... could the following exchange occur. From CNN's Newsroom (1/14):

Quote :

"CNN Anchor: "First of all, let's talk about the supposed miracle." John Allen, National Catholic Reporter: "Well, the miracle in this case involves the healing of a 49-year-old French nun from an aggressive form of Parkinson's disease. And, of course, there's a nice poetic arc to that because John Paul II also suffered from Parkinson's. The report is that shortly after the pope's death in April 2005, the religious order to which this nun belongs began praying to John Paul II. Apparently she wrote the late pope's name on a prayer card and tucked it under her mattress one night. Woke up the next morning completely cured from the Parkinson's and went back to her normal work as a maternity nurse. The Vatican standards for a healing to be considered miraculous are that it has to be instantaneous, it has to be complete, it has to be permanent. There's a bank of doctors, then a bank of theologians, then a group of cardinals and bishops, and then finally the pope himself will have to sign off, and in this case they've obviously all agreed that this was the real deal." CNN Anchor: "Let's talk about the process of becoming a saint." "

In other words, "sure, pawn off that completely asinine story of superstitious quackery on my viewers, I won't stop you! Hell, I won't even ask a follow up question! I mean, you're religious, you couldn't possibly be full of shit, right?"

Speaking of the way public discourse affects people's lives, how many people, particularly throughout the developing world, will die because they think their illnesses can be cured by writing the pope's name on a prayer card?

1/14/2011 5:06:41 PM

Quote :

"how many people, particularly throughout the developing world, will die"

Not as bad as saying condoms are bad, and banning abortion even when the mothers life depends on it and the fetus wouldn't survive regardless. I think the condom position will probably affect more peoples lives than this tooth-fairy for parkinsons patients story.

1/14/2011 5:25:29 PM

You would think this would be a self-correcting problem, but apparently they die and breed at the exact same rate as everyone else. Who'da thunk it?

Also, why does God hate amputees? One random parkinson's sufferer, yes. Every other parkinson's and every amputee in recorded medical history? No.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2011 5:31:32 PM

No doubt. But it still boggles the mind that such nonsense can be uttered with impunity on a major news network's air.

1/14/2011 5:31:55 PM

I'm confused on two points.

1) Why do you think it is the media's job to tell people their religion is wrong?

2) Why are you under the impression that the Catholic church, or any other major denomination, tells people not to go to the doctor?

1/14/2011 5:38:20 PM

It's just mysticism. The interviewer, whatever their own beliefs are, has a couple of good reasons to "play along." The most obvious concern is that you can't reason a person out of faith, which is an inherently unreasonable belief. They will have to undergo the natural process of shedding a belief that resulted from indoctrination. Also, it's just business; arguing about the plausibility of "miracles" (and truthfully, rational debate in general) is going to turn off some viewers. Arguably, treating miracles as anything other than absurd will turn off atheists and agnostics, but this is the United States, and we know who is in the minority.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 5:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 5:38:28 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think it is the media's job to tell people their religion is wrong?"

I think it's the job of any responsible journalist to question asinine medical claims made on their network. I mean, that's a pretty standard rule, right?

1/14/2011 6:01:39 PM

Quote :

"I think it's the job of any responsible journalist to question asinine medical claims made on their network. I mean, that's a pretty standard rule, right?"

1/14/2011 6:02:38 PM

What I get out of the text of that exchange is an implied "[Uhh, yeah. Whatever. Moving on,] let's talk about the process of becoming a saint."

1/14/2011 6:32:13 PM

Quote :

"What I get out of the text of that exchange is an implied "[Uhh, yeah. Whatever. Moving on,] let's talk about the process of becoming a saint.""

I got that too. Sometimes you just gotta pick your battles

1/14/2011 7:18:22 PM

we report you decide.

1/14/2011 7:21:26 PM

Quote :

"Arguably, treating miracles as anything other than absurd will turn off atheists and agnostics"

Why would an agnostic treat "miracles" as absurd?
I thought the principle behind being an agnostic was that if you could not know something with absolute certainty then you could neither claim it's existance nor nonexistance.

To me as much as an atheist hates a religious person for their blind faith - they seem to go to the other extreme with their closed mindedness. I don't think you can lump the agnostics in with that line of thinking if you can't prove the nonexistance.

1/14/2011 9:39:33 PM

Quote :

"Why would an agnostic treat "miracles" as absurd? I thought the principle behind being an agnostic was that if you could not know something with absolute certainty then you could neither claim it's existance nor nonexistance. "

To say something is a miracle is to say that there's no physical explanation for the event, which is kind of a paradox itself. It's assumed that the event was prompted by the whim of some deity, but physical matter still had to be manipulated, and as such, there is a real explanation for any event. The agnostic doesn't say "there's an equally likely chance that there's a reason for that event taking place and that there's no reason for that event taking place." The agnostic says, "I don't know how to explain that event."

If you don't feel like reading that, look at it this way. Assigning the status of "miracle" to event embeds a claim that must undergo scrutiny. It's a claim about the nature of an event that, by definition, is not currently understood. Calling something a miracle is a baseless claim.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 10:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 9:53:46 PM

Quote :

"I think it's the job of any responsible journalist to question asinine medical claims made on their network. I mean, that's a pretty standard rule, right?"

I've read through your quoted thing several times and I'm not seeing any medical claim other than she "woke up the next morning completely cured of Parkinson's." That may or may not be the case. Probably it isn't. Even if it is, I'm sure there's a legitimate medical explanation for why that is so.

What I don't see is any statement to the effect that putting a prayer card under your bed will cure diseases. At worst, I see a statement to the effect that in this case the Vatican thinks maybe this time it played a role, and I'm not sure that "Vatican thinks miraculous shit happens" is a statement warranting much debate.

This is only a story because John Paul II was a long-serving, politically relevant pope that everyone has long expected to be canonized.

---

And to clarify, since I know that you think I'm a retard for having religion, I don't buy into miracles. At all. If the God I believe in interferes in corporeal matters -- and I'm not sure he does -- he does so by causing unlikely but explainable events.

Of course you still think I'm a retard with religion but the point is that whatever happened to this woman was not a case of the impossible occurring.

1/15/2011 2:20:58 AM

You're being deliberately obtuse at this point. John Paul II can only be beatified if a miracle is performed in his name. The miracle in question, according to John Allen, is that JP2's name being written on a prayer card cured this nun of cancer.

If it did not, then the miracle was not performed by John Paul II and he cannot be beatified and this story has no point.

So we have to believe, using only the slightest context, that John Allen does, in fact, believe that a miracle was performed by the late pope, clearing another hurdle for him to become St. John Paul II.




Now in fairness, this is a public interest piece and not a hard news story so how far the journalist wants to pursue the truth is at that particular journalists discretion. That being said, millions of Catholics worldwide will point to this being on CNN as justification for their faith.

1/15/2011 7:40:23 AM

Quote :

"Of course you still think I'm a retard with religion"

Ha. I do think you're stance on religion is retarded (naturally). But I do not think you are retarded in general. Far from it.

Quote :

"To me as much as an atheist hates a religious person for their blind faith - they seem to go to the other extreme with their closed mindedness."

How open-minded are you about the Tooth Fairy, Thor, or the Keebler Elves? In other words, how much of your intellectual integrity are you willing to sacrifice so that you can go on smugly touting your inability to reach a tentative conclusion?

1/15/2011 9:28:42 AM

to be fair, you can pretty much prove that the Tooth Fairy and Keebler Elves don't exist.

1/15/2011 9:35:34 AM

oh really? care to explain how these cookies got here??

1/15/2011 10:03:59 AM

Quote :

"to be fair, you can pretty much prove that the Tooth Fairy and Keebler Elves don't exist."

And we can "pretty much prove" that the god of the Western monotheisms was invented by ancient desert preachers.

1/15/2011 10:32:38 AM

only, not really

1/15/2011 6:43:44 PM

Quote :

"How open-minded are you about the Tooth Fairy, Thor, or the Keebler Elves?"

Nobody gets angry or worked up at the idea that somebody may believe in those things. That's the difference.

Some religious people may hate atheists, atheists may hate religious people, but nobody hates kids who believe in the tooth fairy, and if anybody did, we'd think they were dicks, too. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to believe something yourself, it means you can't work yourself into a tizzy because somebody else does.

1/15/2011 9:27:50 PM

No body could hate the tooth fairy. But I'm darned tired of santa stealing Jesus' already misappropriated pagan birthday. Remember you can't spell satan without santa.

/tizzy

1/15/2011 9:56:35 PM

Quote :

"Some religious people may hate atheists, atheists may hate religious people, but nobody hates kids who believe in the tooth fairy, and if anybody did, we'd think they were dicks, too. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to believe something yourself, it means you can't work yourself into a tizzy because somebody else does."

How open minded would you feel when the Keebler elf (henceforth refered to as elfers) faction had massive political clout and was awarded tax protection for their Elfer propagation centers. Still feeling so high and mighty and open minded? What about when Elfers are trying to demand that all children be taught about the great cookie factory as the origin of life in public schools? Just be open minded mainlining ignorance into children's brains is fine. Arguing against birth control when human population is the single greatest problem facing the world at large? All elf cookies are sacred after all.

1/16/2011 9:28:56 AM

Quote :

"Nobody gets angry or worked up at the idea that somebody may believe in those things. That's the difference. Some religious people may hate atheists, atheists may hate religious people, but nobody hates kids who believe in the tooth fairy, and if anybody did, we'd think they were dicks, too. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to believe something yourself, it means you can't work yourself into a tizzy because somebody else does."

I don't hate religious people or kids who believe in the tooth fairy. But if an economist were to show up on CNN and (seriously) suggest that the best way to jump start our economy would be for everyone to pull out their teeth and stick them under their pillows, and this suggestion received no push back whatsoever from the interviewer, this would cause our eyebrows to raise a bit, no?

In other words, as adder says, if the implications of tooth fairy belief were even remotely on par with, for example, Catholic belief, and if tooth fairy believers were permitted to promote their half-baked theories on dentistry and economics with impunity, then yes, I would have more to say about it.



[Edited on January 16, 2011 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ]

1/16/2011 11:42:00 AM

Where in the Bible does it say that only those who die can become saints?

And I feel sorry for the nun. She prayed to a man to heal her, and stuck a note under her pillow, and was healed. Who is she going to credit?

If the Church is making a claim that John Paul II interceded on her behalf to the throne of God for her to be healed, then there is a case there. But I thought a person had to be alive to perform the miracle claimed?

1/16/2011 11:44:48 AM

I think this happened when he was alive.

1/16/2011 11:48:05 AM

Quoting the OP.

Quote :

" The report is that shortly after the pope's death in April 2005, the religious order to which this nun belongs began praying to John Paul II. Apparently she wrote the late pope's name on a prayer card and tucked it under her mattress one night. Woke up the next morning completely cured from the Parkinson's and went back to her normal work as a maternity nurse."

1/16/2011 11:52:25 AM

Ah. I guess I (the OP) did not register that as a significant point. I still don't, actually. But right you are.

1/16/2011 11:56:08 AM

Quote :

" A Venerable has as of yet no feast day, no churches may be built in his or her honor, and the church has made no statement on the person's probable or certain presence in heaven, but prayer cards and other materials may be printed to encourage the faithful to pray for a miracle wrought by his or her intercession as a sign of God's will that the person be canonized."

From wiki.

1/16/2011 12:05:09 PM

Fascinating.

1/16/2011 12:46:21 PM

The job actual journalists should be to verify using well-supported arguments that one or more of the sides in a story are right or wrong.

The "present every side equally and let the viewer decide" nonsense is disingenuous bullshit. By simply presenting each side, you are giving them equal credibility. If both sides are not credible, then you are being biased in favor of the side with less credibility.

What you actually do is report what both sides say then evaluate whether they are full of shit.

1/16/2011 1:03:38 PM

Quote :

"I don't hate religious people or kids who believe in the tooth fairy. But if an economist were to show up on CNN and (seriously) suggest that the best way to jump start our economy would be for everyone to pull out their teeth and stick them under their pillows, and this suggestion received no push back whatsoever from the interviewer, this would cause our eyebrows to raise a bit, no?"

This is a pretty good point, but what if putting the card with the pope's name under one's bed didn't preclude seeking medical treatment? So long as religious ritual isn't pushed as a replacement for medical attention, I don't see how it really hurts. In fact it might be able to improve the person's hopefulness via some weird placebo effect (which requires a false belief) which could improve results overall.

I'm a fairly staunch atheist, and I'm not exactly a religious apologist, but it seems to me that mystical rituals are able to pry the mind in unique ways (even though they're predicated on, strictly speaking, false beliefs). So long as the ritual isn't precluding effective treatment (but is attendant to it), it may be that the ritual is addressing a basic psychological need (at least for some people). It may be able to be done even without the religious aspect (as is seen with placebo treatments in medical trials).

1/16/2011 1:47:45 PM

Quote :

"This is a pretty good point, but what if putting the card with the pope's name under one's bed didn't preclude seeking medical treatment? So long as religious ritual isn't pushed as a replacement for medical attention, I don't see how it really hurts. In fact it might be able to improve the person's hopefulness via some weird placebo effect (which requires a false belief) which could improve results overall."

I have no problem with them not getting medical attention for their own ailments. Let em die it is their gods will (or whatever the hell they want to believe). What I do have a problem with is their beliefs altering my ability to get medical treatment or my hypothetical children to receive a scientific education which I pay for with my taxes. That is a whole new can of worms though.

Quote :

" The "present every side equally and let the viewer decide" nonsense is disingenuous bullshit. By simply presenting each side, you are giving them equal credibility. If both sides are not credible, then you are being biased in favor of the side with less credibility. "

Precisely.
But any question you ask could be viewed as "religiously insensitive".

1/16/2011 2:21:12 PM

i don't think that the interviewer was under any obligation to "call out" the reporter. for one, the reporter wasn't offering any kind of opinion just reporting what the story was about. he even said "apparently." how sensitive do you all need to be? can the press not even report on church actions now?

1/16/2011 2:40:19 PM

Quote :

"What about when Elfers are trying to demand that all children be taught about the great cookie factory as the origin of life in public schools? Just be open minded mainlining ignorance into children's brains is fine. Arguing against birth control when human population is the single greatest problem facing the world at large?"

I'm not especially tolerant of these people, either. What you believe is one thing, how you express that belief in interacting with other people is another one entirely.

---

As to the rest, McDanger laid out my argument as well as I could have:

Quote :

"So long as religious ritual isn't pushed as a replacement for medical attention, I don't see how it really hurts. In fact it might be able to improve the person's hopefulness via some weird placebo effect (which requires a false belief) which could improve results overall. "

That's it in a nutshell.

And -- I can't stress this enough -- anyone who thinks this story is about medicine or even miracles is missing the point by a mile. This is a story about John Paul II getting made into a saint.

1/16/2011 2:46:43 PM

Quote :

"This is a pretty good point, but what if putting the card with the pope's name under one's bed didn't preclude seeking medical treatment?"

The Vatican, in approving this miracle, is legitimizing the idea that Parkinson's disease can be miraculously cured by way of pope worship. Fine. That's their prerogative. It will almost certainly lead some devout Catholics, particularly in third world countries, where seeking out legitimate medical treatment can be something of a burden, to simply forgo it in favor the old write-the-pope's-name-on-an-index-card technique. Fine. Tough shit for them, I guess.

But that is a separate issue from whether journalists should provide a platform for such asinine and potentially dangerous quackery to be peddled. I say they shouldn't - and I don't think that's asking too much.

1/16/2011 7:07:48 PM

can we get back to your original point for a second? do you really think the CNN anchor should have questioned or commented on the comment from the reporter? the reporter was simply reporting on the situation and why john paul II was being considered for sainthood. The only reason the cnn anchor should have questioned the reporter would be if he had the reason in correct or because of some factual error. you are reading some kind of endorsement into the comment that isn't there. the reporter was reporting on a story and gave the background for why he is being considered. if you really think the anchor should have stuck at that or asked a follow up question about it you are crazy.

1/16/2011 7:28:19 PM

I didn't descend from the heavens and die for your sins so that you could get on the internet and complain like a bunch of faggots.

1/16/2011 7:57:01 PM

in the following story:
340-year-old Bible found in Bonduel church
http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/340-year-old-Bible-found-in-Bonduel-church-113119059.html

do they need follow up questions pointing out that the bible is a work of fiction? are you at least not sensitive enough to allow reporting on this story?

1/16/2011 8:58:37 PM

Quote :

"The German Bible was printed in Nuremberg in 1670. The Bible is hand-pressed and rare. It's made of pigskin over boards with brass corners and clasps, and weighs about 20 pounds."

Wow.

1/16/2011 9:01:26 PM

I wonder what they made Korans out of back in the day

1/16/2011 9:06:57 PM

parchment is generally made out of calfskin, sheepskin, or goatskin

1/16/2011 9:16:23 PM

Quote :

"The only reason the cnn anchor should have questioned the reporter would be if he had the reason in correct or because of some factual error. you are reading some kind of endorsement into the comment that isn't there."

Many rational people would consider the acceptance of miracles to be a HUGE factual error. By not questioning something so absurd they are endorsing it. Lets put it in a context that you will consider ridiculous so you can stop for a minute and understand how ridiculous this sounds to atheists:


John Allen, National Elfer Reporter: "Well, the miracle in this case involves the healing of a 49-year-old French eee (the elfer equivalent of a nun) from an aggressive form of Parkinson's disease. And, of course, there's a nice poetic arc to that because the Grand Elf Ish also suffered from Parkinson's. The report is that shortly after the ish's death in April 2005, the religious order to which this eee belongs began praying to Ish. Apparently she wrote Ish's name on a cookie and ate it. Woke up the next morning completely cured from the Parkinson's and went back to her normal work as a maternity nurse. The Elfer standards for a healing to be considered miraculous are that it has to be instantaneous, it has to be complete, it has to be permanent. There's a bank of Elfers, then a bank of Elfers, then two groups of elfer religious leaders, and then finally the Grand Elf himself will have to sign off, and in this case they've obviously all agreed that this was the real deal."

Nope no problems here. No need for follow up questions...

[Edited on January 16, 2011 at 9:27 PM. Reason : Fffst]

1/16/2011 9:23:35 PM

ok, let me try to explain this. The CNN anchor was questioning a reporter, not a church official. The story was Pope John Paul II's possible sainthood. The reporter was giving a background about the story, explaining the reason this is a story. The reporter is simply explaining the supposed (The CNN anchor even says "supposed") miracle-- and even uses the word "apparently"-- that is the cause for all of this discussion.

There is no need to have any follow up questions. What do you want, something like this:

CNN Anchor: So tell us about the supposed miracle.
Reporter: Well the miracle in this case is this stuff blah blah blah
CNN Anchor: But you know that miracles are not real, right?
Reporter: Um... errr... what?
CNN Anchor: Just clarifying that her being healed is not a matter of fact
Reporter: Well um... are you being serious? For the church they apparently think its real. I am simply reporting on what they say happened which is being used as a case for his sainthood. I'm not interjecting any opinions or offering commentary, just reporting on the story. You know... since I am a reporter.
CNN Anchor: Well color me retarded, I guess your right.

If there was a story in the news about someone being healed by placing a prayer card under their bed, then some follow up questions are probably warranted. A story about pope john paul II's possible sainthood were a reporter gives a background--- no questions needed. You all are waaay too sensitive.

Quote :

" Many rational people would consider the acceptance of miracles to be a HUGE factual error."

except the story isn't about that

[Edited on January 16, 2011 at 11:28 PM. Reason : christ, this is common sense. you all are some stupid motherfuckers. ]

1/16/2011 11:22:59 PM

Any and all opportunities to condemn the retarded retards who believe in religion should be exercised. Fuck tolerance, when a chance to scorn the religious presents itself, you must be a douche bag!


THE WORLD WILL BE BETTER WHEN RELIGION IS ERADICATED. I AM ATHEIST. HEAR ME ROARRRRR!!!

1/16/2011 11:42:13 PM

^That's nothing. This is a true religion hater.

1/17/2011 12:43:43 AM

This story does not need to be accompanied by a debunking of religious myth. Only overly-sensitive atheists would believe this excerpt is an endorsement of religion.

1/17/2011 1:20:18 AM

Quote :

"But that is a separate issue from whether journalists should provide a platform for such asinine and potentially dangerous quackery to be peddled."

I've been seeing news reports now about the Arizona shooter's crazy video in which he calls his community college a "genocide school," and I've yet to hear one reporter argue that maybe his school didn't commit genocide.

Quote :

"By not questioning something so absurd they are endorsing it."

How do you figure? I don't question that there are people in this country who don't like blacks, Jews, or immigrants.

1/17/2011 1:53:47 AM

Quote :

"ok, let me try to explain this. The CNN anchor was questioning a reporter, not a church official."

In fact the "reporter" was: John Allen, National Catholic Reporter who I am pretty sure would have relevant information about the "miracle"
Here is a relevant line of questioning.
CNN: John, I am sure you are aware of some of the details surrounding this miracle. For the skeptics in our audience could you tell us more about the review of this miracle.
John: As a National Catholic reporter I am very familiar with the events surrounding this miracle it is after all one of the most important things to happen in decades.
CNN: Who diagnosed the nun with Parkinsons? Where the people who diagnosed and pronounced her healed affiliated with the church? You understand, of course, that to claim something as incredible as a miracle the burden of proof must be satisfied.

Quote :

" If there was a story in the news about someone being healed by placing a prayer card under their bed, then some follow up questions are probably warranted. A story about pope john paul II's possible sainthood were a reporter gives a background--- no questions needed"

When the background is so obviously full of crap yes more questions are needed or you are endorsing this bullshit.

Superhero reporter Frank:
"Bladdy Blah was able to fly for five minutes using only the power of his mind because of this he is being granted super hero status. Super hero status is only awarded to people who have shown super hero powers that have been verified by the "we want superheroes board". The claims of being able to fly have been examined by the "we want super heros scientists" and consequently by the board. Obviously Bladdy Blah is going to be a superhero"

The story here is about Bladdy Blah being granted superhero status not about his supposed flying no follow up questions necessary. Right?

Quote :

" I've been seeing news reports now about the Arizona shooter's crazy video in which he calls his community college a "genocide school," and I've yet to hear one reporter argue that maybe his school didn't commit genocide."

Wow what an obviously disingenuous argument. No rational person was going to accept the crazy shooter video as being factual documentary. The source has been thoroughly discredited already there is no reason to investigate it's obviously baseless claims.
If 25% of our population thought crazy shooter dude was providing good information in his videos you could expect some refutation of obviously baseless claims presented. It is interesting that you would analogize Catholic claims to crazy shooter dude.

1/17/2011 9:14:06 AM

Quote :

"do you really think the CNN anchor should have questioned or commented on the comment from the reporter?"

Yes, because the reporter opened the door in the first place. He asked about the supposed miracle. A responsible reporter doesn't ask about a subject, receive a crazy answer, and then just move along like nothing crazy was said. He could have at least asked a few questions about the verification process - it's not like that would have been uncalled for, given what Mr. Allen had just said.

But I'm not getting all worked up over one CNN interview. The point I was going for is that our society routinely gives religious people a pass to say absurd things without pushing back even a little bit. Had a story like that been presented in a non-religious context, then there would have been more skepticism from the reporter. But it was about the Catholics, so there wasn't. If you're religious, you can say pretty much anything and get away with it. I think that's unfortunate.

Quote :

"I've been seeing news reports now about the Arizona shooter's crazy video in which he calls his community college a "genocide school," and I've yet to hear one reporter argue that maybe his school didn't commit genocide."

I'm not familiar with the reports you're citing, but I'm confident that Loughner was not being portrayed as anything but a deranged gunman. Needless to say, there was no such context given in the CNN report. The show did not start: "And now the National Catholic Reporter's mentally disturbed John Allen will tell us about the Vatican's latest loony story about miracles."

1/17/2011 10:16:02 AM