Gerrymandering in the 2013/14 US House of Representatives

This post is available in 3 formats.

1. For the Word Doc version, click on Gerrymandering and then “Open.”  (Document and tables are easiest to read)

2. For the Google Drive version (using Chrome), click here.

3. The document is also below.

Analysis of Gerrymandering in the

2013/14 House of Representatives

By

Roy G. Saltman

Background:

Political commentators have noted that the cumulative nationwide vote for the US House of Representatives in the November 2012 election showed an apparently anomalous result.  The total vote for the Democratic party surpassed the total for the Republican party by almost 1.6 million (out of about 117 million cast), while the number of seats won by Republicans (234) exceeded the Democratic number (201) by 33 in the chamber total of 435.

One cause for this is gerrymandering: that is, the drawing of the boundaries of the single- member districts in a state so as to favor one particular political party.  In a state assigned four or more seats, and in which the minority party is strong enough to obtain at least one seat or more, gerrymandered boundaries are often set so as to cram many of the opposition voters into a small number of districts that they will win by large pluralities.  This ploy provides the controlling party with a larger number of seats than they would achieve by a proportional division of the state’s total vote.

Continue reading

Posted in Voting | Leave a comment

You Can’t Be Christian and Jewish Simultaneously

On Sunday, January 19, 2014, The Washington Post Magazine published a “first person” article by Lon Solomon, now pastor of the McLean Bible Church in McLean, Virginia.  Mr. Solomon, who was born to Jewish parents, stated in the article that “I still consider myself Jewish.  I’m just a Jewish person who believes Jesus is the Messiah.”

It is a fact of life in the 21st century that Pastor Solomon can feel comfortable in reporting his Jewish heritage.  We live in an exceptional country where religion is separate from the state;  our state-issued identification documents do not include our religion or ethnicity, as they do in some other countries.   Nowadays, it is not dangerous to announce your Jewish heritage, as it was in many areas of this country before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  Covenants on houses restricting sale to Jews (or Blacks because of race) can no longer be enforced.  There are no longer quotas on Jews entering colleges; corporations doing secular business can no longer discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion, and hotels can no longer prevent Jews from checking in solely because of religion (or Blacks because of race).

There is, however, a distinction between having a Jewish heritage and being Jewish.  One cannot be Christian and Jewish at the same time.  The basic tenet of Christianity, that Jesus was the son  of a Jewish woman, Mary, impregnated by God the Father, is antithetical to Jewish belief.  The concept of a child of a human female and a male god (often called a demigod) is taken from Greco-Roman culture, not from Jewish history.   Heracles, a Greco-Roman demigod, was the son of the mortal woman Alcmene by the god Zeus.  Another hero of myth with a similar parentage is Theseus, supposedly the son of the god Poseidon.  In Judaism, every person named a messiah (mashiach, meaning annointed one) in the Hebrew Bible or in Jewish history, and there are quite a few, is a mortal human with no divine parentage.  An example is Bar Kochba, who led the failed Jewish revolt against Rome in year135 of the Common Era.  Cyrus, King of Persia and certainly not Jewish, was named a mashiach because he permitted the Jews to return from exile in Babylon and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

By becoming a Christian, Pastor Solomon  has accepted, or at least not rejected, the extensive anti-Judaism in New Testament writings.  If a person has not discovered this fact through his or her own readings of that holy text, many examples may be found by reading modern texts that point out examples.  These books include Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews, A History, by Roman Catholic priest James Carroll; Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust, edited by professors of religion Paula Fredricksen and Adele Reinharz, as well as the 2013 book Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition by historian David Nirenberg.

The claim of a Christian also to be a Jew is particularly offensive to Jews who have been approached by such persons stating that they were members of a “messianic” Jewish sect. The evangelizers typically want the Jew to accept Jesus, otherwise (the claim is ) that the Jew will go to Hell when he or she dies.  Of course, no evidence is supplied that this is the case.  This type of activity has perhaps lessened recently, but it was so prevalent in the 1980s and early 1990s that the the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York produced, in 1993, a report of its Task Force on Missionaries and Cults.  The report, approved by all major branches of Judaism, stated that such groups “deceptively use the sacred symbols of Jewish observance . . . as a cover to convert Jews to Christianity, a belief system antithetical to Judaism.”

Note:  Many of the facts presented above were determined during the writer’s research in preparation for publication of his book Sacred Humanism without Miracles: Responding to the New Atheists.

Posted in Sacred Humanism | Leave a comment

Maryland’s New Voting Technology

Maryland’s Touch-Screen Voting System Will Have a Paper Trail

In 2016, Maryland will adopt a new voting system that provides for a paper audit trail. The current system is Direct Recording Electronic (DRE), which does not employ any paper whatsoever.   While totally on-line operation is widely used for many computer applications, the Maryland legislature has adopted a requirement not to trust direct recording in the voting process.

The new system will be associated with a database of all registered voters in the state. When a registered voter arrives at a polling station ready to vote, the database will determine the precinct of that voter and, on command of an official, will mark a blank ballot with a bar code that identifies the voter’s precinct.  Thus,  ballots preprinted for every voter’s precinct will not be needed in advance.

The voter will enter the precinct-identified ballot into a voting device.   The ballot’s preprinted bar code will inform the device what specific  contests the voter is to consider.   The contests will be shown on the device’s touch-screen and the voter will touch his/her choices, thereby recording them.  The choices will be printed on the ballot in two forms.  The first form is English-language, so that the voter can read the choices made.  The second form is bar code.

When the voter has finished voting and the ballot is marked, the voter will remove the ballot from the voting device and enter the ballot into a reading device.   The reading device, using the printed bar codes, summarizes the voter’s choices with choices from all the other voters and it retains the ballot.   At the close of polls, the reading devices contain the summaries of the choices of all voters.  Later, some ballots may be recounted by hand, to assure voters that the choices printed in bar code match the choices printed in English language.

The system does not employ hand-marked ballots, except for ballots submitted by absentee voters by mail.  Hand-marking of ballots by voters allows the issue of the “intent of the voter” to be raised in close elections.  Some marks will be too light to be read correctly, some smudges will be misread and some voters will not follow instructions in properly marking their ballots so they can be correctly read.  Post-election lawsuits about the winners are costly, resulting in delayed results and lower public confidence in the fairness of the process.

In the new voting system, the uniform markings made by machines do not permit the issue of “intent of the voter” to be raised in ballots voted at polling stations.

Roy G. Saltman, Columbia, MD

The writer is a retired computer scientist and author of “The History and Politics of Voting Technology,” published 2006 by Palgrave Macmillan.  The book is available in hardcover or paperback.

 

Posted in Voting | Leave a comment

BUY/READ MY LATEST BOOK: Sacred Humanism Without Miracles: Responding to the New Atheists

Published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2012.

Praise for the book: http://sacredhumanism.net/praise-for-the-book/

8 Essential Pointshttp://sacredhumanism.net/8-essential-points/

Roy G. Saltman, the author, is a retired computer scientist.  He recalls his first brush with religious dogma:  in 1938, when he was six years old and playing on the street with friends, an older boy, in a group just returned from Christian religious instruction, told him that “you killed our God.”

A later incident was also significant:  in 1953,  while attending MIT studying for a master’s degree in electrical engineering (obtained in 1955), he found in the Graduate House library a book that had a life-altering influence on his thinking.  It was an abridged edition of the famous anthropological work The Golden Bough by Scotsman James G. Frazer, first published in 1890.  That book demonstrated to him that there were a large variety of ways, many of them by aboriginal peoples, to enrich life with meaning.

Another profound influence was the death and burial of his wife, Joan, in 2008.  He was with her every step of her decline from metastasis of breast cancer, and watched her die in front of his eyes.   He began his research for this book soon thereafter, and began by reading books published in 2004 through 2007 by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, who are collectively designated The New Atheists.  The result is thought-provoking, with a viewpoint that, even though the laws of the physical universe are never violated with miracles, religion will continue to serve humans who are aware of their own suffering and ultimate demise.

A concise description of the book is that it examines the problem of finding the sacred within the profane world.

Posted in Sacred Humanism | Leave a comment

BUY/READ MY BOOK–The History and Politics of Voting Technology: In Search of Integrity and Public Confidence

Published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2006

Roy G. Saltman, the author, is an independent consultant who previously published two reports on contemporaneous issues in this field for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  His first report for NIST was sponsored by the Congressional agency now called the Government Accountability Office; his second was sponsored by the (private) John and Mary R. Markle Foundation.

Saltman obtained a BEE at RPI in 1953 and an MS in EE at MIT in 1955.  He received the Professional Degree of Electrical Engineer at Columbia U. in 1962 and a master’s degree in public administration from American U. in 1976.  He was enployed by Sperry Gyroscope Co. from 1955 to 1964 and by IBM from 1964 to 1969.  He worked for NIST (formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) from 1969 to 1996, when he retired from fulltime employment.

For a more complete C.V. for Saltman, go to: http://roygsaltman.com/biography/

Synopsis:  The first chapter covers in detail the Florida fiasco of 2000, and then chrono-logically traces the evolution of voting technology, from oral voting in the earliest days of this republic to mark-sense ballots and touch-screens used today.   Systems used at various times in various states included party-specific paper ballots that caused violence at polling stations, all-party paper ballots, lever voting machines that used no ballots, and pre-scored punch-card ballots.   Various types of frauds are discussed.  The tangled responsibilities of the federal government, the 50 state governments and DC, and the numerous local governments are analyzed.  Several relevant federal laws are presented and described.

Chapter Headings:  (1) The 2000 election in Florida:  The Family Secret is Exposed.  (2) From the Revolution to the Civil War;  Consent of the Governed and the Election Clause.  (3) The Late 19th Century:  Struggling With Voting Rights and Election Fraud.  (4)  The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries: Mechanization and Political Reforms.               (5) The Middle and Late 20th Century:  Movements for Equality, Enfranchisement, and Voting Facilitation.  (6) The Middle and Late 20th Century: Election Administration and Computing Technology.  (7) The Great Awakening After Florida, through July 2005.

Charles Stewart, Massachusetts Institute of Technology:  “This is a must read for those interested in the politics of election reform and in how technology and politics intersect in the United States.”

Richard G. Smolka, Election Administration Reports:  “This work is a major conntribution to current and future debates about how to improve the American electoral system.”

R. Michael Alvarez, Professor of Political Science, Caltech, and Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project:  “Saltman gives us a broad sweeping historical perspective on voting technologies for American voters.  This is going to be an important reference for all interested in improving voting technologies.”

Alexander Keyssar, Harvard University:  “[This book] contains a wealth of informa-tion about voting technology and how it evolved.”

Posted in Voting | Leave a comment

Letter to California Voter Foundation

5025 Broken Oak Lane
Columbia, MD 21044
Jan. 15, 2013

Kim Alexander, President
California Voter Foundation
PO Box 189277
Sacramento, CA 95818

Dear Ms. Alexander,

This letter is prompted by the content of the letter signed by you and 28 other persons that was sent to President Barack Obama on November 20, 2012. While your letter cited “the problem of voters waiting in long lines to cast a ballot,” its major thrust was to claim that DRE-based voting machines, as a class, have been “widely discredited because of fundamental usability, security, accessibility, reliability and auditability issues.” I do not agree with this assessment.

In my opinion, the priorities in your letter are sadly misplaced. Consider the following:
(1) Federal elections are carried out in many states under the supervision of a Secretary of State who is elected (or selected) as a member of a particular political party. This was a material fact in the Florida presidential debacle of 2000, as well as in Ohio and other states in 2012. In Ohio in 2004, the Secretary of State was co-chair of a political party’s campaign. This system is deleterious to public confidence in the fairness of our elections.
(2) In addition to the deliberate creation of long waits to vote, the partisan nature of federal election administration was responsible for the demands that voters show a photo ID. We know that there was no demonstrable fraud that caused this requirement to be implemented. In Pennsylvania, the state admitted in a court filing that there was no fraud and, in that state’s legislature, a Republican party leader said openly that the implementation of the requirement would lead to the victory of his party’s Presidential candidate. (The courts delayed implementation of the requirement and President Obama won Pennsylvania.) Those citizens without drivers’ licenses are, typically, the poor, the young, college students, the elderly, and the handicapped. Minorities form a significant fraction of this group and the group typically votes for the opposition (Democrats) in nearly every (Republican-dominated) state that attempted to implement the photo ID requirement. Vote suppression was the strategy behind the effort.
(3) The setting of boundaries for a state’s Congressional Districts is, in most cases, established in a partisan manner, using deliberate gerrymandering to pack supporters of the opposition into as few districts as possible. This permits the majority party to considerably exceed its rightful percentage of Congressional Districts. (Both Democratic and Republican-dominated states do this.) Now, computers can carry out this process in a diabolical manner, creating far more disparity than was possible with manual methods. The signers of your letter, many of whom are computer experts, evidenced no concern whatsoever over this issue.

Attorney General Eric Holder addressed these concerns in remarks delivered at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library on Dec. 11, 2012. He stated that the US Department of Justice had employed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to turn back efforts in 2012 to suppress voting by demands for photo ID in southern states covered by the act. Unfortunately, the act could not be used against northern states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin, not covered by the act. In addition, Mr. Holder called for action “to confront the single largest barrier that American voters currently face, our antiquated voter registration system.” He said, furthermore, that “we should consider reforms to the redistricting process for state and federal offices – so districts are drawn in a way that’s neutral, that promotes fair and effective representation for all…”

Addressing these problems requires legislation adopted by Congress; the President cannot fix them. Suggesting that the President act by “reviving and re-invigorating the US Election Assistance Commission” (EAC) ignores the actual on-going situation in which the Republican Party refuses to nominate its pair of commissioners. There are no sitting commissioners of the EAC because of this and the situation is unlikely to change unless the Republican Party alters its views. My opinion is that Republicans are unlikely to revise their views because their intent to suppress votes is opposite to the function of the EAC, which is to make it easier to vote.

To alter the partisan nature of election administration, my proposal is to require each state to administer its federal elections, as well as establish the boundaries of its Congressional districts, by a bi-partisan commission. Furthermore, each citizen 18 years and older who does not have a driver’s license deserves to receive, free of charge, a photo-based identification card that will guarantee acceptance for voter registration. To charge for this card would be the equivalent of a poll tax, forbidden under Constitutional Amendment XXIV.

In connection with this proposal, I suggest the development and implementation of a National Interstate Database of Vote-Eligible Citizens. I identify this database as “Interstate” because states would remain in charge of registration but, through this system, they would be able to interchange registration data through a standard system of electronic messaging (often referred to as EDI, electronic data interchange). Under this system, each citizen of the US would be assigned a unique voter-identification number similar to, but not identical with the Social Security Number. (The latter could not be used under current federal law.) The national voter-identification number, included in the database, would aid in the tracking of citizens as they more between states, and would prevent duplicate voting from second homes in another state. The development of this system also would help eliminate dead persons from registration rolls. The Social Security Administration would be extremely helpful in establishing such a database, and the database could be managed by the Election Assistance Commission or another agency acceptable to Congress (such as the National Association of State Election Directors).

Mr. Holder addressed this point in his Dec. 11 remarks. He discussed the possibility of “creating a system of automatic, portable registration.” My proposal responds to this idea. It is certainly unclear that these proposals have any chance of passage in the current Congress, but I have submitted them to appropriate members of Congress in order to try. It is my understanding that particular members of Congress are preparing their own versions of legislation on these subjects.

Finally, your Nov. 20 letter’s hostility to DRE-based voting systems as a class and, therefore, your sole endorsement of mark-sense ballot systems, has no technical basis despite your claim quoted in the first paragraph of this letter. Each system needs to be evaluated individually. Mark-sense ballot systems have the disadvantage that voters do not always follow instructions for hand-marking their ballots. Therefore, marks may vary and some may not be correctly sensed by the machinery. It is not surprising that disputes result and post-election examinations by neutral experts are necessary. Furthermore, central-count systems in which marked ballots have to be manually transported to counting stations provide the opportunity for chicanery during the transportation. Instances of fraudulent treatment of ballots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries provided a good reason for the replacement of ballots with non-ballot lever machines.

In 2002, the Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act. This act provided funds for replacement of older systems (primarily pre-scored punch-card systems), and required that all voting systems have an audit trail. Note that the legislation does not say “paper audit trail.” It is highly unlikely that the Congress will work to adopt similar legislation again in the near future, as you request. One effect of this legislation was that it made the use of lever machine unlawful because they do not have an audit trail. In operation of these machines, each set of voter’s choices are added to the previous sum for each candidate and issue alternative, and no record of each voter’s selections is retained. Nevertheless, lever machines remained in use in New York State until 2009, and I know of no evidence showing that the California Voter Foundation protested the continued use of these machines.

DRE-based voting machines have the advantage that voter’s selections are via a touch-screen (in most cases), and therefore, there are no idiosyncratic human-made marks that can confuse a sensing machine. Thus, the user-interface is superior to that of mark-sense ballots. Typically, each voter’s selections are retained in a write-once memory, providing an audit trail and the ability to re-sum the selections if necessary. I fully agree that no Internet connection should be permitted. I suggest that instead of blanket hostility, you and your colleagues could provide a set of best practices for DRE-based machines, concentrating on assuring correct and secure software, and other quality-control features that would provide strong confidence that the correct results have been released.

A pertinent point here is that in the election of Nov. 6, 2012, no disputes about vote-counting arose, certainly not in states using DRE-based systems. There is a minority party in every one of these states, with intelligent members capable of recognizing malfeasance or misfeasance if either occurred. Yet, your letter of Nov. 20 chose to stress the non-issue of a paper audit trail and failed to discuss in any detail the obvious issues that came out of the election.

Feel free to transmit this letter to any interested party. I am planning to make it available on my website, roygsaltman.com. My email address is roygsaltman@msn.com.

Sincerely,
Roy G. Saltman

Note: The writer is author of the book The History and Politics of Voting Technology, Palgrave Macmillan (2006), and is author of the NIST report Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying (1988). The latter report called for abandonment of the pre-scored punch-card voting system used in many states including Florida in 2000. His 1988 advice was ignored until 2001, after the election debacle validated his recommendation.

Posted in Voting | Leave a comment

Letter to Senator Schumer on Federal Elections

Jan. 10, 2013
Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman

US Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
305 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Schumer:

I am writing to you because of your committee’s responsibility for Federal elections. We need new legislation to prevent a re-occurrence of efforts to deny the right to vote in the Nov. 6, 2012 election to citizens without drivers’ licenses. Other reprehensible actions to deny the right to vote included reducing the hours and number of early-voting days that polls were open and limiting the signing-in of potential voters so that very long lines resulted.

The citizens who waited patiently for hours in order to vote are the real patriots of our nation. They, as well as the rest of us, deserve to be spared in the future from such anti-democratic practices of partisan officials. To end these heinous attempts, each citizen 18 years and older who does not have a driver’s license deserves to receive, free of charge, a photo-based identification card that will guarantee acceptance for voter registration. To charge for this card would be like a poll tax, forbidden under a Constitutional amendment.

To implement this concept, I ask that you consider the possibility of establishing, through Federal law, a National Interstate Database of Vote-Eligible Citizens. I identify this database as “interstate” because states would remain in charge of registration but, through this system, they would be able to interchange registration data through a standard system of electronic messaging (often referred to as EDI, electronic data interchange). Under this system, each citizen of the US would be assigned a unique voter-identification number similar to, but not identical with, the Social Security Number. (The latter could not be used under current Federal law.) The national voter-identification number, included in the database, would aid in the tracking of citizens as they move between states, and would prevent duplicate voting from second homes in another state. The Social Security Administration could be extremely helpful in establishing such a database, and the database could be managed by the Election Assistance Commission (or some other agency acceptable to Congress.)

A subject worthy of your committee’s attention is the partisanship shown in some states in managing Federal elections. We saw this in Florida in 2000 with the actions of a partisan Secretary of State, and we have seen it in Ohio in 2012, as well in 2004, when the Secretary of State was co-chair of his political party’s campaign, One result of partisanship in State legislatures is extreme gerrymandering of Congressional Districts. The use of computers is responsible for this extreme ability to maximize a political party’s representation beyond its actual plurality; manual methods cannot be as diabolical. While, now, only Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral votes by Congressional District, establishing this method in larger, more significant and highly gerrymandered states, could deny majority voters their due in assignment of electoral votes.

A possible remedy to this partisanship is to require each state to administer its Federal elections and to devise the boundaries of Congressional Districts by a bi-partisan commission.

Thank you for considering these ideas.

Sincerely,

Roy G. Saltman

Note: The writer is author of the book The History and Politics of Voting Technology, Palgrave Macmillan (2006), and is author of the NIST report Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying (1988). The latter report called for abandonment of the pre-scored punch-card voting system used in many states including Florida in 2000. His 1988 advice was ignored until 2001, after the election debacle validated his recommendation.

Posted in Voting | Leave a comment

New Atheists Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are wrong

(1) Richard Dawkins is wrong when he states in The God Delusion (303) that “even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes.”

     * Dawkins is wrong to stigmatize religion because extremists may utilize any writings to support violent actions.  Communists used the US Declaration of Independence to rationalize revolution because it states that “when any Form of Government becomes destructive …. it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

(2) Richard Dawkins is ignorant of the cultural aspects of religion when he states in The God Delusion (338) that “Small children are too young to decide their views on the origins of the cosmos, of life and of morals.”

     * Dawkins fails to understand that religion is far more than theology.  It involves rituals celebrating the births of children, as well as practices in the home attended by children, and artifacts in the home seen by children that are religious symbols.  These aspects of culture pertain whether the home is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

(3) Richard Dawkins misunderstands Genesis 22, the binding of Isaac, when he states in The God Delusion (242) that “this disgraceful story is an example of … child abuse.”

     * Dawkins fails to appreciate the fact that, when this story was written, child sacrifice existed nearby, among Phoenicians and Carthaginians.  One function of the story is to show that child sacrifice is unnecessary to please God, an opposite interpretation from Dawkins’s view.

Posted in Sacred Humanism | Leave a comment

New Atheist Sam Harris Is Wrong

(1) Sam Harris is wrong when he states in The End of Faith (21) that “religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s laws.”  Harris apparently knows God’s desires as well as any fundamentalist preacher.

     *Harris is wrong because he has a preconceived idea that true religion is fundamentalist and that religion that is non-violent and tolerant is an aberration.  He has it backwards.  The jihadis and the haters within every religion are a small minority.

(2) Sam Harris demonstrates his ignorance when he writes in The End of Faith (94) that “Judaism is …. ridiculous in its literalism.”

     * Harris is totally incorrect because Judaism is interpretive and not literal.  For two millennia, Jewish scholars have written midrashim (interpretations) of Biblical passages that make the religion meaningful for contemporary issues.

(3) Sam Harris is wrong when he states in The End of Faith (16) that “to come to terms with the sacred dimension of our existence …. requires no faith in untestable propositions.”

     * Harris is wrong because no mathematical equations or statistical analyses will determine sacred values.  They are developed within ourselves with the aid of mentors and extensive observations.  We elect legislators, appoint judges, and empanel juries, all human beings, to make the most important decisions for us in the public sphere.

Posted in Sacred Humanism | Leave a comment

New Atheist Christopher Hitchens Was Wrong

(1) Christopher Hitchens was wrong when he stated in god Is Not Great (102) that the “Hebrew Bible” is the same as the “Pentateuch.”

     * Hitchens was wrong because the Hebrew Bible consists of three parts, the Law (which may be called the Pentateuch), the Prophets, and the Writings.  When Jesus, in Matthew 7:12, recites the Golden Rule and states that “this is the law and the prophets.” he is referring to two of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible.   A person only superficially knowledgeable about Christianity and Judaism is not likely to know this.

(2) Christopher Hitchens was blindly ignorant when he wrote in god Is Not Great (225, 226) that male circumcision is “a hideous procedure” and that “medicine has exploded .,.. claims” that the procedure has health benefits.

     * Hitchens ignored medical facts readily available, because incontestable findings released before publication of his book make clear that male circumcision has significant health benefits.  In Africa, uncircumcised (mainly Christian) men are signifcantly more likely to become HIV-positive than circumcised (mainly Muslim) men.  The World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have both recommended that male circumcision be provided as an important intervention to reduce heterosexually acquired HIV in men.

(3) Christopher Hitchens’s research on religion was superficial and simplistic because, in god Is Not Great (4, 103, 155, 247), he cites only one book on religion by Freud and nothing else.

     * Hitchens’s research was unacceptably minimal because he failed to cite Freud’s other two books on religion, nor any of the writings of other important researchers, such as Durkheim, Eliade, Frazer, Geertz, Malinowski, Robertson Smith, Tyler, or Weber.

Posted in Sacred Humanism | Leave a comment