Obamacare: A Critical Review

Healthcare is a huge issue in my family. Not only is it a huge burden on our country, I think it should be. I believe the health and wellbeing is the number one focus of the government. It is also one of our biggest flaws. My wife is an RN with a BSN from St. Catherine’s University. Since her graduation, study on the healthcare industry has been her hobby. She has done research and watched many documentaries on the topic. Her main focus is the birthing industry and she currently works in OB.

The Birthing industry became a focus of mine as we were planning on starting a family. We watched and read many things about the industry, from the treatment and procedures, to infant/maternal death rates, to the costs.  We decided the best route was an all-natural water birth at a birth center. Because she was at a birth center, she was not allowed to use any drugs, which was our plan in the first place. People have been having babies for thousands of years without an issue and I did not doubt my wife would be any different. Both of our sons were delivered at a birth center (Health Foundations, in St. Paul, Minnesota.)

Because of a mix-up with our insurance, we were forced to pay out of pocket for the first one, which costs $7,000, which is the flat rate. We were able to provide the cash because all payments needed to be upfront. $7,000 may seem like a lot of money, but the average birth in the United States costs about $20,000. The average C-section costs nearly $40,000. Insurance or not, the birth center was the way to go and the cheapest. It even beats out Canada, which has an average cost of $15,000 per birth. But this is not the topic of this blog.

My blog is in response to two things. First, is the pure ignorance of a co-worker of mine that sees Obamacare as a total waste of money that only hurts consumers. The second, is a recent poll showed that the majority of Americans do not understand Obamacare. I myself, was not totally sure of everything in entailed. None of this is surprising, because according to my wife, most patients read at about a 5^th grade level and only 12% of Americans actually understand healthcare and health insurance.

Taiwan is the world’s number one ranked healthcare system. Stitches cost $15 here as opposed to $1,500 in the United States. Some may debate that Taiwan is the number 1 ranked system, though I trust my sources, but one thing is clear…regardless of the source one uses, the United States is nowhere near the top. When Taiwan developed their healthcare system, they got a group of Ph.Ds that studied all of the current healthcare systems in the world. When asked what they thought of the US, they said “it is a perfect example of what not to do…”

Obamacare or the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) has been praised as healthcare reform. But is it healthcare reform? Does it help people or hurt people? Does it cost us more? Is it the answer? First and foremost I am a seeker of truth and I desire to have the greatest healthcare system in the world. I will do an analysis on ACA to see what it really does and if it is the answer. I will be using official sources plus liberal and conservative sources to see if their arguments are valid.

To start, I will list a few of the key talking points…

Here is a quote by President Obama regarding the goals of the healthcare reform…

"In a country as wealthy as ours, nobody should go bankrupt if they get sick," he said, adding, "We would rather have people getting regular checkups than going to the emergency room because they don’t have health care — if we keep that in mind, then we’re going to be able to drive down costs; we’re going to be able to improve efficiencies in the system; we’re going to be able to see people benefit from better health care. And that will save the country money as a whole over the long term."

These are Obama’s goals and contrary to popular belief, it is law and was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court. ACA is not an option, but law.

Some of the misconceptions…

A co-worker of mine said that his friend was denied healthcare coverage because he was overweight. He blames Obamacare for this. When I told him that this is the way insurance has always been, he said “prove it. Democrats always want Republicans to prove it, so prove it.” Okay, I will…First off, to show that this is the way things have always been, you can do a Google search or ask anyone that has tried to buy health insurance that is overweight or a smoker. There is a reason insurance companies are interested in your BMI…because people that are overweight are far more likely to need medical care. But the biggest supporter of my argument is the fact that Obamacare has not yet gone into effect. It does not go into effect until 2014, which means your buddy was denied BEFORE Obamacare went into effect. You can find the timeline for Obamacare here…

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

In addition to that, THAT TYPE OF THING IS THE VERY THING OBAMACARE PREVENTS. Under the Bill of Rights of the AFA it states this…

·         As of September 2010, new individual policies (and work-based plans) aren’t allowed to turn children down because of a pre-existing condition, including a disability. Learn more about children’s pre-existing conditions. Starting in 2014, these same plans won’t be able to turn down anyone who has a pre-existing condition, including a disability.

Turning down someone because of a pre-existing condition, such as obesity or smoking is prohibited. This is the key part of the act. It provides EVERYONE with the opportunity to receive healthcare. Obamacare ensures that the person that was turned down, due to being overweight, is entitled to healthcare. That is the law and that ensures that millions of Americans will receive coverage, that were not able to receive it before.

My co-worker also lives with his parents, which allows him to be covered until the age of 24 or 25 (I forget exactly.) Obamacare improves on that…

·         If your child is under age 26, he or she can remain covered under your policy. Under the Affordable Care Act, private health insurance that offers dependent coverage must allow parents to cover their children until age 26. Your children don’t need to live with you to be eligible for this coverage. Learn more about young adults and the Affordable Care Act.

He could move out of the house and STILL be covered by his parents under Obamacare. Sounds like am improvement to any person of that age…

In addition to not being able to deny people based on pre-existing conditions, it protects those that became sick while having coverage.

·         Once you (and your family) have an individual health insurance policy, it cannot be canceled or discontinued when you or a family member get sick. If you bought an individual policy, then got sick, and then your insurance company asks questions about whether you should have been eligible to buy the policy in the first place, you should contact your State Consumer Assistance Program or find other consumer assistance in your state.

That is just one more loophole that is closed to the insurance companies.

The ACA also provides for better coverage and less cost to the consumer. It ensures a minimum standard of what services need to be provided. Here are some of the requirements…

If your plan is subject to these new requirements, you may not have to pay a copayment, co-insurance, or deductible to receive recommended preventive health services, such as screenings, vaccinations, and counseling.

For example, depending on your age, you may have access — at no cost — to preventive services such as:

·         Blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol tests

·         Many cancer screenings, including mammograms and colonoscopies

·         Counseling on such topics as quitting smoking, losing weight, eating healthfully, treating depression, andreducing alcohol use

·         Regular well-baby and well-child visits, from birth to age 21

·         Routine vaccinations against diseases such as measles, polio, or meningitis

·         Counseling, screening, and vaccines to ensure healthy pregnancies

·         Flu and pneumonia shots - Visit Vaccines.gov to learn more

But if it is required by law to have health insurance, won’t many people not be able to afford it?

No.

Some people will be exempt because of their low income, because they are members of Indian tribes or for other reasons. All told, the CBO estimates that about six million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 -- that's accounting for the fact that some people won't comply with the law.
"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by [the mandate], such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

People with annual income of up to 400% of the poverty line -- or roughly $45,000 for an individual and about $92,000 for a family of four -- will get federal subsidies to help defray the premium costs.

This means that people that make less than $45,000 a year or families that make less than $92,000 a year, will receive subsidies from the government and will not have to pay for insurance. On top of that, even if they choose to not be covered, the penalty is not that harsh, at first.

Starting in 2015 -- one year after the individual mandate goes into effect -- taxpayers will also have to provide the IRS with proof of insurance. If a taxpayer doesn't have insurance, he'll have to pay a fine of $95. The next year that fine increases to $325, and it eventually rises to $695 by 2016.

Most importantly, you cannot be thrown in jail for not paying these fines, but due to the fact that low income Americans will be provided with subsidies, there is no reason to not pay it.

Businesses-What will this do to businesses? As it turns out, not much…

The mandate has gotten lots of attention, but nationwide it will apply to very few businesses. That’s because 96 percent of all businesses have fewer than 50 employees, says David Chase, an outreach director at Small Business Majority, a lobbying group that supports health-care reform. “Of the 4 percent who’ll be mandated to offer insurance, 96 percent of those companies already offer it. So it’s 4 percent of the 4 percent that will be affected by the mandate.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-28/advice-for-small-employers-confused-by-obamacare

What does this mean? Small businesses will not be affected and larger businesses that provide for their employees will not be affected, either. Very few businesses should suffer due to this program, and if they do, it is because they neglect their employees in the first place.

Now the part all of my Conservatives have been waiting for…What does this mean as far as costs go and what are the bad aspects?

Well, I have come to realize, which I assumed from the beginning, that this is not reform and this is not the answer to our problems.

The most glaring weakness I see is with smokers. Under the ACA, companies are able to increase premiums buy 50%. This will most likely be the standard because smokers have a lot of health risks and a single company will not want to be the haven for smokers. This will result in smokers having to pay a much higher premium.

To start, I do not see this as fair…it is called the Affordable Care Act, not the Healthy Living Act. This could be a slippery slope into more control of people’s lives by the government. But of the smokers, most, based on the statistics, are poor, which means they will receive government subsidies. The others will simply choose to opt out and take the fine, which will be much cheaper than coverage.

Both of these will cost the government greatly. The government, which pays for the subsidies for the poor, will take up this bill, which will be much higher for smokers. It is as if they set up a system to pay more…Also, those that opt out will end up in the ER when they fall over from their sickness. ERs cannot refuse people, so this will also result in the tax payers and the government paying the bill. If we intent to put the costs on the insurance companies, than this increased premium for smokers, undermines it.

Obviously the big question is will the government end up paying more, and will premiums rise? In Capitalism, profit is the key. Companies are used to the income they are taking in currently and just will simply not accept less. Even though these companies would not go under, they will not accept less profit at any cost. Considering this, we will have two things happening. 1, they will be gaining millions of new customers. 2, most of these new customers will be higher risk and cost them more. So does this even out, or will premiums go up? Well, this is simply unknown…we cannot predict everything, but we do know that companies will raises prices with any excuse, and this is the perfect excuse. To follow, I will simply quote an article I found in my searching…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/29/how-will-obamacare-hit-premiums-lets-break-down-the-numbers/

Milliman starts by walking through all the factors that will make insurance more expensive in 2014. One has nothing to do with the health-care law at all: The firm expects premiums to rise 9 percent next year, due to rising health-care prices. This increase would be in line with the premium hikes seen in recent years.

“We assumed the average increase in premiums from 2013 to 2014, in the absence of the Affordable Care Act changes, to be 9.0 percent,” the report says, noting that individual market premium hikes last year ranged between 7 and 11 percent.

The 9 percent increase would happen regardless of Obamacare, so it’s hard to count those as a result of the law. There is, however, one part of the health law that will be expensive: The requirement that insurance companies cover a whole bunch of health benefits. This is known as the “essential health benefits” and it can include some health services that plans previously skimped on. Californians (and the rest of the country, for that matter) will have to pay more to get more coverage, essentially. Milliman estimates this will increase premiums by 22.2 percent for most Californians.

So we have health care costs and quality of coverage going up, which are components that would raise premium rates for everyone. But there’s one other change, the influx of new customers, that could either raise or lower your premiums, depending on whether you already have coverage.

For those who already have insurance, the Affordable Care Act is expected to increase premiums by 14 percent. That makes sense when you think about some of the people likely to enter the market: Those who previously found coverage too expensive to buy a health plan, perhaps due to a health condition.

If you’re one of those uninsured Californians, by the way, the Affordable Care will actually lower the cost of insurance (compared to life without Obamacare) by 14 percent.

Those are the elements that will increase the cost of health insurance, but it’s important to remember that there’s another big part of the law meant to reduce premiums. These are the tax subsidies, available to Americans earning less than 400 percent of the poverty line (about $45,000 for an individual). These, Milliman expects, will make insurance 83 percent less expensive for someone earning less than 250 percent of the poverty line.

Granted, the government is raising taxes to cover the cost of these subsidies, but is it enough?

In conclusion, prices of health insurance may go up…but they will anyways…sadly, the government will be stuck with the bill. Personally, I find this unfair. I feel that the companies that are making billions of dollars should be the ones being dinged…at the same time though, the ACA grantees medical coverage to many Americans that would not otherwise have it and I feel this is a basic right. In my opinion, the number one job of the government is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Healthcare is certainly considered the well-being of the citizens. If the government spends money on anything, healthcare should be the thing. Unfortunately, it should not help businesses make billions of dollars off of the government. Obamacare, ACA, is not the answer to our problem. It is not healthcare reform and it does not allow us to compete with the best systems in the world, and it does not take capitalism out of healthcare. Though I believe in capitalism, healthcare is not something it should be involved in. People’s health should not be dictated by profit. Costs are being driven up by capitalism…I mean a box of tissues cost $80 at a hospital? Why? Either way, it is an improvement for a simple fact that people cannot be denied healthcare for reasons that are out of their control.

Obamacare is a plus, but does not deserve praise….

This blog was done quickly and will most likely be edited in the future.

Kevin

How to disprove Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

How to Disprove Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
Evolution does not mean God is not there, but God is not necessary-Charles Darwin

Disproving Darwin's theory should be a very simple thing to do because it is a very simple theory. However, to disprove a theory one must correctly understand it. I will start with a little background of Darwin and how he came to his theory, followed by the theory itself. I hope you enjoy.

Darwin was was a big fan of William Paley's book called Natural Theology. Paley is actually the person responsible (debateable) for the modern day Intelligent Design movement. Darwin was a devout Christian.

Because Darwin was extremely wealthy but unmotivated he went on, what turned out to be, a 5 year voyage. He liked collecting things and on this voyage he would basically get to collect junk from South America while it appeared he was actually doing something with his life. This kept his dad off of his case.
While he was on this voyage he read this book by Charles Lyell called Principles of Geology. Without getting into detail the book was about how based on observable evidence, the Earth was extremely old. This troubled Darwin because of his religious beliefs but he remained Christian. After spending time in South American they made their way to the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that the animals there were similar to the ones in South America but they were slightly different. He noticed mockingbirds in particular. They also thought the animals were extremely stupid because they are not afraid of people. That is true to this day. You can walk right up to the animals and they don't run or anything. This is because they have no predators on the islands with the exception of a hawk. Darwin wondered why the animals were similar but slightly different on these islands than on the mainland but left never to return.

Once he returned home he read a book by Thomas Malthus, an economist, called An Essay on the Principle of Population. I will try and keep this short and simple. Basically Malthus claims that resources are limited. This is a fair statement because nothing is infinite. There is only so much water, so much food, so much gold, ect. This is represented on a graph by a linear line. He also observes that populations grow exponentially as long as there is an unlimited amount of resources. A line of exponential growth is placed on the graph. His conclusion is that once the lines meet, someone has to be starving because there is not enough food. When this happens there has to be competition for resources.

After reading this Darwin had this theory and he knew he was right. This is his theory…

A. Observation: There is potential for rapid reproduction. (For a quick example look at bacteria or the cells in the human body, for a slower example look at the population growth of the world.)

B. Observation: There are relatively constant resources and population sizes over time. (As stated above, resources are limited and any given area only has so many resources. It is observed in nature that animal populations stay relatively constant over the course of time due to the limited resources.)

C. Conclusion based on A and B: There is competition for resources to survive and reproduce.

D. Observation: There is variability in structures and behaviors. (This is obvious because no 2 people are alike unless they are identical twins but even they differ. People and animals are different.)

E. Conclusion: Natural Selection-On average the "fittest" organisms (Fitness in Biology refers to the number of offspring or the amount of genes passed on to future generations,) or those with the most beneficial structures leave the most offspring.

F. Observation: Some variability is inherited. (This is obvious because we inherit traits from our parents. Genes had not been discovered at this point so Darwin did not know what they were. His theory of "genes" is the part of his theory that was wrong but when we discovered genes, they supported his theory.)

G. Conclusion: Evolution-The genetic makeup of the population changes over time, driven by Natural Selection.

That is it…That is his entire theory. Well, a man called Alfred Wallace wrote him a letter (after his work had been sitting in the closet for 20 years) and said something like "hey I read this book by Lyell and this book by Malthus and I have a theory, tell me what you think." Wallace had come to the same conclusion as Darwin (except he never went to Galapagos.) Knowing he was going to not receive credit, he published his book On the Origin of Species.

All one must do to disprove Darwin's theory is disprove one of the points mentioned above. If you cannot disprove one of those points, you accept Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Good luck  

Breast Cancer and Birth Control: Women Must Read

This is a perfect article to point out some major things people do no realize. It has to do with scientific reasoning and statistics. Many people run with something they hear on the news. I will show you why you should not do this but rather sit down and think about it, even if you do not understand scientific reasoning. I will keep it real simple, so everyone should be able to follow.

This article is found here...
http://vitals.msnbc....study-says?lite

It is a study that ties a birth control shot to breast cancer risk. I know a lot of women worry about these two things...

Here are some of the main points of the article.

Recent use of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera for at least a year was associated with a doubling of young women’s breast cancer risk, a new study has found.

The injectable birth control method is the only contraceptive in the United States that contains the same progestin, or synthetic hormone, as Prempro, the postmenopausal hormone therapy pill. A landmark government study called the Women’s Health Initiative found that Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, increased women’s breast cancer risk by 24 percent, while Premarin, which contains only estrogen, did not increase risk. 

Data on the relationship between Depo-Provera and breast cancer risk are limited, the researchers write. Li and his coauthors say theirs is the first large-scale U.S. study specifically designed to evaluate the relationship. Results from similar studies conducted in other countries have been mixed, they write.

Li’s team recruited 1,028 women who’d been diagnosed with breast cancer and 919 women who had not. All the women were 20 to 44 years of age and lived in the Seattle area. About 3 percent had used Depo-Provera within the last five years.

Compared to women who had never used Depo-Provera, those who had received injections within the previous five years were 2.2 times more likely to have been diagnosed with breast cancer

Age is the main risk factor for breast cancer, so while a doubling of risk might sound alarming, Li emphasizes that the actual number of breast cancer cases in women in their 20s and 30s is very low
This is a key point that they admit.

women in their 30s have a 1 in 233 chance of being diagnosed with the disease.

So let’s break it down…

To start, all of the women used in the study were from the Seattle area. This is not a good representation of women in the U.S. or the world. But that is a minor issue.
The first thing to remember is percents. 100% means “doubled.”  This 100% means 2.0 times “more likely.” The word “doubled” instantly scares people but one must consider the other numbers around it. I will show you an example using 1,000 people. Let’s say 2 out of 1,000 people get a said disease. If they saw a 100% increase in the cases, this means the number doubled. If 2 is doubled, you get 4. That being said a 100% increase or 2.0 times “more likely,” we are now up to 4 out of 1,000. That is what we call highly insignificant. There is not much of a difference between 2 and 4 out of 1,000. As the article acknowledged,  “Li emphasizes that the actual number of breast cancer cases in women in their 20s and 30s is very low.” “Breast cancer among young women is still a rare disease.” women in their 30s have a 1 in 233 chance of being diagnosed with the disease. That is 4.29 women out of 1,000. Apply this to the doubling method above.

1947 women were used in the study. It said 3% had used Depo-Provera. That is 58 women in the entire study that use it. So they are comparing 58 women to about 1900 women. That is not even a fair comparison. If they wanted a fair comparison they would have used maybe 1,500 that used DP to 1,900 that did not.

In addition to that, they never tell us how many of the 58 women were diagnosed with cancer. All they tell us is that women who used DP were 2.2 times more likely to have been diagnosed with cancer. I explained above how “2 times more likely” worked. But that is even insignificant because they do not even give us the numbers to do the math. For all we know, out of the 58 women, only 1 may have been diagnosed. If we use their average for women in their 30’s, 1 in 233 has a chance of being diagnosed. If we apply their “2.2 times more likely” math, we now have 2.2 women out of every 233 that will be diagnosed.

Basically what I am saying is this study tells us nothing about anything, like most “studies” one will see in the news. Using a few of these points can help one understand what a “study” says before flying off the wall. I wonder how many women stopped using a perfectly safe product because of this “study…” My guess would be a lot…because they do not reason through it.

And many things on TV are a flat out lie. The shake weight for example...being a former (but still cerified) personal trainer, I can tell you the thing is total BS. They claim that a 6 or 7 minute workout with the Shake Weight will burn more calories than a 20 (I think they said, may have been 30) workout with dumbells. I'll call BS. Anyone that believes that has never done a 20 minute workout with dumbells weighing more than a couple pounds. Want something way more effective than a Shake Weight to "sculpt" you arms, shoulders, and chest? Try a push-up. The push-up is free and my advice was free. Your welcome.

Religion: A Definition by Anthony Meyer

This was something typed up by a fellow Religious Studies Major and friend of mine. He is a Religious Studies major, Linguist, and Political Science major. He will be persuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy. I have always liked his work so I post this paper when ever I can. If you are interested in religion it is a good read. Hope you enjoy.

Religion : A Definition
by Anthony Meyer on Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 4:50pm
Preface

It has been an active pursuit spanning more than two centuries now to discover and analyze a theory of religion which could be used universally, with a descriptive function, to serve as a foundation for a dialog about religion and how it relates to the human experience. It has been a noble pursuit, to my eyes, for definitions are incredibly important to understand one another, and understanding is something absolutely essential when it comes to a dialog about religion. It seems that at least in America, religion is an inherently emotional topic, and people tend to make the stakes of these dialogs very high (and with good reason). Thus, finding a universal definition for the term "religion" is not only a noble task but a useful one as well.

However, despite the goal's nobility or usefulness, it has become a popular trend in the field of religious studies to concede a defeatist attitude about a universal definition of religion. Instead, the ideologies of the liberal "intellectual" have risen to power declaring that such cannot be found, and where once we valued systematic interpretation and the scientific approach we now value something wholly different: tolerance. Now I would be the last person to argue against tolerance in social practice. I agree with my forefather when he said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782). That said, it is a very different thing altogether to advocate tolerance in language. Tolerance in language necessitates inclusion in definition which renders language meaningless. That is, if we are to be tolerant and open minded about how a word is defined, we must then concede that the number of things which may be included under the umbrella of that word is constantly increasing ad infinitum until the word comes to mean anything and everything, and thereby means nothing. Not only does such a linguistic tolerance do injustice to language, but it also does an injustice to its subject. As a case in point, our subject here, religion, cannot be called just anything for there are certain things which religious people themselves protest that they certainly are not; a nation or political system, for example.

Therefore, in that vein I would like to pick up where the greats of religious studies left off, and in so doing cut off the liberal intellectuals who followed them in their wrong direction. I speak in reverence, of course, of Clifford Geertz. To my eyes, his "thick" description of religion was, and remains to this day, the closest we as scholars of religion ever came to realizing the universal definition of religion. There are certain, specific things which Geertz and I disagree on, which will be assessed below. Yet, on the whole, most people, even his religious subjects, could easily find truth in his work, and I feel that in the field of religious studies that is the true pay-off: the work must be agreed upon by its subjects. Without this, the study has not been a scholarly pursuit of the "other's" perspective, but rather a twisted and perverted view of one's own perspective put on display to stroke one's own ego, a sort of "intellectual m********ion." As I have said, Geertz made great strides in this way. However, he had his shortcomings as I certainly will. Given below has no pretense of being "gospel," but I do hope that it can be seen is a next step in understanding religion and how it functions in the human experience. Along these lines, I'd like to close this introduction by quoting Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Theory

I suppose the simplest way to begin is to declare outright that I believe that Geertz was correct when he portrayed religion as a cultural system. For Geertz, lots of things create a society's culture: economics, politics, art, and not least of all religion. Thus, all of these things are cultural systems. This may seem like common sense, but believe it or not, this was a revolutionary theory at the time. Far more common was the idea that religion was not a producer of culture alongside these other things, but rather religion was a product of these other things. Marx, for example, famously claimed that religion was a product of social class struggle. Durkheim believed that religion was a product of the creation metaphors for the society as a whole. Indeed, Geertz was one of few voices in the field to finally bring religion up to its proper place.

However, Geertz makes things, to my eyes, far more complicated than need be. He gives a terribly specific, 5-point description of religion which is brilliantly argued, point by point, but really only serves to alienate his subject as he goes on. I am relatively certain that this alienation was not intentional of Geertz, but rather unavoidable given his worldview. For my part, I present here a 3-part description of religion in hopes that it will not alienate my subject or turn religion into something it is not.

A religion is:
(1) any social group of
(2) individuals who are psychologically dependent upon beliefs which are
(3) based on faith.

Each of these parts will be taken below, in Geertzian fashion, point by point.

1. Any social group: Immediately it may seem that I have offended some. Especially in America, the religious experience is characterized as a uniquely individualistic experience. The Evangelical Christian is encouraged every Sunday to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Even more problematic is the practice of the religious ascetic who (like my namesake, Saint Antony) leaves the society to live alone in devotion to their faith. Asceticism is not an uncommon aspect of religions and certainly not a uniquely Christian one. The life cycle of every person in Hinduism holds that after one has reached a certain point they are to become "forest dwellers," living outside of the village in a state of constant study of the Vedic texts.

Given these seeming contradictions, how then can I claim that religion is a decidedly social subject? To this question, I respond in kind: How is it that we have heard of Saint Antony? If Saint Antony was a true, absolute hermit with absolutely zero contact with the outside world, how would we have heard of his exploits, however fanciful their details? The fact is, although Saint Antony certainly did live outside the boundaries of the cities, that he left and stayed way so long only made him more entrenched in the social group. All this is just "pretentious-speak" for a simple fact, Saint Antony was famous. Now, just how separate are famous people from society? Would their fame exist without a social context. Simply stated, no.

As for the Hindu "forest dwellers," I have dishonestly left out an important detail. A man or woman only becomes a forest dweller if he or she lives long enough and with enough financial security to afford to do so. If their offspring are not independent enough to provide for the family on their own, the Hindu senior simply never "retires." Given the known poverty of this country, it should be little surprise when I tell you that it is far more common the case that a man or woman should die before ever realizing that ideal final stage. If they do, however, the sheer difficulty in attaining that position makes them highly honored and respected within the society they claim to leave. That alone makes a similar case as the one for Saint Antony above, but the reality is actually even less fanciful. In theory, the person goes and inhabits the forest alone in religious devotion, but in practice they usually just study diligently at home in the village.

Risking troubled waters, I now must assess this "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." For this I raise nothing more than what many Evangelical churches claim themselves. A popular Evangelical saying states the following, "Experience God, not religion." To this saying I supplement that this "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," should anyone actually ever truly attain it, is not a religious practice but rather a belief and practice of the individual in the realm of theism. We shall see, however, and I will make it clear here now, that theism and religion are certainly not tied at the hip. You can have one without the other. We will see that more specifically in section three.

In short, a religion is not a religion without some sort of social construct, and by social construct I mean that there are understood behaviors and beliefs which are valued or discourage by the "in-group." A personal relationship with Jesus is highly valued in the Evangelical social group, which is why they make such a spectacle of the "personal testimony" of their conversion stories or struggles in their individual lives which God has helped them overcome. On the other hand, the eating of pork in Jewish social groups is a common and simple example of a behavior which would have a social cost on the perpetrator. That religion is so entrenched in the social aspect of the human experience is actually probably more a surprise to the atheist than the religious among you. After all, the ten commandments were nothing if not a record of what was considered socially valuable or stigmatized at the time they were authored, and even the atheist will concede that at least a few of these commandments are consistent with social regulations still in use today.

2. Psychologically Dependent upon Beliefs: Here it will be significant to differentiate what I mean by psychological as it is opposed to intellectual. The former, psychological, refers solely with the realm of human instinctual feeling and emotion. When we feel hunger, lust, or fear (for but a few examples), we are experiencing that instinctual psychology of the human species which requires of us to protect and preserve ourselves. When we feel joy, fulfillment, or hate (again for but a few examples), we are similarly experiencing the emotional psychology of the human experience which has been born out of our interactions with each other. The latter term, intellectual, refers solely that to the realm of ideas and beliefs. These are mental constructs and how we feel about these beliefs is considered something entirely separate from the belief itself. To this intellectual category we will return in the third part of this work.

Psychological so defined, I must now make clear what I mean by "dependent." It will be hard for me to describe this part, again, without sounding offensive. I shall try my best, however, because I personally do not feel that psychological dependence is a "bad" thing. At the very least it is understandable, and at the most it can often be commendable. I view the term "dependent" in much the same way as I'm sure most people would; unable or willing to do without (something). Here, the analogy of the drug addict is, unfortunately, the best to display this point. Only accounting for the human mind's needs, the human mind does not (at conception) require cocaine, for instance (unless the mother was using during pregnancy, which offers an interesting parallel). However, should the human eventually use cocaine and become addicted, then and only then does the human mind biologically begin to need cocaine. This is what is meant by the term "addiction," a psychological dependency on a substance.

In the case of religion, the "substance" the religious individual is addicted to differs as widely as there are religions in the world. To serve the ends of explanation, however, two will be listed here in summary. First, I must approach my main audience, the Evangelical Christian. With this subject, his mind is either unable or unwilling to do without the knowledge that there is a deity watching over them and the world. For them, this is a satisfying and easing psychological view. When so believed, the world has a certain order (as is so important to Geertz) that makes the mysterious explainable, the tragic endurable, and moral ambivalence understandable. Should this view be undermined (as we will discuss in the final section), we would expect the religious man to respond emotionally and instinctively. And indeed, as any militant atheist would tell you, the Christian in debate often becomes very heated indeed. What the militant atheist would be less inclined to tell you is just how heated he becomes for similar reasons (His worldview too, in debate with a Christian, is being severely undermined. To this we shall return).

As for my second subject, I will take the curious case of the devout Buddhist. Buddhism, as Gautama taught it, is a strictly atheistic and anatta religion. Atheism can be summarized briefly as the ideological position that characteristically lacks a belief in a deity. Anatta is defined similarly as the ideological position which lacks a belief in the soul. Curious, then, is it that Buddhism should refer to itself without reservation as a religion. However, this is less curious when we recognize that religion and theism are not tied to the hip, to which we have already referred. Here, a Buddhist replaces the belief in a god or a soul with other equally psychologically satisfying (for him) beliefs; Dukkha (suffering) and one's release from Dukkha by means of Nirvana. I should like to make it perfectly clear here that I am absolutely NOT saying that Dukkha and Nirvana are the Buddhist's gods, but merely that they are serving the same psychological function as God does to the Christian. It is important to notice that same function does not dictate same thing. I can use the heel of my boot to drive a nail into a wall, but this does not make my boot a hammer. Just as much as we are making important the definition of religion as distinctive from other cultural systems, it is as important to keep distinct differing beliefs and terms, especially in such a controversial subject.

Returning to the subject of the Buddhist, the ideology of Dukkha as the simple reality of the universe and Nirvana as an ultimate process of salvation from that suffering can, thus, obviously be seen as serving the same satisfying and easing psychological effect as the Christian God. It is no wonder, then, that the Buddha is always depicted with a serene look upon his face. The suffering of the world is of no more concern for him; he no longer suffers from it nor adds to it.

3. Based on Faith: This is the intellectual aspect of religion. Already I will have perhaps made the militant atheist angry for, to the stereotypical atheist, to declare anything that religion does as "intellectual" implies that religion is not, as he believes, "absolute nonsense." And, indeed, this is precisely the implication I hope the reader to draw. Religion is neither irrational, nor illogical, nor unintelligent. To these conclusions we will arrive shortly. For now, allow me to, yet again, properly define my terms.

Faith, as I see it, is abductive reasoning without the requirement of deductive or inductive reasoning. Yes, I realize how unhelpful it is to define a term with even more confusing ones. However, I hope to make these terms clear, and in so doing, I believe they will be very helpful in forming my argument. The former term, abductive reasoning, is best depicted, to my eyes, by the following example from Wikipedia, "For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, it rained last night." With this example there are a great many other possible explanations for why the grass would be wet (some neighbor kids had a super-soaker fight, you accidentally left the sprinkler on all night, etc.). However, to come to any more narrowed (deduced) set of options necessarily requires abductive reason's deductive counterpart.

"Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true" (Wikipedia). For example, all items with a density less than 1 g/ml will float in water, a ping pong ball has a density less than 1 g/ml, therefore a ping pong ball must float in water. Inductive reasoning is a bit like deductive reasoning except it begins with a premise which is, at the very least, generally accepted as fact (although this is never stated without a doubt), and the conclusion usually reflects the premise in absolute terms. For example, all the swans we have ever seen have been white, therefore all swans are white. While abductive reasoning has a known ending and the beginning must be presumed, inductive reasoning has a known beginning and a presumed ending. Therefore, if either is to be logically complete, deductive reasoning, which focuses on making valid steps from a premise (beginning) to a conclusion (ending), must bridge their gaps.

In short, faith is satisfied by a simple theory, belief, or ideology as long as it could possibly have produced the reality before them. No other evidence or system of logic need be applied or even taken into account. Defined this way, when I say that an individual's beliefs are based upon faith, I am in fact saying that his beliefs need only be justified using abductive reasoning. To the mind of the religious man, this is more than enough proof and once this perspective "lens" has been established in an individual anything and everything can be seen as further proof of that unknown premise of abductive reasoning. This is precisely what Geertz is describing when he speaks of the "religious perspective" as: "If one is to know, he must first believe." However, I disagree with Geertz in his view that the realm of common-sense and practical act are the paramount human experience, which implies that religion is always secondary. There is, in my experience, a very real power in religion to shape the "lens" of man so that the real world is instead seen as a manifestation of the divine all the time. Geertz, of course, knows the power of religion to change an individual's view of the real world as divine, but he appears to insist that even the most religious of men do not view the world as religious even a majority of the time. From what I have seen of religions, it seems to me that this dominant religious perspective is absolutely attainable and was probably the norm in the Ancient Near East.

As before, I am now again faced with the very real possibility that I have offended the religious among you. If I may respectfully retort, how is it that the religious man would typically define faith? Would it be inaccurate to assume a definition somewhere along the lines of what Kahlil Gibran says, "Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."? Here, faith is considered beyond the petty burden of proof. Faith is considered superior, and indeed, for the religious man faith is absolutely superior to proof. In so saying, then, is it really inaccurate to define faith as this dispensation of proof? For, in reality, this is all that my definition claims; faith is above proof and human reasoning. It is, by definition, something beyond the comprehension of man.

To illustrate this point specifically, let us take up the Buddhist again. The ideology of the Buddha requires an unquestioned belief in the concepts of Dukkha, Nirvana, and yes even reincarnation (despite the lack of a soul to be transported from one body to the next). As far as deductive or inductive reasoning is concerned, neither seems to have been employed, not even by Gautama himself. Instead, the authority of this knowledge is based upon a rather mystical revelation under a fig tree after an unnatural time to have been without food or water. To the Buddhist, this knowledge and "myth" is more than enough to substantiate his whole worldview. In the same way, if I may take up respectfully the case of the Christian, his ideology requires the unquestioned belief in a god which can neither hear nor see nor eat nor smell; nor can he be heard, nor seen, nor eaten, nor smelled. Clearly, deductive and inductive reasoning are not of great concern to either of these men.

It is interesting, then, that the religious man should be found to use deductive and inductive reasoning while in debate with an atheist or other skeptic. This, however, should not be seen as the religious man's attempt to view his own religion or beliefs under these terms. After all, he has had no need to do so prior to this conflict. On the contrary, the religious man is only attempting to twist his opponent's logic against him. Yet, he is inherently not very talented at this skill. This is not a reflection of the religious individual's incompetency. By no means! In my experience, intelligent men are religious and non-religious alike. Along with the religious man's lack of skill in employing deductive and inductive reasoning runs the atheist's equal and parallel handicap of being unable to use only abductive reasoning. In other words, what is at play here is not a reflection of a lack of intellect, but rather a difference of logic systems, where each is seen by the adherent as the more valid. It is precisely this point which brings us to why the atheist and skeptic often become so heated in debates. Since the atheist worldview is shaped by logic and reason, the religious individual himself is the very thing which undermines that worldview. And, in accord with the religious reaction of emotion, the atheist, for he too is only human, becomes just as angry and hot as his opponent.

To close this section, I beg the pardon of the Christian reader, for an atheist is about to quote scripture. I do so only to make a point and to show that what I have said is specifically not earth shattering and apparently not all that new. For, if Jesus could have said it nearly 2,000 years ago, it must be an old and obvious idea indeed. In Mathew 11:25 states, "At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." Clearly faith is not only something different from the wisdom and intelligence of mere men, but something very close to God.

Conclusion

In proper form, I shall end as I began. Religion is a cultural system. From this it should be implicit that, to my eyes, a cultural system requires three aspects: (1) a social, (2) a psychological, and (3) an intellectual. In this way, religion is not so unique from, say a Free Market Capitalist society. In this example, a Free Market Capitalist society is (1) a social group of (2) psychologically consumerist individuals whose beliefs are (3) based on self-interest. Yet, I mention this example not to show that, as Durkheim so profanely does, that religion is merely a representation of something else. On the contrary, I raise this example to show just how different and unique religion is even within its category of "cultural system."

In so many ways, religion proves to be atheism's superior. Never have beautiful works of art been made in the name of atheism. Never have nations been moved to peace and to war in the name of agnosticism. Religion is so much more than atheism, for atheism is only an ideology. Atheism itself makes no claim in a social system; for this most atheists resort to Humanism (myself included). Similarly, atheism alone stakes no claim on how one psychologically reacts to the ideology. In my experience, many people have resorted to an equally many different psychological dispositions. It seems very common, in the U.S. anyway, that newly converted atheists tend to quickly turn to the psychologically dependent system of social liberalism. For them, it seems that this "loving, tender, tolerant" perspective is a quick "Indiana Jones" switch for the dependence once enjoyed under religion. I for one made this conversion at first, as well. After a certain point, however, with the aid of my twin brother, I was shown that switching from religion to social liberalism is a bit like quitting smoking by taking up heroin. In other words, the cure for psychological dependency is not a different addiction, but rather psychological independence. This certainly seems to be what has occurred in Richard Dawkins and explains that unabashed ego of his (a reason to both love him and hate him).

Finally, I hope I have made clear the profound respect I have for religion, both the subject and the cultural system. Often I stand in awe of it; not with the open mouth of sarcastic piety, but with the open eyes of genuine reverence. That we differ intellectually should not be grounds enough for hatred between us. This message is for both my atheist and religious readers. So often we only learn about each other so as to "know thy enemy." In so doing, I hope I can say that I have made a friend of religion, and it has never done me any wrong. For the ills that religion does play on the world, I hope we, as atheists, can try to remember that we no more deserve to be "holier than thou" than the priests. After all, we are all only humans.

Your brother in death,

Anthony


Thank You

I should like to thank the inspirations of the preceding work. Certainly Dawkins and of course Geertz are among them. For the others, I wish I had the time, memory, and space to right them all. The three men which rise above all the others as the foundation of my "lens" with which I view the world are as follows in the order in which I demand others to read their works: "The Predictioneer's Game" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, "How to Read the Bible" by Marc Zvi Brettler, and "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. Your works have changed my life over and over again, and I cannot possibly display the sheer burden of gratitude I bear for you three brilliant men. Next, I must thank Bernard Levinson for being my first true inspiration into the field of religious studies and for seeing something more in me than I saw in myself. I hope to be half the man you are one day. Of course, I would be remiss for not thanking my twin brother Brian. You have been the foil to which I compare myself our whole life. Always the reasonable one, I would not be what I am today had you not had a hand in shaping it. Finally, I feel I must thank (and apologize to) the victims of the innumerable religious debates with which I had instigated. It should be obvious that this work was "born out of fire." Know now that my "blades have been made into plowshares." To the many others who have inspired me, I cannot thank you enough. I hope that being tagged in this note will show how much you mean to me. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

The Scholarly Study of Religion

It has once again come to my attention that people do not understand the scholarly study of religion and what exactly religious scholars do. We are not theologians...

Theology-Theo (God) ology (the study of.)I do not study God. I do not study any god. I study religion. I am agnostic, not atheist. I am not anti-religion, I enjoy it. I try to look at religion with an unbiased view, as much as it may hurt...that is what scholars do.

Here is a previous blog of mine about what the study of religion is all about...

My main major is Religious Studies and many people jump to conclusions. The most common conclusion is that I am going to become a priest or a pastor or something along those lines. That is not correct. Many here do not jump to that conclusion but do not understand what exactly it is that I do. To clear it up and introduce the study of religion I will post something I typed up a while back. I hope this clears up any questions you may have.

The Study of Religion

First, I will get into Religious Studies program. At the University of Minnesota we have 2 tracks in the Religious Studies program. Here is some info about track 1…

Description of the Track I Major
This track is ideal if you wish to study religion broadly or as a social and cultural force.
• It emphasizes the methodologies of the humanities, social sciences, and arts.
• It addresses questions of expression, psychology, theology or religious thought, as well as public and social policy and the political contexts and ramifications of religion.

This track provides a solid foundation for careers serving diverse communities in public arenas, as well as graduate study in the arts, humanities, or social sciences, or in theological or seminary programs.

For more info on it, you can check out the full link.http://www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/ugrad/track1.html

Here is track 2…

Description of the Track II Major
This track is ideal if you seek in-depth knowledge of a particular religious tradition (for example, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, American Indian, or Hmong).
It emphasizes learning about the selected tradition through study of its untranslated foundational texts.

For this track, you must complete preparatory work through the 4th semester (or the equivalent) of a language appropriate to the specific religious tradition and its sources.

This track provides a solid foundation for careers serving diverse communities in public arenas, as well as graduate study in the arts, humanities, or social sciences, or in theological or seminary programs.

Track II is particularly recommended if you are interested in such topics as the (1) the advanced study of the Bible or the Qur’an both in their origins and their later interpretations, (2) the history of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity before the modern period, or (3) the study of the traditions and texts of the religions of South or East Asia, whether in their countries of origin or in diaspora.

Sample subject and language pairings include but are not limited to:
• Judaism: Hebrew (for scriptural or historical area of concentration), German or Yiddish (e.g., for Jewish literature or 20th-century)
• Islam: Arabic, Turkish
• Christianity: Greek or Latin (for scriptural or medieval concentration), German or Spanish (for relevant geographical/cultural themes)
• Buddhism: Chinese or Japanese
• Hinduism: Sanskrit or Hindi
• American Indian religions: Ojibwe or Dakotahttp://www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/ugrad/track2.html

In both tracks we are required to take this course. Just reading the description of this course will answer many of the questions people may have about the study of Religion. In my opinion, this is the single most important course in the entire program, which is probably why it is a requirement.

RELS 3001 – Theory and Method in the Study of Religion: Critical Approaches to the Study of Religion-
Description: While even a quick glance at any newspaper these days impresses upon us the importance of religion, just how we are to understand and/or learn about religion, given the vast array of ideas, practices, institutions, and communities that lay claim to the category, is anything but straightforward. Scholars from many disciplines study religion, adding another layer of diversity?not to say confusion?to the question of how one might go about learning about religion. This course attempts to sort through the many theories about religion and methods for studying it that have developed over the past century. We will first examine several theories of religion (what ?religion? is and entails and how it works) from such writers as Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Rudolph Otto, Thomas Berger, Jonathan Z. Smith, Talal Asad, Tomoko Masuzawa, and others. Then, we will examine a number of different approaches to or methods for studying it, examining some recent monographs using specific methods to explore topics such as Catholic devotional practices (ethnographic), the Gnostic gospels (historical-textual), American spirituality (sociological), and Hindu nationalism (historical, literary deconstruction).

After that description there is not much I have to say. The first thing we attempt to do define religion because as someone said “how did you study religion if there is no universal definition?” This is very difficult and obviously varies a lot. In the books Eight Theories of Religion and Introducing Religion by Daniel L. Pals, we see that there are many Religion theorists (some are listed in the description) that have very different definitions.

We also try to figure out WHY someone believes what they do and HOW religious ideas came about. Obviously this varies depending on the definition.

“I have heard on numerous occasions(from someone who claims to be religious) that "If you except Jesus/Wotan/Allah/etc you'll get your evidence" Should I be telling them 'Oh well you can't define religion so it doesn't matter what you say'?”

The problem with this statement is that you are describing how “religious” people, particularly monotheists, get their proof. This does not address many things which can be considered religion. This is specific to modern, popular religions. It does not address HOW these ideas first came about and WHY people believe them. When I say WHY, I am talking about the origins of religion. Is it sociological, psychological, biological, something divine, or something we do not even understand. WHY does someone believe “if you accept Jesus you’ll get your evidence?” Is it their method of thinking and reasoning different? Methods of reasoning are clearly different between Scientist and “Religious,” but at the same time I scientist can be “religious.” HOW does this happen? How can someone that studies things with empiricism flat out ignore that and believe something based on faith alone? One would think a scientist could not have “blind faith,” but they do. Do you see the complexity of these questions?”

Many Christians and others may not agree with a lot of the stuff I have said and that brings me to the final point I want to make. The study of religion is to be done separate of one’s beliefs. Religion cannot be properly studied if people bring their own views in. Yes, people do bring their own views in, resulting in different definitions, but the goal is to try and be as unbiased as possible. If you consider someone else’s views pointless and stupid, you will never understand them. Religious Studies scholars are made up of all types of people, from Atheists to Christians. This shows that one can put their own views aside and study religion.

I hope this explains the study of religion.

Bill Maher Is Wrong About Religion

Bill Maher Is Wrong About Religion

Many people would not flinch at the suggestion that Bill Maher is wrong, but I am not one of those people. I think Bill (I call him Bill because I think of him as a friend, though I have never met him) is a brilliant guy and I agree with him 90 percent of the time. He typically does his research and gets his facts, but when it comes to religion, he is very bias. He is like Richard Dawkins in the way he ignores experts and makes unscientific claims. He is a hypocrite on the matter of religion. I own his movie Religulous, and enjoy it, for the most part, but he is untruthful about one thing…He keeps saying “I don’t know!” For someone that doesn’t know, one way or another, he makes very bold claims about believers.

This blog was inspired by his debate on Real Time with Brian Levin. Here is a bit about Brian Levin…

http://criminaljustice.csusb.edu/facultystaff/levin.htm

Brian Levin

·         Brian Levin , J.D.

·         Professor

·         J.D. - Stanford University

·         Phone: (909)537-7711

·         E-mail: blevin8@aol.com

Criminologist and civil rights attorney Brian Levin is a professor of criminal justice and Director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino where he specializes in analysis of hate crime, terrorism and legal issues.
Previously, Professor Levin served as Associate Director-Legal Affairs of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Klanwatch/Militia Task Force in Montgomery, Alabama; Legal Director of the Center for the Study of Ethnic and Racial Violence in Newport Beach, Ca. and as a corporate litigator for the law firm of Irell & Manella. He was also a New York City Police Officer in the Harlem and Washington Heights sections of Manhattan during the crack wars of the 1980s.
Prof. Levin began his academic career as an associate professor at Stockton College in New Jersey in 1996. Mr. Levin is a graduate of Stanford Law School, where he was awarded the Block Civil Liberties Award for his work on hate crime. He is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and the state of California.
He is the author or co-author and editor of books, scholarly articles, training manuals and studies on extremism and hate crime. He was also the author of briefs in the Supreme Court case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell in 1992-3, where he analyzed criminological data establishing hate crime's severity. His book, the Limits of Dissent is about the Constitution and domestic terrorism. His research has been cited by The California Court of Appeals and in numerous scholarly journals and major law reviews.
Prof. Levin has testified before both houses of Congress, the US Commission on Civil Rights and various state legislatures on hate and terrorism. He has presented instruction and/or advised the Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, Treasury Dept., U.S. Customs, American Bar Association, American Prosecutor's Research Institute, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, National Bar Association, National College of District Attorneys, National District Attorneys Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, International Association of Chiefs of Police and numerous police departments, colleges, universities and human rights organizations.
Mr. Levin is a court certified expert on extremism in the United States and England. He has appeared on every network and cable television evening news broadcast and various network magazine shows on the subjects of extremism, civil rights and criminal law. He has also appeared in every major American newspaper, newsmagazine and wire service as well as four other continents.
In 2003, Professor Levin was selected to research terrorism for both a Hispanic Serving Institution fellowship from the United States Department of Agriculture and as a Visiting Scholar with the FBI Academy's Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Professor Levin was named Outstanding Faculty member by the College of Extended Learning and wa co-recipient of the University's Diversity Award in 2005. In 2005 Professor Levin was invited by the Metropolitan Police to make a presentation on hate crime in London and by the National Academies to make a presentation on terrorism at an international conference in Helsinki.

The thing that really got me was when Bill said his facts are simply wrong. Being a Religious Studies scholar, I tend to side with Mr. Levin. I also find it ironic that Bill full heartedly accepts scholars on climate change, but not on religion. Why do you assume you know more Bill?

Following, I will respond to the key points of their discussion…

Bill claims that not all religion is a like. Nothing is ever perfectly analogous, but for the most part, I find religion very similar. Islam is no different than Christianity. What Bill forgets is that culture and society play a role. The topic of religion is complex and not black and white, as Bill assumes. Culture and society are often the driving forces and cannot be separated from religion. This is especially true with Islam. Their culture and religion is blended together and cannot be separated. Bill totally ignores the cultural aspect and simply focuses on the religion, which ignores the bigger picture.

Bill admits there are good Muslims but suggests that Mr. Levin is wrong about his facts. No, Levin is perfectly correct…Muslim extremists are a fringe group. There are 1.4 Billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority are good people just trying to live a good life. Muslims will admit that 10% are the fundamentalist Muslims that follow the Qu’ran to a T. They are the terrorists and want to see non-believers killed. Whether they act on this is another story. What we are ignoring is the simple math…These Muslims are only 10%, a minority…but 10% of 1.4 Billion people is 140 million, a very significant group. The point is that there are a lot of these fundamentalists Muslims, that are the extremists that Bill speaks of, but they are a minority and do not represent Islam as a whole. The vast majority of Muslims, like Christians, are good people.

Bill claims that this religion (Islam) behaves differently. He admits that at other points in history, Christianity was the problem, but now, Islam is the problem. No, religion is religion. What is different is the other major driving factor…culture.

As is mentioned, religion or ideology can be used as an excuse but is not a bad thing in itself. (To the fact that religion and ideology itself is not a bad thing, Bill responded with “really? Interesting…”) The real issues dates back to the Crusades, but more strongly relates to Imperialism. The West took advantage of the Muslim world, deprived them of resources and wealth, and placed boarders that were meant to cause conflict. This is the root of their dislike for the West. It is a political and economic issue that is disguised as religion. Religion is the excuse, not the cause. Politics and economics are the cause of the clash…though in Muslim countries; law, culture, and religion cannot be totally separated. They are not like the United States.

When Mr. Levin is discussing reasons that people do crazy things, he does mention religion and ideology, in which Bill responds “so you admit religion is in there?” That statement proves that Bill thinks religion is a bad thing.  

What Bill does not realize is that Religion provides a lot of good things. Religion contains things such as Karma, the Golden Rule, the teachings of Buddha, the teachings of Jesus, the teachings of Gandhi, Submission, Peace, and Charity. Churches are the largest community contributor.  No one donated more money to hurricane Katrina than Churches did. Religion also gives people the strength to live and to live a good life. It gives them hope and something to look forward to. Even if you disagree, you are wrong to say it does not make a difference.

Even groups here in the US, that many people would consider crazy, provide great lifestyles. Obviously there are crazies like the FLDS, but most Mormons live a very happy and healthy life that has no negative side effects. We also have Jehovah’s Witnesses’ come to the door on a regular basis. They are friendly, non-pushy, and provide us with a lot of reading material. Their intentions are good, not malicious.

The fact is, Bill…Religion does provide more good than harm. You attacked the comparison of Martin Luther King Jr. to terrorists, but the fact of the matter is that they both use(d) religion seriously and make a difference because of it. Religion can be used for good or bad. You, like Richard Dawkins, see it as a disease. I tend to see it as an evolutionary cause. I think it did, and still does, hold a purpose in human existence, and will never disappear.

Bill, for some reason, ignores the scholarship done on religion and ignores the scientific benefits. I love you Bill…but you are wrong on religion. You are not an Islamaphobe, you are a religionaphobe…hopefully you will grow some more and overcome this…