|
|
|
|
At the December 16th Meeting: WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD Presented by Gene Barmore
"WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD" by Dr. David Korten. He came to realize that the crisis of
deepening poverty, growing inequality, environmental devastation, and social
disintegration he was observing in Asia was also being experienced in nearly
every country in the world--including the United States and other developed
countries. Furthermore he came to the conclusion that the U.S. was actively
promoting--both at home and abroad--the very policies that were deepening the
resulting global crisis. In this book Korten critically examines the
functioning of global corporations, international bankers, the Trilateral
Commission, the WTO, the IMF, NAFTA and more. He proposes remedies, both
immediate and long term. Quote of the Month: “Today's
globalization is economic in nature. People in the West refer to other parts of
the world as “emerging markets”--not as people but, rather, as targets for
economic activity, clients for debt industry, and as customers for the
death-peddling arms industry. This predatory attitude must be opposed with all
the means at our disposal. The globalization that humanists should fight for is
not that of the market--free or regulated--but of the free mind" Babu
Gogineni, executive director of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Thanks For Renewing: Clay
Costner HOMOSEXUALITY By
Charles L. Rulon A sin The Christian Right has been adamant that homosexual behavior is a grave
sin against God. They point to several biblical passages for proof. They point
to AIDS, which some still believe is God’s punishment for engaging in this
“perverted lifestyle.” A recent poll found that over fifty percent of Americans
believe that homosexuality is sinning against God. In 1986, Pope John Paul II, the spiritual head of close to one billion
Catholics, even issued an official paper on sexual ethics that called
homosexual behavior a “moral evil.” He urged Catholic Bishops to oppose all
legislative efforts to condone homosexuality. Also, when the United Methodist
Church’s General Conference met in 1988, they placed homosexuality in a class
by itself, distinct from adultery or fornication, as a uniquely outlawed sexual
activity. A crime In countries where there is no separation of Church and State, religious
morals are often enforced by criminal laws. In addition, many states—believing
that homosexuals are child molesters, that they recruit the young, that “it” is
spreading and that they are out to destroy the family—have passed laws to
protect citizens from the “gay menace.” Of all the industrially advanced countries, the United States continues
to have the most severe penalties for sodomy (anal and oral sex), particularly
among homosexuals. In 1986 by a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that
such sodomy laws were constitutional. At that time, 24 states still had laws
against sodomy with jail sentences of up to 20 years. Since then, some states
have dropped these laws. An illness Since, with scientific advances, many educated people could no longer believed that the Bible was the literally
true “word of God and since many believe that no one in his right mind would
subject himself to all of the physical and verbal abuse, much less to the
prison sentences for homosexual behavior, many Americans began to view
homosexuality more as an illness, rather than a sin. This illness concept was
first proposed back in 1887 by Krafft-Ebing, a physician, and later by Sigmund
Freud. A normal sexual variation Numerous independent studies have established that, overall, gay men and
lesbians are as law-abiding and as involved contributors to society as are
heterosexuals. In addition, when not being harassed by society, they are as
healthy, happy, productive and well adjusted psychologically and
sociologically as ate heterosexuals. In one large study, 85% of gays
interviewed did not see themselves as sick and did not wish to be cured of
anything. For them, it seemed quite natural and normal to seek out love and sex
with members of the same sex. In another study, when 1000 lesbians and over 4000 gay men were asked if
they would take a pill that would make them straight, the overwhelming majority
said they enjoyed their lives, did not wish to change and would not take the
pill. Homosexuals have been called “biological mistakes” in part because gays
can’t reproduce. But they are not sterile and many have had children in
marriages that mostly failed. Besides, many heterosexual couples are now
choosing to remain childless and the world already has far too many children
than it seems capable of taking care of adequately. Finally, human sexual expression varies over a far wider range than most
realize. Biologically speaking, it would be very abnormal if we were all erotically and romantically drawn
to just the opposite sex. As a result, many researchers have now concluded that, in light of all
the evidence gathered, it would be difficult not to agree that “homosexuality
is merely a sexual variation within a normal range of psychological and
sociological functioning”, not an illness to be treated and certainly not a
crime requiring imprisonment. Medical—psychological “cures” have failed In the not too distant past, doctors used such drastic treatments as
castration (removing the testes) and frontal lobotomies (cutting nerve fibers
in the frontal lobe of the brain) in their attempts to “cure” men who were
homosexual.12 In addition, electric shock, drugs, hypnosis and every
kind of psychotherapy imaginable have been tried with little to no success. Marriage cures - have failed Many gays have married and had children, both for “cover” and in hopes of
“out-growing” their homosexual orientation. But there rarely has been reported
any change. They just weren’t erotically attracted to their spouses; their
sexual fantasies remained homosexual ones. Such marriages have usually been
doomed to failure.’4 Conversion therapy programs Recently, various Christian groups have been touting conversion therapy
programs (also known as reparative therapy) to free gay men from this “sinful,
immoral sickness”. gays” are paraded
as success stories. The large majority of mental-health professionals, however, view these
conversion therapy programs with strong skepticism. Although short-term
behavior changes are possible, long-term follow-ups inevitably indicate little
permanent change in one’s core sexual orientation.’5 (Ironically, the
two male co-founders of Exodus, a
widely advertised conversion program, reportedly fell in love with each other
and left the program.) In 1990 the American Psychological Association’s board stated that
scientific evidence does not show that any of the conversion therapies work and
can do more harm than good. And in 1998, the board voted unanimously to oppose
conversion therapy, saying that it could “reinforce self-hatred already
experienced by the patient.” Also in 1994 the American Psychiatric Association released a Fact Sheet
which stated: “There is no published scientific evidence supporting the
efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change ones sexual
orientation .. .There is
no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person’s deep seated
feelings for others of the same sex.” Most psychologists now believe that conversion ministries and conversion
therapists are trying to force gays into a mold that doesn’t really fit and
that could lead to depression, addiction, even suicide. American
Psychiatric Association fact sheet “The most important fact about [conversion therapy] is that it is based
on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major
health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the
American Psychological Association, the National Association of School
Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together
representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all
taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there
is no need for a cure. Most therapists today support gays Because of the
scientific research, the large majority of therapists and counselors have
changed their focus in the last few decades. Rather than assuming that they
must try to “cure” their gay
clients, therapists are now trying to help them to love, live and work in
homophobic societies. This change in therapeutic practice is significant in that it defines
homophobic societies, rather than gays and lesbians, as the source of the
problem. Homophobia thrives throughout history Hundreds of
millions of gays and lesbians throughout Western history have lived in constant
fear that their sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex would
be discovered. In 538 A.D. the
Christian Emperor Justinian decreed that homosexuals were to be tortured,
castrated, paraded in public and then burned alive. This legal standard remained
for the next thirteen centuries in
Europe. Later on the Church also resorted to torturing alleged homosexuals
until they confessed and then burning them at the stake. Harsh laws never succeeded in eradicating homosexuality at any time in
history. They did, however, cause gays to live in constant fear and forced them
to live a double life. In addition, homosexuals grew up despising themselves
and believing that they were sinful, shameful people. Finally in the late 1800s some physicians began to think of homosexuality
as more of a sickness than a sin or a crime. Penalties slowly
began to ease here and there and by the I 940s many better-educated people in
the United States had come to view homosexuality as a disease or abnormality
beyond the control of the individual. Then in the 1960s, some psychologists went much further and began to see
homosexuality as just a normal variation in human sexual behavior. Like right
and left handedness, most of us are heterosexual; some of us are homosexual and
some of us are bisexual. Most Americans, however, continued to believe that
homosexuality was a disease, or an abominable sin against God, or a crime to be
punished. Fast forward to the 1990s: Condemnation of homosexuals in the U.S. by
the Christian Right and others has continued to fan the fires of hatred. This
hatred has led to physical and verbal violence against gays and even to the
brutal murder of several gay men. Televangelists, priests, ministers,
columnists and well-known radio personalities, often quoting the Bible, have
continued to attack gays, calling them “incest practitioners,” “biological
mistakes,” “sick deviants” and “perverts who are sinning against God”. Of course these guardians of morality have conveniently ignored all of
those biblical passages in which the Hebrews God also instructs His followers to kill brides found not to be virgins
on their wedding night, children who curse their parents, those who work on
the Sabbath, all the children in enemy villages and so on. The reason is
obvious. To quote Dr. Gerald Larue, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at
the University of Southern California: “The reason for such selective preaching and teaching is clear: They know
that public proclamations on any of these other issues would decimate their
followings and affect the ‘bottom line.’ So they play it safe. If they were
truly honest, the)’ would admit that some biblical teachings... are nothing
more than products of long dead clergy that reflect ancient, long outmoded
norms. As long as such dogmas continue to be recognized as authoritative ... they will continue to serve as cruelly
judgmental, anti-humanistic, and socially destructive weapons. But ethical values are slowly changing. In the year 2000, two-thirds of
Americans polled said they supported gays being protected from job and housing
discrimination. Also, although two-thirds are still opposed to gay marriages,
half said they felt that committed gay couples should be given the same
benefits enjoyed by married couples. Some harmful myths Homosexuality
and child molestation Members of disliked minorities are often falsely stereotyped as
representing a danger. Black men were frequently accused of raping white women.
Gay men continue to be accused of sexually molesting children. Yet all the
research to date points to there being no significant relationship between
homosexuality and child molestation. For example, in one study of 175 adult
males convicted in Massachusetts of sexually assaulting a child, 47% were diagnosed
with arrested psychological maturation, 40% as regressed heterosexuals and 13% as regressed bisexuals. There were no men who were primarily sexually
attracted to other adult males.8 Anti-gay literature ignores the fact that according to the National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, almost all sexual child abuse in this
country is committed by heterosexual men on minor females. Furthermore, most
of these men are fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, uncles and live-in boy
friends of the mother. The father and another 25% commit about 25% by the stepfather. Therefore, the biggest single step one could take to prevent the sexual
abuse of an estimated 250,000 American children each year who are molested
would be to keep them away from their fathers, step-fathers, grandfathers and
so on. This argument could even be extended to include the millions of American
women that we can keep from being raped just by locking up all heterosexual
males for life. Such a move would also slice the crime rate by 90%. Or if society could just keep all heterosexual men from living together
with women, we would avoid literally millions of cases of domestic violence.
More women are seriously injured by intimate heterosexual male partners each
year than by all of the muggings and automobile accidents. In closing, the number of Americans who believe the accusation that “gays
molest children” and that “it’s catching” is decreasing. For example, Gallup
poll data in 1999 indicated that 54% of Americans would allow gay people to be
elementary school teachers, compared to 27% in 1977. Homosexuality
and “disgusting” behavior Having a homosexual orientation means being erotically and romantically
drawn to those of the same sex almost exclusively. Yet, Christian Right
literature tends to fixate on the sexual behavior of gay men, never mentioning
their love relationships. Ignored is the research that reveals that 75% of gay men have been
involved in at least one love affair and that 90% express a desire for a love
relationship.’0 Furthermore, satisfying love relationships among
gays might be much more common if it weren’t for the religious and social
disapproval found everywhere (Chapter 3 & 4). Also ignored by anti-gay literature is the fact that lesbians are usually
more interested in love and fidelity than are either gay or straight men and
that over one-half of all lesbians ate in monogamous stable relationships and
are living home lives much the same as do heterosexual couples. Also totally ignored is the fact that gay and lesbian sexual behavior is not responsible for the roughly three
million unplanned pregnancies each year in this country. Yet, like everyone
else, gays pay taxes to cover the over $25 billion a year in welfare and
related costs for teen mothers. Instead, anti-gay activists fixate, just on gay male sex, labeling it
disgusting and perverted. Anal intercourse and oral sex are often used as
examples. Yet, over two-thirds of all heterosexual couples also engage in oral
sex and at least one-third have tried anal intercourse.” And from one-third to
one-half of gay men rarely too never engage in anal intercourse. “But so what?”, humanists ask. “Whose business is it anyway as to what
happens sexually between consenting, responsible adults in private—heterosexual
or homosexual (“Responsible” means that care is taken not to
cause injuries, spread diseases or have unwanted pregnancies.) Homosexuality and “promiscuous” behavior Homophobic literature also focuses on the sexual obsessiveness of gays
and their promiscuity. Yet gay men and lesbians are not any more sexually
active than are heterosexuals. Gay men average 2-3 sexual encounters a week,
while lesbians average 1-2 per week. However, it is true that both homosexual and heterosexual men tend to
prefer more variety with less emotional involvement than do either lesbians or
heterosexual women. Now, because gay men do not have to deal with women, they
are able to have many more different sexual partners than can most heterosexual
men. In fact, 75% of gay men are reported to have had more that 100 different partners. But so have many rock stars and famous
basketball players. In fact, heterosexual men who are very successful sexually
are even seen as studs. So humanists ask; “Whose business is it anyway as to how many different
sexual partners consenting, responsible adults in private
have? (“Responsible” means
taking considerable care not to spread diseases, particularly AIDS.) However,
a minority of gay men of all ages is still acting carelessly and dangerously.
As a result, homosexual contact remains the most common source of new HIV
infection in the U.S. Some final thoughts Few ever stop to
ponder the pain of not being “normal” that society can place on gays. Failure
to meet sexual standards accepted as right and proper by others can produce
intense anguish. For centuries, gays have had to hide who they were, or risk
condemnation and persecution. This was particularly painful for those brought
up in religions that condemned homosexuality and told them that they were
damned to Hell. Some became celibate, some joined gay religious groups, some left the
faith of their families and some even committed suicide. The feelings of being
a failure, of being inadequate, of being constantly judged as sick, evil and
sinful can become so burdensome that life no longer seems worth living. Fundamentalist Views on Homosexuality and the Tactics They Use By Paul Ricci (Professor Ricci spent months debating Christian
fundamentalists in the letter columns of newspapers. The following are excepts from his hand-out at the last meeting.) Conservative
“guardians of morality” claim “Prominent homosexual leaders and publications
have voiced support for pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, and even
bestiality.” Of course, though there may be SOME homosexual leaders advocating
such criminal or deviant behavior, certainly this is not true of the majority
of them. The goals of the gay groups I have checked out on the internet
certainly don’t advocate the above. I strongly suspect a hasty generalization
here. They also resent the money spent on AIDS research and on AIDS patients,
ignoring the fact that many with AIDS get it from heterosexual contact or from
non-sexual sources such as contaminated blood. Allow me one more quote as
evidence for their demonizing of homosexuals. Incidentally, they claim most
evolutionists are also sympathetic to the rights of homosexuals but since such
behavior cannot be explained on genetic grounds, it must be learned!)
“Creationism has an explanation for homosexuality. In Christianity (all of
Christianity?, my comment) has an explanation for homosexuality. In
Christianity, homosexuality is the result of the moral fall of the human race.
Simply put, it is the willful sin of human beings which causes homosexuality.
This means it is not a natural occurrence, but rather a moral one.” (Richard
Howe, Issachar Institute, North Carolina) The conclusion being, of course, that
the practice of homosexuality--or any minority sexual behavior— is immoral.
They believe “Those who oppose homosexuality should have the right NOT (my
emphasis) to have homosexuality forced upon their sentiments.” I suppose this
translates as “My right NOT to have my sentiments hurt is greater than the
rights of homosexuals.” Pardon me if I don’t find such a right of sentiment to
be greater than the rights of millions of homosexuals to be treated as equals
in society. The same “abrasion of sentiments” argument could also be used
against the rights of women, African-Americans, Jews, or any other minority
group. Another bothersome
tactic used by these conservatives is to ignore the views by more progressive
Christians who welcome homosexuals to their churches on the grounds that they
were made by God the way they are and should, therefore, be totally accepted
without being made to feel guilty of their orientation. The only conservative
reply is to call these progressive thinkers apostates, that is, not “true”
Christians. They refuse to see the problem in the many different legitimate
ways in which the Bible can be interpreted. The most interesting, though devious, tactic
used by the conservatives is in regard to the data they use to bolster their
erroneous tenants. They take one study and try to show that it was flawed in
some way, or they assume the present conclusions about homosexual behavior is
based on this one study. For example, Richard Howe (of the American Family
Association) attacks Dr. Dean Hamer’s conclusion involving 40 pairs of brothers
who were both gay, that” . . .there is a genetic link to homosexuality.” The study
ONLY showed there was a link to genetics, not that it was completely determined
by ones genes. It is true that Dr. Hamer tried to show the link was to the Xq28
area of the X chromosome, but he didn’t say this was the ONLY genetic link or
even the most important link. So, by twisting and turning what the study
showed, Mr. Howe comes to the erroneous conclusion that genetics plays no part
in homosexual behavior. And since genetics plays no part in such behavior, such
behavior is not biologically determined (notice the scientific leap here!) and,
therefore, we CAN choose our sexual orientation. It never seems to occur to
Howe that heterosexual orientation is no less biologically determined than is
homosexuality yet no one would want to say heterosexuality is simply a matter
of choice. Howe then tries to show that even if homosexuality were biologically
determined, it doesn’t follow that it is not a choice. Obesity--he claims— is
also biologically determined yet we have a choice as to whether or not to be
obese! A better faulty analogy would be hard to find! The point is--as my colleagues and research
have indicated— the vast majority of evidence favors the view that
homosexuality, is determined even before birth though modified somewhat by
social and psychological factors later. Granted, this a type of argument from
authority but that’s how scientists work in these complex areas; the
conclusions derived from a majority of studies is what makes their results far
more certain than relying on questionable interpretations of moral and
religious values to determine truth. Their answer to the various scientific
organizations claiming homosexuality is, indeed, biologically determined and at
a very early age which cannot be easily changed later--if at all-- is that these
scientific groups were politically motivated to make such a claim. They believe
the pressures from the homosexual movement is what caused them to change their
minds, not the scientific evidence. If this isn’t a clear case of
rationalization, I’m not sure what would be. Another tactic used by these defenders of
the faith is to attack the writer of a letter for not showing the specific
studies involved in the claims made. They insist that saying”.. .the majority
of scientists support the view.. .“ is just not enough; the specifics must be
included. More than once I was accused of this and though I cited the American
Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and a few
specific studies, they weren’t satisfied even though such citing are rarely
ever found in letters-to-editors. Yet another devious tactic used by these
“guardians of our morality” is to misquote or embellish a statement by those
who oppose them. They accused me of saying”... anyone who is opposed to
homosexuality is homophobic” which I never said. They defend their views on
this distinction by claiming good Christians will love the sinner but hate the
sin, thus they are not homophobic. Well, fine, but then why does Leviticus
mandate the killing of homosexuals? Surely this isn’t done out of “love” of the
sinner! Personally, I don’t think most Christians make a practical distinction
between the sin and sinner. More insidious--and a practice conservatives
used right at the beginning of their offensive against homosexuals-- is the
clever way in which they use words and phrases to appeal to the emotions of
those they address. They talk about a homosexual “lifestyle” instead of
“orientation.” They talk about the homosexual “agenda” as though there is some
deep, perverse effort by gays to overtake society and remake it according to
some satanic plan (of which they seem more guilty than gays!). They try to
associate homosexuality with child molesters or with other forms of criminal
behavior or with teaching unwary children to become gay, etc. They say it is
costly to society, shortens life expectancy some 25 years, is abnormal, and that no one has a right to “recruit”
young children into such a “lifestyle.” These conservatives do have a number of
websites which I did peruse, to my dismay. Most of the material contained in
these sites were individual case studies of homosexual criminals; mostly child
molesters. I waded through some 54 pages
of one website and realized this must be impressive to those who know nothing
of how science proceeds. From these studies they want to imply an association
between child molestation and homosexuality. Such studies prove nothing and are
just another form of gay bashing. Needless to say, I could find no case studies
of child molestation for heterosexuals the numbers of which
far outweigh those for homosexuals. These same homosexual accusers invited me
to check some of the gay websites to realize just what their “agenda” was. This
I did but could find none of this school “recruitment by gays that they claimed
they found. I did find, however, the following statement (even quoted by one of
these conservatives!): All students have the right to “.. accurate information
relating to [homosexual] people, history, culture and ideas.” I don’t see this
as advocacy or “recruitment” of the young. Since most gays do not believe their
orientation can be taught, it is not likely they would be advocating any kind
of recruitment into their orientation in the first place. There is much more I could include here
regarding the tactics --legitimate as well as illegitimate-- used by
conservatives and how they parallel those used by creationists to discredit
evolution or other scientifically based disagreements with their biblical
interpretations (the age of the universe, the Noachian flood, the gradual increase in the life-span of humans over the
past 10 millennia rather than its decrease as the Bible claims, etc.), but time
and space are limited here. Let me close with how a more “progressive”
pastor from a church in Connecticut has expressed his biblical interpretation
of the role of homosexuality in society. “A person’s sexual orientation is a gift
from God, not a matter of choice. The only choice is in accepting or rejecting
the orientation God has given. So, choosing life means accepting and
celebrating the orientation God gave us as we were being knit together in your
mother’s womb.” “We found that
Jesus preached a Gospel of radical inclusiveness, making room for everyone at
the table, especially those traditionally excluded: the Samaritan, women,
lepers, children (prostitutes? my comment here). Though gays and lesbians are
not mentioned by Jesus specifically, his strong language of inclusion informs
our thinking.” “Our life experience tells us our gay and
lesbian friends are created in the image of God just as our homosexual friends
are created . . . And when the authority of our life experience appears to be
in conflict with the authority if the Bible, or any other authority, it’s time
to look again more critically at our own reality, at our Biblical
interpretation, at whatever it is that remains conflicted, and do this in the
context of a faith community.” Dick Allen, Senior minister. (Congregational
Church, Glastonbuiy., May, 2001) I would make just two comments on the
above: (1) It clearly shows how scientific data may (and should) modify any
religious belief-claims which contradict this data (though the religious call
this “our life experience” here), and (2) how one can modify and re-interpret
scripture to satisfy what one is inclined to believe in the first place. It
shows, clearly, conservative Christianity has no monopoly on either how
scripture is to be ultimately interpreted or on morality. It is a shame these
conservatives have such a stranglehold on our society, such an influence,
especially since the September 11 tragedy, despite their many unsavory tactics.
Their tenaciousness, fanaticism and combined wealth in numbers, will soon “bury
us” if we do not fight them as often as we can. The Doctor A well known doctor dies and goes up to heaven. There is a long line waiting to get into heaven and he is at the back of the line. He thinks to himself that since he has spent his life helping others that there should be no reason for him to have to wait. So he goes up to the head of the line and says to St. Peter at the pearly gates, "I am a doctor and I have spent my life helping others. I have worked 24/7, have saved many lives, created new procedures and medicines, etc. Why do I have to wait in this long line? I want to get into heaven now." St. Peter said, "No, I'm sorry you will have to go to the back of the line and wait your turn. No one can get in front of another." So the doctor went back to the end of the line. A little while later another doctor walked to the head of the line and St. Peter let him in. This angered the doctor at the end of the line so he went back up to the front of the line and asked St. Peter how come he just let in another doctor, but he would not let him in. St. Peter said, "Oh, that wasn't a doctor, he was just dressed up like a doctor. That was God. Sometimes GOD just THINKS he is a DOCTOR." Leading Scientists Reject Belief! In the
July 1998 issue of "Nature" their survey found that 93% of what it categorized as "great"
scientists do not believe in a god. Back in
1914 a survey by U.S. psychologist James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000
randomly selected U.S. scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence
of a god, and that this figure rose to nearly 70% among the 400
"greater" scientists within his sample. When Leuba repeated his
survey some 20 years later, he found that these percentages had increased to
67% and 85%, respectively. Nature
replicated Leuba's study in 1996, reporting little change, with 60.7% of
American scientists generally expressing disbelief or doubt. In 1998 it polled
membership in the National Academy of Sciences as indicative of "greater
scientists. Its survey found "near universal rejection of the transcendent
by NAS natural scientists. Nature found
the highest percentage of belief was among NAS mathematicians was 14.3% in God,
15.0% in immortality. Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5%
in God, 7.1% in immortality)." Nature
found only 7% "of greater" scientists expressed belief in a personal
god, compared to 27.7% in 1914 and 15% in 1933, while 72.2% expressed a
"personal disbelief" and 20.8% had "doubt or agnosticism."
Similar numbers disbelieved in immortality. |
