Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:44:55 -0500

From: "jvisker@siu.edu" <jvisker@SIU.EDU>

Subject: Re: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Hello (again) HEDIRites!

I would like to address both Mary’s inquiry of how culture plays

a role in religion & health and James’ comments and

interpretation of scripture as it relates to health/culture.

I think Mary’s idea of adding culture into the discussion is

interesting. With it being 1:00 am, I am going to try to put

together a coherent thought out of a series of ideas, but let me

know if I need further to explain my point. Simply put, I think

religion has defined many cultures in countless ways in terms of

beliefs, traditions, clothing, behavior, and health practices.

I can give you the example of the tiny (but wonderful) community

of Carterville, Illinois which one could argue has it’s own

"culture" (and happens to be the place where I currently reside).

Carterville is a dry city (no alcohol sales are allowed anywhere

within the city limits). Although to my knowledge, the decision

whether or not to make Carterville a dry city was put to a vote,

with all community members being able to speak out, I can say

without hesitation that religious institutions/individuals had an

influence on this decision; not judging whether this was good or

bad. Thus, showing a possible example of how religion can

influence a culture.

How does this relate back to health? I think many health

educators agree that we try to promote responsible drinking over

complete prohibition and one could simply argue this point with

the stakeholders in Carterville. But maybe the citizens of

Carterville are happy with their decision and that’s what they

want? The question I toss back to the group is, are we sometimes

playing "Big Brother/Sister" by having a "we know what’s best for

you" mentality? Even if we are "right" what ethical boundaries do

we cross when what we desire for a given population conflicts

with that populations’ culture or religious beliefs?

As for James’ response to my post, once again James, you lay out

some interesting points on Biblical scripture and I appreciate

your comments. Although I disagree with many of the points that

you have laid out and as much as I would like to further discuss

your interpretations of scripture (such as how exactly Genesis

27:11 ["Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, but my brother Esau is

a hairy man, and I am a man with smooth skin"] equates to Hebrews

being described as animalistic or your misquoting me in saying

that God "apologized" when I was talking about Noah), I fear we

are getting a hair off topic and turning the HEDIR into a

Biblical discussion/debate/structured controversy/whatever you

want to call it, which obviously is not the point of the HEDIR. I

would be more than happy to continue this discussion and share my

own understanding with you (or anyone else for that matter who

would like further interpretation) outside of the HEDIR. Just

shoot me an email! (jvisker@siu.edu)

Good night (or should I say good morning) everyone!!

JDV

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

** Advertise with HPCareer.net

**

------------------------------

#124

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:44:47 -0500

From: Lisa Lieberman <llhealth@OPTONLINE.NET>

Subject: Re: VP- 11 Jan 2008 to 12 Jan 2008 (#2008-13)

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Ouch. Does "reaching your full potential" mean attaining the freedom to

insult and offend an entire group of people? Not sure that would be my

definition. Good luck in your new career. Lisa

Where a passion for research promotes health

Lisa Lieberman, Ph.D., CHES

Healthy Concepts Research, Inc.

29 Ardsley Drive

New City, NY 10956

845 638-1619

LLHealth@optonline.net

----------------------------------------------------------

#125

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:04:15 -0600

From: James Teufel <teufel@SIU.EDU>

Subject: Re: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Joe, controversial topics such as the Bible and health are pertinent to the

HEDIR. If you have also read recent posts on the HEDIR regarding

censorship, though you claim not to have time, you would find that your

implied censorship is more unacceptable on the HEDIR than discussing

controversial topics. I cannot think of a meaningful area of health that is

not controversial. Simply because the discussion of religion and health may

be uncomfortable for some, the neglect of the harmful effects of the

scripture or religion and solely focusing on the positive is ridiculous.

The struggle that atheists, agnostics, humanists, and people other than

Christians in the United States are greater than the Christian. People like

Koenig report that not only faith, but the Christian faith specifically, is

good for health. What message does that send to the "other?" I vehemently

oppose unreasoned discrimination of the majority on minorities. The idea

that reasoned discussion of the overall benefits of religion also neglects

simple aspects of principled research such as beneficence (see The Belmont

Report, which was in part inspired by atrocities such as the Holocaust).

Joe, I would also suggest that you read versions of the Bible that more

accurately represent the Bible as written in the original Greek version.

Many biblical scholars agree that the Bible has been sanitized across time

to try to prevent additional atrocities. Biblical scholars perceive the

Bible's association with atrocities. Why is it so difficult for health

educators to accept this point? I would also suggest reading the works of

people like Hector Avalos, who has masters and doctoral degrees in divinity

and biblical studies from Harvard. I would also encourage you to counter my

arguments in their totality. Regarding Noah, you originally wrote: "

Further, if one is going to use the flood as a basis for justifying

genocide, why then did God make the covenant that he would never again

destroy all life in that manner?". This contradicts your accusation that I

misinterpreted your argument.

Not only has the Bible (as well as other texts such as the Koran) been

associated with mass atrocities. Religion preaches faith not reason. If a

women came to a health educator and said she was pregnant with God's child

but was still a virgin, the health educator would likely want to "counsel"

her or refer her to psychological services. Other fallacies of logic, which

should be unacceptable to reasoned health education, include the story of

Noah. God wanted to kill everything accept pairs of things (animals and

human, who are animals). However, at the time of the Bible, the Americas

were not yet discovered. How is this explained? Furthermore, it would have

been a physiological impossibility for Noah to solely captain and navigate

an ark at that time, due to technological constraints of the time.

Additionally, genetics does not support the Noah story. The Bible predates

germ theory. What would health educators do without germ theory? I suppose

one solution would be mass quarantine (as advocated by Huckabee regarding

HIV).

To believe that religion has nothing to do with health (in both a negative

way as well as positive way) or health education is an apologetic stance

that is ridiculous in light of reason. As I stated in previous emails, the

Bible is a projective test. However, why are there so many contradictions?

For example, why are passages included that indicated that Jesus and God

were hateful while others state loving? To choose one over the other is

nothing more than a projective test. In contradiction and Popperian

science, we should reject both claims. Apologists, however, always claim

that contradictions are always out of context, but, of course, claim that

once in context the positive is always favored over the negative.

James

------------------------------

#126

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:50:52 -0500

From: "Michaela Conley, MA" <michaela@HPCAREER.NET>

Subject: Paid Ad: "Reminder" TAMU, deadline: 2/15/08

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

*Texas A&M University*

Division of Health

Department of Health and Kinesiology

Associate/Full Professor & Division Chair

Nominations and applications are invited for a tenured Associate/Full

Professor & Division Chair position in the Department of Health &

Kinesiology, Division of Health Education (College of Education & Human

Development). The Division's outstanding undergraduate and graduate

programs offer B.S., M.S. M.Ed., Ed.D. and Ph.D. degrees in Health

Education. Successful candidates must possess dynamic leadership &

scholarship skills, have experience in leading a progressive and

research-oriented faculty, demonstrate knowledge of and support for

distance education, and have a commitment to academic excellence in

Health Education. Responsibilities include supporting faculty

scholarship, managing the Health Division, working with the Department

Head on budget and personnel matters, teaching graduate and/or

undergraduate classes, fostering academic excellence for faculty and

students, and encouraging university-wide, national and international

collaboration and research. The successful candidate may qualify to be

the recipient of the Endowed Ponder Chair. /Texas A&M University is an

Affirmative Action/Equal Employer. Women and minority individuals, as

well as persons with disabilities are actively encouraged to apply./

/Qualifications:/

*

Earned doctorate in health education/health promotion, or related

field

*

Record of scholarship appropriate to the discipline

*

Ability to acquire extramural funding

*

Credentials consistent with appointment as a tenured, Associate or

Full Professor in a research intensive university

*

Experience in working with distance education

*

Experience in administrative responsibilities

/Appointment:/ This position is anticipated to begin August/September 2008.

/Salary: /Salary and benefits are competitive and commensurate with

qualifications.

/Application: /A letter of application, current and comprehensive vitae,

phone numbers and e-mail addresses of three references should be mailed to:

Dr. Danny J. Ballard

Chair, Health Division Search Committee

TAMU 4243

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-4243

Phone: 979-845-7649

Email: danny-b@hlkn.tamu.edu

/Closing Date: /Review of candidates will begin February 15, 2008 and

will continue until the position is filled.

Texas A&M University is a land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant

institution located in College Station, Texas. The university is

centrally located, approximately equidistant from three of the 10

largest cities in the United States (Houston, Dallas, & San Antonio).

The University is an AAU Affiliated and Research One institution with an

enrollment of approximately 46,000 students studying for degrees in nine

academic colleges.

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

** Advertise with HPCareer.net

**

------------------------------

#127

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:10:14 -0800

From: Mark Fulop <markfulop@YAHOO.COM>

Subject: My final thought: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

James,

jeez, you expect me to get near the magical thinking of a world razing flood or, worse yet, the even more dubious concept of an end-time rapture? I'd rather put my hand into a buzz saw. In short, I feel that I can no longer productively follow this conversation. It seems that the conversation has been polarized into what causes more harm in the world, "the presence of religion" or "the absence of it"? That question has as much charge to it as whether or not CHES matters! Without data, it is all reduced to opinion.

I will exit this conversation underscoring my point that, for me, religion can be a postive social construct that supports individual health and societal health. But I can also understand, respect and admire, those who differ with that opinion too.

===

M

Mark Fulop, MA, MPH

Portland, OR

When Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton talk about hope and a bright future, they are talking about that hope with $100 million dollars of corporate donations in each of their pockets. To me, as these candidates take huge amounts of money from lobbyists and industries like insurance, oil and gas, tobacco, and drug companies, it is, what I call, hope with strings attached.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

** Advertise with HPCareer.net

**

------------------------------

#128

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:03:14 -0800

From: Mark Fulop <markfulop@YAHOO.COM>

Subject: Virus warning

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Hi all,

I just got a personal email from someone on HEDIR that she receive a computer virus email attributed to me. The message subject is "read it immediately." If you get this email from ANYONE ( event if you recognize the name) DELETE IT and DO NOT open the attachment. Just because it says it is coming from someone does not mean that it actually is. Note, I am part of an agency with "fort knox" virus protection. My computer is disease free and my computer is not the source of a virus.

Now, the refresher course on viruses that I sent to this person:

It looks like someones computer that has my email address and your email address in their address book got nabbed by a virus. A virus, when it infects a person's computer, will attach a harmful message to all the email addresses, randomly and forward it randomly to other addresses. So, in this case, it appears that the infected computer, whomever it belongs too, attached a virus to my email address and sent it to yours.

What the virus sender wanted you to receive was not only the cryptic email "> stuff about you?" but the virus also wanted you to get an infected attachment that, if you opened it, would have infected your computer too. If your computer got infected, the virus would have grabbed your email address book and randomly attached the same virus to some of the addresses and then would then randomly send the virus to other addresses in you book. The deception of viruses is that they often appear to be coming from someone you know but in actually are not.

A quick google search will give you more info that you ever wanted to know but the rule of thumb is, "If you aren't expecting the attachement - Don't open it"

===

M

Mark Fulop, MA, MPH

Portland, OR

When Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton talk about hope and a bright future, they are talking about that hope with $100 million dollars of corporate donations in each of their pockets. To me, as these candidates take huge amounts of money from lobbyists and industries like insurance, oil and gas, tobacco, and drug companies, it is, what I call, hope with strings attached.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

** Advertise with HPCareer.net

**

------------------------------

#129

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:13:35 -0600

From: James Teufel <teufel@SIU.EDU>

Subject: My final thoughts as well: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Mark,

I believe that I have supported my arguments with evidence. I could also

produce data that does support my statements. The CHES has rarely been

discussed from data, whereas I have presented data. As one example of data,

I will post below a quick analysis that I have run. Which side of this

discussion is therefore based on opinion? Here is data. I believe that I

will also now remove myself from the discussion because I believe that

opinion of the counter position has not been supported by data or sound

argument. I also know most of the data from the other side (see the works

of Harold Koenig). My challenge still exists for the overall beneficence to

be proven by fact and not opinion. The facts of history and empiricism

(i.e., data) do not support an overall beneficence. I will be willing to

change my mind, if the opposing position does present data to support that

the benefits outweigh the costs. I have asked for support based on evidence

in many discussions on the HEDIR in the past with no reply. Health

educators have an obligation to support their conclusions and premises with

evidence. I do not deny that religion has some positive effects. However,

again my question is do the benefits outweigh the costs, which a

qualitatively different question?

I am also done with this topic until a coherent and meaningful challenge is

presented, at which time I will thoughtfully respond.

For those interested in data, see below.

James

The Handbook of Religion and Health positioned an examination of the

association, or lack thereof, between religion and health. Some contemporary

medical, psychological, and public health researchers and practitioners have

positioned religiosity and theism (e.g., prayer or church attendance) as a

protective factor with regard to health and well-being. The resulting

conclusion that religiosity improves one's health has a salient and

meaningful impact on not only people who are religious and/or theistic but

also on those who are neither religious nor theistic. By supporting that

church attendance improves health, researchers and practitioners tacitly or

declaratively exclude nonreligious and/or atheist people from the

possibility of maximal health and well-being. Additionally, perspectives on

the association between religion and health remain biased. As one example,

the author typed "is religion good for your health" (in quotations) into

Google and received 3,860 hits- one of which was text by Harold Koenig

titled Is Religion Good for Your Health: The Effects of Religion on Physical

and Mental Health?. Comparatively, the search term of "is religion bad for

your health" resulted in only five hits and no books. Additionally, when the

author conducted a review of articles available through the Ovid database on

the topic of health education and religion, the results showed similar

biases. In the field of health education, religion or theism related

articles accounted for 8.03% (1,436/17,887) of published health education

articles, whereas non-religion or atheism accounted for 0.13% of articles

(24/17,887). In other words, the number of religious/theistic articles was

about 60 times greater than non-religious/atheistic articles. The number of

religion or theism related health education articles increased from 236

between the years of 1995 and 1998 to 553 between the years of 2003 and

2006. During the same time periods, the number of non-religion or atheism

related health education articles increased from two to nine. Furthermore,

in 2002, the United States Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

reported that prayer was by far the most common form of complementary and

alternative medicine with over 55% of adults in the United States using

prayer for health reasons. Additionally, in the United States, faith has

increased its impact on policy and politics in recent years (e.g.,

abstinence until marriage sexuality programs in public schools).

I decided to run some quick analyses regarding the association between

religiosity and health. The results were expected to support one of three

groups: 1) fundamentalist religionists, 2) fundamentalist

atheists/secularists, or 3) liberal religionists who follow the social

gospel and secularists/atheists who focus on social determinants of health.

The fundamentalist religionist would position that in and of itself religion

would have a positive influence on public health, regardless of social

determinants of health. The fundamentalist atheist/secularist would position

that in and of itself religion would have a negative influence on public

health, regardless of social determinants of health. The liberal religionist

and secularist/atheist would presume that religion may be associated with

social determinants of health and public health, but social determinants of

health would attenuate the associate between religion and public health.

Four research questions guided the study.

1) Is religiosity associated with health?

2) Is religiosity associated with murder?

3) Is religiosity associated with robbery or burglary?

4) Is religiosity associated with social exclusion?

Methods and Justification

Various data sets and data sources exist to address these research

questions. For the sake of simplicity and considering the less research

orientated reader, the author chose to use statemaster.com as the data

source. Statemaster.com offers various data sets from several data sources

on dozens of topics. By using statemaster.com, the reader could quickly

access data sets in one location and examine other relationships. As with

any research, the use of statemaster.com trades rigor for simplicity, which

the author accepts as a limitation for the purpose of this article.

Seven variables were included in the analyses used to address the four

research questions; all of the variables were measured at the state level

within the United States. Religiosity was measured as the percentage of

people within each state who categorized themselves as nonreligious during

the American Religious Identification Survey. Health was defined by the

state ratings of health as part of the Morgan Quinto Press' Health Index.

Murder was defined in two ways: 1) murder was measured as the per capita

rate of homicide by state according to the United States Department of

Justice, and 2) murder was defined as the historical per capita rate of

completed capital punishments (or carried out death penalties) by each

state. The per capita rate of robbery per state, as measured by the United

States Department of Justice, defined the robbery variable, and the per

capita rate of burglary per state defined the burglary variable. Lastly,

social exclusion was defined as states that voted for the defense of

marriage act in 2004.

The following research results are based on linear correlations. The

analyses were run at the state level, not at the level of individuals within

states. There are five types of correlations. First, one variable increases

as another variable increases (e.g., as ages increase from birth to 18

years, height increases). Second, one variable decreases while another

variable decreases (as caloric intake decreases, weight decreases). Third,

one variable decreases while another variable increases (e.g., as number of

minutes of aerobic physical activity decreases, weight increases). Fourth,

one variable increases while another variable decreases (e.g., as number of

minutes of aerobic physical activity increases, weight decreases). Fifth,

there is no linear relationship between the two variables (e.g., as SAT

scores increase, the college grade point average of Harvard University

scholarship students increases). One and two are called positive

correlations; three and four are called negative correlations; and five

means there is no correlation. A variable is defined as a group of data that

has more than one level. Age in years is a variable people have various

ages. The number of suns in our solar system is constantly one and therefore

not a variable in our solar system. Due to concerns regarding small sample

size (i.e., a maximum of 50 states in any given analysis) and interest in

increasing power (the ability to find an effect when one is truly present;

also known as a hit), the type 1 error rate (the probability of finding an

effect when one is truly not present) was set to .10 instead of the more

traditional .05. As a result, false alarm would occur in one out ten

analyses instead of one out of twenty analyses. Contemporary justifications

have also supported using a more liberal type 1 error rate in social science

and public health research. Increasing the type 1 error rate decreases the

likelihood of missing an effect when an effect is truly present (type 2

error).

Results

1) At the state level, do higher levels of religiosity predict better

health?

Higher levels of religiosity do not predict better health at the state

level. In fact, the exact opposite association emerges. Higher levels of

nonreligiosity were associated with higher levels of health (n=47,

correlation=.291, p<.10). In other words, more religious states displayed

lower levels of health (correlation=-.291, p<.10). The magnitude of the

correlation was +.291 with p value of less than .10 meaning that there was a

statistically significant association between religiosity and health at the

state level. This correlation would be considered medium or large in

magnitude according to Jacob Cohen's effect size rules of thumb for

correlations.

2) At the state level, do higher levels of religiosity predict less murder?

Higher levels of religiosity do not predict lower levels of homicide at the

level of the state. Again, the opposite trend is found. Higher levels of

nonreligiosity were associated with lower levels of homicide

(correlation=-.248), and higher levels of religiosity were associated with

higher levels of homicide (correlation=.248), which is medium in magnitude.

Additionally, the association between capital punishment (total number of

carried out death penalties per capita) and percentage of religiosity was

tested. Again, states that have historically reported higher numbers of

capital punishment per capita were associated with higher levels of

religiosity (correlation=.520), and states with historically lower numbers

of capital punishment per capita displayed higher levels of nonreligiosity

(correlation=-.520). According to Jacob Cohen's rules of thumb regarding the

effect size of correlation supports that this relationship shows a large

effect.

3) At the state level, do higher levels of religiosity predict less robbery

and/or less burglary?

With regard to statistical significance, religiosity was not associated with

robbery or burglary. However, examination of the trends showed small effect

sizes of .103 and .093, respectively. The results again ran in the opposite

direction of what would be expected from the religious perspective. Higher

levels of religiosity trended towards higher levels of robbery and burglary,

and higher levels of nonreligiosity trended toward lower levels of burglary

and robbery.

4) At the state level, do higher levels of religiosity predict higher levels

of social exclusion?

Using states that voted for the defense of marriage act in 2004 as a proxy

for social exclusion, a statistically significant association was found

between religiosity and social exclusion. States that displayed higher

levels of religiosity were more likely to support social exclusion meaning

that states reporting higher religiosity were more likely to support the

defense of marriage act (correlation=.317; p<.10), which is a medium to

large effect. States reporting less religiosity were more likely to not

support social exclusion (i.e., the defense of marriage act). Additional

evidence of social exclusion of atheists can be found in the research of the

American Mosaic Project. The American Mosaic Project found that atheists are

more distrusted and less accepted than other marginalized groups such as

people categorized as homosexual, African-American, Muslim, or immigrants.

Intolerance toward atheists increased with higher levels of religiosity.

Given the faith-based perspective of some religionists and atheists in the

United States, many covariates that a grounded public health researcher

would typically include would be neglected. The analyses up to this point

simply examined religiosity's associations with public health outcomes from

a fundamentalist perspective that neglected well established impactful

variables of the natural world. Moreover, to anyone who has knowledge of

public health in the natural world, it would be obvious to include many

other variables (e.g., poverty). With the exclusion of obviously important

variables such as poverty, religiosity at the state level seems to support

the fundamentalist atheist position. The research presented in this article

should not be used as evidence of causation but could be used as evidence of

associations between religiosity and public health outcomes at the level of

the state. Furthermore, in order to avoid the ecological fallacy, data at

the state level, as presented in this article, should be interpreted at that

level and not at the level of the individual.

Public health researchers and practitioners who inform federal policy based

on state level data should continue to focus on the natural world and other

social determinants of health to avoid misleading fundamentalist positions.

Through examination of the association between per capita poverty rates and

religiosity at the state level, one finds that states with higher levels of

per capita poverty display higher levels of religiosity (correlation=.271,

p<.10). When exploring per capita child poverty and religiosity at the state

level, a similar significant trend was found (correlation=.277, p<.10). With

the exception of capital punishment, including state level child poverty as

a confounding variable in analyses of religiosity and health outcomes

significantly attenuates the association between religiosity and health

outcomes. For example, the unique variance in the Health Index accounted for

by child poverty is 51.7% (semipartial correlation=-.719), whereas the

unique variance accounted for by religiosity is only 0.6% (semipartial

correlation=.08). Capital punishment is, however, an exception in this

research because in the presence of one another both religiosity and child

poverty are associated with a significant proportion of the variance in

capital punishment. In this case, child poverty explains 25.8% (semipartial

correlation=.508) of the variance in capital punishment, and religiosity

explains 9.9% (correlation=.315) of the variance in capital punishment.

However with the edition of other social determinants of health variables,

this association would attenuate as well. These results support the position

of the liberal religionist and liberal atheists/secularists.

Public health researchers and practitioners should remain critically

objective in addressing the questions of religion and health. David

Seedhouse has stated a rather convincing case that health promotion

activities are inherently prejudiced, and health promoters' prejudices often

blindly lead them to decisions based more on values than objective evidence.

In the case of religion, values and faith guide thought and behavior far

more than evidence and reason for fundamentalists. As a result, health

promoters should be more not less weary of studies positioning the

fundamentalist perspective of the impact of religion. Health promoters must

remember that supporting religion as a method of health improvement is only

justified if the evidence supports positive health impacts of religion. It

is not justified to purport religions health value simply because many

people are religious and have faith that religion positively impacts health.

To correct for these prejudices, health promoters must undergo a process of

self-examination as well as an examination of the field in general.

In closing, in the United States, the message of religion improving health

is a more common and more socially compatible position in popular culture

than examining negative impacts of religion on health or social determinants

of health's attenuating the effects of religion. As a result of the often

one sided position regarding religion and health, atheists and the

non-religious suffer further social exclusion and marginalization.

Additionally, some of the research findings within this research have also

be shown to exist at the level of nations through the research of Phil

Zuckerman, which was published in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. To

paraphrase and adapt Maurice Ogden's poem The Hangman, to enable and reify

immoral acts such as implicitly or explicitly supporting harmful and

unbeneficial public health programs because it helps you for the moment,

does not necessarily save you from a broader net of social exclusion in the

future.

------------------------------

#129

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:45:43 -0500

From: Penny Bailey <penny.bailey@TRHD.DST.NC.US>

Subject: Re: My final thoughts as well: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

While I love discussion, I could give a flip about your opinion on religion

vs. health. If one is a practitioner in the field, effective change

outcomes for an individual or a group religious inclinations better be taken

into consideration. Why do you think we are in a convoluted war? "Change

agents" didn't take into account various religious/cultural views. To blow

hot air about health vs.religion doesn't address the purpose of health

education ... to impact behavior change. Unless you intend to become the

anti-religion dictator your academic discussion is just that, a discussion

and gets the profession nowhere.

------------------------------

#130

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:24:53 -0500

From: "Michaela Conley, MA" <michaela@HPCAREER.NET>

Subject: Reminder: Asst. Professor Opportunity at TAMU

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

*Texas A&M University*

*Department of Health and Kinesiology*

*Division of Health Education*

*Assistant Professor of Health Education *

The Division of Health Education at Texas A&M University seeks

applicants to join an outstanding faculty of health educators in a

program offering B.S., M.S., M.Ed., Ed.D. and Ph.D. degrees in Health

Education. The Division of Health Education is seeking a highly

qualified health educator for the position of Assistant Professor. The

Division places equal emphasis on the professional preparation of

undergraduate and graduate students, and requires both rigorous

scholarship and sponsored research agendas of its highly successful

faculty.

Successful candidates for this position must hold a doctoral degree in

Health Education or a closely related discipline and must demonstrate a

record or potential to contribute to the mission of the Division of

Health within the Department of Health and Kinesiology.

Responsibilities include teaching undergraduate and/or graduate courses,

conducting research and sharing findings through scholarly publications

and presentations, serving on departmental committees, serving on

master's and doctoral committees and seeking external funding to support

research projects Salary and benefits are competitive. This position is

anticipated to begin September, 2008.

Texas A&M University is a land-, sea-, and space-grant institution

located in College Station, Texas. The university is centrally located,

approximately equidistant from three of the 10 largest cities in the

United States (Houston, Dallas and San Antonio) and from the state

capital (Austin). The university's enrollment includes approximately

46,000 students studying for degrees in 10 academic colleges. Texas A&M

University ranks among the top 10 U.S. institutions in enrollment of

National Merit Scholars, among the Top 50 U.S. universities according to

the /U.S. News and World Report/ ranking, and among the leading

institutions in number of doctoral degrees awarded to minority students.

Texas A&M University and the College of Education & Human Development

are Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employers committed to

creating and maintaining a climate that affirms diversity of both

persons and views, including differences in race, ethnicity, national

origin, gender, age, socioeconomic background, religion, sexual

orientation, veteran status, and disability.

To apply, please provide (1) a letter of application, (2) a current,

comprehensive vitae, and (3) names, addresses and emails of three

references.

Submit materials to:

Dr. Jeff Guidry, Search Committee Chair

TAMU 4243

Texas A&M University

College Station, Texas 77843-4243

Phone: 979-845-7649

Email: j-guidry@hlkn.tamu.edu

For more information, visit Texas A&M University's website at:

Review of applications will begin on February 15, 2008 and continue

until position is filled.

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

** Advertise with HPCareer.net

**

------------------------------

#131

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:51:19 -0600

From: James Teufel <teufel@SIU.EDU>

Subject: Re: My final thoughts as well: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Penny,

You display proud and loud ignorance. "I could give a flip" about your

views on the purpose of discussion, research, and lifestyle change. You

miss the big picture, which is not uncommon for the "change agents" of

lifestyle (behavior) change. The "lifestyle" model has largely been driven

by governmental agendas (see the history of the LeLonde Report), which in

the United States neglect social change (conflict of interest, I suppose).

You may want to do some research regarding dominance of social change over

lifestyle change. Other countries have a much different philosophy

regarding health and the role of social change, and they have better health

outcomes. My argument was about social change and critical thought, which

seemed to be missed by you. Without social change, we cannot compete with

the health of other countries. Without questioning the current system, we

cannot have social change. You can naively implement as many "lifestyle"

behavior change programs as you want; they will not enable the United States

to catch up on a global scale. Your type of unthinking position hurts the

United States. Without critical thought, one may very well fall into the

trap of the Eichmann Effect. Why do you implement tobacco, nutrition, and

physical activity programs? This is likely because research supported it,

and all of these academic discussions drove the research. Your comment

regarding me becoming an anti-religious dictator is nonsensical. Are you a

religious dictator? I assure you that my work has and will continue to

"get" the profession somewhere. In the last three years I have brought in

over $16 million in funding for research and service. In the next two

years, I will bring in another $16 million. I will continue to be a person

who critically thinks and develops innovative programs. Your lack of

insight is worrisome. I would encourage you to post some points that will

"get the profession somewhere."

James

------------------------------

#132

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:04:54 -0500

From: "Sheu,Jiunn-Jye" <jjsheu@HHP.UFL.EDU>

Subject: Re: My final thoughts as well: religion and public health

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Jjfolder3

------------------------------

#133

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:34:39 -0600

From: "Mark J. Kittleson, PhD, FAAHB" <kittle@SIU.EDU>

Subject: Status

** Call for Nominations

** HEDIR Technology Award

**

** The HEDIR RSS

**

Folks,

Things are going to be getting back to civility now.

Mark J. Kittleson, PhD, FAAHB

Southern Illinois University

Professor, Health Education

ata\Microsoft\Signatures\www.kittle.siu.edu>

ata\Microsoft\Signatures\www.hedir.org>

Director of Graduate Studies

Health Education & Recreation

618-453-1841 Office

618-453-1829 FAX

SKYPE ID: mark.j.kittleson

618-912-4445 SKYPE Phone

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

** Advertise with HPCareer.net

**

------------------------------