41 countries that did not support making water a human right

Every year, 3.5 million people die of water-borne illness. Diarrhea is the second largest cause of death among children under five. Lack of access to potable water kills more children than AIDS, malaria and smallpox combined. Worldwide, approximately 1 in 8 people lack potable water.

In just one day, more than 200 million hours of women’s time is consumed by collecting and transporting water for domestic use.

The situation of lack of sanitation is far worse, for it affects 2.6 billion people, or 40% of the global population.

These are the 41 countries that abstained in the July 28 UN General Assembly vote on Bolivia’s resolution to recognise access to water and sanitation as basic human rights. Rather than honestly vote “no”, they abstained to avoid being labelled as opponents of access to water, but many made statements that reveal their hostility to the very idea of recognising water as a human right.

Among others:

• Canada complained that the resolution “appeared to determine that there was indeed a right without setting out its scope”.
• The UK said “there was no sufficient legal basis for declaring or recognising water or sanitation as freestanding human rights, nor was there evidence that they existed in customary law”.
• The United States said “there was no ‘right to water and sanitation’ in an international legal sense, as described by the resolution”.
• Australia “had reservations about declaring new human rights in a General Assembly resolution”.

Read the Article

Oregon faith-healing parents face criminal charges

OREGON CITY -- A Beavercreek couple who left their infant daughter's fate to God rather than seek medical treatment for a mass that grew over her left eye will face charges of first-degree criminal mistreatment.

Prosecutors revealed Thursday during a custody hearing that a grand jury has indicted Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ church.

The Wylands' 7-month-old daughter, Alayna, was placed in state custody earlier this month after child-welfare workers received a tip about the untreated and ballooning growth. Doctors said that the condition could cause permanent damage or loss of vision.

The Wylands were indicted within the past few days and probably will be arraigned next week, said Colleen Gilmartin, the deputy district attorney handling the custody case in juvenile court.

Under Oregon law, it is a crime for parents to intentionally and knowingly withhold necessary and adequate medical attention from their children. First-degree criminal mistreatment is a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Read the Article

Anti-vaccination group accused of harassing parents

The Australian Vaccination Network is an awful little organization that exists to spread fear and disinformation about vaccines, under the pretense of caring about children. They're getting an official comeuppance, though: the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission has put together a report condemning AVN. They're announcing that AVN's claims are inaccurate and misleading, and further, that AVN harasses people. There's a terrible story at that link of a couple whose child died miserably of whooping cough…and Meryl Dorey, head of AVN, responded by demanding medical records and insisting that the child couldn't have died of a disease preventable by vaccination.

An excellent report on ABC:

AVN is a couple of truly rotten people with an office. It's a shame that the only punishment the HCCC report is doling out to them is a demand that they put a disclaimer on their web site.

Our Responsibilities

As some of you may know I live in Australia, and recently Australia elected an new Prime Minister. Well actually, she took over leadership of the Labour party which was already in power, so wasn't actually elected by the general public.

Regardless of the how, Julia Gillard is now the Prime Minister of Australia. She is also an Atheist.

So, today on the radio, the presenter asked the audience to call in and discuss what they thought about having an Atheist leader in power.

Obviously, the only individuals who could be arsed to call up and give the presenter their 2cents where those religious types who were most angered by this "heathen" being in charge of the country.

Naturally it got me thinking, and not just about the obvious desire for a separation of church and state, but more about responsibilities.

If I am honest I could probably handle a leader any person of faith being in charge, although perhaps with the exception of a Scientologist, if that person was able to improve the standard of living for the majority of people and beast within Australia.

However, it is refreshing to have a person in charge of this large political boundary who understands that their sole responsibility is to better the lives of those who live within that boundary, and who understands they are only accountable to the Australian people and herself, and not to something that be seen, heard, felt, tasted or tested to exist such a God.

That is one of my main arguments against religion; if you are religious, and I don't mean you believe there is a god, but if you are religious then you are at the mercy of the infallible laws of your religion. To the reasonable mind this is scary enough considering they are often 2000 years old and we live in a modern society, and thats before we even read the contents of those laws.

However, to some this can be comforting, because really you don't have to think for yourself, or worry about the hard questions. Unfortunately though it means you are not accountable for your actions, because you are only doing what it taught through that religion.


We as a species are so scared of the unknown that we fabricated wonderful bargaining superstitions that will allow us to avoid the cull of death and go on to a wonderful netherworld if we follow the rules set by a bronze age religious priests and priestesses. We need only say sorry and we are allowed in through the pearly gates.

Of course that's a wonderful prospect, but there isn't any evidence for an afterlife so why worry about getting there. We know for a fact that we are here right now, so this is what must be most important; the betterment of the people beside and around you.

What makes the opposition of an atheist in charge is that nowhere on earth can the benefits of secularism in power be so clearly demonstrated than in Australia. The Early Christian's bigoted view that the "savage" Aboriginal Australian's must be civilized by educating them about the wonder of their own European god meant they set up churches all over the outback. When the Aboriginal communities continued to celebrate their native culture the church forcefully removed the Aboriginal Australian children away from their parents so that they can not only educated the children about God, away from their "savage" ancestry, but to "breed the black out of them".

Here is a clear example that by following the views of a religious mind, who believes wholeheartedly that they are doing the work of God, they cannot see how bigoted their life view really is and can accumulated to the attempted mass genocide of one of the oldest civilizations on earth.

If this wasn't bad enough, we need only look at the bible to see that it is the most appalling guide to the correct ethical treatment of our fellow human beings. It clearly states in the bible that rape and slavery are excepted; if you don't believe me please look at the Scripture Project linked on my favourite online reads list.

These facts enough should make the prospects of having a keen secularist and atheist in charge of the country to be a relief not a cause for concern.

Mormon Church to be fined by state political commission over Proposition 8

The state Fair Political Practices Commission is expected to fine the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for not properly reporting about $37,000 worth of contributions to pass California's ban on same-sex marriages.

The commission will fine the Salt Lake City-based church $5,538 for failing to report the numerous contributions. The fine comes in response to a complaint filed in November 2008 by Fred Karger, a gay-rights activist and co-founder of Californians Against Hate, who accused the Mormon Church of failing to report the value of the work it did to support Proposition 8.

"The investigation revealed that the church unintentionally failed to file daily reports detailing approximately $37,000 in non-monetary contributions," a statement on the church's website read. "The amount of contributions not reported represented the cost of staff time spent by church employees on activities to help the Yes on 8 committee during the final two weeks of the election."

Read the Article

10 Misconceptions About Neanderthals

As of 2009, the complete Neanderthal genome has been mapped. The most important implication of this is that it now becomes technically possible to clone a Neanderthal – to raise them back from the dead so to speak. The current estimated cost of doing this is $30 million US and no one is putting up the cash. There are ethical questions that are always going to be raised regarding cloning and this is also a hindrance. But there is absolutely no reason not to believe that we will – one day – be able to give birth to and raise a Neanderthal (or at least the closest thing possible to one).

Read the article

Found:Genes that let you live to 100

An interesting article from the BBC today on the discovery of a set of genes that would ensure people live to over 100 years, regardless of their bad habits.

SCIENTISTS have discovered the “Methuselah” genes whose lucky carriers have a much improved chance of living to 100 even if they indulge in an unhealthy lifestyle.

The genes appear to protect people against the effects of smoking and bad diet and can also delay the onset of age-related illnesses such as cancer and heart disease by up to three decades.

No single gene is a guaranteed fountain of youth. Instead, the secret of longevity probably lies in having the right “suite” of genes, according to new studies of centenarians and their families. Such combinations are extremely rare — only one person in 10,000 reaches the age of 100.

The genes found so far each appear to give a little extra protection against the diseases of old age. Centenarians appear to have a high chance of having several such genes embedded in their DNA.

As science reaches a stage where we can ensure that our bodies don't grow old, the cells in our bodies remained are just as strong with each division, then possibly this would mean that combined with advances in medicine the likelihood of death through natural causes and diseases would be very small.

How old could we hypothetically live for? I'm guessing if we continue to advance as quickly in this area of science as we are now, and are able to understand and manipulate more and more our genetic code then really there is no limit. A world where people cannot die. Its a beautiful but scary thought.

If this was the case, and we could ensure that our children would live forever would it be ethical, in the interests of avoiding the overpopulation of the planet, to prevent reproduction through laws or even sterilization?

Who do we allow to breed? Or put another way, whose genetic code do we choose to be passed onto future generations? It would take artificial selection into a whole new dimension.

Read the Article

It's Time to End the Church of Scientology's Tax-Exempt Status

It's pretty simple. American tax codes are wrongly benefiting and empowering the unethical, potentially illegal, and most assuredly uncharitable activities of an organization using "religion" as a cloak.

For more than 25 years, the IRS denied tax-exemption to the Church of Scientology. The long-running policy flowed from an IRS determination in 1967 that Scientology was in fact a commercial entity operated solely for the benefit of founder L. Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard has been gone for nearly a quarter century, but the questionable practices of extracting huge fees from members, paying lip service to informed consent and employing violence, threats and unfair labor tactics to protect its interests continue today under Scientology leader David Miscavige.

A legitimate religious organization does not use physical, mental, emotional and financial abuse to maintain membership. Nor does it function as a conspiracy to threaten and intimidate others. A valid religion informs people of church doctrine and beliefs before they make a commitment to join. A religious group with even the most basic ethics does not use its constituents as slave labor to reproduce and perpetuate its teachings.

Read the article