Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Not quite science ... but close

Here in the US yet another pervert has used conservative politics, and religion, to attempt to cover up a multitude of sins.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html

It seems to me that a scientific study is called for.

One that would look at people who doth protest their innocence too much to see if they are all cut from the same cloth.

Not science - not close, Dan.

The failings of one prominent individual is hardly a sound statistical sample.

Out of a religion that contains many millions, I would expect to see many people struggling with their personal demons and falling foul.

Although in this case, if it is true, it takes hypocrisy to new levels. Protesting Gay Marriage while dallying with another man.

I do feel that these white, wealthy, middle-class, American churches have very little to do with Christianity as it was lived out by the early Church, who were by all accounts more interested in looking after orphans, widows, dealing with the sick and the poor, than in rattling the collection box and preaching the abomination that is prosperity gospel.

Blacknad.

That's the problem here Blacknad.

This is not "one individual."

This is the latest in a long line that has literally taken down every prominent self-proclaimed religious conservative leader in the political realm.

It touched down Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who proclaimed "family values" and then divorced his wife for his mistress while his wife was in the hospital with cancer.

It touched Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio talkshow host, who was caught doing precisely what he was criticising other for doing.

It has touched numerous congressmen caught up in the Abramoff scandal.

The list is extremely long. And not to drag it into the mud includes a sizeable number of members of a particular faith.

All of which, it seems to me, had one thing in common. A pathological need to cover their true nature with a cloak of the most conservative morality in the vain hope no one would notice.

This is not a criticism of expose' of religion. Rather of those who choose to corrupt it to use as a cloak of invisibility.

Addendum:

And as if to confirm what I said I went to cnn.com and found this on the home page.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/ney.resignation/index.html

Yet another one falls.

Perhaps this is a particularly American phenomenon.

Not science at all. I will let it stand for 24 hours. If it attracts discussion I may let it live longer.

Amaranth

On reflection, Rose, go ahead and kill it.

It didn't go where I hoped it would.

No probably not. We have our fair share of the fallen in the UK. It's just that there aren't really any prominent public religious figures here. Even the ArchBishop of Canterbury is more likely to be found talking critically of the government on issues like Iraq or falling standards in education, than the personal morality issues that are the darlings of the American Church.

One of the problems with the Church of England is that traditionally it attracted those who were sexually challenged in one way or another (which is not the problem) - the problem is that they would often think that going into the Celibate 'Ministry' was a way to escape their sexual struggles. You then end up with a disproportionate number of people who, when their issues get the better of them, fall from grace in a spectacular fashion.

None of this is an attempt by me to defend the hypocrisy - it angers me that people will rail against something in others that they do themselves.

They have been told to deal with the plank in their own eye before they bother with the speck in someone elses.

That's why I don't moralise on personal ethics - I have my share of failings, like most others.


A scientific study would be interesting, as you suggest.

Do Christians have less affairs or, say, abortions than a sample group of white middle-class non religious?


I have a feeling I wouldn't be too comfortable with the results.

Blacknad.

DA Morgan:

"It touched Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio talkshow host, who was caught doing precisely what he was criticising other for doing."

Now this is definitely not science, but I have a feeling that what people critisize most in others is what they are most afraid of in their own psychological makeup.

I'm waffling on killing it now as Blacknad go close.

What is bothering me is whether this is a medical pathology.

In other words whether this behaviour, which here seems so common I am just waiting for the next one to fall as it seem inevitable, is treatable.

We recognize someone who is depressed by a behaviour pattern and treat them. We recognize someone who has Attention Deficit Disorder by a behaviour pattern and threat them. This situation where people protest to loudly what they themselves are engaged in seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

Here's another example from just the last week. Ann Coulter, after complaining about voter fraud, is not being investigated for ... what else ... criminal voter fraud.

Didn't quite understand that sentence.

Blacknad.

What I mean is that you started to take the thought, admittedly poorly formed in my original post, into the direction I wished to go.

I have no love of extremists/fanatics anywhere on the political spectrum.

My point, again poorly expressed, was that this seems more a pathology than politics. This bunch of people promoting their own wholesomeness ... seem to everything but.

If you are not in the US and missed the news about the "Queen of mean" Ann Coulter, aka the Coultergeist, here's one: http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_306085323.html

DA, I said the same thing to my wife, re: "This situation where people protest to loudly what they themselves are engaged in...." -DA
Maybe the drive to protest the loudest is trying to make up for some perceived sin or other shortcoming.

Old concept actually, "Me thinks he doth protest too much.." -shakespeare?

I've enjoyed the thread but haven't had enough time to comment. (I'll tell wife about 'Coultergeist' epinym)

Thanks,
~samwik

From the Dawkins thread on NQSci.
"Doing what you are told is good so go strap on a bomb and blow yourself up.

I think there is substantial evidence to the contrary. 10,000+ years of doing the same thing over-and-over again and getting the same result. It is time for root cause analysis." -DA

I think it is the same root cause we are speaking of here too.

~Samwik

samwik wrote:
"I think it is the same root cause we are speaking of here too."

I agree.

Amaranth,

I've got to ask. What is "Not quite science"? I would have thought this is a political discussion and thus not science at all. I would have thought not quite science is for science that has little or really no backing but is interesting in its own right. By the same token, the shower curtain effect, to me, is straight science. It might not be earth shaking but it is not "not quite science" but rather a discussion on the scientific principals of an everyday occurrence. What could be more "science" than that?

Since this is a science forum, religion and origins seems to have its little niche in the origins forum but pure politics, racism, religion as a topic to argue etc, doesn't seem to me to be not quite science. Rather it isn't really anything to do with science unless someone has a sociological or anthropological take on it, such as that research that demonstrated that human brains are wired to believe in illogical things.

I'd really like to know what is it that makes the cut and what shouldn't, such as this thread.

Of course, this post is off topic and not science but it is about the operation of this site, and aside from a private message there is no where else to post it.


Regards


Richard

Richard, I read your posts too (eventually), but my computer is limiting my capabilities these days.
I was avoiding this thread, but even this "non-scientific" topic is introduced as a "science Letter" (I'm still lobbying for the "source" model -even if just Icons!) and called for a "study." I've been frequently surprised when these threads that I first feel are of no interest and not "scientific," turn into something that leads me to some insight, or at least are informative. At least this could be considered as social or psychological science. I do think this belongs over on a "hot topic" type forum, but that's for another day, eh? Thanks Richard for the plug (shower curtain effect thread), I agree it's hard to decide where to put things; but there may not be a way to make it perfect. I like the organic nature of it all, evolving serendipitously. So I'd vote for not killing to many threads, just let natural selection do the work.
Cheers
~samwik

As the major political ideologies are being subsumed by capitalistic centrism, then everything is up for grabs. Political action is no longer defined by unmoving tenets, but is now open to the application of science.

Countries will eventually be run like businesses and will be governed by the application of Management Information and Business Intelligence. Every aspect of society will come under the microscope of increasingly innovative statistical analysis.

See Freakonomics:

http://www.freakonomics.com/studyguide/index.php

It's not a tool to be used in isolation, but properly done, statistical analysis gets at the truth.

Blacknad.

Richard,
I have to make decisions about threads that I oftentimes have no real knowledge of. If it's any consolation to you, I have three places to put things, Science, Not Quite Science, and Origins. When it comes to a judgment call I try to be as fair as possible. When a thread dissolves into a shouting match between evolution and creationism, it's headed for Origins. The study of shower curtains does not strike me as all that scientific, so it hit NOt Quite Science. It strikes me as research into the absurd. Sorry if you are offended but try to see my side of it if you can. I have three pigeonholes and I have to make the best of it.

Suggestions for other forums are welcome. There's even a thread on that. Feel free to respond to it and make suggestions how this forum could be made better. That's what it's there for. It would be helpful to get some more suggestions.

Amaranth

re: "It strikes me as research into the absurd."
I should be offeneded, but I am aware of how common that view is, ~Rose. Although of little value (except in the daily lives of folks who still have shower curtains) the thread is based on an actual science report which then generated an actual article in Scientific American, the real journal.
I saw this as something real, that could be "solved" better than it has been so far. I got into this whole forum just because I wanted to correct one tiny mistake out there in the gestalt that is "science in this new age of communication."
I'm very thankful for that; and for all your work on this forum too. I am certainly not offended, because I like the organic nature of this forum.
Looking forward to more....
~Samwik


~Sorry, off topic....