Atheism and IQ again

I commented briefly last month about the rather florid claims by Kanazawa — including a claim of a positive correlation between atheism and IQ. I noted that his findings were probably an artifact of the Leftist influence on the educational system. I am therefore rather pleased to see that a writer on the Puffington Host has drawn similar conclusions. That an atheist conservative such as myself and a religious Leftist such as Josh Schrei should come to similar conclusions does rather reinforce those conclusions, I think. His argument is an extensive and careful one but I think that his strongest point is this:

Kanazawa’s test group were all Americans. In America, atheism and liberalism are both value systems embraced by the educated middle class and are part of the cultural fabric of liberal arts universities, Ivy League colleges, and the American intelligentsia. Therefore, saying that among a small group of Americans, liberals and atheists had higher IQ test scores is a bit like saying that people with more college education in this country tend to know more.

Putting it another way, smarter people are more likely to go to college and there they come under pressure to adopt Leftist ideas, which include a contempt for religion generally and Christianity in particular. As I said previously, the correlation is almost certainly a product of the sociology of the situation, not a product of genetics. There are a couple of other generally good comments here and here.

Sadly, a later article by Schrei on the same subject was much more naive and illogical. I suppose we can’t expect too much from a Leftist. He should have read this.

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

AP Conflates Fake ‘Catholic’ Group With Catholic Church

-By Warner Todd Huston

Here is one of the sneaky tricks that the Old Media plays in order to support a cause. In this case it’s the Associated Press coming to the aid of Obamacare with “news” that a “Catholic” hospital group is coming out in support of Obamacare. Of course, the AP does not inform the reader that this purported Catholic group is not associated with the Church and is not authorized to speak for Catholics but it conflates this “Catholic” group with Catholics as if they do anyway.

With a headline that screams, “Catholic Hospitals Support Health Care Bill,” the AP’s Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar reports that the Catholic Health Association has come out in support of Obamacare despite the federal funding of abortion.

Naturally this report of Catholics in support of Obamacare is meant to fool readers into thinking that the Catholic Church itself, or some important segment of Catholics, are in support of Obamacare. If all you read is the headline and the first two paragraphs you might come away thinking that “Catholic Hospitals” support Obamacare.

Later in the story, after the lede, Alonso-Zaldivar does delve into some of the controversy amongst Catholics concerning the federal funding for abortion in Obamacare and states that the Church itself is still not supporting Obama’s takeover of our healthcare — this is good — but Alonso-Zaldivar never does fully explain that the group he is discussing is NOT a real “Catholic” organization.

You see, the Catholic Health Association is a for profit company that works for some Catholic hospitals as a sort of trade association. It isn’t part of the Church nor does it represent any official group of religious Catholics, nor does it serve as a source of Catholic teachings.

The truth is that CHA chief Carol Keehan is paid around $800,000 a year to advocate for this trade association, not the Catholic Church. She is not an altruist like nearly every other member of the actual Church that serves in an official capacity.

Kehan’s interest is to make money not to serve the Catholic Church and its doctrine. Naturally, Alonso-Zaldivar doesn’t inform his readers of any of this, leading the reader to assume that the CHA represents Catholics.

So, readers are left thinking that “Catholic hospitals” are in support of Obamacare yet are never informed of the capacity in which this Catholic hospital group serves Catholics… or rather doesn’t serve Catholics. And why is this so important right now? We all know that this coming week will find Obamacare facing a crucial and perhaps final push. This report is meant to help Obamacare pass. Plain and simple.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Keep Government Out Of Your Home

People are free to use their homes for anything they desire so long as what they are doing is legal. Once law enforcement is aware of illegal activities then it is obligated to act. However, people are free to do anything in their own homes.

People can host Tupperware parties, scout meetings, Thanksgiving dinner, football parties, pool parties, wakes, bachelor parties, wedding receptions, Amway sales meetings, Homeowner’s Association meetings, socials and birthday parties.

Apparently, one can do all these in his home and have no problem (unless the activity disturbs the peace) but one thing that cannot be done, at least in Gilbert Arizona, is for church groups to meet in a private home. In Gilbert, members of the local church host Bible Study meetings in their homes on a rotating basis.

Those meetings have been put on hold as the legal system works out the process of what authority the town has to decide what legal things people can do in their own homes.

Good luck with that. People can do whatever they want in their homes including worshiping, holding Bible studies, and dying Easter Eggs and there is not a thing the government can do about it.

It is amazing that people are told what they can and cannot do in their own homes, the homes they are buying and paying for, and yet we as a society can’t tell people living in public housing to mow their own grass.

It is also a sure bet that if a group of Muslims were having meetings at a home they would not be bothered and if they were CAIR would be screaming about discrimination. After all, they have the right to build bomb vests in their own home and no one has the right to deny them that religious practice.

The folks in Gilbert AZ need to stand up to this and tell government to back off. What goes on in the home is none of government’s business.

Government is out of control…

SOurce:
WND

Share on Facebook

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules “Under God” Constitutional. Wait, What?

Remember, the 9th is the most liberal Circuit court in the country, and has previously ruled against the use of “Under God” vis a vis the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (reversed by SCOTUS) in Newdow v. U.S. Congress. Among other activist and crazy decisions. So, how the heck did they come up with this?

A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Dude!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

What is a ‘Religious Extremist’? This Lefty Weekly Sure Doesn’t Know

-By Warner Todd Huston

For the Independent Weekly of Durham, North Carolina, writer Sam Wardle proves that he hasn’t a clue how the phrase “religious extremist” is properly defined. But, I’d suggest that his confusion is endemic in the far left and proves to show why so many in the west don’t understand how to face and defeat the real religious extremism of radical Islam.

In a story about Representative Sue Myrick (R, NC) and her association with The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools as juxtaposed with her condemnation of radical Islam, Wardle sees no difference between a radical Islamist that might blow himself up with a suicide vest or cut off the head of a helpless captive and a Christian American that wants to use properly constituted law to have the Holy Bible used in the classroom.

Certainly you can disagree with having the Bible used as a text in the classroom, but to say that a person that does want the Bible in the classroom is no better than a terrorist is, well, just plain stupid. It is also intellectually vapid. Unfortunately, Mr. Wardle is all too representative of the vapidity of the left that so often comes to this intellectually dishonest conclusion.

Wardle reveals his hatred of all things Christian in his IndyWeek piece titled, “For Rep. Sue Myrick, Islamic moderates are extreme, Christian extremists are moderate,” wherein he equates Rep. Myrick to a religious extremist.

Wardle starts his piece straight on with an attack on Rep. Myrick:

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) is one of North Carolina’s staunchest defenders from Islamic extremism. When it comes to Christian extremism, though, the record is more mixed.

Wardle says that Myrick’s “defense against Islamic extremism” itself borders on the extreme.

Those are pretty serious charges, of course. So what does Wardle show as his proof to bear out the finger wagging at Myrick? One of the first of Wardle’s accusations would take an Olympic gymnast’s back-bending performance to agree with. In short it is weak as heck.

However, Myrick’s concern over religious extremism seems relegated to practitioners of one religion. At the forum, she pointedly avoided applying the label of “terrorist” to Joseph Stack, the 53-year-old Texan who flew his airplane into an IRS building in Austin in February.

Whether Stack should have been termed a terrorist by Myrick or not is one question, but what it has to do with the subject of religion is anyone’s guess. Austin IRS building attacker Joe Stack had no connection to any religion whatever. He did not perpetrate his act of terror in the name of religion so Wardle’s usage of Stack as his religious foil for Myrick is insensible. But such is Wardle’s hatred for both Myrick and Christianity that any stretch is excused, apparently.

Then Wardle goes on the attack against The NCBCPS, a “right-wing evangelical group” in Wardle’s terminology. Wardle reports that the NCBCPS’ goal is to “bring a state certified (sic) Bible course (elective) into the public high schools nationwide.” He says that the group claims that it has gotten its curriculum in 532 schools in 38 states.

Wardle counters that success by revealing that this group’s school texts have been criticized as containing “shoddy research, factual errors and plagiarism.” Wardle also lays out all the other groups and Media outlets that have attacked the veracity of the NCBCPS’ offerings.

But one thing is completely missing from Wardle’s piece. Any actual “extremism.” Apparently just the fact that the NCBCPS wants to get its curriculum in a school is enough to be classified just as extreme as al Qaeda to one such as Wardle.

But implicit in the whole discussion (but only implied because Wardle does not say it) is the fact that if the NCBCPS did get its curriculum in schools in 38 states it must have done so through the legitimate process of appealing to school boards and having those schools agree to accept the program. In other words, the NCBCPS followed the same legal procedure that every other education advocate has followed.

Notice how the NCBCPS didn’t win over those schools by cutting off administrator’s heads, bombing public buildings, or killing students thereby using intimidation and violence to get its way. So, while this Christian group is certainly seriously active, to act as if they are somehow just as extreme as Islamic Radicals is idiotic.

But this is the empty logic that befalls the far left in this country. Any religion, all religion is classified as “extreme” to these people. No logic need apply.

(Originally posted at BigJournalism.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post