Teenage Pregnancies Higher Among The Religious

A report this week in the journal Reproductive Health describes what researchers call “a strong association” between the teenage birth rate of a particular state and its “level of religiosity.”

I find that interesting. I thought religion discouraged pre-marital sex? Goes to show how much people actually practice what they preach, I guess.

Although several suggestions are examined in this article, I particularly liked the assessment at the end “that religious communities in the US are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself”.

Sad, really.

Joseph, you are NOT the father

Bible Comes in Handy to Justify Pedophilia

The ex-wife of a former youth pastor accused of using his position to form sexual relationships with at least six church members testified Tuesday that she partook in sex acts with her former husband and one of his alleged victims.

John Picard faces 42 counts of sexual battery for allegedly engaging in sexual activity with six girls who attended Grace Brethren Church.

Four of the girls, prosecutors say, were minors.

During the course of his trial, alleged victims have testified that Picard was a controlling man who used his position as pastor, as well as Bible passages, to get them to engage in sexual activity.

Here we have yet another "Christian leader" being morally repugnant. It should no longer surprise anyone. I wonder how many of those other child raping priests and pastors thought to use the Bible to sway their prey and justify their actions? What a fine book that Bible is!

Oy Vey! Waxman Equates America with Judaism!

Off with his moustachio-ed head!

In an interview published on Jeffry Goldberg's blog (The Atlantic) Henry Waxman made several comments about how his faith (he's Jewish) informs his policy decisions. At the end, Waxman states "It's hard to sometimes know what's Jewish and American -- they're so close together."

How dare he? Doesn't he know that this here is a Christian nation, godammit?!?!?!

Go Ahead... Fire That Bus Driver

The below story comes from The Examiner... my thoughts are in the title of this blog post:

The Des Moines, Iowa, bus driver who refused to drive a bus with the above ad on it has been suspended from her job. According to a report, Angela Shiel refused to drive the bus because the ad of the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers goes against her Christian faith. The 8-year employee faces termination.

According to the report, the general manager of Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART), Brad Miller, said that "DART policy states that drivers cannot choose which buses they drive." He said, "'Drivers are not permitted to reject a working bus. It's a very fundamental policy for DART. ... It's an essential rule that we will maintain.'"

Of course, this brings up a whole new issue. Do government employees have the right to refuse to do their job if it is against their religion? Now I cannot imagine that it is written anywhere in Christian documentation that "thou shalt not steer a bus bearing ads of the fool who hath said in his heart or out-loud or in print that there is no God." So, it is difficult to see how this would be against her religion. It may sting her religious "sensibilities" a tad, but how can doing her job, in this instance, be against her religion?

According to the report, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Ben Stone, said, "'As a government agency operating a public forum, DART and all of its employees, including its drivers, are required to follow the First Amendment. Since DART managers cannot claim a religious reason to censor bus ads, neither can drivers.'" He went on to say, "'When you work for the government, part of your job is to respect the rights of your fellow citizens, and you cannot use your religious beliefs to evade that responsibility.'"

Shiel's husband reportedly said that his wife should have the right to refuse to drive a bus with the atheist ad on the side. He said that making her drive one of those buses is like telling her to be "'two-faced for the fact that she wants an income.'"

A Des Moines civil rights lawyer, Roxanne Conlin, has gotten in on the controversy saying that Shiel has the right to refuse to drive the bus and that making her drive it may violate her rights. She said that DART should accommodate Shiel in respect of her religious beliefs if they can reasonably do so. "For example", the report said, "DART might have been able to transfer her to a different bus or let her do desk work."

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It seems, though, no matter what, when it comes to running these ads, DART is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't... at least for now.

A Damn Good Question

Jason Rosenhouse of EvolutionBlog poses the (damn good) question "Why Isn't Barney Frank Speaker of the House?"

I echo Rosenhouse's question. Frank would make a fantastic, common sense bull to head the Democratic party in the House of Representatives. His handling of a Hitlerizer was absolutely the correct way of handling a lunatic. And he has on other occassions called bullshit when bullshit was flying, remained rational as Bill O'Reilly spewed stupidity, and actually walked out of interviews rather than suffer fools. Not a bad approach at all IMHO.

Barney Frank would be a better leader than Nancy Pelosi.

Dissent or Stupidity

The right wing talking points about the jackasses disrupting town hall meetings are that (1) this is just Americans dissenting and speaking out like our forefathers did and (2) that the Democrats are calling this unpatriotic.

Both assertions are absurd. Dissent is welcome. Compare what is happening in town hall meetings to the previous administration who interviewed people and kept dissenters out of W's events. Seems to me that the Democrats are inviting discussion. What they are not inviting is the insipid, putrid, obnoxious behavior of many of these "dissenters." Since when is yelling "Heil Hitler" at a Jew patriotic dissent? And who actually thinks it is a good idea to allow weapons to be allowed into a meeting where emotions will undoubtedly run high? Republicans!

Then we get to the stupid claim that Democrats, and even President Obama, are calling dissent unpatriotic. This is a lie. Republicans seem to believe that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. Unfortunately, they seem to be correct about that. Truth is, no Democrat has called voicing dissent or displeasure at town hall meetings (or anywhere else for that matter) unpatriotic. Oh, some have called screaming and shouting and lying and Hitlerizing (this is what I call non-Internet examples of Godwin's Law) unpatriotic... and they're right... err, I mean, correct!

By the way, it is quite likely that the Hitlerizing was adopted as a popular right wing tactic after that blowhard pig-boy Rush Limbaugh did it (although there are examples of it occuring before Rush, it kinda blew up after he oinked it out on the radio).

Enjoyable Rapture Post

Just a very quick post today to share this link to The Rapture is not an exit strategy from the Deep Thoughts blog.

Nice job, Mojoey!