Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

How to Lie With Numbers

Posted 29 months ago|39 comments|1,003 views
Written by
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
An old children s math/logic joke goes something like this:

Three men on a business trip decide to split the cost of a single hotel room to save money. The desk clerk tells them the cost of the room is twenty five dollars. Each man gives the clerk a ten dollar bill, equaling, of course, thirty dollars.

The clerk does not have correct change, so he advises the three men to go ahead to their room, and that he will send the bellboy up directly with the five dollars.

So, as promised, the clerk gives the bellboy five one dollar bills, with instructions to divvy it up between the three men. On his way up to the men s room, he can't figure out how to divide five ones between three men, so he decides to give each man one dollar, and pocket the other two, thinking they wouldn't notice.

Each man had paid with a ten, and got one back, making nine dollars per man. Nine dollars times three equals twenty seven dollars, plus the two the bellboy kept makes twenty nine dollars. Where did the other dollar go?

The point to my telling this, is, don't be fooled by polls, statistics, and studies. Numbers can be made to represent almost anything the statistician wants them to represent.

A recent case was trying to prove that abstinence does not work because protestant people have a higher number of unwanted pregnancy, teen pregnancy, and abortion than non-religious women.

All of the studies cited in the arguments seemed to make a pretty good case, until you looked at it from a logical viewpoint. They compare the numbers on a per capita rate, or break the numbers down by the number per religion, not taking into account that the religious people are the vast majority of the population, and therefore, all other things being equal, should have the vast majority of abortions, teen pregnancies, etc., which, of course, they don't.

For any study you see, you can probably find another which contradicts it, simply by attacking it from another angle, or skewing the information by omission of the actual measuring stick.

A novice's guide to understanding the ways statistics can mislead is linked on the left.

The book, "How to Lie With Statistics", by Darrell Huff, was published in 1954. It has sold over a million and and a half copies, and deals with subjects such as "corelation does not imply causation" and "using random sampling".

Mark Twain borrowed a phrase to express his feelings about the matter.
"Figures often beguile me," he wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Chris D
Chris D
Seattle, WA
29 months ago: The first thing we learned in Introduction to Sociology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

In short, we justify our own actions and those of our in-group -- everything from common rudeness to murder. But when someone in the out-group does a "bad" thing, we're quick to accept it as the rule and not the exception.

Everybody does this. The goal is to recognize and ignore our first response when we learn a new statistic about the "others."
29 months ago: Sigh... No, OOTB. You yourself are leaving out a very important aspect of the equation. It's not Protestants, it's *conservative* Protestants (and conservative members of a bunch of other religions, too).

Of course Christian denominations make up most of the population. But not all Christians reject the scientifically proven efficacy of modern contraceptives, and they don't all embrace the idea that using them is sinful. I mean seriously, Trojan isn't just selling to atheists.

You keep wanting to make this about Christianity as a whole. It's not.

Yes, statistics can lie. But at least as far as teen pregnancy is concerned, the studies aren't leaving out the fact that the population is mostly Christian.

Let's cut this down to very small numbers, for ease of comparison. Say you've got 5 atheists and 40 conservative Christians, for a total of 45 teenagers. If one of the atheists gets pregnant, that's a rate of 20% for atheists. Now... Your argument would hold water if the number of pregnancies for the conservative Christians was 3; that would be a higher actual number, but a rate of only 7.5%. But if your sampling of 40 conservative teens resulted in 10 pregnant ones, that's both a higher actual number and a higher rate: 25%.

To be continued...
29 months ago: Now then, I pulled those numbers out of thin air, but these guys didn't: http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14.

It's very dry reading, so here's a money quote nice and early, from discussion of earlier surveys: "Miller and Gur found, upon analyzing the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the U.S., that frequent attendance of religious events in girls 12 to 21 years old was positively associated with a “responsible and planned use of birth control” [8]. Personal conservatism, however, was associated with unprotected sex. Manlove and colleagues, upon analysis of the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, found that in the sample as a whole, greater family religiosity was associated with “using contraceptives consistently”; however, among sexually active males, family religiosity was “directly and negatively associated with contraceptive consistency” [9]."

And that's just an analysis of older data sets. Read the whole study.

So again, and this obviously bears repeating, it's *conservative* religiosity that leads to teen pregnancies. Some religion, according to those earlier studies, may have had a positive effect, but conservative religion had a strong net negative.
29 months ago: Oh, and this study did indeed specifically control for abortion. From page 15: "At the state level in the U.S., religiosity, as operationally defined by the eight questions of the Pew Survey, accurately predicts a high teen birth rate. The significant and high correlation continues to hold after statistically controlling for income and abortion rate."
29 months ago: Wanna relink...the article is gone...

anyway...
8]. Personal conservatism, however, was associated with unprotected sex.

Wouldn't personal conservatism imply that you had conservative beliefs without religion?

"Miller and Gur found, upon analyzing the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the U.S., that frequent attendance of religious events in girls 12 to 21 years old was positively associated with a “responsible and planned use of birth control”

Do I need to bold the last sentence?
29 months ago: Harshaw, you're cherry-picking specific quotes that make it sound like the older data the survey looks at first indicates exactly the opposite of the survey's conclusions. Do *I* need to bold this part? "[H]owever, among sexually active males, family religiosity was “directly and negatively associated with contraceptive consistency” [9]." Which doesn't surprise me, since by and large conservative religious types are against using condoms.
29 months ago: Noni? Why would you not include Jews?
29 months ago: Because most Jewish people in the United States are liberal "Reform" Jews, and don't have anything against contraception. Even Orthodox Jews find contraception permissible under various circumstances, although the rules on what kinds are permissible are rather strict.
29 months ago: There you go lying with numbers. Most? What if I said "MOST" of your group did not? Isn't that what you said?

Most if not all White Christians? Yeah, the population is "mostly" white christians. Before you spew that white christian hate try to make your case with pure percentages.

I'm guessing since you know nothing about Christians that "most" do not and have not and will not use any form of contraception.

Are you speaking to the white "Catholics", brown "Catholics" or black "Catholics"?

Are you speaking to the white "Protestants", brown "Protestants" or black "Protestants"?

Exactly who are you preaching the tribe too?

29 months ago: Sigh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews

I have no desire to get into a breakdown of teen pregnancy and divorce by minutiae of each particular sect of every religion, every racial and ethnic group, and every branch of neoliberalism, classic conservatism, and every other pointless distraction. I have a very simple thesis: Conservative + strongly religious = higher teen pregnancy rate.

I have cited a study that bears me out on this. Either deal with the study and attack its methods, or attack me. It doesn't matter to me, but you'd gain more if you actually read the darned thing.
29 months ago: No you will just make closed minded statements about others in a racial and religious context. Who hates here? You have some serious issues to deal with.
29 months ago: outabox

heynnnn is adding something to the equation. Blue Tinted Glasses.
29 months ago: TCG, you ask "who hates here?" I say no one. I haven't said anything hateful, unless you regard facts as hateful. All I've done is point out a study that very convincingly finds a correlation between teen pregnancy rates and conservative religiosity. If you find reality hateful, that's your problem, not mine.

Of course, as Stephen Colbert says, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
29 months ago: You rest my case with Colbert.
You said it all with that close.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni, Ok , try to follow, using your money quote. This is the quote you tried to smack Harshaw down with, earlier.

"Miller and Gur found, upon analyzing the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the U.S., that frequent attendance of religious events in girls 12 to 21 years old was positively associated with a “responsible and planned use of birth control”

Seems to be saying that the girls in this group, namely, those attending church functions regularly, were less likely to get pregnant.

"Personal conservatism, however, was associated with unprotected sex."

OK, fair enough, let's see how they reached this conclusion. Break it down.

"Manlove and colleagues, upon analysis of the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, found that in the sample as a whole, greater family religiosity was associated with “using contraceptives consistently”;

Again, they are saying that as a group, religiosity breeds responsibility.

Now for the part you wanted to highlight for Harshaw as your coup de grâce.

"however, among sexually active *males*, family religiosity was “directly and negatively associated with contraceptive consistency”

Now, maybe these religious males are raping the religious females, and getting them pregnant, or maybe they are having sex with easy, non-religious girls. One thing is certain, the males sure as heck ain't getting pregnant.

See how easy it is for you to grab one part of a paragraph and run with it?

I'm still going over the data in the new study, which seems to be strangely lacking and vaguely referenced.So far, that is.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: You will also notice, now that I point it out, that the paragraph qualified the males referenced as "sexually active" and religious, while no stipulations were placed on the girls, or the families, other than being religious and attending religious functions regularly. This could be interpreted in several different ways.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni,

The first thing I noticed in the study, is that they were using the Pew Report on Religiosity for their baseline tabs, which does not break down the responses by age under the age of eighteen. With that average for a cross-reference they then took the total number of teen births and abortions, not the actual religious teen births and abortions, and extrapolated that each state's percentages of religious people would correlate with the number of teen births and abortions.

They tried to explain how they adjusted each state according to income, using a model that suggested lower incomes have a negative impact on teen pregnancy.

This study leaves much to be assumed, to say the least.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni,

Did you even read this study you quoted?

This is on page sixteen.

"We would like to emphasize that we are not attempting to use associations between teen birth rate and religiosity, using data aggregated at the state level, to
make inferences at the individual level.

It would be a statistical and logical error to infer from our results, “Religious teens get pregnant more often.”

Such an inference would be an example of the ecological fallacy, which was explicated by Robinson in
1950 [27] and reviewed by Freedman in 2001 [28].

The associations we report could still be obtained if, hypothetically, religiosity in communities had an effect of discouraging contraceptive use in the whole community, including the nonreligious teens there, and only the nonreligious teens became pregnant.

Or, to create a different imaginary scenario, the results could be obtained if religious parents discouraged contraceptive use in their children, but only nonreligious offspring of such religious
parents got pregnant.

We create these scenarios simply to illustrate that our ecological correlations do not permit statements about individuals.

We should also caution that on an individual level, certain teen pregnancies are often highly desirable, and some teen parents carry out their responsibilities
exceptionally well.

If it were possible to obtain good data on unplanned teen pregnancy or pregnancy by “immature” teen parents, we would use it, but we did not find such data available.
29 months ago: Yes, OOTB, as a matter of fact I did read it. All the way down to the tables where they show the statistical correlations. Of course they're not going to want inferences made on an individual level. That's not what statistical correlation is about. They would be remiss as researchers if they said, "please use this data to infer that a given individual is more likely to get pregnant." Thank you for quoting practically half the raw study, by the way.

I'd also like to point out that the part about males vs. females is their analysis of an earlier set of surveys and data, and was not the focus of the rest of the report.

You seem to be questioning their methodology, and that's good. I'd rather see methods examined and questioned than results simply dismissed out of hand for conflicting with preconceived notions. Do you have any specific problems with their assumptions? Please remember they made the same assumptions about non-religious teens.
29 months ago: Oh, and I just realized that *again* you're pretending this is about religion, not conservative religion. Here it is again with notes and emphasis added.

"Miller and Gur found, upon analyzing the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the U.S. (the older data set), that frequent attendance of religious events (regardless of whether they were conservative or liberal) in girls 12 to 21 years old was positively associated with a “responsible and planned use of birth control” [8] (presumably because a lot of people don't have any religious convictions against condoms, unlike religious conservatives). *Personal conservatism*, however, was associated with unprotected sex. (So religious conservatives, who don't believe in using condoms or teaching their kids to use condoms, have sex without condoms. Shocking!) Manlove and colleagues, upon analysis of the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, found that in the sample as a whole, greater family religiosity (again, regardless of conservative or liberal) was associated with “using contraceptives consistently”; however, among sexually active males, family religiosity was “directly and negatively associated with contraceptive consistency” [9]."

So... Religion and contraceptive use? Overall, high marks. *Conservative* religion, however... low marks.

And that's to be expected. People here, on this site, have made the (completely false) claim that contraceptives don't work. I wouldn't expect people who don't think they work and believe their use to be a sin to use condoms.
29 months ago: Ummm, TCG? The Colbert quote is a joke. I swear... You guys just can't laugh at yourselves, can you?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni,
Nooooooo, not *again*, was I pretending anything. It was your money quote in the first place, and in the second place, you used it to further your argument. Twice, even. After your oh-so-helpful lesson in fourth grade math. (Does sarcasm look good on me? I never can tell. I think it makes my head look fat.)

Here is what you entered:

"Now then, I pulled those numbers out of thin air, but these guys didn't: http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14.

It's very dry reading, ...(skipping main body to save space, see previous Noni post)...negatively associated with contraceptive consistency” [9]."

And that's just an analysis of older data sets. Read the whole study.

So again, and this obviously bears repeating, it's *conservative* religiosity that leads to teen pregnancies. Some religion, according to those earlier studies, may have had a positive effect, but conservative religion had a strong net negative."

And then again here:

"Harshaw, you're cherry-picking specific quotes that make it sound like the older data the survey looks at first indicates exactly the opposite of the survey's conclusions. Do *I* need to bold this part? "[H]owever, among sexually active males, family religiosity was “directly and negatively associated with contraceptive consistency” [9]." Which doesn't surprise me, since by and large conservative religious types are against using condoms."

If it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand, why are you using it to prove your point?

The personal conservatism remark is so vague and unjustified by the rest of the paragraph, it might just as well have said, "Personally, conservatives like cheese."

more...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: What is personal conservatism? Is it conservatism of beliefs in the person? Is it the same as religious conservatism? I would think so, but the paragraph is making an illogical assumption, unsubstantiated, and was in fact contradicted by the bulk of the paragraph.

This is clearly a case of you believing what you want to believe, and grasping onto unsubstantiated claims and bogus research to prove your point. Even JMS, the author of the study, felt it necessary to leave a back door built right into his paper, and I don't think his work here will be widely quoted by unbiased sociologists.

"*Conservative* religion, however... low marks."


Show me some proof, besides one sentence surrounded in a paragraph that contradicts your stance.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: The study you used for proof is, to be polite, invalid, and was stretching the limits of statistical correlation thin to the point of the ridiculous.

To assume that state X has a higher number of conservatively religious people, therefore a higher number of teen pregnancies belong to the conservatively religious population is preposterous.

Page 2 "Abortion rate correlated negatively with religiosity, with r=-0.45", That is, until we massaged the numbers.

Page 3 "With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates."

What? "strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates" in what way? Am I to assume "higher"? Is this a typo, or a deliberate omission?
28 months ago: No, the study is not "invalid" on your say-so. I'm not sure why you think an assumption that, for instance, more of the teen pregnancies in a religiously conservative state will happen to religiously conservative teens is a shock. Unless somehow the religiously liberal teens have more unprotected sex there.

As for your problem with the term "strongly predict," that's standard statistician for "X and Y seem to be connected. When X is up, so is Y." Not a typo.

I think one of the things that's making you look for wiggle room here is the fact that the statisticians refuse to address causation. They're intentionally not saying conservative religion causes teen pregnancy, only that the two correlate. Determining causation isn't their job. Sure, they have their suspicions (see this article on the study: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/). But they're not going to go on about it in the study.

I know this doesn't count for much with you, but the study is peer-reviewed and accepted by the Journal of Reproductive Health. Cue accusations of liberal bias in reproductive health medicine in 3...2...1...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
28 months ago: I read the msnbc article on the msnbc site yesterday, and figured that is where you got the study from. I have also read the same report repeated word for word on 13 other sites, with no credits given for the msnbc article.

Several other science based sites I have looked at have authors that reviewed the methods used in the survey, and reached the same conclusions I did, namely, that it is not sound science. They also cited fact that the missing variables were plugged in through regressive extrapolation and the assumption of homogeneous correlation at the state level.

From your msnbc article:

"And while the study reveals information about states as a whole, it doesn't shed light on whether an individual teen who is more religious will also be more likely to have a child.

"You can't talk about individuals, because you don't know what's producing the [teen birth] rate," said Amy Adamczyk, a sociologist at the City University of New York, who was not involved in the current study.

"Adamczyk says the idea that anti-contraception principles could be behind the link is controversial, as studies on the topic have varied results."

Now, this should thoroughly debunk your "proof". At best, it is only one of many possibilities so far. Give it up.
28 months ago: You keep using words like "debunk" and "invalid," after proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the study only states there's a correlation and doesn't go into causation...

...which I already agree with.

I will, however, grant you that it's only my interpretation that the study implicates conservative dislike of birth control. Who knows? Maybe there's a large spike of unprotected sex and promiscuity among liberal teenagers in conservative states. I think it's unlikely, but possible.

So, to bring things back down from this shouting match, can I ask which science sites you looked at? I'm curious who is dismissing this study and who regards it as valid.
28 months ago: And for full disclosure, here are my preconceived notions on this topic. I am open to having them disproved.

1. Teenagers will have sex, regardless of upbringing, and the rates will be roughly similar across regional, ethnic, and religious boundaries. Here is some research I think bears me out:
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html
* http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1868990,00.html

(Both refer to a Johns-Hopkins study that made waves at the end of last year that indicated virginity pledges don't do diddly. Or rather, I guess you could say that teenagers taking such pledges end up doing a lot of diddly. If you were of a mind to make a silly joke. Which I am.)

2. Condoms work. I could cite study after study after study on this, but suffice it to say, you're a lot less likely to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant if condoms are involved and if they're used properly.

3. People who don't believe premarital sex is a sin and have been brought up to know how to use birth control are a lot less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy when they have sex.

OK, that's full disclosure. That is the logic I am using when I look at studies that show a correlation (not causation) between conservative religiosity and teen pregnancy. *I* think the correlation indicates causation because of my preconceptions above.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
28 months ago: Noni

Good enough for me. No need for me to go for the jugular.

My predispositions include the notion that children do actually listen to their parents, if the parents are not hypocritical in their teachings. Children learn more by example than they do by words, but talking to your children often and honestly will go far. That is the basis for all the anti-drug PSM's you see now. Why would you think it ineffective for for immature sex prevention?

It is important to explain to your children all the consequences of teen sex, not just the dangers of pregnancy and disease. The broken hearts, spirits, and egos that accompany teen sex, especially among young girls, can be avoided by not putting themselves in the position to be emotionally damaged. Give them the tools to deal with the boys who say "If you love me , you will." These lessons, coming from a father who can honestly talk to his daughter, will be remembered. I know from personal experience that if you tell them, they will listen, especially if you have a record of talking with them and teaching them.

Another finding in the study that is of relevance to me is that religiosity negatively impacts median income. My personal prejudice on this statistic is that religious families put more emphasis on their children than they do excelling in the workplace, which would lead to less time to spend at home. Many conservatively religious families have only one breadwinner, so that the children are not left unattended, or left to be raised by daycare employees. They are simply more willing to do with less material gain in order to provide more direct care for their children.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
28 months ago: As for the scientific sites I mentioned. I was half bluffing. 8-{)> Here is a fellow though, who agrees with my assessment, and if you read the rest of his work, you will see he makes lucid, thoughtful comments, not what you would call a religious crackpot railing against a study he didn't like.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/gerhard_adam/blog/teen_pregnancy_and_religion

28 months ago: Fight this site.

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/advanced-search.aspx

Have fun.
28 months ago: @OOTB

I'd like to respond to every point you brought up, so this will be long.

"My predispositions include the notion that children do actually listen to their parents, if the parents are not hypocritical in their teachings. Children learn more by example than they do by words, but talking to your children often and honestly will go far."

I'm of the opinion that while this is generally true, exactly how true it is varies from child to child and topic to topic. And any parent who has strictly forbidden their child anything knows that instantly turns it into the most fascinating, interesting, enticing forbidden fruit in the world. Forbidden fruit + lack of education on using protection + teenage hormones = unprotected sex. Can we agree that if our teenagers have sex, we would at least rather it be protected?

"That is the basis for all the anti-drug PSM's you see now. Why would you think it ineffective for for immature sex prevention?"

Not the best comparison, OOTB. I don't think this country's anti-drug programs have been at all effective.

Part 2 coming up...
28 months ago: "It is important to explain to your children all the consequences of teen sex, not just the dangers of pregnancy and disease. The broken hearts, spirits, and egos that accompany teen sex, especially among young girls, can be avoided by not putting themselves in the position to be emotionally damaged. Give them the tools to deal with the boys who say "If you love me , you will." These lessons, coming from a father who can honestly talk to his daughter, will be remembered. I know from personal experience that if you tell them, they will listen, especially if you have a record of talking with them and teaching them."

All true. But in the end, if she chooses to have sex anyway, I also want her to know:

1) The proper use of contraceptives
2) That sex isn't inherently evil and I'll still love her if she goes against my wishes and has it before she's mature enough.

And part 3...
28 months ago: "Another finding in the study that is of relevance to me is that religiosity negatively impacts median income. My personal prejudice on this statistic is that religious families put more emphasis on their children than they do excelling in the workplace, which would lead to less time to spend at home. Many conservatively religious families have only one breadwinner, so that the children are not left unattended, or left to be raised by daycare employees. They are simply more willing to do with less material gain in order to provide more direct care for their children."

Those are some huge assumptions. I'd definitely want to see some statistics on household incomes vs. political and religious inclinations. I'd also like to note that the correlation doesn't indicate causation in this issue either. It's hard to say which factors lead to low-income religious conservatism and low-income religious liberalism. Both exist, so I don't think it can be broken down to a simplistic formula of conservative religion = single income household.

"I was half bluffing. 8-{)>"

You are, indeed, so busted. Yeah, I found that "scientificblogging.com" article, too. I found it amidst a deluge of articles from much more reputable sources lauding the study as well done and sound.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
28 months ago: Noni

After much to and fro, I am glad we can find some middle ground to agree on. I think if everyone would engage in honest debate more often, rather than just tenaciously defending an often flawed premise, the world would be a much better place.


"1) The proper use of contraceptives" (agree, including proper situations)
"2) That sex isn't inherently evil and I'll still love her if she goes against my wishes and has it before she's mature enough." (without a doubt, something I teach them from birth)

"I'd definitely want to see some statistics on household incomes vs. political and religious inclinations. I'd also like to note that the correlation doesn't indicate causation in this issue either"

What you say is true. I did say it was my personal prejudice that caused me to think the way I did. My family is single income, and although I have been lucky enough to provide well for my family, sometimes my being the successful breadwinner takes me away from my family more than I feel comfortable with.
more...........
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
28 months ago:
I didn't see any articles lauding the study as well done and sound. I did however see a lot of clone articles mindlessly repeating what they had gleaned from initial reports of the study. As far as I found, there was only only one quote, repeated thousands of times, that actually stated the study was well done.

"John Santelli of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University calls the study "well-done," adding that the results are not surprising."

Jeanna Bryner, the LiveScience writer who wrote the story should probably be doing pretty well by this one article, as it has been picked up by hundreds of publications so far. She did a very good job of reporting it in an unbiased way, without distorting the facts, but the mere mention of statistics that *could possibly* be detrimental to religion is often run with along a particular slant. It's not what I would call persecution, but definitely a dissemination of misleading information. Just read the blogs concerning this one publication and you will see the enmity many hold for God, religion, and all the people who practice religion. They accept the findings of this study as immutable, undeniable proof that religion is bad.
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
21 months ago: OOTB

Great minds think alike. That was a great read. I wrote a similar blog (on a competing blog site -before I learned about the Rave) called "Keep My Baby Off The Poll"
But your writing is a great angle and very colorful. I like!
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
21 months ago: OOTB

Great minds think alike. That was a great read. I wrote a similar blog (on a competing blog site -before I learned about the Rave) called "Keep My Baby Off The Poll"
But your writing is a great angle and very colorful. I like!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago: Thanks, PC. Wow, this one seems like so long ago, in another time. (sigh)

I looked for your piece, but I didn't find it. If it's still up, would you mind posting a link?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.