The Republican VP candidate is the new darling of the Religious Right and thus, the Republican Party. Her presence on the ticket has generated almost as much buzz among Christian fundamentalists as the Second Coming. Secularists, however, are not so thrilled, in fact, we’re worried.

Other things being the same, there is little merit or fairness in attributing consequence to a candidate’s choice of favorite things (e.g., favorite entertainer, sports team, beer or wine, leisure activities and so on). Not so with a candidate’s favorite religion, or if she even has one. Furthermore, if the candidate convincingly pledges to separate her or his church from our state, as JFK did so forthrightly in 1960, then religion is off the table. (In Houston on September 12, 1960, the Democratic presidential nominee gave a televised speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. JFK said, “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.”) However, if the candidate seems besotted with religion and gives indications that she thinks God is partial to or involved in her campaign, well, then religion is all over the table.

Some if not all religions come with belief systems, dogmas, alleged revealed truths not subject to testing and other qualities that both inform and animate positions on public policy issues. For this reason, absent a declaration to the contrary ala JFK, we should attribute consequence to a candidate’s favorite religion and attendant beliefs, especially if there is reason to think the candidate does take her religion seriously without church/state separation.

Make no mistake: Sarah Palin takes her religion seriously and does not view it as something apart from her political role. Evidence for this comes from countless sources, including a front page story in the New York Times (”In Palin’s Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God’s Will,” Kirk Johnson and Kim Severson, September 6, 2008). Drawing upon interviews with the candidate’s pastors, neighbors and others familiar with Palin’s religious convictions and record in acting upon them, a clear sense emerges that this candidate is a zealot not likely to share the views expressed by John F. Kennedy a half century ago. The resulting picture is clear: Palin is a fundamentalist convinced that God intervenes in human affairs, that God is a big fan of the USA and that God can be talked into helping out individual Americans and American interests in the world, if asked nicely, fervently and often (i.e., prayer).

It does not matter how many other Americans believe preposterous things about religion or how influential some fervent believers might be - preposterous ideas are still preposterous, no matter how widely shared. Billions of Muslims believe things that as many Christians would view as preposterous if they weren’t too polite or guarded to say so - and vice-versa. However, mass delusions are still just that. Until a few centuries ago, everyone thought the earth was the center of our solar system, but this near unanimous conceit sponsored by ignorance did not affect the eminence of the sun.

If Palin takes her religion as seriously as the record indicates (check this video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-QevraCQUc), then we better take this fact seriously, too - and decide if such convictions are appropriate for the kind of person we want in very high office - a few 72 year-old heartbeats away from the presidency.

Personally, I think John McCain has put politics, not country, first, by placing a dangerous religious zealot on his Party’s ticket. Because of her religious beliefs, Sarah Palin’s election as VP would pose a mortal threat to our secular democracy. To understand why, familiarize yourself with the positions this woman would be likely to take in her capacity as advisor to the president or, may Zeus and all the other gods and random chance forbid it, as commander-in-chief, on account of President McCain’s demise.

While I don’t believe there exists any Zeus or other god to forbid it, I do believe that shit happens. One instance of the latter was McCain’s pernicious decision to promote his election chances with this woman’s nomination; another would be a Republican victory, and the biggest shit-storm happening in the nation’s history would be Palin’s elevation to the presidency

I’m tempted (not really) to say a prayer for the Democratic ticket but I think I’ll just send money to the Obama-Biden campaign - and urge everyone I know to vote rationally on November 4.

It’s bad enough that Sarah Palin is innocent of experience to serve as VP to an extent almost unprecedented in American history, that she is a religious zealot who probably can’t wait for the Rapture, or that the record suggests she is petty, vindictive, anti-choice, anti-science and on the Republican ticket only because of her gender. All that is grotesque, of course, but I could be somewhat charitable if not for one horrific reality: Palin is into animal abuse. She gets her jollies shooting living things, magnificent living things including wolves (and moose, caribou, polar bears and so on). Even worse, she supports engaging in this so-called sport from airplanes! This is intolerable. She should be arrested and counseled, not elected to anything at any level, let alone a position one degree from the highest, most important office in the land. 

It’s not that I’m opposed to all forms of shooting from airplanes. How about if Governor Palin goes off to Pakistan and shoots terrorists from open-air Piper Cubs? At least there’s some sporting good fun in this case, as the targets on the ground may return fire. 

At the moment, I’m struggling to decide whose side I’d be on.

Let me begin with a few questions about religion - for readers in Western countries.  It’s not reasonable (or safe) to put such questions to my loyal fans in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia or other clan-based cultures.  Most folks in these lands live under belief systems more typical of the seventh, not the twenty-first century.  The questions are contemporary in nature.  Ready?  Here they are:

* Should you refrain from talking about religion in general?

* Is it offensive to ask pointed questions about religious beliefs?

* Should some religions be exempt from scrutiny?  

* Are religious faiths generally benign, peaceful, constructive, good for people, reasonable enough and only a problem when misinterpreted or distorted by misguided followers?

In order to control the suspense, I’ll confess right off that I believe the appropriate answer to all of these questions is, “Definitely not.” 

What do you think? 

In many parts of the world, it’s not OK to talk freely about religion, especially if you are not an adherent of the religion being discussed.  This is an unfortunate tradition, custom or norm - and dysfunctional in the modern world.  In many countries, such as those listed, it’s not OK to ask sharp-edged questions about religious beliefs.  This, too, is unfortunate in a time of tensions between true believers of different faiths - and true believers (i.e., fanatics) and those they consider infidels.  The latter include all of us disposed to secular, Enlightenment values based on science and reason, not revelation.

Would you or should you mate with a devout follower of a religion? It depends. It depends on lots of things, including how devout? Also, if you consider yourself in one of the three religious categories in the title line, nothing could be more natural but to mate with such a person - if he or she is a member of your religion. I grew up in a Catholic clan. In the 40’s and 50’s, to marry someone in another category was verboten, sinful, wicked and depraved - unless the other person was willing to convert, as my father did. The penalty for Catholics who married a non-Catholic or someone unwilling to convert to the “one true religion” was “ex-communication.” If you believed in the tenets of Catholicism at the time, this was a spiritual death sentence - no heaven for you, Buster or Sister, so most Catholics mated with other Catholics. The Muslims and most Protestant sects had similar customs, perhaps a bit less severe.  I’m sure there were exceptions - I doubt if the Unitarians cared much about who mated with whom.  (No wonder I later flirted with Unitarianism.)

Getting back to the “Would you mate…” matter, I made up a few additional queries for your consideration.  These statements,  paradoxically enough, do not refer to beliefs central to any of the three religions mentioned in the title.  They refer to key beliefs of another popular religion. See if you can guess what that religion might be.  (No, I’m not going to mention it.)

Anyway, here’s the idea.  Consider the nature of the truly weird notions unique to one religion and ask yourself if you would be willing to mate with someone who believed such things.  I mean, all these beliefs seem quite bizarre to me, plus being contrary to known laws of nature, truly preposterous and not supported by any kind of empirical evidence.

But, maybe you are a loving person who believes anyone should be free to believe whatever he or she wants to believe - a paragon of tolerance.  Well, that’s nice - I believe that, too, but the question is about the wisdom of mating with such a person.

OK, enough already.  Here are the statements of belief.  I’m not making this up - this is part of a big-time religion’s belief system.

1. You have a soul. When you die, your soul is recycled into a newborn. How this happens or whether it means no more new souls are being produced is not explained or known, except maybe to the founder, J.R. Rubadub (not his real name) - and he died long ago without leaving word which newborn his soul was taking over.

2. Top dogs in the religion can pick the birth parents for the body and mind that the soul will inhabit in the next life.

3. If you rise to the higher levels in this particular religion’s hierarchy, you will be expected to engage in public service after you die – for a billion years. (At least that’s the pledge you will take – maybe you will decide you have done enough after about a few million successive lives.)

4. You won’t be able to recall who you were or what happened to you when your soul was in the last body after you die, and your soul moves on to another, but you might suffer painful and traumatic images or psychic scars from the previous life. (This brings to mind the words of the Jewish Buddha: “There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?”) 

5. You can mitigate or even eliminate these troubles from past lives by working with trained church leaders who, for a fee, will do checkups and, in time, give you the all-clear sign.

6. Doing the right things according to church leaders will lead to great powers over the natural world. (The details about such powers are not addressed in church doctrine.)

7. You must learn and use certain terms defined in a unique way in this religion.  (Such usage, however, might lead those not of the faith to suspect that you might be mental.)

8. You can believe any of this or not and still hang out in good standing in the church, provided you embrace the methods and practices of the religion. (This seems contradictory, as the former seems to be the same as the latter but then, what do I know?)

Could you deal with a mate who believed such things? If so, I’m guessing you can get along with just about anybody. Congratulations, I think.

The eight statements about one particular religion’s belief system probably sound quite bizarre to anyone not acculturated in that particular faith-system from childhood.  However, if you believe the tenets of any religion, including those dominant in the world today, be aware that others outside that tradition probably find your sacred truths rather weird, as well.  Personally, I doubt that there would be any religions if followers were not immersed in the faiths during the formative years.  Once the brain has developed independent thinking capacities and a reasoning faculty, improbably claims would be a hard sell. 

Now if I could just get myself elected “Benevolent Grand Tsar Of The Cosmos For Critical Thinking,” I would make it a requirement that no child be led to believe the myths of any one religion. Children would learn about religions in general, along with science and the scientific method.  All children would be helped to think freely and logically about faith claims - and allowed to choose a religion, if so inclined, after they reached an age of reason.  I’m not sure what age that ought to be - probably about the time they become eligible to vote, to drink alcohol, be drafted into an army or gain admitance to an x-rated movie. 

Be well.

Like anyone with an e-mail account, I get a lot of junk.  The worst junkmails are not the obvious urban legends, not the ads for Viagra or penis extenders (not needed, thank you very much), not the goofy “opportunities” to share millions with kindly Nigerians (am I too skeptical, or what?) or the dozens of other spam pleadings that arrive daily. No, the most annoying are the sappy forwards from acquaintances. These often carry a personal note and are designed to inspire, teach a moral or warn against impure thoughts. Not long ago, I got one urging me not to indulge in reliance upon reason to the neglect of faith.

Even friends who should know better, that is, friends with an education who are aware of my independent secular mindset who have busy lives of some consequence occasionally forward one or more of the above-noted types of posts.

Just yesterday, I got one that was entitled something like, Just when you thought I wasn’t looking. This phrase was the beginning of a dozen or so sentences that described virtuous behaviors that were observed by a child, and thus taught a positive moral lesson.

I made the mistake of reading the forwarded post. When I finished, I could not resist the temptation to advise my friend who sent it along what I thought of it. I hit the “reply all” button in order that everyone else who got it would see one recipient’s response. Here is my message:

I am not usually disposed to waste my time reading a swarmy mass mailing with simplistic, feel good sentiments, as I did on this occasion. It contained suggestions for many kind actions, and that was benign and harmless, if a bit self-evident. I had to wonder, though, and resist the temptation to ask my friend: Don’t most people you know already behave in these sensible, ethical ways?

However, a few actions that I found objectionable were included in the list.  The latter include:

*  The prayer bit - teaching a child (by your example) to believe he/she has an imaginary friend who intervenes in human affairs based on imprecations or begging by one name or another. (Doesn’t this imply the all-knowing, all wise, all-everything wizard knows what’s best?) Since there is zero evidence for such a preposterous notion, I suggested it would be better to model self-reliance?

(This commentary relates to the statement: When you thought I wasn’t looking I heard you say a prayer, and I knew that there is a God I could always talk to, and I learned to trust in Him.)

*  The suggestion at the end of the message urging recipients to forward this to and thereby annoy everyone on our lists. I asked my friend if he was assuming that everyone on his list would consent to all the ideas on this sappy message? If not, did he really expect that such a message would persuade anyone to shape up and fly right?

(This is a reference to the capitalized and bold remark, in large type, that I AM SENDING THIS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO DO SO MUCH FOR OTHERS, BUT THINK THAT NO ONE EVER SEES.
LITTLE EYES SEE A LOT.)

But, the worst was yet to come:

How will you touch the life of someone today? Just by sending this to someone else, you will probably make them (sic) at least think about their (sic) influence on others. Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God.

Huh? Yike! Sounds like an invitation to adopt a mindless catatonic state. 

I wrote a cordial note to my friend, asking that he please give me a pass on these “inspirational notes.” 

My father encouraged me, at least when I was very young, to get along by going along. His notion for being successful was “don’t make waves.” It probably served him well, given the closed and rather tight-knit culture of which he was a part.

Today, we have raving lunatics all around us, and it is important that those who disagree to their irrational or harmful messages act boldly by taking exception to what otherwise might seem matters of general consensus, when they are decidedly not. I urge you not to go along with prevailing norms that you view as dysfunctional, irrational or harmful. Don’t permit the holy rollers and fanatics to assume that you agree with them, when you don’t.

So, even if you think nobody is looking or no one cares, express your views. We still have freedom of speech in America. Let’s make the most of it, and do our part, however modest, to keep freedom alive.

Cheers.

Studies have shown that a pill (soon be available) mimics the effects of regular exercise.  Yes, that what studies have shown.  Well, one study. Recently, the Salk Institute released a research report describing performance gains exhibited by sedentary mice.  The study showed that impressive gains in treadmill tests were attributed not to aerobic exercise, weight lifting, stretching, yoga, Pilates, coaching or mentoring, but to a new drug.  Yes, by taking this performance-enhancing drug, sedentary mice were able to perform in a manner that suggested they were fit as rodent fiddles. 

The implication, of course, is that couch potato humans might soon be able to take a pill containing this potent ingredient and gain the same benefits that we associate with vigorous exercise.  We all know or believe that the health benefits of exercise, at least to this point in time, have been available only the old-fashioned way – that is, earned from the tribulations of vigorous workouts.  Now the hope is that increases in performance capacity, such as those exhibited by mice on the new wonder drug, might be available to humans.  All a person, even a sedentary one, need do is pop a fitness pill with the right ingredient. 

Is this serious science or science fiction?  Is it real or hype?  Did the mice really perform heroically on those treadmills, or were these trials done with smoke and mirrors?

I don’t know.  However, I think skepticism is called for.  Later, if it turns out that this is the beginning of a new era where everyone can be fit AND sedentary, I’ll enthusiastically embrace the new reality. 

“Non Sequiturâ€� is the name of Wiley Miller’s wry cartoon look at the absurdities of everyday life. The August 2, 2008 cartoon, which first appeared four years ago (Wiley’s on vacation at present) contains this dialogue:

Q.  What’s the secret to success as a TV pundit?
A.  The “studies have shownâ€� ploy.Â
Q.  Uh … What’s that?
A.  Just say, “Studies have shownâ€� first, then all of your talking points go unquestioned, no matter how stupid they are.  The trick, of course, is saying it without giggling.Â
Q.  Um … What happened to critical thinking?
A.  Studies have shown that’s for losers.

When TV pundits reported on what the most recent studies have shown ploy, my reaction was this:  If you think a pill is going to make you fit and provide the health benefits of vigorous daily exercise anytime soon, say within the next century, you need emergency surgery — so that a brain can be inserted into your head.  You can’t possibly have one if you think a fitness pill is going to make you fit. 

Anyone who missed this story must have been under the Arctic ice cap.  The tale was everywhere: pundits on all news shows went wild over it.  Essentially, a drug called Aicar (who comes up with these names?) was shown to increase mouse performance by 44 percent in a single month of illegal doping.  (If it’s not illegal for mice to take such pills, it ought to be. It’s not fair to the mice that train hard and use only natural methods to perform at their best.)  The drug seems to mimic a by-product of energy metabolism.  It signals the cell that energy has been burned - which is tantamount in “cell speak� of saying, “send more.�

If this were not enough for the sedentary hopefuls, the media pundits said studies have shown another drug tested even better - enabling the treadmill rodent superstars to gain a 75 percent increase in endurance - but in this case, the mice had to do a little exercise as well as swallow the pill.  Maybe the non-exercise oriented humans hearing this will conclude that a 44 percent performance increase will do nicely, thank you very much.

Before you begin a Google search for the location of the nearest Aicar dealer, consider that unfortunate law of nature called “unintended consequences.� Another term for this phenomenon is “side effects.�

If you start getting your workout from a pill instead of a swimming pool, treadmill or other methods of doing work with your body beyond swallowing, consider the unforeseen costs that might be incurred.  Besides sudden death from heart stoppage, recall the consequences of thalidomide a few decades back.  Performance boosts could come at a price.

Red wine also activates pathways to improved performance.  In red wine, the key ingredient that does this is resveratrol.  A couple years ago, studies showed that mice were able to run twice as far as usual on a treadmill under the influence of resveratrol before waving the white flag of surrender (i.e., collapsing).

Resveratrol, Aicar and all the other quick fix, magic bullets are not going to replace exercise as the healthy way to become and stay fit and live well. For that, you need a vigorous daily exercise regimen — and a good sense of humor.

If I might paraphrase Richard Nixon, let me say this: I am not a Luddite.  I am not opposed to technological progress or change.  Who would object to making fitness available to all at half the price, or for nothing (energy expended) at all, for that matter?  Not I.  Bring on the Brave New World – I too would welcome more performance for less the effort. 

But, don’t overlook Wiley’s advice – there has to be more to the promise than the headline “studies have shown.â€�  Curb your enthusiasm – at least for the present.  If you already exercise vigorously, keep it going and if not, give daily workouts some consideration.Â