religion makes you fat; okay, only SOME do

This is bound to be popular with chubby fundamentalists. You know where the Comments button is, people!

Weighty matter: Is religion making us fat?

August 25, 2006

BY CATHLEEN FALSANI SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
 

Back in the decadent early 1980s, New Wave rocker Adam Ant mocked clean living in his maddeningly catchy song, “Goody Two Shoes.”

“Don’t drink, don’t smoke, what do ya do?” Ant taunted.

A new Purdue University study may hold the answer to Ant’s question.

If they don’t drink and don’t smoke, what do they do?

Eat, apparently.

“America is becoming known as a nation of gluttony and obesity, and churches are a feeding ground for this problem,” says Ken Ferraro, a Purdue sociology professor who studied more than 2,500 adults over a span of eight years looking at the correlation between their religious behavior and their body mass index.

“If religious leaders and organizations neglect this issue, they will contribute to an epidemic that will cost the health-care system millions of dollars and reduce the quality of life for many parishioners,” he says.

Casserole as sacrament

Ferraro’s most recent study, published in the June issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, is a follow-up to a study he published in 1998, where he found there were more obese people in states with larger populations of folks claiming a religious affiliation than elsewhere — particularly in states with the most Baptists.

So it’s not surprising that Ferraro’s latest study found that about 27 percent of Baptists, including Southern Baptists, North American Baptists, and Fundamentalist Baptist, were obese.

Surely there are several contributing factors to such a phenomenon, but when Ferraro accounted for geography (southern cooking is generally more high-caloric), race and even whether overweight folks were attracted to churches for moral support, the statistics still seem to indicate that some churches dispense love handles as well as the love of the Lord.

Having attended a Southern Baptist church for most of my formative years, I was hardly shocked by Ferraro’s discoveries. From the coffee (and doughnuts) hour after Sunday-morning worship, to the huge potluck dinners and the Sunday-night ice-cream socials, there was always food around, and it was rarely the lo-cal variety. Ambrosia salad. Seventeen different kinds of chicken/broccoli/cheese casserole. Banana-and-Nilla-wafer-pudding. Fried chicken. Barbecue chicken. Sweet tea.

Those were the elements of our social sacraments at the Baptist church.

In religious traditions where drinking alcohol, smoking anything and even dancing are vices regularly preached against from the pulpit, overeating has become the “accepted vice,” Ferraro says.

Or, as Homer Simpson so eloquently put it on his way to a First Church of Springfield picnic: “If God didn’t want us to eat in church, he’d have made gluttony a sin.”

‘Overgrazing of the flock’

Food often is substituted for alcohol at Baptist and other conservative Protestant gatherings, Ferraro says. I once attended a wedding at a conservative Bible church where, instead of an open bar or champagne fountain, the bride and groom toasted their new beginning with a massive ice-cream sundae buffet.

I kid you not.

“Baptists may find food one of the few available sources of earthly pleasures,” Ferraro says.

Exhibit A: The Rev. Jerry Falwell, Baptist king of the Christian right. Falwell has been accused (rightly) of being many things.

Chubby, for instance.

He may not drink or smoke, or think lusty liberal thoughts, but it looks like the good reverend has never met a plate of cheese grits he didn’t love. And it may have cost him. Falwell, 73, was hospitalized last year for acute congestive heart failure. His hefty weight, doctors said at the time, wasn’t helping matters.

“Baptist and fundamentalist Protestant leaders may want to consider interventions for the ‘overgrazing of the flock,’ ” Ferraro says.

No Protestant dietary rules

While some megachurches have fitness facilities and long have offered exercise classes as well as Bible studies, in most congregations you’re still more likely to find a bake sale than a spinning class on any given Sunday.

Ferraro’s study also found that about 20 percent of “Fundamentalist Protestants,” (Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God and Church of God); about 18 percent of “Pietistic Protestants,” (Methodist, Christian Church and African Methodist Episcopal), and about 17 percent of Catholics were obese.

By contrast, about 1 percent of the Jewish population and less than 1 percent of other non-Christians, including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others), were tipping the scales with commensurate gusto.

“In my mind, one of the distinctive things about Christianity, particularly American Protestant Christianity, is we don’t have any [dietary] behavior codes,” said Daniel Sack of Chicago, a historian and author of the 2000 book, Whitebread Protestants: Food and Religion in American Culture.

“Islam does, Judaism does, Catholicism does, but basically there’s nothing scriptural and in most [Protestant] traditions as long as you don’t drink, you’re fine. Particularly in that Baptist cohort, that’s the only real rule.”

This is true. Even on the Sundays when we celebrated the “Lord’s Supper,” i.e., communion, we had thimble-sized cups of Welch’s grape juice to go with our chunks of home-baked white bread. No Jesus juice allowed.

Often gathering around food

“Food plays an important social role in the life of a religious community, particularly in the Protestant tradition,” said Sack, an ordained United Church of Christ minister. “In Judaism and Catholicism, [religious celebrations] are largely family-oriented and so they’re home based. Typically Protestant food practices tend to be much more congregational.”

And that might have a lot to do with how most Protestant congregations are formed. Increasingly they’re not geographic. People will drive for miles to attend the church they like. Theologically speaking, this kind of community is called a “gathering congregation.”

“A gathering congregation has to gather around something, and it’s often around food,” Sack says.

Perhaps, as Ferraro suggests, more churches might want to consider turning the fellowship hall into a gym, putting down the Krispy Kremes, and gathering instead around a plate of crudite before taking a brisk walk with the pastor after church.

Because, ya know, blessed are the weight watchers.

TWAT: what the terrorists want, and how not to give it to them

Never Forget 

This is from Bruce Schneier, a man after my own shrivelled heart. Looking around the globe at the hysterical overreactions on the part of individuals, corporate staff, and governments, he concludes that the terrorists are not the losers in TWAT: we are.

I’d like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we’re doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Go on and read the rest before you board so much as a skateboard.

NYT article censored by NYT: Details Emerge in British Terror Case

Boingboing reports on the self-censorship that the NYT has engaged in and why:

NYT ad tech blocks UK web visitors from terror plot article
The NYT website is using geo-targeting ad technology to block UK visitors from accessing a news article about the investigation surrounding the alleged UK airline terror plot. The technological self-censorship is an attempt to comply with UK law. The Times’ Tom Zeller explains how the block works and why it’s in place here.
Snip from MSNBC article:

“We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law,” Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said Tuesday. “It’s a country that doesn’t have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country’s law.”Visitors who click on a link to the article, published Monday, instead got a notice explaining that British law “prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.” The blocked article reveals evidence authorities have in the alleged plot to use liquid explosives to down U.S. airliners over the Atlantic.

Link to MSNBC coverage, here’s an item on Foreign Policy blog, Link to Guardian UK coverage. Here’s what web visitors identified as UK-based will see:

On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.”

And, of course, a visitor to the raincoaster blog will see instead the article itself, after the jump. Continue reading

welcome to the blogroll: eteraz

I haven’t done one of these in quite awhile. I know, bad raincoaster, BAD girl. But better high time than never, so here goes.

Today we added to the blogroll eteraz, one of the few comments-enabled sites in the world which I read and yet, inconceivably, do not comment.

Except that time I told that one guy I’d poison and beat him, but “not to excess.”

The bitch had it coming.

Anyway, eteraz‘s blog is dedicated to philosophical analysis of current events from an Islamic, humanist perspective. You can read about the man himself here, where you can also learn that People Magazine isn’t the only place girls pick out heartthrobs.

Like we didn’t know that already.

In any case, here’s a sample of the eteraz blog. It’s “email from anonymous female soldier,” and it’s currently about #3 out of all WordPress posts, and although I do not know when it was dated, nor to whom it was originally sent, and thus cannot verify its authenticity, it has the whiff of truth about it and it has the reputation of someone I respect behind it, and so I am posting it here.

Even though I actually disagree with its conclusion.

If the American presence in Iraq increased the death toll so drastically, is it really that hard to imagine that an American absence will result in an overall lower death toll? I’ll refer you back to Ryszard Kapuscinski‘s views on when people revolt and when they are passive, and also to the situation in Afghanistan. It may well be that, invasion having destabilized these countries, the best way through instability to peace and a new, better order, is for the invaders to withdraw and allow the chaotic process to focus on the country itself, rather than on the foreigners. Even if that upsets Dick Cheney.

And no, not just because it upsets Dick Cheney.

She served in Iraq:

If you watched the President’s comments on Monday, you’ll note he blamed the Iraqis for not fighting hard enough for….somethgn they didn’t lose in the first place. Unmentioned was just how many Iraqis have been killed by that something in July: 1,700, according to the Baghdad morgue, compared to a total of 2,600 US soldiers killed. In the first seven months of this year, ten thousand Iraqis have died in the sectarian violence that Bush refuses to call a civil war.

For perspective, consider this: New York, LA, and Baltimore have homicide rates per year of several hundred—I’m not up to date on that, but the last I checked, these cities were horrified when homicides jumped above five hundred a year. At about seven hundred, that would be two murders a day. Compare that with the rate of rapes committed in this country, which occur about every ten minutes or so—-and I know that’s an extremely conservative estimate. Two murders a day is considered a devastating crime wave that shocks the senses. Now imagine fifty plus deaths per day. There is not one family in that country not touched by death or disappearance. While Western reporters get news coverage when they get kidnapped, ordinary Iraqis do not. Fifty deaths a day, and for the past six months.

Now from figures, let’s go to the stuff that Bush and Co really hate: the emotional bullshit that he’s so adept at slinging. The Iraqis have nowhere to go, unlike the soldiers who can escape and go home. The Iraqis are home. Where do they go for relief from combat? Where are their vests, helmets, and guns? How do they live life under those circumstances? People talk about a draft, but what Bush did on Monday was essentially draft the Iraqi population into a war that was forced upon them due to one man’s hubris. Nor did Bush stick to young men and women of military age; the war he has begun and lost control of there makes every Iraqi, young, old, ill, or frail, into a soldier in a war where they have no weapons—and no value. Who treats their PTSD? Who offers them relief from combat stress? Who should?

It’s for this reason that I say that we cannot withdraw from Iraq, not until we have cleaned up the mess we made. The Iraqis right now are not even as safe as our own soldiers: we owe them at least that.

face of Jesus/Che found on sushi

Face of ... somebodyorother on a shrimpWell, the guy who sent the pictures in claims it’s Jesus, but Jesus’ General, who knows Jesus and Commies when he sees ’em, says it’s actually a shrimp with a picture of Che Guevera, and no doubt a dastardly plot to pull us away from Jesus and towards the ungodly worship of socialist shellfish.

Judge for thyself. 

SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California man believes he has seen the face of Jesus Christ on a shrimp tail…

The man wrote that he wanted to share with viewers a smile and a sense of hope…

The writer said he believed it was a sign, as he’s currently going through a nasty divorce.

It’s a sign, sweetie, that you need to get out more. And when that advice is coming from me, it’s really serious.

Che, hey hey!