Speaking In Tongues So To Speak

This is a painting of the Tower of Babel. Most of us could lay out the basics of the story. It is part of the Book of Genesis. Humanity becomes so cocksure that they decide to build a tower to the heavens. God in yet another pique of Old Testament neurosis and jealousy smashes the tower and curses humanity with multiple tongues so that they cannot ever cooperate so successfully again. That's my 60 second summary. Before I continue now, I will go to my Bible and reread the story before continuing. Perhaps you could do the same.

Not much there really, Genesis 11. Actually I was surprised - no smashing of the tower - just a confusion of the languages and a scattering across the globe. Interestingly it also follows on the heels of the Noah story just after God promising to never destroy all of humanity again. A wee bit dysfunctional this O.T. God, eh?

It's funny really how this brief episode in Genesis gets lumped in there with the really big storylines. Is this just an American curiosity courtesy of some Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood special effect that has wormed it's way into our cultural memory? Or is it something deeper? --a greater truth that touches us perhaps.

Recent events--personal, national, global--have me thinking again about how ultimately imperfect communication really is. We have this amazing gift starting with the evolution of our brains and mouths allowing us to vocalize and form auditory symbols based on sound - words that form language.

My dogs attempt to communicate - Zoe has this whine that can mean: a) I need to go outside and squat, b) I want to go outside and play, c) the water dish is empty, d) pay attention to me you have food, e) the other dog has the rawhide, Daddy, and I want it... I have to work hard to notice and interpret what it means.

I forget that I have to work nearly as hard in interpreting what other humans mean with their communication, and, with all the hard work, it is often not an exact understanding.

In addition to our abilities as a species to speak and write and read, we have invented numerous devices to share our thoughts and words - books, printing, telegraph, telephone, television, computers, the Internet, instant messaging, e-mail, Facebook, Twitter...

I add those last few as examples of how speed and convenience have trumped our efforts to explain and be exact...need we really say more than "WTF?" or "how r u?" The brilliance of Dostoevsky and Shakespeare are no less misinterpreted.

I used to think the Tower of Babel story was just about a simple little tale to explain how we ended up with different languages all over the globe and how that keeps us from communicating well. Maybe...just maybe...it is another story from the Old Testament that explains how we got to be human. How we continually strive for Truth and God and Heaven (as Robert Browning said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a Heaven for?") and how despite our God given communication skills we repeatedly trip and fall and stumble in attempting to communicate that Truth or God or Heaven.

We end up merely speaking in tongues trying to interpret what the whine means this time.

Peace.

Achieving A Desired Outcome

Back in the day I was a Pediatric Nurse. Those of you who have dealt with children of a certain age know that once a child figures out he or she has a will of their own, they seek to exercise that will--which quite often leads to a scenario in which the parental figure requests a child to do a particular task, and the child, asserting his/her will, refuses. Once at this meeting of the unstoppable force against the immovable object - stalemate often occurs.

What we were taught in nursing was to offer the child a choice - "Do you want to take your medicine before you eat your sandwich or after you eat your sandwich?" The goal is for the child to take the medicine. It is presented in away that offers the child the illusion of a choice, when in reality a metaphorical fork in the road is placed, and both roads lead to the same destination.

Some will suggest that by starting with this example, I am suggesting that the adults below are children or child-like...rhetoric and logic were never my strong points. The above is to illustrate, on a simple level, what I believe transpires on a more complex adult level below.

There was a man that I initially admired. However, over time watching this man in action I began to question his actions to the point of e-mailing him and telling him that I believed he was very skilled at creating process that justified his agenda. In it's most simple form - namely offering the pediatric patient a limited set of choices that ultimately achieves your goal - my example above is just that.

Creating process to justify one's own agenda. Creating the illusion of group self-determination when the desired outcome is already decided by the "power brokers." I have experienced this in a number of places in my adult life. It is a form of control - control of the masses.

At my place of employment the new administration is very big on surveys conducted by outside consultants, round table discussions, anonymous hot line numbers. The illusion of group self-determination and participation. "See how much we listen to you..." Very few people are fooled by this. In the end, the financial picture is such that sacrifice is made over and over again, and, whether we like it or not, "Be glad you have a job" is the sub-text throughout.

This post isn't about my work experience really. It's about hypocrisy and mendacity.

Imagine a variation of Professor Harold Hill (a character from The Music Man. In this example though, he really does sell boys' bands - he's not a charlatan per se. Before he came to River City, Iowa, he was in another state where he worked hard at promoting boys' bands. When the time came to select a new "governor," Harold was very active in the process trying to promote a candidate who also supported boys' bands. He and those like him believed they had selected such an individual only to discover in the end that they were mistaken. The new "governor" was much less enthusiastic about bands that they believed.

So Harold was invited to come to River City where the "governor" said, "We're very much interested in boy's bands here - come on over." Now as boy's bands was Harold's bread and butter, he jumped at the chance.

Once in River City, working from the "governor's" office - he rolled up his sleeves and got to work. He created educational material for the citizens of River City that instructed them in the ways of boys' bands; he participated in national boy's bands organizations. He was happier than a pig in...well, you know what I mean.

One day the "governor" was suddenly called away and River City needed to select a new "governor." Harold was now very much a part of the inner circle of the town "councilmen." Before they presented a plan to the citizens, many conversations went on behind closed doors. "We have to be sure that our next "governor" supports boys' bands as much as we do..." and the "councilmen" agreed.

Now this was a legitimate concern for the leaders of River City. The boys' band had become very important to the citizens, but it was especially important for Harold Hill - after all, he made his living off of boys' bands and all the essential accouterments that went with boys' bands. He didn't want a repeat of what happened in the other state. He felt rather settled amidst the good people of River City, so he proposed a radical solution. "We need to revise the way we select our "governor." In fact, we need to find away to implement band into the very office of "governor." and the council members agreed.

For the next few months, until the annual town meeting, Harold and some assistants mapped out what they felt the town needed - a "governor's committee" grounded in boys' band principles - they laid out exactly how they felt that the process should occur. In fact, they skillfully developed a process that would justify their desired outcome.

At the town meeting, the citizens were informed of the new idea - looking at a new way of selecting a "governor" - "...because it is very important that we get just the right "governor" who understands the boys' band philosophy that is so much a part of who we are..." "In the coming weeks, each neighborhood will hold a meeting to discuss this plan after watching a carefully prepared DVD that explains why this is so important."

A special group of citizens were gathered together to look at the results of the neighborhood meetings and interpret the notes, and then work out exactly what the "governor's committee" would look like. Harold made sure to attend the first few sessions of this special group to make sure they got started on the right foot. Of course, the well crafted process had already begun for the citizens were to look at how the special "governor's committee" might work - not whether or not we should have one at all.

Any potential criticism was squelched by the repeated suggestion that the overwhelming work load of a single "governor" is what lead to the sudden departure of our last "governor" -- we don't want that to happen again, right? The previous "governor" had been so beloved and his departure so unexpected, that no one questioned this logic.

The special citizens' group met behind closed doors and periodically released information sheets that explained their progress. All along, the talking points included the importance of finding someone who (1) really really really understood boys' band philosophy and (2) really really really understood us...perhaps you can see where this is headed?

Eventually the group announced that in the name of true boys' band philosophy they would not hold a conventional election - rather they would determine the final candidate for "governor" as well as the make up of the "governor's committee." When the representatives of the citizens gathered to "vote" they would have the opportunity to affirm the "committee" or reject the "committee" - thumbs up or thumbs down.

Who could they settle on who would be an expert on boys' bands and an expert on River City...who? Who would be the perfect candidate? Some of us in River City were not surprised when they settled on Harold Hill himself.

As I said before, "Harold" is very skilled at creating process that justifies his agenda...

Would you like to take your medicine before you ate your sandwich or after you eat your sandwich?

If You Are Not With Us, You Are Against Us

Both of these guys have been pissing me off lately. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) have taken positions in the health care reform debate that I have found troubling.

Bart Stupak is my representative in Congress. He leads the Pro-Life Caucus and essentially held up the vote on health care reform legislation unless he could obtain a vote on an amendment prohibiting the funding of abortions by any federal money. His amendment passed.




Sen. Lieberman is very much against a "public option" in the health care reform debate and has suggested he may actually filibuster against the party he caucuses with in the Senate - some are saying he would do that against his own party and thereby make history, though technically he is an Independent, having lost the Democratic primary in his state to a more liberal candidate and then winning re-election as an Indie.

I passed on the AlterNet linked article: "Joe Must Go." I sent scathing e-mails to Bart Stupak's office, threatening to work for any challenger he may face in the coming year. My dander was/is up and I feel stymied to act on my anger.

I've also allowed myself to be sucked back into the cyber debate over the failed selection of the candidate for bishop here in the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan. The diocese held it's annual convention last weekend and finally made some public statements concerning moving forward. Unfortunately, the chair of the Standing Committee couldn't pass up the opportunity to whine about the "trial by internet" that she feels the candidate received.

One of my Facebook friends linked to a blog post at Father Jake Stops the World which I couldn't help investigating. Of course, I also couldn't help commenting either. At one point a response (which is now deleted) challenged my integrity and accused me of simply not liking the candidate. This triggered other responses from other individuals, leading to the deletion and apology. E-mail was sent. Facebook messages were sent. The pot has once again been stirred.

Today one of the local diocesan voices popped up in the comments section of the post and challenged my "characterization of the diocesan election process." It seems, though, that she was confusing my comments with some of the other comments. Most of my comments stem from not liking the candidate. I stand guilty of the accusation made by Fr. Jake.

What is not readily apparent throughout all the blogs and all the commenting and all my contributions to the dialogue is that I did not always feel this way about this individual, but came to feel this way over time while working with this individual. What has been brought into question subsequently seems to be whether I have gone about this appropriately or not.

Who was it that said, "If you are not with us, you are against us!" As I sat here tonight, feeling the return of the nervous knot in my stomach, drafting my response to post at Fr. Jake's blog, my neurotic character began to get the upper hand. I once again began to doubt what I had done and said. My ego stepped up the plate to defend myself - I was only standing up for what I believed - I gave voice to my concerns and for that I was castigated. That's when my super ego leapt up and hit me with the accusation of hypocrisy..."Yes, you were only standing up for what you believed in, just like Joe Lieberman and Bart Stupak, eh? How dare you defend yourself in that manner after condemning them!"

If only it were all that simple, eh? I have been pondering it all ever since and this blog post is the result. Angry democrats are accusing Joe Lieberman of biting the hand that has fed him. They are calling for President Obama to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Constituents and Pro-Choice voters are similarly calling for the political head of Bart Stupak. It would be easy to accuse them both of simple politicking. They are "traitors" to the party, not ethical men.

I then begin to think about how many folks in this diocese must think about me. I can only assume that my name has come up in some circles as one of the notorious bloggers who kept the "trial by internet" going. Clearly in their minds I am a "traitor" to the cause. I lack integrity. I am simply being mean spirited. In their eyes I have not been acting ethically.

What does it take to stand up against the organization and say "no?" I have been praised for my actions. I have been prayed for by those who were fearful for my safety (a bit much, I think, but appreciated none the less). I received enough "attaboys" to not be completely paranoid about what I have said on the internet on blogs and comments and in e-mails. I stand by what I have said though I am certain it has angered and probably hurt some individuals up here.

That damned super ego won't leave well enough alone though. Some critics have stated that there was ample opportunity to speak up and in their minds I did not - choosing to undermine things surreptitiously after the fact via the internet. Like my own personal Glenn Beck, the super ego has latched onto that one for the moment and is beating me with it mercilessly.

The truth of the matter is that (1) for reasons involved with his administrative behavior in the congregation I do not care for the man anymore, (2) he was a prime mover & shaker behind the process and the main author of the process, (3) I know from his own words that he left his previous diocese and came here because the man elected to be bishop did not support mutual ministry in the manner in which they were lead to believe - I believe that he was determined to never see that happen again (hence the special process), (4) we were repeatedly told that we had to be careful that we chose a bishop candidate who would be true to mutual ministry, (5) and then look who ended up selected.

I worked the process as best as I could. I asked pointed questions during the feedback session early on in my congregation. I shared my personal concerns with members of the discernment team in private conversations. At the time of the convention in 2008, I refrained from participating because I believed, as did others, that the choice was essentially a "done deal" - at least one member of the discernment team who I cannot name also felt this way - she believed that there were members of the team who wanted the candidate to be chosen and did all they could to maneuver things in that direction.

My intention was to wait and learn the results in February and if the scuttlebutt turned out to be correct, I would not be making an exit on the heels of the announcement. It came to pass and I was resolved to leave the church. Imagine my surprise then when folks out in the greater church began to pick up on some of the very issues I raised in private.

Those with whom I spoke in real time still didn't believe he wouldn't receive the required number of consents. However, his sermons and liturgies that he proudly kept posted on the churches web site began to be circulated. In the end, he did not receive the consents he needed and here we all are.

Ellie stated in her comment at Fr. Jake's blog post that I am "glad that he didn't get elected." Ellie, glad isn't the right word - I am relieved - but that's different than glad. I would have much rather preferred he recused himself from consideration as a candidate from the beginning. That simple act would have solved many, many problems.

Teh New Misses Shellz

The Naming of Cats by T.S. Eliot

The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey--
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter--
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum-
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover--
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.



And so I am settling in on some good names...

UPDATE: I am pleased to announce the names of the two new kittens. They are offically christened Anne Boleyn Boudicca (fluffy with an extra toe) & Catherine Aragon Latifah (sleak). They will be casually known as Abby & Cal. Please welcome them to the family.

The Last Apple On The Tree

I am in the middle of reading Carl Honore's In Praise of Slowness. According to Honore, we are all victim to a prevalent time-sickness. He writes,

"Why, amid so much material wealth, is time-poverty so endemic? Much of the blame rests with our own mortality...we still live under the shadow of the biggest deadline of all: death. No wonder we feel that time is short and strive to make every moment count...

Time-sickness can also be a symptom of a deeper, existential malaise. Kundera things that speed helps us block out the horror and barrenness of the modern world...

Others think speed is an escape not from life but from death. Mark Kingwell, a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, has written...'Despite what people think, the discussion about speed is never really about the current state of technology. It goes much deeper than that, it goes back to the human desire for transcendence...It's hard to think about the fact that we're going to die; it's unpleasant, so we constantly seek ways to distract ourselves from the awareness of our own mortality.' "

He goes on to discuss various ways of incorporating slowness into our modern lives...Slow Food, Slow Cities, etc. Much of what I have read thus far is essentially my justifications for moving to Marquette put down on paper. So what about that lone apple, eh? I'm getting there...have patience.

Anne Rice is famous for her vampire novels. I attempted Interview With A Vampire a couple of times over the years and always gave up, but I am determined to give it one more try. She was very much involved in the movie production, and there is a point made in the movie about the lives of vampires that she must elaborate on in the books. As the vampires age chronologically, society--the world--moves on to a point at which the vampire is no longer able to cope. The character of Louis is important to the others because he can help them adjust to the new ages. Without his help they will fade and give up eventually, their anachronistic lives to much out of sync with the modernity they are facing.

I thought of all of this over the past couple of weeks. As I drive to and from my home I pass a number of apple trees along the way to the highway. The leaves have gradually traded their greens for yellows and oranges and then for browns before mostly flying away leaving a few stragglers and some stouthearted apples behind on the branches.

There they hang deliciously red amongst the barren branches, garnished with a few clusters of brown, crumpled leaves...waiting, ...waiting,...waiting for the fall to the ground.

My uncle's mother will turn 100 next month. She has outlived all of her lady friends. She too is waiting. My neighbor's step-father passed away this week at 98. He had fought and refused nursing home placement, leaving most of his care on the shoulders of his younger wife, Heidi's mother. I commented on how this will relieve her mother of that burden and Heidi agreed, but commented how determined he had been to make it to 100.

Why do we rush through our lives? Why are we so fearful of death? Who really wants to be that last apple on the tree? A vampire hiding away in a mausoleum completely out of sync with the world around you.

It wasn't my intention to write a bleak post about death, but rather to use this image of the last apple as a means of reevaluating how we choose to live our lives. The snows of winter wait for all of us. The fable of the ant and the grasshopper has it wrong. Enjoy life as it happens. Each day is a blessing no matter how it is spent so long as it is appreciated. There is no reward for counting up all the things that will never be done, all the places never visited. That is simply mental hoarding of pointless dreams.

Billy Dean sang about it many years ago..."Gonna hold who needs holdin', gonna mend what needs mendin', walk what needs walkin' though it means an extra mile, pray what needs prayin', say what needs sayin', cause we're only here for a little while." Peace.

Calling Margaret Atwood...

Just the other day, I posted a review of Margaret Atwood's new novel The Year of The Flood which is the second in a planned dystopian trilogy. One of the leading horrors of the novel (and the earlier novel Oryx and Crake) is genetic engineering gone wild.

The corporations develop a creature that they call pigoons - bred to grow rapidly with multiple organs for harvesting for transplanting. The latest experiments before the "flood" occurs involved implanting human neurological tissue into the porcine brains. The end result--really smart feral pigs in the apocalypse that follows the "flood."

Not even a full week ago, I typed the following, "...what initially seems far fetched and distant, will echo in our consciousness whenever we come across relevant articles in the news, reminding us that Ms. Atwood's fictional warning is uncomfortably apropos."

So imagine my surprise (and a wee bit of horror) when I saw the following article on AlterNet this morning: Scientists Map Genome of Pig.

"Soo-ee! Here pig, pig, pig! Come on, piggie! Soo-ee!"

Just Kidding...

When kids lash out with a mean spirited comment, perhaps at the cost of one child's esteem in order to win laughs from the rest of the crowd - human pecking order? - he or she will often attempt to wipe the slate clean with the weak, "But I was just kidding."

Let's face it. Humor usually has a bite to it. It often involves ridicule, often with good reason. Think of Tonight Show monologues, for example. There is an inherent social purpose to the humor. However, often the ridicule is deliberate and demeaning - jokes about "fags" or "polacks" or "niggers." The jokes don't have to use those actual labels to carry the spirit of those labels.

Challenge an individual and he or she may fall back on, "Relax! I was just kidding!" The inherent problem is that the situation falls somewhere on the scale between overly righteous political correctness sensitivity on the part of the "victim" and outright mean spirited racial or gender or homophobic prejudice on the part of the teller of the joke. How do we sort it out?

Power is a good place to begin. What are the power dynamics inherent in the joke? These involve the nature of the joke, the make up of the audience, and the social context in which it is told. Confused? Let me try and explain.

A joke is told at an office party about kerdoodles and their inherent pushiness and nearly everyone laughs. The group is made up primarily of kerplutzes. In fact the only kerdoodle present is an up and coming employee who has been making rapid advancement in the ranks. The joke is told "out of earshot" but quite possibly with the intent of being overheard by the kerdoodle. The power dynamic here is clear - an individual threatened by the achievement of another, uses humor to undermine the abilities of another.

The same joke is told by a group of kerplutzes at deer camp - these would be Yooper kerplutzes. There is nary a kerdoodle in sight for miles. Now this joke about the other is fostering a sense of camaraderie. Perhaps the economy has gone sour and the kerplutzes are feeling much more insecure about their financial security. The power dynamic here is more about social groups and tribal behavior - group "us-versus-them" thinking.

Finally the same joke is told at a party made up entirely of kerdoodles. The beer and wine has been flowing. They all have a good laugh. Once again the dynamic is social group and tribal in nature, but the power aspect has shifted. Self deprecating humor often seeks to rally the troops, but in a more defensive, build ourselves up manner.

The very same joke - yet clearly the first of the three scenarios is the worst due to the power dynamics involved. So who's racist here? Who's prejudiced? Simply poor taste?

My understanding of racism involves power dynamics. However, when I googled the word, the on line definitions make no mention of power. The current definitions allow for labeling any individual, act or speech as "racist" that involves the denigration of another group and the belief in the superiority of your own group. With these definitions it becomes possible for a member of a minority group to be racist.

In the past I would have argued that a member of a minority out of power cannot be truly racist as there is no oppression occuring behind the prejudice. In other words, if members of the white majority make statements or tell jokes that denigrate members of a minority - the prejudice involves maintaining the group power of the majority.

If a member of a minority out of power makes statements or tells jokes that denigrate members of the powerful majority - the prejudice is about trying to undermine the authority of the group power of the majority. Can you see the difference?

So where am I going with all this? We just made it through another Halloween. If "Just Kidding" had a holiday, it would be Halloween. And so I share the following image posted yesterday on Facebook.

Now the Upper Peninsula is incredibly white. It is likely that there wasn't a single person of color at this party. What is the "just kidding" that is going on here?

Lose the dark face and the costume can shift to poking fun at a sort of disco style - but I would bet that this individual just decided to dress up like a "black guy." Isn't that a riot? ...what? ...what's the matter?

What is really disturbing is that this is a local television celebrity, albeit at a private party. I suspect that there won't be any fallout over this, but I'm waiting to see if the images end up pulled off of Facebook. The whole thing just makes me wince.

In the end, I will likely chalk this up simply to poor taste and poor judgement (particularly in posting the image on a social network). I'm sure he was "just kidding." Peace.

Early Fox News (il)logic...

If you look closely, you can see Glenn Beck in the crowd...

I Am Keeping An Open Mind

Readers of this blog will be well aware of the health issues I have been dealing with over the past year. I was diagnosed with diabetes at about the same time I began developing stiffness/pain in my fingers and thumbs.

This has progressed to stiffness/pain in most of my joints, as well as carpal tunnel symptoms in both hands.

My blood sugars were under control very quickly, but this other problem lingers, and I wait...and wait...and wait...like refugees in Casablanca.

I used to be skeptical about the true benefits of chiropractic medicine. However, in the months following my episode with pertussis (whooping cough) three years ago, I turned to chiropractors to help with my worsening back pain (from all the coughing). Not only did they correct the back pain, they corrected the sciatica symptoms I had been experiencing, the periodic numbness I would have trailing down my leg. In fact, within a year I was no longer taking my asthma medicine.

That last point can be attributed to a number of things. However, one of the areas that they have continued to adjust involves spinal nerves that feed the lungs. As I said, "I Am Keeping An Open Mind."

The chiropractor has been recommending B Complex supplements for the carpal tunnel and has added magnesium supplements to try and address the problems with my tendons (causing the stiffness in the joints - x-rays/blood tests were unremarkable and didn't indicate inflammation). I have added both of these supplements in the past two weeks.

I friend from high school swears by organic apple cider vinegar and other friends have concurred that this has been a home remedy for generations in this country - in particular with honey. I have added that to my morning dose of cod liver oil. I can see my brothers shaking their heads already.

The most recent alternative treatment I am trying is something called VidalCell - basically a rice bran supplement. A very dear friend who is a breast cancer survivor - now two+ years past the "you have six months to live" when she refused further chemotherapy - and she swears by this product. I called it a product deliberately because I remain skeptical. My internet research suggests that rice bran is indeed a very healthy nutritional supplement. The primary issue then is simply cost - a rather high price for what you are getting. However, it appears that it is not easy to simply go out and get rice bran either.

Once again I am thinking about atheists and rationalism and medicine and faith and God and Nature and all that stuff...

I believe there is a relationship here between my faith and spirituality and my open minded approach to alternative therapies. I have little patience for dogma and absolutism from either end of the argument.

My rationalist/atheist family members and friends will likely scoff at my venturing off the traditional western medicine path. Their all powerful deity is the human brain and what they see is the infallibility of science. If there is no proof that it is not true.

They ignore the fact that science and research is often quite contradictory. Heath care and medicine continues to evolve and is heavily influenced by market capitalism. Why would we want people to get better? We can't keep selling them are pills then? We're about to lose our patent on the drug? Well, lets tweak the ingredients a bit, add a yellow stripe to the purple pill and give it a new name and charge even more!

I find it amazingly ironic that those same rationalists will often put their complete faith in the system and consume the garbage food we are being sold and swallow the expensive magic pills that are being developed.

I have ranted a bit here and have tried not to make absolute statements about my atheist/rationalist loved ones. Mainly I believe they are simply afraid - afraid of the unknown - afraid of ambiguity. I would simply wish them an open mind. Rather than adamantly declaring "There is no God!" I would rather they say, "As of yet the mysteries of the universe are unknowable - your interpretation of the Bible is of no use to me - I am holding out for a different answer and will simply keep an open mind." Peace.