Philomena Cunk on Money

February 28, 2015 • 2:45 pm

Until this week’s episode is posted, this will be the last “Moments of Wonder” for a while. I hope you’ve enjoyed your interlude with the dauntless Philomena Cunk (“Who are you and what are you an expert in or of?”); I know I have!

In this episode Philomena tells us that “Moh-neh” is simply the best way of telling us how much money we’ve got. (Her pronounciation of “money” is almost as good as that of “monkey”.) Diane Morgan (the real name of La Cunk) is terrific at playing the obtuse interrogator.

The British edition of Esquire had an article about Philomena last year, which includes these bits:

A spoof on the awed-up school of documentary presentation as pioneered by Professor Brian Cox, Philomena makes her yapping-head co-star Barry Shitpeas seem like Alain de Botton. And she is fast becoming a cult figure.

Now people stop Bolton comic actress Diane Morgan, who plays Philomena, in the street for photos. “They want me to Cunk it up, so I have to practice looking a bit thicker,” say Morgan. “Sadly, it’s not that difficult.”

Well, I take issue with the implied praise of de Botton, but I do love the phrase “Cunk it up” (which I’ll henceforth be using here), as well as Morgan’s addendum, “Sadly, it’s not that difficult.”

And this:

Philomena Cunk appeared as a foil for Barry Shitpeas, himself a spoof on the nano-celebrity rentaquotes who used to populate shows like I Love 2003. “She’s basically me if I had the nerve to stop pretending to be clever,” says Morgan. “She’s my braver, stupider twin. None of us want to admit that we don’t really understand the news or science or anything much really. We’re all just winging it. The difference with Philomena is, she doesn’t pretend.”

 

Hindu monks ask to be relieved of the burden of communicating with (or sitting next to) women on planes

February 28, 2015 • 1:45 pm

Here’s a letter that came into my hands; it is given out to airlines when these Hindu monks check in for their flights, and requests special treatment on the grounds of their faith. That treatment involves not sitting next to women (or girls, I suppose), and not speaking to them directly. Nor are the monks to be spoken to by female flight attendents, except through an intermediary male passenger. Have a gander:

Letter

 

This is similar to the actions of those Orthodox Jews I wrote about last December, who refused to sit next to women on planes, also on religious grounds. (As far as I know, they will deign to speak to women, though.) Three flights were involved, with the Jews’ request causing delays in every case.

To me this letter requests unconscionable sex discrimination, and the airline should refuse to honor any of these requests (including that for pre-boarding—why do they need to get on the plane before anyone else?).  It’s simply wrong to ask airlines to permit a group of passengers to discriminate against women, even if the passengers plead the dictates of their faith.  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, which in this case is equal treatment of all people, regardless of gender, race, or creed. Imagine if a religious group asked not to sit next to a black person, or speak to one except through a white intermediary!

Is there anyone out there who will justify or defend this practice?

And should airlines even try to honor this practice? Should they ask women to change places with men so these monks won’t be “polluted”? On the flights with Orthodox Jews, flight attendants tried to find seats that would satisfy those men. It’s not clear whether they asked people to move or simply pointed out empty seats that were suitable. I suppose the latter practice is okay because you are permitted to occupy any empty seat in your class after the plane takes off. But I don’t think flight attendants should be in the business of catering to sex-discriminatory religious practices by asking people to switch seats.

It’s heartening that on one of the flights I described in the earlier posts, it was the passengers who, incensed by this kind of request, refused to accommodate the Orthodox Jews by switching seats.

The dumbest Republican move of the year: defending a religion’s right to murder its children

February 28, 2015 • 12:30 pm

It’s only February, but I doubt we’ll see much Republican craziness to top this: a state representative defending a particularly crazy Christian sect that doesn’t believe in medical care, and defending their right to abjure scientific medicine in favor of prayer for their kids. That sect has already killed hundreds of its own children (and adults) through Jesus-based medical neglect.

The Republican is Christy Perry, a state representative from Idaho. You can get an idea of some of her politics from the very first picture on her official page, which also notes that she is endorsed by the National Rifle Association:

Perry-Silhouette1

and from the logo on her official “contact” page:

Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 10.36.05 AM

The sect Perry is defending, according to The Raw Story, is notorious the Followers of Christ (FoC), a sect I know something about since it figures at the end of the Albatross. Based in Oregon, but with many members in Idaho, the sect rejects medical care for its members and its children, refusing even midwives.

That faith-based tenet has resulted in dozens of adult and child deaths, some of them horribly gruesome. Read The Albatross (available in fine bookstores everywhere or by mail after May 19) to learn more, but you can see a precis in the “Controversy” section of Wikipedia’s article about the church. CHILD (Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty), a great organization, summarizes the church’s sad history:

The main faith-healing sect in Idaho with such beliefs is the Followers of Christ. Child mortality among them appears to be extremely elevated. By recent count there are 208 children under the age of 18 who are buried in Peaceful Valley Cemetery, one of several used by the Idaho Followers of Christ. There are a total of 604 graves in that cemetery. Nearly 35% of them are of children who died before age 18 and stillbirths. In contrast, Idaho Vital Statistics data show that during the years 2002-2011 only 3.37% of deaths statewide are of minor children or stillbirths. 35% vs 3.37% — one doesn’t have to do much math to see that there’s a huge difference. In addition, the leading cause of death among Idaho children older than one year is accidents. If we had a way to separate out disease-related mortality from accidental deaths, child mortality in the Followers of Christ would look even astronomically higher.

Perry, it turns out, is opposing proposed Idaho legislation that will get rid of the state’s present religious exemptions for children’s health care. As I’ve noted before, forty-three of the fifty US states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds. But that immunity doesn’t hold if you injure your child by withholding medical care for nonreligious reasons, so it’s a privileging of religion that is dangerous to children.

As CHILD notes, “Idaho’s laws protecting children from religion-related medical neglect may well be the worst in the nation. Only five other states have a statutory exemption from the involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide of a minor child based on religious beliefs which bar or discourage medical care.” According to The Raw Story, the proposed new Idaho law would allow parents to be prosecuted when they reject conventional medicine in favor of faith healing, and when that action “may cause death or permanent disability” to the child.

Well, the law could go farther, because there is a lot of suffering that doesn’t accompany death or permanent disability but could still be prevented by medical attention.  But Perry wants the present draconian laws to remain.  As The Raw Story reports:

“They have a clear understanding of what the role of government should be – (and it) isn’t how to tell me how to live my life,” said state Rep. Christy Perry (R-Nampa).

. . . Perry insists Followers of Christ have a First Amendment right to deny medical care to their children on religious grounds, arguing that they are perhaps more comfortable confronting death, reported Al Jazeera America.

“Children do die,” Perry said. “I’m not trying to sound callous, but (reformers) want to act as if death is an anomaly. But it’s not — it’s a way of life.”

She may be trying not to sound callous, but she’s not only callous, she’s reprehensible. Death is not a “way of life,” it’s the end of life. And death can be prevented (easily, in many case) if appropriate medical attention is given to children. The fact is that you can’t cure a child of juvenile diabetes through prayer, even though the Followers of Christ have tried.  That leads to a horrible death, something that Perry fobs off as simply a “way of life”.  Death is indeed an anomaly if it can be prevented by medical intervention. And even if you think, as Christy undoubtedly does, that those dead children will find their respite in Heaven, that’s no answer, for they’ve still suffered and died here on Earth—suffering and death that could be prevented. Let them go to heaven at a ripe old age, for crying out loud!

This is the kind of logic that apparently dissuades Americans from prosecuting those parents who would martyr children for their religion:

(Followers of Christ) do not look to the government to help them at all,” [Perry] continued. “They’re very self-sufficient and know how to take care of themselves. In Canyon County, people hunt to feed their families, they fish, (and) they grow their own food.”

Perry said faith healers are caring parents who simply trust in God’s will.

“They are comforted by the fact that they know their child is in heaven,” Perry said. “If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?”

I’m sorry, but they don’t know how to take care of themselves, at least not in the twenty-first century.  They don’t know how to treat an infection; they don’t know how to treat diabetes; they don’t know how to deal with the complications of childbirth; they don’t know how to treat asthma.  And how has trusting God’s will worked out for them, with a children’s death rate perhaps tenfold higher than the state average.  Does God really want Followers of Christ children to die ten times more often than non-Followers’ children? Why would he want that?

I don’t have to answer the question, “If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?”, because the real question is this “If I want to let my child be with God when he or she didn’t have to, and after a period of prolonged suffering, why is that wrong?” The question answers itself.

Finally, Perry has the temerity to accuse those who want religions exemptions eliminated of being biased against the FoC.

The lawmaker questioned the motives of faith-healing reformers.

“Is it really because these children are dying more so than other children, or is this really about an attack on a religion you don’t agree with?” Perry said.

The answer is the first choice: because children of Followers of Christ are being tortured and killed by the dictates of their parents’ faith. Yes, I disagree with that, but if the church simply had a belief that they didn’t act on, who would care? After all, this kind of religous exemption, and its sequelae, revolt many religious people, too. It’s not an attack on religion per se, but I suppose it is as an attack on the actions of a particular religion. And so what, if those actions are murderous and delusional, and take the lives of children too young to make their own decision?

If you live in Idaho, please contact your representative and urge him or her to vote in favor of the new bill. And if you’re an American elsewhere, be aware that the odds are high that your own state has similar legislation, much of it enacted through lobbying by Christian Scientists. We must get rid of all these religious exemptions—for the sake of the children.

h/t: Ant

Live long and prosper

February 28, 2015 • 10:45 am

by Greg Mayer

Jerry of course has already noted the passing yesterday of Leonard Nimoy, and many readers have weighed in with memories and encomia in the comments. Jerry was not a big Star Trek fan, so I thought I’d add a few thoughts here above the fold.

Star Trek, with Spock at its moral core, became a cultural touchstone for multiple generations. In a statement yesterday, President Obama (perhaps thinking of himself a little too!), said

[Spock was] Cool, logical, big-eared and level-headed, the center of Star Trek’s optimistic, inclusive vision of humanity’s future.

It is this latter aspect of Star Trek— it’s vision– that I wish to comment on here. Star Trek‘s basic message, continued over 36 years of films and television shows, is this: When sentient beings of good will act together, there is no problem in the Universe that cannot be overcome. The Star Trek world was a meditation on, and most often a celebration of, humanism, in the broad philosophical sense– the capacity of the human species, by reason and reflection and good works to come to know the world and to establish a just social order. What Nimoy’s Spock gave to this world was, among other things, its inclusivity. It was not just for us, or just the human species– it was for everyone.

The Star Trek world did not come to the full realization of this ethos on first pass, but like all human institutions, grew into its fuller development over time. It was at the end of the film The Undiscovered Country from 1991, after concluding peace with the Klingons, that Captain Kirk repeats Star Trek‘s mantra, but alters it: “To boldly go where no man– where no one— has gone before”, not as a reference to the decreasing usage of “man” in the sense of the whole species, but as the inclusion of all sentient beings– including the previously implacable foe, the Klingons– in the community that was to be grown and perfected. Star Trek maintained this optimistic, inclusive vision for over three decades.

(The Star Wars universe, introduced a decade after Star Trek, paled in comparison– it was, at best, Nordic in it’s resignation in the face of humanity’s inabilities and failings, but in fact nearer a mystical cult in its Colbertesque obeisance to the “force” as a feeling in the gut, to be embraced against the false lure of skill and reason.)

While many (including me) have commented on how Nimoy’s Spock served as an inspiration to budding scientists, some have also commented on his later hosting of a rather wacko show devoted to pseudoscience and paranormal claims called In Search of…. I’ve never investigated Nimoy’s personal views on these subjects, nor much watched the show, but I would like to think that Nimoy’s views are reflected in his guest appearance on one of my favorite episodes of The Simpsons, a parody of the paranormal police procedural, The X-files, in which Nimoy also parodies In Search of…:

Star Trek, and Nimoy in particular, have given us (including here at WEIT, where you can get your evolutionary biology and Star Trek jokes all in one place) much to enjoy, and to think about, over the years. To paraphrase T’Pring, we have been honored.