On the Soapbox

Amidst the media hoopla over Tom Cruise’s critical comments on psychiatry—obviously influenced by his membership in the Church of Scientology and on L. Ron Hubbard’s crackpot theory of “dianetics” that denounces the use of all psychiatric medications—Cruise was also asked his opinion of the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligences (ETIs), in connection with his latest film, War of the Worlds. The actor-turned psychiatrist-and-astronomer stated: “I think it’s supreme arrogance to think we are the only life form in the entire universe.”

Well, I can’t believe I would agree with anything Tom Cruise says, but from a probabilities point of view alone, given the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies each of which contains hundreds of billions of stars, a good many of which probably have planets, the presence of other life somewhere is inescapable. But was Cruise aping the arguments of the SETI Institute, or is his opinion based on his theology? According to L. Ron Hubbard who, before founding Scientology was a science fiction writer, about 75 million years ago a galactic warlord named Xenu assembled billions of criminals from other planets and imprisoned them inside Earth’s volcanoes. The souls of these space creatures, he preached, are still interfering with us. One of the missions of Scientology is to help us to shed these spirits. 

For his part, War of the Worlds director Steven Spielberg, who also produced E.T. the Extra-terrestrialand Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was once a very uncritical and vocal supporter of UFO sightings and contacts, but has recently changed his opinion on the matter: “And you know why I’m not as convinced right now? Because of the millions of video cameras that are out today that are picking up fewer pictures and videos of alleged UFOs than were being picked up in the 1960s and 1970s. Why is that, when there’s about 150% growth of video cameras on the face of the planet? Why are we seeing less of what’s out there? Maybe we are in a dry spell.” 

Dry indeed. 

Sylvia Browne Talks to the Animals (on the other side) 

According to psychic Sylvia Browne, star of the Montel Williams’ Psychic Promotion Hour, and author of a new book about talking to the dead, “It goes without saying…that when an animal dies, its spirit goes Home just like ours.” I was alerted to this book by Sumer Jarvis of The Learning Tree bookstore in Sumter, SC, who told me: “I refuse to sell this book in my store. By peddling to children, Sylvia Browne is stooping even lower than her usual tactics of preying on the elderly, ignorant, and those who are mourning.” 

Ms. Jarvis kindly sent her sample copy of this $16.95 hard-bound book by Angel Bea Publishing to the JREF library, where it joins volumes on quack medicine, fortune-telling, witchcraft, scientology, and UFOs. I note that in Animals on the Other Side we don’t see the phrase “in heaven,” but “at Home.” That’s only one of the cutesy items she strews throughout the book’s 32 pages. “Totems,” she says, are animals who come here “from the Other Side to watch over us and protect us.” Sylvia’s personal totem, she avers, is an elephant. So don’t mess with Sylvia, or her totem will flatten you! 

Amusingly, Browne adds: “All God’s creatures exist on the Other Side with only one exception. The only living things I have never seen at Home are insects. I am not sure exactly why that is, but I have never seen a spider, fly, or any other type of insect.” Readers are assured that on the Other Side all is “natural, unpolluted, unspoiled beauty.” All seven continents are there, we’re told, plus two bonus continents: Lemuria and Atlantis. And, as an added attraction, in addition to all of today’s animals, “animals that have existed throughout the history of the world are there as well, such as dinosaurs, unicorns, griffins, and other species.” Sylvia, you forgot angels, ewoks, and Smurfs. 

We’re edified to know from this valuable reference book that Home is “always a perfect 78 degrees (Centigrade or Fahrenheit we’re not told) with no rain, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, or lightning flashes.” And we’re told that while there is “some” snow in heaven, Sylvia’s son Chris—who co-authored this wiz of a book—reveals that this celestial variety of snow is “not bitter cold or frozen.” Instead, it is “warm and fluffy.” How interesting—warm snow. 

We’re also comforted to know that Home is adorned with “countless places of worship, like churches and synagogues.” What, no mosques? 

But there’s a basic problem with animals that Sylvia and Chris have to slickly eliminate: what about the conflict between predators and prey? Do tigers and antelope just ignore one another? Ah, it’s all solved by the fact that at Home no one eats, or gets eaten! How boring. But, “On the Other Side, we can communicate with animals telepathically…without even opening our mouths.” 

What a relief! Still, we have to wonder whether people, or animals, lose all their bad habits when they “pass.” Do they still smoke tobacco on the Other Side? If not, when she “passes over,” Sylvia will probably have an everlasting nicotine I.V. put in place. 

Creationism at the Tulsa Zoo 

The Tulsa Zoo, courtesy of their Park and Recreation Board, will soon add a new display featuring the Biblical account of creation, following complaints to the city about other exhibits with religious significance that they have on show, such as a statue of the Hindu elephant-god Ganesh outside their elephant exhibit, and a marble globe inscribed with an American Indian saying: “The earth is our mother. The sky is our father.” The new display will depict the Genesis myth of God’s six-day creation of the world 6,000 years ago. This is science, Oklahoma style. 

The Tulsa Zoo is a taxpayer-funded scientific institution, but that fact was ignored. Tulsa mayor Bill LaFortune called it “an issue of fairness.” While the new display will include a disclaimer that says that the creationist exhibit represents “only one point of view,” city attorneys have also advised that it include by other cultures’ views of creation. Wow! That’s going to be a crowded exhibit. Just for starters, they’ll at least need to include: 

1. An Australian Aborigine display of the Rainbow Serpent creation myth. 
2. The Hindu creation story that begins all over again at the end of each “kalpa,” brought about by flames from the fangs of Sesha, a serpent. 
3. The Maori idea that New Zealand was dragged into existence from the bottom of the ocean. 
4. A Shinto display showing that the world began with a “giant reed from chaos” that became the god Kuni-Toko-Tachi, followed by Yin and Yang, the “Fertile Pair” who peopled the Earth. 
5. The Hindu creation story of the World Egg. 
6. Another Hindu myth, that the giant Purusha was killed by other gods, and his various body parts became continents of the Earth. 
7. The Greeks said that Nyx, a giant bird with black wings, was impregnated by other gods, then laid a silver egg, and that gave us the Earth. 
8. In old Egypt, there was a big Cosmic Egg that came from somewhere. Who knows? 
9. The Sumerians believed that at a drunken party, Nimnah—Mother Earth—fashioned humans out of clay. 
10. The Hebrew idea that their god made the first human from dust and turned one of his rib into his wife. 

Tulsa Zoo exhibit curator Kathleen Buck-Miser has estimated it would take about six months to research and organize the exhibit as originally agreed, but maybe after seeing this partial list, she’ll make that a lot longer. 

Wait a minute! That same exhibit in Tulsa that has elephant-god Ganesh, also has the Republican Party’s elephant symbol! “In fairness,” I demand that an equal weight of donkeys be included! That’s about 50 to 60 Democratic representatives, depending on which elephants and which donkeys will be used in making the calculation. You see just how complicated Political Correctness can get? 

Cellular Quackery 

EcoQuest, a company that espouses an evangelical Christian approach to business, makes a box-like device—the Infinity2—that they say makes “indoor air fresh and clean-smelling day and night.” It’s really just an ozone- and ion-generator with a small fan and a UV light, an expensive, unproven, and highly questionable device that deliberately emits ozone, which is a toxic gas. EcoQuest has now expanded into water filters, nutritional supplements, and skin-care products, all sold through a network of about 150,000 commission-only distributors. But judge for yourself how reputable these people are by examining what follows. 

Here, from a “scientific presentation” that was offered by EcoQuest, we have two microscope photos of blood samples, which they said were taken from the same person 30 minutes apart, showing red blood cells before and after the quackery had been applied. The top photos are the originals. I’ve added marks to duplicate photos in the bottom row to indicate the location of evidence that each photo is actually several overlapping images. Just above the “B” in each photo, you’ll see the horizontal banding I refer to below, marked for emphasis. The left-hand photo appears to show crowded cells, and the right-hand photo more spaced-out cells. Referring to the photo on the right, the sellers had asked: “Do you think you might feel and function better if your red blood cells had all this room to carry your nutrients and oxygenate your body?” 

Here’s the truth of the matter. The upper left-hand photo is a series of overlapped video frames taken while the corpuscles were moving—I count at least 12, which I’ve marked by crescent-shaped lines. Each “train” of images is actually just one cell moving and registering as a chain image. The right-hand photo is much lighter, because it shows just 1.76 frames—one complete scan frame, plus 0.76 of another frame superimposed from the top down. Note: six of the cells in the upper section of this photo moved in the time interval between the two frames, producing doubled images—marked by crescent lines and the letters “d”—but the lower quarter of this photo—the much lighter section—shows single images, none of them doubled, because a part of only one frame is shown in that portion. 

As further evidence, notice the faint horizontal banding effects in the background. In the right-hand photo, these bands are twice as far apart as in the lefthand photo; this is consistent with multiple frames overlying one another, resulting in an eventual “blending” of the banding effect as more frames are added. Also, the lefthand image is much denser than the righthand one, which is consistent with frames being added together to make a darker background. If my analysis is correct, in my opinion this is a direct, purposeful misrepresentation of those offering the “evidence” for the “Infinity 2” products. It is advertised as “live blood cell analysis,” “dark-field video analysis,” and “nutritional blood analysis.” But in my opinion it is a lie, a sham, a swindle that purports to offer scientific proof, and uses blatant trickery to do so. 

For further information on this technique see Dr. Stephen Barrett’s analysis at https://quackwatch.org/related/Tests/livecell/. I thank Dr. Randall L. Detra for bringing the Infinity2 to my attention. 

On the Soapbox 

The recent terrorist attacks in the UK reminded me of how often I’d sat atop double-decker buses, or entered and left Underground “tube” stations in London, never dreaming that religious fanatics would someday be bombing those locations. That reminiscing gave rise to what follows. 

I recall with delight the period in the 1950s when I lived in the UK, and every Sunday morning I would rise early to visit Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. I would see the speakers assembling and vying for position, perched atop folding chairs or more substantial platforms from which they could address the crowds on subjects from how Guy Fawkes got a bad deal from the government to the latest refutation of the Theory of Relativity. I’ve been back to London many times since then, but I’ve somehow allowed my schedule to interfere with another visit to that wonderful site, so to end this issue’s column I would like to reflect on what I might say if I were inspired to step up and be heard at Speaker’s Corner. 

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but that’s getting increasingly difficult to achieve. 

I note with interest that more and more commentators and columnists are getting around to asking questions about the basic rights that Americans are supposed to have about worshipping—or not worshipping—any of the hundreds of different varieties of deities that our species has invented to make the human condition more bearable and less confounding; having a “God did it” explanation to fall back on allows us not to think about heavy matters. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but that’s getting increasingly difficult to achieve. 

It appears that the present attitude in faith-based America is that those who believe in a deity should have greater rights than those who choose—for whatever reason—not to do so. This becomes more significant when we face the fact that our present war is a religious war; it is not political, not financial, not territorial. Its precedent can be found centuries ago in the Crusades, when those who went off to foreign lands in that devastating, futile, beggaring attempt to recover the “Holy Land” from infidels, were honored—if they ever returned from the quest. Part of the zeal the crusaders suffered from was a belief that the end of the world was imminent. That delusion is reflected in the present enchantment with The Rapture, in which the faithful will be instantly levitated into the celestial sphere, leaving sinners and sycophants behind. There are other examples: the Holy Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials were also religion-driven futilities, as is the ongoing tragedy involving Irish Protestants v. Catholics. 

The strength of America has always been that we have freedom of belief, among other privileges, established for us by those who founded this nation. The Constitution of the United States of America was designed to protect the minority from any tyranny put forth by the majority, and the Declaration of Independence guarantees “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Remember that catchy phrase? If we obey the laws of the land, and do no harm to others, we should—according to our Constitution—have the right to make those decisions that are personal, and to make them without intrusion from the government. That’s a really great way to look at life. 

In fact, this is the reason that in 1987, as a Canadian citizen living in the USA, I applied for US citizenship. That was brought about by an earlier unpleasant event. In 1973, I’d been touring with Alice Cooper’s Billion Dollar Babies show, and while in Niagara Falls, Canada, I discovered something about my country that both disappointed me and brought about my decision to become an American. In mid-show, going backstage to change my costume I found a group of thugs prying open lockers and throwing personal belongings—including my own—in every direction. The destruction was heavy, and I objected strongly. I was backed up against a wall—at gunpoint—and told that I had no right to be there. I was escorted out of the building. 

No, I couldn’t turn to the law. That was the law. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)—the equivalent in Canada to the FBI in the USA—were searching the artist’s property for evidence of drugs while those artists were supposed to be onstage, and though they found nothing, they destroyed that property and simply left the remains where they’d thrown it. I was able to get back into the building, unseen by the police, through a side entrance, and I hastened onstage on cue, though not garbed as I should have been. 

The following day I arose early and went to the local newspaper office. After much shuffling back and forth, I got to see a feature writer and explained what had happened the previous night. The reaction was a surprise: I was informed that the newspaper wanted no trouble with the RCMP, that the story was already written, that the police action was not part of that story, and that I had better treat the situation as a learning experience. I’m a quick learner. I chose to be an American. 

I did not automatically become an American. I earned my citizenship over a decade by working hard, observing the laws, and establishing that I could be a useful member of society. That is why I think I can validly object to the fact that, while there was a time when our politicians understood that they were not empowered to be our spiritual leaders, presently they seem to believe that they can dictate what we think, do, and believe, rather than leaving those decisions up to us. 

Our President never addresses the public without appealing to a god or to prayer, or asking a god to bestow blessings on us. He supports and encourages the most far-fetched applications from any person or agency adopting the label “faith-based,” such as the disciples of wealthy cult leader Sun Myung Moon. He vetoes attempts to improve our lives and the lives of unborn generations through fundamental research into basic biology—by embryonic stem-cell research, for example—and he defines those who disagree with his religious philosophy as “evil.” Despite our oft-referred-to separation of church and state, we use federal funds to pay for the promotion of religion; recently we laid out $300,000 of our tax money to assemble hundreds of United States Air Force chaplains in Colorado Springs for a “Spiritual Fitness Conference,” an evangelical effort designed to “look for answers in the Scriptures.” 

Rationality and logic are being demoted to the status of notions, science is devalued, reason is ridiculed.

One group expressing alarm about the growing power of religion over our basic freedoms is the Brights’ Network (www.the-brights.net). This hub serves people in 115 nations, linking to “Brights sites” in five languages. Who are the “Brights”? These are people who have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. The USA alone has millions of such individuals—skeptics, humanists, agnostics, atheists, Christians (who follow Christ’s moral dicta free of supernatural belief), rationalists, secularists, and many others. As the Brights say, 

People who have naturalistic worldviews bring thoughtful and principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance. They advocate “a level playing field” for citizens having a religious or a naturalistic worldview, thus connecting to the Enlightenment, an era when people had confidence that, with reason and science, we could create a truly just society. 

Society has progressively become more civically inclusive regarding ethnicity and sexual orientation. Still, deep prejudice exists at all levels of society regarding those who do not claim to be religious. 

Science-bashing is more popular than ever. Rednecks chant, “Science doesn’t know everything!” and others who are not much better informed agree. But science has never claimed that it really knowsanything; it only offers observations and probable explanations. Science is being demonized. A citizen’s right to choose concerning abortion is being fought on quite precarious definitions of scientific/technical words and phrases, all reflecting religious fears and fallacies. Concerning that veto of human embryonic stem cell research and the false objections that have been made to justify stifling it, what will future observers of our culture say? I think they will question our sanity. Inevitably, that research will be done—perhaps in another part of the world less blinded by fear of supernatural retribution—and our species will be better for it; I resent the fact that I’ll not be able to witness that victory. 

The Board of Education of the State of Kansas will probably change its state science standards by casting doubt on the fact of evolution, and supporting “intelligent design,” a poorly-disguised kind of creationism that preaches that DNA and certain other biological mechanisms are too complex to have evolved, and thus dictate the existence of a “designer.” They say that evolution and the origin of species are unproven matters and that students should understand and debate different points of view—even though their point of view has zero scientific evidence to support it, and is based on religious dogma. 

In the scientific community, however, there is no such question; in 2002 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) passed a resolution declaring “intelligent design” to be a “philosophical or theological concept,” not a statement obtained through the examination of hard evidence, and that it should not be taught in science classes. That’s 120,000 men and women of science, honored and respected internationally, who have the experience, the knowledge, and the training to be able to understand and authoritatively declare on such matters. 

Rationality and logic are being demoted to the status of notions, science is devalued, reason is ridiculed. I fear for our species’ future, when only the Yahoos may remain. 

This soap-box is now available.