We can't ask taxpayers to pay for abortions, but we can ask them to pay for prayer therapy? WTF?

Most folks don't know about this tiny little provision in the health care bill, so I figured I would write up a diary about it. Senator Hatch (R-Utah) snuck this provision in but it has some big name supporters behind it, namely Senator John Kerry and the late Edward Kennedy.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."

Read on below the fold.

Christian Scientists believe their prayer therapy works as an alternative to modern medicine. Being a Wiccan who performs rituals to invoke the power of the universe to help heal and protect myself and those I love, I'm not one to mock another religion's belief. In fact, Christian Science prayer therapy isn't that far a stretch from what I do.

The difference is that I would never think to ask my health insurance company or my government to pay for the cost of my candles, incense, and ritual items like brooms, wands, sea salt, crystals, or silver-cast pentacles. But thanks to the vague language of this provision, what's to stop Wiccans from demanding reimbursement for our rituals used to heal? What's to stop Scientologists from demanding that the very expensive materials they have to buy from their "church" are covered the government? I mean heck, at least I can get candles for fifty cents. Scientologists pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for their materials, and into the thousands for "auditing" (their replacement for psychiatry). Sarah Palin's witch doctor, covered by Aetna? How much do you think Blue Cross Blue Shield will have to bust out for exorcising demons from your kid?

But critics say the measure could have a broader effect, conferring new status and medical legitimacy on practices that lie outside the realm of science.

Before the cries of "slippery slope!" can be heard, allow me to get to my main point, which is not that spiritual-based alternative medicine is laughable (it's not). This is about the separation of church and state. And in case you hadn't noticed from the title, I'm also a bit bitter about the fact that the religious and right wing are demanding that government health care not cover abortions, and yet they are trying to sneak this trash in. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Religious folks have tampered with this country's government from the start, and it's time to put a stop to it. This isn't a Christian nation. It's a democratic state with freedom of religion. Practicing prayer therapy, having some loud guy in a suit put his hands on your head and scream at Jesus to heal you so you can walk again, burning candles around a piece of lapislazuli for health... whatever you might believe in terms of religion and medicine, don't ask taxpayers or insurance companies to pay for it.  

Speaker Pelosi has removed this provision from the House version of the health care bill. Majority Leader Reid, however, has not yet decided if he will remove it from the Senate consolidated bill.

The full page article from the LA Times can be seen here.

Edit: First ever rec list, thanks guys! It's been awesome chatting with you guys on here during the day.

•  Tip Jar

  by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:50:07 AM PDT

  •  But Christian Science IS a fraud

    They believe that sickness and death are results of lack of sufficient faith. That's why they kill their children by denying them life-saving care and having some "healer" pray over their infants, instead.

    I definitely do not pooh-pooh prayer or, still less, laying on of hands as ways to cure people. But sickness is a natural process, not a result of a lack of faith, and people should not be enabled in choosing to use prayer INSTEAD OF acute treatments that are known to be much more effective in treating heart attacks, etc.

    So I get your angle but I'm more concerned with the fact that this will cost people's lives.

    by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:40:41 AM PDT

    •  I was raised a Christian Scientist and

      although I did not stay with it in adulthood, it pains me greatly to see statements like this made.

      You may think you know what you're talking about but you don't.  Your following statement is NOT what Christian Scientists believe.

      They believe that sickness and death are results of lack of sufficient faith.

      I can't explain the system of Christian Science belief in a blog comment, but when you throw out un-informed barbs, it feels the same as when I get emails from right-wing colleagues filled with nonsense about President Obama that they actually believe.

      It makes me sad.

      by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:56:22 AM PDT

      •  thank you

        Ignorance is not bliss.

        by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:02:50 AM PDT

        •  And silliness is not science. n/t

          by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:59:06 PM PDT

      •  Although, there are examples of Christian Science

        practices by individuals which unfortunately support what you identify with biased characterization, we should probably note.

        Still, I tend to understand the general notion more along this reference:

        Beliefs about healing practices

           Central to practice of Christian Science healing is the idea that man's true nature is actually spiritual. The reasoning is that, since God, who is Spirit, created man in His image and likeness, that creation must be wholly spiritual. While physicality, disease, and death are regarded as impositions on this true nature, they are not ignored, but instead seen as an imperfect view of God and man, to be replaced by a tangible understanding of the spiritual reality of things. Prayer and mental/physical balance are seen as the necessary elements for healing to occur. Believers will usually opt for lowest possible dosages of medications, and avoid anything that interferes with being able to maintain cognitive faculties for prayer and personal healing. There is no church policy mandating church members' health care decisions.

        A former French teacher in my middle school was a Christian Scientist and she informed me that her family practiced no conscious medical intervention except to obtain what they needed for standard changes or accidents in life.  She did not see doctors or go to hospitals, otherwise.  That was just her and her family.

        That's not to say "prayer therapy" is useless, but I do support this diary's main point: not paying for the hard medicine practice of abortion procedures vs. funding soft medicine practice of prayer therapy seems too much like another far-right tactic.

        by wader on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:11:21 AM PDT

        •  Prayer is Free

          by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:11:22 PM PDT

        •  It still shouldn't be paid for.

          Why should we be paying for prayer???! It's not medicine, and no amount of belief can make it so.

          People are entitled to their beliefs (although I don't think that should extend to denying their children necessary medical care), but they aren't entitled to have the taxpayers pay for their scientifically unsupported beliefs.

          by johnva on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:14:20 PM PDT

        •  In practice

          What that means is that the solution for the "illusion" of disease and death is to pray. And also in practice, there are many cases of Christian Scientists who use not the "lowest possible dosages of medications," but NO medical treatments AT ALL, including for their infants, with the result being a totally predictable death.

          I believe adults have the right to commit suicide (although laws in many states seek to prohibit that), but inducing the death of minors through quackery is homicide and properly punished as such.

          By the way, I don't question that there are some Christian Scientists who are not quite as fanatical or/and idiotic. Your former French teacher may not have been wise in her choices, but I can understand them. What I can't understand are people who absolutely refuse all medical care, and then extend the refusal to minors under their care.

          by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:20:32 PM PDT

      •  Exactly my take on this, Happy Days.

        > Respect.

        Also, I'd like to see more support and coverage for alternative medical treatments that aren't covered by insurance co's because they aren't recognized by the established, and slow-to-change medical establishment.  After all, why would insurance companies pay for anything they don't have to?  Less coverage is a win for them, regardless.

        If I want accupuncture or experienced and expert advice on nutrition for a serious illness, I'd like to have it covered, if that's my choice.  I don't think I should be ridiculed for that choice, either.

        by ozarkspark on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:19:17 AM PDT

        •  Faith based healing- magical healing

          would be the cheapest sort of medical care- no fancy medical instruments or medicines needed.  Insurance companies should love it- except that the patients tend not to get better and need actual medical care as well.  

          I really would not want to live in a world where the laws of physics and nature can be suspended at any time by the capricious wishes of a diety. And that is what true miracles would be.  Imagine if the sun really did stand still in the sky - thank heavens (sic)  it does not and has never occurred.

          AS for "alternative" therapies- magnets, coffee enemas, crystals-  give me a mechanisms for any of them, and I will be a convert.  That is the nature of science based understanding of the world.  a single documented case of something proves it can occur.  I don't think pigs can fly, based upon the evidence I have seen.  Show me one pig flying, and I will change my view.

          As Thomas Aquinas ( I think) said,

          A god who cannot prevent suffering is impotent.
          A god who can prevent suffering ad doesn't is malevolent.

          by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:53:39 AM PDT

          •  Hmm, was he an atheist?

            A god who cannot prevent suffering is impotent.
            A god who can prevent suffering and doesn't is malevolent.

            Pretty good statement of why I'm a Pastafarian.

            by UndercoverRxer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:00:23 PM PDT

            •  I think that quote was misattributed by BPARTR.

              Aquinas was a Catholic--and a saint.  He probably never actually said anything that made as much sense as the quote.

              by JSC ltd on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:06:37 PM PDT

              •  I know that

                but I still thought it was his quote.  When I get time, I'll research it.

                by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:19:39 PM PDT

              •  You might be surprised.

                But BPARTR references what is known by some as the Epicurean Paradox which is definitely not Aquinas and it isn't Epicurus either (apparently).  Beyond that I don't know more.

                by newfie on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:26:19 PM PDT

                •  thanks.

                  for the correct attribution.

                  by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:32:42 PM PDT

                  •  If it is even that.

                    I really do not have depth of knowledge - it didn't seem like something Aquinas would say but certainly something he would discuss or counter.  I saw references to Epicurus but read that this was a mistaken attirbution.

                    by newfie on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:39:57 PM PDT

                    •  It is really only of academic

                      interest who said it- although if it was said in 300 BC, that is certainly interesting.  The  real issue is the sentiment itself- and as a poster said, it has not been refuted in the intervening 2000 years.

                      by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:42:55 PM PDT

                      •  It hasn't?

                        You might want to look into that a bit more.  You may even want to check Aquinas - I do believe he had a bit to say about that.  Heck - I even think Epicurus had something to say about it.

                        Once again, I am no scholar of philosophy so my knowledge is very much on the surface but refutation of the "epicurean paradox" has been done but multiple parties.

                        by newfie on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:59:02 AM PDT

                        •  od course it is only a paradox

                          if you posit a deity in the first place.

                          by BPARTR on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:24:36 AM PDT

              •  Thomas Aquinas didn't make sense?

                 Was it because he was a Catholic, a saint, or both?

                Whichever option, it's certainly a sweeping generalization.

                 

                by Augustine on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:32:09 PM PDT

                •  Hilarious comment from a user named

                  "Augustine."

                  I love when things like that happen.

                  by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:34:16 PM PDT

          •  There are many,

            many 'alternative' treatments that look promising, with evidence.  I don't know anything about magnets, enemas, or the crystals you speak of, so I won't comment.  With respect to you, I'd like to  say that's what I was talking about when I mentioned ridicule.

            by ozarkspark on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:09 PM PDT

            •  I agree with you,

              however it's an uphill battle.  On a progressive site, you'd think people would be slightly more progressive but many are extremely conservative on this issue.  lol

              I've tried to point out even Harvard Medical School offers Integrated Medicine degrees, to no avail.

              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:04:23 PM PDT

              •  Harvard Medical School

                I would appreciate a link to Harvard's Integrated Medicine degrees.  The only thing I found on the web was this link:

                http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/...

                Which is a grant for a study which has absolutely nothing to do with offering a degree.

                Science studies everything.  That's what science does.  Studying something in no way endorses it.  And getting a big juicy grant from the Federal Government proves nothing.  That's what the studies are for.

                In addition, being progressive doesn't mean you throw reason out the window.  I'm progressive, but that doesn't mean that I believe in magic, supernatural beings and the like.

                I know one of the stereotypes of liberals is glassy eyed, crystal toting, magical thinking loon, but that's just not me.  I like my reality with a heapin' helpin' of facts and science.

                I think you may misunderstand the definitions of progressive and conservative if you think progressive means accepting other people's idiocy.  As a progressive, I believe everyone has a right to be as loony as they like.  I also believe I have a right to point out the lunacy and ask for links to unproven and suspicious assumptions.

                by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:43:08 PM PDT

                •  Everybody that prays is self taught

                  and requires no special knowledge or training. That why it is free.  It you have to pay somebody to pray for you, then you are one sorry pathetic sob and it won't work or provide comfort or anything!

                  by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:16:24 PM PDT

              •  It is possible to be both open minded and skeptic

                I have a friend who has a degree in experamental biology, and is currently studying integrated Chinese medicine. She hopes to be able to help with well grounded and scientifically sound testing of the techniques she is learning.

                In terms of treatment, less expensive and more effective treatments are a win for the insurace companies and the patients, but 'it sounds like a good idea, lets try it and hope it at least does no major harm' is not a sufficent justification for them to pay.

                In reguards to ozarkspark's mention of ridicule, lumping all non-mainstream-western medical treatments together does put you in a catagory with a number of dubious practices, and if you don't make clear that you can differentiate, it is easy to assume you are not critical in evaluating the claims you make.

                For example, there have been prior discussions of Homeopathic medicine where there have been people using it as a term for herbal/natural treatments, as opposed to the strict term of using treatments of substances dilluted to 10^-30 or 10^-40 concentrations to generate reverse effects. The claim of effectiveness baffles all modern science as there are not that many molicules of anything in the proposed dose, so you have dilluted the substance into oblivian. As we currently understand the way the physics of the universe works, that claim is laugable without strong enough evidance to make us doubt modern chemisty.

                by Geek of all trades on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:28:19 PM PDT

                •  and yet...

                  I know farmers who claim homeopathics work on their animals - not sure how animals can have the benefit of the placebo effect.  

                  There do seem to be mysteries in the world about which we cannot yet make sense... that doesn't mean we never will, however.

                  by MsGrin on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:10:18 PM PDT

                  •  Double blind studies

                    Where the person administrating a possible medication does not know, were created to stop the secondary effects you can generate by treating two classes of groups as seperate.

                    The farmers certainly know, and it may alter their behavior. It may also be that things that are not part of the homeopathic 'active' ingrediant (or lack thereof) that are proving effective in this case.

                    Anicdote is a wonderful source of inspiration, and questions to ask, and directions for experament to run. That does not mean it is good statistical data, or good reductionist experamentation.

                    by Geek of all trades on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:49:49 PM PDT

                    •  Yes - anecdote tells us there is more to learn

                      I do not disagree with most of what you've said.  I was not using any certitude in my comments.

                      Actually, the farmers I've talked to who did this did NOT believe it would work and were surprised to find it did.  Still an anecdote, I realize, but it is intriguing...

                      by MsGrin on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:55:28 PM PDT

                      •  Anecdotes often tell us "We are listening to

                        a liar. Or an idiot. Or a lying idiot."

                        This fact should never be underestimated.

                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:04:04 PM PDT

                        •  There would be no science without anecdote

                          Science did not begin until people made observations and then set out to learn whether the observations were consistent and reproduceable.  

                          This fact should never be underestimated, nor should our hubris at believing we already know all there is to be known.

                          by MsGrin on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:43:03 PM PDT

                          •  but that is the point-

                            unusual occurrences stimulate research- most of which shows the unusal occurrences to be unusual occurrences.  It is often called the pilot project effect-  a pilot project with small numbers encourages a larger study which shows the effect was a chance effect of the pilot's small numbers.

                            by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:46:31 PM PDT

                          •  And there would be no Faith Healing without

                            a liar. Or an idiot. Or a lying idiot.

                            Or, most typically, one of each... with the cash flowing in the direction of the liar.

                            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:28:18 PM PDT

                    •  Prayer is inherently "blind" every single time.

                      That is why it doesn't cost anything and anybody and I mean anybody can do it.

                      by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:19:36 PM PDT

                      •  Not entirely sure

                        what position you're coming from on this, but I like it from several I can imagine.  ;-)

                        by MsGrin on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:44:47 PM PDT

                  •  It'll be a mystery when the homeopathic treatment

                    is more expensive than qualified veterinary care and is still preferred by the farmers in question.
                    Until then, I sees me a case of the human mind conveniently bestowing belief on the fiscally favoured option.

                    by HiKa on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:54:55 PM PDT

                •  TCM

                  Is an art and a skill that requires extensive training, study and experience.  Prayer does not.  TCM should be paid for but prayer of any type has to be free or it's purpose is inherently defeated.

                  by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:18:27 PM PDT

              •  Your definition is a little off...

                On a progressive site, you'd think people would be slightly more progressive

                "Progressive" does not actually mean foolish.

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:01:47 PM PDT

            •  What ridicule?

              He said explicitly that if he were showed evidence of those treatments efficacy then he's all for it. That doesn't sound like ridicule to me.

              So you're drawing a line somewhere. Where is not quite clear since you say nothing about cystals and coffee enemas which some people do believe help them. All the above poster is doing is drawing a line. A line much clearer than yours, by the way.

              by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

              •  exactly.

                A faith based view "believes" in the absence or even in absolute rejection of evidence.  A science based view can accomodate any actual finding, and is altered by accumulation of evidence.  To many, the greater the belief in the unbelievable (ie the greather the faith) the more credit ones deserves.

                There is an alternative cancer clinic just accross the border in T.J.  None of their patients die in the clinic because they drop them at the border and they are airlifted to UCSD when they are in extremis- and many then die  in the hospital.- proof that hospital based medicine is not as effective as the "alternative" medicine.  Two patients come to mind- one a young patient with malignant melanoma who was getting a "grape" diet in the clinic- until she was comatose.  The other, who we were able to save, who was getting coffee enemas for his testicular cancer, until he developed a huge fecal abcess in his brain, at the site of one of his  metastases.  Fortunately, with brain surgery, and then the radiation he should have received at the start, he survived this treatable cancer.

                by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:31:40 PM PDT

              •  What is riduculous is the notion of paying

                for prayer.

                by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:21:00 PM PDT

            •  "Promising" isn't good enough

              The words I want are "proven effective in repeated clinical, double-blind, peer-reviewed tests."

              by QuestionAuthority on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:55:18 PM PDT

              •  Yes, but a little prayer dosn't hurt and

                the fact that it is free makes it well worth it.  The fact that prayer is such a good bargain, free, is one of the reasons it is so great.

                by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:23:12 PM PDT

                •  There's definitely nothing wrong with prayer

                  It just should never substitute for medical procedures of proven effectiveness.

                  by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:43:09 PM PDT

            •  Three things

              1. There are alternative treatments.  These involve herbs, magnets and the other things you mentioned.  Treatments can come from many diverse sources, so I think it's important to investigate promising ones and evaluate their worth via scientific studies and double blind tests.  Right now a lot of alternative treatments aren't given the attention they need to determine their worth.

              2. There is prayer and belief of the sick individual.  I think this is a well studied phenomenon, but I can't find the studies right now that I read previously.  Basically (If I recall correctly), if you believe you will get better you increase both speed and extent to which you recover.  

              3. When someone prays for your recovery.  Unfortunately, it appears to have no effect according to this study.  In fact, telling someone you are praying for them appears to have the opposite effect.

              http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...

              by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:00:42 PM PDT

              •  Re: When someone prays for your recovery.

                ... telling someone you are praying for them appears to have the opposite effect.

                I had a most terrifying experience being prayed for about 25 years ago. I was being admitted to the hospital with a broken neck after an automobile accident. Unable to fill out the necessary forms myself, the admissions clerk wrote down my verbal replies. When she came to a line on the form that asked my religious affiliation, I said "none." The clerk was aghast and asked again to make sure she heard me right. "Leave it blank," I said with more emphasis.

                Well, I was in the South and things like that were just not done! Little did I know that the clerk wrote down her own Pentecostal church on MY form. I found that out later when I complained.

                Then I was wheeled away for x-rays which involved injecting dye into my spinal cord and stuffing me full of muscle relaxers so that I could lie as still as possible. It took hours, and when I was finally taken to my room, I was in a pretty sorry state.

                Imagine my horror as I drifted in and out of consciousness to see this menacing shadowy figure shouting gibberish and gesturing over my head as my poor brain tried to break free of the drug-induced fog long enough to make sense of what was happening.

                Believe me, it felt like I woke up in hell. Luckily I got clear-headed enough to press the call button and croak out "No, no, go away." The kicker was that the responding nurse apologized to the preacher instead of me!

                Remember: God does not want your Prayer Spam!

                by heiderose1 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:20:02 PM PDT

                •  Wow, that's just rude.

                  She was pretty much guaranteeing you'd have a negative reaction to that.  You could have been any religion or none, she had no idea.  You could have been Pentecostal but had some issue with the church like being raped by a minister, who knows?  People have all sorts of reasons for not listing that on a form.  

                  Sorry for your bad experience, and I hope that never happens to me.

                  by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:52:19 PM PDT

                  •  Actually, stuffing me full of muscle relaxers

                    is probably the best way to prepare me for a roomful of freaking Pentecostals.

                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:08:28 PM PDT

                •  Don't worry, if you think it was bullshit

                  then it was.  That is the beauty of prayer.  It really doesn't matter because that woman's prayer didn't cost a dime.

                  by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:25:53 PM PDT

                  •  There is nothing beautiful about trespassing

                    on some else's space. Praying for others who have not given their permission is disrespectful and a violation of their right to be who they are.

                    by heiderose1 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:18:09 PM PDT

              •  Abortions, in contrast, are almost 100% effective

                I think the medically induced ones occasionally fail, and the lady has to have a D&C.

                by david78209 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

                •  HUH!

                  by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:26:34 PM PDT

              •  When prayer no cuesta nada, it's worth a shot.

                by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:23:51 PM PDT

                •  Except when it has the opposite effect

                  See the study I mentioned in the post you responded to.  People who knew others were praying for fared worse than those who got no prayer at all.  One hypothesis is that it lead patients to think they were worse off than they really were if someone was actually praying for them.

                  by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:56:34 PM PDT

          •  "Whence comes evil?"

            "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
            Or he can, but does not want to;
            Or he cannot and does not want to.

            If he wants to but cannot, he is impotent.
            If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
            If he neither can, nor wants to,
            he is both powerless and wicked.

            But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
            How comes evil into the world?"
                                        --Epicurus 341-270.B.C.E.

            by NogodsnomastersMary on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:29:08 PM PDT

            •  The Christian Science view is that this

              physical world is "unreal" and a counterfeit of God's true creation which is spiritual, not material.

              The world God created is perfect and free of evil.  The physical world we experience is like a dream, a false image of reality, capable of imperfection.

              According to CS, when you understand your true identity as God's spiritual creation, your "dream self" will come into line with your spiritual reality and you will be free from sin and sickness.

              They believe that Jesus intended for everyone to be able to heal the sick as he did, by following what he taught--that God is perfect Love, and that is what's truly real.

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:41:29 PM PDT

              •  As an atheist,

                to me that sounds just plain silly.
                It reminds me of the story Boswell told about Dr. Johnson hearing about a man arguing that the physical world is all illusion. Boswell asked Johnson how he could refute that, and Johnson replied, "I refute it thus," as he kicked a stone in his path.

                by NogodsnomastersMary on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:01:57 PM PDT

                •  I had a coffe-house debate once with a

                  similar ass. "Just because this table exists in your reality, how can we be certain that it exists in mine?"

                  "Could we debate these fine points after I grab you by the ears and slam your face into the table that exists in my reality?"

                  by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:14:43 PM PDT

              •  Interesting. This worldview...

                ... somewhat mimics Buddhist teachings, in that the world is an illusion of sorts, or at least our perception of the reality of the world is an illusion.

                by DynamicUno on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:35:53 PM PDT

                •  This worldview is quite old

                  and finds expression in all religions in some form or another. There is no denying that we as humans are limited in perception, no matter the wonderful tools we have invented to overcome these limitations. It is not silly to believe that reality extends far beyond our human ability to perceive or understand.

                  We have to guard against our very human trait to order the world (or God) according to what we can understand and imagine and call that the only truth. That applies to believers in religion and science equally.

                  by heiderose1 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:31:30 PM PDT

                  •  Red Flag!

                    "[blah blah blah] applies to believers in religion and science equally."

                    Ah, yes, the two "belief systems" -- science and reanimated Jewish carpenter zombies...

                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:18:01 PM PDT

                    •  proving my point regarding humankind's

                      tendency towards hubris all too well, whether we call ourselves rational or spiritual beings. Well done.

                      by heiderose1 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:26:11 PM PDT

                  •  Illogical, Dr. McCoy

                    It is not silly to believe that reality extends far beyond our human ability to perceive or understand.

                    If we cannot perceive it - even with the perception-extending technology that we have developed or will ever develop - then there is no evidence it exists.

                    In which case, it is quite silly to believe in its existence.

                    If we cannot understand it, how do you know what it is?

                    We have to guard against our very human trait to order the world (or God) according to what we can understand and imagine and call that the only truth. That applies to believers in religion and science equally

                    Since there is no evidence that the physical world we live in is capricious and changes math and the laws of physics randomly at any moment, we have no evidence to suggest that there is anything but the truth, when it comes to the physical world (which includes things like aches, pains, fever, cardiac arrest, blood clots ,and all the other things that ail our physical body which modern medicine addresses, and which our taxpayer dollars should fund).

                    And, since there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical world (by your own assertion, any such thing is "beyond our human ability to perceive), it is silly to believe that there is more than one physical truth.

                    That applies to believers in religion and science equally.

                    Ah, Grasshopper, your "quite old worldivew" has lead you astray.

                    Science is based on evidence. Religion is not.

                    The value of scientific assertions is their predictive power - they give us the ability to affect future outcomes in reliable ways.

                    Religion has no predictive value - in fact, every prediction religions have made have proven false. Religion actually has a much worse than chance track record in this respect, which is quite remarkable when you think about it - takes a great deal of effort to get it so consistently wrong over so many centuries.

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:50:01 AM PDT

                •  Yeah, most Buddhists go to the hospital

                  Except for a few fringe sects.  The world may be an illusion, but we still have to live in it, and do our best to alleviate the suffering of others.  Modern science helps greatly in that regard.

                  by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:57:26 PM PDT

              •  Oh. Well, alrighty then...

                The Christian Science view is that this physical world is "unreal" and a counterfeit of God's true creation which is spiritual, not material.

                I had always been told they believed crazy shit.

                Who knew it makes such perfectly believable, rational sense?

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:11:13 PM PDT

                •  What's crazy shit is proposing that pray cost any

                  actual taxpayer or any sort of money at all.

                  by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:29:08 PM PDT

                  •  That's Second Level crazy shit.

                    Built upon the bedrock of the crazy shit that is faith healing.

                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:31:11 PM PDT

            •  Thank you!

              Epicurus rpedated Aquinis by 1500 years-

              I will now know the correct attribution.

              by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:21:54 PM PDT

            •  What is evil is the notion of paying somebody to

              pray for you.

              by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:27:15 PM PDT

          •  It was Epicurus, around 300 B.C.

            Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
            Then he is not omnipotent.
            Is he able, but not willing?
            Then he is malevolent.
            Is he both able and willing?
            Then whence cometh evil?
            Is he neither able nor willing?
            Then why call him God?

            At least David Hume, in the 18th century, attributed it to Epicurus, the ancient Greek philosopher.

            And theists still haven't provided a single satisfactory answer (not unless you consider "The Lord's Ways Are Mysterious" an answer, rather than just hand-waving).

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:31:05 PM PDT

            •  no more handwaving

              than hearing someone try to explain why the trinity is not multi-theism.

              by BPARTR on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:36:18 PM PDT

              •  or that Pantheism is not monothesim

                by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:30:03 PM PDT

          •  Don't know about scientific studies

            But I can speak from personal experience:

            Best cure for severe hiccups? large quantities of yogurt

            Best medicine ever for a sore throat? something called 'Thalisati Vatakam' I got from an Indian friend - small tablets with all herbal ingredients that have always sorted out my sore throats in a matter of minutes - much better than any Halls or Vicks or anything else I have ever tried.

            My dad was cured of (as in never recurred) his kidney stones by a very natural, drug free treatment. As one who has gone through a few stones myself, I know what that is like and I am going thru the same treatment - Yoga - and it is working for me. My allopathy doctor told me that I am genetically prone to kidney stones and I just have to live with them. He suggested preventative methods but nothing that would stop it cold.  Well, Yoga has stopped it cold - so far.

            I cannot provide an accepted scientific explanation of the mechanism by which these treatments work. But I certainly can attest to the fact that they do, repeatedly and consistently - for me.

            If you want to take the position that nothing is scientifically proven unless the mechanism through which it acts is validated based on existing knowledge of physiology - that is your prerogative. But then you should be prepared to ignore all repeatable (but unexplainable) cause and effect actions.

            The analogy I always think of is a baseball hitter who reacts in under 4 tenths of a second to smoke a ball and send it flying 400 feet away.  If he ever tried to figure out the mechanism - the angle of contact, the velocity of the swing, the time to start the swing - he would never hit a home run.

            By the laws of physics, the kind of reaction that is required to hit a home run should just not be possible.  Utley couldn't tell you how he smacked that 3-run homer yesterday.  But I watched it happen.

            Science cannot explain this - yet. Doesn't mean it ain't real.

            The human body is far too complex for science to claim it understands all mechanisms and pathways in it. We will probably never get there.

            I prefer to be open minded about cures - even if I (or science) cannot see the pathway thru which it acts.

            by cynic on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:25:15 PM PDT

            •  Two things

              I cannot provide an accepted scientific explanation of the mechanism by which these treatments work. But I certainly can attest to the fact that they do, repeatedly and consistently - for me.

              If you want to take the position that nothing is scientifically proven unless the mechanism through which it acts is validated based on existing knowledge of physiology - that is your prerogative. But then you should be prepared to ignore all repeatable (but unexplainable) cause and effect actions.

              1. Believing in something makes it work better.  Even if you were unknowningly taking sugar pills and thought it was medicine, you would get better more quickly than someone who knew they were taking a placebo or took nothing at all.  And for things that do have a healing mechanism, they work better.  I can't find the studies right now, but I have read about this before.

              2. "Folk Remedies" need more research.  Much of these things have not been studied in any meaningful way at all.  Many of them probably have a demonstrable mechanism by which they work, but who knows?  Until we research them it's an open question.  And the big drug companies don't follow this path b/c they can't patent a folk remedy.  So who is going to pay out for all this research?

              There is still so much that we do not know.

              by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:11:30 PM PDT

              •  right.

                so, what is the mechanism - scientifically verified - that allows a belief in the mind to cause healing to occur 'more quickly'?

                Or, to refer back to the flying pig example from the previous comment: who has seen 'belief'?

                Which simply re-inforces my point - just because we cannot see the mechanism does not mean it ain't working or cannot possibly work. Certainly not for the human body and the mind.

                by cynic on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:18:29 PM PDT

                •  Answer: The Placebo Effect

                  so, what is the mechanism - scientifically verified - that allows a belief in the mind to cause healing to occur 'more quickly'?

                  by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:25:13 PM PDT

                  •  The Placebo effect describes what happens

                    But how it works exactly (the mechanism) is poorly understood, AFAIK.  Somehow the belief you'll get better improves the body's immune system and other systems to improve healing.  But exactly how that happens yet is not understood as far as I have read.  I'm far from an expert, though.  Anyone know?

                    by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:52:01 PM PDT

                    •  I see your point

                      I don't know the mechanism(s) through which the placebo effect works.

                      by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:40:24 AM PDT

                •  That is exactly the point of the original comment

                  in this thread-  

                  just because we cannot see the mechanism does not mean it ain't working or cannot possibly work. Certainly not for the human body and the mind.

                  anyone familiar with the scientific method, who believes in rational explanations would agree.  Just show me the evidence.  If you believe something is tru, it is you responsibility to provide evidence, not mine.  The moment you provide verifyable evidence, I will believe.  

                  By the way, the  majority of patients who get a kidney stone  get a single kidney stone and never get one again.  therefore, any treatment they did or did not receive could be thought to be responsible for for the lack of re-occurrence.  Could yoga prevent kidney stones? possibly.  show me.

                  by BPARTR on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:34:51 AM PDT

              •  What kind of pathetic human being's belief

                or faith is gooched by paying some obvious charlatan?

                by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:32:14 PM PDT

            •  No, you clearly don't know about scientific studi

              If you want to take the position that nothing is scientifically proven unless the mechanism through which it acts is validated based on existing knowledge of physiology - that is your prerogative.

              Straw man. Nothing is scientifically proven unless it is scientifically proven.

              Claims of medical efficacy can be tested. We don't need to know the mechanism, we can measure the effects.

              If it doesn't work reliably, or predictably, or better than placebo in scientific studies, then your anecdotes are useless.

              It has nothing to do with understanding the mechanism, although understanding the mechanism helps to refine treatment.

              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:53:51 AM PDT

              •  a create better treatments.

                by BPARTR on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:36:13 AM PDT

              •  Howzabout the 'placebo effect'?

                Claims of medical efficacy can be tested. We don't need to know the mechanism, we can measure the effects.

                Just to take one example - consider the placebo effect.

                The cause:  'Patient believes that the medicine works, even though it is in reality a placebo'

                The effect: 'Better outcomes than placebo where people knew it was a placebo'

                Conclusion: Just believing something works can make for a better outcome even in the absence of actual medical intervention.

                Would you agree that that conclusion is tested? To be accepted as scientific fact? Based on the quote above, you must.

                It follows then that it is possible to will yourself to get better. The door is now open for all sorts of alternative approaches to disease management without active medical intervention.

                By the way, many alternative medicine approaches simply take the approach that if you leave it alone, the particular problem will go away on its own:  if treated it takes seven days. Otherwise it takes a week.  In the meantime consume some stuff that is generally good for you anyway.  Plus you have the added benefits of having no side effects from the medication.

                by cynic on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:58:59 PM PDT

          •  That is why prayer no cuesta nada.

            by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:12:59 PM PDT

        •  Not ridiculed,

          but you should pay more for it.

          by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:53:56 AM PDT

          •  The individual should pay for anything

            involving unscientific treatments.

            by LeanneB on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:19:13 PM PDT

            •  That's what I said. n/t

              by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:23:16 PM PDT

        •  IMHO what I got from the diary is that

          faith based healing shouldn't be paid for by the gov. Everyone has a choice to receive alternative medicines. Alternative medicine can often help cure certain illnesses. Asia has used alternative medicines for eternity and in many situations it works. Alternative medicine is a personal choice and shouldn't demand a monetary reimbursement.  The government should not be deciding which alternative medicine should be covered and what ones should not. Again IMHO the reimbursement would be the healing that comes from it.

          by desnyder on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:54:02 PM PDT

          •  Agreed on policy, but factual correction

            Re: the supposed efficacy of alternative, particularly "ancient" medicines:

            in 1850, average life expectancy in the U.S. was 38.5
            In 1900, it was 47
            By 1950, it was 66
            by 200, it was 77

            And the US only ranks 35th in the world. All of the higher ranking nations practice primarily modern medicine.

            In fact, Hong Kong and Macau, two parts of China that are more westernized than traditional, have among the highest life expectancies in the world - while mainland China, which still uses a mix of modern and traditional medicine, has an average life expectancy 10 years shorter - and, it has risen significantly since China adopted more modern, Western practices.

            Meanwhile, in nations that still rely on "ancient" or "traditional" medicines, current life expectancy averages...... 40 years.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:43:29 PM PDT

            •  Not just medicine. Many things add to lifespan

              There are a lot of things that contribute to extended life-spans: proper nutrition, proper clothing and shelter, good sanitary habits, low poverty levels, high education levels, etc.

              by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:15:04 PM PDT

              •  Nearly all of those are related to modern

                scientific medicine. An understanding of "proper" nutrition, "proper" clothing and shelter, "good" sanitary habits, are all the result of modern understanding of biological health-related processes. Low poverty levels are similarly the result of improved nutrition, availability of clean water ("sanitary" meant nothing before we understood germ theory), and even high education levels would be impossible if students were not healthy enough with adequate brain development.

                There are studies showing that, even today, societies that practice traditional medicine and have no access to modern medicine suffer life expectancy and infant mortality rates similar to those the rest of the world suffered 200 years ago.

                EVen if "not just medicine", there is no reasonable argument that can be made that modern medicine is irrelevant to the well-being of today's population.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:07:23 PM PDT

                •  Medicine is important, but don't overstate.

                  Fossil fuels and the wealth and technology produced from them is a larger factor.  They make everything possible.  Without it there is no green revolution and Malthus' predictions would have been right 30 or 40 years ago with massive famines and wars over scarce resources.  Proper nutrition doesn't just mean having an understanding of what is needed, but the ability to produce and distribute said nutrition.  Fossil fuels and the technology it produced also created opportunity for generations to stop being farmers and get an education and do something else (like study medicine).  Energy creates wealth which lifts people out of poverty.  Something as simple as a lightbulb so children can study at night can make the difference of getting an education or not in the third world.  Don't forget that the vast majority of pharmaceuticals are derived directly from fossil fuels.  And pesticides which control pests which spread disease like mosquitos, rats, and roaches.

                  Science in general (of which modern medicine of course is a part) is a large factor as well.  All sorts of nonmedical technologies serve to increase lifespan.

                  IT's not enough just to have medical knowledge, but also the ability and technology to apply it.

                  by Arclite on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:40:58 PM PDT

        •  But, you don't have to go to school

          or get special training to pray.  Prayer is FREE.

          by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:12:15 PM PDT

        •  Accupuncture isn't alternative medicine

          It's mainstream, scientifically-proven medicine. It definitely should be covered. Things that are not scientifically demonstrated to be safe and effective should not be covered, but should be studied.

          by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:38:07 PM PDT

          •  No, it's not.

            It's no better than "sham" acupuncture. So while it may be relaxing, the "chi" theory is total garbage.

            by johnva on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:08:19 PM PDT

            •  The point isn't Chi

              The point is that acupuncture has been very clearly scientifically demonstrated to work for various things. I'm not going to bother providing links for you, because the evidence is so great that any decent web search will demonstrate that to you. This is almost as bad as if you denied that antibiotics can have any effectiveness.

              by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:15:11 PM PDT

              •  But, of course, it is simple to provide citations

                for the efficacy of antibiotics - to fight bacterial infections.

                When you say, "accupuncture works for various things" - what things are those, and why can't you produce studies to support your assertion, if it has been "very clearly scientifically demonstrated to work?

                If not from reported scientific studies, how do you know this?

                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:56:09 AM PDT

                •  I did a little internet research

                  and I now see what johnva is referring to when he mentions "sham" acupuncture. I doubt that would work to allow for patients to be conscious and pain-free during brain surgery, as has been done in China, but I suppose that's anecdotal (and seen on TV, in my case), and it clearly is not done using double-blind studies.

                  Anyway, I think this is pretty interesting, and here's a good overview. I'm seeing that there has been less scientific research on acupuncture than I thought, and there is still more controversy about it than I realized, but while it's bad to make exaggerated claims about the universal efficacy of acupuncture - I found out that it had no effect on a systemic illness I had when I was in high school - there does seem to be pretty clear scientific evidence that it works for back pain, and some evidence of the method by which it may be working.

                  If you want to know more, do your own research. If you decide to search through PubMed, let us know what you come up with.

                  by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:11:41 AM PDT

                  •  Acupuncture is not nationally regulated

                    there are no federal standards for practice, no certification standards for schools of acupuncture, and, most importantly, the claims acupuncturists make are not regulated. That is the problem - even fans make exaggerated claims, as you now admit.

                    I'm not opposed to acupuncture, I've used it myself for back pain, treated by a researcher at Shattuck Pain Clinic in Boston. It provided short term but measurable relief.

                    However, as has been pointed out, researchers have produced identical effects with "sham" acupuncture - using special retractable needles that give the patient the illusion that they are being pricked, when they aren't.

                    So, at this point, it seems that whatever efficacy acupuncture has, is a product of a placebo effect.

                    Nonetheless, research continues, and I think that's fine. half the health plans in the US cover acupuncture.

                    What isn't fine is my tax dollars paying for charlatans that promise to cure cancer with acupuncture.

                    Curiously enough, practitioners of acupuncture lobby to be covered by health insurance - but, at the same time, fight against NIH accountability and licensing, and acupuncture and Oriental Medicine schools fight accountability to the kind of standards that medical schools are held to.

                    I know plenty about acupuncture. What became clear in this exchange is that you do not - yet you argued for its efficacy in ways you yourself admit were incorrect.

                    This is why we need to make sure our tax dollars are spent on treatments that have held up to scientific scrutiny, including double-blind tests and all the rest, and which are regulated by federal agencies that represent taxpayer's interests.

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:16:51 AM PDT

                    •  I am in general agreement with you

                      The thing is, acupressure has effects, too. Does the "sham acupuncture" exert pressure on the same points that are pricked by needles in real acupuncture? If so, it is not surprising or troubling that it has the same effectiveness as acupuncture.

                      by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:13:15 PM PDT

                      •  Nope, it does not apply pressure.

                        and, even if it did, that would mean that puncturing the skin with needles was nonsense.

                        The effect was 100% placebo.

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:01:48 PM PDT

                        •  What about massage?

                          On a personal basis, I know that I can press points that take away headaches from other people at a pretty good clip. I also have experienced quite a lot of relief - and cure in some cases (cure of spasms, not disease) - from massage of knotted muscles and points pressed to relieve headache.

                          On a personal basis, also, I've found acupressure to be more effective than acupuncture, but I don't think that proves the needles are ineffective.

                          I also doubt the placebo effect is sufficient to explain why in China, they can do brain surgery while the patient is fully awake but subjected to acupuncture. I could be wrong, but I definitely think this needs more study, and I'd like to know more about how the "sham" acupuncture is done without applying any pressure.

                          by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:24:13 PM PDT

                          •  It was an experiment to test efficacy

                            they used special retractable needles that looked like they were going in to the patient but weren't.

                            test subjects didn't know which of them got the real acupuncture and which got the fake acupuncture.

                            The effects patients reported were the same regardless.

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:53:06 PM PDT

              •  That IS part of the point.

                Yes, it's possible that it could work via some other mechanism (such as stimulating release of endorphins). But that's not how acupuncture is sold or practiced by its practitioners. Most of them DO believe in the "meridians" theory and such, and promote it actively. So while it's very much possible that putting needles in a person can help with various kinds of pain, I would rather not have a person who essentially believes that the explanation for this is magic doing that. Magical thinking doesn't help us to explain why things work, which is how we build on discoveries and make BETTER therapies in the future. This is the Achilles' heel of "traditional medicine".

                by johnva on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:37:24 AM PDT

      •  The Point is there is no "science" in religion

        Religion may kill you, but it won't kill germs.  

        And no responsible adult should be conflating science and religious beliefs as if they are equivilent disciplines.  

        It always hurts to have your beliefs attacked by strangers.  But when you believe the Earth is flat, it goes with the territory.  

        Truth is not necessarily an insult in a reality based world.

        by recontext on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for speaking up

        Having studied Christian Science as a young adult, I have great admiration for its teaching in spite of not continuing with the practice - life had more corporeal lessons in store for me.

        But I find it truly offensive that someone would state unequivocally that Christian Scientists KILL their children.  Nearly all of the deaths in Christian Science families I've seen in the news the past two decades have been from things medical science can't cure either - namely meningitis (I always forget if it's the bacterial or viral form that is so tricky).  To be logical, one would have to say that parents who pursue medical attention also KILL their children if they have the same result.

        ON TOP OF THAT, the language of this provision doesn't seem to make provisions to PAY Christian Science practitioners as health care providers of sorts - which would be the only kind of expense I can imagine.  I don't think this line changes anything in terms of what gets paid for.  The diary getting up in arms about this is a bit far-fetched.

        by MsGrin on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:49:45 PM PDT

        •  Meningitis is highly treatable

          The viral form is usually harmless and self-resolving, though miserable, and severe cases respond well to (and should get) supportive treatment. The bacterial form is deadly, but easily treated with antibiotics. People who receive prompt treatment for either form of meningitis have an excellent prognosis. Any case of suspected meningitis needs immediate medical attention and will almost always be treated with antibiotics until lab tests eliminate the possibility of a bacterial infection. Failure to treat early can lead to severe brain or neurological damage and death.

          by kyril on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:37:10 PM PDT

          •  Yes

            and losses happen in both Christian Science and non-CS families, but it's pretty much only the CS families which make the news for it.

            The human condition is a vexing one.  Making sense of who and what we are (and what we are then supposed to DO with that information) is a spiritual question regardless of how we answer.

            IMHO, if there wasn't something to Christian Science, we'd have a lot more deaths documented among those who practice.  

            by MsGrin on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:51:24 PM PDT

            •  CS families make the news

              when the loss is the result of lack of treatment.

              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:56:53 AM PDT

        •  Should we say

          "allow them to die?" Does that feeeel better?

          But I find it truly offensive that someone would state unequivocally that Christian Scientists KILL their children.

          by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:22:36 PM PDT

      •  Aww, c'mon! Try! Pleeeese?

        I can't explain the system of Christian Science belief in a blog comment

        Oh, do try.

        It's a little silly to get all "greatly pained" because MichaelNY mischaracterized your particular stripe of ridiculous bullshit.

        It's as if he said "These people worship pink unicorns" and you got all butthurt because, in fact you worship lavender unicorns.

        If your pain is greater than the difference between pink and lavender unicorns, see a real doctor.

        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:58:40 PM PDT

      •  System? Ha.

        The original beliefs of Christian Science as practiced by Mary Baker Eddy bear surprisingly little resemblance to the beliefs pushed by modern Christian Science churches, from what I can tell.

        Of course, Mary Baker Eddy's own beliefs and pronouncements were grossly self-contradictory and inconsistent.

        I don't think you can call it a system of belief at all.

        This is the typical development of churches, of course -- nothing unique about Christian Science.  

        by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:05:11 PM PDT

      •  Other former Christian Scientists

        Have said, in detail and with examples, exactly what I posted (I can post an anecdote if you like). If it pains you to read this and you think it's inaccurate, doesn't it behoove you to SPECIFICALLY rebut it?

        by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:35:07 PM PDT

  •  They don't have to pay for abortions, but

    we have to pay for their wars, prayer therapy, bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and any thing else they decree.   What is most egregious is that they will get what they want, and the people will get screwed - again.  If this doesn't clearly demonstrate who is still in charge in DC, nothing will.  Tip and rec. for another slap in the face.

    by dkmich on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:41:32 AM PDT

    •  Don't forget bush's war in Iraq...

      by mnguy66 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:05:57 AM PDT

      •  It was the first thing on dk's list...

        by lineatus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:18:38 AM PDT

    •  Can they fund people

      who pray for a miscarrage?

      by Geek of all trades on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:29:31 PM PDT

  •  Aside from the metaphysical ideas of

    meditation and prayer, which do provide some relief and healing benefits to some, I think that prayer (or meditation) should be free and not paid for.

    I also think abortions should be free, and not paid for, but that belief gets me in hot water sometimes...

    :shrug:

    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:53:12 AM PDT

    •  Christian Scientists have "practitioners" who are

      their equivalent to doctors (except a whole lot cheaper--my mother was a practitioner and the going rate a couple of years ago seemed to be $35/hour.)

      This is an actual full-time job for some people (and part-time for some practitioners).  

      Christian Scientists will call a practitioner when they are having a physical or mental problem they can't handle on their own.  Practitioners are listed in CS publications like their Journal and Sentinel.

      A practitioner has to have a certain number of verified healings before they can be listed in the publications.

      Every Wednesday, CS churches have "testimonial" meetings where stories of healings are shared from the pews with others who attend.

      It is not just "praying" but it is all mental work rather than physical applications of anything.

      Christian Scientists do tend to get medical treatment to set broken bones, treat dental problems and get eye glasses.

      Although my mother wore eye glasses for 30 years, she eventually achieved a Christian Science healing of her vision (or so she believes.)  Whether it was CS or not, I can vouch for the fact that she went from very near-sighted when I was growing up to 20/20 vision later.  And no, there is NO chance she had laser surgery.

      by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:11:12 AM PDT

      •  That's nice.

        I'm glad you believe in it. I don't, and won't condone public monies being used to prop up your religious beliefs.

        Anecdotes are a dime a dozen.

        by davewill on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:28:31 AM PDT

        •  Too late

          From the article,

          The Internal Revenue Service allows the cost of the prayer sessions to be counted among itemized medical expenses for income tax purposes -- one of the only religious treatments explicitly identified as deductible by the IRS. Some federal medical insurance programs, including those for military families, also reimburse for prayer treatment.

          I'd never heard about this until now but I'm just amazed that state medical licensing laws haven't been used to crack down on this.  

          You'd think that state and federal physicians' lobbies would be strong enough to prevent people who apparently need no medical training whatsoever from collecting money that ould otherwise go to people trained as physicians.  

          I do believe that a patient's faith can powerfully impact the course of their disease.  But I don't think that praying for someone equates with medical treatment.  

          If you want to slip someone $20 to pray for you, feel free.  Hell, I've prayed for plenty of sick people over the years.  But that isn't medical treatment and your/my/our premiums shouldn't be going to pay for it.

          by gsbadj on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:50:11 AM PDT

          •  Well, there is a difference here.

            They would be allowed to deduct a donation to their church from their taxes. At least the government isn't paying for it directly.

            by davewill on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:01:41 PM PDT

          •  OMFG!

            by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:39:21 PM PDT

      •  I think her "healing" may just have been

        part of the aging process.
        Just as those of us who had 20/20 vision in our youth become increasingly farsighted as we age (and find we need glasses to read), people who started out wearing glasses because they were nearsighted go through the same process, but in a certain sense start out at an advantage, and progress toward more normal vision.

        I know several people in their 60s who no longer wear glasses for that very reason.

        by Donna in Rome on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:47:54 AM PDT

        •  or you end up needing bifocals!

          by CParis on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:57:39 PM PDT

        •  I should have kept reading the comment thread!

          I said much the same thing below and gave my own experience with the exact process you describe.

          Only a few hours later!

          by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:54:40 PM PDT

      •  haha verified healings!

        suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

        can i get a witness?

        by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:52:10 AM PDT

        •  People mock what they don't understand.

          Why are you so sure?

          Because you don't personally have the experience?

          Because you've never seen it in the media?

          Because you think it contradicts laws of nature?

          Do you understand all of the laws of nature?  Does science today?

          Has there been any research of a population of Christian Scientists compared to an equivalent population of non-Christian Scientists for health and morbidity?  (Hint: No)

          Medical science does not have all the answers.  But it does recognize that our bodies are major chemical factories.  So who's to say that thoughts/mental activity could not trigger chemical changes that can heal disease?

          And physics tells us that when you break things down to the smallest components--sub-atomic particles--it's all energy.  Again, is it that hard to imagine the ability of the mind to impact the electrical energy in the body?

          I'm not claiming to know it all.  But I do know that scientific knowledge is constantly growing, changing, evolving, especially as it invents new instruments of measurement to explore what cannot be known with the naked eye.    

          Perhaps someday science will have instruments that can observe and measure things that most people don't know exist today, including the mechanism for thoughts to impact the body.

          by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:28:48 PM PDT

          •  Why not?

            Has there been any research of a population of Christian Scientists compared to an equivalent population of non-Christian Scientists for health and morbidity?  (Hint: No)

            Seems to me it would be something Christian Scientists would love to know. Why hasn't Christian Science done the study? I think I know why, but it would be great to see the results of that study.

            by A Voice on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:52:53 PM PDT

            •  I would love to see such a study

              Although I have not been a practicing Christian Scientist for many years, I was raised in the religion and just hate to see it constantly mischaracterized, as it has been by many commenters in the diary who think they know what it is but they don't.

              A good study like the one I'm suggesting would be expensive--who will sponsor it?

              - The Church is not going to spend their money on it because they would not see a need for it. They believe they know the answer, so why would they bother?  (And as far as using the study to gain converts, well, if it were sponsored by the Church, non-believers would view the results with suspicion anyway.)

              - The medical community is not going to undertake it either--for the same reason.  They believe they know the answer, and with so many diseases to study, why would they spend any money on this?

              Perhaps the government could undertake it as a trial of what therapies and cures actually do get the best result!!!  But I'll bet you don't want to spend your tax dollars, either. :-)  

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:22:32 PM PDT

              •  Well

                If the church were able to demonstrate the effectiveness of their practice, then the amount they could earn in reimbursements from insurers would more than make up for the cost of such a study.

                by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:26:34 PM PDT

                •  Scientologists have a better business model

                  pay first, proof of god later.

                  by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:01:08 PM PDT

                •  The CS church itself earns nothing from

                  the work of practitioners and would receive no reimbursement from government insurance.

                  Practitioners are individuals who are not paid by the church but are paid by their patients.

                  And, as I said earlier, a Christian Science believer would see no more need to fund such a study than a doctor would.  In both cases, they're certain they know the outcome.

                  As for me, I would love to see the study.  And I suspect most Kosssacks and other Americans would be surprised at the findings.

                  by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:29:18 PM PDT

                  •  I am so frequently amazed at the sort of thinking

                    required to maintain a belief in  irrational fantasies.

                    a Christian Science believer would see no more need to fund such a study than a doctor would.  In both cases, they're certain they know the outcome.

                    Inded. People who perceive delusions are just as convinced of their perceptions as those who perceive reality. So how do we know the delusions aren't real and that reality is a delusion?

                    Yeah, I definitely want government policy based on that kind of shit.

                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:46:51 PM PDT

                    •  Obviously you think you know the outcome without

                      the study.  You assume "delusions" regarding something you know NOTHING about.

                      by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:16:28 PM PDT

              •  i can tell you why the church wont study it

                1. Evidence doesn't matter.

                2. When presented with evidence, ignore it.

                3. Attacking the messenger as a godless wont work, since the church would be funding their own failure

                4. they might have to demonstrate a CAUSAL MECHANISM, which, when pressed, they would be left only with their empty prayers.

                by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:38:08 PM PDT

                •  Basis for any of your comments, please.

                  Please cite Christian Science examples and your sources for any of your claims.

                  by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:33:04 PM PDT

                  •  evidence doesn't matter when

                    everythings spiritual and nothing is material.

                    by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

                    •  But they see evidence every day in their

                      material experience.  They do experience healings.

                      An analogy would be the ability to change your dream while you're dreaming.  Your dream isn't "real" but if you know you're dreaming and you can change the direction of your dream you have evidence within the dream of your "real" self who is creating the dream.

                      by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:26:17 PM PDT

                      •  and this is why i dont debate magicians

                        they think they are in the matrix or something.

                        by GillesDeleuze on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:04:01 AM PDT

                        •  Cute :-)

                          by Happy Days on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:34:07 AM PDT

              •  They may not know the precise details of

                this nonsense, but they certainly know enough to know it's nonsense. When I smell bullshit, I may not know the bull's breed and what he was fed, but the smell is pretty unmistakable.

                I was raised in the religion and just hate to see it constantly mischaracterized, as it has been by many commenters in the diary who think they know what it is but they don't.

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:41:50 PM PDT

                •  Sorry but you don't know nearly as much as you

                  think you do.  Your certainty that CS is BS is based on what?

                  by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:39 PM PDT

          •  BTW Self hypnosis

            works! I do it all the time. A great deal of pain can be relieved by relaxation. A great deal of illness causing stress as well. No one questions the healing powers of relaxation. What we question is how that healing power is attributed to a GOD that cannot possibly exist.

            by A Voice on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:56:09 PM PDT

          •  I don't disagree with your belief system

            The issue is two fold: Since CS is a Christian sect, and  there is supposed to be separation of Church and  state, so it is highly improper to have compensation in a government run plan. Unlike Catholic Hospital Systems, where you have doctors and nurses trained in allopathic Western medicine, CS practitioner deal with the metaphysical realm, which is a hard thing to quantify.

            The second issue is parity: Ayurvedic medicine has been around for nearly 2,000 years, and has a good healing record. So in theory, if CS practitioner can be compensated, so should yoga classes and Ayurvedic medicine, which also deals with the realm of the metaphysical and material worlds.

            by ems97007 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:01:32 PM PDT

            •  I agree with everything you say and

              frankly I am amazed that the CS Church still has the clout to get included in bills like this.

              When I was growing up, the church was large and growing.  It already had all kinds of government consideration for its healing approach, e.g. Medicare reimbursement for CS Nursing Home patients.

              Most people my age and younger (including me) did not stay with the church as adults.  Therefore membership has fallen off enormously and the majority of members are probably senior citizens.  

              That's why it surprises me that, with such reduced revenue, they would have the lobbying clout to get in the bill.

              For myself, I'm happy to see CS provided for in the bill because I have seen it do a lot of good.  And that would hold true for Ayurvedic healing, too.  And frankly, if we want a healthy society and would like to prevent more illness, an investment in yoga for all could pay back handsomely over time.

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:39:06 PM PDT

              •  Here's a health recommendation, for free:

                Read the damn U.S. Constitution.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:47:32 PM PDT

              •  What makes you think so?

                Most people my age and younger (including me) did not stay with the church as adults.

                If you have not recovered from the church, you have not left it. And you have not recovered.

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:50:12 PM PDT

          •  Nonsense is different from lack of understanding

            I get it. Some people use supernatural explanations for natural events: thats called myth and magic.

            let me know when you invent your god-ruler to measure how much prayer works.

            by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:13:35 PM PDT

            •  No, you don't get it.

              You definitely don't get it.

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:23:59 PM PDT

              •  from the guy who believes in magic...

                how about something submitted for peer reviewed study?

                by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:31:54 PM PDT

                •  Like I said earlier, I would love to see a peer

                  reviewed study of a population of Christian Scientists compared to a matched population of non-Christian Scientists for both health and morbidity.

                  by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:44:27 PM PDT

                  •  dude. fucking science doesn't work that way

                    correlation is not causation.

                    fucking hell.

                    by GillesDeleuze on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:58:28 AM PDT

                    •  But if CS were quackery, would you not expect

                      such a study to show poorer health and higher morbidity in the population of Christian Scientists?

                      And if you did not find that, what does it mean?  It doesn't mean that medical science makes no difference, because there is ample evidence that it does.

                      Therefore the CS group could not represent "no health care" as you and other posters assume.  A "no health care" group really could not match a group that received health care in terms of health and morbidity.  CS is a form of health care, and if such a study showed that a large CS population showed equal or better health and life expectancy than an equally matched non-CS population I would think it would show you, at the least, that something is happening healthwise with CS treatment.  It could not be "no health care" because "no health care" could not match a "health care group" in outcome.

                      by Happy Days on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:26:06 AM PDT

                      •  there are literally millions of factors

                        that can determine health. do CS group live with less plastics? better diet? physical activity? genetic history?

                        science doesn't just sample things and go "what does it mean"? as if the answer is soooo obvious.

                        variable by variable, fact by fact, science slowly constructs models that correspond to data. not models that correspond to how happydays thinks the world works.

                        ie. correlation is not causation.

                        by GillesDeleuze on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:32:56 AM PDT

                    •  A simpler way to address your comment

                      dude. fucking science doesn't work that way

                      is to consider this.  We all agree that the recent Harvard study (showing people without healthcare insurance dying at rates not experienced by people with insurance) is valid reasearch.

                      Harvard is comparing two broad populations and drawing some conclusions from it.

                      I think my proposed approach of comparing a CS population to a matched non-CS population would be a similar type of approach.

                      by Happy Days on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:32:30 AM PDT

                      •  isolated variables:

                        "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health," said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. "We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."

                        The Journal of the American Medical Association (22 September 1989) reported on a study of more than 5,500 Christian Scientists (drawn from graduates of Principia College, a school that encourages its students to practice Christian Science) as compared to a group of almost 30,000 employing conventional medicine or some other system.[21] The death rate among Christian Scientists from cancer was double the national average, and 6 percent died from causes considered preventable by doctors. The subjects not being Christian Scientists on the average lived four years longer if they were women and two longer if they were men.

                        A similar study was reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[22] This study compared graduates of Principia College to graduates of a Seventh-Day Adventist College (Loma Linda University). Again, the Christian Science cohort had a higher overall mortality rate than the comparison cohort (though the dietary habits of Seventh Day Adventists may make them less susceptible to some diseases than the bulk of the population).[22]

                        The CDC also reports on two measles outbreaks in communities of Christian Scientists: one in 1994[23] and one in 1985 in which three people died.[24] These cases help inspire continuing controversy over religious exemption to vaccination requirements.[25]

                        by GillesDeleuze on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:36:40 AM PDT

                        •  crickets chirping.

                          christian "science" is magical thinking. its part of larger multi-millennial tradition.

                          however, thanks to other forms of thinking, we can treat diseases.

                          by GillesDeleuze on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:10:52 AM PDT

              •  "Get it" is a Scientology phrase.

                And "You don't get it" is a standard defense of irrationality.

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:52:35 PM PDT

                •  "Get it" was directly based on YOUR comment.

                  I was responding to your comment saying "I get it" followed by a statement that clearly demonstrated that you did not get it.  (See above.)  Frankly, it's not a phrase that I normally use.

                  by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:34:48 PM PDT

          •  Logical Fallacy: God of the gaps

            Why is it that everytime science takes a little while to find an answer, psycho christians are sticking their god in there.

            you god-thing doesn't belong in that hole.

            by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:15:24 PM PDT

          •  On that subject

            May I ask what kind of scientific background do you have? Have you studied chemistry and atomic physics?

            I understand that there are quite a number of studies of placebos that have demonstrated a clear mind-body link. So medical science as I understand it does in fact say that thoughts/mental activity do affect health and disease.

            by Geek of all trades on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:35:02 PM PDT

            •  there is no mind. a brain/body link

              is pretty easy to explain.

              by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:39:16 PM PDT

              •  I use mind

                for volation and knowledge, and brain for direct biochemitry and nerve function. Sticking electrodes into the tissue is a brain effect. Chemical neutrotransmitter precursers as medication (as a number of antidepressents are) is a brain effect. Telling someone the special Placebo pills can help them is a mind effect.

                I do understand your point, mind is a loosely defined word compared to brain, and brain function and the body is a significant subject.

                by Geek of all trades on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:52:10 PM PDT

            •  "Atomic physics"??

              You know, reading pop-pseudoscientific books about how quantum physics "proves" all the woo-woo New Age BS about the "spiritual universe", does not count as "scientific background".

              When you note that "thoughts/mental activity do affect health and disease", you neglect to mention that this refers to thoughts/mental activity of the individual in whom certain effects are measured - not the cleverly insinuated implication that if I pray/think good thoughts/fart in your general direction, it is going to affect YOUR health and disease.

              by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:50:56 PM PDT

              •  I was not insinuating

                I was being lazy. I though I was being clear by specifically mentioning the placebo effect.

                by Geek of all trades on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:54:02 PM PDT

              •  thank YOU!

                pop-pseudoscientific books about how quantum physics "proves" all the woo-woo New Age BS about the "spiritual universe", does not count as "scientific background".

                My husband learned physics that clunky old fashioned way -- PhD from UC Berkeley.

                He swears there was not a single lecture on how kitties go to heaven and dead grannies visit us in the form of golden light.

                Obviously, he was cutting class that day, because no reputable program would dream of leaving out the super-coolest, hecka deep, totally like wow part of physics!

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:01:29 PM PDT

            •  Key phrase: "medical science as I understand it"

              Is there a neuroscientist in the house!!!???

              by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:56:03 PM PDT

          •  you must have this many miracles to ride! nt

            by GillesDeleuze on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:36:19 PM PDT

          •  No, people mock false claims.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:45:56 PM PDT

          •  Actually yes, there was.

            Has there been any research of a population of Christian Scientists compared to an equivalent population of non-Christian Scientists for health and morbidity?  (Hint: No)

            Hint: wrong.  The answer is "Yes".

            Christian Scientists tend to live less long and die more often.  

            by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:08:26 PM PDT

            •  Source, please.

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:37:44 PM PDT

          •  More frequently, people mock what is

            ridiculous.

            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

          •  No, I mock the notion of paying for prayer or

            prayer having a tax repercussion.

            by qofdisks on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:40:53 PM PDT

            •  I mock Ryan Seacrest kissing girls, but my point

              still stands...

              by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:03:14 PM PDT

      •  So did I, and I'm not a Christian Scientist

        It's a known physiological phenomenon that people who are nearsighted in their younger adulthood will become more farsighted as they age, thus correcting their vision. My distance vision is very close to 20/20, if not right on the money (it may well be). It's only for reading that I require glasses, and that, too, is due to aging eyes. On my current pair of prescription glasses, which are bifocals, the distance part is pretty much pro forma and only there to allow me to keep them on more of the time rather than only putting them on when I have to read something and then taking them back off. Frankly, my distance vision is better and clearer without them, so I still wind up taking them out only when I have to read something and then putting them away.

        by Kitsap River on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:52:35 AM PDT

        •  I've heard of that, too,

          But just for the record, she read without glasses as well.  

          by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:04:44 PM PDT

      •  I started out with severe myopia(nearsightedness)

        but as I got older my eyesight improved to the point that at 65 I no longer wear glasses to read.  This is a normal consequence of aging.  Those who started out with normal vision when young become 'farsighted' when old.  Farsightedness is called presbyopia (old age vision) for a reason.  The shape of the eyeball changes with age, nothing miraculous--though I am grateful for it none the less.

        No prayers or woo necessary.

        by triplepoint on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:18:50 PM PDT

      •  $35/hour is a lot to pay

        ... for something that has such little basis in medical fact.  I certainly don't want my tax dollars keeping that practice in business.

        by IPLawyer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:23:44 PM PDT

        •  On the other hand, ALL her patients were healed.

          None of them died.  None of them suffered complication or injury.  

          Even if all her patients had "minor" illnesses, the problems were things for which non-Christian Scientists would have incurred a doctor visit and  prescription medicine.

          The traditional medical route would have been far more expensive to the taxpayer for all of these people under our new HCR than a CS practitioner.

          by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:50:43 PM PDT

          •  Evidence of causation?

            The fact that its cheaper than traditional medicine isn't the issue.  The latter has proven effectiveness.  I reiterate my point that $35/hour is a lot for the taxpayer to pay for a service that is not supported by evidence.  A few anecdotes about correlation do not establish that CS causes healing, and even ignoring the clear religious entanglement issues I would not support throwing money at this business when there is no evidence of its effectiveness.

            by IPLawyer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:10:25 PM PDT

            •  Call it a coincidence--they were all healed.

              This is not a few anecdotes.  This was my mother's practice over years.  Hundreds of cases.

              Had these people not been Christian Scientists, they would have gone to medical doctors for treatment that would have been much more costly and could have caused additional problems from side effects from medicines or getting infections in hospitals.  Just sayin'.

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:43:10 PM PDT

              •  I cure people over the Internet

                Just send me $15 via PayPal. I guarantee you it will improve someone health and well-being. You do care about your fellow humans, don't you?

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:52:28 PM PDT

              •  Or something else healed them.

                Or their immune system fought it.  Or it was a self-correcting thing, like the vision.  Look, your reasoning is the same as the right-wingers saying that invading Iraq and following the rest of Bush's abusive foreign and domestic policies were the right thing to do because, well, just look -- we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11!

                In addition to the concerns I have about effectiveness, I still question that price tag on the grounds that the therapy seemingly costs very little to administer.

                by IPLawyer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:17:52 PM PDT

                •  I like and respect your comments

                  These are all fair points.

                  I would only say that the "cost to administer" seems irrelevant to me.  I mean, it's someone's time.  It's paying for labor or professional services or whatever you want to call it.  There's no issue of materials or cost of goods.  

                  I realize that it's hard for many to see CS work as "labor"--you look at it as just saying some prayers, like anybody can do any time, any place, and should be happy to do for free for anyone in need.

                  But CS practitioners are not "just saying some prayers" for people.  That's not how it works.  It is not begging God, petitioning God, etc.  It has to do with study, with "understanding," with finding the best citations in the Bible and in Science & Health to work with for the particular case, working with the patient himself or herself to bolster their understanding and their ability to access the "Truth" within themself.

                  CS takes years of study and is very misunderstood by the general public who generally throws into the same bucket all religions that have an element of faith healing.

                  by Happy Days on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:55:27 AM PDT

              •  Had these people not been Christian Scientists...

                there would be documentation of their actual physical problems before mama's "treatments" and verifiable evidence afterwards that there had been scientifically inexplicable changes in their illnesses and disorders.

                And these verifiable facts would have swept the world and we would all be Christian Scientists today.

                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:21:43 PM PDT

          •  I don't believe it.

            (1) Who, precisely, is doing the independent reporting on this?  You can't trust her, obviously.
            (2) Did she preselect her patients to eliminate those who wouldn't be healed?
            (3) Sample size?

            by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:11:04 PM PDT

            •  Again, have you gone through and

              followed up with every single one of her patients?  After a few months or a year?

              Don't underestimate the placebo effect.  People routinely feel better if they think they've been treated.  But it wears off, and they're back to being sick.

              by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:12:41 PM PDT

          •  All those amputated limbs grew back? All those

            cleft palates got better?

            Those spina bifida sufferers left her tent turning cartwheels?

            The morbidly obese were down to size 2 by the time the ink dried on the check?

            Dwarfs bumped their heads on the doorjamb as they departed?

            Cojoined twins drove away in separate cars?

            Yes?

            WOW!!!!

            I must say, I AM impressed! I had supposed she was one of those grifters that prey on the squishy verifications of the desperate and  deluded.

            But now that I know that the one-armed man clapped enthusiastically at the end of the "treatment," I'm a true believer.

            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:16:28 PM PDT

      •  Christian science

        not just a religion! A job opportunity! Please. You want respect, don't try to con me into thinking this is anything but a livelihood gained from the suffering of others. Jesus didn't charge for curing the sick, how do you think this is doing his work? I can respect the Medical Industry, although I vehemently disagree with the entire system. At least they don't pretend it is about anything but money.

        Doing GOD's work at $35 an hour? If it wasn't so horrid, I would laugh. I know, it isn't just Christian Scientists. Anyone charging for a connection to GOD's healing power gets no respect from me. And plenty of ridicule.

        by A Voice on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:49:37 PM PDT

        •  So far as we know, Jesus wasn't paid for

          anything.  So does that mean that today ministers and priests should have no permanent home and receive no income but rather live off of the goodwill of strangers?  Your outrage that "doing God's work" could provide a livelihood kind of suggests that approach.

          A very small percentage of Christian Scientists are practitioners--believe me, money is NOT the driving force behind Christian Science.  

          In fact, it's a very non-materialistic religion that does not see power and glory in material objects, but focuses on the spiritual.

          And it's certainly not like the televangelist thing where your leaders become multi-millionaires off of the labors of working people in the congregation.  

          I know many rich Christian Scientists, and none of them is a practitioner. They tend to be business people, lawyers etc. whose very positive outlooks seem to have helped them succeed extraordinarily well in their chosen careers.

          by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

          •  Actually, I think according to Jesus, the

            answer is "yes."

            does that mean that today ministers and priests should have no permanent home and receive no income but rather live off of the goodwill of strangers?

            ...not that Jesus has much of a say in such things...

            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:24:36 PM PDT

            •  Cool. Most people would not take that position.

              by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:47:09 PM PDT

      •  My opthalmologist husband

        can tell you that many people, esp. those who are very near sighted when they were young, have improved vision as they age because the shape of their eyes change naturally. My atheist brother, now 70, wore glasses from high school until he was about 50, then didn't need them anymore. I assure you, he wasn't cured by a CS practitioner or anyone else.

        by smeesq on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:50:34 PM PDT

      •  Some people go from near sighted to far sighted

        as they age. Now if you tell me your mom went from 20/200 to 20/20 the minute after she was 'prayed on' then I'll convert to whatever mumble-jumble you believe in right now.

        by icemilkcoffee on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:56:50 PM PDT

      •  I know what happened to your mom's eyes.

        Same thing happened to me.

        My vision slid to about 20/200 by the time I was 11, and I wore glasses or contacts all my life from that point.

        When a person gets to be middle-aged, if his or her vision is good, it starts to deteriorate and get more far-sighted. My eye doctor explained that to me.

        However, because I was so near-sighted, as my eyes changed to far-sightedness, I found that I didn't even need my glasses for things that I couldn't see before.

        Same with my own mom. She only wore glasses to drive for my entire life. When she was about 55, she went to get her driver's license renewed, and she passed the eye test without her glasses. Suddenly, the restriction was lifted from her license!

        It's a natural human condition of our eyes to change as we age. Your mom, my mom, and I just got lucky.

        If you live long enough, it starts to go bad again for most of us. My mom lasted about 20 years, and she had to go to wearing glasses full time.

        by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:52:16 PM PDT

      •  This is too hysterical!

        Christian Scientists have "practitioners" who are their equivalent to doctors

        Not exactly. They are equivalent to "phrenologists."

        my mother was a practitioner and the going rate a couple of years ago seemed to be $35/hour.

        That's not bad. There's a woman in a basement apartment a couple of blocks from me who reads palms, and she only gets ten bucks a pop.

        A practitioner has to have a certain number of verified healings before they can be listed in the publications.

        Indeed. And it is precisely these rigorous standards that separate the practitioners from the charlatans.

        CS churches have "testimonial" meetings where stories of healings are shared from the pews with others who attend.

        So unlike a pyramid scheme recruitment event. But do you get a set of steak knives even if you don't sign up?

        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:34:29 PM PDT

    •  Prayer does not work

      While believing that prayer has healing benefits to some is a popular myth, science tells us otherwise.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

      I'm amazed this study is on a government site seeing as it was published in 2006, in throes of the anti-science insanity that was sweeping through the administration.

      So on one hand, we have prayer that has been scientifically proven to not only be ineffective, but actually counterproductive.  On the other hand we have abortions, which I'm pretty sure don't even need a scientific study to show their efficacy.

      by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:41:18 AM PDT

      •  But people don't oppose

        abortion because it isn't scientifically proven or effective, but because it IS. They oppose it on principle, saying it should not be performed at all.

        by Donna in Rome on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:51:32 AM PDT

      •  On prayer and meditation -

        http://menshealth.suite101.com/...

        Praying and meditating
        It is postulated that praying operates along the same biochemical pathways as meditation - affecting stress hormones such as adrenaline and steroids so that blood pressure, heart rate and respiration are reduced. And since the stress hormones have a direct influence on the body's immunological defences against disease, religious activities such as meditation and prayer must of necessity have an impact on the immune system which protects the body from infections and malignancy.

        In medicine, it must be admitted, we often know that something works before we know why it works. What western medicine is now learning is that religion (it doesn't really matter which religion) and meditation (irrespective of what method one uses) are able to positively affect people's health for the better.

        Which is probably something that people in the non-western world have known for a long time.

        http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...

        http://nccam.nih.gov/...

        http://aboutmydiet.com/...

        According to research conducted by David Eisenberg, MD, and his colleagues at Harvard
        Medical School, mind/body medicine is the most widely used alternative medicine used
        today. At the heart of mind/body medicine lays the age-old practice of meditation, a
        quiet, simple technique that has an extraordinary power to boost disease resistance and
        maintain overall health. Focusing the mind continuously on one thought, phrase or
        prayer for a period of time -- naturally leads to the "relaxation response," changes in the
        body that are deeply restorative and which quicken healing. These changes include
        reductions in heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen consumption, blood flow
        to skeletal muscles, perspiration, and muscle tension, as well as an improvement in
        immunity. The relaxation response works much like pushing a "reset" button, enabling
        your body to return to a state of optimal balance. Many studies have been done that show
        the effectiveness of meditation in treating a number of health conditions

        .

        Regular practice of meditation has been found to significantly reduce blood pressure in
        people with hypertension. These reductions can endure over the long term: In one study,
        the reductions achieved during an eight-week program were still in place three years
        later.
        Other studies have focused on meditation in relation to heart disease. For example,
        patients with coronary-artery disease who meditated daily for eight months had nearly a
        15% increase in exercise tolerance. Patients with ischemic heart disease (in which the
        heart muscle receives an inadequate supply of blood) who practiced for four weeks had a
        significantly lower frequency of premature ventricular contractions (a type of irregular
        heartbeat).
        Patients undergoing heart surgery can also significantly lessen anxiety, pain and need for
        medication during and after an angioplasty.

        There's also evidence that meditation has immune-enhancing effects. Medical students
        who meditated during final exams had a higher percentage of "T-helper cells," the
        immune cells that trigger the immune system into action.
        Cancer patients have also experienced the benefits of meditation. In one study, patients
        with metastatic (spreading) cancer who meditated with imagery regularly for a year had
        significant increases in natural-killer cell activity.

        I personally meditate daily, because I am a Buddhist (we don't pray in the classical Christian sense).

        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:54:58 AM PDT

        •  None of this refers to the "power of prayer"

          to heal someone else.

          It just points out that prayer, like meditation, or, as has been documented, concentrating during a chess game or any other focused intellectual activity, releases certain chemicals in the brains of the people engaging in the activity.

          For that matter, I haven't heard anyone here object to individual meditation. Neither that nor prayer costs me, the taxpayer, anything.

          Since the discussion here is about alleged prayer therapy - meaning I pray for you, you get better - and my taxdollars paying for that flim flam - your comment is irrelevant. Hopefully not deliberately misleading, just beside the point.

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:55:57 PM PDT

          •  Now you done it!

            Baby Jesus is crying and it's YOUR FAULT!

            This really is a comical conundrum. The "pray your way to health" crowd desperately wants validity, but the sparse smatterings of supporting evidence are --surprise!! -- purely scientific in nature. No voo-doo, no "christian" science, no prayer-chain on facebook...

            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:29:09 PM PDT

      •  Actually, prayer does work.

        Not just the way they claim it does. It is called self-hypnosis and it has been going on a long time with many beneficial results.  The thing is, it happens in the brain and involves the active release of chemicals (self-made drugs) into the blood stream. That isn't miraculous enough for some people, I guess. So they have to make up something to wow people into parting with their cash.

        by A Voice on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:03:05 PM PDT

    •  When you say "free", you mean my taxdollars

      should subsidize your prayer treatments.

      Not in this Constitutional republic.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:44:42 PM PDT

  •  Christian Scientists pay their practitioners

    for healing. They also have Christian Science Nurses and Christian Science Sanitoriums which attend to the physical needs of the patient while they undergo treatment. I provide this as fact, not endorsement.

    I expect a lot of fearful and ignorant comments about Christian Science because it is a small sect and they understandably keep a low profile. If we truly believe in the freedom of religion, than this provision is necessary.

    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:02:17 AM PDT

    •  There is a difference between

      freedom of religious practice and government subsidy of it.

      People are free to believe in creationism - that doesn't mean we pay our teachers in public schools to teach it.

      People are free to believe in prayer therapy - again, I'm not clear why the government should be subsidizing it.

      The government should pay for health care that has clinical evidence to support it.

      by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:18:56 AM PDT

      •  I think that's the key

        When they have a peer reviewed study that shows that prayer has a real effect on patient outcome, we should cover it.

        I don't think there are any. There might be in the future. Massage and accupuncture were seen as non-traditional too not that long ago.

        by mmacdDE on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:33 AM PDT

        •  Here's a peer-reviewed study

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

          "CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

          by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:46:23 AM PDT

          •  One study out of thousands.

            Wow.

            There are many to contradict that. Why your study over the others?

            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:37 AM PDT

            •  Thousands?

              There are thousands of studies that support the effects of prayer on healing?

              I'd be curious to see your citation list.

              Here's one review of ten recent studies.

              by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

              •  It was typo. I mean hundreds.

                But yes, there are quite a few out there.  I'll see if I can provide you the Google link.  This has been an area of intense interest for a long, long time, not just since 2006.

                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:05:20 PM PDT

                •  Interest yes

                  Results, not so much.

                  Here's another meta-analysis of 14 studies.

                  by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:07:40 PM PDT

                  •  Disagree.

                    Besides personal, anecdotal evidence for it, there are plenty of studies that support the health benefits of meditation and prayer - and not only in times of stress, but as an approach towards disease prevention (by allaying stress).

                    http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/...

                    When discussing the relationship of brain and behavior, the materialist view of human experience runs into conflict with the historically dominant religious accounts. Recent studies, however, suggests that there may be a "middle view" between the two world-views. Religions, especially Buddhism, stress the role of meditation in one's spiritual growth. Meditation has tangible psychological and physiological benefits, though, which can be explained strictly in neurobiological terms. Understanding of how meditation affects the brain, and, by extension, human behavior, also gives insight into consciousness, the role of feedback loops, and the nature of the I-function.

                    (I hope Bryn Mawr is an acceptable source.)

                    number of scientists have begun to study the medicinal effects of meditation, specifically in reducing stress-related ailments. According to Dr. Herbert Benson, 60-90% of doctor's office visits are caused by stress " (8). Dr. Benson notes that the neurochemical effects of meditation directly oppose the "fight-or-flight" mechanism, due to the effects meditation has on the autonomic nervous system. As a result, the effect of meditation or, in this study, prayer, on the brain is called the "relaxation response." The amygdala, part of the limbic system, controls this response. This part of the brain is also associated with religious faith since when it or the hippocampus is stimulated in surgery, patients raised in Western cultures can experience visions of angels and devils. The amygdala gives rise to both the relaxation brought about by Zen meditation and the general sense of serenity associated with spirituality. For this reason, many scientists are starting to believe that belief in religion in virtually all human societies can be explained as an evolutionary adaptation rather than an anthropological truth or the result of divine revealed truth (9). If this claim is true, meditation makes productive use of whatever pathways are associated with religious experience, giving a right view of experience as we are genetically disposed to see it.

                    http://whenonepercent.org/...

                    Western medicine has discovered over the last 25 years that the body and mind are closely connected. Our health is tremendously affected by beliefs, emotions, thoughts, and stress. Meditation or quieting prayer is one practice which individuals can do for their own health or healing. Pioneering research by many, including Dr. Herbert Benson, Dr. Dean Ornish, Joan Borysenko, Ph.D., and Jon Kabat-Zinn, Ph.D. has shown that individuals of any and all faith traditions can have a better health outcome with daily meditation or quieting prayer.

                    (There are two studies linked at the bottom of the page, for you to check out.)

                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:18:09 PM PDT

                    •  Meditation can reduce stress

                      I believe that, sure.  But there's a big difference between meditating to reduce mental stress and praying to cure your cancer.

                      by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:28:30 PM PDT

                      •  No one said it replaces

                        treatment.  That's in YOUR mind.

                        I am no Christian Scientist.

                        I do not like it when people make broad, sweeping generalizations like 'prayer and meditation do not have any benefits.'  Usually, that kind of judgment passing comes from atheists who have a vested interest in debunking what they do not understand or participate in.

                        I am specifically saying that meditation and prayer DO have health benefits, are generally viewed as NOT detrimental to patients, in healing, disease management and stress alleviation.

                        I never said 'miracle cure' or any of that business, but leave it to most of the people on this site to go extremes on this, as they do everything else.

                        There is benefit to many.  I am one.  I had HBP (not diet and exercise related). I am a vegetarian and a healthy weight.  HBP with me is genetic.  With meditation as part of my lifestyle, I have been able to get my HBP to normal levels without medication.

                        Say whatever you like about that, but it works.

                        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:32:12 PM PDT

                        •  Rich in irony:

                          Usually, that kind of judgment passing comes from atheists who have a vested interest in debunking what they do not understand or participate in.

                          by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:44:02 PM PDT

                          •  Or truth. nt

                            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:32:12 PM PDT

                        •  OK but

                          There are a lot of non-medical things I can do to help my health which don't come with a price tag to be paid by the insurance company or the government.

                          If I go to the gym and lose weight I'm not going to be able to get the government or my insurance company to pay for my gym membership or my sneakers, even if it does help my health.

                          If I spend my money on fruits and vegetables instead of french fries and cigarettes, same deal.

                          If I want to spend my time doing yoga and meditating, fantastic, but I'm not clear how that is any different than the above two examples.  Why should they be paid for when the above two are not?

                          by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:50:20 PM PDT

                          •  Meditation and yoga are

                            part of integrated medicine therapy regimes.  I expect if I see an MD who is an integrated medicine specialist, what he prescribes for me will be covered.

                            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:37:53 PM PDT

                            •  I guess it depends on the insurer.

                              I don't think yoga is covered by my plan.

                              by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:41:57 PM PDT

                        •  Again, meditiation is not prayer healing.

                          Vastly different things. Please do not conflate the two.

                          Still waiting to see those hundreds of peer-reviewed studies supporting prayer healing...

                          by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:14:55 PM PDT

                          •  I didn't say I believe in prayer healing.

                            Why do you insist on that.  I said meditation and prayer have health benefits. I never said it was miracle cure.  That's YOU putting ideas into my words that are not there.

                            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

                            •  But that's what this whole thread is about.

                              It's in the title, even.  "Prayer therapy."

                              by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:34:43 PM PDT

                              •  I understand. So you misunderstood

                                from the start.

                                All I asked people to do was not throw baby out with the bath water, but you did anyway.

                                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:35:32 PM PDT

                                •  Uh

                                  I think you're the one that responded to a comment specific to an NIH link on prayer (NOT meditation) that got this whole thing started.  My first comment mentioned prayer, not meditation.

                                  But whatever.

                                  by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:39:02 PM PDT

                          •  PS I never said prayer healing so

                            I don't owe you any studies.

                            I said prayer and meditation have health benefits.  Try reading comprehension.

                            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:32:01 PM PDT

                            •  Translation:

                              I was wrong, but part of my belief system is that admitting error is an inexcusable sign of weakness, so I can never admit that. Plus, since I'm only here to "win", not to share learning, I have to obnoxiously keep insisting that everyone else is wrong and misinterpreting me, rather than contemplate even for one single second the possibility that I might have been wrong.
                              Ergo, I WINNNN!!!!!!!

                              by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:01:25 PM PDT

                        •  Uh-oh. You DK bastard-people are at it again!

                          leave it to most of the people on this site to go extremes on this, as they do everything else.

                          Okay, look:
                          There is a significant difference between prayer and meditation. Religionists love to claim the benefits of meditation as benefits of "prayer" because that way they can pretend that their Flying Pink Unicorn came unto them upon their prayerful solicitations and didst fix their poor ailing whatever.

                          Meditation has some positive effects. Does that mean God Is My Oncologist? No.

                          by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:40:29 PM PDT

                    •  Deliberately confusing the effects

                      of meditation on oneself, and the alleged effects of praying for someone (for a fee) on the other someone's health.

                      This is what blind faith does to people - it makes them rationalize even engaging in deliberate deception, in order to promote their beliefs.

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:58:43 PM PDT

                    •  Meditation has many benefits.

                      It has damn near nothing to do with prayer.  Prayer by other people for you is worthless according to all studies.

                      Meditation is another matter -- meditation is actually very useful, and can allow you to manipulate stress hormone levels, heart rate, breathing rate, other hormone levels, neurotransmitter levels, et cetera.  Which can obviously have substantial effects on many illnesses.

                      by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:15:09 PM PDT

                •  typos

                  I'm not sure how thousands can be considered a typo when you meant hundreds, but whatever.  Thsi is a typo.  You may have misspoken.

                  We're still waiting on those peer-reviewed Google links.

                  Hundreds of them.

                  by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:24:53 PM PDT

                  •  I gave some links above.

                    Of course, nothing will satisfy you, as you have made your mind up and decided how you want to view the situation.

                    There are many reputable outlets, including leading cancer hospitals and the like that employ holistic health approaches and have Integrated Medicine staff, including physicians on board.

                    Part of their regimen is daily meditation.

                    I suppose they're guilty of quackery, too?

                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:26:58 PM PDT

                  •  well, because I estimated up.

                    There are 700 studies listed from various sources.

                    It's close to a thousand, in my mind, but technically, it's in the upper hundreds.

                    So sue me.

                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:27:47 PM PDT

                    •  Wrong

                      The site says there are 700 studies.  I say the moon is made out of green cheese.

                      As far as the Bryn Mawr link goes, it says quite plainly at the top of the page:

                      "This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations"

                      So absolutely no peer-review there except for the teacher that graded the paper.

                      It's probably just me, but a link to Men's Health doesn't really qualify as a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal.

                      I understand you think I'm being difficult, but all I'm asking is for one peer-reviewed article that says prayer helps cure disease.  

                      I am not arguing about meditation as you seem to think.  It's obvious that deep relaxation techniques can help lower blood pressure in the same way as smashing your finger with a hammer will surely raise it.

                      Meditation is not magic, and therefore can have some beneficial effects.  Praying is magic and therefore cannot be proven to work, because there is no such thing as magic.

                      by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:06:52 PM PDT

                      •  You know what?

                        Thank you for conceding meditation is not magic or voodoo.  It works.  That's enough for me.

                        I don't believe in prayer healing.  I never said that. I merely said prayer and meditation had health benefits, and for many they do.

                        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:34:51 PM PDT

                        •  Conflating Meditation and prayer

                          You do realize that prayer and meditation are two different things?  That is why there are two words for the two different things.

                          This thread is about prayer therapy.  Please go find a thread about meditation where someone cares about your views on the subject.

                          Once again, you start by saying you don't believe in prayer healing and then immediately say that prayer has health benefits, which has been scientifically proven to be false.

                          You win the meditation argument that no one but you was making.  Congratulations on your argument with yourself.  One would hope and expect you to win an argument with yourself.

                          I am still waiting on ONE peer-reviewed scientific article about prayer, not meditation.  You say prayer has health benefits for some and I say that is bullshit.  

                          You link to Men's magazines, student papers, the Maharishi University of Management and an old Nih newsletter with a disclaimer that the information therein is dated and is only online for historical purposes.

                          Excuse me for doubting your grasp of logic, but you've earned it, now own it.

                          by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:04:29 PM PDT

                      •  mantheist, yiou are sooooo wrong!

                        Men's Health doesn't really qualify as a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal.

                        I'll have you know the guy on the cover of the August issue totally cured my erectile dysfunction!

                        You believe in your science and I'll believe in mine!

                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:47:41 PM PDT

                  •  Damn you.

                    Im posted about that "typo" about 12 hours after you did.

                    It's like politicians saying they "mis-spoke." What the fuck does that mean?

                    I meant to say "we need to deal with the criminals who carried out this attack on the Worl Trade Center" but I mis-spoke and said, "Let's bomb the shit out of Iraq!"

                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:44:27 PM PDT

                •  A typo for "hundreds" is "hunrdeds."

                  "Thousands" is kind of a ... different thing altogether.

                  by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:32:50 PM PDT

              •  Correction

                That link was a discussion of this review.

                CONCLUSIONS: These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer,the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.

                by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:06:01 PM PDT

                •  I'd be curious if these doctors would

                  go on the record stating they were atheists or not.

                  Seems there's a lot of other evidence out there, including something published just a couple of days ago, that doesn't agree.

                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:25:05 PM PDT

                  •  Irrelevant

                    The results are based on the data.  When the two groups have the same outcome, that shows there's no effect.  Doesn't matter what the doctor's personal spirituality is.

                    by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:46:17 PM PDT

                    •  So, let me understand you:

                      Doctors who have faith, their results must be biased by their faith.

                      Atheist doctors, results not biased by their lack of faith.

                      Hmmm....And who holds the bias here?

                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:06:17 PM PDT

                      •  I really don't know

                        how you got that interpretation from what pat said. A complete 180.

                        by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:15:48 PM PDT

                        •  Well, I'm sure he can clarify for me.

                          People of faith aren't to be trusted, right?  Because their faith makes them loonies...that seems to be the implication here.

                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:32:15 PM PDT

                        •  The doctors in my links have faith.

                          Their data is suspect, apparently.  They believe their outcomes.  Those outcomes have been trashed.

                          Does it a take a lot to make the logical deduction there?

                          Or, to put it another way, do you think atheist doctors are ever guilty of bias?

                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:33:54 PM PDT

                          •  What are you talking about?

                            As I recall, those links were all about meditation, which no one is claiming is not beneficial.

                            And I don't remember anyone discounting any study due to the faith of the doctors, rather due to the fact that they were not actual peer-reviewed scientific studies.

                            I could be wrong, so if you can point me to where that happened, please do.

                            by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:40:26 PM PDT

                            •  Please show me where someone

                              agreed meditation and prayer were beneficial.

                              Anyone will do.

                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:42:26 PM PDT

                              •  No one

                                except you was even talking about meditation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, you brought it up for some bizarre, unknown reason.

                                And you fail to see the distinction between your own private prayer (sitting in a room quietly and thinking about god, as you put it) and intercessory prayer (aka prayer therapy). Why would your own private prayer need to be covered by health insurance?

                                No one is talking about that, you are arguing with yourself.

                                by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:50:40 PM PDT

                          •  If the data is suspect,

                            and yet they still believe their outcomes, then the issue is not their religious faith, it is their unscientific faith in suspect data.

                            The data does not support your claims. You continue to make irrelevant detours into incendiary issues, seeking to pit atheists against theists, when the issue here is of taxpayer support, in a public health plan proposal, for religious practices that have no proven medical efficacy.

                            The faith of the scientist is not the issue. The data is the issue. Data knows no faith.

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:41:15 PM PDT

                            •  The data does not support the claim

                              that meditation and prayer are beneficial for health?

                              Wow.  You did not read a thing.

                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:43:15 PM PDT

                              •  You are the one that called the data

                                suspect.

                                And, no, the data does not support the claim that praying for another person will effect that person's health.

                                Nor does the data support the notion that my tax dollars should support your faith healing.

                                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:45:08 PM PDT

                                •  Done with you.

                                  You're a nasty piece of work who engages in personal attacks with people on the internet you don't know, you can't know anything about their lives and you think it's okay to say whatever you want to win.

                                  Well, I've never thought then ends (shitting all over people) justified the means (winning), but apparently you do.

                                  I've let my fiance know all about your nastiness and he's told me to walk away from you, so that's what I'm going to do.

                                  I would tell you to be ashamed of your mean-spirited attacks but that would require a level of self-awareness that I just don't believe you possess.

                                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:49:11 PM PDT

                                  •  Oh, dear.

                                    I've let my fiance know all about your nastiness and he's told me to walk away from you, so that's what I'm going to do.

                                    It's good to have a Higher Power, even if you have to wash his underwear.

                                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:52:36 PM PDT

                                    •  Nasty remark, nasty person.

                                      What a hideous human being you are.

                                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

                                      •  'scuse me , Pollyanna. You just called somebody

                                        "the most shitty person I've ever come across" because they tried to inflict a little rational thinking on you, but I'm a "hideous human being" for making an underwear joke?

                                        Honey, you need to give up the meditating and go straight for the prozac.

                                        And while you're chatting with the admins, ask them about HR'ing people when you're arguing with them. It's against the rules.

                                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:41:41 PM PDT

                                        •  HR'd for personal attack -

                                          which is against the rules.  

                                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:55:56 PM PDT

                                        •  So telling me to wash my fiance's underwear

                                          is injecting a little rational thought into the debate?

                                          Hmm, didn't think so.

                                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

                                          •  You're in no position to demand rational thought

                                            as a criterion for posting. I mean, really. You have recoiled in fury from every rational thought people have presented to you, and you have stringently avoided any trace of rational thought in your own comments

                                            And the underwear joke was somewhat  funnier than your retelling of it.

                                            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:14:38 PM PDT

                                        •  I see, so people who don't agree with

                                          you should be medicated.  Control freak much?

                                          I never made this personal for you, never attacked your character, your sanity, your personal life.

                                          Yet, now you have - twice.

                                          That says way more about your character than mine.

                                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:57:47 PM PDT

                                    •  Reported to admins -

                                      personal attack.

                                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:55:55 PM PDT

                                      •  Admins get really upset over underwear jokes.

                                        Thank God someone is reporting this sort of terrorism.

                                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:43:13 PM PDT

                                •  I DO NOT BELIEVE IN

                                  FAITH HEALING.  NEVER ONCE HAVE I SAID THAT.

                                  I do believe prayer and meditation have health benefits.  That is all I've ever said, yet you'll distort that til the cows come home.

                                  Does it make you feel good to bully other people?  

                                  Well, have at it.

                                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:50:54 PM PDT

                                  •  If you believe "prayer" has benefits apart from

                                    the meditative aspect of those prayers (in which case religion is irrelevant) then you are believing in Faith Healing.

                                    Do you believe non-meditative prayer has benefits? You know, one of those sweaty "help me Jesus" things you mumble while you're dashing up six flights of stairs? I think climbing stairs has good benefits, but the "help my fat ass, Jesus" part has nothing to do with it.

                                    See the diff?

                                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:56:42 PM PDT

                                    •  I am not a Christian so no

                                      I don't believe "jesus prayer" wtf that means works.

                                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:58:25 PM PDT

                                      •  Well than stop prattling on about the "benefits

                                        of prayer and meditation" if you just mean the benefits of meditation. Duh.

                                        And if you don't have some sort of religious bee in your bonnet, why are you talking crazy about atheists?

                                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:01:38 PM PDT

                                        •  Meditation -

                                          some people don't call meditation, meditation.  Some people call it prayer.  I was trying to be inclusive, dammit.  Not bigoted, like I've been accused of being here.

                                          I am not talking crazy about atheists.  I merely wondered (aloud, and to my apparent eternal fucking regret) why the motives of those doctors who claim to have religion are suspect while the motive and data of those who claim to have no religion are automatically assumed to have integrity.

                                          Either it matters, or it doesn't.  You don't get to shit all over the integrity of people who have a faith, and give a pass to those who don't have it - just because you're sympathetic to their views.

                                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:05:04 PM PDT

                                          •  No one said that.

                                            I merely wondered (aloud, and to my apparent eternal fucking regret) why the motives of those doctors who claim to have religion are suspect while the motive and data of those who claim to have no religion are automatically assumed to have integrity.

                                            It's in your mind - I've asked you to show me in case I missed it, and you couldn't.

                                            No one here even knows what faith the authors of the study are, do they?

                                            by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:13:56 PM PDT

                                            •  That's why I asked if anyone knew.

                                              It was a harmless inquiry that people decided to use to bludgeon me with.

                                              I was merely musing aloud, as whenever the atheists come out to play they seem to take whatever data they provide as sacrosanct (pun intended) but question the means, motive and possible faith of any source that controverts their personal (lack of) belief system.

                                              Believe me, I'll never do that again.  I thought people on this site could handle it, but clearly they couldnt and proceeded to personally attack me for what they perceived I said.

                                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:16:21 PM PDT

                                              •  I can't let that slide, sorry.

                                                You're being disingenuous again. No one had even mentioned (that I could see) the faith of any author or questioned their personal motives on that basis.

                                                And what you did was not simply ask "if anyone knew". You said:

                                                I'd be curious if these doctors would
                                                go on the record stating they were atheists or not.

                                                You clearly implied that this would make a difference to the data presented. Why else would you bring it up and state it in this fashion? No one else implied such a thing. In fact, they all said it was completely irrelevant (which it is).

                                                by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:24:59 PM PDT

                                                •  It was curiosity, nothing more,

                                                  and you're looking for a hidden agenda that just isn't there.

                                                  I implied no such thing.  You choosing to read that into my comment isn't my responsibility.

                                                  Yes, my point was to say please don't call into question provided by people of faith saying their faith makes the data suspect and then expect them not to ask the same thing back.

                                                  If it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant for ALL.  Unfortunately, in my experience with several atheists on this site, that has not been the case.

                                                  PS As a Buddhist, I do not call myself an atheist, thought we do not believe in a god figure, we do hold certain beliefs that atheists tolerate but still tend to call silly or fanciful.

                                                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:43:18 PM PDT

                                                  •  *data

                                                    there was a word missing from previous reply.

                                                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:45:10 PM PDT

                                              •  Oh, no you didn't...

                                                "I was merely musing aloud..."

                                                Oh. I see. You didn't state it, you didn't write it, you didn't make a snide insinuation about it...

                                                You were merely... "musing aloud"... so no one can challenge it, or be offended by it, or disagree with it. It was just a ..."musing".... of the "aloud" variety...

                                                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:50:00 PM PDT

                                                •  Why

                                                  do you care?  According to you, I should be washing my fiance's underwear so you've been disqualified on the basis of misogyny.

                                                  I can't trust you, or your judgments, and I certainly don't feel obligated to explain or justify myself to you further.

                                                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:54:30 PM PDT

                                                  •  It's a little disingenuous to cry "Misogyny!"

                                                    after a post like this:

                                                    I've let my fiance know all about your nastiness and he's told me to walk away from you, so that's what I'm going to do.  

                                                    My response ("It's nice to have a Higher Power, even if you do have to wash his underwear") is clearly a comment on the retrograde anti-feminist tone of your own post.

                                                    In case you're interested in learning the meaning of the words you throw around, it would have been

                                                    misogynistic

                                                    if I were the one to say, "You should run and tell your fiance how nasty RandomActsOfReason is, and let him tell you how to handle the situation. And whatever he tells you to do, you obey him!"

                                                    I found that self-infantilization incredibly 1956. It reeked of "I'm  just a girl, but the big strong

                                                    man

                                                    will tell me what to do!"

                                                    So the reference to washing his underwear, far from being my idea of what a woman should do, was a comment on the "I'm the girl, he's the boss" frame you built around yourself.

                                                    If you're going to throw a self-righteous hissy about a joke, try to have a clue about what it means, then adjust your shit-fit acccordingly.

                                                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:30:42 PM PDT

                                  •  So why, then whenever someone

                                    says - or presents citations proving - that faith healing is ineffective, do you post furious rebuttals full of....links to studies of the health benefits of meditation?

                                    And why do you continuously obsess about the religion of the medical researchers presenting these results?

                                    And why don't you simply address the question of whether taxpayer dollars should:

                                    1. subsidize treatments with no proven efficacy, or proven ineffectiveness, and

                                    2. subsidize religious practices as part of a public health plan?

                                    Those are, after all, both the topic of this diary, and the topic of the vast bulk of the comments here - despite your furious attempts to hijack it to make assaults on "Western" medicine and atheists (which are, in your mind, somehow inextricably linked)?

                                    Why don't you simply and straightforwardly go on the record - do you think that the criteria for taxpayer funded medicine should be whether or not it works, and do you think taxpayers should support religious practices as part of national health care?

                                    Simple. Yet you so hysterically avoid the issue, and so assiduously strain to derail the conversation, it is quite a remarkable display.

                                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:56:54 PM PDT

                                    •  Wow, you are just possibly

                                      the most shitty human being I have ever come accross.  Do your personal attacks never stop?

                                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:57:53 PM PDT

                                      •  Personally, I was saving that one for a chance

                                        encounter with Dick Cheney, but if you want to waste it on a stranger on the internet, knock yourself out...

                                        you are just possibly the most shitty human being I have ever come accross.

                                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:03:44 PM PDT

                                        •  I wish you had saved it for Dick Cheney

                                          and that we had never bumped into each other on the Internet.

                                          But in this case, it applies.  Implying my fiance is my lord and master, as opposed to supportive and concerned with my well being puts you in shitty human being territory.

                                          It was a pot shot, a low blow and wholly unnecessary to the conversation.  You want to debate the merits, fine.  But the personal attacks were not warranted.

                                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:07:56 PM PDT

                                          •  Actually, you're getting your histrionic tantrums

                                            mixed up.

                                            RAoR is the most shitty human being. I am the nasty, hideous human being.

                                            And you're the one who says personal attacks are unwarranted.

                                            If you have any self awareness, you can feel kind of ridiculous now. Try laughing along. It defuses embarrassment.

                                            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:58:22 PM PDT

                                            •  I never said a word to you until

                                              you personally attacked me.  I did not pry into your personal life, question your sanity or call you a liar, all of which has been done here to me tonight.

                                              I've looked at your comment history and made the determination you like fighting with people you disagree with, and you get really nasty with them.  Maybe you get off on it?

                                              Okay, I'm done.

                                              I got two people to acknowledge that meditation has validity, has health benefits and should be offered.  That's enough for me.

                                              Enjoy personally attacking me.  

                                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:01:55 PM PDT

                                              •  Just to inject some honesty at this late date...

                                                I never said a word to you until you personally attacked me.

                                                Lest you belabor the Poor Innocent brutalized by the Big Meany scenario beyond all reason, I would point out that by the time I got here, you were already embroiled in a big name calling shit-fit accusing RAoR of being "a nasty piece of work" and sneering at the inherent corruption of atheists. So drop the Little Nell from the Country act.

                                                I did not pry into your personal life, question your sanity or call you a liar, all of which has been done here to me tonight.

                                                To be fair, I didn't call upon characters from my "personal life" to help me beat up on RAoR. (Hint: once you put yourself on a Reality Series, whining about "my private life" is just funny.

                                                Also I didn't say anything irrational, so I'm not surprised no one called me insane.

                                                And no lies. So I don't know why I should apologize for not being called a liar.

                                                I've looked at your comment history and made the determination you like fighting with people you disagree with, and you get really nasty with them.

                                                As has already been established, you were fighting with people and getting really naty with them before Is got here, and you have continued to do so for hours now. So at worst you're accusing me of acting like you (although I think I do it with more wit and style and with more regard for reality.)

                                                So your talking shit about me and diagnosing my motives on the basis of reading my past posts is no more valid than if I were to read your posts in this diary and conclude that you're not very bright and have certain indications of histrionic/dependent personality disorder.

                                                See what I mean? You were playing mean and nasty before I got here. You want to read my posts and make judgments about me. If that's how you want to do things, don't cry when someone else does the same to you.

                                                by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:05:16 PM PDT

                                          •  Yes, you did.

                                            Implying my fiance is my lord and master

                                            You implied it. I inferred it from what you said.

                                            It was you, not I, that presented yourself as a little girl unable to handle a very minor situation and turning to Big Strong Man for him to tell you what to do.

                                            he's told me to walk away from you, so that's what I'm going to do.

                                            Ick.

                                            He told me to, so I will. Not "he suggested, and I think he's right." not "he felt I should... and I agree."

                                            "He tells me what to do, so I do it"... that sounds pretty damn "Lord and Master" to me.

                                            So if you object to the "Lord and Master" schema for relationships, we are in agreement.

                                            The only remaining question is why you drew such a vivid portrait of exactly that sort of dynamic.  

                                            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:41:52 PM PDT

                                    •  Okay fine -

                                      And why don't you simply address the question of whether taxpayer dollars should:

                                      1.subsidize treatments with no proven efficacy, or proven ineffectiveness, and

                                      2.subsidize religious practices as part of a public health plan?

                                      RE: 1. I do not, but I'm not sure that everyone can agree on these matters as people here don't support homeopathy (it's bunk) but the NHS in UK pays for it, so...well, there you go.  I think some discussion should be had, and some people will not all agree.

                                      2.  No, I don't believe religious practices as such should be part of a public health plan, unless you term meditation (and some forms of prayer) to be religious practices.

                                      Of course, that won't satisfy you, I'm sure, so I'll await futher personal attacks and dog piling from you and others.

                                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:01:05 PM PDT

                                      •  Here's the rub.

                                        unless you term meditation (and some forms of prayer) to be religious practices.

                                        Meditation is not a religious practice. Private prayer is a religious practice. That is where the two differ (although they can be combined, obviously). And neither needs to be on any kind of plan because they're free.

                                        I would be happy to have meditation therapy (as in a therapist training or working through meditation) be covered, as there is some data suggesting that it has health benefits (although the extent of these need to be further studied). Whether an individual then combines the method of meditation with prayer is up to them.

                                        I would not approve of prayer therapy being covered, as available data suggests it has no health benefit whatsoever.

                                        by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:10:31 PM PDT

                                        •  We can agree on meditation therapy,

                                          and I did with someone above.  With licensed meditation therapists, to help people with it until they're on their own.  Yes, it should be licensed, I think.

                                          Meditation itself should be free.  But I think the counselor should be paid for their training.

                                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:12:36 PM PDT

                                      •  So, your entire ugly rant here was gratuitous

                                        and unnecessary, as unnecessary as you parading your personal life across these pages as a bid for pathos.

                                        Your reference to the UK is irrelevant, but then, you couldn't just complete one single comment on topic addressing substance, could you?

                                        No one here challenged the efficacy of meditation - but, as anyone who scrolls back can read, that is not where you started. Even so, it was a wasted effort and a straw man.

                                        The issue that raised your hackles continuously was claims that "healing" prayer should not be subsidized. That was the entire argument, and you created an entire shitstorm around it - only to pretend it was your position all along.

                                        This whole day of your angst and attempts at emotional manipulation were a complete waste of everyone's time and energy.

                                        Ugh. I feel like I've been wallowing in a mudpit and need a shower.

                                        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:50:47 PM PDT

                                      •  your record of comments belies your claims

                                        I've tried to point out even Harvard Medical School offers Integrated Medicine degrees, to no avail.

                                        You've been asked many times for evidence, and been presented with evidence that your statement is incorrect, yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

                                        Aside from the metaphysical ideas of meditation and prayer, which do provide some relief and healing benefits to some, I think that prayer (or meditation) should be free and not paid for.

                                        So, contrary to your dishonest claim, it is not just meditation you were repeatedly talking about. You repeatedly asserted that prayer works and that my taxdollars should subsidize it.

                                        And, it's not just a patient praying that you were arguing about - you directly and repeatedly defended the notion of 3rd-party prayer working and that it should be covered by public health care.

                                        One commenter posted a peer-reviewed study that concluded,

                                        "CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

                                        Your hostile response?

                                        One study out of thousands.
                                        Wow.

                                        There are many to contradict that. Why your study over the others?

                                        And that wasn't the only time - even though you kept insisting you were only talking about "meditation and prayer" (and then later insisting you were only talking about "meditation".

                                        A second time, a commenter posted conclusions from another study:

                                        CONCLUSIONS: These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer,the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.

                                        To which your hostile response was:

                                        I'd be curious if these doctors would go on the record stating they were atheists or not.

                                        Seems there's a lot of other evidence out there, including something published just a couple of days ago, that doesn't agree.

                                        It's right here in the record, right on this page, for anyone to see. Your continued defense of intercessory prayer, specifically in response to studies referring to people praying for other people - and your continued assertion that prayer should be covered by health care. (clearly, we are talking about 3rd party prayer - it doesn't cost anything for you to pray for yourself).

                                        Perhaps it would be instructive for you to look at your own comments, and stop lying about what you said just a few hours ago.

                                        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:08:43 AM PDT

                      •  You use that world, "understand", a lot

                        I do not think it means what you think it means.

                        How do you get from,

                        The results are based on the data.

                        aND,  

                        Doesn't matter what the doctor's personal spirituality is.

                        TO,

                        Doctors who have faith, their results must be biased by their faith.

                        Atheist doctors, results not biased by their lack of faith.

                        Is language not your native language?

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:43:12 PM PDT

                  •  Wow, not only ignorant, but a bigot, too

                    Because, in your confused mind, clearly:

                    1. all atheists are out to get you

                    2. all atheists are dishonest

                    3. no theist doctor could possibly respect evidence over unsubstantiated claims, because

                    4. atheists are the enemy

                    5. There is not cake

                    6. ??

                    7. Profit!

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:04:22 PM PDT

                    •  just as bigoted as the atheists here claiming

                      that my beliefs are suspect. Doesn't that open them to the same accusation?

                      Btw, my fiance who is an atheist would be amazed to find out I think he's out to get me.  lol

                      It's not bigoted.  That's ridiculous.  If I came out with a study done by devout Xtian doctors or Buddhist doctors supporting the health benefits of prayer, you'd have my hide.  lol

                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:04:45 PM PDT

                      •  Ah, so your defense of bigotry

                        is, "but Mommm, Johnny did it too!"

                        No, calling your beliefs "suspect" is not the same at all.

                        If I came out with a study done by devout Xtian doctors or Buddhist doctors supporting the health benefits of prayer, you'd have my hide.

                        1. The fact that you think the religious affiliation of a (presumably reputable) medical researcher matters one whit reveals your basic ignorance about the nature of science and the scientific method.

                        2. your presumption that I would be automatically hostile to doctors just because they are religious further cements your status as an unreconstructed overt bigot, with wildly prejudicial views of an entire category of people based purely on a belief label.

                        3. the fact that your fiance is allegedly an atheist only proves how hypocritical you are - spewing rampant bigotry all over the place here, while pleasing your personal needs there.

                        Why don't you try telling your fiance how your respond to medical studies debunking the efficacy of faith-healing was to accuse them of being "atheists", because "atheist" doctors can clearly not be trusted and must be falsifying their research to promote their evil atheist agenda.

                        I'd love to see how that revelation of your personal prejudice would help set your wedding date.

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:24:14 PM PDT

                        •  Whatever.

                          You're engaging in personal attacks about matters of which you know nothing.

                          You should be ashamed of yourself.

                          Whatever my beliefs on this matter, I never once personally attacked you as a human being, nor did I ever pry into your personal life and make comments which have no basis in fact.

                          What makes you think my fiance doesn't know my personal preference and we've agreed to disagree on this matter?

                          You are a horrible, shameful human being.

                          I'm done with you.

                          Re: Bigotry, you're a total hypocrite.

                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:46:38 PM PDT

                          •  Given your obsession with the faith of doctors

                            your prejudice is quite evident to anyone here. The faith of doctors is irrelevant to everyone else here - we're only concerned with taxpayer funding of religious practices - not religious people who practice legitimate medicine.

                            I note you didn't answer my question - have you told your fiance that you think atheist doctors are inherently less trustworthy than theist doctors?

                            I'm interested to know his reaction to your bigotry.

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:49:38 PM PDT

                            •  Well you'll never know.

                              You'll have to be disappointed.

                              After your personal attacks on me (and by extension, him), why would I give you a window on my personal life and discussions?

                              You don't even know me and you're prejudiced against me, so you're just a hypocrite.  

                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:54:30 PM PDT

                        •  And I never accused them of anything,

                          I only asked.

                          You didn't even get that right!

                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:47:16 PM PDT

                      •  No.

                        Doesn't that open them to the same accusation?

                        All "beliefs" are suspect. That's the nature of "beliefs."

                        by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:59:00 PM PDT

                  •  Okay, that's crazy.

                    The International Conspiracy of Atheist Doctors and Jewish Bankers and That Guy that Stares at Me on the Bus.

                    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:50:34 PM PDT

            •  One study to rule them all

              I quoted that study because it is the National Institute of Health's study on a government website.  

              I dislike linking studies that are not peer-reviewed and are not on an official government or peer-reviewed scientific websites.

              I am well aware that pre-2006 there was a lot of discussion about this topic.  I think it probably goes back to the cave man days.

              We've learned a lot since then, thanks to science.

              by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:19:06 PM PDT

              •  Really?

                So Harvard, Bryn Mawr and Duke Health are just not good enough for you, eh?

                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:24:09 PM PDT

                •  Peer reviewed

                  The Bryn Mawr thing you linked to wasn't a peer reviewed study, it was a commentary.

                  But again, I think there is a difference between a study of the effects of meditation on personal stress or calming and the effects of prayer on a physical health outcome.  The former have been demonstrated to work; the latter have not.

                  by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:00:08 PM PDT

                  •  Harvard

                    In addition, the assertion that Harvard offers and Integrated Medicine Degree has yet to be proven.  I only found the link that they had been given a grant to study integrated medicine.  That's a long way from offering a degree.

                    The Nih article you linked to was a newsletter with the following disclaimer at the top:

                    "This page is an historical document and contains content that may be out of date."

                    I didn't see your Duke Health link, but your batting average is dismal.

                    And again, to emphasize pat of butter's point, this discussion is about prayer, not meditation, crystal therapy, acupunture or any other type of holistic medicine.  It's about the efficacy of prayer.  Please try to stay on topic.

                    And all you have to do is link one peer-reviewed scientific study which you have yet to do.  Using your logic I could very easily prove that we never landed on the moon and give you hundreds and maybe thousands of links.

                    Proves nothing.

                    by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:17:20 PM PDT

    •  I guess that all depends on what you mean by

      freedom of religion. So I could start a religion that ritually kills a parishioner every Saturday night and I would be free to do so? Where do we draw the line? At parents who allow their children to die because of their religion?

      There is freedom to believe anything you want. There is freedom to express those beliefs. There is not freedom to act on anything you believe.

      You must also realize that this religious freedom comes with the price of others freely expressing their beliefs as well, even to the point of expressing disgust and dismay with another's beliefs. Buck up.

      I can believe that the world is coming to an end tomorrow and even tell everyone I know. I can't start feeding my friends poison koolaid so they are ready for the big finish.

      by A Voice on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:13:53 PM PDT

  •  Really? A Broom?

    my candles, incense, and ritual items like brooms, wands, sea salt, crystals, or silver-cast pentacles.

    by 1918 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:13:31 AM PDT

    •  Not to fly on.

      The broom is to sweep the sacred area free of negative energies during preparation for ritual. Also to jump over for a handfasting.

      *Used to be a Wiccan myself...lost the faith in it (and pretty much all religion) since.

      by jayjaybear on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:37:31 AM PDT

      •  ^

        What he said. :)

        by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:47:50 AM PDT

    •  Yes indeed

      And many of us make our own. One of the rituals I led a few years ago had participants making their own brooms out of scotch broom that I had cut on my land and dried for the purpose. Each one was made with a specific intent by the person making it.

      It was a ritual to honor Hestia, the goddess of the hearth. Within two months of that ritual, over half the participants, some six individuals or couples, had closed on houses when they thought they would never be able to buy a house in the first place, and none of them needed subprime loans to do it. Three of the others had firm job offers and had leased homes in California, which they had stated was their intent; none of them had had nibbles up to that point.

      So take this as you will. It's just another anecdote. The people who experienced this as something that worked for them might tell you one thing and the others might tell you something very different. Maybe the efficacy of the ritual is in the mind of the participant; but certainly none of us would have asked the government to pay for any of it.

      by Kitsap River on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

  •  I was all excited about this diary

    until I got to this part:

    Before the cries of "slippery slope!" can be heard, allow me to get to my main point, which is not that spiritual-based alternative medicine is laughable (it's not)

    Sigh.  Since I think it is, I'll slink back off to my corner now and wait for another diary on this subject.

    No offense, and best of luck to you.

    by sierrak9s on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

    •  Oh lol

      If you want to laugh, go ahead. You won't offend me, my dear. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Honestly, this prayer therapy sounds pretty quacky to me. I don't sit at my altar and pretend that I am going to cure cancer by burning candles. I still went to the doctor when I thought I had the flu, and I still take antibiotics when I get sinitis or whatever. Goddess isn't going to fix any of that for me. She gave us the ability to think and learn and invent medicine for a reason--She's too busy to do it Herself!

      But I didn't want to get into a religious debate in this diary. I was more interested in getting out the info that this is sitting in our health care bill and it's BS.

      by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:50:56 AM PDT

      •  And bravo to you for it

        But I didn't want to get into a religious debate in this diary. I was more interested in getting out the info that this is sitting in our health care bill and it's BS.

        Very well put, and well done.  And thanks for not taking offense.

        by sierrak9s on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:39:44 PM PDT

  •  Here's an idea for an Amendment to Stupak's

    How about A Grayson Amendment to Stupak's amendment listing all the services that would be paid for by either the Fed or the Insurers to back up the No Federal Spending for Abortion demand, to include items like the following:

    Federally paid for Home for Unwed Mothers, support for mom and child, education for mom, housing, medical, etc until child is age 5 or mom marries;

    Federally paid for adoptions;

    Federally paid for support for victims of rape and their child to include mental health and ALL other services need for them to thrive until child is age 5 or victim marries;

    Federally paid for living expenses for unwed moms and babies until the child is 5;

    Federal SSI support for life for the children of incest (who would adopt a child of incest?), and for the mom until the child is age 5 or the mom marries;

    Federally paid for nanny (or wage for family member like grandmother, aunt, etc) for the family that loses a mom to a life-threatening pregnancy, and a lump sum settlement for the mom's lost wages if she contributed to family support.

    Well the above just for starters.  And maybe not well thought out enough, but you get the gist.

    The Conservatives rail against abortion while at the same time practically eliminating social services.  It makes no sense.  They need to be called out for their narrow view of "rights" for the unborn.

    by War on Error on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:25:26 PM PDT

    •  Small change.

         Federally paid for Home for Unwed Mothers, support for mom and child, education for mom, housing, medical, etc until child is age 5;

         Federally paid for adoptions;

         Federally paid for support for victims of rape and their child to include mental health and ALL other services need for them to thrive until child is age 5;

         Federally paid for living expenses for unwed moms and babies until the child is 5;

         Federal SSI support for life for the children of incest (who would adopt a child of incest?), and for the mom until the child is age 5;

         Federally paid for nanny (or wage for family member like grandmother, aunt, etc) for the family that loses a mom to a life-threatening pregnancy, and a lump sum settlement for the mom's lost wages if she contributed to family support.

      Why is it that if the victim is part of a couple the consequences of the no government funding for abortion devolve to the couple?

      by Donner on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:37:50 PM PDT

      •  This is why I included the Nanny Clause

        Please don't get me wrong here.   I don't agree with Stupak.  I find his Amendment to be hypocritical because there is nothing done to support the women and their families if they are denied life-saving abortions.  Quite the opposite.  The Compassionate Conservatives and worked very hard to strip moms and their children with life supporting services.

        Here's that nanny clause:

        Federally paid for nanny (or wage for family member like grandmother, aunt, etc) for the family that loses a mom to a life-threatening pregnancy, and a lump sum settlement for the mom's lost wages if she contributed to family support.

        Actually, with the exception of the unwed mom, all of these services can apply to all moms, married or single.

        by War on Error on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:09:18 PM PDT

  •  oh i am so glad you diaried this ...

    we can't ask tax payers to .... but we can ask them to ....

    fund illegal wars
    pay the salaries of elected officials who are actually private contractors for drug, oil, defense, media companies...

    pay $450/gallon for gas used by troops in Afghanistan
    continue to pay for policies put in place under an administration which took over via a coup d'etat....!!!

    This is as good as the If Obama cured cancer, they would blame him for putting failing drug therapies out of business..

    If Obama solved global warming, they would accuse him of contributing to the population crisis.

    by boatsie on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:35:09 PM PDT

  •  Whew! My Yoga sessions and Ayurveda medicine

    is covered!

    See, due to separation of church and state, if a Christian organization like CS can get payments for this, then surely my yoga sessions and Ayurvedic medicine treatments can be EQUALLY covered. Plus Ayurvedic has a track record for 1000 years or more, so hey, totes cool?

    Right?

    Amirite?

    by ems97007 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:49:14 PM PDT

    •  yesurrite

      by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

    •  A track record for 1000 years of failing to heal

      which is why life expectancy for practitioners of this and other "traditional" or "ancient", "alternative medicines" was and remains so much lower than life expectancy is for those practicing modern medicine today.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:07:37 PM PDT

      •  Alternative Medicine to whom? To you?

        No, seriously?

        My issue is the whole church and state and parity issue.It does not seem proper to have a government sponsored plan support a Christian sect. It Also does not seem right that just because it's deemed Christian, then that practice is sanctioned while other effective paths of Medicine is left out.  

        I don't have an axe to grind against Eastern medicine, which seems to help, I dunno, about 3 billion people on the planet. And what has helped people live longer comes down to a combination of Western hygiene, germ therapy and different forms for traditional medicines- clean water and washing with effective soaps and detergents, emancipation of women,  clean food sources and effective vaccines in conjunction with proper diet, movement therapy and application of herbs.

        And how lovely and white and Western you are in calling Eastern Medicine alternative. You take your racist,small minded, Western only view elsewhere, thanks.

        by ems97007 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:58:11 PM PDT

        •  what's wrong with eastern medicine? n/t

          by NuttyProf on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:59:02 PM PDT

        •  "Western" is a canard

          Modern, science-based medicine is practiced all over the world, and scientists all over the world have made substantive contributions to scientific medical knowledge.

          Ayurvedic is not more "scientific" than homeopathy or any number of other practices based on faith and not evidence.

          Until the advent of modern medicine - which includes what you call "Western hygiene" (I guess it's not racist when you use the term) "germ therapy" and things like "clean water" and "effective soaps and detergents", as well as clean food sources and vaccines - life was miserable brutish and short. Life expectancies were in the late 30's.

          Since I have been consistently and equally critical of homeopathic and Christian Science "laying on of hands" and other ineffective "Western" practices, it is curious that, rather than address the substance of the message, you would choose to attempt to discredit the messenger with spurious and irrelevant attacks of "racism, etc.

          Your entire comment is a straw man.

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:03:20 PM PDT

        •  I think my record on calling out racism is

          reasonably established, but this is really a bit over the top:

          You take your racist,small minded, Western only view elsewhere, thanks.

          Disagreeing with a particular practice of another culture is not in and of itself "racist" or xenophobic or whatever. I tend to disagree with beheading homosexuals, but I don't think that makes me a racist,small minded, Western only bigot.

          "Alternative medicine" is a term little ol' ultra-left-wing anti-racist me hears and reads in all sorts of contexts. So if it's the term you object to, please object to the term. I can see your point about it. But "racist,small minded, Western only" hardly applies to everyone that uses the term.

          by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:17:32 PM PDT

      •  Humorously it has a better record

        than Christian Science.  Ayurvedic medicine actually managed to hit on the correct treatments for some things -- specific examples, various digestive problems which can be cured through dietary changes -- though they certainly weren't testing them rigorously.

        by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:18:37 PM PDT

•  I'll give the Christian Scientists credit

  for having the courage of their convictions.  I'd love to see some of the fucking Baptists who opposed stem cell research go to church when they're fucking sick instead of the hospital.  Let's see how much God loves you now, motherfucker.

  by Atilla the Honey Bunny on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:52:38 AM PDT

  •  I do not know if Tim Tebow went to church

    after the concussion he suffered. I do know he managed to remain silent on the subject of Jeebus for the full 2-week recovery.

    If you're not familiar, Tebow is the star quarterback for Florida. Makes a point to thank Jeebus for every win and award. Not so much on the rare occasion they lose.

    Full disclosure: I'm a Bama fan. So Florida would stick in my craw even if Tebow didn't claim Jeebus loves them best.

    by susanala on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:06:59 AM PDT

    •  Florida sucks.

      by beaky on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:11:07 AM PDT

      •  Florida?

        That's America's wang!
        -Homer Simpson

        by LaughingPlanet on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:36:11 AM PDT

    •  Jesus loved Tim Tebow

      so much that he gave him a concussion.  It's all part of the big plan.  It is too complicated for us humans to understand.

      by GreatDane on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:22:38 AM PDT

      •  And he loved all those Chinese earthquake victims

        he dropped buildings and mountains on.

        by Ralphdog on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:32:25 AM PDT

        •  You obviously don't see

          the master plan.  I'm sure there was a good reason for 70,000 people to die.

          by GreatDane on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:08:17 AM PDT

          •  I admire God's restraint.

            No doubt 700,000 deaths was a good thing, but God, in his infinite wisdom and good taste, recognized that 800,000 would be "too much of a good thing."

            I like that about God. Never flashy. Never rubbing the omnipotence thing in your face. Just a classy guy.

            by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:24:27 PM PDT

      •  Easter Sunday Resurrection?

        He gets knocked out only to return and save the Gators season, even better than before!

        by no puma on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:10 AM PDT

        •  Is he the Messiah ?

          by GreatDane on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:38:45 AM PDT

          •  You didnt know?

            by no puma on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:18:47 PM PDT

    •  Jesus made me drop the football...

      (can't remember the comedian who came up with that one...)

      by wry twinger on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:33:50 AM PDT

      •  Jesus clearly has too much time on his hands

        I hope he will choose to spend it in moving a public option forward instead of worrying about the outcomes of football games.

        by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:55:31 AM PDT

    •  Not to get in the middle of a football row

      Frankly I know nothing about the players on either team at the moment, but the Jeebus thing is practically universal among the football crowd--are you going tell me that the Alabama players don't credit Jeebus with their wins? Football is practically a religious ritual in the South, it's not just Florida.

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:56:02 AM PDT

      •  Agreed that "the jeebus thing" is widespread

        among football players, especially in the south, however Timmy takes it to the next level....in fact in the rare instance of a loss (or what should have been a loss against Arkansas) he has no problem climbing up on that cross with jeebus in the post game press conference.

        *disclosure: I'm a bama fan and really do not like Florida.......or Tennessee......or Auburn. Also i've never seen a discussion of SEC football on Kos and couldn't resist jumping in.

        Roll Tide.

        On a serious note, great diary. While i do not put much trust in any sort of spiritual/metephysical healing or what have you, so am therefor biased, but the hypocracy of the religious right is undeniable in this case.

        by weisja4 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:16:08 AM PDT

      •  Some do. Some don't.

        I've lived in the South for 43 years and counting (since birth). I'm also Episcopalian. It's not true that every Southerner, or even every SEC football player, wears Jesus on his sleeve to the degree that Tim Tebow does.

        Even in the buckle of the Bible belt, Tim Tebow is egregious. He's got a Bible reference printed in his freaking greasepaint.

        He also thanks Jesus and forgets to credit his teammates. Greg McElroy at Alabama thanks his teammates and leaves Jesus to ponder more important issues.

        OK ... I'd like Greg McElroy better if he thanked his teammates, kept his yap shut about Jeebus AND produced Tim Tebow's stats.

        by susanala on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:35:31 AM PDT

    •  KY fan here

      so I completely understand.  We were watching him the week he had the flu--and he coughed into his sleeve just like we're all supposed to so as not to spread germs.  My husband said--he really is perfect, he could only play for New Orleans next year.  It took me a minute...

      by bebecca on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:08:31 AM PDT

    •  Go Gators

      'Bama fan's just upset they fell to #3.

      I wish nothing but ill upon anything Saban touches after his span with the dolphins, its just a bonus he happens to be coaching 'Bama too

      by no puma on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:27:59 AM PDT

      •  You forgot to call him Satan ;) n/t

        by susanala on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:48 AM PDT

  •  I dislike the entire concept....

    ...that God is this "Wizard of Oz" figure that actively has power over the universe, as if an all knowing, all powerful God wouldn't be capible of setting up everything as they wish beforehand and all they have to do is knock down the first domino (big bang) and have it all just fall into place.

    I had the concept that God exists to answer prayers. It takes something that is supposed to be infinite and divine, and turns it into something servile and small.

    by DawnG on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:08:02 AM PDT

    •  That's

      interesting. My version of an 'all knowing' God wouldn't want to be able to predict the future, and finds a universe based on randomness more challenging.
      My concept of God though, exists simply to exist, and people can believe he does or not, and that God can choose to believe they exist or not.

      I'm also hoping that God doesn't care if I want, or need an abortion, it's none of his/her infinite, divine business :-)

      by Maori on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:56:15 AM PDT

      •  DawnG and Maori, you would find that

        Christian Science actually is consistent with at least some of what both of you said.

        - Christian Science does NOT see God as some kind of Wizard of Oz sorting through prayers, wishes and desires, granting some and denying others.

        - And they definitely believe that God exists whether others believe it or not (though they would think of it as 'whether others understand it or not'--they don't see it as mere "belief.")

        CS understand God as "Principle," not as a sort of human in the sky.  God is Love, God is Life, God is Spirit, Soul, Truth, Mind.  God is all that is real.  

        Basically, CS is about understanding the true nature of God and understanding ourselves as created in God's image and likeness.  Your "true self" is not the embodied person but the spiritual one, and CS believes that when you understand this clearly, your physical self will overcome any experience of disease.  

        by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:32:29 AM PDT

        •  God/dess is all that is.

          God/dess is present in everything, everyone. That is why, in my trad, we say "Thou art God" or "Thou art Goddess" to each other as we share water.

          (Yes, my trad is CAW: Church of All Worlds.)

          by Kitsap River on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:11:13 PM PDT

        •  CS is a religion

          and, as such, none of its alleged "healing" practices should be covered by my tax dollars.

          I really don't give a flying fuck what you folks do on your own time - except when you let defenseless little children with no say in the matter suffer horribly and even die because they are denied simple modern medicine.

          And, except when members of your faith endanger me and my children by refusing to be vaccinated, and yet insisting on circulating among us spreading disease and weakening herd immunity.

          Of course, I also resent the special tax exemptions and special exemptions from reporting and accountability that give your church unfair advantages and benefits as compared to actual charitable nonprofits that actually help people, and who are subject to public accountability for use of the money they are donated, to ensure that it is not just used as a tax dodge by members of a church.

          But, that is another kettle of violation of the separation of church and state.

          The topic of this diary is my tax dollars paying for your religious practices.

          Stop proselytizing your bullshit here. If you want to hijack threads to discuss the merits of your religion, go to Street Prophets, no one there will dare challenge whatever outrageous assertions you make.

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:14:24 PM PDT

  •  I give them no credit

    I don't think people have a right to kill their children because of some cockamamie beliefs.

    by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:41:26 AM PDT

    •  I suppose they could say the same about

      those who support abortion.

      Not sayin', just sayin'.  I just think they are able to hold their beliefs - as long as they don't force compliance with them on me.

      (btw I am pro-choice, and proud of it!)

      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:51:41 AM PDT

      •  "They" could say it

        If you're not saying it, why bring it up?

        And, who are "they"? That wouldn't be the "they" who are claiming that my tax dollars should pay for their little heal-by-prayer scams, are they?

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:15:29 PM PDT

      •  Yes, if you consider an embryo a child

        I don't. And furthermore, I fully support reasonable limits on late-term abortion, as per the Roe v. Wade balancing test.

        As for this:

        I just think they are able to hold their beliefs - as long as they don't force compliance with them on me.

        You are an adult. Their children are not. And if you don't care about children whose parents are killing them for the sake of cockamamie beliefs, what does that make you?

        by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:32:36 PM PDT

    •  children die in hospitals, too

      Sometimes children die because they can't afford to go to a hospital. Want to send their parents to jail for neglect? In a free society, we have a right to the treatment of our choice.

      by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:05:47 AM PDT

      •  "We have a right to the treatment of our choice"

        Absolutely, we all do. What we don't have is the right to make treatment choices for others. I don't have the right to prevent my child from receiving potentially life-saving medical care just because my mythology tells me that I myself shouldn't receive it.

        by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:28:34 AM PDT

        •  My nephew died in a hospital and my mother, a

          Christian Scientist, firmly believes that had her sister turned to Christian Science instead of medicine, Jim would be alive today.

          I expect that will strike you as nuts, but I grew up knowing of many CS healings, including a healing of cancer after doctors had said there was no hope.

          by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:38:20 AM PDT

          •  You're not allowed to do both?

            Because yes, sorry, rejecting medical science in favor of prayer does strike me as nuts. And, when done on somebody else's behalf, it strikes me as criminal.

            by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:42:45 AM PDT

          •  Yep, nuts.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:16:09 PM PDT

          •  So, you support the right of parents

            to deny their young children medical care - and deny the right of society to look out for them?

            Do you also support the right of parents to physically beat their children and rape them - and oppose the right of society to intervene in those cases as well?

            If not, then you acknowledge that the rights of parents are not absolute in a society. In which case, you are specially privileging the right of Christian Scientists to knowingly subject children to great suffering and even death, with the full knowledge that alternative, proven treatments are available.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:20:02 PM PDT

        •  Most everyone accepts that

          child protective services have the right to intervene in cases of physical child abuse, then we accept that the state has an interest in child welfare and in the lives of individual citizens.  It's a hard balancing act.  

          I think that the state has a right and obligation to intervene if a parent refuses evidence-based medical intervention, if there is a reasonable likelihood of death or disability and if the intervention has a reasonable chance of succeeding.  But it's a difficult balancing act and if the child is not significantly endangered it's better that the state avoids intervening.

          by ivorybill on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:53:31 AM PDT

          •  The person to whom I was replying didn't seem

            to accept it. The less the state has to intervene in anybody's life, the better. But, as you say, if a parent can be punished by the state for hitting a child, the same principle applies to refusing to provide them with needed medical care.

            by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:05:41 PM PDT

  •  You say "either", I say "eye-ther"

    you say "courage of their convictions", I say "tragic enslavement to their delusions"

    PoTAYto poTAHto...

    by teachme2night on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:20:35 PM PDT

•  This is good news. As a devout Rastafarian

  nothing soothes my spiritual storms quite like a giant spliff of really good weed.  And now the government will pay for it.

  by Atilla the Honey Bunny on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:54:04 AM PDT

  •  No wonder your screen name is

    Atilla the Honey Bunny.

    You couldn't be a mean, pillaging sort when partaking of your religious substances....

    ;-)

    by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the laugh

    eom

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:55:10 AM PDT

  •  There will be cases over this!

    And other religious drugs.  If this stupid amendment passes.

    by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:20:30 PM PDT

•  I think Jesus would have been uncomforable

  ...with the idea of charging money in exchange for prayer, so unless the providers of alternative prayer therapy aren't Christians, I would say that we have situation involving hypocrisy here.

  by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:56:50 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, that bothered me too.

    Charging to pray for an ill person to get better?

    I wouldn't want to be one of those people that charged the downtrodden to pray for their well being when they meet their maker, that's for sure...

    by MichiganGirl on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:05:01 AM PDT

    •  There are "Journal Listed" Practitioners

      that get paid to pray with the Christian Scientists who hire them. Christian Scientists also have their own nurses and sanitoriums (like a hospital) for those that need physical treatment along with the prayerful work for healing. For a practitioner to be journal listed they must finish a course of instruction and provide references of healing that need to be verified by multiple people before they can 'hang out their shingle'.

      by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:09:20 AM PDT

      •  Still, charging for prayer; no matter what

        the circumstances seems sinful.

        Smacks of the old practice of selling indulgences.

        by MichiganGirl on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:20:04 AM PDT

        •  churches aren't free

          and the payment isn't for prayer, it's for study and prayerful work. When you hire a practitioner, you work on the dis-ease -- learning the spiritual pattern that contributes to the ailment and get a course of study to help you through it. You can call it 'charging for prayer' if you wish, but that is not exactly what a practitioner is hired to do.

          by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:25:01 AM PDT

        •  It's far from "indulgences"

          It's not "I'll pay you to wipe this bad thing off my slate."

          Being a CS practitioner is a job.  If someone is going to train for something and devote their day to it, it is probably fair to pay them for their time.  That is probably the only way you'll have the resource available.

          It's professional help for people who ask for it.

          They don't have any "power" or "authority" or "magic" to wipe slates clean and that is not what their patients expect to get.  

          by Happy Days on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:50:52 AM PDT

          •  No one is questioning your right

            to pay your "practitioners" for their time.

            But, I should not have to pay on your behalf.

            I'm fine if you want to opt out of modern medicine, and would support you not having to pay taxes for it - as long as you remove yourself entirely from our population and have no contact with us, so you cannot infect us with any diseases you dont' get immunized or treated for - and, as long as you do not avail yourself of any modern medical treatments, from assisted childbirth to vaccination to antibiotics to cancer therapy, etc.

            Just as I support libertarian's rights not to pay any taxes - as long as they do not use any public roads, public parks, public sanitation, public water supplies, public law enforcement, public courts, public health, etc. etc.

            As long as you want to avail yourself of taxpayer subsidized modern medicine, I will not pay for your "practitioners". Pay your own damn fees, and reap the results.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:26:00 PM PDT

          •  They also apparently don't have to prove

            ...the efficacy of what they do, apparently.

            As in double-blind studies, etc.

            by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:42:16 PM PDT

            •  Hey, I'm all for it

              if they include 'incurable' diseases in the mix. I wonder how the autism rates compare between those who practice Christian Science and the public at large?

              by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:45:40 PM PDT

  •  The Religious Right Opposes Jesus On Probably

    most of his core instructions. All authoritarian Christianity opposes him on at least some teachings.

    You can't call hypocrisy against that crowd.

    by Gooserock on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:07:15 AM PDT

    •  Wow. What does it say about an organized

      ...religion when they oppose the teachings of the Son of God (as they see Jesus)?  So, Jesus was wrong about some things?  He kinda misunderstood what his Dad told him?

      I suppose, really, that they would say Jesus wasn't mistaken, just that we've misunderstood his lessons until now.

      Weird folks.

      by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:10:27 AM PDT

  •  Because no Xtian organization's ever charged

    for prayers.

    by arquebus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:09:31 AM PDT

    •  So, then, what's this language in the HCR bill

      ...about?

      The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine.

      Seems pretty clear: "on the same footing" would seem to mean "can accept payments for the treatments offered".

      by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:11:52 AM PDT

      •  I think Arquebus was snarkin' ya. There's a lot

        of money in organized religion. Hell, the Catholics have their own city in the middle of Rome!

        by blueyescryinintherain on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:21:19 AM PDT

        •  Doh!

          My snark detector appears to be out of commission today.

          by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

    •  No they don't "charge"

      they browbeat and EXTORT!!

      by mikejay611 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

  •  Neither did Luther.......

    That and charging dispensations.  Get out of hell free cards.

    by duckhunter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28:11 AM PDT

  •  Congratulations ...

    so unless the providers of alternative prayer therapy aren't Christians, I would say that we have situation involving hypocrisy here.

    Welcome to a sadly large percentage of religious practices (as far as I've seen).

    by elengul on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:29:29 AM PDT

  •  I think Jesus' preference are irrelevant

    under U.S. law, and should not be a consideration in a discussion about whether U.S. taxpayers should pay for "prayer therapy".

    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:21:20 PM PDT

    •  Agreed--but I was trying to point out the

      ...hypocrisy that seems evident, to me, in charging for something Jesus would have given for free.

      So, two strikes--one on grounds of hypocrisy, one on grounds of church/state separation, and one on grounds of real-world efficacy.

      Three, three strikes!

      by rfall on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:44:24 PM PDT

•  You mean religious hypocrites

  how terribly unique

  by pollbuster on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:59:30 AM PDT

  •  Sounds synonymous to me...

    by mikejay611 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:17 AM PDT

•  See, you're trying to think this logically.

  that's your first mistake.

  We're not supposed to use taxpayer money to fund abortions, but we ARE supposed to use taxpayer money to blow the living shit out of villages a half a world away?  There's nothing pro-life about that but the pro-lifers have no problem with the hypocracy of it.

  by DawnG on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:01:52 AM PDT

  •  Maybe if we point out

    that pregnant women and hence the precious pre-born are often killed in these strikes they'll stop being so hawkish.

    No, there I go being logical again.  They'll probably just decide their deaths were part of God's plan, since He put them in mothers who would be in a place where they would be killed.

    I've tried to point out to people that if their god was so damned omniscient and omnipotent, he should't be putting babies into mothers who didn't want them or couldn't have them or any number of other things.  It makes my head explode, but doesn't seem to phase them.

    by nilajean on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:34:55 AM PDT

  •  Too true

    Logic is a failing of mine.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:22 AM PDT

•  how will Christian Scientists be treated

  concerning mandates to purchase insurance from the for-profit insurance industry?  How about those who believe in faith healing?  If you believe in faith healing, can you get out of the mandate requirement?

  by sodalis on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:01:57 AM PDT

  •  No. They will be forced to particapte. One

    group can not be allowed out and not others no matter what their beliefs are.  Everyone must join for the good of the all.  

    by thestructureguy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:09:27 AM PDT

    •  The Amish are allowed to optout

      of medicare/SS. I  imagine there will be an opt-out provision on those grounds.

      by terrypinder on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:16:34 AM PDT

    •  Really? The Amish have an exemption

      for Social Security carved into the law.

      Theyoppose all "Insurance" (I think they see it as gambling, but don't quote me), and if I remember correctly, they won a case before the Supreme Court on the issue.

      by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:18:13 AM PDT

      •  The Amish pool their resources....

        ...when a community member gets sick and needs surgery, and they pay cash to the doctor and to the hospital.  Paper bags full of cash, that's how they pay.

        Oh, and by the way, speaking of the Amish and health care, they are, of course, being completely hypocritical about receiving modern healthcare services when they claim to eschew modern life and its evils.  So, they'll take their horse and buggy to the hospital and pay cash for open-heart surgery, then return home to a place with no electricity. They do that, but they bitch and moan about having a passport photo taken of them.  They are just like many other evangelical Christians:  hypocrites.

        by BoxerDave on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:30:27 AM PDT

        •  **Not only that, they are Socialist Hypocrites.

          by greylox on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:54:55 AM PDT

        •  I once saw an article a few years ago

          about an Amish man who ran an antique shop. He got electricity and a phone line installed in his shop for the sole purpose of accepting credit cards to attract more shoppers. So religious beliefs never get in the way of making a quick buck, not even for the Amish.

          by yg17 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:59:43 AM PDT

          •  That's kind of my point.

            Depending on the local church, it might be all right to have that. What's not all right is getting a phone so you can hang out and talk to your friends and such. Intent and use are a big deal to the Amish, as far as I can tell. It's not about the item, it's about how your use of it affects the community.

            by catfood on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:42 AM PDT

            •  Exactly

              Socialist to the core. Communist, even.

              by mmacdDE on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:36 AM PDT

          •  Yes, yg17 and....

            ...the Amish also use the Internet to sell or broker the sale of their puppy mill dogs.  It's a reason to never by a dog or cat off of the Internet.  If you do, you are probably contributing to the horrible continuation of puppy mill animals.

            by BoxerDave on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:38:06 PM PDT

        •  Nah.

          It really is a matter of how much intrusion they want to live with. Some Amish communities say having an electric light in your barn is okay because you might be working late; others say that's pushing. In some Amish communities there's a phone, but it's by the general store and sort of reserved for emergencies.

          It's not that the modern stuff is eeeeeevil, it's that the Amish think it's easy to get sucked into conveniences that feed a larger system they don't believe in. It doesn't mean you don't compromise if necessary.

          Sort of like Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Sure, you're not supposed to work that day, but his point was that you don't let people suffer for the sake of an arbitrary rule.

          by catfood on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

          •  The Amish don't believe....

            ...in "that modern stuff" precisely because they think of it as evil, as leading an unclean life. So, in their minds it's perfectly OK to be "modern" when it comes to having angioplasty or something like that, but they still want to be seen as "not buying into an evil culture."  Sorry, but once you let your heart surgeon slit you open and fix your ticker, you've entered the modern world.

            by BoxerDave on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:42:04 PM PDT

      •  I see insurance as gambling too...

        ...and while I don't claim some imaginary sky-daddy dictating to me, I find it immoral and to the degree possible refuse to participate in such. I stopped driving because the roads -- that I fucking paid for -- require me to have insurance to drive on them. I'm still waiting for a refund on that.

        So my "health care plan" if this shit passes is simple: They fine me, I refuse to pay, they jail me, then I consume as much of their precious "health care" as I possibly can and make as miserable as possible every "healthcare professional" I come in contact with in order to punish them for working for a corrupt system. And if possible sue everyone I can in the process.

        Or, they could leave me the fuck alone rather than this insurance industry corporate welfare shit. I'd be more than happy to waive any and all "treatment" in advance if they leave.me.the.fuck.alone.

        by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:04:24 AM PDT

        •  Mutual insurance isn't gambling.

          It simply doesn't qualify -- and frankly the Amish use it, even if it's not formalized.  :-P

          Non-mutual insurance should be illegal.

          by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:23:09 PM PDT

    •  take your "good for all"

      and fold it until it's all corners. Call it a suppository and consider it "healthcare"

      by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:05:38 AM PDT

  •  I grew up in Christian Science

    We paid our insurance bills every month like everyone else. We had to have our physicals like everyone else. If you mandate insurance, than it should be inclusive coverage.

    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:11:26 AM PDT

  •  You can opt out of the mandate

    for religious reasons.  You can also opt out if you can't afford to pay health insurance premiums.

    by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:51:42 AM PDT

    •  which version of the bill, House or Senate,

      includes these 'opt-out' provisions.  This is the first that I have heard of them.

      by sodalis on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:06:11 PM PDT

      •  Both, IIRC

        There have been differences between versions of the plans on other details, but both do offer opt outs to people based on religious reasons as well as inability to pay premiums.

        Whether they decide on tax credits for buying insurance for those up to 300% or 400% FPL, there will still be people who fall into the category of not being able to afford insurance and they will be uninsured.  Wish it weren't so, and I hope they fix it so everyone gets affordable coverage.

        by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:34:03 PM PDT

    •  My religious beliefs prohibit me from

      paying money to private companies due to the demands of the government.

      This is highly specific.  Paying money to private companies on my own is OK, paying money to the government due to its demands is OK, but paying money to private companies due to government demands is not OK.

      I assume I will get the religious exemption?

      by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:24:49 PM PDT

•  Religious Freedom - On Your Own Dime.

  None of us should have to pay for anyone's prayer therapy - unless it is our own.

  by Otherday on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:05:25 AM PDT

  •  I recall reading somewhere

    That congress is forbidden to make any laws respecting an establishment of religion. Could I be mistaken?

    by Crider on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:20:50 AM PDT

  •  According to Hatch,

    prayer therapy = health care.

    Hatch said, "I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare."

    What a joke.

    by not a cent on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:34:53 AM PDT

    •  Agree with you there, Sen Hatch

      Hatch said, "I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare."

      They should have access to scientifically based medicine, regardless of whatever their religion may be.

      But prayers and rituals? Own dime, I'm afraid. We have religious freedom, but that doesn't mean all religious treatments will be free.

      by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:53:10 AM PDT

      •  prayers and rituals aren't covered

        The payments go to paid practitioners working on behalf of their client and for Christian Science Nurses and possibly care in a hospital-like setting.

        by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:13:04 AM PDT

        •  I don't think that's what they're talking about

          Otherwise Catholic hospitals wouldn't be covered NOW. It was to do with being qualified, in other words are you actually a doctor or nurse, and are you providing medical care. This amendment apparently allows the unqualified to practice, and be paid for, "health care" (I won't call it medicine) as long as they are religious.

          by davewill on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:35:47 AM PDT

          •  qualifications

            Christian Science Nurses are trained nurses who are also Christan Scientists. Christian Science Practitioners are not doctors, but have training in Christian Science healing. Hard to say what 'qualified' means in this context, but I probably wouldn't hire dentist to fix my broken toe either.

            by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:38:52 AM PDT

            •  Some of these prayer therapists

              have run into legal trouble, concerning practicing medicine without a license.

              by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM PDT

            •  In other words..

              They hang out while the patients' body either somehow survives or many times dies. I guess they are they to witness the laws of probability?

              by UndercoverRxer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:48 PM PDT

              •  ignorant

                They deal with the patient's physical needs - bandages, etc. - much the same way as hospice care.  As CS nurses though, they respct the wishes of the patients to not be drugged into oblivion while thy work on their recovery.

                by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:08:05 PM PDT

                •  Cruel

                  Or have their pain relieved, which is known to speed recovery. Only a cruel person withholds pain medications due to worry about some drowsiness. Being able to sleep and heal due to decreased stress hormones is easily mistaken for "drugged into oblivion".

                  by UndercoverRxer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:25:45 PM PDT

                  •  judgemental

                    If your chosen method of healing requires being sentient, it would be crueler to require someone to take drugs that would impair their healing method. Just because you don't understand or believe in the process doesn't allow you to dictate to others how they should proceed on their own healing process. That sounds like government overreach to me. It would be complicated even more with living will provisions on care.

                    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:36:22 PM PDT

                    •  You can rationalize quackery all you want

                      I've just seen to much suffering because of it. End of discussion.

                      by UndercoverRxer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:42:33 PM PDT

                      •  when everyone is CURED by medicine

                        I'll stop looking for alternatives. Chemo with less than 5% chance of survival -- talk about suffering!

                        by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:14:10 PM PDT

                        •  that is an odd attitude

                          the efficacy of a treatment should not be measured compared to a nonexistent theoretical perfection, but rather to alternatives and previous treatments.

                          The purpose of medicine is to alleviate suffering and improve quality of life.

                          On that measure, modern medicine is a remarkable success, and, because it is based on the scientific method, continuously and reliably improves over time - while Christian Science has proven no better than placebo, and continues to be no better than placebo.

                          Prior to modern scientific medicine, life was brutish and short. Life expectancy 150 years ago was 38. 100 years ago it was 47. 50 years ago it was 67. Today it is over 80. Ravishing epidemics that used to maim and cause horrible suffering to millions - and leave families without bread-earners or able-bodied individuals strong enough to farm or work, thus dooming millions more to starvation - are now history, thanks to modern medicine.

                          You are likely alive today, as is nearly everyone else typing here, as a result of the advances of modern medicine.

                          Your ignorance and hostility to reason are no less reprehensible, and even more dangerous, than creationists, climate change denialists, and free market fundamentalists.

                          Your arrogance and ignorance literally costs lives.

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:35:30 PM PDT

                          •  my ignorance and hostility

                            For the record, I am a consumer of modern medicine with more than a passing knowledge of Christian Science. Unlike those who use the broad-brush 'faith healers' label, I have a personal interest in who controls health decisions for any given American family. I believe that those who choose an unconventional method should be given the same rights as those that provide non-cures of a more conventional nature.

                            I would not argue, as some might, that people should ignore curable treatments when the alternative is to die. However, if there isn't a CURE using conventional means and the 'treatment' using conventional medicine forces the patient to have limbs hacked off and poison enter their veins because that way they might live 6 more months...!? Let them choose how they want to proceed, even with unconventional methods. It's about allowing people to control their own life experience, not the government's or the medical establishments.

                            You can choose to characterize this opinion as being ignorant and hostile to reason, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that we should jail people who choose an alternative for their own lives when there is no medical cure.

                            I would also argue that people who take unconventional treatments also are concerned about the quality of their own life and are probably less concerned with converting others to their own methods and beliefs than the other laundry list of 'wingnuts' you listed above. Talk about hostile!

                            I'll believe the 'placebo' proof when there is a comprehensive study comparing rates of autism, depression, fibromyalgia, lupus, cancer, arthritis between Christian Scientists and the public at large. I'd be surprised if there's much of a difference at all both in longevity and quality of life.

                            by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:26:23 PM PDT

                            •  More straw men

                              the 'treatment' using conventional medicine forces the patient to have limbs hacked off and poison enter their veins because that way they might live 6 more months...!? Let them choose how they want to proceed, even with unconventional methods. It's about allowing people to control their own life experience, not the government's or the medical establishments.

                              no one is "forced" to have treatments they object to. Are you unaware of the requirement for patient or guardian consent?

                              You are beginning to sound like a teabagger - the government is forcibly sawing off people's limbs and poisoning them with Flouride in the drinking water!

                              You are free to refuse treatment and to seek alternative treatments. This is not about your right to choose based on your religious convictions - or, for any other reason.

                              It is about not obligating me, as a taxpayer, to pay for the consequences of your religious choice.

                              Intent is irrelevant. Beliefs are irrelevant. Taxpayer-subsidized medicine should be based on empirical proof of efficacy, and the Constitution prohibits forcing me to fund explicitly religious practices such as Christian Science "healing".

                              by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:18:04 PM PDT

                    •  Does this apply to minors?

                      Because I fail to see how Christian Scientists justify making those decisions for children, in the face of all the world's evidence to the contrary.

                      Unless you defend the right of parents to do anything to their children.

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:30:23 PM PDT

                      •  evidence

                        Evidently everyone lives if they enter a hospital or take a pill. There isn't a single death at the hands of a doctor. By all means, lets pull out the most extreme examples of alternative care gone wrong because it further justifies 'all the world's evidence to the contrary' instead of taking a more measured look at alternatives where there is no medical cure.

                        by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:38:37 PM PDT

                        •  Straw man

                          The goal of medicine is not perfection, and the measure of medicine is not perfection. The goal, and the measure, are improving well-being compared to alternatives and past treatments.

                          Modern medicine works better than the alternatives, and better today than it worked in the past.

                          When specific claims are made about the efficacy of a treatment, it becomes subject to testing and those claims subject to verification.

                          When claimed treatments fail those tests, they are not valid medicine, and should not be covered by my tax dollars. It doesn't matter if you call it "Western", or "alternative", or "ancient", or "fishsticks".

                          It either is experimentally verified, or experimentally falsified. If falsified, my tax dollars should not subsidize it. End of story. You are free to use it, but not free to ask me to pay for it.

                          All of which has nothing to do with my question about whether the rationale presented defending using my tax dollars to pay for Christian Science "healing" extends to using that "healing" on children while denying them access to modern medicine whose efficacy is known and quantified. A question you, like the other commenters, refuse to reply to.

                          So, how about it - do you feel that parents should have the right to treat their children without restriction in whatever way they see fit?

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:07:39 PM PDT

                          •  talk about straw man

                            You can't possibly deal with shades of gray can you? There is more to healing than medicine alone.

                            Your tax dollars are mixed with my tax dollars. The best way to handle it is to allow as many treatments as possible and to let the tax payer decide what is best for him or herself with as few gatekeepers as possible. That would be fair in a free society.

                            I have more faith in people choosing what is best for themselves than faith in the one 'true' cure. There are as many cures as there are people. You put your faith in physical evidence and statistical research - fine. Not a bad way to go. Use that information in good health. Don't dictate to the rest of us how to use our health options please. A free society should allow some of us to feel uncomfortable with others' choices for themselves and those in their care.

                            by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

                            •  Your logic is failing

                              Your tax dollars are mixed with my tax dollars. The best way to handle it is to allow as many treatments as possible and to let the tax payer decide what is best for him or herself with as few gatekeepers as possible. That would be fair in a free society.

                              No, that would be the most utterly wasteful, inefficient and ineffective way to spend taxpayer dollars, and would yield the least effective health care.

                              Think about it for a minute - you are saying, "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks - using every taxpayer's dime". That makes absolutely no sense.

                              You put your faith in physical evidence and statistical research - fine. Not a bad way to go.

                              When it comes to the government spending our money, what do you put your faith in, if not evidence and statistical results? It's funny you are all CT about "big Pharma and big medicine" - yet you're willing to write a blank check (with my money as well as yours) to big government.

                              Without evidence and measuring results, how do you know what expenditures are worthwhile and which are wasteful?

                              Without evidence and measuring results, how do you know if you are harming or helping people?

                              You say, let each person choose for themselves. Then let each person pay for themselves. If we are to collectively pay for shit, then we better measure it and make sure it works.

                              Don't dictate to the rest of us how to use our health options please.

                              Sorry, but the "free society" references are just bullshit. If you are spending my money, you lose the freedom to do with it whatever the fuck you please.

                              Sharing resources in a society means relinquishing certain individual libertarian freedoms in the interest of the common good.

                              Otherwise, there is no reason to pool our resources at all. If everyone is free to do their own thing with no accountability, then everyone should spend their own damn money.

                              Your passion is admirable, but your logic is not.

                              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:10:05 AM PDT

                              •  common good

                                Healing is not just scientific logical reasoning. I'm sorry you don't see that. Perhaps you haven't had to deal with end of life decisions in your experience. I hope you aren't a doctor.

                                by musicsleuth on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:33:40 AM PDT

                                •  irrelevant ad hominems

                                  Healing is not just scientific logical reasoning.

                                  Healing is not scientific logical reasoning at all. Healing is getting better, or applying treatments to others that make them better.

                                  We can measure "making better" very precisely, regardless of the nature of the treatment.

                                  We do so using methodology that has proven effective in weeding out individual bias, experimental flaws and human errors. It's called the scientific method, and logic is only one of its many tools.

                                  Over the years, scientific experimentation using double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized studies, and submitting them to peer-review, making not just the results but the rigorous methodology publicly available for scrutiny, has proven the most accurate, effective, and egalitarian method of studying the efficacy of medical treatments.

                                  Healing either works, or it doesn't. The results can be measured.

                                  Perhaps you haven't had to deal with end of life decisions in your experience.

                                  Perhaps your zealotry and narrow-mindedness prevents you from seeing others on the Internet as human beings, most of whom have experienced suffering in their lives just as you have - many of whom have experienced a great deal more suffering.

                                  End of life decisions have nothing to do with this conversation. I support providing counselors and other support for such things. That is not what we're talking about.

                                  But, again, your attack on the messenger is beside the point. It doesn't address the substance of the message, which you have utterly ignored.

                                  I hope you aren't a doctor.

                                  I'm not and never claimed to be - but, again, that is irrelevant to the substance of the arguments I made in the previous comments, which you assiduously ignore.

                                  Attacking the messenger does not weaken the message.

                                  You have not responded in any way to my points about the most effective way to deliver health care, or about the necessity to ensure that our tax dollars are spent efficiently to provide it, rather than enriching the pockets of scam artists and zealots who produce no healing.

                                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:37:45 AM PDT

            •  Christian science "healing"

              is not medicine, and therefore should not be covered by taxpayers under a public health plan.

              by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:28:54 PM PDT

              •  do we get a discount

                if the medicine we use doesn't work? I don't think so!

                How many people do you think covering Christian Science practitioner fees affects? Do you really think that a huge percentage of the population is going to drop their insurance coverage because they decide to go that route instead? Are you going to argue that a PUBLIC plan should discriminate treatment based on religion? As it stand now, nobody if forced to have an abortion or selective reduction if they don't want one. Would you argue that it should be required if it is medically viable and recommended? Slippery slope.

                by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:43:01 PM PDT

                •  Bullshit argument

                  1. efficacy is a statistical measure, not an individual measure. You don't get a personal discount if any treatment - real medicine or voodoo "medicine" doesn't work. The issue is not what you personally pay for your treatment, the issue is what taxpayers collectively pay for everyone's treatment.

                  We should only pay for treatments that are proven effective - that doesn't mean 100% effective, it means more effective than any of the alternatives, and measurably more effective than no treatment at all.

                  This standard applies objectively to any medical claim. It doesn't matter what you label it with, a claim of efficacy is subject to empirical evaluation, and, if it fails to meet the measure of efficacy, should not be funded by taxpayers.

                  It's really quite simple, and you are trying to confuse it with emotional appeals and irrelevant straw men and red herrings.

                  A public plan should not support ANY treatment that is not effective - and certainly should not support ANY treatment that proves worse than the alternatives.

                  Since Christian Science "healing" has proven to be ineffective and in many cases harmful (to the extent it is offered in place of effective treatment), the only justification offered for covering it is explicitly religious. Even you, in your inverted straw man logic, admit this, when you refer to objections to it as "religious discrimination".

                  A public plan should not fund religious activities.

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:13:22 PM PDT

                  •  bullshit reasoning

                    I guess it's all black and white with you, isn't it?

                    Healing is more than taking a pill based on the marketing of drug companies to your local doctor. The medical industrial complex pays good money to make sure their methods are not seen as ineffective, even when they kill more people that placebo. You should hope that a public plan is more inclusive than that. I welcome more inclusive studies on outcomes and not just process -- particularly studies that aren't completely managed by big Pharma and big medicine. These are expensive to produce and most alternatives to the status quo have no fiscal reason to fund them.

                    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:12:17 PM PDT

                    •  Claims of physical effects, such as healing

                      are measurable, so the results are, in fact, black and white. When they are not yet clear, further study is required. When further study yields no clear answer, the treatment has not been proven.

                      It is ironic that you say you welcome studies on "outcomes and not just process", when the scientific measure of efficacy is all about outcomes. Process is where individual bias, and the influence of interested parties, is accounted for. That's why science works.

                      Contrary to your conspiracy theory, all medical research is not conducted by or even funded by "big Pharma and big medicine". And, contrary to your implication, there is big money and big interests behind "alternative" therapies as well.

                      When you have no actual data to substantiate your claims, you resort, in typical fashion, to accusations of conspiracies and suppression.

                      If treatments work, they should be funded. If they don't, they should not.

                      You have yet to comment on that specific statement.

                      Do you agree, or do you think we should throw money after things that don't work - whether they are sewage plants, military hardware, educational programs or medical treatments?

                      Are you opposed to the notion that taxpayer dollars should go towards things that work, as opposed to things driven by beliefs and ideologies, or aren't you?

                      stop dodging the question with all this irrelevant conspiracy bullshit.

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:03:49 AM PDT

  •  Yet you pay for practitioners of every stripe who

    call themselves 'therapists,' many with belief systems whose foundations are no more or less rigorous or rational than any religion you care to pick.  As long as the goal is improving physical or mental health, why should the explicitly religious practitioners be cut out?

    by oblomov on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:32:31 PM PDT

    •  Two tiny reasons:

      1. Because the U.S. Constitution says so;

      2. Because the fact that other ineffective treatments are currently incorrectly covered, does not mean that we should cover new ineffective treatments.

      Efficacy should be the measure of responsible expenditure of taxpayer money. We should not throw our money after things that do not work in any realm of government spending.

      Note that "rigorous or rational" is not the criteria, demonstrated efficacy is the criteria.

      In the case of public health, there are well-established metrics to define efficacy.

      Any treatment that fails those measures should not be taxpayer subsidized.

      Simple.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:39:26 PM PDT

•  How the heck

  is "spiritual care" defined??

  Makes me wonder how they would determine the reasonable and customary fee for say....an exorcism? or what percentage of "laying on of hands" might be covered? Would Sarah Palin's witch doctor be in network or out of network?

  LOL.....This should make for some interesting conversations with the insurance agents!

  by joy221 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:06:14 AM PDT

•  I've got no problem discriminating

  against religious or spiritual  healthcare.  Take it out.

  by thestructureguy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:06:27 AM PDT

  •  You have no problem

    ...compelling people to participate in a private sector system that they find morally and ethically repugnant either, apparently.

    I think I smell hypocrisy.

    by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:09:45 AM PDT

    •  thank you

      I would encourage anyone to be more inclusive on treatment options, not less inclusive. Alternative therapies can be more healthy and less expensive in some cases and it seems immoral to only allow the treatment with the best-paid lobbyists to win.

      by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:28:22 AM PDT

      •  Alternitive Therapies that have no basis in

        fact or science should not be paid for, period.  Unless you are willing to pay for my atheleats foot treatment which involves givin me a really big sailboat to use...

        by ETinKC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:47 AM PDT

        •  bring on the studies

          If I am being compelled to use treatment for cancer that has not been proven to heal cancer (most medical treatments) I should have the alternative of prayerful study and a nurse supportive of that prayerful study. I should not be forced to pay for palliative treatment that poisons me and medicates me into a stupor for 'scientific research' either.

          by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:41:50 AM PDT

          •  sorry but they are there and have been done

            there is no zero zilch nada evidence that non-scientific faith based "treatments" do anything except kill people quicker when they forgo treatments that do show an increased survival rate.

            the first google hit:

            http://www.boston.com/...

            Over a six-month period, the study found no difference in serious side effects, death rate, or readmissions between the patients who had received prayers and those who did not.

            and from a now dead link:

            In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

            by ETinKC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:55:03 AM PDT

            •  Why your study and not the others that

              contradict its findings?

              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:30 AM PDT

              •  I told you what I found - the only study

                I found that showed a positive effect turned out latter to have been fraudulent.  You are the one making extraordinary claims here, how about you come up with something to back them up?

                by ETinKC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:09:09 PM PDT

                •  Actually, in several other comments

                  I've provided innumerable sources.  

                  http://whenonepercent.org/...

                  http://www.npr.org/...

                  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/

                  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/...

                  http://www.demosmedpub.com/...

                  There's just a few.  There are, of course, over 700 studies on the effects of meditation and prayer on the body, wellness, healing and psyche.

                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:39 PM PDT

                  •  Meditation

                    is not faith-based, nor religious. It is a state of relaxation.

                    by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:33:14 PM PDT

                    •  Meditation and prayer are nearly

                      synonymous.

                      Prayer is the faith-based version of meditation.

                      Both are shown to have benefits.  

                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:35:07 PM PDT

                      •  This is simply not true.

                        Not even close to reality, I'm sorry. Prayer is an appeal to an omnipotent being to cure the recipient. How is that in any way a version of meditation?

                        And where are the scientific studies showing the benefit of prayer?

                        by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:38:31 PM PDT

                        •  I disagree.

                          I meditate, as part of my religion, Buddhism.  Many equate it to prayer.

                          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:30:18 PM PDT

                          •  No.

                            Meditation is the method you use to facilitate your prayer. Meditation does not necessitate prayer, or vice versa. Just like drinking wine is not, in itself, a form of supplication.

                            by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:09:21 PM PDT

                          •  Those who equate it are wrong.

                            And yes, we have scientific studies to prove that.
                            :-)

                            But the Buddha would also have agreed -- he made a sharp distinction between prayer (to various Gods), practiced in most of the Indian communities of the time, and meditation.  Early Buddhist meditation was in fact distinctly atheist, marking a change from pre-Buddhist meditative traditions in India (mostly yoga traditions).

                            Some branches of Buddhism have degenerated on that distinction -- I think boddhisattvas are ridiculously un-Buddhist -- and some prayer traditions have developed meditative prayer.

                            Mediation is very very different from prayer although it is possible to do both at once.

                            by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:29:21 PM PDT

                            •  possible to do both at once.

                              ergo, they are not mutually exclusive.

                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:33:17 PM PDT

                              •  It's also possible to

                                walk and chew gum at the same time.  Walking has proven health benefits -- does that mean that we should pay for chewing gum for all the people who would be helped by walking?

                                I mean, think about the illogicality.

                                by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:35:13 PM PDT

                                •  If it helps them walk more, then why wouldn't we?

                                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:37:01 PM PDT

                                  •  Ah, interesting point!

                                    See, OK, I'll accept that. Provided it doesn't cost a ton more, and it actually does help them walk more.  If it doesn't help them walk more....

                                    by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:38:35 PM PDT

                                    •  then we stop paying for it? nt :-)

                                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:40:32 PM PDT

                      •  ETCinKC quoted findings

                        That clearly discussed the alleged affect of praying for another person on the prayed-for person's health - and the failure of that allegation to stand up to experimental testing.

                        You continue to deliberately confuse the issue and refer to the personal benefits of concentrated brain activity - meditation, prayer, playing chess, etc - on the individual doing the activity.

                        Your continued insistence on perpetuating this subterfuge makes clear that this is not just ignorance of misunderstanding on your part, but a deliberate attempt to deceive.

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:48:23 PM PDT

                    •  Do you meditate? nt

                      by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:35:20 PM PDT

                    •  And it is

                      incredibly disingenuous to mix that in to try and make prayer-based healing sound more reputable. There is a vast difference. One is an internal state to reduce stress, the other is an external appeal to a higher power.

                      by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:36:23 PM PDT

                      •  So if someone sits quietly and prays to

                        their god, and it reduces their stress and blood pressure, do you still assert it has no benefit?

                        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:39:23 PM PDT

                        •  Um.

                          Did you even read the study you were refuting? It, and this diary, is not about sitting quietly and praying on your own, so that you calm down. It is about prayer healing/therapy -- other people praying for you to get better, or some other faith healing service.

                          by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:21:19 PM PDT

                        •  And to respond to this strawman argument --

                          I do assert that the prayer itself has no intrinsic health benefit. Just sitting quietly and thinking peaceful thoughts would have exactly the same effect. If someone requires those thoughts to be religious in nature, great, but that in itself is not the cause of the benefit.

                          If my sitting quietly and thinking about Carl Sagan reduces my stress and blood pressure (which it does, funnily enough), does that mean Sagan has intrinsic health benefits?

                          by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:26:49 PM PDT

                          •  I did read the diary and you persist

                            in reasoning in a way that is no way related to what I'm saying.

                            I understand the differences between prayer therapy and prayer/meditation.   I never asserted 'prayer therapy' worked.  I said prayer and meditation had health benefits.

                            If you can find one place in these comments where I said prayer therapy worked, I challenge you to find it.

                            As I said before, I was merely challenging the notion that prayer and meditation have NO health benefit as some here have asserted.  In fact, they go deeper than that to assert that people who were prayed for and who prayed themselves actually have worse outcomes.  

                            I was and always only have been provided information to controvert that claim.  Anything else you misread was wholly your own doing.

                            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:45:19 PM PDT

                            •  Simple.

                              I point to this comment of yours:

                              --------
                              Why your study and not the others that (0+ / 0-)
                              contradict its findings?

                              by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:30 AM PST
                              --------

                              You were replying to a study saying prayer healing/therapy did not work and insisted that other studies contradicted it.

                              by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:01:46 PM PDT

                              •  That is so intellectually dishonest!

                                lol

                                I have only ever supported the notion that prayer and meditation had health benefits.

                                You're reaching.

                                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:08:10 PM PDT

                                •  Then why

                                  did you (dishonestly, I might add) claim that other studies contradicted the study posted, which found that prayer healing/therapy did not work?

                                  by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:37:40 PM PDT

                                  •  Prayer and meditation do work,

                                    but not a healing unto themselves - they merely aid the process.  Your inability to discern that is not my problem.

                                    Personally, I think you were just looking for a fight.

                                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:39:34 PM PDT

                                    •  Now I understand.

                                      You didn't even read the study before inferring it was invalid. Why didn't you just admit that earlier? The study was solely about prayer healing/therapy, and did not deal with meditation (or even private prayer) in any way.

                                      by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:08:29 PM PDT

                                      •  No, I specifically responded to

                                        someone's contention above that prayer and meditation were not beneficial in healing, in fact this person asserted they were detrimental.

                                        That is a pretty broad statement made above, and so I provided evidence to the contrary.

                                        Maybe it was because you were not here at the start of the conversation that you are confused.  

                                        ::shrug::

                                        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:13:28 PM PDT

                                        •  Please do not lie.

                                          I am perfectly capable of reading through the thread and seeing the written evidence.

                                          The poster in question did not refer to meditation (or even private prayer) in any form.

                                          ETinKC quoted peer-reviewed studies on prayer therapy that found, in his words:

                                          there is no zero zilch nada evidence that non-scientific faith based "treatments" do anything except kill people quicker when they forgo treatments that do show an increased survival rate.

                                          Note the term "treatments". Clearly this refers to prayer therapy (not private prayer), which is, after all, the subject of this diary.

                                          Another poster, praying manatheist, quoted this from another peer-reviewed study:

                                          CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

                                          to which you replied:

                                          One study out of thousands.
                                          Wow.
                                          There are many to contradict that.

                                          Again, no mention of meditation whatsoever and only talking about intercessory prayer (in other words, external prayer therapy) - yet you claimed this study was contradicted.

                                          And you have still not provided any evidence whatsoever discounting these studies.

                                          by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:31:45 PM PDT

                                          •  Excuse me? Lie?!

                                            WTF are you talking about?

                                            You're completely off your rocker.  

                                            They made broad sweeping generalizations, which I told them were incorrect.  They said, very clearly that prayer and meditation were invalid as forms of therapy in helping others.

                                            I provided links saying that yes, many people receive benefit of meditation and prayer - as a means of therapy, to combat a variety of illness.

                                            I did not say that faith-based healing is a valid means of health care, or as a replacement for conventional medicine.  

                                            You are taking a response of mine that was pretty specific and trying to apply it in a broad way.  By that, not only have you totally distorted everything I said, you have also called me a liar - when you are the one being dishonest.

                                            This was a sad, sorry waste of my time.

                                            Face it, you were wrong about meditation and prayer.  They do help people, they relieve stress and provide health benefits.  The broad brush of dismissing them as 'fantasy' is incorrect.

                                            But, of course, you won't actually acknowledge it.  You'd rather attack me.  Well, go ahead.

                                            Put words in my mouth, distort whatever I say to make yourself feel good about yourself, to bully me. It doesn't matter.

                                            You believe what you want to believe, no matter what I say.  You've decided to treat everything I say as suspect, and without any basis for trust (I mean, after all you could be lying to me, but I never assumed it about you!)....well, any further discussion is pointless.

                                            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:40:56 PM PDT

                                            •  Yes, lie.

                                              No one even mentioned meditation (or even private prayer) at all before you, so how could you have been responding to someone's comment about meditation?

                                              by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:52:40 PM PDT

                            •  "Some here"?

                              I haven't found a single comment here which suggested that meditation has no health benefits.  Put up or shut up.

                              Prayer, on the other hand, has no health benefits.

                              Yes, you can do them both at once.  But you don't have to.

                              by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:31:16 PM PDT

                              •  This is the comment -

                                Prayer does not work (15+ / 0-)
                                Recommended by: chase, kdrivel, TiaRachel, Brooke In Seattle, CParis, skohayes, kyril, BYw, RandomActsOfReason, JSC ltd, icemilkcoffee, gater2112, blackjackal, johnva, gardnerjf
                                While believing that prayer has healing benefits to some is a popular myth, science tells us otherwise.

                                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

                                I'm amazed this study is on a government site seeing as it was published in 2006, in throes of the anti-science insanity that was sweeping through the administration.

                                So on one hand, we have prayer that has been scientifically proven to not only be ineffective, but actually counterproductive.  On the other hand we have abortions, which I'm pretty sure don't even need a scientific study to show their efficacy.
                                by praying manatheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:41:18 PM EST

                                No health benefits, even though sitting quietly in a room, praying to ones god has been shown to calm people, relieve stress and aid in the healing process.  Sitting a room, praying to ones god is not all that different from meditation, which also does the same thing.

                                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:38:37 PM PDT

                                •  And how much does....

                                  sitting quietly in a room cost?

                                  Well, literally nothing, I think.  I'm sure it should be covered by insurance, but I'm not sure it needs to be.

                                  Meditation training?  Should definitely be covered, but surely we should attempt to find out which forms of meditation are most effective and hire the teachers for those only?

                                  by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:45:34 PM PDT

                                  •  I think so.

                                    That would be worth some study, and a licensing process, I think.

                                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:55:06 PM PDT

                  •  Now it is clear you are deliberately lying

                    misleading, and derailing this discussion.

                    It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the effects of meditation on the person meditating has nothing to do with the alleged efficacy of one person praying for another healing that second person.

                    In response, you claimed you never said you supported remote prayer therapy.

                    Yet here, again, the discussion has been about the alleged efficacy of precisely that - and you respond, again, with your irrelevant cites about the efficacy of meditation for the person meditating.

                    At this point, is is clear that you have no interest in sharing learning with this community, you are deliberately presenting false information.

                    Given the context of the rest of your comments, the only logical conclusiones are either:

                    1. you have a personal financial interest in promoting taxpayer funding of remote prayer therapy or laying on of hands, or

                    2. you are so fervently zealous and blind in your beliefs, that you rationalize deliberately attempting to mislead others as justified means en route to whatever righteous end your zealous mind perceives.

                    Rather than providing a positive example of the merits of your beliefs, you are yet another blind believer who demonstrates, with their own behavior, the danger of blind faith.

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:45:30 PM PDT

                  •  Okay - has anyone seen the fucking goalposts

                    they were right here a second ago.

                    by ETinKC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:52:45 PM PDT

              •  Which ones?

                I would actually like to read them, assuming they are peer reviewed in actual science or medical journals.

                by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:30:44 PM PDT

                •  Again, see links above.

                  And I presume Harvard, Duke and Bryn Mawr are good enough for you?

                  As for medical journals, most of them charge to access articles online and no, I'm not paying to do that when these articles are from good sources.  If you want that, you're out of luck.

                  by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:34:08 PM PDT

                  •  Ahem.

                    All I see are links pertaining to meditation. ETinKC, and this diary, are talking about prayer.

                    You don't need to even link to them, just tell me the studies' titles, authors and reputable journals they appear in, I can do the rest.

                    by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:40:34 PM PDT

          •  You'll still be allowed

            to make those choices about your own medical care.  If you don't want palliative care, just tell your physician.

            Health care reform isn't about making medical decisions for people, but paying for the medical care that people need and choose.

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:03 AM PDT

            •  Paying for it by taxing

              those that choose to do without it, apparently. It looks like I'll have a choice of paying premiums for an insurance policy I will never use due to a fundamental disagreement with how healthcare is administered, or being fined by the IRS (I thought they were a tax collection agency, not in the protection racket?)

              They can kiss my ass.

              by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:19:31 PM PDT

          •  No one will ever compell you to have

            any cancer treatment you don't want. Nice strawman argument though.

            by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:15:58 PM PDT

            •  yes, but

              they'll compel me to be insured for such treatments - in short, paying (collectively) for them whether I want (or receive) them or not.

              by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:19 PM PDT

              •  Ok, so what if we say that

                you don't have to pay for insurance but by the same token you don't get to tap into the health care system when your appendix goes kablooey. Cut it out your own damn self instead of going to the emergency room and taking up the resources we've already paid for.

                by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:25:24 PM PDT

            •  I disagree

              Particularly if the person in question is under age. Medical fundamentalism takes over and the parents are left with choosing between what they feel is best for their family and a medical method that is guaranteed not to spare that person's life but is guaranteed to hack of limbs and poison them so they have a 'chance'. One choice will give them sympathy when the child dies, the other might send them to jail.

              by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:33:18 PM PDT

      •  exactly!

        alternative... or "none"

        I'm an atheist, but I can phrase things in a way theists might like: "when my time comes, it's God's will" -- I don't fucking want extraordinary means used to keep me alive -- be it at the age of 120 or next week following a horrific car crash.

        If I have an infection, let me send a culture to a lab, then select an antibiotic on my own based on the result.

        If I take a fall and my leg hurts, I can create an order for x-rays just as well as the MD in the ER. Hell, let me prescribe my own pain meds, but report those self-prescriptions to the DEA if you think there's some reason to prevent people from ingesting chemicals they paid cash for.

        Most basic medicine isn't anything like rocket science. I don't need to pay someone (because they're afraid of being sued) umpteen dollars to rule out some rare tropical disease when I have a case of the sniffles. Let me decide that I have a cold and prescribe pseudo-ephedrine -- and without this bullshit because some people might make meth from it. Guess what? some people might use a baseball bat in an assault.

        by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:44:40 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, it's so simple....RIGHT.

          I'm sorry, but googling shit doesn't make you a physician who knows what the hell they are doing.
          Sounds like we have some jealousy issues here....

          by UndercoverRxer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

          •  Well...

            Did you miss the word "basic" there? Are you one of the morons who go to the ER with a splinter or a mild, uncomplicated sprain? Good; glad to hear that you're not. I didn't really think that you were, but you sounded like one for a moment there.

            FYI, what limited knowledge of medicine I have comes from a rather large and eclectic library of books I inherited -- mostly textbooks intended for medical students. I read them cover to cover for fun, because science in general interests me. No Google involved. That said, it doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to distinguish between pain focal to McBurney's point and "I ate too many green apples".

            If I - as a single male in his late 40s - choose to self-diagnose, nobody else is at risk if I make an error. Why is this a problem for anyone (aside from  physicians with "arrogance issues")?

            And guess what? Even if I had an IQ of 70, hair growing out of my ears and manure between my toes... well it's my damned life. If I chose to self-medicate with prayers and dancing under the full moon while throwing random herbs and spices into a campfire, that'd be none of your business either.

            by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:39:01 PM PDT

            •  Hardly one of the

              morons who go to the ER with a splinter or a mild, uncomplicated sprain?

              PhD in Pharmacy, actually.

              For every 1 person like you, there are 10,000 who have no business even thinking about ordering their own tests/treatments. If the laws were changed for you, those other 10,000 would screw it up big time, so sorry, we live in a cooperative society with shared codes of behavior, and that change wouldn't benefit society.

              You must not live in an area with a big meth problem. You having to sign the little book is a small price to pay to try to keep the meth labs out of business.

              If you want to howl at the moon, fine, no one is stopping you from throwing those herbs and spices in the fire. But that's a far cry from removing all controls from medical practice.

              by UndercoverRxer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:49:15 PM PDT

      •  Alternative medicine

        can be proven to work. Such as acupuncture and massage therapy.

        But it has to be proven, scientifically and medically, that it works before I would accept the government or insurance companies paying for it.

        Prayer therapy? I'm not sure there's data out there to support prayer therapy is a form of medicine that actually works.

        by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:55 PM PDT

        •  Interestingly

          There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

          Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I buy it, or believe in faith healers. And certainly no tax payer dollars should go towards funding such therapy.

          I just think we live a magical world of mysteries, and it goes without saying there are things we can't explain.

          by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:28:07 PM PDT

          •  And since there are examples,

            many, many examples of cancers going into spontaneuos remission (even in atheists!) I suppose we should no do anything about cancer since doing nothing seems to work sometimes too.

            What I'm saying here is that you can find examples of anything having a casual rather than causal relationship--it doesn't make science and it doesn't make for good medicine.

            by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:50:56 PM PDT

            •  Of course

              And I never said it was science.  I never said it was real.  I never said it was good medicine.

              I'm merely saying there are things in this world we can't explain, and just because we can't explain them does not mean they are not true.

              That does not mean we rely on such things, and we certainly should not fund them. But I'm certainly  not in a position to discount them entirely.

              by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:33:28 PM PDT

              •  Actually, that is precisely what it means

                because, unfortunately for your "anecdotal evidence", actual examination of the claims (where claimants have allowed it, which of course is mysteriously rare) has shown such claims to be either utterly spurious or completely within statistical chance or placebo (some people get better with or without "hands" on them).

                More importantly, rigorous studies of such alleged effects have shown the alleged effect to be nonexistent.

                So, it isn't the case that we "can't explain" the effect of laying on of hands. Rather, we can explain it - it doesn't work.

                A little more inexplicable is the stubborn insistence of some people to continue to believe in things even when presented with contrary evidence - but, just because this irrational quirkiness in human nature is not (yet) explained, doesn't mean I should pay for it.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:58:30 PM PDT

          •  I just love these kind of comments

            There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

            Note the use of terminology that almost makes this sound credibly "scientific", if you don't look too carefully. "Journaled" [sic], for example - where, exactly? "Evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy" - wow, must be a scientific study, because, after all, how would a layperson know whether individual cells a) were cancerous, and b) got "healthy"?

            And then, it is married with this doozy:

            I just think we live a magical world of mysteries

            Ironically, this kind of post just exposes the desperation of those who are most unwilling to accept the scientific method, to pretend to be scientifically credible - implicitly admitting that science has proven itself, whilst "magic" has proven only to be fun to read about in Harry Potter.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:54:13 PM PDT

            •  Damn you're an angry little person.

              by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:08:29 PM PDT

              •  Damn you substitute cant for citations.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:57:57 PM PDT

                •  Angry, angry, angry

                  You are, however, quite adept at writing a sentence that has no comprehensible meaning.

                  by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:37:56 PM PDT

                  •  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word "cant"

                    without the apostrophe.

                    Here, let me help you: http://lmgtfy.com/...

                    Meanwhile, please present citations substantiating the efficacy of Christian Science healing - even anecdotally.

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:51:47 PM PDT

                    •  Um....what?

                      Where do I use "cant" in this thread, with or without an apostrophe?

                      Seriously....that's all you've got?

                      by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:56:12 PM PDT

                      •  Wow, you're even more confused than I thought

                        I used "cant", to which your only response was,

                        You are, however, quite adept at writing a sentence that has no comprehensible meaning.

                        In any case, you continue to make little sense and focus more on your ego's need to show dominance, than on addressing substantive discussion.

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:52:16 PM PDT

                        •  Well...

                          I said your sentence had no comprehensible meaning because, um, your sentence had not comprehensible meaning.   Comprehend?

                          In any event, I can see that I'm not the only one here who finds you to be (and I know you'll appreciate this scientific term), whacked.  And generally close minded and angry.  And frankly you (and only you) seem to have a higher regard for your own intellect than your words...your "arguments"...demonstrate.

                          Surprising, because most atheists I know are quite intelligent.

                          (sigh)

                          by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:25:52 AM PDT

                          •  Citations still needed

                            No matter how many attacks on the messenger you throw up.

                            You like to make assertions, and then never back them up.

                            There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                            Citations needed to support assertions.

                            I'll give you a constructive hint:

                            Damn you're an angry little person.

                            Does not constitute a substantive response.

                            Funny how eager you are to throw around the ad hominems, than can't handle it when you are given a taste of your own treatment.

                            Regardless, citations still needed to back up your phony claims.

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:15:55 AM PDT

                            •  I noted...

                              ...that, in refuting my (well known claims), you provided no "citations" of your own.

                              This is not a legal brief, and since my "assertions" have been pretty well documented in the mainstream press, I don't feel need to do your research for you. I never made any statement about the legitimacy of the faith healing claims...merely that they had been made and documented (whether debunked or not).  If I say "Many have claimed to have seen UFO's" I would not feel the need to provide citation for that either, since the fact that many people have claimed to have seen UFO's is well known, as are the claims that people have been cured via faith healing (again, true or not).

                              You are just so reflexively anti-Christian that even if someone mentions something in passing (and I NEVER said I bought the claims...indeed, I said the opposite in this thread) you immediately get defensive, and feel the need to jump in and attack. You felt personally threatened when I simply stated there are mysteries in this world we can't explain...a statement which is on its face true.  Are there scientific explanations for all these mysteries? No doubt. But until we discover those answers, they are still mysteries.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?  Truly, a mystery.

                              What you don't realize is that this makes you less open minded...indeed, less reasonable, because you are so sure of the rightness of your beliefs that it's impossible for you to even consider another viewpoint.  

                              Indeed, it's something you (and other militant atheists) have in common with religious fundamentalists.

                              by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:56:09 AM PDT

                              •  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary eviden

                                you do not even provide ordinary evidence.

                                The burden is not on the rest of us to disprove every faith-based, unsustantiated claim anyone makes.

                                You say your claims are "well known" - that doesn't mean they are true.

                                You make assertions, and, when challenged, call the challenger "anti-Christian".

                                It's a neat old trick, but it doesn't fool anyone on a site like this.

                                You felt personally threatened when I simply stated there are mysteries in this world we can't explain..

                                False. The claim you made was,

                                There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                                Citations needed.

                                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:10:58 AM PDT

                                •  I don't mean to be insulting

                                  Honestly, but are you stupid? Do you have no reading comphrehinsion?

                                  You say your claims are "well known" - that doesn't mean they are true.

                                  I will say this in all caps, and bold, so you get it this time:
                                  
                                  I NEVER SAID THE CLAIMS WERE TRUE. MERELY THAT THEY HAD BEEN MADE AND DOCUMENTED. IN FACT, I SPECIFICALLY SAID I DO NOT BELIEVE IN FAITH HEALING.

                                  Really, are you that dense?  Do you deny that people have claimed to be healed by faith, whether it's true or not? Are you saying you have NEVER heard of someone CLAIMING to be healed by faith? Have you NEVER heard of someone CLAIMING to see a UFO? Does that make it true?  

                                  You act like I'm some religious zealot coming on here trying to convince people.  That's because it's how you see the world. You think ANYONE who even makes a comment about something must mean they are zealously pushing that viewpoint.  

                                  You are quite possibly one of the most anti-intellectual people I have come across on this site. And I've wasted enough time with you already, because you clearly don't get it, and never will.

                                  By the way, I can see that mine is not a minority viewpoint around here about you.  You seem to have a way of alienating even people who might agree with you.  Good luck with that in life.

                                  Don't bother to reply.

                                  by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:30:56 AM PDT

                                  •  Arguments from popularity are fallacious as well

                                    You stated,

                                    There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                                    I've repeatedly asked for citation.

                                    You have refused to provide it, instead erecting a host of irrelevant straw men.

                                    I just think we live a magical world of mysteries

                                    We know that. What we've asked for are citations for your claims.

                                    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:38:21 AM PDT

                                    •  You still don't get it

                                      I don't respect you enough to dig up a citation for you. Do you understand?  Does that register with you?

                                      Oh, and this:

                                      We know that. What we've asked for are citations for your claims.

                                      By "we", of course, you  mean "you".  And as to whether I am going to dig up citations for "you", read (if you can) above.

                                      Now, go lose (another) of the (many) other arguments you are involved with.  I don't think you'll find many in sympathy with you anti-intellectual and intolerant zealotry around here.

                                      by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:40:45 PM PDT

                                      •  Citations still needed

                                        you claimed,

                                        There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                                        I claimed bullshit, and challenged you to present evidence.

                                        You have produced none.

                                        According to critical thinking principles and the scientific method, failure to produce any evidence at all to a claim that violates known laws of physics is considered invalid.

                                        In other words, you can't produce. All you have left is to attack the messenger. You have nothing of substance to contribute.

                                        Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, reality is reality. Doesn't matter how many ugly names you call me, it doesn't address the substance of my challenge, nor the lack of substance of your false assertion.

                                        As Galileo said, "and yet, it turns".

                                        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:31:45 PM PDT

                                  •  Fine

                                    I'll provide a citation to you, as soon as you prove to me that God does not exist.

                                    Since the majority of people on the planet believe in a supreme being of one kind or another, any assertion that there is no God is an "extraordinary claim."  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

                                    Please provide such proof,and the citations.

                                    by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:32:34 PM PDT

                                    •  Since I don't claim to prove definitively

                                      that "God", or any gods, do not exist, such a citation is unnecessary.

                                      I also can't prove definitively that the Tooth Fairy does not exist?

                                      Can you?

                                      You really don't know much about atheism, do you?

                                      You made a specific, tangible claim, about "anecdotal evidence" you claimed had been "journaled [sic] many times" regarding "cancerous cells becoming healthy".

                                      That is quite different from proving a negative about a noncorporeal alleged supernatural being.

                                      You can't present citations because you don't have any. You made it up. You got Bupkis.

                                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:28:30 PM PDT

                                      •  This isn't about "atheism"

                                        Most atheist I know are eminently reasonable.

                                        It's about YOU.  Your unreasonableness. Your close mindedness.  You STILL don't get that.

                                        I note that you have a proclivity for running around this place demanding people give you "citations".  As if every comment is subject to review and verification by "RandomActsOfReason".

                                        Oh, by the way, Einstein, the spelling on "journaled", is, in fact, correct.

                                        by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:56:44 PM PDT

                                        •  Arguments from popularity are fallacious

                                          nce the majority of people on the planet believe in a supreme being of one kind or another, any assertion that there is no God is an "extraordinary claim."

                                          Actually, that's not how it works at all. You don't understand critical thinking or the scientific method at all.

                                          And, despite your desire to make this about me (in violation of the rules of this site, which frown on substituting discussion of substance with content-free personal attacks), this is about an assertion you made, that

                                          There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                                          Since you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claim, the assertion is scientifically invalid.

                                          Which, to return to the actual topic of this diary before you hijacked it with your personal diatribes, means that taxpayers should not fund faith healers, since there is no evidence - not even "anecdotal, journaled evidence" that it works.

                                          If you can produce evidence to support your claim that

                                          There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                                          then we can consider it, weigh its credibility, and continue a productive conversation.

                                          Instead, you are determined to use this forum for personal abuse. Your choice, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

                                          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:16:40 PM PDT

                                          •  Amazing

                                            Which, to return to the actual topic of this diary before you hijacked it with your personal diatribes, means that taxpayers should not fund faith healers, since there is no evidence - not even "anecdotal, journaled evidence" that it works.

                                            You really are quite dense.  I said specifically, multiple times in this thread, that tax payers should not fund faith healers.   I tried to tell, you personally many times, that I do not believe in faith healers, and do not believe tax payers to fund them.

                                            And this:

                                            
                                            Since you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claim, the assertion is scientifically invalid.
                                            

                                            I never claimed the substance of this is true. In fact, I said I did not believe in faith healing.  I said that it has been reported to have happened.

                                            I tried to tell you, in all caps, and in bold, that I was not advocating faith healing. Until you can demonstrate, and acknowledge, a basic understanding of my position on this, based on my informing you multiple times, then there's no point in continuing.  And yes, as long as you continue to act dense, and frankly, behave stupidly, I will continue to point it out, since your inability to grasp anything I have said to you, and your obtuseness in acknowledging it, is central now to this discussion.

                                            Since straw men are all your have, have at it.

                                            by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:12:17 PM PDT

                                            •  I never said you advocated faith healing

                                              and I never claimed you said the substance is true.

                                              What you claimed is that

                                              There has been some anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells becoming healthy after faith healers have "laid hands" on sick individuals. It has been journaled  more than once.

                                              You have been repeatedly asked to produce that evidence, and have failed to do so. You have failed to link to any journals reporting this evidence, you have failed to even link to lay individuals claiming that their cancerous cells, or the cancerous cells of someone they prayed for, became healthy as the result of faith healing.

                                              That is the claim you have been asked to substantiate - not that faith healing cures cancer, but that there has been anecdotal evidence that it cures cancer, and that this evidence has been "journaled" (whatever that means - in the context of a discussion about medicine, most people would read that and think it was a peer reviewed medical journal. But, even if it was in someone's personal diary, you have failed to cite it).

                                              Dense is as dense does.

                                              by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:47:05 AM PDT

                                          •  Oh

                                            And by the way, I have a Phd in History, a JD, and a couple of masters, along with a pilot's license to boot, so I think I'm OK with the critical reasoning.

                                            And stating that most people believe in a supreme being of one sort or another does not need the scientific method to demonstrate its truth.  Do YOU understand the scientific method, and when it's appropriate to sue it, and when it's inadequate for arriving at the truth. Do you?

                                            I think not.

                                            by The Navigator on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:16:30 PM PDT

                                            •  Arguments from authority are also logically

                                              fallacious.

                                              Bringing up proof of the nonexistence of god is an irrelevant sideshow that has nothing to do with a discussion about claims of efficacy of faith healing. in the context of a discussion about funding various treatments.

                                              If you can't provide evidence for your assertion about anecdotal evidence of cancer being cured by faith healing that you claim has been "journaled", then withdraw it. Either way, it is an invalid claim (your claim, not the claim of the cancer curers, which we both agree is invalid) without any evidence to support it.

                                              by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:49:44 AM PDT

•  That's Just the Claim, the Actual Issue is to

  prevent all providers from providing abortions no matter who pays for them, on the grounds that they're all getting some government money for some of their patients.

  The issue here is to kill abortion rights cold.

  by Gooserock on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:08:30 AM PDT

•  Hell, then they should pay to spiritually enroll

  all pregnant woman, and especiall those facing a high risk pregnancy with Carmelite Sisters; it's a thoughtful and prayerful gift for any woman expecting a child.  http://www.carmel-msh.org/...  They don't say it actually does anything though.  Or how about prayers from the contemplative order of choice of all sick people.

  by duckhunter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:08:59 AM PDT

  •  the offer is for a mother and her expectant CHILD

    Click on the link to see.  Were they thinking of Bristol?  

    Although to be fair, the Carmelites don't actually make healing claims for their prayers.  There's that.

    by silvergirl on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:58:36 AM PDT

•  Actually, spiritual-based alternative medicine is

  laughable and has no business being covered by our government. If people want to pay for it out of pocket then that's fine, but in no way should it be equated with proven medicine and it will surely lead to even more frauds and quacks pushing their "healing".

  The government should stay out of all faith-based initiatives.

  by beaky on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:10:07 AM PDT

  •  Same with unproven medicine. n/t

    by thestructureguy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

    •  Yes, the same with unproven medicine.

      by beaky on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:13:36 AM PDT

  •  I'd be very happy....

    ... if Obama would de-fund the 'office of faith-based initiatives' with an executive order... which is what Georgie did to fund the damned thing in the first place.

    Remember when Obama voted for the last FISA fiasco?  That was on a Wednesday, IIRC.  By Friday, three days later, he was announcing his plans to increase funding and adopting Bush's 'office of faith-based initiatives.'  That was all before election day.

    Then a few months ago he appointed a "spiritual adviser."  (The story was on Yahoo along with the picture and name of the 'spiritual adviser,' probably an AP story; I didn't save the link.  IIRC, it was one of those stories released on a Friday night news dump.)  Since when does a secular nation headed by an elected secular "leader" have to appoint a "spiritual adviser"???

    What happened to the First Amendment's "separation of church and state"?

    by NonnyO on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:48:59 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, I don't like this trend at all.

      Why pander to the right on this? We're giving way too much power to religious groups.

      by beaky on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:58:47 AM PDT

    •  Mental illness

      makes people do things that are apparently irrational.

      I hope Biden is up to the task.

      by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:11:40 AM PDT

  •  The MANTRA project at Duke U casts this

    in a slightly different light. Noetic medicine, including healing touch, sound, and distance prayer, can have a positive effect, but it depends on the attitude of the individual being treated (and I say this from my own personal experience). While fostering a positive state of mind to speed healing, it's only a small part of a much bigger picture of whole-person treatment.

    Basically, there is much that we don't know about how the mind works and the effect on the process of physical healing. While this has been a part of Eastern medicine for thousands of years, it's an area only now being explored in a scientific way. However, I certainly agree that it has no business being covered by health insurance until science has a chance to prove, disprove, and/or define precisely what's going on here. Including it now, in this legislation, is silly.

    fmi about the work at Duke: http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/...
    http://www.duke.edu/...
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

    by TheWesternSun on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

    •  I know that for some physical healing is

      helped by anything that promotes positive thinking. I've tried some alternative medicine myself. I saw a therapist in Germany who used visualization and touch to try to help me. It didn't - I needed an anti-psychotic for bipolar disorder.

      I do kundalini and hatha yoga and deep breathing and I know for a fact that it lowers my pulse and blood pressure. I'm happy to see these things studied scientifically.

      I don't want to see churches getting in on healing and charging people for it - or other charlatans. It just seems the Republican party is intent on funneling as much money as possible into churches.

      by beaky on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:25:31 PM PDT

      •  I agree in every way.

        I had a situation with such high BP where people were afraid (including me) that I would have a stroke. Drugs just made me more ill. I got through it with alternative therapies, including Chinese herbs and meditation - and I feel meditation is the greatest gift of all. So I can appreciate what you've said. I also do certain Sufi breath practices that have a significant effect on BP. Amen.

        "Churches" are institutions, and many of theme under the Repubs, are a sham. I grew up Roman Catholic. Been there, won't do that again, but I can see where some people need the structure of an intermediary. Apart from that, I see no justification for state support here, for a whole boatload of reasons.

        Best wishes and blessings to you....

        by TheWesternSun on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:06:14 PM PDT

•  Auto accident next to my house left a woman

  unconscious with gashed face and jaw injuries. Her husband was arguing with EMT for his right to take her for Chritian Science Treatmnet before they took her to the hospital. Her son showed up and made the decision to take Mom to hospital by cold-cocking his Dad with a fist to the torso.

  by OHdog on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

  •  I love it

    when sons stick up for their moms
    :)

    by ridemybike on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:17:52 AM PDT

    •  Good for him! n/t

      by Calamity Jean on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

  •  **Wow. Sounds biblical. Smote by the son.

    by greylox on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:57:34 AM PDT

  •  Much as I think xtian science is junk...

    the son should have been prosecuted for assault and the father - who I assume was the person legally in the position to make such decisions - had his wishes (presumably those of his wife) respected.

    At the very least, the son assumed financial responsibility for the medical treatments that the couple jointly attempted to decline.

    by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:56:56 AM PDT

•  Most Christian Scientists are dead because...

  they reject modern medicine. They substitute prayer for medical treatment. What a joke.

  I have nothing against people who pray in conjunction with medical treatment, but to substitute prayer and only prayer is ignorance on a grand scale.

  I really do not believe that your Wiccan beliefs(which I respect and actually find interesting) would blind you to the point of rejecting modern medicine if your life or if a relative's life were on the line. So, I do think there is a big difference from what you do and what Christians Scientists would do.

  Christian Scientist parents are guilty of murdering their children because of this. Yet there is not much the government can do because of religous freedoms.

  The GOP is so backwards.

  by progresso on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:13:17 AM PDT

  •  I lived across the street from a Christian

    Scientist church in college. It was the weirdest place. People would go in but no one ever came out. Ever.

    Maybe they went out the back, I don't know, but it was strange.

    by beaky on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:15:56 AM PDT

    •  Maybe they have a Stargate to heaven. n/t

      by progresso on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:17:44 AM PDT

      •  Sinkhole inside the church? n/t

        by BoxerDave on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:23:39 AM PDT

  •  I use a Reiki master AND a regular doctor

    and it depends on the problem.

    UTI?  Reiki healer gave me Cantharis, homeopathic. Worked. No antibiotics.

    Endometrial polyps? GYN and surgery

    I believe in alternative healing but I am not an idiot

    by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28:32 AM PDT

    •  Good for you - but don't ask me to pay for it

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:15:26 PM PDT

      •  I'm not. but it's cheaper. nt

        by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:08:10 PM PDT

        •  So is doing nothing

          That doesn't make it a suitable expenditure of public funds.

          If proven effective, I don't care what you call it. If not proven effective, I don't care what you call it, either.

          The issue is effective use of public funds, and effective health care for human beings.

          Not promoting anyone's political agenda, crusade against the evils of Western philosophy, or financial interest in alternative remedies that don't have to submit to the expense of the regulation conventional medicine is subject to, nor any of the accountability.

          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:34:50 AM PDT

          •  antibiotics link to birth defects

            especially in the case of urinary tract infections which I cured with Cantharis, homeopathy.

            So, it is proven that western medicine can be detrimental and alternative treatment works.

            I do support universal healthcare and yes, we need to pay for what we know works and that will kill all support for any kind of prayer BS.

            But it would be nice if a practice had an alternative medicine pracitioner on staff, so natural remedies, which are always cheaper, can be suggested when it makes more sense.

            by karenc13 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

            •  Citations, oh Doctor

              antibiotics link to birth defects especially in the case of urinary tract infections which I cured with Cantharis, homeopathy.

              Citations for antibiotics link to birth defects,

              and citations for Cantharis and homeopathy (!) being effective in curing urinary tract infections.

              Your mention of homeopathy immediately moves you from the realm of sincere integrative doctor to exploiter of gullible patients, but let's see those citations before we jump to any conclusions about whether you are lying here as well.

              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

              •  citation is my CURE and the antiobiotic

                story was a big story yesterday and I guess if you are so tuned in I just assumed you knew about it.

                So, if you are pregnant and get a UTI you would be a fool to use western medicine. But it's paid for.

                I have repeatedly said that the government should only pay for western treatments that people need. So why are you attacking me?

                I am only adding that we all need to cast a wider net when we have health problems that are not broken bones or tumors.

                I saved the healtcare system a lot of money by using Cantharis instead of an office visit and a pharmacy purchase. How is that a BAD thing? If we want to control costs, we need to see our health in a bigger picture way, instead of looking for a drug.

                by karenc13 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:52:39 AM PDT

                •  Citations still needed

                  if you are pregnant and get a UTI you would be a fool to use western medicine.

                  Ah, broadened that claim now. Still, no citations for what you claim is all over the news. How hard is it to paste a link?

                  I saved the healtcare system a lot of money by using Cantharis instead of an office visit and a pharmacy purchase.

                  What happened to "homeopathy", which you said was part of the cure?

                  Your alleged "CURE" [sic] is not a citation, it is an anecdote, coming from a pseudonymous person on the Internet.

                  If we want to control costs, we need to see our health in a bigger picture way, instead of looking for a drug.

                  Which is why modern medicine consists of much more than just "looking for a drug".

                  Citations still awaited for your various claims. Should be simple to produce...

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:11:41 AM PDT

                  •  Cantharis IS homeopathy.

                    and you are still, an asshole.

                    by karenc13 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:51:02 AM PDT

                    •  And citations are still needed.

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:53:32 AM PDT

                      •  Found one of the citations for you

                        The one about antibiotics.

                        Here is a link to the ACTUAL STUDY summary in the Archive of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. It took me all of 30 seconds to find on the Internets:
                        http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/...

                        Clearly, you being a Doctor and all, you read it in detail before making medical assertions on a public blog (and to your "patients"), right? Yeah, sure.

                        Here is a responsible report on the study on ScienceDaily,
                        http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

                        Since I doubt you will even bother to read the links, here is an explanation in full from Dana Blankenhorn over at SmartPlanet. I've even hilighted the salient passages for your perusal.

                        The Associated Press is running a super-scary headline today. "Study ties common antibiotics to birth defects."

                        The truth is quite different. We are not talking about first-line antibiotics. Penicillins, erythromycins and cephalosporins have no impact on birth defects. We are not talking here of "common antibiotics."

                        We’re talking about two specific antibiotics, sulfonamides (sometimes called sulfa drugs),  and nitrofurantoins, used by only 1 in 100 pregnant women.

                        These did seem to result in a higher rate of birth defects and scientists want to know why.

                        Among the better known sulfanomides, to which many people are already alerted by allergies, are Bactrim and Sulfatrim.  They are most commonly prescribed for staph infections and in some cases of pneumonia.

                        Nitrofurantoins are usually used against urinary tract infections, and go by brand names like Macrobid and Macrodantin.

                        Here is how the study worked.
                        
                        CDC researchers analyzed 13,155 cases of 30 different birth defects, drawn from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. These were compared to 4,941 controls, women located in the same geographical areas whose babies had no birth defects.

                        What the authors want is more study on why these results occurred. There is really no need to panic, unless you get your news from AP.

                        Here is their conclusion in full:

                          "Determining the causes of birth defects is problematic. A single defect can have multiple causes, or multiple seemingly unrelated defects may have a common cause. This study could not determine the safety of drugs during pregnancy, but the lack of widespread increased risk associated with many classes of antibacterials used during pregnancy should be reassuring."

                        Not all medical scares are caused by conflicting scientific studies or new insights. Some are caused by sloppy headlines.

                        Dana Blankenhorn, http://www.smartplanet.com/...

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:01:57 PM PDT

                        •  Sigh, sulfa drugs are for UTI which is suspect.

                          but hey tell your wife to take a chance with your child if you want

                          by karenc13 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:20:46 PM PDT

                          •  Hey, "Doctor" your statement was simply that

                            "antibiotics cause birth defects", an alarmist and misleading statement that would actually be irresponsible if you were a real M.D., which I increasingly suspect you are not (you never said doctor of what).

                            As the article notes, we are talking about rarely used drugs - not the common antibiotics administered more than 99% of the time during pregnancy - and further study is ongoing to determine the risk of even those limited cases. A lot more than 1% of fetuses would be damaged if no antibiotics were administered to any pregnant woman at all.

                            Oh, and by the way, KEEP MY WIFE OUT OF THIS YOU UGLY FUCK.

                            Have a nice day. :-)

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:00:39 PM PDT

                    •  About Cantharis

                      Suggested as treatment for burn victims of the Victorian bushfires in Australia:

                      http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/...

                      Assuming you used 6C for the UTI, that is a dilution of the ground up Cantharsis beetle in water (or powdered lactose) one trillion times (diluted 100 times repeated 6 times = 10 to the 12 = 1 trillion). So, basically, there are no molecules of ground-up beetle left in the solution anyway.

                      And you think your UTI was cured by a one trillion times dilution that had no molecules left from the original substance. Since you talk (misleadingly) about the dangers of antibiotics during pregnancy, you're saying that you risked your health and that of your baby on expensive water.

                      More about homeopathy:

                      Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.

                      A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
                      000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water.
                      This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.

                      Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

                      Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024).

                      One duck - tens of millions of dollars worth of overpriced water sold as a "remedy".

                      But hey, yup - it's them evil Western Medicinists who are robbing people blind, while endangering us so much. And only homeopathy can save us.

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:11:45 AM PDT

              •  And by the way

                you are an asshole.

                just re-read your post, sheesh

                by karenc13 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:59:28 AM PDT

                •  Citations still needed.

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:11:55 AM PDT

  •  I would love to see the statistics on that

    Particularly statistics that include ailments like fibromyalgia, arthritis, depression, schizophrenia, cancer, etc. and compare death and illness rates with the population at large. The only stats I've seen have been cherry picked, limited studies largely undertaken by the medical industry to beef up their claims.

    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:15:04 AM PDT

    •  Scientific medicine is the most-documented

      area of human endeavor in existence - and virtually all the significant data is publicly available.

      If you would "love to see the statistics", you need only Google them.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:16:56 PM PDT

      •  As a nice example,

        They finally started doing double-blind studies on back surgery not that long ago.  (Surgery evaded double-blind studies for years for technical reasons, until they figured out how to do mock surgery.)

        Turns out most back surgery is not a good idea -- the studies are showing that it's worthless for a large number of the conditions it's used for.

        by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:37:15 PM PDT

        •  Which is precisely science doing it's thing

          anti-science quacks point to this as some kind of problem, rather than proof of the efficacy of the scientific method to improve over time and weed out errors.

          There is no comparable self-correcting mechanism in faith-based "medicine".

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:02:01 PM PDT

  •  You're right

    I would never claim to be able to cure cancer at my altar. And when I get really sick, I go to the doctor. If I were to get pregnant, all the candles in the world aren't going to save me if I need a c-section in a hospital.

    So yes, we agree. :)

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:06:56 PM PDT

•  Chaplains serve a purpose in hospitals

  They are ecumenical and serve all faiths equally. Oftentimes they are the nicest folks you will run into at a hospital, (Think Father Mulcahy on M*A*S*H).

  Chaplains also do crisis intervention on call in the middle of the night and debriefings with staff when for example, a child dies on the operating table. They are wonderful people and needed.

  While I am all for cutting out bogus "prayer treatments" be careful you don't axe out the chaplains, who have always been there and serve a vital role in making life in a hospital tolerable for everyone.

  by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:15:42 AM PDT

  •  Plenty of social workers

    can do the same job as chaplins.  Chaplins can be done away with.  

    by thestructureguy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:21:04 AM PDT

    •  Disagree. In NYC they are union

      and if I had a loved one who wanted emotional care, I would much rather they talk to an ecumenical Chaplin than a UNION person forced to be there.

      I am sure there are lots of great caring social workers, but unions guarantee that not all are there for the love of humanity.

      by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:30:29 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, but no Chaplain is in it for the money...

        Hell, I can't tell if your comment is snark.

        by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:17:28 AM PDT

        •  It's not snark. NYC unions have not evolved

          to be a good thing, IMHO.

          They have the world's cushiest jobs with no accountability and every perk and day off known to man and then pensions and healthcare for life.

          Wouldn't upset me if they did a great job.

          by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:53:45 PM PDT

      •  My atheist tax dollars

        should not pay for your religious preferences.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:19:45 PM PDT

    •  No, there is a difference

      It's essential to have a person of faith on hand who can give last rites to a dead Latino premie. Otherwise the parents leave convinced their child will never get into Heaven. (Remember respect for the culture of other people?)

      It's essential to have a religious person in the room when a family of faith has to decide wheter to let grandma die because there was no advanced health directive.

      It matters, alot. Trust me.

      by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:30:48 AM PDT

      •  One slight point:

        Only a priest can do the Sacrament of the Sick (formerly known as Last Rites). In emergencies, I have always been able roust out a priest in the middle of the night (done it several times). The priests are very responsive.

        Baptism is a big one for Christian families who are losing a preemie. I do that. Based on their own faith, some chaplains insist on a heartbeat being discernable. I don't. As far as I'm concerned, I baptized the infant on request, and then the infant died in it's mother's arms. Most of us are like that.

        However, almost everyone appreciates the presence of a chaplain at a time of crisis. Some people live far away, have farms, have medical problems of their own, or children at home. If a loved one is passing and people are torn between the various roles in their lives, I tell them that if they need to leave, their loved one will not die alone. I will be there.

        When with a family dealing with EOL (end of life) issues for a loved one, my role is to be their advocate and make sure that their values and ethics are being honored by the medical team -- no matter what I believe.

        by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:17:30 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, and the shit-bag priest that started

        harassing the hell out of my mother while she was dying and trying to convince her to "return to the Church"?

        Yeah, my family could have done without, thanks.

        If you're that worried about folks having access to their favorite flavor of exploitive charlatan, then pony up and donate your own cash.

        Religious services are not a public good.

        by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:20:02 AM PDT

        •  Ah, Now I get

          The axe you are grinding here.

          by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:39:30 AM PDT

          •  Silly "Seperation of Church and State" axe

            Yeah, it's one that evidently needs a good sharpening, if the argument that we ought to allow our nations Health Care crisis to be exploited for the purpose of forcing taxpayers to fund Religion is getting traction even here.

            by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:46:02 AM PDT

          •  What a sh*tty thing to say to someone

            you're trying to make a case with. Sad.

            by teloPariah on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:46:33 AM PDT

            •  Jesse can take it

              Jesse dishes it out with the best of them.

              by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:30:16 PM PDT

              •  That comment was directed at you

                NOT Jesse, so why even mention him?

                It matters, alot. Trust me.

                You expect to have some kind of deference to your authority, you're sheer moral wholesomenss, and then you say Jesse can take it? I see right through you. You would burden anyone with the choice of defending themselves or being silenced. Nice choices! I'm begining to believe him Chappy.

                by teloPariah on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:42:47 PM PDT

          •  Well, yours is pretty obvious as well. n/t

            by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:53:51 PM PDT

        •  Bad Form

          I hope you kicked him out.

          Good chaplains know they should only go to those who ask for them and, when dealing with terminally ill patients, be respectful of the patient and their family.  Their job is to bring comfort and peace of mind to the patient, not convert them.

          by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:24 PM PDT

          •  Doesn’t matter, shouldn't be covered by ta

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

      •  What about the rights of atheists?

        Why should I have to pay to subsidize your religious beliefs?

        Pay for your own damn last rites.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:20:40 PM PDT

    •  No, social workers have a different role.

      They work on discharge planning, case management and insurance issues in my hospital and other hospitals in my geographic area.

      And social workers don't work at night. I do. They don't work all night. I do. They aren't on call. I am. They don't attend every death -- or any, for that matter. I do. They don't respond to Code Blue's or rapid response teams, strokes. I do. They don't baptize people on request. I do. They don't hear confessions. I do. They don't perform commendation services. I do. They aren't trained in world religions and other faith/spiritual approaches. I am.

      BTW, I love the social workers in my hospital. They work wonders in assisting patients, but their role is focused. Also, I love social workers in general: I'm married to one and the mother of another.

      by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:07:07 AM PDT

      •  Great - and there's no legitimate reason

        one thin dime of my taxes should pay for it.

        by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:21:51 AM PDT

        •  And if I were preaching religion,

          I would agree with you.

          by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:50:02 AM PDT

          •  Baptism is not a religious rite?

            When did that happen?

            by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:58 AM PDT

            •  I didn't say that.

              I stated I didn't preach religion. I don't do scriptural interpretation. I don't state my own beliefs. I don't tell others what to believe. I would only perform a religious ritual -- baptism, prayer, commendation -- upon request in the form the patient/family desires, and it would have to be the correct people making the request.

              Much of the focus on this thread is on Christianity and, although a good portion of our census is Christian, many are not. There are other religious and spiritual approaches, including those of the diarist. I would honor the diarist's approach and wishes if in my hospital.

              And I forgot to mention one of the most important things we do: we witness. We see the pain, the tears, the fears -- often things people are unwilling to reveal to their families. Sometimes the support I provide is simply holding someone who is crying in my arms.

              by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:04:40 PM PDT

              •  Of what relevance is that to taxpayer funding?

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:23:39 PM PDT

          •  So, because you only minister to the faithful

            my tax dollars should subsidize you?

            Can you explain the logic (and the Constitutionality) there?

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:23:07 PM PDT

  •  Feel free to find a way to pay for them that

    doesn't involve ripping off tax payers.

    This isn't the Military, where we make a very limited compromise and pay for Chaplains because our Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines otherwise have no access to religious services specifically because they're in remote and/or dangerous places as part of their jobs.

    You want a Priest, call a Priest.  Don't expect me to help pay to keep one on staff just in case you want some oil rubbed on a forehead on short notice.

    by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

    •  We shouldn't fund military Chaplains, either

      that is a clear violation of the Constitution, because it makes special services available to religious soldiers that are not available to atheists (beyond the taxpayer-funding issue).

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:24:34 PM PDT

  •  And the government is supposed to PAY chaplains?

    No way.

    by Crider on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28:26 AM PDT

    •  Spiritual care is part of complete healthcare

      Knowing someone it there to pray with you can make a huge difference in the healing process. That person can also sort out cultural problems between families and staff, which helps a great deal in life-and-death situations.

      Not everyone is an athiest.

      And you may not be on your deathbed either.

      by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:34:36 AM PDT

      •  I'll be an atheist on my death bed

        Of that, I am as sure as I am of anything.

        But I completely agree with you that chaplains are appropriate and necessary for hospitals. It's all part of treating the whole patient in a culturally appropriate manner. I think that having chaplains present supports healing and helps families. So this atheist doesn't object whatsoever to hospital chaplains!

        by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:06:57 AM PDT

        •  That doesn't mean you won't need a chaplain

          Chaplains serve all faiths and none.

          If you want to make end-of-life decision — sign DNR forms — you will talk with a chaplain.  It is the chaplain's job to understand your spiritual beliefs — including "none" — so that your wishes are properly followed in the case you die or are dying.  This is especially important if your relatives have different beliefs and might not want to honor yours.  The chaplain should advocate for your atheist worldview.

          by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:20:00 AM PDT

          •  What is...

            ... an "atheist worldview"?

            by mcronan on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:39:30 AM PDT

            •  I think that's up to the atheist in question

              Don't you?

              by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:53:53 AM PDT

              •  Yes, I do.

                Which makes it not an atheist worldview, but a personal worldview.

                There is no such thing as an "atheist worldview". Atheists lack belief in any gods. That's the only thing you can safely assume they have in common.

                by mcronan on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:01:51 PM PDT

                •  That's why I wrote...

                  ..."your atheist worldview."

                  You have issues.

                  by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:18:25 PM PDT

                  •  You have

                    reading comprehension problems, or else you just don't care.

                    by mcronan on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:16 PM PDT

                    •  Don't really care

                      I'm sorry I failed to give appropriate attention to this burning issue in your personal worldview.

                      by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:10:30 PM PDT

                  •  We have issues

                    because you not only want us to pay with our tax dollars for your chaplains, but want to force us to use them for matters for which they have no business, such as intruding into my end-of-life decisions.

                    Forcing me to deal with a chaplain is even worse than forcing me to pay for yours. That is not only a clear violation of the Constitution - it is morally reprehensible.

                    I doubt you'd force a dying Orthodox Jew to hold the hand of a woman chaplain - but you'd force a dying atheist to deal with one in order to get legal forms handled.

                    Utterly despicable, repugnant - and about as far from "progressive" as it is possible to be in this pluralistic society without your last name rhyming with "Sheney".

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:30:40 PM PDT

                  •  Everyone else has issues

                    despite the fact that your comments are clearly objectionable to a whole host of different people here.

                    The possibility that it might be you with the issues, or at least with the comments causing issues, does not compute for you.

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:38:27 PM PDT

                    •  The voices in your head...

                      ...don't count as a whole host of different people — technically.

                      by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:26:25 PM PDT

                      •  "Voices in your head" is a religionist fantasy.

                        It is not required of atheists.

                        by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:51:22 PM PDT

                  •  If you had a reasonable grasp on the English

                    language, you would know that you just posited the existence of a an "atheist world view" and claimed that this person had one.

                    You have issues and a weak grasp of semantics.

                    I do not have a religious world view. I merely have a world view. That's the freedom that comes with being atheistic -- there's no mandated bogus Official Worldview. Someone who doesn't know the difference has no business annoying me when I'm trying to have a nice death.

                    by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:49:11 PM PDT

          •  No, that's not true..

            You certainly DON'T need to talk with a chaplain when you sign a DNR form.  You may, for instance, talk with a family member, nurse or a hospice care worker.  It is true that chaplains are experienced in helping people through these situations (which many doctors are notoriously avoidant about), but there is certainly no requirement that you speak with a chaplain.  I've just been through two of these situations, with no chaplains involved.

            A terrific book on how doctors vary in dealing with end-of-life issues is Pauline Chen's "Final Exam".  

            by Patience is Not a Virtue on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:19:14 PM PDT

            •  You are correct, Patience.

              Before my husband's surgery years ago, the advance directives required for every Texas hospital patient were just part of the sheaf of pre-admission papers we had to fill out for him. Mr. Nogods is even more of a militant atheist than I am; if a chaplain had approached him for any purpose you'd still hear the echoes from the ruckus.

              by NogodsnomastersMary on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:48:25 PM PDT

              •  Let me get this straight

                Mr. Nogods is even more of a militant atheist than I am; if a chaplain had approached him for any purpose you'd still hear the echoes from the ruckus.

                Your husband would have been an asshole to someone delivering standard hospital paperwork because their beliefs differed from his. Not only that, but you think this is behavior is so acceptable that you broadcast it publicly.

                Incredible.

                I don't fucking miss Texas.

                by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:13:25 PM PDT

                •  I did not say

                  that my husband would do anything uncivil. It is possible to protest bad treatment, such as unrequested and unwarranted intrusions in one's life at a vulnerable time, without resorting to the sort of abuse you just indulged in.
                  May I venture a guess that Texas does not miss you, either.

                  by NogodsnomastersMary on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:56:07 PM PDT

                  •  Really?

                    I did not say that my husband would do anything uncivil.

                    Really?  How, then do you raise a "ruckus" that would still be echoing today in a "civil" way?

                    such as unrequested and unwarranted intrusions in one's life at a vulnerable time

                    How is coming to a patient with DNR paperwork in any way "unwarranted"?

                    May I venture a guess that Texas does not miss you, either.

                    I doubt it does.  Texas also elected John Cornyn, George W. Bush and passed on Barack Obama, so Texas and I don't have a lot in common.

                    by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:21:42 PM PDT

                •  Do the rights of the patient being admitted

                  not concern you - if that patient is an atheist, that is.

                  Does your bigotry and intolerance know no bounds at all?

                  You wish to compel dying atheists to deal with a chaplain, and now you wish to compel ailing atheists to do so in order to be admitted to a hospital?

                  What is wrong with you, anyway??

                  Don't you read your own comment signature?

                  Whatever resentment you harbor against atheists has certainly poisoned your "soul".

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:32:53 PM PDT

                  •  Patient have to fill out DNR paperwork

                    Why is it bigotry if a chaplain is the staffer who brings it to the patient, particularly if they are the people on the staff who have been specifically trained?

                    Talk about contrived outrage.

                    by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:22:54 PM PDT

                    •  Talk about overt bigotry

                      My tax dollars should not pay for your chaplain.

                      Period.

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:00:37 PM PDT

                      •  A couple of things

                        1. Staff chaplains have important secular duties to perform in hospitals (see my other response).

                        2. The availability of "spiritual care" has been clinically proven to improve patient outcome for religious patients.  Essentially, you are saying that you would deny a clinically-proven aspect of patient care to someone else because it doesn't meet your needs.  Are you sure you're in the right place?  I think the "my tax dollars should not pay for your care" discussion is over at Free Republic.

                        by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:19:49 PM PDT

                        •  Despite your continued ugly rhetoric

                          the fact is that:

                          1. those "secular duties" can be performed by secular employees;

                          2. atheists should not be disadvantaged - if "spiritual care" is available from religious chaplains for theist patients, then secular care of equal quality and character should be available from atheist chaplains for atheist patients.

                          3. It is hilarious how you try to twist this religious exceptionalism into somehow a punitive attempt by atheists to suppress religious freedoms.

                          4. clinical citations needed re: the efficacy of "spiritual care" - and, specifically, comparative results for theist and atheist patients who only have religious chaplains available to them.

                          5. I did not say my tax dollars should not pay for your care, as you well know. I said my tax dollars should not pay for your chaplain.

                          If you truly contend that the benefits of a chaplain are not religious in nature, and that they perform "secular duties", then you should either turn those duties over to secular employees when taxpayer dollars are involved, or you should hire atheist chaplains to provide comparable services to secular patients whenever taxpayer dollars are involved.

                          Someone once wrote:
                          Harboring resentment against atheists is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:15:32 AM PDT

                          •  Wow! 5 out of 5 -- not bad.

                            And I assure you, if having some Messenger of God lurking around praying to non-existent deities id "clinically helpful" for religionist patients, having that same Messenger of God lurking around me would have a demonstrable ill effect on me.

                            I demand all my paperwork be delivered to me by a Barbra Streisand impersonator. I absolutely know it would make me feel better.

                            And I want you to pay for it.

                            Deal?

                            by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:26:55 PM PDT

                            •  I'd prefer the real "Butta".

                              by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:58:30 PM PDT

                            •  Deal

                              by The Red Pen on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:10:02 PM PDT

                •  Uh, not even close.

                  Your husband would have been an asshole to someone delivering standard hospital paperwork because their beliefs differed from his.

                  Her husband would have been outraged by having to deal with religionism in order to get his medical needs met. Why should he have to? Religion has nothing to do with it.

                  You are being disingenuous about this "their beliefs differed from his" crap. I doubt Mr. NoGods knew or cared what his doctor's or nurse's religions were. It's irrelevant because they were not acting in a religious capacity, as agents of religion. Get it?

                  A chaplain is by definition a religious thing. And there is absolutely no purpose served by forcing a religious encounter upon a patient.

                  Saying "well, a chaplain is the one who does the whatever-task" is no answer at all. Delivering paperwork does not require an Official Religionist.  The religion is NOT incidental because the profession is defined by the religionism.

                  Do you think that hospitals that don't hire Official Religionists don't give their patients paperwork?

                  by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:19:51 PM PDT

            •  It depends on the hospital

              If you were in a hospital where chaplains did that duty, would that be a problem?  Do you like NogodsnomastersMary discriminate on who you will do business with based on their personal religious beliefs?

              by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:14:45 PM PDT

              •  Are you serious?

                Would you support denying a religious person access to a chaplain, if you were in a secular hospital?

                Your double-standards know no bounds.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:35:18 PM PDT

                •  What is your problem?

                  A hospital staffer comes with DNR paperwork.  How is that denying anyone anything, idiot?

                  Is your name have "reason" in it for the same reason that Fox News calls itself "fair and balanced" — to enforce a connection that would otherwise seem counter-intuitive?

                  What do you think a chaplain arriving with paperwork does, exactly?

                  by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:50:47 PM PDT

                  •  you were the one who gratuitously brought up

                    "dicsriminating on who you will do business with - and I note you didn't answer my question challenging your straw man.

                    Bottom line - my tax dollars should not pay for your chaplain.

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:00:01 PM PDT

                    •  She your chaplain, too

                      Chaplains handle most decedent care.  One hopes that if you even end up in a hospital, you will leave alive, but if you don't, there's a whole bunch of stuff that needs to done and the chaplains handle that.  

                      Why?  Because all of the other patient care staff is busy with living people and also because death rituals are the type of thing that chaplains are supposed to understand.

                      Do you want to make your own life support decisions?  Do you want to donate your organs?  In the hospital where my wife was a chaplain, chaplains were required to attend removal of life support and chaplains arranged for the donation of organs.  A chaplain had to be present during removal of the organs.

                      So when the chaplain comes to you with DNR and organ donation paperwork, and you throw her out because dealing with a chaplain is such a terrible ordeal, then your organs are not getting donated — even if you are designated as an organ donor.  From a legal standpoint, the hospital is safer sending your organs to the mortuary or crematorium with the rest of your remains than to remove organs from someone who wouldn't sign the consent form.

                      And I didn't answer your question because it didn't make any sense, much like a lot of what you write.

                      by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:16:56 PM PDT

                      •  Then why not atheist chaplains

                        Why couldn't an atheist chaplain provide those services to all, including theist patients?

                        Is it your position that atheists are incapable of compassion, support, and, in particular, making decisions about "life support" and "organ donations"?

                        Is it your contention that only religious chaplains can fulfill that duty?

                        So when the chaplain comes to you with DNR and organ donation paperwork, and you throw her out because dealing with a chaplain is such a terrible ordeal, then your organs are not getting donated — even if you are designated as an organ donor.

                        Forcing me to deal with a chaplain, in a case where taxpayer dollars are involved, is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Denying me the right to make life support decisions and signing paperwork unless I work with a religious chaplain is an illegal form of religious blackmail that is clearly unConstitutional - IF IT INVOLVES TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

                        Get it through your prejudiced head - you have the right to do whatever you want in any private hospital with private funds. But, if you accept public funds, there are restrictions on practices that go along with that. Whether you like that or not, it is the way our Constitutional republic works.

                        If a hospital accepting public funds for my care were ever to deny me or disadvantage me in any way unless I agreed to see a religious chaplain, you'd see a Supreme Court case faster than you can say, "unreconstructed bigotry".

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:20:06 AM PDT

                        •  Straw man

                          There's nothing stopping atheists from being chaplains.  I never said anything about atheists being incapable of compassion.  That's just a straw man.

                          Denying me the right to make life support decisions and signing paperwork unless I work with a religious chaplain is an illegal form of religious blackmail that is clearly unConstitutional - IF IT INVOLVES TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

                          You're an idiot.

                          It is not a Constitutional right to dictate the religious beliefs of the hospital staff with whom you need to interact.

                          Take your meds.

                          by The Red Pen on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:08:20 PM PDT

                          •  This is not about religious beliefs of hospital

                            staff, it is about religious chaplains. As you well know.

                            I always find it interesting that the most strident defenders of the merits of religion tend to be those who are not only willing, but seeamingly eager, to lie, prevaricate, mislead and give false witness to further their "cause".

                            And, in fact, if you can show me a single hospital that would hire an atheist chaplain to administer to the faithful, I will eat my stingy-brim fedora.

                            With wine and wafers.

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 05:56:41 PM PDT

                            •  There's a hospital in Austin

                              On of the chaplains — the head of the chaplain training program, in fact — is an atheist.

                              I'll get the name if you don't believe me.

                              I hope you enjoy eating your stupid hat.

                              by The Red Pen on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:40:40 AM PDT

                              •  Get me the name.

                                by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:10:32 PM PDT

                                •  Contact Grep Epstein

                                  At Harvard Divinity School.  He's an atheist chaplain who can address the issue.

                                  http://chaplains.harvard.edu/...

                                  I was asked not to post any information about the guy in Austin, because after reading your posts, my source didn't think you sounded mentally stable.  Epstein in already nationally known.

                                  By the way, you might want to start boiling your hat now if it's going to be soft enough to eat.

                                  by The Red Pen on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:54:42 PM PDT

                                  •  Ha - I call you on your BS, and you bail

                                    I know all about Greg Epstein, I was present when he hosted Pete Stark's "coming out" party at Harvard. Great guy, and an exemplar of what secular humanism is all about. I lived in the Boston area for more than a quarter century, and I've spoken to him one on one a couple of times, since I'm a humanist myself. Like me, Greg is of Jewish descent.

                                    Greg is not a hospital chaplain. He is, in fact one of the few Humanist chaplain at a major university in the United States (Rutgers just appointed one about two weeks ago for the first time ever, and I don't know of any other major universities that have an atheist chaplain). He's also one of the mentors of the Secular Student Alliance, along with (the horror!) Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

                                    You said there was an atheist chaplain in Austin - that he was even head of the chaplainship program there.

                                    I call bullshit. "Your source"? So you don't even know this first-hand, as you implied in your original comment?

                                    And you have to stretch and contort to even pretend there is one such atheist hospital chaplain?

                                    In March, 2009, there was a conference called "Faces of Faith" at Indiana University Medical Center. One of the discussions there was about the apparent lack of any atheist chaplains at any hospital in the United States of America.

                                    What's that bit about "bearing false witness" again?

                                    And how does this negate the reality that there are, if not 100% none (and you have yet to challenge that substantively and produce what you claim), then virtually no atheist chaplains in hospitals in the U.S.?

                                    It doesn't. You bluffed, I called it, you lie.

                                    by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:42:01 PM PDT

                                    •  Greg Epstein can tell you about atheist chaplains

                                      ...in hospitals.

                                      You might also want to call a therapist.

                                      by The Red Pen on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:12:36 PM PDT

                                      •  Whatever. Our comments speak for themselves

                                        And are here forever, for all to explore.

                                        by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:19:02 PM PDT

                                        •  I'll take that as an expression of regret.

                                          by The Red Pen on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:07:12 PM PDT

          •  If you say this 1,000 times, it will still be

            a silly argument.

            If you want to make end-of-life decision — sign DNR forms — you will talk with a chaplain.

            That may be a hospital's procedure, but it is a stupid, indefensible procedure. It may be some hospital's procedure that if you make end-of-life decisions you WILL talk to a mime. But being a mime is not a necessary requirement for the work.

            oh, some delusional mime-worshiper can make grasping-at-straws assertions like "many patients appreciate quiet, and quiet is shown to help reduce stress" but the idiocy of the argument will fail with rational people, as does yours.

            I do not need or want a mime, and you cannot contrive any absurd argument for why I should deal with a fucking mime in order to do the paperwork for my own fucking death.

            by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:42:43 PM PDT

        •  And as a chaplain, I serve

          atheists along with everyone else. I can't emphasize enough that "religion" per se and/or an assumed belief in anything, including a godhead, is simply not an issue where I work.

          Really, when done well (and it isn't always), chaplains focus on values, ethics, spirituality, compassion and support. Part of our job is to assess the role that religion, faith and spirituality play in the patient and the patient's family so we have a better understanding of their needs. If someone is an atheist, that's fine. That doesn't prohibit us from providing support to patient and family.

          by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:24:28 AM PDT

          •  Can you comprehend that it might be as offensive

            to an atheist to force them to deal with a theist chaplain in a hospital, as it would be to force a religious person to deal with an atheist for these kind of matters, and to deny them spiritual support?

            Why are you assuming that only a religious person can provide the services you provide? And, if you aren't assuming that - then why should taxpayers pay exclusively for religious chaplains, and not for an atheist equivalent to provide the same services the 1/4 of the population that don't follow any religion?

            The objection is not to what you do - the objection is to the notion that my tax dollars should subsidize it unequally.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:39:06 PM PDT

      •  But why shouldn't the church

        or the religious denomination/order/what-have-you be tasked with providing those services? I can see the hospital providing transportation and other incidental expenses, but since this is not a situation like the army, these hospitals are in the same communities as the churches or fellowships, why don't the religious groups cover this?

        I would think people would want to see their own pastor or preist or rabbi/imam/etc. whenever possible.

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:19:36 AM PDT

        •  Some are, some aren't

          Some chaplains are supplied by local religious communities and some are volunteers.  Some are staff, however.  Any good hospital has staff chaplains.

          by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:21:42 AM PDT

        •  Oh, they do have their own pastor come.

          But sometimes they're not available, or the service is needed right now, not the half hour it would take to get across town.

          A friend of mine is a pastor in the Episcopal Church.  He often goes to the hospitals, nursing homes, etc.  But, again sometimes the patient has no local religious support, or the need is now.

          by nchristine on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:04:11 PM PDT

          •  As long as my tax dollars are no paying for it

            it is not an issue.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:39:41 PM PDT

        •  No way.

          I can see the hospital providing transportation and other incidental expenses

          For a visit from the church? Absurd. Let the church's untaxed dollars do that. If I'm an atheist, will the hospital pick my Aunt Irma at the airport when she comes to visit me?

          by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:30:43 PM PDT

      •  Begging your pardon, but

        Not everyone is an athiest.

        So fucking what?

        Not everyone is a Catholic, or Jewish, or a Scientologist.

        There is no evidence that Prayer improves healing.  None.

        If you think it does, feel free to pass the plate around on Sundays.

        No one is asking you to chip in to pay for pushy asshole who annoy your dying loved ones and try to persuade them there is no God - don't ask others to pay the salary of your prefered flavor of professional liar.

        by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:25:33 AM PDT

        •  LOL!

          That's all. Just, LOL.

          No one is asking you to chip in to pay for pushy asshole who annoy your dying loved ones and try to persuade them there is no God - don't ask others to pay the salary of your prefered flavor of professional liar.

          by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:31:58 PM PDT

      •  Yes, it can make a difference...

        a negative one.

        And I will be an atheist until I see evidence of the existence of a god.

        Whether you believe it or not, there are atheists in foxholes.

        by mcronan on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:37:22 AM PDT

      •  Spiritual death panels

        Not everyone is an athiest.

        This is ridiculous. Not everyone is a Protestant Christian, either. A crisis of the soul is a crisis of inclusion.

        by Crider on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:07 AM PDT

      •  Knowing that a beautiful hooker

        is available to make an old, dying man feel better can make a huge difference in the healing process, too. Does that mean you support taxpayer-funded prostitution services in hospitals?

        No, not everyone is an atheist - but atheists are equal citizens in this republic, to your obvious dismay.

        As for your thinly veiled "no atheists in foxholes" bigotry re: deathbeds, fuck you and your hypocritical pious intolerance, Father.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:26:46 PM PDT

      •  That's really over-the-top offensive

        and you should apologize for the "You may not be [an atheist] on your deathbed" remark.

        It is precisely those kind of sentiments that weaken the credibility of your claim to be equally available and committed to atheist's concerns and equally respectful of our beliefs.

        It is a slander akin to "no atheists in foxholes", which, as a veteran, makes it doubly offensive.

        Get over whatever defensiveness you may be feeling here and own up to your own unconscious prejudice which just leaked through and apologize.

        I believe you are a person of good will and mature enough to acknowledge a blind spot you unknowingly revealed, which is deeply hurtful and offensive to committed atheists, who already pay a deep social cost for being who we are in this antagonistic society.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:35:25 PM PDT

      •  There's a much safer bet

        you may not be [an atheist] on your deathbed either.

        Smart money is on "And you may not be frolicking with angels when your deathbed grows cold."

        by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:35:20 PM PDT

      •  Hm.

        Not everyone is an athiest.

        Well, obviously. Each of us is athy to some degree, but clearly only one person can be the athiest.

        
        

        And you may not be on your deathbed either.

        Indeed. And maybe GLBTs will see the error of their ways and become straight, too. Nothing offensive about a pronouncement like that, right?

        by Rieux on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:14:15 PM PDT

    •  We do anyway.....

      The chaplian on staff at the hospital gets some kind of compensation for his services since they're not attached to a church (which pays their pastors).  It's not a line item charge, but it's in there.

      by nchristine on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:04:55 AM PDT

      •  Should not be paid with taxpayer funds

        Should not be covered by public insurance.

        Pay for your own chaplains.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:40:51 PM PDT

    •  Aren't military chaplains paid? n/t

      by sfbob on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:16:55 AM PDT

      •  So are mullahs and rabbis

        and all the other assorted sky pilots.

        by Crider on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:19 PM PDT

        •  So government already pays chaplains

          While the issue of faith healing may be contentious, payment of chaplains is not.

          by sfbob on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:59:56 PM PDT

          •  Who says it's not contentious

            there have been and continue to be legal challenges to this most blatant violation of the separation of church and state. In the case of military chaplains, not only are my tax dollars being used to subsidize religious activities (and military chaplains are among the most eggregious violators of military rules re: proselytization), but my tax dollars are being used to provide a unique, critical service to theist soldiers for which there is no secular counterpart, and for which atheist soldiers in equal need of human support have no comparable service.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:43:40 PM PDT

      •  Unconstitutionally and controversially, yes.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:41:17 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for saying that. Warning: rant ahead

    I'm a hospital chaplain. We are part of overhead. And if you knew how little we're paid ... well, let's just say that it's clear that what we do is more an act of love than financially motivated.

    One of the least understood -- and, in the military recently, most abused -- role is that of a chaplain.

    We don't do "faith-based healing." We don't pretend to. That would be absolutely ridiculous and any chaplain who tried would be bounced out on their hind ends. We don't force talks about religion -- at all. We provide comfort, a warm ear, get food, sneak in extra parking passes, and provide whatever religious (if any) rituals that are within our purview that the patients request. For example, I may baptize a preemie infant and then turn around and immediately perform a bedside Christian commendation service for the parents when the wee one dies if the family is Christian. If they are some other faith/no faith, we do what the family requests. We have pre-existing service guides for Jewish and earth-bound faith systems and share info amongst ourselves. For example, I received a call one evening from a fellow chaplain who had had a UU family request a bedside service. What should he say? I told him some things and pointed out a reference book in our library that would provide guidance.

    We attend every death, we comfort the depressed and frightened (including family members and staff -- they get sad too). If they want a prayer, they absolutely receive it in the form that is theirs, but to be honest, prayer/religion is but a small part of what chaplains do.

    One limitation we have to work around is the prohibition of open flames in the hospital, so candles are a problem. But I've worked with Wiccans to provide reasonable alternatives when in the hospital. Actually, Muslims and Wiccans often walk into the hospital afraid that they will be treated poorly, and we do our best to accommodate everyone's needs, and make them feel welcome and safe.

    Our chaplains come from many different faith backgrounds. One place where we all agree: patients and families first. We can practice our own faith on our own time.

    What we do provide is a warm, inclusive, non-anxious presence to patients and families in distress. We act as a patient advocate, even if their beliefs are different than ours.

    But if faith healing is indeed about to be reimbursed, then I too might consider becoming a Rasta and get some scripts paid for by my insurance. I have a condition that qualifies for herbal meds in some states ... No doubt I could also receive reimbursement for my payments to my own personal spiritual guide, whom I see for professional guidance -- or at least tax deduct them.

    And just how does the wise congress expect the laws to mesh when this country is still arresting and convicting parents for using faith-based healing?

    by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:59:30 AM PDT

    •  Thanks

      for the work you do.

      by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:06:46 AM PDT

      •  Thanks, but it is an honor to be

        with families, patients and staff at these very vulnerable times. They let me in the room and see them figuratively, if not literally, naked. I can't tell you how humbling for me that is.

        by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:37:27 AM PDT

    •  Great rant

      My wife is a hospice chaplain.

      by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:22:56 AM PDT

      •  So you know! :)

        Really, a good chaplain simply does not care in a judgemental way about anyone else's religion.

        I've walked out of one room after an hour with a very fundamentalist Christian who cried because his Jewish friends were going to go to hell because they hadn't accepted Jesus as their savior and gone into the next room where an atheist had a Hindu god as her spirit guide. I adored both patients, and entertwined my discussions with them based on their beliefs, not mine.

        It's the chaplain's job to, as I say, "jump on the patient's train and journey with them as long as they'll have me." It's an honor to be there.

        My wager is that your wife might feel somewhat the same.

        BTW, I'm a UU. None of my patients have a clue. As for me, if I were ever to need/want a chaplain, my selection is a specific Catholic nun. She's the best chaplain I've ever seen or worked with.

        by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:34:33 AM PDT

    •  thanks for your work

      It sounds like a rewarding career (even if it isn't well compensated) and quite valuable, too.

      by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:31:49 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for the kind words, but I'm the lucky one.

        I have been touched and moved so deeply by how people handle their challenging moments. They are an inspiration.

        by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:39:25 AM PDT

    •  Based on my experience

      "Hospital Chaplains" cravenly exploit the opportunity presented by grief to try to get hooks into people and recruit them for their Churches, often being extremely pushy, patronizing, and down-right annoying.

      The world is full of the superstitious, of course, and they generally behave like assholes in this manner.  Not much to be done about it.  As long as they aren't picking unwilling pockets, that is.

      Asking taxpayers to pay their wages is just digusting, and in direct conflict with the concept of the Seperation of Church and State.

      by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:37:43 AM PDT

      •  I'm sorry that was your experience.

        If that happened to you, it was terribly, terribly wrong.

        Just like there are bad cops, there are bad chaplains, who are supposed to be patient advocates, not evangelicals for their particular faith brand. I'm very sorry you experienced one of the bad ones -- or perhaps, even worse, more than one bad one.

        That's not the way we work in my hospital or in the hospitals in my area or in our local Hospice. If I were to behave as you describe, I would, to state it bluntly, be canned. And I should be.

        by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:47:27 AM PDT

        •  You seem like a rather decent sort

          for someone who believes in fairy tales ;)

          Which is to say, I have no doubt you'd back off the first time you were asked, that you do all you can to show as much respect as possible for all religions, and that you're sincere in trying to help people fill their needs in whatever way might help them find comfort - including going away.

          But we don't need the law to protect us from the nice guys.

          You're not the reason we need that wall between Church and State.

          The guy comming around daily for three weeks to ask if my mom had changed her mind about talking to him (Dead set, utterly convinced that she really, really wanted too because he saw a crucifix)?

          There's no parralel to the "bad cop" here - the constitution prohibits Uncle Sam from paying you, and for good reason.  

          If we pay you to "minister" in hospitals, why not schools?  Rec Centers?  

          by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:07 AM PDT

          •  Actually, no one knows what I believe.

            I don't tell because it doesn't matter. So, no one can be sure that I believe in fairy tales or not. Do I believe in god? A god? A lot of goddesses? The divinity of a tree? All the above?

            But thanks for giving me credit for being a decent sort. Given the story you tell, you have a right to be resentful and angry -- as well as wary about the motives of others in that situation.

            I am very sorry that your mother had that experience. That's horrible. No one should be doing that to her and I hope you reported him to management. And I hope you duly kicked him out. Again, he was doing religion. I don't do that, nor do our other chaplains unless the patients lead us there. And I never tell people what they should/should not believe.

            I'm paid for spiritual and social support, not religion. I'm not paid as a minister. If folks want their own ministers, one of my roles is to contact said minister.

            Some of us see spiritual support (not religion, big difference) as part of complementary medicine. I think acupuncture, massage and other forms are critical to holistic healing, and for many people, spiritual support adds to that. I provide spiritual support to atheists and devout [name that religion here] alike. That holistic healing support wouldn't be an identified need, IMHO, in a school or a recreational center.

            by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:52:00 PM PDT

            •  That "Holistic Healing Support" won't

              be covered by the Government either, of course ;)

              Of course, people ought to be free to access it at their own expense, or pool their own money to pay for it.

              I dig that you see some dividing line betweeen "religion" and "spiritual support".  A lot of us don't.

              A claim that there is a "spiritual" realm or aspect is a religious claim.

              by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:06:01 PM PDT

              •  Actually, my insurance does

                cover holistic treatments I listed and should, IMHO, be included for anyone IMHO. If it hadn't been for my chiropractor, I wouldn't have been able to function while waiting for the spine clinic when my disc permanently slipped. Same thing for my acupuncture treatments for aspects of SLE.

                I dig that you see some dividing line betweeen "religion" and "spiritual support".  A lot of us don't.

                True, that's obvious from many of the comments. However, a lot do see a very big difference and I'm one of them. There is also research to support my view; there is other research that, IMHO, is suspect because I often find -- in this culture -- a lot of Christian-based assumptions. Example: there are research articles that use interchangeably the word "god" or "Christ" and "spirituality." I put those articles away because they're useless to me.

                If I had a dollar for everyone who told me "I'm not religious; I'm spiritual," I would happily use the funds to buy insurance for people who are uninsured -- and I'd have a lot.

                There are times that I wish people could see what we do although, of course, confidentiality prevents that as it should. Seeing might not change minds about taxpayer support, but I think many would be surprised at how non-religious our chaplain work can be and it would at least be enlightening.

                by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:29:32 PM PDT

                •  What about philosophical support? :-)

                  As an empiricist, that's what I'm usually looking for -- that and emotional support.  Not sure how that fits into "spiritual" (the evidence is against mind-body dualism, so I have little use for the word "spirit" outside the adjective "spirited").

                  by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:43:47 PM PDT

                •  "I'm not religious; I'm spiritual"

                  That's a little like "I'm not white, I'm Irish."

                  "I'm not religious; I'm spiritual" = "I'm not delusional enough to believe nonsense, but I'm too sacred to face reality."

                  by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:11:12 PM PDT

            •  That is disingenuous.

              ...no one knows what I believe. Do I believe in god? A god? A lot of goddesses? The divinity of a tree? All the above?

              You're the Official Religious Guy. Which fairy tale you believe is irrelevant.

              Are their atheist chaplains? Do patients know that the guy delivering all their religious blessings and hoo-ha's believe in none of it?

              It's either incredibly creepy that a non-believer is play-acting all this religious crap for pay, or incredibly disingenuous for you to be playing "no one knows what I believe" in response to JesseCW's comment.

              by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:06:57 PM PDT

      •  Wrong.

        You had a bad experience. That is not the rule.

        by greendem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:58:31 AM PDT

        •  I have no doubt at all that I'm not

          the only one.  

          Religion can be spread just fine without raiding health care funds.

          by JesseCW on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:03:13 PM PDT

          •  You are likely right that you aren't the only one

            and it's inappropriate on the part of the chaplain(s) to behave that way. I am genuinely sorry you had to endure that. Those are experiences that can create a bitterness that last a lifetime.

            by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:30:43 PM PDT

        •  I had a temp job at a nursing home

          and I became friends with the Catholic chaplain - an indefatigable nun of at least 80. We had a few interesting theological discussions - I would have liked to have more. The two things I remember were 1) although she was clearly anti-abortion, clinic bombers disgusted her and 2)she was very worried that the mosque across the street was going to bombed.

          So I'm sorry you had that experience, Jesse, but I think most hospital chaplains are more like Bleeding Heart and Sister Alice.

          by The YENTA Of The Opera on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:07:14 PM PDT

          •  Thank you for the kind words.

            I try. I work with many others doing the same thing. Most of us are very, very good about respecting and honoring the patients' and their families' needs. Their well-being is paramount.

            by bleeding heart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:38:26 PM PDT

    •  With respect, this is all beside the point

      How much you get paid is irrelevant.
      How nice you are is irrelevant.
      How important you are to religious people is irrelevant.

      U.S. law doesn't prohibit taxpayer funding for religious activities only of highly-pad, mean-spirited people doing trivial work.

      U.S. law prohibits taxpayer funding for religious activities period. Based on the U.S. Constitution.

      It is not a matter of merit. It is a matter of principle.

      You are free to provide whatever services you want, and hospitals are free to pay you, and private insurers are free to cover that.

      But not a public polan paid with my U.S. citizen's tax dollars.

      Why is this so complicated for you to understand? It's a simple matter of the separation of church and state, and the requirement to ensure equal access and avoid favoritism in government sanction.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:47:34 PM PDT

      •  Well said and unassailable. n/t

        by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:13:16 PM PDT

    •  No faith based healing? That claim has already

      been made for you by one of your little supporters here.

      We attend every death

      And if I don't want you attending mine, is that "allowed?"

      by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:58:00 PM PDT

  •  But they don't charge the insurance or Medicare

    I don't care if a patient wants to bring in a Voodoo witch doctor. I just don't want my tax money paying for same.

    by icemilkcoffee on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:02:07 PM PDT

  •  "Serve all faiths equally" - which leave me out

    Chaplains should not be subsidized by taxpayers under our secular system which mandates a separation between church and state.

    As an atheist American citizen, I'm left out of your definition of inclusion as being "all faiths".

    My tax dollars should not support your discrimination.

    Not military chaplains, and not chaplains in a hospital or anywhere else.

    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:19:08 PM PDT

  •  They rarely serve me.

    While the 1970s US Military Chaplains' manual made it clear that they really served everyone, including secular humanists and others with nonreligious philosophies, the majority of chaplains in the world are not so enlightened.

    by neroden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:33:59 PM PDT

•  What about spending

  a pacifist's money for a Stealth Bomber?

  by GreatDane on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:19:33 AM PDT

  •  Sorry we only write bills in America

    for hypocritical Christians. Not for weak pacifists.

    by Crazy like a fox on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:21:50 AM PDT

    •  A snark but sadly true. n/t

      by thestructureguy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:22:24 AM PDT

•  Seems like we are seeing more and more...

  ..."religious provisions" in laws and bills these days.  The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Law has a statement that says basically the law is not to people for their religious beliefs.  But, duh, the law punishes acts, not beliefs. Anywho, it seems like the Religious Right is doing what it can to keep laws off their bodies (I couldn't resist), while at the same time, making sure Uncle Sam is their for every handout the Religious Right asks for.

  How about some good old-fashioned separation of church and state, as in, NO GOVERNMENT MONEY EVER GOES TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

  by BoxerDave on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:22:26 AM PDT

•  I am NOT paying for voodoo through taxes

  I will continue to pay for my voodoo out of pocket like i have for years....psychics, astrologers....

  by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:23:34 AM PDT

•  "Single Prayer" Health Care Reform from Orrin

  Hatch and the Ku Klux Kristian NeoNazi Republicans is all that we should resonably expect.

  ("Single Pray" becomes "Single Pay" when you remove the R from it.)

  by bleedingheartliberal218 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:24:28 AM PDT

•  Flip sides of the same coin?

  Not covering abortions AND covering prayer actually complement one another.

  Pro-choice is not a religious denomination, after all.

  by Craddoke on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:25:34 AM PDT

•  ACK! Not mentioning chr scientists is a BAD thing

  not mentioning the specific group allowed to get paid to pray and we will have every charlatan in the country setting up as a prayer healer.

  NO NO NO

  They can practice their religion and lack of healthcare (except when they want their kids to die) but they can't be subsidized. And they are subsidized now with no taxes.

  NO NO NO

  by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

•  This is the real bipartisanship...

  Wheeling, dealing, worthless trife that constitutes consensus-building in Washington.

  I'm perfectly fine with measures preventing discrimination, but paying for this is ridiculous.

  Seems like a good explanation, at least partially, of how Teddy was going to court Hatch.

  Ever 1/2 step forward, ever two steps back.

  by averageyoungman on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:28:48 AM PDT

•  An excellent idea!

  what's to stop Wiccans from demanding for reimbursement for our rituals used to heal?

  Please, please do! The only way to show up Christian fundamentalists is to demonstrate the true implications of what they propose. It's like how they get mad when someone objects to their tax dollars helping to pay for a Nativity Scene. No one objects to your setting up a nice Christmas scene on your own dime. But if tax dollars are to be used, then let's have an equally impressive monument to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Satanism, Atheism, etc, etc, etc.

  by Morlock on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:29:27 AM PDT

  •  One exception:

    Atheists do not believe in anything, so they would never set up a religious tableau of any kind.  Atheism is an absence of belief in any higher power or higher being.  If science can't cure them, then they would not be using prayer to do so, and they don't use religious symbols of any kind if they are a true atheist.

    An agnostic (one who believes there might be something there but doesn't follow any formal religious belief or institution) might use religious symbols of some kind, but probably not often.

    by NonnyO on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:12:31 AM PDT

    •  That doesn't mean that don't set up displays

      like this one in Washington state described here:

      http://www.cnn.com/...

      The sign says:

      In this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no Heaven or Hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

      Some "good Christians" tore it down, ripped it up, and threw it in a ditch.

      by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:27:14 PM PDT

    •  Atheists believe in many things

      just not gods. That's the only thing we have in common.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:36:32 PM PDT

•  Classic GOP misdirection at work here

  They want to frame it so that it seems like their objection is based on the fact that taxpayer money is going for abortions (when in fact, that is a tenuous claim at best which cherry-picks facts).

  The reality is that the GOP is opposed to all abortions. The fact that taxpayers are picking up the tab (they're not) is not relevant here at all.

  This is a classic Red Herring and the GOP is able to do this with impunity. Time to wake up and call them on their bullshit!

  by Dirk McQuigley on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:29:28 AM PDT

  •  This really isn't accurate

    Forget the GOP. In fact, a huge battle going on within our own party is in regard to this taxpayer funded abortion issue...which is NOT entirely clear in the bill.

    by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:39:46 AM PDT

•  Yuhuuuuu!!!

  At last we will see shamans, curanderos, mono-vocalic singing healers form the mountains of madness and drum doctors receive well deserved space and payment in our hospitals.

  I'll bet you the same hypocrite anti science reptile republican that sneaked this into the bill will freak out and complaint as soon as he saw anything but a Christian priest in Hospital.

  by Iberian on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

•  Equal time for exorcism! SpiritCare™!

  I want a Federal insurance program to pay for casting out demons.

  Just sayin.

  by Ralphdog on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:31:02 AM PDT

•  NO. Healthcare by professionals only

  sorry Churches, no paid-to-pray scams for you.

  Do it the way you usually do, on TV, getting old ladies to send you their SS money.

  by karenc13 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Pay to Pray - now there's a catch phrase! nt

    by semctydem on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:34:48 AM PDT

•  Here's how to stop it

  1. Tip off Glenn Beck that you intend to have the government pay for Wiccan Ceremonies

  2. DUCK!

  by Ptolemy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:34:30 AM PDT

  •  I love it!

    Sounds like a plan! :D

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:12:15 PM PDT

•  Funding for the healing power

  of the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Arrr!!

  by pascal on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:36:49 AM PDT

•  If this passes,

  I'm going to make someone pay for a sweat lodge, a stone circle (larger than Stonehenge), all the really cool crystals I can't afford, candles in every ritual color, incense, sweetgrass, sage, blue corn flour, and acupuncture.  And a few other things I've forgotten that are central to my mind/body/spiritual life.

  It sounds like a good deal to me.

  We could also organize to deliver all infants born as a result of the unavailability of abortion funding and practitioners to Catholic churches during Respect Life month.  How can they possibly refuse to care for God's precious children?  

  by I love OCD on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:37:16 AM PDT

  •  What's wrong with sweat lodges?

    In some cultures, they are extremely valid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Surely you're not disrespecting their customs and belief systems?

    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:57:09 AM PDT

    •  I think you misunderstood -

      my spiritual (religious) practices include all the things I mentioned.  If prayer is payable there's no reason to exclude the objects and symbols I use to keep body mind and spirit aligned and in good health.

      by I love OCD on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:03:14 PM PDT

    •  But my taxdollars shouldn't pay for them.

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:51:22 PM PDT

      •  They sure as shit shouldn't

        but I'll fight tooth and nail for payment if the pray-ers get paid.

        by I love OCD on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:53:29 PM PDT

•  Tax payers should not pay for prayer therapy...

  ...no "music therapy", nor "art therapy" or any kind of treatment that is not based on solid medicine.

  As a side note, taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions either.

  by The Navigator on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    Taxpayers shouldn't pay for abortions, unless it's the kind that doctors say are needed in order to save the life of the mother.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:32:47 AM PDT

    •  No.

      by jennylind on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:36:04 PM PDT

      •  Meant to say. . .

        Taxpayers shouldn't pay for abortions unless they are legal medical procedures, like other legal medical procedures that require the care of physicians and other medical personnel.

        To deny women--and girls, many of them children themselves--this form of reproductive health care, which they may require for any number of reasons, is the rankest form of discrimination.

        Perhaps when we can opt out of paying taxes for wars and grossly extravagant military spending, we can discuss whose health should be expendable.

        by jennylind on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:46:25 PM PDT

        •  Yes

          You explained it better then I did.

          by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:18:39 PM PDT

•  They need to remove this woo-woo bullshit.

  It would be the same as if they included homeopathic remedies and faith healing as part of the bill.

  It's not medical science, it's just religious nonsense.  

  by Beelzebud on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:39:13 AM PDT

  •  Are we going to have the woo-woo

    discussion again?  Geez, there is such a thing called integrated medicine.  It's a valid profession and it uses alternative therapies, including homeopathy and herbal therapy, massage and a host of others.

    Medical science is beginning to back a lot of it up as valid and important, especially in the area of cancer treatment.

    So, please don't be so quick to dismiss what you don't understand.

    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:55:23 AM PDT

    •  Let me sum up.

      When alternative medicine works, it's called MEDICINE.

      If you want to be overcharged for what science has shown to be a placebo effect, fine, just don't call it medicine.  Call it therapy, call it human interaction you pay for, but it's still not science/medicine.

      Anything you can prove to work will be accepted and used by the medical community, as many treatements have been.

      I'm not lover of the pill popping nature of current medicine, but that's mostly because the Science behind the amount of drugs being bad for us is what I focus on, not hoping for some alternative therapy which still has not been shown to work through clincial trials.

      by Flit on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:08:14 AM PDT

      •  So, we're having it again -

        despite whatever's been put out there again.

        Biofeedback is valid, but not medicine.  Doctors use it alot.

        Acupuncture?  Not Western medicine, and it's used very successfully for nausea in cancer patients and a whole host of other conditions.

        Massage?  Yep, therapists use it all the time.  Also not medicine.

        Overcharged for a placebo effect?  Surely, you're joking.  I mean, if the power of the mind alone to affect sure is so possible, why use Western medicine at all.  Why not just 'wish yourself well', like the Christian Scientists.

        Again, Western Medicine bias on display.

        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:12:45 AM PDT

        •  *cure nt

          by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:13:20 AM PDT

        •  Alternative medicine does not require

          the kind of technology and training that "western" (
          AKA scientific) medicine does--why should it cost so much that people need to have it covered by insurance? I think it should be paid out-of-pocket but eligible for the medical tax deduction.

          by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:24:14 AM PDT

          •  Integrated medicine is not alternative

            medicine.  It requires an extensive degree and integrates both alternative and Western in a unified, holistic approach.

            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:35:53 AM PDT

            •  It depends on where you practice.

              My sister-in-law in Texas goes to quacks who say they are "holistic practitioners," and they have a whole wall of degrees that are probably fake.

              She still goes and spends a fortune on bullshit that doesn't help her, and listens to what they say.

              My sister is a Nurse Practitioner, and she says that if my sister-in-law really had what the quacks say she has, she would be dead from lack of treatment.

              I kind of believe my degreed, currently practicing sister over the quacks taking my sister-in-law's money every month.

              by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:35:09 PM PDT

        •  Pay for your own "non-Western Medicine"

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:52:46 PM PDT

      •  Elegant, simple, direct and true. Thank you.

        When alternative medicine works, it's called MEDICINE.

        by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:21:45 PM PDT

    •  Homeopathy is total quackery.

      If homeopathy worked, all we would need to do is drink tap water, and all sickness would be cured...

      You lost me the milisecond I read homeopathy, because I have actually done some reading on the subject, and the "science" of homeopathy is, quite frankly, totally fucking laughable.  

      by Beelzebud on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:31:16 AM PDT

      •  Homeopathy has nothing to do with

        drinking water.

        You have no idea or understanding of what you are speaking about.  

        The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (sponsored by New York Senator and Homeopathic Physician Royal Copeland) recognized homeopathic remedies as drugs.

        The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science based medicine.

        Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas performed a "great deal of research to update the scenarios and refine the theories and practice of homeopathy" beginning in the 1970s, and it was revived worldwide;[82][185] for example, Brazil in the 1970s and Germany in the 1980s.[186] The medical profession started to integrate such ideas in the 1990s[187] and mainstream pharmacy chains recognized the business potential of selling homeopathic remedies.[188]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Some homeopathic treatment is covered by the public health service of several European countries, including France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Luxembourg. In other countries, such as Belgium, homeopathy is not covered. In Austria, the public health service requires scientific proof of effectiveness in order to reimburse medical treatments and homeopathy is listed as not reimbursable[152] but exceptions can be made; private health insurance policies sometimes include homeopathic treatment.[7][153] The Swiss government, after a 5-year trial, withdrew homeopathy and four other complementary treatments in 2005, stating that they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria.[154] The Indian government includes homeopathy as a part of the national health system and homeopaths are considered medical professionals there. Conventional (Western) medical science is referred to in India as "allopathy" and its practitioners are called allopaths.[155]

        http://www.lausci.com/...

        Homeopathy is a method of treatment that supports the body's own healing mechanism. It 's based on the law of similars "like cures like". A homeopathic remedy is an extremely pure, natural substance that has been diluted many times. In large quantities these subtances would cause the same symptoms the patient is trying to cure. In small, pure, diluted doses, it is not only safe and free from side effects, but it will trigger the body to heal itself. Example: Allium cepa is a remedy that is used for watery eyes and runny nose, it is created from red onion. If you've cut open a red onion you'll notice the same symptoms. When the body creates a similar "symptom picture" to Allium cepa and you take a dose of Allium cepa, it activates the body to go about the process of stopping watery eyes and a runny nose.

        Please, at least know what you're talking about before you talk about it.

        by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:43:53 AM PDT

        •  I know exactly what I'm talking about.

          From an article you even linked to:

          Physicist Robert L. Park, former executive director of the American Physical Society, has noted that
          " since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.[102] "

          Park has also noted that "to expect to get even one molecule of the 'medicinal' substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some two billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus whatever impurities the lactose contained".

          The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether.[21] This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number, is roughly equal to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024).[60][91][103]

          Scientific tests run by both the BBC's Horizon and ABC's 20/20 programs were unable to differentiate homeopathic dilutions from water, even when using tests suggested by homeopaths themselves.[50][104]

          Homeopathy is utter rubbish.  It's snake oil.   I feel sorry for you that you are gullible enough to believe in this sort of bullshit.  

          by Beelzebud on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:52:24 AM PDT

          •  I feel sorry for you that you are unable

            to broaden your mind to accept things you aren't familiar with.

            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:56:13 AM PDT

            •  I'm curious as to haow you answer

              the dilution question posed above? It would seem to indicate that homeopathy is bunkum, at the least.

              by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:30:07 PM PDT

              •  I have taken homeopathic cures for

                ear infection and skin inflammation that worked.  I suppose it was the miracle power of water that did that?

                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:41:34 PM PDT

                •  That's not an answer to my question. n/t

                  by Indexer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:19:28 PM PDT

                  •  I believe there are many things that

                    right now science cannot prove, or explain or assert with absolute certainty.  String theory being a good example.  Science is a tool to understand things, but it is only a tool and it will evolve over time - however limited it may be right now.  

                    Quantum physics is another area that seems a bit interesting, as many assert things about quantum physics that defy logic and reason and yet these things do happen, they do exist.

                    No method is perfect.  I simply do not believe science and only science can give us 'the truth'.  I believe the truth is much more complicated that even science can deal with, but it's the best things we have right now, all things given.

                    If you rely on science alone, you are only getting part of the picture.

                    by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:50:50 PM PDT

                    •  Please don't gussy up your pathetic argument by

                      pretending you know jack about string theory and quantum physics. This is just more ignorant crap that you picked up from another fool.

                      The fact that science cannot explain some particular thing, does not mean that that thing is then rationally explained by idiocy.

                      Science cannot explain every illness and disorder, but that does not mean every illness and disorder is then rationally explained by your belief that all our physical maladies are caused by a lack of eating crayon shavings.

                      And if you want to sit on the floor of your living room sharpening boxes and boxes of crayons and munching on the shavings, I enthusiastically encourage you to do exactly that.

                      However, it's not up to everyone else to pay for your crayons.

                      Although I will admit, I would be glad to.

                      by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:34:53 PM PDT

              •  Don't feed the troll

                it continues to reply with unrelated studies and misdirection to a whole slew of issues here.

                I'm beginning to wonder if it doesn't make a living selling "alternative" remedies.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:54:12 PM PDT

            •  Having an open mind is a great thing.

              As long as you don't open it up so much that your brains fall out.

              by Beelzebud on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:31:33 PM PDT

              •  How does a closed mind work for you? nt

                by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:41:50 PM PDT

                •  You have no reason in the world yo imagine that

                  Beelzebud has "a closed mind."

                  Do you believe that rubbing crunchy peanut butter on your elbows cures brain tumors? Do you believe that elves come out at night and light stars in the sky? Do you believe Obama was born in Kenya?

                  Does disbelief in that silly crap mean you have "a closed mind."

                  (And I write this hoping against the considerable likelihood that you do, in fact, believe all of those things.)

                  by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:39:24 PM PDT

            •  Thanks for the self-righteous bullshit!

              I feel sorry for you that you are unable to broaden your mind to accept things you aren't familiar with.

              It must be dreadfully difficult making a gullible nature and a mind incapable of critical thought look like a superior position.

              How you must struggle.

              I feel sorry for you.

              by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:26:46 PM PDT

          •  PS I embrace all forms of therapy and

            medicine, whether Eastern or Western.

            I will meditate to combat stress and raise my immune levels.  (This has been proven, by the way, you can Google it.)

            I will use herbs to combat things like asthma, which are affective, as opposed to steroidal inhalers which cause horrible side effects and in some cases a worsening of the condition.

            I will use antibiotics if I have an infection that can't be cured otherwise.

            I am going to use everything at my disposal, because I choose to keep an open mind, whereas you only have your bias and one thing at your disposal.

            ::shrug::

            by xysea on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:01:58 PM PDT

            •  Yeah that bias of science.

              Yep, you caught me.  I'm biased toward science, and reality, and reject homeopathy.

              Again, having an open mind is nice, as long as you don't let your brains fall out.

              by Beelzebud on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:53:38 PM PDT

          •  and the only reason it's still covered by the NHS

            is that the Royal family believes in it. There is a strong movement afoot to get rid of it (unfortunately, a lot of other bunk is sneaking in through the back door at the same time).
            I actually quite like well-researched integrative medicine practices. Physical medicine should always be at the heart of it, but there's lots that can be done to help people cope better with illness and treatment. What I don't want to ever see is taxpayer-paid faith healing. It's fine with me that hospitals have multifaith chaplains, space for people to go to pray or meditate, and respect for each person's individual spiritual preference--most definitely including the freedom to vociferously refuse "afterlife insurance" offered by some obnoxious preacher or priest. When people are in the hospital, they bring their whole being wih them and I wouldn't expect anyone to leave their spiritual beliefs at home any more than I would expect an atheist to welcome a prayer service. But none of those things I've said I was comfortable with are "health care"--they are people/family care.

            by expatyank on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:42:37 PM PDT

        •  Finding other people who believe silly crap

          doesn't mean that silly crap is science.

          It just means you're not the only idiot in the village.

          by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:24:07 PM PDT

    •  Bullshit.

      don't be so quick to dismiss what you don't understand.

      What a tiresome canard. "Understanding" nonsense -- or more accurately, imagining that one understands it -- does not make nonsense legitimate.

      My failure to believe in unicorns does not stem from my failure to understand unicorns.

      by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:20:22 PM PDT

•  This is just an open door for fraud

  plain and simple. Traditional medical therapies can be challenged or verified by science. Religious rituals cannot, which means there will be no way to say "no" to any of them.

  It's a way to take down the whole reform of healthcare by opening it up like swiss cheese to anyone who wants to set up a lethal sweat lodge in Sedona.

  by decembersue on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:39:51 AM PDT

  •  Stop harshing my side business!

    Shamanism: Your one-stop cure shop!  Chicken bones and snake blood to get rid of cancer, back pain, erectile dysfunction, and "teh gay."

    by wry twinger on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:46:24 AM PDT

•  I'm shocked!

  No "we pay for Viagra but won't cover abortion" rants yet?

  This from a person that needs to take Levitra in order to get a stiffy because of side effects of anti-depressants...after the "W" word pie fights today, thought I would just add my two cents...

  (end of rant)

  by wry twinger on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:40:52 AM PDT

•  Hatch threw it in for laughs, I bet.

  He won't vote for it either.

  by elbamash on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:43:19 AM PDT

•  sounds like i should get payed

  back for all the vitamins and health devices like heating pads etc that i need.

  think i will write to some of these shills like hatch and suggest it.

  btw ,,i have no problem with what you do in your life and beliefs but what exactly is "spiritual-based alternative medicine ?"

  by JadeZ on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:47:47 AM PDT

  •  Medicine based on religious or spiritual beliefs

    not scientific medicine.

    As in, Christian Science prayer therapy, Wiccans who use ritual to try to accelerate healing within themselves and others, etc. This is different then alternative medicine like acupuncture or massage therapy, because you necessarily have a religious/spiritual slant in the former examples.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:35:38 AM PDT

    •  thanks and

      i certainly agree that prayer works and i would encourage people to use it.

      by JadeZ on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:03:04 PM PDT

      •  Works in what sense?

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:55:23 PM PDT

        •  there are many studies that show

          individuals that use prayer along with proper medical help for their illness recovery faster and maintain a proper mental state which is also important.

          i have been aware of and learning about all alternative health models for over 30 years.

          by JadeZ on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:46:06 PM PDT

          •  Citations needed

            And citations would be those that demonstrate that it is "prayer", specifically, that produces results that no other form of mental concentration, such as meditation, playing chess, or other intellectual activity, has comparable results.

            Also note that the discussion here is about claims that one person praying can heal another, so, in the context of that discussion, saying "prayer works" is a rather sloppy claim.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:26:53 AM PDT

            •  look lets be clear here

              you are entitled to believe what you want and i dont care if you believe what i say.

              its true because i say it and i have no desire to spend hours finding citations for stuff that has been common knowledge for many years,

              if you are ignorant of it go find out or refuse to believe.

              you approach things like you are being attacked and i really dont have the time for such a game.

              by JadeZ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:00:11 AM PDT

              •  Hah!

                its true because i say it

                LOL. That's funny.

                It's a lie because you cannot produce the "many studies" you claimed show the efficacy of prayer. Despite claiming to "have been aware of and learning about all alternative health models for over 30 years."

                i really dont have the time for such a game.

                What you don't have time for is sharing the rich knowledge you claim to have which you cannot back up with any evidence. What you don't have time for is people who expect honesty and integrity when dealing with issues like public health - and, in intellectual discussions in general.

                This is not a congregation. It's a political discussion site. The topic is public health care, and specifically whether taxpayer dollars should pay for sham treatments with no documented efficacy.

                If you can't handle the heat of critical challenges to unsubstantiated assertions, if you think discourse consists of making assertions without backing them up with any evidence, then head over to Street Prophets, where any absurd faith-based claim you make will be greeted with reverence and gullibility.

                And, if you really cared about any of this - if you cared about informing others of treatments you believe work, and/or if you cared about how other taxpayers dollars were being spent - then you would be eager to share information and help us all learn new things.

                Instead, like most faith-based charlatans, you make claims and, when challenged to substantiate them, attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.

                Which is usually a sign of inability to produce.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:29:11 AM PDT

              •  With all due respect,

                this is fucking crazy:

                its true because i say it and i have no desire to spend hours finding citations for stuff that has been common knowledge for many years,

                by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:41:52 PM PDT

•  does that count voodoo dolls?

  Yay, it's the 21st century, and my tax dollars are going for the Jesus equivalent of shaking rattles at somebody!

  Will society never get over its superstitious hoohah-horseshit?   Even if people want to believe in that crap... why does it have to be financed?  Does prayer actually cost anything?  By all means, go wish as hard as you want, cross your fingers and chant the lucky word and do a little demon-scaring dance if you want to, but do it for free.  People don't deserve a dime for praying.

  by Front Toward Enemy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:48:14 AM PDT

  •  OMG, my voodoo FEEEEEELINGS are hurt!

    And if you ask me
    Do you do voodoo?

    I can but reply
    Indeed I do do voodoo.

    I can keep myself amused for most commercial breaks by repeating those lines out loud, over and over.

    Not that the fact it makes me feel good should entitle me to taxpayer money every time I say it.

    by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:47:00 PM PDT

•  Everyone keeps mentioning Christian Science...

  but Hatch is a Mormon.

  So what's in this for the Mormons?  Anyone??

  by lonelyutahdem15 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:50:14 AM PDT

  •  A foot in the door for something else, no doubtN/

    by FarWestGirl on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:13:17 AM PDT

  •  Fancy Mormon magical underwear? Go google

    it because it keeps their eternal marriage vows more magical enough that they get to rule their own planet in the afterlife. Absolutely necessary for their spiritual mental health.

    Egads. I will not buy Mitt his magic longjohns to keep him safe from straying and its risk of funky STDs.

    by Neon Mama on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:27:47 AM PDT

    •  DAMN, I want to buy me some o' those!

      But you have to show your Mormon card to get them.

      If you think I'm making this up, you don't know your Mormon Facts.

      by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:48:37 PM PDT

  •  They want to have their e-meter readings covered

    Oh, wait, that's the other whacko cult. Never mind.

    by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:31:16 AM PDT

•  So if I tune in to my favorite

  television preacher, send him a donation, place my "hands on the television set", and pray with him so I can be healed; then it's a reimbursible medical expense?   SSK!

  by Santa Susanna Kid on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:50:16 AM PDT

  •  Does that make your TV

    a reimbursable medical device?  Awesome!

    by lonelyutahdem15 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:23:03 AM PDT

•  Well if those superstitious c*cks*ck*rs like this

  are given a free pass, then I should be as well: I reject corporate medicine and demand the right to order non-invasive tests for myself (paid out of pocket) and similarly the right to self-prescribe (review it for sanity checking under the DEA budget if you want).

  I had no insurance last year and had to pay for a completely meaningless consultation with a urologist to verify that a vasectomy done years prior had "taken". Christ, if I had a microscope i could have done it myself. Instead I needed to pay $200 to have an MD order a lab tech (at $80, also out of my pocket) look thru an eyepiece and say "yup, no sperm seeen"

  by AndreMA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:51:41 AM PDT

•  And scietology too....

  and why not.  Unless you want the U.S. to be in the position of deciding what shall and what shall not be considered a relgion.

  If we exclude this religious based treatment it creates another problem.  Then we must exclude all non evidence based Medical treatment,which is about half of what we call mainstream medicine:

  This is a time for a diary in the hopper that is on subject:
  ------------------------
  Under HCR iotragenic disease will increase

  If you don't know the definition of iotragenic don't feel bad, most people don't.  Here's the Merriam Websters definition:

  induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures

  The word incorporates the nasty side effects of medications, contracting resistant infections in a hospital, and of course incompetent practice of medicine.  The term is neutral, as it's existence doesn't mean that a cost benefit analysis of a procedure, or a system, would find that such iatrogenic effect negates a net health gain.

  Under HCR, with more people going to doctors, of course, iotragenic disease will increase, but other diseases will decrease.  My point is that the down side of increased doctoring has recieved little attention in the Heath Care Reform debate.

  One of the major planks of this HCR is promoting preventive care, with the administration depicting this as an unmitigated good, such as more education, safer food and safer highways. Actually, it is more complex than that, much more so. Preventive care means more tests, such as Mammograms, PSA tests for Prostate Cancer and an array of others.

  The argument that such testing saves money has been challenged by many studies, including the this one being a single example that makes the argument that in the very long run it will save money....but no where near what it's advocates claim.    

  Actually, the annual doctor visit, if the current system is kept in place, which it fundamentally will, would vastly expand the cost of medical care due to false positives that would require extensive follow ups. And example of this trend is here:

  The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not recommend routine prostate cancer screening for all men at this time.

  And here's the worst part, from a N.Y. Times articlethat explains opposition to regular screenings such for PSA, Pap tests, and Mammograms.  

  But Dr. Silvia C. Formenti, the chairwoman of radiation oncology at New York University Langone Medical Center, said: "I don’t think there is enough debate. Screening does not pay off the way we expected."

  Dr. Formenti said she was concerned about finding tumors in older people that would probably not kill them. But the diagnosis turns them into cancer patients and erodes their peace of mind forever.

  "We take away the innocence of being healthy and not having to worry about cancer," she said. "The psychological cost of becoming a cancer patient is underrated."

  Dr. Formenti said the emphasis on screening by groups like the cancer society might have misled the public into thinking that screening could prevent cancer. "It’s a giant misconception," she said.

  This HCR will be a victory for the worst strand of the Medical-Hospital-Pharmaceutical complex.  The real cost can not be measured in dollars, although if taken to its logical extreme, it will have dire fiscal consequences.   It is a victory of those who want to make medical care into a religion, a panacea to all that humans are heir to.

  It is a false religion, which like every such faith based plan, will exact its toll on a society that it captures. And to make it worse, it will be imposed on every citizen of our country whatever his or her view of mortality.  We will not be forced to dutifully march to our doctors every year, but we will be forced to pay for those who chose to.

  This has little to do with providing basic health care to every citizen, something that could be done for a small fraction of this HCR, that requires everyone become full members of the believers in salvation by doctor.  

  Learn that word, "iatrogenic." We me have more use for it in the near future.

  --------------References--------------

  Comprehensive diaryon defects of HCR.

  Diaryon the roots of the "faith based" Medical religion

  by arodb on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:53:41 AM PDT

  •  True enough, "too much" medical care

    can be counterproductive and worsen patient outcomes.

    Prayer is a really good example of that since peer-reviewed scientific studies show that it is either ineffective, or is actually harmful.

    Praying for the health of strangers who have undergone heart surgery has no effect, according to the largest scientific study ever commissioned to calculate the healing power of prayer.

    In fact, patients who know they are being prayed for suffer a noticeably higher rate of complications, according to the study, which monitored the recovery of 1,800 patients after heart bypass surgery in the US

    link

    definitely not a good use of health care money!!

    by Roadbed Guy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:25:47 AM PDT

    •  That doesn't surprise me at all

      As a pastor, often when I appear at the door to a hospital room, the patient is sure they are worse than others have told them--they must be dying--otherwise why would they send for a pastor?!    

      Said only slightly tongue-in-cheek....

      by revsue on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:25:52 PM PDT

      •  I think that's it exactly

        if somebody knows they are being prayed for, they must be thinking "holy cow, I must be in really bad shape . . . ." an anti/reverse-placebo effect if you will

        Or maybe it just puts a lot of stress on themselves not to disappoint those who are doing the praying.  Stress that of course does not help the healing process from the primary illness.

        OTOH, if the person is completely oblivious to the fact that they are being prayed for, neither of those two scenarios come into play - and, as the study shows, the prayer has absolutely no effect one way or another.  But, if money was involved, one could still argue it could be better  spent  someway else.

        by Roadbed Guy on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:32:08 PM PDT

        •  Yep.

          I have seen what were unexpected rapid recoveries after joining hands with patient families and praying at the bedside.
          Things that frankly stunned me!  But I can think of several reasons they could have happened (psychosomatic, spontaneous remission, hope, the evidence of support and love), as well as faith.

          But I can't imagine sending a bill to the patient or the family.  Heh.  Not only would I consider that wrong, but it would be SO "Republican" to do so......

          by revsue on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

•  I'm starting a new church

  In my church sickness (including many forms of mental illness) is cured by driving really expensive cars.    

  Now as I understand it, the US Government will have to reimburse me for the cars we drive.  

  Dressing in really expensive clothing and jewelry is also curative.  (Works particularly well on depression, PMS and erectile dysfunction).  So I expect me and my followers will be able to submit our "medical" expenses to get reimbursed.  

  Fried chicken is not yet covered in our treatment plan... but we have clergy working on that.  

  Have faith -- the meek shall inherit the earth... after the rich are done using it up.    

  by ruscle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:53:44 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't sound like a bad idea

    I think if I had cancer, driving a Bugatti Veyron around for a little bit might make me forget about the cancer for awhile.

    by yg17 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:03:53 AM PDT

    •  Our (church) studies show

      that cancer patients driving Bugattis live longer than those driving around an eight-year old Ford Focus.    

      by ruscle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:10:31 AM PDT

  •  Isn't it called...

    ...the Church of Scientology?

    by FishBiscuit on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:22:20 AM PDT

    •  Scientology you get to ride in a flying saucer

      but only if you are good enough.

      In my church you can be a sinner and still drive the fast car... all you have to prove is that you are human and you could become sick if you don't drive one of our healing automobiles.  

      by ruscle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:33:41 AM PDT

  •  I thought it would be a good gig

    to be a Christian Science pharmacist, so I can refuse to dispense any medicine at all due to my religious beliefs... (snark)

    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:34:13 AM PDT

  •  How about water therapy?

    Like, spending a lot of time by the pool, or on the beach? I think that would be an excellent treatment regimen....

    by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

    •  God just told me that

      Paris in Springtime is good for Arthritis, Gout and Stress Fractures.  

      See our Church Travel Agent to have the government pay for your healing trip.  

      by ruscle on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:09:57 PM PDT

  •  I want a jaguar

    Silver, with a shiny pretty little jaguar on the hood.

    That would make me feel great!

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:00:16 PM PDT

  •  I'm joining your church!

    Hell yeah- I think I'm a little depressed from driving my 1990 Ford Ranger. What course of therapy do you recommend?

    by icemilkcoffee on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:33:31 PM PDT

•  Or preemptive wars.

  Or executions.

  Etc.

  by chumley on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:54:03 AM PDT

•  I'd like to get reimbursed for

  acupuncture, massage therapy and yoga...  how about that?  >;[

  by La Gitane on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:55:17 AM PDT

  •  unlike prayer

    these have clinical evidence of effectiveness.

    by Guinho on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:03:34 AM PDT

    •  Actually not acupuncture - there is nothing there

      beyond the placebo effect, but for certain things like sore muscles yeah, massage is great.

      by ETinKC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:44:52 AM PDT

      •  There's anecdotal evidence

        Personally, I had a problem I went to my regular doctor for, but she told me there was nothing she could do, we just had to "wait it out" and wait for it to fix itself. She said it would a year or possibly more for things to straighten out.

        An acupuncturist fixed it in 3 months. As a side note, I didn't really believe acupuncture worked at all. I went to the acupuncturist at the prodding of a friend, and I thought I would give it a few sessions and see how it went, because my regular doctor had no answer for me.

        But this is anecdotal, as I said, not empirical evidence, and I'm too lazy to google right now and find studies for you.

        by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:23:54 PM PDT

      •  Also anecdotal

        I had diverticulitis (diagnosed) and was prescribed antibiotics. I had serious abdominal pain the doctor said ought to be relieved in a couple of days as the antibiotics made the inflammation go down.

        On my way home, as an equal opportunity seeker of healing, I visited an acupuncturist. I felt no change in the office but by the time I got home (20 minutes) I had no pain. Zero, and it never recurred. Of course, I took the full course of antibiotics, as the acupuncturist also strongly recommended.

        You know, when you directly experience enough things like that, you have to wonder what's going on. How long a string of striking coincidences does it take to become real experience?

        As a side note, I use a form of "alternative healing" which often works. That's based on direct observation as when someone tells me "I can't find any more pain." But it didn't do a thing in this case. Everything has its limits.

        by just another vortex on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:11:44 PM PDT

      •  Impossible to do a double blind experiment

        For things like acupuncture- the purported effect is indistinguishable from the placebo effect.

        by icemilkcoffee on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:36:55 PM PDT

        •  Actually you can do double blind studies

          here is one

          http://www.cbc.ca/...

          they usually find zero difference between real on sham acupuncture

          by ETinKC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:48:10 PM PDT

•  They Use My Tax Dollars To Execute People..

  And to kill people in really stupid wars. Neither of which I agree with. Hatch WILL get over it.

  by Six Joe Pack on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:57:17 AM PDT

•  Excellent points

  I especially like:

  This isn't a Christian nation. It's a democratic state with freedom of religion.

  Couldn't have said it better

  by deviant24x on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:58:19 AM PDT

•  Talk about a can o'worms

  Besides explicitly religious practices, there are going to be disputes about herbal remedies, reiki, acupuncture... anything that's not totally mainstream, from the complementary to the quackish.

  I don't know how a public plan or a regulatory regime should handle the question of which treatments are eligible.

  by catfood on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:00:27 AM PDT

  •  it should leave more decisions up to the patient

    and less up to government bureaucrats. Of course, I think all legal treatments should be covered -- including abortions. And yes, Pariah Stalin Sarah Palin, abortions are still legal in our free country.

    by musicsleuth on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

    •  That wouldn't work.

      If you made every "legal treatment" eligible for payment, people will make up some pretty crazy treatments that are not illegal. Scientology comes to mind immediately.

      Besides the obviously wacky treatments, there will also be some that work but are not remotely cost-effective.

      No, we can't have a system where absolutely anything gets funded.

      by catfood on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:24:41 PM PDT

•  Beyond the sheer

  Uber-Quackery of it all (unlike the diarist, I am not someone who subscribes to faith healing, ceremonies, rituals or the like), the thing that iriitates me the most about this is the blatant falsehood behind the concept.

  How much does faith cost?  How much MONEY is it worth?

  If you believe in this stuff, go for it - I won't stop you (though I wouldn't encorage it in the slightest - I lost a friend who was a "christian scientist" to cancer because she was too stubborn to seek actual help), but I do not believe in spending tax dollars on that sort of intangible.

  And where is the line to be drawn?

  by trumpeter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:01:11 AM PDT

  •  Precisely my point

    It doesn't matter to me what folks believe.

    But I do not ask my government, my fellow taxpayers and citizens, or my insurance company to fund my personal religious beliefs.

    No one should.

    This should not be in the health care bill and Reid needs to pull it out ASAP. Kudos to Pelosi for already hacking it out of the House version.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:41:07 AM PDT

•  Restore science to its proper place - is

  close to how President Obama mentions our dilema on numerous occassions.

  Decades of deliberate lies have been pounded to break down our wall of separation. Sexist control of women uses religious bigotry to demonize our right to sensible and safe reproductive healthcare.

  It is insane to invade our self defense of our own bodies with voodoo dark ages fears of scientific facts.   Abortion should NOT be walled off and denied as a proper health need for women.

  See what happens when they are allowed to get away with ignorance only posing as sex ed -- at great financial profit to snake oil clerics? When their fantasy creatiionism as "intelligent design" is not laughed out of legislative sessions?

  Bobby Jindal & Sarah Palin are free to practice excorcisms in their religious life --- but not on my dime with public funds while they deny real health care to born women.  Get this garbage OUT of all forms of health reform bills -- or I just became totally opposed.

  Jesus gave FREE single prayer healthcare according to printed pages wrongly called "holy" against the warnings of the words within bible.
  Suffer NOT    "witches" in church --- refers to those who pretend their incantations produce "magic" instead of properly crediting that power to the deity.  

  I say - millions for incisions, not one cent for "visions."  Keep your clerical paws off my Medicare.  

  by Neon Mama on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:01:54 AM PDT

•  and we can ask taxpayers to pay for

  blowing up babies and children and families in OTHER countries, no problem.

  by Mr Rick on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:03:35 AM PDT

•  Fucking disgusting.

  It sickens me to the core that my tax money is used for the child-molesting Christophiles and their "Big Theocracy" agenda. And let's be honest here, it's all about the Christian cult, though they disguise it by putting "religion" there. I wish it was about Wiccans! At least Wiccans don't annoy people with shittily drawn comics about their religion. I've never met a Wiccan that tried to convert me, or try to force someone to do things their way.

  However, the Christian cultists' sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped them conjure up any sense of human decency, or given them clairvoyance enough to see how self-destructive they are. A religion embraced by ignorant rednecks and naive morons who put other ignorant rednecks and naive morons into power. Hence Sarah Palin, Saxby "Peaches & Cream" Chambliss, Bachmann, and others.

  While I find any "prayer therapy" laughable, people are welcome to do whatever they want to themselves no matter how pointless it is as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

  But these Christophiles using my money, for their child-like fascination with a false deity?

  Unacceptable.

  Fuck them.

  

  by Prinny Squad on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:04:14 AM PDT

  •  Child-molesting christophiles?

    You're an asshole.

    by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:25:21 AM PDT

    •  Hmm.

      

      by Prinny Squad on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:47:29 PM PDT

    •  Oh dear. An asshole, you say?

      Is that because Prinny said something cabout the Child-molesting christophiles? Or did s/he misspell it? Is it not hyphenated?

      I'm not quite sure where this "asshole" thing is coming from.

      Help me out. You're so good at explaining things.

      by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:55:36 PM PDT

  •  That's a little harsh, no?

    Any evidence that Christian Scientists are prone to child molestation?

    by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:58 AM PDT

    •  This got 4 recs (so far)

      It's pretty disappointing.

      by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:15:52 PM PDT

      •  And, damn it! Now it's too late to rec it! n/t

        by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:56:48 PM PDT

    •  Well, my extensive counterpoint there goes far

      beyond Christian Scientists, though I realize they are more the focus of the topic above. I am disgusted in every aspect of the "faith based initiatives" put in by Dubya, and this move here is just more fecal-frosting on the crap cake by my government.

      I do realize it's mostly the Catholics that are famous for the child molestation, but they aren't the sole owners of that domain. I mean, Amish, Mormons, your average born-again hillbilly. Though with those groups, it's usually incestuous child molestation.

      Obviously, I don't mean they are all child molesters. That'd be silly. But it's not an uncommon practice (along with normal physical child abuse, which is rampant) in heavily Christian traditions.

      So I have to respectfully disagree, it's not a little harsh.

      I toned it down, actually.

      Information further on this subject:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Check out the Amish Deception for some really messed up stuff.

      by Prinny Squad on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:38:30 PM PDT

      •  I'll just put you in the bin...

        ...with the Freeper who called Muslim's "boy bumpers."

        Ah!  You fit quite nicely.  Say hello to your new friends.

        by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:52:41 PM PDT

        •  :D

          

          It really is!

          by Prinny Squad on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:00:41 PM PDT

          •  Retaliatory HRs are a violation of policy.

            FAIL.

            by The Red Pen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:10:33 PM PDT

            •  There are several in this thread. Take a moment

              to lecture them as well.

              Unless you're only thumping on the rules in your own self-interest.

              by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:59:03 PM PDT

              •  I don't make the rules

                Imbecile.

                by The Red Pen on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:51:41 PM PDT

                •  A Breakthrough!

                  Your inability to read simple direct comments and glean the slightest understanding and simplest inferences from them certainly goes a long way toward explaining your lack of reasoning skills. You're not able to access the information needed to practice rational thought.

                  This could be important, because it may mean that at least part of your appearance of stupidity could, in fact, be attributed to mere illiteracy, which may be, to some extent, "curable."

                  This is exciting!

                  Try reading this and see if you can understand it:

                  Nobody said, you make the rules, dumbfuck. Someone said that you only seem to respect rules when you have a self-interest in their enforcement.

                  by teachme2night on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:19:06 PM PDT

  •  You're subtle, but I think I catch your message.

    LOL -- I love your posts.

    by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:51:40 PM PDT

•  Prayer therapy? Sounds like fraud to me.

  I'd want to see a background check on anyone claiming they're a "prayer therapist."

  by Wom Bat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:09:14 AM PDT

  •  Prayer therapists

    have already gotten into legal trouble for practicing medicine without a license.

    That's also mentioned in the LA Times article.

    So there's a sense of quackery to this as well.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:42:59 AM PDT

•  What minister-types

  do you have to pay and let me guess, they're all tax-exempt.

  by bebecca on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:18:07 AM PDT

•  Meanwhile out on the reservation lands...

  For most of the last century or so, there have been clinics, doctors nurses and other health care professionals working on Indian reservations.

  When it comes to seeking health care, many Indian people are somewhat apprehensive about going to these clinics because they get treated to an ordeal that is at least a clash of cultures.  Unfortunately, there has been prejudice.

  Would you go to a doctor that looked at you with contempt because of your ethnic heritage?  Would you share any confidences with someone ready to ridicule your culture?  

  One of the more healing development of recent years is the inclusion of practicing medicine men in clinical practice.  There are a variety of services that are very useful that they provide.  They speak the same language and they come from the same communities.  They share the heritage.  The herbal and other healing aspects, which western traditions may disparage, nevertheless come down as an important legacy that connects people to their past.  This is not an inconsiderable innovation and it has become an institution under government funding of the Indian Health Service under the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

  The kind of dismissive arrogance and immediately contemptuous attitudes that people seem to be ready to adopt on this site are not conducive to the creation of a healing environment where there has been too much of that in the past.  

  I doubt Hatch was thinking of Indian people in terms of this amendment.  Most likely it derives from Mormon communities in Utah.  But I hope that the ability of people who live out on reservation lands to get health care that is sensitive to the cultural context is not harmed by reform.  

  by Stuart Heady on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:19:41 AM PDT

•  This is the United States of America

  ...where superstition and mythology beat sound science every day of the week and twice on Sundays. How can this surprise anybody?

  by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:22:35 AM PDT

  •  No longer US of A.

    Welcome to the new Cristofacist State of America, where the bible is king and science is for morons.

    by Obamacrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:44 PM PDT

    •  I believe it's spelled "morans" nm

      by fasteddie9318 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:20:44 PM PDT

•  Pray for abortions?

  is that an option?

  by agnostic on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:32:51 AM PDT

•  In Principle I Agree

  But prayer therapy generally costs very little, and can actually be quite effective (even if you reduce it to the placebo effect, I'm all for getting more people on sugar pills). So, again, while in principle I see the hypocrisy and unconstitutionality, might such a provision actually prove effective?

  by superflat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:33:51 AM PDT

  •  Well the principle matters here.

    It's not so much that prayer therapy is cost effective or not. The bigger issue at hand is that the vague language of this addition to the HCR bill opens up a can of worms for all sorts of other religions to stand up and say HEY... if Christian Scientists get coverage, it's discrimination that WE don't. For example, Scientologists are anti-psychiatry... their "auditors" who replace psychiatric help for their members are very very expensive. If this were to pass, it's an open door for medical care to HAVE to include coverage for auditing. Auditing sessions can cost in the thousands of dollars.

    Just an example of the door that's being left open here.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:46:17 AM PDT

  •  Power of the mind?

    How much will the faith healers get paid?

    Because seriously this is the name of what this little provision covers.

    Ernest Angeley will open a clinic?
    Benny Hinn?

    Paying for prayer?

    Seriously way too much room for abuse. And as well all know, abuse in Healthcare is rampant.

    by pale cold on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:05:43 PM PDT

•  Silly Druidqueen! Subsidies are for Christians!

  But thanks to the vague language of this provision, what's to stop Wiccans from demanding for reimbursement for our rituals used to heal?

  Wicca is a minority religious position, like Islam, atheism, etc.  Government gravy trains like this are intended only for dominant religions that can supply a reliable block of votes, or rich ones that can supply a big payoff in campaign donations.

  Don't you understand anything about our glorious American Democracy?

  [/snark]

  Logically you're right, but unfortunately, in reality, "Witches demand government handouts!?!" would be cited as an example of "liberal wackiness" by the same hypocrites who most loudly bray that their church should get even bigger handouts than it already does.  Sen. Hatch's advocacy for this provision can undoubtedly be traced to some program of the LDS/Mormon church which wants a federal subsidy.

  This unfortunate tendency of the majority to subsidize itself by beggaring the minority is precisely why subsidies and other establishments of religion are supposed to be prohibited by our increasingly ignored Constitution.

  by Felix on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:01 AM PDT

  •  Correction:

    Wicca is a minority religious position, like Islam, atheism, etc.

    Atheism is NOT a religion, minority or otherwise.  Atheism is the absence of belief in any supreme deity or formal religious practice.

    Agnostics believe there might be something there to believe in, but they don't follow any particular religious dogma.

    by NonnyO on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:41:13 AM PDT

    •  Re. correction

      That's why I described it as a "religious position" instead of a "religion".  Sort of like describing anarchism as a political viewpoint despite the fact that it would (theoretically) abolish politics as currently understood.  Ya gotta call it something.

      by Felix on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:44:38 AM PDT

      •  I'd possibly agree with that interpretation.

        However, lumping it alongside Islam and Wicca as examples of a "religious position" is probably not the best approach.

        by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:45:23 PM PDT

        •  I know a number of atheists who are FAR

          more stiff-necked and dogmatic than most of the Southern Baptists I know. For some of them, oh yeah, it's a religion...

          by raincrow on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

          •  Irrelevant in this context

            atheism per se is not a religion nor a religious position.

            It is a position vis a vis the existence of gods.

            There are religions that do not involve the existence of gods, and there are believers in gods who belong to no religion.

            Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:29:03 PM PDT

            •  QUITE relevant, afaic

              And I think it's breathtakingly, howlingly funny. So bloody much righteousness with absolutely no place to go.

              Humans.

              Sigh.

              ;)

              by raincrow on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:39:11 AM PDT

              •  "no place to go"?

                You mean, heaven or hell? Or what? What does that comment even mean?

                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:52:59 AM PDT

                •  ;D

                  by raincrow on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:08:32 PM PDT

          •  Yawn. FAIL. Get a new bumpersticker.

            "Atheism is a Religion -- because I can't imagine what independent thought is, so I see everything as religious dogma because that's all I've ever seen rattle around in my own head."

            It does require a rather broad bumper, but it seems to sum up your vacuous perspective.

            by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:02:57 PM PDT

      •  It is neither a religion...

        ... nor, technically, a religious position.

        It is an absence of belief.

        No rituals.  No ceremonies.  No nothing.

        ABSENCE of belief.

        I know.  What with Lamestream Media overloading us with religious symbols of all kinds, it's difficult to grasp at first, but absence of belief can't be lumped into any category with any religion or religious ritual of any kind whatsoever in any way, shape or form.  Period.

        by NonnyO on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:27:29 PM PDT

        •  Actually, many atheist to participate in

          ceremonies and rituals.

          And, there are atheists who belong to religions such as Buddhism.

          Nor is atheism is not an absence of beliefs in general. It is an absence of belief in gods, specifically.

          Many atheists are also irreligious, or even opposed to the institution of religion. But the two are not inherently the same thing, and neither atheism nor non-religion mean no rituals. no ceremonies. No nothing. Simply, empicially, untrue.

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:31:58 PM PDT

          •  If Buddhism is a religion...

            ... then it would be fair to state that the people who follow it are agnostics.  They believe in something and follow practiced rituals.

            A person who believe something or someone is "there" as a higher power but can't define it is an agnostic... not an atheist.

            Atheism is still an absence of belief.

            by NonnyO on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:49:41 PM PDT

            •  Since many Buddhists call themselves atheists

              it is arrogant and illiberal for you to insist that they are not.

              And you apparently don't know much about Buddhism, because it doesn't involve belief in a "higher power" at all.

              Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Just as a "theist" is one who believes in gods.

              Look it up.

              by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:54:25 PM PDT

              •  In addition, you're mistaken about agnostics, too

                and agnostic is either someone who says it is inherently and eternally impossible to know whether gods exist (strong agnostic), or someone who says it is possible to know, and it is possible, but we don't have evidence either way yet (weak agnostic).

                An atheist is someone who says there is no evidence of the existence of gods, and Occam's Razor leads to the conclusion that it makes sense to act as if no gods exist (weak atheist), or one who asserts that, definitively, no gods exist (strong atheist). Many strong atheists go further to suggest that the entire concept of a "god" is logically inconsistent and impossible on its face.

                Neither agnosticism nor atheism say anything about religion. There are religious agnostics and religious atheists, just as there are theists who practice no religion, including no rituals or ceremonies.

                You are confusing two related but not equivalent realms of human belief and activity.

                by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:58:29 PM PDT

      •  It's not a religious position

        there are atheist Buddhists - that is, atheists who belong to a religion. There are also atheist Unitarians like Pete Stark.

        There are also believers in god/s who belong to no religion at all - tens of millions of them in the US, incidentally.

        Atheism has nothing to do with religion. It is a position regarding the existence of gods.

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:27:48 PM PDT

  •  A further thought --

    Do you suppose this might be an intentional "poison pill" designed to make the final bill more controversial than it needs to be?

    by Felix on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:41:48 AM PDT

•  Cut all faith based funding if abortion cut.

  An opportunity to cut all faith based funding. If right wing Democrats want to ban a medical procedure for women, the price of that ban is cost reduction eliminating all funding for faith based programs like the discredited "Abstinence" program.

  Funding abortions will not make but at least we save billion$ and a lot of bad programs by cutting faith based programs from budget at the same time.

  by Besdeekian on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:29 AM PDT

  •  Cut it even if abortion ISN'T cut!!!!!

    Find a clergy to pray for you for free, for chrissake!!!! Isn't that their job?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    by Clarknt67 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:10:28 PM PDT

•  Constituent Support and Religious Beliefs

  These always get cited as reasons for denying abortion coverage.  If the same opponents of abortion were to poll their constituents about welfare, they would likely find a majority opposed to that as well.  

  As far as the other excuses, the U.S. ranks down with the lesser developed countries regarding infant and maternal mortality. I believe the poor outcome is a direct result of sectarian healthcare being forced on poor women in many areas of the U.S.

  Bart Stupak is supposedly leading the effort to outlaw any third party payment for abortion for any reason.  There is not as much religious ferver in his district as he seems to think.  When the local Catholic diocese lobbyed hard to get tax funding for the local parochial schools in the 1980's, they closed the Catholic high school to force the issue.  The public school went to triple shifts to accomodate the extra students. This lasted for a semester, then a miracle occured and the Catholic school reopened without the tax money.  

  by arlene on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:37:59 AM PDT

•  I pray every day but, not to be paid for it.

  by viet vet on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:38:48 AM PDT

  •  Keep the receipts.

    You could be rolling in reimbursement money soon. Charge yourself $35 an hour.

    by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:05:18 PM PDT

•  Millions of Americans will still be uninsured

  Neither the Senate or House versions of HCR provide universal coverage.  Many Americans will still be left without affordable coverage.

  Until everyone has affordable, guaranteed health coverage, we shouldn't be paying for any "extras" for anyone.

  by Betty Pinson on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:49:26 AM PDT

•  Government funded prayers?

  I can't believe there is any support in Congress for socialist government-run religion. This idea of socialist government-supported prayers for the sick will put the government between you and your priest or pastor.

  Besides, when churches start charging exorbitant monthly premiums for prayers and cancel your prayers if you become seriously ill, then the solution will be to revoke their tax-exempt status. Not pay for prayers.  

  by TKO333 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:51:50 AM PDT

•  Everybody in, no body out

  First, scientology and Christian Science are different practices all together.  Christian Science, one of the few religious denominations founded by a women in America, Mary Baker Eddy, believes as it's core value that healing the body through carefull study of scriptures is part of their interpretation of Christianity.  Healing the body by daily scriptural practices and use of Christian Science practitioners when ill has been going on for awhile.  And they would pay for our use of medical care if we have a truly universal system where people get their care through the system that they trust and believe in.

  Science cannot explain the placebo effect in which 30% of patients get better with or without treatment simply because they believe they are getting the right pill or seeing the right doctor.  In some studies, patients who knew they were getting prayed for did better than those not.  The power of the mind is awesome and as a nurse, I have certainly seen how from Christian prayer, to mediation, to deep relaxation and concentration and breathing, patients get better.  Budhist's have one of the most disciplined practices ever including mindfullness.  Christian Science should be no different.

  So, by saying "we shouldn't pay for their care" sounds a little like why should I pay for somebody' else's transplant.  The concept of "everybody in and nobody out" is the basis for single-payer.  

  by lucretiamott on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Except that the transplant is definitely

    going to save the patient's life. There is no evidence to suggest that prayer therapy saves lives.

    What I am suggesting is that we shouldn't be paying for people's various religious beliefs concerning medicine. Scientologists believe that psychiatry is bad, and to replace it, they do something called "auditing." A scientology-trained auditor spends time with a patient talking them through their traumatic experiences in order to make them mentally healthy. Scientologists genuinely believe that this works, and they pay in the thousands for these auditing sessions.

    If this provision remains in the health care bill, it isn't about Christian Scientists so much as it is an open door for other religions--like Scientology--to demand that HCR cover their auditing as well.

    What about Evangelicals demanding that their donations to their super churches who provide miracle cures be covered by health care as well?

    IMO religion needs to be taken out of this equation completely. If your form of medicine isn't backed by scientific, emperical data, then it shouldn't be covered by taxpayers.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:31:03 PM PDT

•  What if somebody

  prays for the government to fund her abortion?

  Cosmic collapse?

  by HawkRock33 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:00:48 PM PDT

•  I don't support it

  I'm an atheist, I don't want to support half the crap that gets through that essentially sends tax money to religious organizations.  I don't like the property tax exemptions.   But its not a deal breaker.   Just one more warped example of how wingnuts' ability to infiltrate policy is scarier and more pervasive than most people will admit.

  by jfromga on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:02:30 PM PDT

•  I want every dime of my tax dollars that

  went to killing innocents in Iraq back before the talibangelicals even start this conversation about abortions funded with tax dollars.

  by lockewasright on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:05:23 PM PDT

•  I always feel better after I masturbate...

  Can I now deduct the cost of pornography?
  What about prostitutes?
  Ain't no spiritual therapy nearly as good as a big O!

  by Boisepoet on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:06:21 PM PDT

  •  YAYMEN!

    by raincrow on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:04:38 PM PDT

  •  Hopefully, as you lay dying,

    a broadminded chaplain will provide that last jerk-off. IF that is where you lead him...

    by teachme2night on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:06:37 PM PDT

•  Before You Pass Judgment

  Note that prayer therapy is the only kind of medical care that a lot of people can afford.

  by bink on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:08:36 PM PDT

•  All I can say is...

  ...when I almost died from a flu shot reaction at the age of 14, passing out several times, with a temp of 106, I'm thankful my mom and dad didn't get down on their knees and pray to Jehovah, Thor, Allah, Mars or Buddah that I get better and instead got me the hell to the hospital.

  by dov12348 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:09:47 PM PDT

•  I am all for paying for prayer therapy as long

  as the loon who chooses it has to go 100% percent with it.  No anti-biotics, no surgery, no MRIs, EKGs, hell an EEG would just flat line anyway.  Let them put their fortune where their mouth it.  Put is all in Jebus' hands.  It would only improve the gene pool anyway since nothing fails like prayer.

  by lockewasright on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:12:05 PM PDT

•  This would then cover

  Satanic rituals, correct, if designed for healing? Excorcisms? Wiccan or Pagan healing? Flying Spaghetti Monster beer volcano? Engram treatment for Scientologists?

  I'm perfectly serious. I don't see any of them as being one iota less valid than Christian prayer therapy (yes, even FSM). So they damn well better hope they're all covered equally.

  by gater2112 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:18:31 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    That's my point. The language of this provision is very vague and leaves it open to any and all religions.

    by DruidQueen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

    •  I say don't complain, endorse it

      completely and enthusiastically.

      Just like when the goofballs threw in the bill to cut off acorn funding and we ran with it so we could try to claw back maybe hundreds of billions from KBR Halliburton etc.

      Can we all say "As above so below, we shall create a co-ed stripper factory here on earth!"

      Make em pray for separation of church and state. Make em pray HARD. Muhahahahahahahaha!

      by JayFromPA on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:46:06 PM PDT

      •  EXCELLENT!

        by raincrow on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:04:02 PM PDT

  •  Beer Volcano Therapy

    As a person of the bib, I myself have been offering repairative beer volcano therapy and faith healing lap dancing stripper sessions for $250 per hour outcall and $1000 for a whole evening's worth of treatments.  I'm glad that the United States Government will be picking up some of that tab for my clients.  Perhaps it will lead to even more therapy!!

    by Dotty Gale on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:32:50 PM PDT

•  True healers who pray and care for the sick do

  not demand or ask for payment.  It is a gift freely given.  I am a Reiki Master and I have NEVER (despite the Reiki code) asked or taken anything from anyone who asked for healing.  If I could ever do anything in my small power to ease a sick person, I did my best.  This whole idea of payment disgusts me.  Prayer and positive healing energy is given freely from the heart of the giver, who is merely a channel from Spirit, to the heart of a person in need.

  Thank you, DruidQueen for writing this diary.

  by Aquagranny911 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:07 PM PDT

  •  wow...

    thanks fo your services to all. everyone where i live (spiritual healers) charge ALOT and I only dream of the kind of healing/balancing you are able to give. good for you and your attitude is profoundly awesome!

    by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:51:52 PM PDT

    •  Thanks, I try and what has been given to me

      I give to others.  I have huge issues with healers who charge for what they do.  I am sending you some healing right now where ever you are and I hope it helps.  If you do not need the healing send it on to some one you know who does. ♥

      by Aquagranny911 on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:21:35 PM PDT

      •  thanks... i love...

        receiving good intentions! i have a 'blog friend' from beliefnet.com (u may want to check it out...awesome site) anyway, she's in australia and has done crystal readings and healings for/on me.
        I believe in you! I also use Dr Zhi Gang Sha energy healing methods which always help. thanks again. i'm gonna subscribe to your diary.

        BTW.....i'm a grandmother of 4... 2/16yr old girls (such fun!!!!) and 2 boys, 3 & 9 yrs of age.... isn't being a granny the BEST!

        by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:57:32 PM PDT

•  As a Discordian

  I won't complain if the Government pays for my Friday hot dog.

  by McGirk on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:32 PM PDT

•  No control of family size, but

  viagra is paid for.  I would say we need more women writing these regulations, but I no longer think they are better than men when it comes to leadership in DC.

  by Silverbird on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:52 PM PDT

•  I know some people are upset by abortion

  I'm upset by full-grown men and women dying and having their limbs blown off. Yet my tax dollars still pay for that, no? Tough shit for me, I guess.

  by vacuumslayer on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:24:15 PM PDT

•  I would settle for Acupuncture and Chiropractic

  But I will bet they will be cast adrift in the stormy sea of non-coverage.

  Maybe I could get my Chinese doctor to do a little mystical ritual to go with the pins and get it covered...

  by cookseytalbott on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:25:48 PM PDT

•  & nuclear weapons...

  by rasbobbo on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:32:55 PM PDT

•  In the Words of Comic Tim Minchin:

  "You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proven to work? MEDICINE."

  by gokinsmen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:39:22 PM PDT

•  Huge study on effects of prayer and

  it i