I don't think Randi has ever kept his critiques of religious expression to government leaders. This case has certainly drawn expression from many more than the President, yet it seems that Randi has his sites fixed quite narrowly. Now, let's be intellectually honest -- does anyone really believe that when someone (anyone) speaks religiously on behalf of a population that it represents the atheists as well? Bush is not the first president to do this -- nor is he presently the only politician to do this. But from the reaction among some here you would think they were being forced to join the Salvation Army. This same sort of thing happened back when a pair of deadly hurricanes ravaged Florida -- Bush sent aid in abundance, yet all that was seen here (even by Randi) was that he mentioned praying for the victims. Wow!

BTW: Just to address your example, would the spread of AIDS diminish if those known infected practiced abstinence? And has this administration cut funding on AIDS research (http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/U-S-Government-Funding-for-Global-HIV-AIDS-Through-FY-2005.pdf)?

[Blue Mountain]

I don't think ANY of the previous presidents ever claimed that God wanted him to be president. Any historians know otherwise?
While he may have never said it in as many words, I wouldn't be surprised if Ronald Reagan saw it that way.

[tsg]

Yes, Randi does make mention of others in his prayer, but his inspiration is credited only to the President, when clearly he was only one voice among millions (of which some were clearly heard) who I'm sure have similar if not stronger convictions than he.

Randi said his prayer was inspired by the President's, nothing more. And from what I read, Randi's prayer was more critical of the content of the speech rather than the person making it: a "loving god", as Bush called him, who is both all-knowing and all-powerful, should have prevented this tragedy and then he wouldn't have to console the people affected, unless he's a right bastard, in which case "loving god" is hardly an accurate term.

I didn't see anything condemning him for making the speech on the basis of the office the speech-maker holds.

Of course, only Randi can tell you what about this particular prayer inspired him. Perhaps you should ask him.

[Darat]

Doesn't it?

No.

Randi's prayer had nothing to do with those other aspects you mention so it is like asking and "Plus, why has Randi left out the Yeti claims of the people of the Tibet?" Yes it's a question but a totally irrelevant question.

[JoeTheJuggler]

BTW: Just to address your example, would the spread of AIDS diminish if those known infected practiced abstinence? And has this administration cut funding on AIDS research (http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/U-S-Government-Funding-for-Global-HIV-AIDS-Through-FY-2005.pdf)?

Obviously people who abstain from sex don't spread HIV or run the risk of being infected if they're negative now. The question is do "abstinence only" programs work? Do they work significantly better than education (especially about condoms, considering the policy is effectively a gag order against education about condoms)?

This was in Bob Park's most recent "What's New":
2. SEX EDUCATION: ABSTINENCE MAKES THE HEART GROW FONDER.
Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just
as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study
ordered by Congress. Nor did they have fewer sex partners, or
wait longer to become sexually active. The report, released late
last Friday, comes just after the abrupt resignation of Dr. Eric
Keroack, an anti-birth control zealot, appointed by Bush just
four months ago to head the Office of Population Affairs of the
Department of Health and Human Services. A non-board-certified
gynecologist/obstetrician who operates six Christian anti-
abortion centers in Massachusetts, Keroack had been notified of a
state investigation into his private practice.

This is the problem with a public figure openly using his religion to decide policy.

[articulett]

Maybe they mentioned Bush's prayers to warn people. I mean the people in the Harvard prayer study who were prayed for did worse...

And Bush "prayed there'd be no loss of life" right before Katrina...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_-VEmG3bgU

And now this:
Quote:
BLACKSBURG, Va. — Representing America's anguish, President Bush told Virginia Tech students and teachers at a somber convocation Tuesday that the nation was praying for them and "there's a power in these prayers."


The question is...what kind of power? And can it win the million dollar challenge.

We know the passengers on the hijacked planes prayed, because we have their prayers on phone recordings--it never seems to occur to the faithful that if there IS "power in those prayers", then it might not be the kind anyone is looking for?

Besides, if god is omniscient, he already knows what we want and knows who needs to be comforted...why the need to beg? Especially since what he does is his will--prayer or not.

Like Randi, I am aghast that this president has lead this country into new heights in scientific ignorance coupled with the arrogance of the holier than thou. I liked it better when faith was "in the closet" and inappropriate in government. Idiocy and superstition are okay--but when people start expecting respect, salvation, and feel good support for invoking invisible magic men, then I feel like we are marching back into the dark ages.

Can we just start being an intelligent forward moving nation once again?

[articulett]

Obviously people who abstain from sex don't spread HIV or run the risk of being infected if they're negative now. The question is do "abstinence only" programs work? Do they work significantly better than education (especially about condoms, considering the policy is effectively a gag order against education about condoms)?

This was in Bob Park's most recent "What's New":


This is the problem with a public figure openly using his religion to decide policy.

It's worse than that--faith decides much of his policy--and the citizens of America pay for the debacle-- 87.5 million a year on faith based abstinence programs which had no benefit whatsoever--and that is the mere tip of the stupid spending and idiocy in this government iceburg. Science is demonized by this administration while invisible entities are invoked praised and milked for all they are worth.

[Just thinking]

Randi said his prayer was inspired by the President's, nothing more. And from what I read, Randi's prayer was more critical of the content of the speech rather than the person making it: a "loving god", as Bush called him, who is both all-knowing and all-powerful, should have prevented this tragedy and then he wouldn't have to console the people affected, unless he's a right bastard, in which case "loving god" is hardly an accurate term.

I agree that the term 'Loving God' is hardly accurate to what the believers take Him as ... but my contention is not that the President is right in saying it, but rather that Bush is nowhere near alone in holding this belief. Why does not the huge number of students (the future minds of the world) who share this belief also not inspire Randi's rebuttal prayer? Think about it -- if Bush did not make such a statement, wouldn't the sheer numbers of all the others that feel and demonstrated that way make him reply in same?

I didn't see anything condemning him for making the speech on the basis of the office the speech-maker holds.

Nor did I ... and as I just stated, I did not condem Randi ... I just merely questioned why he felt only Bush's comments inspired him.

Of course, only Randi can tell you what about this particular prayer inspired him. Perhaps you should ask him.

Maybe I will. ;)

[Just thinking]

No.

Randi's prayer had nothing to do with those other aspects you mention so it is like asking and "Plus, why has Randi left out the Yeti claims of the people of the Tibet?" Yes it's a question but a totally irrelevant question.

What a strawman. You mean the immediate announcement to the University by the President to aid and assist in any and all ways possible right after the tragedy is irrelevant? It clearly shows that even Bush doesn't think that prayers alone are enough.

[Just thinking]

Obviously people who abstain from sex don't spread HIV or run the risk of being infected if they're negative now. The question is do "abstinence only" programs work? Do they work significantly better than education (especially about condoms, considering the policy is effectively a gag order against education about condoms)?

This was in Bob Park's most recent "What's New":

Please explain to me how people that participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. I see a strong contradiction of terms here. (Sign up, perhaps -- but participate? -- that's a stretch.)

[Just thinking]

Maybe they mentioned Bush's prayers to warn people. I mean the people in the Harvard prayer study who were prayed for did worse...

And Bush "prayed there'd be no loss of life" right before Katrina...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_-VEmG3bgU

And now this:
Quote:
BLACKSBURG, Va. — Representing America's anguish, President Bush told Virginia Tech students and teachers at a somber convocation Tuesday that the nation was praying for them and "there's a power in these prayers."


The question is...what kind of power? And can it win the million dollar challenge.

We know the passengers on the hijacked planes prayed, because we have their prayers on phone recordings--it never seems to occur to the faithful that if there IS "power in those prayers", then it might not be the kind anyone is looking for?

Besides, if god is omniscient, he already knows what we want and knows who needs to be comforted...why the need to beg? Especially since what he does is his will--prayer or not.

Excellent points ... which actually supports my question as to why only the President ... there are many more voices that concern me with this praying thing.

Like Randi, I am aghast that this president has lead this country into new heights in scientific ignorance coupled with the arrogance of the holier than thou. I liked it better when faith was "in the closet" and inappropriate in government. Idiocy and superstition are okay--but when people start expecting respect, salvation, and feel good support for invoking invisible magic men, then I feel like we are marching back into the dark ages.

Can we just start being an intelligent forward moving nation once again?

It's going to take a lot more than just the President -- when you have large populations believing the same sort of prayer stuff -- future minds of America populations -- you can bet that regardless of who's the President or what he says will in no way outweigh all those other minds.

[Just thinking]

It's worse than that--faith decides much of his policy--and the citizens of America pay for the debacle-- 87.5 million a year on faith based abstinence programs which had no benefit whatsoever--and that is the mere tip of the stupid spending and idiocy in this government iceburg. Science is demonized by this administration while invisible entities are invoked praised and milked for all they are worth.

Did you read any of the link I supplied about AIDS research? In it you'll find that the President has allocated more monies than even congress suggested. And during the present administration, the US is still the world's greatest resource to fighting AIDS.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please explain to me how people that participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. I see a strong contradiction of terms here. (Sign up, perhaps -- but participate? -- that's a stretch.)

So in evaluating whether or not the abstinence only programs are successful (relative to other programs), you would have us only count the successes?

Now THAT's a stretch.

[Just thinking]

So in evaluating whether or not the abstinence only programs are successful (relative to other programs), you would have us only count the successes?

Now THAT's a stretch.

I didn't think you would answer my question.

But to answer yours ... I'll count all those that PARTICIPATE IN ABSTINENCE as the article claims (using their words).

[JoeTheJuggler]

I certainly did answer your question. Please re-read my response.

Abstinence only programs have been proven repeatedly NOT to delay the average age of having sex. Further, participants have a higher rate of STDs (owing most likely to not using condoms).

Here's the study Bob Park cited: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp

In an older report (http://http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf), analyzing 10 different studies, the conclusions were nearly identical.

From what I read, "participating" in the program means taking a pledge of abstinence until marriage, plus attending the presentations (classes or whatever they have).

[JoeTheJuggler]

But to answer yours ... I'll count all those that PARTICIPATE IN ABSTINENCE as the article claims (using their words).

Now you know that's not what it said. By "article" do you mean the Bob Park blurb? (If not, please tell me what you're referring to.) He clearly said "participated in abstinence only programs".

The reading you are trying to pass off is ridiculous--it would be meaningless to say that people who didn't have sex did have sex. You know full well that no one is claiming a contradiction.

[Just thinking]

... From what I read, "participating" in the program means taking a pledge of abstinence until marriage, plus attending the presentations (classes or whatever they have).

I see ... so making then breaking a pledge is equivalent to making and keeping it? I would consider those breaking the pledge no longer "in the program" ... as abstinence is no longer being observed. But in order to make a point, you must consider those that defected as still valid data points along with those that are actually abstaining. As Spock would say ... Fascinating.

What is demonstrated here is that non-abstinence doesn't work as well as true abstinence. What a revelation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're kidding, right?

[Just thinking]

Now you know that's not what it said. By "article" do you mean the Bob Park blurb? (If not, please tell me what you're referring to.) He clearly said "participated in abstinence only programs".

Yes ... but you are mincing words. Participation in a program means to keep with the program. In this case, sexual abstinence. If you do not keep abstaining, you are no longer keeping with the program and are no longer a valid data point. If you wish to argue that one cannot be expected to comply with such a program, that's a different issue. But sexual abstinence by those infected with HIV/AIDS will diminish its spread as I said earlier.

[SezMe]

And during the present administration, the US is still the world's greatest resource to fighting AIDS.

Could be. But the US is not the world's greatest resource in preventing AIDS. And that fact can be singularly attributed to Bush's religious-based policies.

An aside: I no longer will use the term, "faith-based" as it merely tries to conceal the influence of religion. Whenever Bush or other pols talk about "faith-based" programs I read, "religious programs".

[SezMe]

Just thinking, I am as perplexed as Joe by your logic. There are abstinance-only programs funded by the government fueled by Bush's religious beliefs. These programs are taught in schools and other settings. Once the program is complete, the students may, or may not, become sexually active. But if they do, that does NOT mean they did not complete the program. Statistics show that following the participation in an abstinance-only program there is no decrease in the propagation of STDs, no delay in onset of sexual activity and no decrease in pregnancy rates. In fact, some statistics are worse. You simply cannot claim that if they fall off the sexual wagon, they are not on the program because they are already done with the program.

Get it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes ... but you are mincing words. Participation in a program means to keep with the program. In this case, sexual abstinence. If you do not keep abstaining, you are no longer keeping with the program and are no longer a valid data point.

I am not mincing words.

Your definition of participation in the program is not one that is conventional (i.e. accepted by most people), and it makes no sense in evaluating the effectiveness of the program.

In the studies, the methodologies are clearly defined and follow standard scientific method. You can't use a measure of the outcome as a way to re-define the groups retroactively.

From the Mathematica study:

Youth were enrolled in the study sample over three consecutive school years, from fall 1999 through fall 2001, and randomly assigned within schools to either the program or the control group. The results in this report are based on a survey given to 2,057 youth in 2005 and 2006, roughly four to six years after they began participating in the study; 1,209 had participated in one of the Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs and 848 had been assigned to the control group. By the time the last follow-up survey was completed, youth had entered their mid to late teens, permitting the researchers to reliably measure program impacts on teen sexual activity and other risk behaviors.

The four programs studied include My Choice, My Future! in Powhatan County, Virginia; ReCapturing the Vision in Miami, Florida; Teens in Control in Clarksdale, Mississippi; and Families United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These four programs were chosen because they had well implemented and replicable programs and were willing and able to take part in a rigorous evaluation.

I'm trying to be patient and polite with you, Just thinking, but it really seems that you are being purposefully obtuse, or you are having some fun at my expense.

[articulett]

What a strawman. You mean the immediate announcement to the University by the President to aid and assist in any and all ways possible right after the tragedy is irrelevant? It clearly shows that even Bush doesn't
think that prayers alone are enough.

No, it wasn't a strawman. It addressed your question directly. What would you expect Randi to say to make it more acceptable to you?

The president made a self serving prayer that highlights the the nonsensical religious clap trapping that people lap up readily as "doing good"--and Randi highlighted the irony. This blather promotes this insane notion that all good should be attributed to the invisible guy in the sky and all bad should be attributed to those who don't believe the right unbelievable story. Bush ignores the roles of his policies (liberal gun ownership laws) in this tragedy just as he did in Hurricane Katrina while getting oohs and aaahs from the faithful who actually imagine his prayers and appeals to god can do some good.

As a skeptic, I enjoy the irony--and Randi's commentary makes me laugh as I shake my head at the primitive hypocritical backwardsness of it all--endless consumption of "higher truths" that mean nothing--that are good for nothing coupled with demonization and fear of actual useful scientific facts.

It's as if, instead of addressing the fact that innocent people will die when a nation has very liberal access to guns, he's advocating exorcism and conversion and faith as a method of solving problems and human suffering--many of which his own actions are complicit in.

Perhaps you ought to have your irony meter checked. Randi was making fun of "belief in belief". It's irrational. It's crazy that we have a president who indulges in it so frequently and self righteously. Nobody said anything about Bush thinking faith was enough....that is your own extrapolation--Randi wasn't making a commentary on the yeti, nor was he dissing the families of loved ones--he was "inspired" to make a satire of prayer to the man who spews crap that seems to pass as "inspiration" or some facsimile thereof to those who "believe" in him. That's it. Bush's prayers might be some comfort in their distraction, but his actual policies cause suffering and ignorance which he blithely ignores just as he ignores all bad and tragedy that an all-loving and omniscient god could have naturally (or supernaturally) prevented.

Bush uses religion and god to divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys" and then to abuse his power at will.

If you can't laugh at the irony, then what's left but to feel incredibly depressed? If someone doesn't point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, what are you going to do when the emperor has an army and can force you to say how gorgeous his non-existent clothing is?

[articulett]

Did you read any of the link I supplied about AIDS research? In it you'll find that the President has allocated more monies than even congress suggested. And during the present administration, the US is still the world's greatest resource to fighting AIDS.

It was the religious right that was responsible for the firing of Jocelyn Elders, the surgeon general who agreed that discussing masturbation might be a good method of stemming the spread of AIDS in Africa. Our governments expenditures on "abstinence education" have no effect whatsoever--and when you couple that with the misinformation spread by religious charities and their failure to mention alternatives for satisfying primal instincts safely, then it just rings hollow. The US is not the worlds' greatest resource for fighting aids. Science, Education, and honesty are.

The U.S. could spend billions telling fat people not to eat--that would not make them the worlds greatest resource in fighting obesity. Your analogy is akin to that from my perspective.

[articulett]

I see ... so making then breaking a pledge is equivalent to making and keeping it? I would consider those breaking the pledge no longer "in the program" ... as abstinence is no longer being observed. But in order to make a point, you must consider those that defected as still valid data points along with those that are actually abstaining. As Spock would say ... Fascinating.

What is demonstrated here is that non-abstinence doesn't work as well as true abstinence. What a revelation.

Over 2000 kids who went through the abstinence only training were compared to their peers who didn't--there was no difference in the number of sexual partners or age of first intercourse--NONE. All that expenditure and no measurable results! It's like the Harvard Prayer study. Should we be funding prayers for heart patients and then claim we are doing more to fight heart disease than any other country?

You seem to view the world through a different reality than the rest of us. I don't think anyone is understanding the claims you are making or the problem you have with Randi's inspired prayer...nor what you think should be different or would be more fair. I don't even know why you don't seem to get the irony....you seem to miss the point all together and give it some weird meaning and heaviness and inferences that no one else seems to understand.

You think that Randi was singling out the President in particular to pick on? He's making fun of belief in belief. He doesn't make fun of believers, he educates them--but he rightly knocks those off a pedestal who try to pass off this crap as "higher truths" or "deep insights" to the trusting masses. He does it regularly to promoters of woo.

He's forever demonized by the religious right for being the messenger of a truth they don't want to hear. He's not standing up in churches saying, "you guys are gullible idiots"--he's sharing the irony through humor with fellow skeptics on his forum...and hoping that rationality with spread.

[articulett]

A
This is plain wrong, as I've heard the President make the statement time and again that he understands this to be a country of many beliefs -- including those that have no religious beliefs.

Well, then you should have no problem posting links to the time and time again that he has acknowledged non-believers as citizens with equal rights to believers. Saying "our prayers are with you" includes me... and I am personally offended. I don't think prayers do anything. My thoughts might well be with people--my concern--my sympathy--but not my prayers. We are not one nation "under god" much as the religious right would like to make everyone believe we are. This endless pandering to "good" and "god" who is American and on "our side" compared to those "evil" others is disgusting to me. It's divisive, unnecessary, and unhelpful. If we can't change it, we may as well satirize it see can laugh amidst our offense.

[articulett]

Yes ... but you are mincing words. Participation in a program means to keep with the program. In this case, sexual abstinence. If you do not keep abstaining, you are no longer keeping with the program and are no longer a valid data point. If you wish to argue that one cannot be expected to comply with such a program, that's a different issue. But sexual abstinence by those infected with HIV/AIDS will diminish its spread as I said earlier.

So will their deaths. So will condom usage. Abstinence will work just like not eating is guaranteed to make you thin. The question is, what is the best way to spend our money on education to diminish the spread of aids. Pretending that primal instincts haven't evolved to be strong and not subject to rationality certainly is not going to do it.

It may make people feel guilty, but it won't stop them. It never seemed to stop masturbation. Heck, threats of hell can't stop priests from molesting children--of course, cutting off their balls might--but apparently they are not afraid enough of hell to go that far.

It wasn't the non impulsive sexually restrained family planning people who are our ancestors...those types didn't pass on their genes. It was those with a sex drive not subject to rational control who spread their genes across the planet for us to inherit today...just as it was people who were able to learn by associating correlation with causation and deriving theories about cause and effect that preferentially passed on their genes--subjecting future generations to superstitious thinking (including imaginary gods and demons) when an explanation wasn't readily available.

[Just thinking]

To all ...

What seems to be misunderstood here is what the word participation is implying -- and I will admit I am not interpreting it as others are. I am taking it as willfully becoming involved. If one simply takes a population and forces it to 'Participate' in anything, as opposed to accepting a willing population, I strongly feel (and perhaps you do too) that the final outcomes are likely to be different. I also believe that once one no longer follows a prescribed method or program, they are no longer participating in what they started (willfully or not). As I have mentioned earlier, I simply stated that those that were indeed abstaining from sex must have reduced the spread of AIDS, that is all -- in particular, only those that knew they had it -- and look at the barrage of comments being thrown back. It's as if some here feel they have the right to continue their sexual promiscuity with little or no regard to the safety of others. Now, I'll still believe that no one here wants anyone to go around spreading a deadly disease, but if you can give me anything short of abstinence that is just as effective I would like to see it. Also, if you can now point to anything that I have said that is flat out wrong or illogical (knowing what you now know about my comments) please expose it.

If a smoker participates in a non-smoking program and then goes back to becoming a smoker I would take that to mean he/she is no longer following the prescribed behavior of that program. There is no time limit here -- this is a life commitment. The same applies to recovering alcoholics. No one would impose a time limit when it then becomes OK to stop following what the program taught -- you would most likely say they left the program, fell off the wagon. We can argue the difficulty is staying on course, but what we can't debate are the differences in results to those that stayed on track as opposed to those that didn't.

[Just thinking]

Could be. But the US is not the world's greatest resource in preventing AIDS. And that fact can be singularly attributed to Bush's religious-based policies.

Can you please link me to evidence which supports this?

[President Bush]

Why does Randi reference his inspired prayer to the President alone?
Randi, also, left out how God, in response to the massacre of 32 persons at the Virginia Tech campus, informed me: "Plenty more where that came from."

[Just thinking]

No, it wasn't a strawman. It addressed your question directly. What would you expect Randi to say to make it more acceptable to you?

How about .. "I’ll end this week with a prayer, inspired by a deluded population's recent appeal to “a loving God” who they asked to “comfort those who are suffering today,” in response to the massacre of 32 persons at the Virginia Tech campus."

You see, my title wasn't Why President Bush -- it was Why just President Bush. There is a difference.

All of those that felt prayer would make a difference concern me.

[SezMe]

Can you please link me to evidence which supports this?

Sure (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_spreads_under_Bus.shtml).

USAID is the single largest donor of condoms in the developing world, providing $75-million worth annually, or about a third of all donations. Yet, according to the PAI report, 16 poor countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been cut off from USAID condom shipments because their family planning groups are associated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which refuses to sign the antiabortion pledge.

[SezMe]

How about .. "I’ll end this week with a prayer, inspired by a deluded population's recent appeal to “a loving God” who they asked to “comfort those who are suffering today,” in response to the massacre of 32 persons at the Virginia Tech campus."

Won't work because a deluded population didn't say that, only President Bush did. Others may have thought it but how can Randi quote what others may have been thinking?

[osmosis]

I also don't think any president has done more to undo the separation of church and state

I suppose appointing "common sense judges [the the supreme court] who know our rights are derived from god" has no impact on the separation of church and state?

or to purposely influence (or hide) scientific research and findings to fit with his mostly religious-based policies (abstinence only to combat AIDS, as just one example).

How about cutting funding to stem-cell research?

George Carlin was right about these right-to-lifers: they're so concerned about the unborn, but once you're born, **** you, you're on your own.

[articulett]

Won't work because a deluded population didn't say that, only President Bush did. Others may have thought it but how can Randi quote what others may have been thinking?

Moreover, it was satire--a parody on Bush's words... the simple mindedness of them... the simple mindedness of those words to a nation that should have the right to expect intelligent commentary from him--

instead he spouts nonsense that people have to twist into credible stories and then justify with tangential arguments, semantics, and defensive posturing.

Ugh...Bush apologists are as unfathomable to me as Christian apologists. Yes, we understand the religious right quite well-- nothing bad or evil or causing suffering can be attributed to Bush's policies, lies, misinformation, or religious posturing--nor can any of those things be attributed to their all loving omniscient savior who chose this president (or so he tells us.)

All true human suffering is caused by those evil godless atheists who would destroy faith and those radical folks who don't that automatic weapons should be so readily available to any person who thinks that some people need killing.

The OP is demonizing the wrong person. Randi gave a spot on parody of religious stupidity. The person the OP should be questioning is the man he feels inclined to protect.

Randi singled out the president, because the president singled out a particular version of a diety to offer support on behalf of Americans--many of whom do not believe in that diety. Moreover, he ignores parts of his own politicking that exacerbate such tragedies while invoking an invisible man to up his cred in the faith based crowd. Vomitous. Irrational. Ignorant. Useless. Not helpful in any way at all. If you are going to talk to an all powerful all loving god, you might want to ask him why he allows such things to happen.

If you (the OP) are going to defend a president, you might first tell us why you think this man's actions or speeches should be free from parody or examination or derision. Respect and trust are things to be earned--not things people should be guilted into giving. This president has been the most divisive man this country has ever seen. If we can't fix it, at least let us laugh at it and take away the power of the nightmare.

What Harm do you imagine Randi is causing?--what do you think would have been better? Why must we show deference to the inanities or blindness of others. Doesn't doing so encourage authoritarian atrocities?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBAYTpTJXrQ

People need to be afraid of actions that cause ignorance and suffering. People do not need to be afraid of words. People do not need to be afraid of humor. People do not need to be afraid of facts.

I really don't understand the OP at all. Does anyone else?

[articulett]

I suppose appointing "common sense judges [the the supreme court] who know our rights are derived from god" has no impact on the separation of church and state?



How about cutting funding to stem-cell research?

George Carlin was right about these right-to-lifers: they're so concerned about the unborn, but once you're born, **** you, you're on your own.

Especially if you are black, in prison, Iraqi, a feminist, are pro-choice, or an atheist...or a soldier...or need public funds in order to have medical care, food, and an education.

Then, of course, your life is worthless--you are a casualty ....what can be more casual than a casualty?

[articulett]

Randi, also, left out how God, in response to the massacre of 32 persons at the Virginia Tech campus, informed me: "Plenty more where that came from."

What's a few deaths--it's god's way of saying, "hey you lucky folks...I'm going to give you a break and let you start your "happily ever after" in eternity sooner..." Heck, some of those people might have become atheists and then had to be tortured forever.

If they really believed their dogma, I imagine they'd be praising god for making the deaths quick and tidy without all that suffering from things like old age, arthritis, cancer, dementia, evil temptations, etc.

Religious blather never ever made sense to me. Randi voices my thoughts with eloquence. I can only shake my head at the bizarreness of the delusion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you please link me to evidence which supports this?


Here's another:


Effective programs that combine HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention have been implemented in Uganda, Tanzania, Thailand and elsewhere. But rather than support the best of these efforts, the Bush Administration has put AIDS policy into the hands of Christian fundamentalists (who have pushed their ideological ABC approach to prevention)7 and drug-company lobbyists (who have prioritized industry profits over ensuring access to life-saving medicines). Today, the White House is issuing reminders of President Bush's "compassionate" $15 billion program to fight AIDS, particularly in Africa. But that promise was made over three years ago and most of the money has never materialized.8 In fact, Bush's initiative actually undermined effective international efforts to combat AIDS through the UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. Instead of paying its fair share to the Fund ($3.5 billion, or one-third of the total), the US has pledged just $0.6 billion for 2006-2007.9


(The numbers in the text are footnotes on the original web page (http://www.madre.org/articles/afr/aidsafrica12105.html).)

[JoeTheJuggler]

To all ...

What seems to be misunderstood here is what the word participation is implying -- and I will admit I am not interpreting it as others are. I am taking it as willfully becoming involved. If one simply takes a population and forces it to 'Participate' in anything, as opposed to accepting a willing population, I strongly feel (and perhaps you do too) that the final outcomes are likely to be different.

Oh come on. There is no misunderstanding. You are intentionally fooling around with this. When you first questioned me about the abstinence only programs I plainly said that it's obvious that if you don't have sex you won't get AIDS or spread it if you are already HIV+. The real issue is the effectiveness of these programs. Did you read that?

You persist in claiming there is a misunderstanding, and that the proposition that abstinence only programs are not only ineffectual, they also result in HIGHER rates of STDs and pregnancy is the same thing as saying you can get STDs or pregnant while abstaining from sex.

No one is making that claim. (Oh well, except Christians who preach that Jesus' mother never had sex.)

I told you this straight out, and you persist in pretending to think that I (and others) are saying that not having sex is the same as having sex. You accused me of mincing words, and yet you finally admit now that you're playing some sort of game where "participate" in a program only counts for successful cases. I have already pointed out that this is absurd, particularly as a way of evaluating the effectiveness of these programs.

The gag rule against condoms will result in ignorance, suffering and death.

The most effective tool against AIDS is education. People need to know what causes the disease, how the virus can (and cannot) spread, and so on. These are NOT religious issues. Unfortunately, our chaplain-in-chief has made huge policy decisions based strictly (and overtly) on religious convictions to the detriment of countless people.

[Just thinking]

Oh come on. There is no misunderstanding. You are intentionally fooling around with this. When you first questioned me about the abstinence only programs I plainly said that it's obvious that if you don't have sex you won't get AIDS or spread it if you are already HIV+. The real issue is the effectiveness of these programs. Did you read that?

Yes ... did you read this?

"If you wish to argue that one cannot be expected to comply with such a program, that's a different issue. But sexual abstinence by those infected with HIV/AIDS will diminish its spread as I said earlier."

... and this?

"We can argue the difficulty is staying on course, but what we can't debate are the differences in results to those that stayed on track as opposed to those that didn't."

You and I may actually be more in agreement than you would like to believe.

[Just thinking]

Sure (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_spreads_under_Bus.shtml).

That's a columnist's opinion with no references to her conclusions. If I were to link to such a site for supporting a claim I'd be chastised all over the place.

Besides, there seems to be some discrepancy of data -- it claims the US supplies 1/3 of all donated condoms to poor countries (especially found in Africa) -- yet where the US is said to have stopped donating, there are now none to be had. How did the other doners (2/3 of the condoms) simply dry up as well? It would seem to me that all those other 'doners' are no less to blame than the US.

[Just thinking]

Won't work because a deluded population didn't say that, only President Bush did. Others may have thought it but how can Randi quote what others may have been thinking?

So all those prayer vigils were to ... what? A non-loving God?

I don't know about you, but if I had a nickel every time I heard someone of faith tell me "Jesus loves you" or "God loves you" ...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes ... did you read this?

"If you wish to argue that one cannot be expected to comply with such a program, that's a different issue. But sexual abstinence by those infected with HIV/AIDS will diminish its spread as I said earlier."

... and this?

"We can argue the difficulty is staying on course, but what we can't debate are the differences in results to those that stayed on track as opposed to those that didn't."

You and I may actually be more in agreement than you would like to believe.

This is ridiculous.

Yes, I read that. And I pointed out to you that it's absurd to use a measure of the outcome as a definition of who is in the treatment group.

It'd be like running a trial for the effectiveness of a drug, but only counting as "participants" those for whom the drug was effective.

I really don't think you don't understand this. I'm not sure what game you're playing.

[articulett]

This is ridiculous.

Yes, I read that. And I pointed out to you that it's absurd to use a measure of the outcome as a definition of who is in the treatment group.

It'd be like running a trial for the effectiveness of a drug, but only counting as "participants" those for whom the drug was effective.

I really don't think you don't understand this. I'm not sure what game you're playing.

It reminds me of diet ads that say how people taking their drug AND sticking to their diet had results. It doesn't point out that the diet accounts for all the results and that there were few people even able to stick to the diet.

Abstinence only is like curing obesity by telling people "just say no to dessert!"

Isn't Too Much Thinking claiming the equivalent of: "All the people who stopped eating so much and abstained from over 1500 calories lost weight"-- While ignoring the fact that there was no difference in the percentage of these people whom we spent a million dollars on and those whom we left to their own devices. If the results are identical--why spend the money. You have wasted large amounts of money. If you are counting the money spent in this fashion as helping Africa combat AIDS then clearly screws are loose.

I guess I don't understand the Bush argument or the Abstinence argument, and yet I've read this poster before, and I know he/she isn't stupid. I just can't find the logic. Is it me? Or can anyone explain. Randi did a parody on the president's useless prayers because this president ignores the obvious while promoting the useless. But isn't Just Thinking doing the same? This president solves problems with crap dressed in a pretty bow while ignoring the fact that he's the one responsible for the crap --and indirectly responsible for the problem he's pretending to be the savior for.

Religion is, truly, the opiate of the masses, I suppose. I'm not against opiates. But some of us prefer actual useful words of wisdom and action and value for the money spent.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it's on par with the state lottery ads that always say, "If you don't play you can't win!"

They can keep repeating the completely true statement that those who abstain from sex are at near zero risk of STDs and pregnancy. The problem is, that's not the question. The question is do abstinence only programs work?

Or, better yet, do they do more harm than good? Or better still, should our public money be spent on something whose main support is religious belief and not science?

Or simply, wouldn't our public money do MUCH more good if we didn't prohibit open and honest education?

Yes--we'll still let you exhort the great advantage of abstinence, as long as you let us explain the facts.

[articulett]

I think it's on par with the state lottery ads that always say, "If you don't play you can't win!"

They can keep repeating the completely true statement that those who abstain from sex are at near zero risk of STDs and pregnancy. The problem is, that's not the question. The question is do abstinence only programs work?

Or, better yet, do they do more harm than good? Or better still, should our public money be spent on something whose main support is religious belief and not science?

Or simply, wouldn't our public money do MUCH more good if we didn't prohibit open and honest education?

Yes--we'll still let you exhort the great advantage of abstinence, as long as you let us explain the facts.

Yeah...I had confused the OP with thinkingtoomuch because they both have "thinking" in their screen names.

When I read this stuff, I try to figure out what I am not understanding...but it usually turns out to be the other person with the gaps in both understanding and basic logic. I do feel bad for Randi and all his woo applicants...it is just so muddled...and tangential...and hard to pin down.

I suspect it might be from being fed platitudes and told it was great wisdom or higher truths or essential for salvation. How else to account for so many words that say nothing at all and serve no purpose--not furthering understanding, not humor, not debate, no solving-problem-- just words, words, words, words, that must mean something to someone or be said for some reason or with some goal--

When I feel I am in one of those loops where I feel that the more I try to understand, the less understanding seems to be occurring--I sense I am in the midst of woo. Someone is trying to convince me or themselves of something or other, but I can not ever even pin down the basics. They could , of course, be seeing a connection that I cannot see, but so do schizophrenics.

Or they maybe they are the "over-estimaters" alluded to in my sig article linky.

[tsg]

I agree that the term 'Loving God' is hardly accurate to what the believers take Him as ... but my contention is not that the President is right in saying it, but rather that Bush is nowhere near alone in holding this belief. Why does not the huge number of students (the future minds of the world) who share this belief also not inspire Randi's rebuttal prayer? Think about it -- if Bush did not make such a statement, wouldn't the sheer numbers of all the others that feel and demonstrated that way make him reply in same?

Nor did I ... and as I just stated, I did not condem Randi ... I just merely questioned why he felt only Bush's comments inspired him.

Maybe I will. ;)

So what if he got his inspiration from the President? Is Randi required to get inspiration from every single person who mentioned god in a speech? Is the President off limits? What exactly are you complaining about?

[Just thinking]

So what if he got his inspiration from the President? Is Randi required to get inspiration from every single person who mentioned god in a speech? Is the President off limits? What exactly are you complaining about?

It seems to me that Randi (and even myself) becomes disturbed when he sees people using prayer in what appears to be a hypocritical way. They accept the disasters and tragedies in life without ever questioning their God's ability to prevent or diminish it -- which in my eyes (and Randi's too I suspect) makes him one nasty SOB. Then we see these same folks praying to him as the loving, forgiving ever helpful benign deity. Go figure.

So no, Bush is NOT off limits here -- nor is anyone else (at least to me) who believes or demonstrates same.

[Just thinking]

... I really don't think you don't understand this. I'm not sure what game you're playing.

If you really think that I don't get it and that all I am doing is playing a game with you, simply put me on ignore and this can end.


And I pointed out to you that it's absurd to use a measure of the outcome as a definition of who is in the treatment group.

It'd be like running a trial for the effectiveness of a drug, but only counting as "participants" those for whom the drug was effective.

That depends on how you consider one to be "in the treatment group". This behavior (sexual abstinence) is unlike a drug test program where one waits for results -- here the results are the individual's behavior. And not just for a given amount of time -- it's for life. Why? ... because once full blown AIDS is in one's system, it's for life. And with lifetime abstinence (except for one's marital partner) one is at the lowest risk level in catching AIDS.

Looking at participants in abstinence only programs as being fully engaged during a set amount of time and then allowed to do as they please (after leaving the program) is more like looking at what happens to people that are on lifetime medications and then suddenly taken off. I'll bet their mortalities will be identical to those with identical afflictions that didn't receive the needed medication in the first place. So why would we expect there to be a difference in an abstinence program looked at in a similar manner? If we expect people taking the lifetime medications to continue taking it for life (which is in the population's and individual's best interests) and tabulate mortality accordingly (that means ignoring deaths by those that stopped taking their medications voluntarily) why should we consider those that strayed from abstinence any differently when looking at the data?

[Just thinking]

,,, I guess I don't understand the Bush argument or the Abstinence argument, and yet I've read this poster before, and I know he/she isn't stupid. I just can't find the logic. Is it me? Or can anyone explain.

Well, it's not a Bush argument. It's simply asking why Randi only sees this as something specific to Bush (for inspiration) when the media has given much more air time of the comments made by the students and families. Yes, he's the President -- but hardly the most vocal element in all this tragedy.

That's really my point here. And thank you for the compliment. ;)

Oh ... and my abstinence argument is right above.

[And just for the record -- it's he.]

[SomeGuy]

If you really think that I don't get it and that all I am doing is playing a game with you, simply put me on ignore and this can end.




That depends on how you consider one to be "in the treatment group". This behavior (sexual abstinence) is unlike a drug test program where one waits for results -- here the results are the individual's behavior. And not just for a given amount of time -- it's for life. Why? ... because once full blown AIDS is in one's system, it's for life. And with lifetime abstinence (except for one's marital partner) one is at the lowest risk level in catching AIDS.

Looking at participants in abstinence only programs as being fully engaged during a set amount of time and then allowed to do as they please (after leaving the program) is more like looking at what happens to people that are on lifetime medications and then suddenly taken off. I'll bet their mortalities will be identical to those with identical afflictions that didn't receive the needed medication in the first place. So why would we expect there to be a difference in an abstinence program looked at in a similar manner? If we expect people taking the lifetime medications to continue taking it for life (which is in the population's and individual's best interests) and tabulate mortality accordingly (that means ignoring deaths by those that stopped taking their medications voluntarily) why should we consider those that strayed from abstinence any differently when looking at the data?

Abstinence is indeed a very good way to limit your risk of catching AIDS, but abstinence only programs seem not to be.

You seem to think that following the program doesn't count if you are not truely committed, however the money is spend on people following the program not on their commitment.

So in order to evaluate the usefulness of spending money on the program we should look at how people fare that followed the program.

What constitutes actual participation is irrelevant to the discussion on what to spend AIDS-prevention money on.

[SezMe]

Just thinking, let's get down to brass tacks.

Suppose I'm a sex-ed program designer and I want to offer a 1-year, abstenance-only sex-ed course and I want to evaluate the effectiveness of that course 5 years after the completion of the course. I will measure "effectiveness" by the number of women who have not gotten pregnant during the post-course 5-year period.

Being a good scientist, I will offer an alternative course that is not based on abstinence-only concepts to a different set of women and I will use the same effectiveness test. The demographics of the women in the two groups is identical so the only variable under consideration is the sex-ed course they have been exposed to.

OK, so far? Is this a fair experiment? Is the evaulation criterion a good measure of the experimental program? Good.

So I run the test and the results are as follows: 5 females who took the abstenance-only course have gotten pregnant while 3 women in the control group have gotten pregnant.

By your method of evaluation, because the 5 pregnant females did not stay with the program, its success rate is 100% (95 out of 95 females did not become pregnant) while the success rate of the control group is 97%. Clearly, the abstenance-only sex-ed course is superior.

But an outcomes-base method of evaluation finds that the success rate of the abstenance-only course is 95% while the control group had a success rate of 97%. Clearly, the control group course of education is superior.

Which evaluation do you think more accurately represents the outcome of this test?

[tsg]

It seems to me that Randi (and even myself) becomes disturbed when he sees people using prayer in what appears to be a hypocritical way. They accept the disasters and tragedies in life without ever questioning their God's ability to prevent or diminish it -- which in my eyes (and Randi's too I suspect) makes him one nasty SOB. Then we see these same folks praying to him as the loving, forgiving ever helpful benign deity. Go figure.

So no, Bush is NOT off limits here -- nor is anyone else (at least to me) who believes or demonstrates same.

Then what is your problem with this? What motivated you to start this thread?

[Just thinking]

Just thinking, let's get down to brass tacks.

OK ... I'm all for that.

Suppose I'm a sex-ed program designer and I want to offer a 1-year, abstenance-only sex-ed course and I want to evaluate the effectiveness of that course 5 years after the completion of the course. I will measure "effectiveness" by the number of women who have not gotten pregnant during the post-course 5-year period.

This is fine, as long as you understand that what you are after is long term data from a temporary program.

Being a good scientist, I will offer an alternative course that is not based on abstinence-only concepts to a different set of women and I will use the same effectiveness test. The demographics of the women in the two groups is identical so the only variable under consideration is the sex-ed course they have been exposed to.

OK, so far? Is this a fair experiment? Is the evaulation criterion a good measure of the experimental program? Good.

Maybe -- maybe not. I do not question the science of your hypothetical experiment, it's sound and reasonable. My concern is limiting the program to only an intial time frame and then waiting to see what happens. We're talking lifetime behavior. Anyway -- so far so good.

So I run the test and the results are as follows: 5 females who took the abstenance-only course have gotten pregnant while 3 women in the control group have gotten pregnant

By your method of evaluation, because the 5 pregnant females did not stay with the program, its success rate is 100% (95 out of 95 females did not become pregnant) while the success rate of the control group is 97%. Clearly, the abstenance-only sex-ed course is superior.

It may in fact be superior -- depending on what criteria you are measuring. In this case, it showed no promise of reducing pregnancy. But what of those that did not become pregnant? ... in both groups? What of sexually transmitted disease among those others ... the lion's share of the population? Do you think that the data will show those continuing to participate in abstenence having the same number if individuals contracting STD's as those participating in other methods? (e.g.; rhythm) Which group do you think will result in higher numbers of cases?

But an outcomes-base method of evaluation finds that the success rate of the abstenance-only course is 95% while the control group had a success rate of 97%. Clearly, the control group course of education is superior.

Which evaluation do you think more accurately represents the outcome of this test?

Again ... it depends on what you are measuring and what you count as being active in a program.

[Just thinking]

Then what is your problem with this? What motivated you to start this thread?

Why Randi seemed to respond to the praying to a loving God as coming only from President Bush.

[fishbob]

This is fine, as long as you understand that what you are after is long term data from a temporary program.

And 'temporary program' is exactly what Bush abstinance is, and 'long term data' is the only way to measure effectivness of this, or any other program.

[tsg]

Why Randi seemed to respond to the praying to a loving God as coming only from President Bush.

He didn't. All he said was he was inspired by it. And it was pretty clear to me he was inspired by the content of the message and not who said it. Should he have to respond to every single person who prayed in response to the shootings?

[Just thinking]

He didn't. All he said was he was inspired by it. And it was pretty clear to me he was inspired by the content of the message and not who said it. Should he have to respond to every single person who prayed in response to the shootings?

We both know that would be impossible on a one-to-one basis ... however I did offer an alternate way to express his "inspiration" and why I felt it would reflect more accurately what transpired with respect to all those other prayers.

[Just thinking]

And 'temporary program' is exactly what Bush abstinance is, and 'long term data' is the only way to measure effectivness of this, or any other program.

So is all the blame here on Bush and none on those ceasing to continue with abstinence?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you think that the data will show those continuing to participate in abstenence having the same number if individuals contracting STD's as those participating in other methods?

You're still playing a game. NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT ABSTINENCE LEADS TO PREGNANCY OR STDs. You use the phrase "participate in abstinence" but that is NOT the issue.

I'll say it again: abstinence is not the issue. Do you understand this?

The issue is the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs compared to normal education (that included information about diseases and condoms).

By your way of thinking all abstinence only programs are always 100% effective because you only count the people who remain abstinent.

The fact that no more people remain abstinent who have gone through (since you quibble with "participate") the abstinence-only programs than those in control groups seems irrelevant to you.

Is it also irrelevant that more of them end up pregnant and infected by STDs (owing to their ignorance of important health-related information)?

The science is clear. The policy is being decided by religious principles, and not popular ones at that--I even know plenty of Catholics in the health-care industry who have no qualms about disseminating (ahem--pun intended) information about condoms.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That depends on how you consider one to be "in the treatment group". This behavior (sexual abstinence) is unlike a drug test program where one waits for results -- here the results are the individual's behavior.

I linked to several of the studies, including the most recent one (that took into account 4 or 5 studies). The methodology is clear. If you don't understand it, please read them.

The "treatment group" is the abstinence-only program. It is very similar to a drug test. You are still confusing the treatment (taking the abstinence-only program vs sex education) with the outcome (rates of first sexual experiences, rates of pregnancy and rates of STDs).

[tsg]

We both know that would be impossible on a one-to-one basis ... however I did offer an alternate way to express his "inspiration" and why I felt it would reflect more accurately what transpired with respect to all those other prayers.


I assume you mean this:
How about .. "I’ll end this week with a prayer, inspired by a deluded population's recent appeal to “a loving God” who they asked to “comfort those who are suffering today,” in response to the massacre of 32 persons at the Virginia Tech campus."


The words "a loving God" and "comfort those who are suffering today" came out of George Bush's mouth. Do you think it is unfair to attribute those words to the person who said them?

[SezMe]

This is fine, as long as you understand that what you are after is long term data from a temporary program.
These programs are typically taught in high school. What do you propose to do, keep people in high school the rest of their lives and give the same course over and over and over...... again. These programs are not "temporary", they are, like ALL high school programs, a semester or a year long.

It may in fact be superior -- depending on what criteria you are measuring. In this case, it showed no promise of reducing pregnancy. But what of those that did not become pregnant? ... in both groups? What of sexually transmitted disease among those others ... the lion's share of the population? Do you think that the data will show those continuing to participate in abstenence having the same number if individuals contracting STD's as those participating in other methods? (e.g.; rhythm) Which group do you think will result in higher numbers of cases?

I could have thrown all those other factors in but I simplified the experiment so as to focus on the core issue that you refuse to get. Adding in all that other crap does not change my point.

Again ... it depends on what you are measuring and what you count as being active in a program.
Now you're just being obtuse. As Joe says. You left out your middle name, "not"

[JoeTheJuggler]

How exactly does one "participate in abstinence" anyway?

[Just thinking]

How exactly does one "participate in abstinence" anyway?

By remaining abstinent.

[Just thinking]

These programs are typically taught in high school. What do you propose to do, keep people in high school the rest of their lives and give the same course over and over and over...... again. These programs are not "temporary", they are, like ALL high school programs, a semester or a year long.

Even a year is temporary -- not continuous like other programs such as AA or Weight Watchers or others. They're not the same course over and over ... it's a continuous reminder and guide in support of the desired result. You may not believe it, but that is how I envisioned the Abstinence Only Program.

I could have thrown all those other factors in but I simplified the experiment so as to focus on the core issue that you refuse to get. Adding in all that other crap does not change my point.

Now you're just being obtuse. As Joe says. You left out your middle name, "not"

So we're down to name calling? ---

[Just thinking]

... The words "a loving God" and "comfort those who are suffering today" came out of George Bush's mouth. Do you think it is unfair to attribute those words to the person who said them?

No --- do you think it fair to believe no one else felt that way, in spite of all the media coverage they received?

[tsg]

No --- do you think it fair to believe no one else felt that way, in spite of all the media coverage they received?

When did Randi say they didn't?

[Just thinking]

When did Randi say they didn't?

Good -- you believe (like me) that Randi in all likelihood knew that there were many others with identical feelings of the President. And that they prayed just like the President.

So why wasn't his inspiration taken by all (in his mentioning) instead of just one?

[tsg]

Good -- you believe (like me) that Randi in all likelihood knew that there were many others with identical feelings of the President. And that they prayed just like the President.

So why wasn't his inspiration taken by all (in his mentioning) instead of just one?

Why should it be when it was the President who said the words quoted by Randi?

[BillyJoe]

Even a year is temporary -- not continuous like other programs such as AA... They're not the same course over and over ... it's a continuous reminder and guide in support of the desired result.

Where is the evidence that AA is a success?
It's not even a success for those who stay in the program.
I suspect it would be the same for the "abstinence only sex education programs", if they became continuous.

Unless, of course, you only counted those who remained in the program AND remained abstinent. :D

Come on JT, it can't be that hard to admit you were wrong.
Someone has a signature that says "I don't mind being wrong, because I get to learn something"
Good one.

You may not believe it, but that is how I envisioned the Abstinence Only Program.

Then you should admit your mistake and apologise to all those in this thread, such as articulette and JTJ, who have been patiently trying to educate you.

kind regards,
BillyJoe

[JoeTheJuggler]

JustThinking--answer this please. Do you think we're better off spending our money on abstinence-only programs (which prohibit teaching the facts about the risks and consequences of having unprotected sex) or a full sex education where you can stress the benefits of abstinence all you want as long as you also equip them with all the information (birth control, condoms, health risks, etc)--knowing that both options will be "temporary" in duration?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
How exactly does one "participate in abstinence" anyway?

By remaining abstinent.

You don't get it, do you?

Participate means to take an active part in something, but abstain means to refrain from taking part in.

I guess such subtleties are beyond you.

[BillyJoe]

Then you should admit your mistake and apologise to all those in this thread, such as articulette and JTJ, who have been patiently trying to educate you.

Okay a little less patiently now. :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

Even a year is temporary -- not continuous like other programs such as AA or Weight Watchers or others. They're not the same course over and over ... it's a continuous reminder and guide in support of the desired result. You may not believe it, but that is how I envisioned the Abstinence Only Program.

So you're wholly ignorant of the topic at hand? You're ardently defending something and you don't even know what it is?

Very early in this discussion I posted links to the studies. The least you could have done was scan through them.

Never let facts get in the way of a cause, eh?

[tsg]

Why should it be when it was the President who said the words quoted by Randi?

I'll go ahead and respond anyway since JT seems to have abandoned the thread. Not to beat a dead horse but this really annoys me.

Your whole position sounds like a knee-jerk accusation of "Bush bashing" without bothering to find out if the criticism has any merit and in spite of the fact that it was the message being criticized, not the messenger. Yes, I'm aware that it does happen. But assuming it is the case in every instance is just as bad, if not worse, then "Bush bashing" itself.

I can't speak for Randi, but if you ask him (as I have already suggested you do) I'm willing to bet it was those particular words, "and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today", spoken by George Bush, that inspired him to write his prayer. It's a particularly vapid statement that clearly and concisely demonstrates the irony in the belief that Randi was addressing: asking for suffering to be relieved by "a loving god" who should have (because he's loving) and could have (because he's god) prevented the cause of the suffering in the first place. I am reminded of a line from The Simpsons: "[God] thank you for sending Lisa to save us from the bug you sent."

The answer to why Randi singled out the President is simply that it was the President who said those words.

But you started with the assumption that the inspiration was solely due to it being the President saying them and not the words themselves. Like so many CT'ers, you're "just asking questions" and have already made up your mind what the only possible answers are.

I'll ask one more question. I don't expect an answer, but I have a pretty good idea what it is. Had Randi's prayer been inspired by words spoken by any other person, would you still have started the thread? I'm guessing, no.

And that's the real irony. You're engaging in the very behavior that you accuse others of. You accuse people of criticizing because of who said it and not the merit of what was said. Yet you only make that accusation because of whom they're criticizing and not the merit of the criticism.

[Just thinking]

I'll ask one more question. I don't expect an answer, but I have a pretty good idea what it is. Had Randi's prayer been inspired by words spoken by any other person, would you still have started the thread? I'm guessing, no.

Actually, yes. Although I can't make that a 100% certainty (since it didn't happen that way) it still would have struck me as odd if it was fairly obvious that it wasn't just that one person's behavior.

And that's the real irony. You're engaging in the very behavior that you accuse others of. You accuse people of criticizing because of who said it and not the merit of what was said. Yet you only make that accusation because of whom they're criticizing and not the merit of the criticism.

Come on, that's false and you know it. I've clearly pointed out that what Bush said was not above criticism -- but it's something that many others believe in too (a loving God) and pray to just as the President in a hypocritical manner. Why haven't they been taken to task as well -- they certainly have been in the media more than Bush on this issue, and more vocal.

[tsg]

Actually, yes. Although I can't make that a 100% certainty (since it didn't happen that way) it still would have struck me as odd if it was fairly obvious that it wasn't just that one person's behavior.

If you say so.

Come on, that's false and you know it. I've clearly pointed out that what Bush said was not above criticism -- but it's something that many others believe in too (a loving God) and pray to just as the President in a hypocritical manner.

I know no such thing. It was the belief Randi was criticizing, not who said it. It is your insistence that Randi was unfairly picking on the President.

Why haven't they been taken to task as well -- they certainly have been in the media more than Bush on this issue, and more vocal.

They have. Randi criticized the belief, not the person who said it. Period. Your problem seems to be whose words he chose to convey that belief. My opinion (I can't speak for Randi) is that is was the President's words that succinctly embodied the belief being criticized. If you still question what it was about the President's words that inspired him, ask Randi.

[tsg]

Lest I be accused of making a claim without evidence....

If you are not engaging in the behavior of which you accuse others as I claimed earlier, then why have you not started threads on, for example, "Why just Sylvia Browne?", "Why just Deepak Chopra?", "Why just John Edward?", "Why just Uri Geller?" Surely there are others who believe the same things these people say. Is it not also unfair to single them out for criticism?

And then one final question: Why just Randi? Has no one else used a quote from a single person to convey the meaning of a commonly held belief that they have an issue with? Somehow, I doubt it.

[tsg]

And then there is the issue of this question in your OP: "Plus, why has Randi left out the help offered by the President in making available any and all efforts the federal government can do for the university?" The answer is obvious: it has nothing to do with the belief Randi is criticizing. So obvious, in fact, that it makes no sense whatsoever to even ask the question. Unless, of course, your problem is that it is the President being criticized. Then it makes perfect sense.

[Moochie]

There are a bunch of morons holding a prayer vigil to induce rain in our drought-stricken land.

Fortunately, they've chosen a time just after the weather bureau predicted good falls in many drought-stricken areas.

Who will take the credit?

M.