## The Mathematical Case for the Flood

If evolutionists are correct and modern man evolved 500,000 years ago (some would go back as far as 2,000,000 BC), at a population growth rate of 0.01%, there would have been approximately 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that is 2 with 43 zeroes) people on the Earth by the time Christ was born.

Keep in mind that evolutionists would have us believe that there were only 5,000,000,000 on the Earth at 8,000 BC, and with a growth rate of 0.05% (five times HIGHER than the figure I just posted), the population grew to 200,000,000 by 1 AD. In order to reach 200 MILLION over the course of 500,000 years, the growth rate would have had to be 3.8%.

We finally hit 1,000,000,000 around 1800 AD, and are sitting pretty at over 6,000,000,000 right now. The population growth rate over the last 100 years is just over 1.5%. The high was 2% in the 1960s, and has settled down at 1.11% in 2017.

The math does not add up. With a population growth rate half as high as we have now, it only took 8,000 years to increase by 195 MILLION people. Being generous and pretending that people were reproducing FIVE TIMES less often over the previous 492,000 years, there is no WAY that you can account for the lack of population without a major global catastrophe.

Evolutionists would again have you believe that 10,000 years ago (8,000 BC) was the beginning of the current pause of the Quaternary Ice Age. In other words, most of humanity was wiped out around 8,000 BC.

This coincides, interestingly enough, with The Bible. Christians believe that Adam was created in 4,000 BC, and we know that most dating measures are inaccurate enough to account for the difference.

Gap theorists (which I am) believe that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, but was destroyed by a flood and restored in 6,000 BC. This just happens to coincide with Ice Age theory as well.

Regardless, we can ALL agree that there was a global catastrophic event that would have brought human population to a relatively small number between 6000-8000 year ago.

I would posit that a 0.05% growth rate is still too low. Yes, mortality rates were much higher than they are now, but so were birth rates. We live in an industrialized world where children are no longer a necessity, and we still have a 1.11% population growth rate. In non-industrial Africa, the rate is 2.5% in 2017. Is it logical to assume that the growth rate was actually higher than 0.05% prior to 1 AD?

That would again throw the math off. UNLESS, there was ANOTHER global catastrophe that happened, let’s say, around 2300 BC.

If the Biblical account of Noah’s flood is true, then 8 people survived. With a mere population growth of 0.7%, we could make it to the estimated 200 MILLION by the time of Christ’s birth. I believe this is much more plausible than the ridiculously low rate of 0.05%.

I believe in the Flood. I believe that the data backs up the Flood. The Bible, once again, proves reliable.

Advertisements

## Religious Difference in Supernatural Beliefs (My Master’s Thesis)

ABSTRACT

The supernatural has been a topic of sociological study for over a century, and belief in the existence of paranormal phenomena is permeating into various aspects of the media. Although publicly labeled as a deviant group, paranormal believers comprise a majority in the United States. When different supernatural belief systems are combined under an umbrella of paranormal beliefs, most Americans surveyed share a common belief in the unexplained.  Research shows that there is a relationship between the paranormal, religious denomination, and religiosity. The types of supernatural phenomena believed by different religions varies. By using data from the Baylor Religion Survey Wave II (2007), I predict that religious denomination plays a significant role in determining supernatural beliefs.

Religious Differences in Supernatural Beliefs

We use prayers for protection, you don’t want bad or evil entities and you can actually build protection for yourself and a lot of it is done through quasi-religious prayer. Whether you believe in one God, multi-gods or whatever, you’re basically praying to whatever higher being you believe in and asking him to help you out, to protect you.

–“Matthew”

INTRODUCTION

Long held traditions in America are being challenged. Mainstream religious beliefs are on the decline, but people are turning to the supernatural rather than to science. Research clearly shows that paranormal beliefs are increasing as adherence to organized religion is decreasing. Robertson (1970) posited that there will be some form of religion so long as there are societies. It seems that so long as there are societies, there will also be supernatural beliefs. If religion is the worship of the collective (Durkheim 1915) and the collective ties that bind society become frayed and weak, many will turn to whatever familiar belief can be easily grasped. Therefore, we need to better understand the link between belief in the supernatural and its relationship with religion, and the best way to do that is through sociological study.

In the 1970s, the Central Intelligence Agency further legitimized belief in the supernatural by employing self-described psychics in an effort to test the limits of paranormal psychic powers. This program became declassified in 1995, and the government admitted to using “remote viewing” as a means of tapping into paranormal human consciousness for the purpose of spying on American enemies (Puthoff 1996).

Paranormal or Supernatural?

Some researchers use the terms of paranormal and supernatural as two distinct terms. Beck and Miller (2001) used “paranormal” to describe psychic (psi) phenomena like telekinesis and ESP. However, Rice (2003) used “supernatural” to refer to the same phenomena. Therefore, I believe that the two terms, both referring to something otherworldly and unexplained, can be used interchangeably when discussing mysterious phenomena.

Socio-Historical Context

Spirits, ghosts, angels, demons, and UFOs have been a represented part of human history going back to the Paleolithic Era (Michel 1969). Tales of gods and the afterlife were passed from generation to generation through oral traditions, religious texts, classical literature, and through modern media. Thus, the concepts of unknowable phenomena being attributed to beings or entities outside of the measure of natural occurrences can be traced back through centuries and across many cultures (Baker and Bader 2014).

The Enlightenment Era marked the shift from religion to science as a basis for understanding mysterious events previously attributed to phenomena outside of nature (Durkheim 1915). Smith, Emerson, Gallagher, Kennedy, and Sikkink (1998) discussed the damage done to religion through the various twentieth century legal trials like the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925. The political and moral power of Protestantism throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century in America was challenged by other up-and-coming denominations as well. The house of cards that the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants had constructed came tumbling down as religious separatism became the predominant mantra of American fundamentalist Christians (Smith et al. 1998). Though there were other attempts to resurrect the great evangelical movements that followed, the general trend in America was to move away from Christianity (Emilsen 2012).

Regardless of the increase in scientific understanding and a decrease of participation in organized religions (Baker and Bader 2014), paranormal belief is increasing in America (Kwilecki 2009). Advances in technology have provided a means for everyday people to acquire tools—such as electro-magnetic field detectors, high definition cameras, and digital audio recorders—for paranormal investigation.

The economic recession of 2008, high employment uncertainty, and the postmodern economic shift from industry to technology (Jorgenson 2001) places the contemporary era in a decline of confidence in institutions or leadership resulting in a “legitimation crisis” (Habermas 1975). There is a rise in anti-Capitalist sentiment (Zizek 2012), an increase in atheism (Emilsen 2012), and a general sense that the American traditions of the past are fading away. The sense of anomic normlessness that Durkheim (1897) wrote about is shaking the foundation of society to its core. Social bonds are fragmenting, so a return to beliefs that seem to have been in decline provide a handle to be grasped by the hands of those seeking to find respite in tradition; including a return to supernatural beliefs.

Sociological Relevance

The teaser that was created was one to show people what we’re doing, and to shop it. One to shop it, to see if we can get out there in a sense so we can do our thing the way we do it. Cuz Ghost Adventures does their way. Ghost Hunters does their way. We’re trying to do things our way.

–“Johnny”

The supernatural is “mysterious” and “unknowable” (Durkheim 1915). As scientific authority, a social construct in itself (Brewer 2012), allows us to better comprehend mysterious phenomena, we are able to categorize previously unexplained supernatural events into the explained realm of the natural. The increase in available technology allows for paranormal investigators to use the combination of scientific claims and “democratization” to claim authority while being accessible to the public (Molle and Bader 2014). Yet, paranormal beliefs are becoming so prevalent in America that an emerging theory states that these beliefs have become a kind of alternative to mainstream religion (Orenstein 2002).

In an effort to capitalize on the increasing interests of the majority of Americans who share beliefs in unexplained phenomena (Aarnio and Lindeman 2005; Braswell, Rosengren, and Berenbaum 2012; Hillstrom and Strachan 2000; Mencken, Bader, and Kim 2009; Orenstein 2002; Rice 2003), the American media is increasing the production of paranormal commodities (Brewer 2012; Molle and Bader 2014) For instance, late 20th century authors R.L. Stine, Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, and Dean Koontz have sold a combined 1.5 billion books and have placed these four supernatural writers in the top twenty bestselling fiction authors of all time.

Durkheim began a sociological study into the supernatural about a century ago as the industrial economy overtook agriculture as the dominant economic force in America. Similarly, the post-industrial, technological economy is currently poised to overtake the industrial. Many studies on paranormal beliefs have emerged over the past twenty years. The topic of the supernatural has maintained relevance to sociologists for a century, and the increase in popularity and mainstreaming of paranormal/ghost/UFO investigation in the media during a time of social distress in the early 21st century shows that study of the supernatural is possibly even more relevant today.

THEORY

Cognitive Psychology and Durkheim

Cognition can be as social as it is psychological (Zerubavel 1996). As science begins to allow us to better comprehend previously mysterious concepts, we can categorically move the supernatural into the realm of the natural. Durkheim (1915) posited that supernatural belief is not only “rational” but “logically related.” As DiMaggio (1997) wrote, sociology and psychology do share “points of convergence” that most certainly apply to a Durkheimian study of the supernatural. Thus, in order to better understand the reasons for paranormal belief that extend beyond demographic factors, we must bring elements of cognition studies into our sociological “toolkit” (Swidler 1986).

This relationship between religion, the supernatural, and cognition is rooted in processes that “violate the boundaries between ontological domains” (Wuthnow 2007). This ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one’s own is known as Theory of Mind (ToM).

Biological variables could influence religious paranormal beliefs through genetic differences in personality, diet, drug abuse, and sex. Women, for example, are more capable of exhibiting ToM capabilities than men are and are more likely to be affected by the paranormal phenomenon of possession. Spirit possession is an example of a challenge to ToM capacities because at least two mental identities coexist within one person at the same time. Possession usually occurs in group settings, thus the observers must follow their own mental capacities as well as the multiple entities of the host, stretching ToM capacities to immeasurable limits (Whitehouse 2008).

Many theorists have argued that human beings, as we are now coming to understand, are “multiphrenic”. This means that we are able to hold beliefs that seem to contradict one another simultaneously, such as believing in both God and science. Furthermore, suprahuman agents act in a way that can cross schematic boundaries. Gods or angels can resemble human beings in some ways, but be completely different in others.

Durkheim (1915) wrote of a similar concept:

There, we are continually coming upon beings which have the most contradictory attributes simultaneously, who are at the same time one and many, material and spiritual, who can divide themselves up indefinitely without losing anything of their constitution. (emphasis added)

Therefore, we can begin to understand the ways in which religious individuals view the relationships between these supernatural entities and human beings (Wuthnow 2007) as a rational, although not particularly scientific, line of reasoning (Durkheim 1915).

Religion and the Afterlife

Although many religions share the same sacred texts, not all of them share the same beliefs in different paranormal types. Christianity, Islam, and Jewish religions cross paths in their adherence to the Old Testament portion of The Bible. However, only Christians claim the New Testament. This affects the religious supernatural views of the rapture, prophecies of the battle of Armageddon, and views of the afterlife.

Rather than a concept of Purgatory put forth by the Catholics (Bader et al. 2010), Jewish people believe that we all visit Sheol when we die (Emerton 1987). Furthermore, a physical, yet to be identified, valley in Jerusalem is thought to be the actual location of what Christians refer to as Hell, but Muslims and Jews call it “Jahannam” and “Gehenna” respectively (Montgomery 1908). Jewish practitioners often put little focus on the afterlife (Cohen, Pierce Jr., Chambers, Meade, Gorvine, & Koenig 2005; Klenow & Bolin 1990), but those who do believe that they will reach Paradise, rather than Heaven, if they fulfill the duties that their religion requires (Montgomery 1908).

Even among Christian denominations, religious supernatural beliefs vary. Different denominations find varying strength in their acknowledgement of paranormal claims (Mencken, Bader and Kim 2009; Orenstein 2002), and there is significant correlation between whether a person can be identified as a religious believer or “nominal” believer and their belief in paranormal activity (Hillstrom and Strachan 2000).

Theoretical Framework

Rice (2003) splits paranormal beliefs into two categories. Religious paranormal beliefs include those typical to Christian doctrine, such as God, Satan, angels, demons, Heaven, Hell, and other beliefs associated with the teachings of The Bible. Classical beliefs, however, include telekinesis, telepathy, ESP, ghosts, UFOs, the occult, and general supernatural phenomena.

For the purposes of this study, I have re-categorized Rice’s paranormal framework in conjunction with Durkheim’s work on the supernatural. I have reclassified the various types of unexplained phenomena into three categories of paranormal belief systems. The first is cryptozoological beliefs that would include Bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs/Aliens as well as other monsters. These beings are rarely ever seen, yet tales of their appearances can be traced around the globe and are shared by many cultures.

The second category would include religious phenomena such as demonic entities and angelic beings. These concepts also include ideas of the afterlife such as heaven, hell, or purgatory. Religious paranormal beliefs remain the most prominent among current believers in the unexplainable.

The third category refers to classical or Durkheimian supernatural beliefs. Rather than dealing with an entity of some kind, the supernatural includes ways in which energy is manipulated. This can be through moving objects with the mind, as in telekinesis, or using unexplainable means of mental communication like telepathy or extra-sensory perception. Others believe in the manipulation of existential energy that is shared by all people that can result in seeing auras, healing by way of stones or meditation, and the use of positive and negative energy as karma.

Hypotheses

Are religious beliefs correlated with paranormal beliefs? Based on the previous discussion of theory, I have developed the following hypotheses: (H1) is that types of paranormal beliefs differ between religious and non-religious denominations. (H1a) Because of higher levels of believing that The Bible is true (Table 1), I expect that Baptists will have the strongest religious paranormal belief. (H1b) I expect that Non-Religious respondents will have the strongest classic paranormal belief. (H1c) I predict that Non-Religious respondents will have the strongest belief in cryptozoological paranormal belief. My second hypothesis (H2) is that religiosity is correlated with paranormal belief, so that (H2a) higher religiosity will correlate with higher religious paranormal belief, (H2b) higher religiosity will correlate with lower classic paranormal belief, and (H2c) higher religiosity will lead to lower cryptozoological paranormal belief. The null hypothesis () states that B (Catholic) = B (Baptist) = B (Protestant) = B (Pentecostal) = B (Non-Denominational) = B (Jewish) = B (Other Affiliation) = B (No Religion)

METHODS

I used data from the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS), Wave II. In 2007, Baylor University, by way of the Gallup Organization, surveyed 1,648 respondents on 318 variables in order to measure religious and paranormal beliefs among Americans. This was a mixed-mode sampling design utilizing a 16-page self-administered survey and telephone survey from a sample of the general population of America adults aged 18 years or older.

The telephone sample was drawn using random digit dialing including listed and unlisted numbers. At each randomly sampled household, an interviewer from Gallup attempted to speak to an adult living in the home using a three-call design. Respondents were given selected questions from the self-administered survey and offered a \$5 incentive if they would be willing to give their address to Gallup and fill out the self-administered survey. 456 respondents completed and returned the questionnaire (ARDA 2015).

In addition to the telephone recruitment, Gallup mailed 1836 self-administered surveys to households randomly sampled from Gallup’s RDD database (selected using random digit dialing sample design). 1,192 respondents completed and returned the questionnaire.  In total, the combined sample was 1,648 respondents (ARDA 2015). The unit of analysis in this study is an individual who completed the BRS.

Using SPSS statistical software, I ran OLS regression models in order to measure the strength, direction, and significance of any relevant relationships, and eliminate as many potential errors as possible. I performed steps to clean the data including an “if, then” statement to ensure that respondents answered questions pertaining to every variable in my final data set. I imputed missing data when appropriate by calculating the series mean in SPSS as proposed by S.F. Buck (1960). I did this only for questions that shared common responses and there were fewer than 200 missing responses per question. If more than 200 data were missing, I removed the variable from the model.

Outcome Variables

There are several parts of the question “in your opinion, does each of the following exist (see Table 1)?” on the BRS that measure belief in the paranormal. Each question is coded Absolutely Not (1), Probably Not (2), Probably (3), and Absolutely (4). There are eight questions that pertain to religious paranormal phenomena; angels, Armageddon, demons, the Devil/Satan, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and the Rapture. These eight phenomena can be coded as Religious Paranormal Belief. Additional parts of the aforementioned question include belief in the existence of ghosts, extraterrestrials, and Bigfoot; can be coded as Cryptozoological Paranormal Belief. The final part of the question pertains to “Psychic phenomena, such as ESP” and can be coded as Classic Paranormal Belief. I computed these variables into respective indexes in SPSS so that the higher the score, the more paranormal phenomena the respondent believes in.

Predictor Variables

The predictor variables are religious denomination and religiosity. Religious denominations are numerous (See Table 2). For this study, I coded denominations as dichotomous categories and divided them into eight groups based on the denominational framework of Steensland, Park, Regnerus, Robinson, Wilcox, and Woodberry (2000) so that Catholic/Roman Catholic (1), Baptist (2), Protestant (3), Pentecostal (4) Non-Denominational Christian (5), Jewish (6), Other Affiliations (7), and No Religion/Don’t Know (8).

Religiosity is a curious term with many definitions. Like Cohen et al. (2005), I measured the following categories using the operational definition of frequency of religious service attendance and prayer behavior. I coded religious service attendance Never (0), A few times a year (1), Several times a year (2), Once a month (3), About weekly (4), and Several times a week (5). I coded prayer or meditation as Never (0), Only on certain occasions (1), Once a week or less (2), Once a day (3), and Several times a day (4). I also included personal beliefs in God, which I coded I am an atheist/No opinion (0), I don’t know, and there is no way to know (1), I sometimes believe in God/God is a higher power or cosmic force (2), No doubt that God exists/Believe but with doubts (3).

Finally, I included a variable on personal views about The Bible. The responses were coded so that the higher the literal belief in The Bible, the higher the number. I don’t know (1), The Bible is an ancient book of history and legends (2), The Bible contains some human error (3), The Bible is perfectly true, but it should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning (4), and The Bible means exactly what it says. It should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects (5).

Control Variables

Given that the variables being measured are non-demographic, I must control for race, gender, highest education level completed, age, income, and political affiliation. Each racial category on the BRS had its own question associated with it, and respondents could answer multiple questions. If the respondent only chose white, they were coded White (1), if a respondent chose only black, they were coded Black (2), and if a respondent chose multiple or other races, they were coded Other (3).

Gender is a nominal variable and is a binary category so that male was coded as (1), while female was coded as (2). Highest education level completed is an ordinal variable with categories of (1) Less than High School/G.E.D., (2) High School Diploma/G.E.D., (3) Some college, (4) Trade school/Undergraduate degree, and (5) Graduate/Professional degree. Income is also ordinal and is coded \$20,000 or less (1), \$20,001-\$50,000 (2), \$50,001-\$100,000 (3), \$100,001-\$150,000 (4), and \$150,001 or more (4). Political affiliation was coded conservative (1), moderate (2), and liberal (3). Age is an interval/ratio variable.

I included a measure of political affiliation because a conservative respondent may have more traditional religious and supernatural beliefs than someone who identifies as liberal. I coded this so that conservative (1), moderate (2), and liberal (3). For a complete list of descriptives, see Table 3.

RESULTS

I included my denomination variables (Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, Jewish, Other Affiliations, and No Religion) in my OLS regression. I used Protestant as my reference category in each model because it is the largest religious group in the survey.

My models included religious, classical, and cryptozoological beliefs as my DV, the eight religious denominations (with Protestant as the reference group) and religiosity measures as my IVs, and age, race, gender, income, political affiliation, and education as covariates. The Religious Supernatural Belief index ranged from 8-32. The mean was 23.1 with a standard deviation of 6.79. The Classical Supernatural Belief index ranges from 1 to 4 with a mean of 2.65 and a standard deviation of .92. The Cryptozoological Supernatural Belief index ranges from 3-12. The mean is 6.56 with a standard deviation of 2.13.

Religious Paranormal

(Insert table 4 here)

For model 1, I regress religious supernatural beliefs on religious denomination with Protestants serving as the reference category. The results show that most religious groups are significantly different from Protestants in their religious supernatural beliefs.  Those identifying as Jewish are 10.19 less religiously supernatural than Protestants.  Those identifying as “No Religion” are 7.93 less religiously supernatural than Protestants.  On the contrary, Pentecostals are 5.68 more religiously supernatural than Protestants, followed by Baptists (4.38 more), Non-Denominational (2.66 more), and Catholics (0.85 more).

Model 2 examines the relationships between religiosity and religious supernatural beliefs, regressing paranormal beliefs on religious service attendance, belief in the Bible, personal beliefs about God, and frequency of prayer or meditation.  The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their religious supernatural beliefs by 3.56. Those with greater personal beliefs in God share higher religious beliefs in the supernatural, a result not surprising given the relationship between God and the eight measures used in the religious supernatural index.

For each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents increase their religious supernatural beliefs by 1.598. Increases in religious service attendance and frequency of prayer or meditation also lead to increased religious supernatural beliefs (0.18 and 0.81 respectively).

Model 3 combines both religious denomination and religiosity variables in the same analytic model.  Once controlling for religiosity measures, there is some change in the relationship between religious denomination and beliefs in the religious supernatural.  For the most part, most of the power of religious denomination in explaining religious supernatural beliefs is reduced.

Those identifying as Jewish are 2.21 less religiously supernatural than Protestants. On the contrary, Baptists are 2.27 more religiously supernatural than Protestants, followed by Pentecostals (2.21 more), Non-Denominational (1.47 more), and Catholics (1.07).

The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their religious supernatural beliefs by 3.38. For each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents increase their religious supernatural beliefs by 1.45. Increases in frequency of prayer or meditation also leads to increased religious supernatural beliefs by 0.72. Religious service attendance lost all statistical significance.

Once religiosity is included in the model, the significant difference between Protestants and those identifying with “No Religion” disappears. Similarly, the addition of religiosity reduces the significant differences between Protestants and Baptists, Pentecostals, Non-Denominational, and Jewish respondents.

Model 4 includes the demographic control variables to show how the relationship between religious denomination and religious paranormal beliefs responds when controlling for race, age, education, gender, political affiliation, and income.  When the additional variables are accounted for, all but Baptist denominational differences with Protestants saw decreased statistical significance. For the most part, most of the power of religious denomination in explaining religious paranormal beliefs is reduced.

Those identifying as Jewish are 1.90 less religiously supernatural than Protestants. On the contrary, Baptists are 1.63 more religiously supernatural than Protestants, followed by Non-Denominational (0.92 more), and Catholics (0.90). Once the control measures were introduced, the difference between Pentecostal and Protestant became statistically insignificant.

The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their religious paranormal beliefs by 3.20. For each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents increase their religious supernatural beliefs by 1.21. Increases in frequency of prayer or meditation also leads to increased religious supernatural beliefs by 0.71. Religious service attendance regains statistical significance, and each increase in attendance leads to a 0.17 increase in religious supernatural beliefs.

Many of the control variables are also significant. For each unit increase in race, religious supernatural beliefs increase by 0.54. Consistent with previous research, for each increase in age, education, income, and political affiliation, religious supernatural belief decreases by 0.04, 0.36, 0.43, and 1.08 respectively. Gender, however, is not statistically significant.

In the models predicting religious supernatural beliefs, the R-squared shows that the variables explain a large amount of variance in paranormal beliefs.  In Model 4, the R-squared explains 67% of the variance.

Classical Paranormal

(Insert Table 5 here)

For model 1, I regress classical supernatural beliefs on religious denomination with Protestants serving as the reference category.  The results show that most religious groups are not significantly different from Protestants in their classical supernatural beliefs.  Those identifying as Jewish (-0.32), Baptist (-0.27), and Non-Denominational (-0.22) are less classically supernatural than Protestants. On the contrary, Catholics are 0.15 more likely to believe in classical supernatural phenomena than Protestants. Pentecostals, Others, and No Religion have no statistically significant difference with Protestants.

Model 2 examines the relationships between religiosity and classical supernatural beliefs, regressing supernatural beliefs on religious service attendance, belief in The Bible, personal beliefs about God, and frequency of prayer or meditation.  The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power (0.28) and increase in frequency of prayer or meditation (0.05), respondents increase their classical supernatural beliefs.

Conversely, for each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents decrease their religious supernatural beliefs by 0.15. Increases in religious service attendance also leads to decreased religious supernatural beliefs by 0.11.

Model 3 combines both religious denomination and religiosity variables in the same analytic model.  Once controlling for religiosity measures, there is some change in the relationship between religious denomination and beliefs in the classical supernatural.  For the most part, most of the power of religious denomination in explaining classical supernatural beliefs is reduced.

Those identifying as Baptists are 0.18 less classically supernatural than Protestants, followed by Non-Denominational (0.22 less). Catholic, Pentecostal, Jewish, Other Affiliation, and No Religion are not statistically significant in this model.

The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their classical supernatural beliefs by 0.24. For each increase in frequency of prayer or meditation, classical supernatural beliefs increase by 0.05.

Conversely, for each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents decrease their classical supernatural beliefs by 0.12. Increases in religious service attendance also leads to decreased classical supernatural beliefs by 0.11.

Once religiosity is included in the model, the significant difference between Protestants and all denominations save for Baptist and Non-Denominational respondents disappears.

Model 4 includes the demographic control variables to show how the relationship between religious denomination and classical supernatural beliefs responds when controlling for race, age, education, gender, political affiliation, and income.  For the most part, most of the power of religious denomination in explaining classical supernatural beliefs is reduced.

Those identifying as Baptists are 0.15 less classically supernatural than Protestants, followed by Non-Denominational (0.21 less). Catholic, Pentecostal, Jewish, Other Affiliation, and No Religion are not statistically significant in this model.

The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their classical supernatural beliefs by 0.25.

However, for each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents decrease their classical supernatural beliefs by 0.11. Increases in religious service attendance also leads to decreased classical supernatural beliefs by 0.10. Frequency of prayer or meditation becomes not statistically significant.

Only two of the control variables are statistically significant. For each unit increase in gender, classical supernatural beliefs increase by 0.15. As respondents identify with being more politically liberal, their classical supernatural beliefs increase by 0.12. No other variables are statistically significant.

In the models predicting classical supernatural beliefs, the R-squared (from 2% to 10%) shows that the variables explain a small amount of variance in beliefs.  In Model 4, the explains about 10% of the variance.

Cryptozoological Paranormal

(Insert Table 6 here)

For model 1, I regress cryptozoological supernatural beliefs on religious denomination with Protestants serving as the reference category.  The results show that most religious groups are significantly different from Protestants in their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs.  Those identifying as Jewish are 0.78 less cryptozoologically supernatural than Protestants.  Those identifying as Pentecostal are 0.58 less cryptozoologically supernatural than Protestants, followed by Baptist (0.38 less). On the contrary, Other Affiliation and Catholic are 0.81 and 0.34 more likely to believe in cryptozoological supernatural phenomena than Protestants. Non-Denominational and No Religion have no statistically significant difference with Protestants.

Model 2 examines the relationships between religiosity and cryptozoological supernatural beliefs, regressing supernatural beliefs on religious service attendance, belief in The Bible, personal beliefs about God, and frequency of prayer or meditation.  The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.58. For each increase in frequency of prayer or meditation, cryptozoological supernatural beliefs increase by 0.12.

Conversely, for each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents decrease their religious supernatural beliefs by 0.20. Increases in religious service attendance also leads to decreased religious supernatural beliefs by 0.32.

Model 3 combines both religious denomination and religiosity variables in the same analytic model.  Once controlling for religiosity measures, there is some change in the relationship between religious denomination and beliefs in the cryptozoological supernatural.  For the most part, most of the power of religious denomination in explaining cryptozoological supernatural beliefs as well as statistical significance is reduced. Those identifying as Other Affiliation are 0.78 more cryptozoologically supernatural than Protestants, however, no other denominations are statistically significant in this model.

The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.53. For each increase in frequency of prayer or meditation, cryptozoological supernatural beliefs increase by 0.10. Conversely, for each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents decrease their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.15 and the statistical significance decreases. Increases in religious service attendance also leads to decreased cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.32.

Once religiosity is included in the model, the significant difference between Protestants and all denominations save for Other Affiliation disappears.

Model 4 includes the demographic control variables to show how the relationship between religious denomination and cryptozoological supernatural beliefs responds when controlling for race, age, education, gender, political affiliation, and income.  For the most part, most of the power of religious denomination in explaining cryptozoological supernatural beliefs actually increases from the previous model, but only one denomination has statistical significance. Those identifying as Other Affiliation are 0.66 less cryptozoologically supernatural than Protestants, but no other denominations are statistically significant in this model.

The results show that for each additional increase in the belief that God is a higher power, respondents increase their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.52. Conversely, for each additional increase that The Bible is the literal word of God, respondents decrease their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.15. Increases in religious service attendance also leads to decreased cryptozoological supernatural beliefs by 0.29. Frequency of prayer or meditation becomes not statistically significant.

Most of the control variables are statistically significant. For each unit increase in age, cryptozoological supernatural beliefs decrease by 0.02, followed by education (0.10) and income (0.18). As respondents identify with being more politically liberal, their cryptozoological supernatural beliefs increase by 0.18. Race and gender are statistically significant.

In the models predicting cryptozoological supernatural beliefs, the R-squared (2% to 11%) shows that the variables explain a small amount of variance in beliefs.  In Model 4, the explains only about 11% of the variance.

DISCUSSION

With a majority of respondents believing in multiple supernatural phenomena, the paranormal appears to continue its relevance to sociological study. Consistent with previous research, a majority of respondents believe in at least one type of supernatural phenomena (Aarnio and Lindeman 2005; Bader et al. 2010; Braswell et al. 2012; Hillstrom and Strachan 2000; Mencken et al. 2009; Orenstein 2002; Rice 2003) even though the types of religion in America have changed (Baker and Bader 2014; Emilsen 2012; Kwilecki 2009; Orenstein 2002; Smith et al. 1998). Over 80% believe that heaven and angels probably exist, and more than 63% believe in psi abilities. Almost half of respondents agree that ghosts and extraterrestrials probably or absolutely exist.

As predicted (H1), there are differences between religious denominations and supernatural belief types. When additional variables were added to religiosity, the effects on religiosity categories were only marginally affected. However, when controls for religiosity were entered with denomination categories, the effect on denominational differences in religious supernatural beliefs was significantly affected. Therefore, I can say that H2 is supported in that there is a relationship between religiosity and supernatural belief.

In the strongest models, the R-squared for religious supernatural beliefs (.631) was much higher than for classical (.102) and cryptozoological (.107). I believe the reason for such a discrepancy is due to the fewer number of questions in non-religious supernatural categories and the religious nature of the predictor variables. It makes sense that non-religious supernatural models would have significantly less correlation between religious variables.

Religious Supernatural

As predicted (H1a), Baptists have the highest level of religious paranormal beliefs when compared to Protestants. When considering only religiosity, Pentecostals have the highest levels of religious supernatural beliefs. However, the addition of control variables lowers the statistical significance between Pentecostal and Protestant to non-significance. Increases in religiosity measures correlate with higher religious supernatural beliefs. Thus, H2a is also supported.

The disappearance of Pentecostal differences with Protestants is worth noting. Pentecostal denominations typically engage in practices that would appear extra-supernatural, even within a Christian religion that clearly believes in many supernatural phenomena. One would think that a group that participates in faith healing, speaking in tongues, and “laying in the spirit”—a practice where individuals will fall into the arms of church leaders after being prayed over—would be more supernatural than other denominations. It is this adherence to “spiritual gifts” that I believe made it worth teasing out as a denominational category all its own, although Cohen et al. (2005) included them with Protestants.

Previous research using the BRS found that religious service attendance was the strongest predictor of paranormal beliefs (Bader et al. 2010). However, the strongest predictor variable in this study when determining religious supernatural beliefs is personal belief in God. One reason for this difference is that Bader et al. did not use personal belief in God as one of their primary religiosity measures. Furthermore, contrary to their study, when belief in The Bible, personal beliefs in God, and frequency of prayer are included, my results show that religious service attendance is not only the weakest predictor, but has the lowest statistical significance with regard to religious supernatural belief.

Furthermore, the variable “personal belief in God” should be the most significant predictor in a religious supernatural model. Religious services, Biblical literalness, and prayer frequency are all important to religious individuals, but the belief that God is a higher power directly reflects the strength of the religious practices that the respondent would engage in.

My study also shows that political affiliation is the strongest predictor of religious supernatural beliefs, and that the more liberal the respondent, the less likely they are to believe in religious supernatural phenomena. Bader et al. (2010) found that liberals (Democrats) were more likely to believe in at least one paranormal topic than Republicans, my study goes into further detail about this relationship. Liberals may, in fact, believe in more paranormal subjects overall, but they believe in significantly less religious supernatural phenomena. This is consistent with the knowledge that liberals are typically more educated and have a higher income, both of which are significant factors in inversely predicting the respondents’ views of the paranormal.

Future research should use more inclusive terms for religious phenomena. Rather than “heaven”, future studies should ask about heaven/paradise which is more inclusive for Jewish respondents. Future research should also include Gehenna, Sheol, Paradise, Nirvana, and other religiously diverse terms regarding the afterlife. Furthermore, the concept of jinn in Islam is similar to demons in Judeo-Christian religions and should be included.

Classical Supernatural

My prediction (H1b) that Non-Religious respondents would have the highest classical beliefs failed to be supported as there was no statistical significance for No Religion in my models. Instead, Baptist and Non-Denominational were the only two significant denominations for classical beliefs. H2b is partially supported, as increases in belief in the Bible and religious service attendance do correlate with lower classical supernatural belief. However, higher belief in God actually led to higher classical supernatural belief.

I predicted that No Religion would have the highest classical supernatural beliefs because they tend to adopt a more humanistic approach to the paranormal. I believed that religious respondents would have lower belief in psychic abilities, but I underestimated the significant differences between No Religion and Protestants with regard to classical paranormal beliefs. Bader et al. (2010) found no significance between Protestant and No Religion as well, but I thought the inclusion of personal belief in God and political party affiliation would account for increased significance. Even without religiosity or control variables, No Religion had no statistical significant difference with Protestants.

Again, I believed that the “spiritual gifts”, which include prophecy, would have made Pentecostals significantly different from Protestants with regard to classical psi phenomena. Once again, I was incorrect in this assumption. Even without any religiosity or control variables, Pentecostals exhibit no statistically significant difference with Protestants.

Rice (2003) and Bader et al. (2010) found education to be a statistically significant predictor of classical paranormal belief. However, when I controlled for political party affiliation, the statistical significance of education disappeared completely. I believe this to be that liberals are often more educated, so the two variables conflicted. Party affiliation was statistically significant regardless of supernatural type, denoting that it may be a more valid predictor than education.

The classical category should have been based on more than just one question of “psychic” phenomena, especially when religious paranormal beliefs had eight questions. Future research should have included individual questions about healing stones, telekinesis, telepathy/ESP, karma, the power of meditation, remote viewing, and other psi abilities.

Cryptozoogical Supernatural

Non-Religious respondents also showed no statistical significance for cryptozoological beliefs, therefore H1c is not supported. Other Affiliation was the only significant denomination for cryptozoological supernatural beliefs. Religiosity measures, however, partially support H2c as higher belief in The Bible and religious service attendance have lower cryptozoological beliefs. On the contrary, higher belief in God has higher cryptozoological supernatural belief.

Similar to classical beliefs, I believed that my models would show significant differences between No Religion and Protestant that was lacking in the Bader et al. (2010) models. I thought that the addition of ghosts—which were found to be statistically significant for No Religion in Bader et al.’s study—in my model of cryptozoological beliefs may have made a difference in significance, but ultimately did not.

Ghosts are actually mentioned in The Bible when King Saul went to the “witch of Endor” and spoke with the ghost of Samuel the prophet in the book of 1 Samuel. Rice (2003) presents an interesting argument as to why it is possible that the differences between Christian denominations are statistically insignificant. He writes that people may simply put some of this phenomena into a Christian context. Extraterrestrials, for instance, may be thought of as demonic or angelic beings, rather than visitors from another planet.

The relationship between UFOs and religion has a sordid history, for sure. The Urantia Book (1955) attempted to blend religion, history, and Ufology. Various UFO cults have come to prominence over the past 40 years, including the infamous Heaven’s Gate cult led by Marshall Applewhite—who, with Bonnie Nettles, were also known as “Bo and Peep” in Balch and Taylor’s (1977) study of UFO cults—that led to the mass suicide of 39 followers.

Thus, while I am surprised that No Religion did not possess the most significant cryptozoological belief, I am not surprised to see the lack of significant difference between Christian denominations. I believe that Other Affiliation may have been the only statistically significant group because of the wide range of religions included in the category. There is also no clear definition within “other”, so it would be hard to narrow any potential belief in UFOs, bigfoot, or ghosts as “other” may even include those interested in Scientology or UFO cults, who would have greater belief in extraterrestrials.

Furthermore, the cryptozoological category was also underrepresented, with only three questions. Ghosts, bigfoot, and extraterrestrials are very far-reaching, so I understand why the BRS included them. However, future research should also include other pop-culture creatures like The Mothman, Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, The New Jersey Devil, vampires, and werewolves.

Future Research

A significant limitation of this project is the limited number of questions and measures on paranormal beliefs in the BRS.  Scholars should work to improve the depth and range of paranormal activity questions to existing data.  Likewise, future research might benefit from a more extensive religious and paranormal data file that can include qualitative data from interviews and focus groups.

Works Cited

Aarnio, Kia, and Marjaana Lindeman. 2005. “Paranormal Beliefs, Education, and      Thinking Styles.” Personality and Individual Differences. 39:1227-1236.

Bader, Christopher D., F. Carson Mencken, and Joseph O. Baker. 2010. Paranormal         America: Ghost Encounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Baker, Joseph O. and Christopher D. Bader. 2014. “A Social Anthropology of Ghosts in Twenty-First-Century America.” Social Compass. 61(4): 569-593.

Balch, Robert W. and David Taylor. 1977. “The Role of the Cultic Milieu in Joining a UFO Cult.” The American Behavioral Scientist. 20(6): 839-861.

Beck, Richard and Jonathan P. Miller. 2001. “Erosion of Belief and Disbelief: Effects of Religiosity and Negative Affect on Beliefs in the Paranormal and Supernatural.” The Journal of Social Psychology. 141(2): 277-287.

Brewer, Paul R. 2012. “The Trappings of Science: Media Messages, Scientific Authority, and Beliefs About Paranormal Investigators.” Science Communication. 35(3): 311-333.

Buck, S.F. 1960. “A Method of Estimation of Missing Values in Multivariate Data Suitable for Use with an Electronic Computer.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological). 22(2): 302–306.

Cohen, Adam B., John D. Pierce Jr., Jaqueline Chambers, Rachel Meade, Benjamin J. Gorvine, Harold G. Koenig. 2005. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religiosity, Belief in the Afterlife, Death Anxiety, and Life Satisfaction in Young Catholics and Protestants.” Journal of Research in Personality 39: 307-324.

DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology 23: 263-288.

Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Sampson. Glencoe, IL:Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1915. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by J.W. Swain. Middletown, DE.

Emerton, John A. 1987. “Sheol and the Sons of Belial.” Vetus Testamentum. 37(2): 214-218.

Emilsen, William W. 2012. “The New Atheism and Islam.” The Expository Times. 123(11): 521-528.

Gotham, Kevin Fox. 2005. “Theorizing Urban Spectacles: Festivals, Tourism, and the Transformation of Urban Space.” City. 9(2): 225-246.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston, MA:Beacon Press.

Hibbard, James. 2014. “Syfy Will Never Stop Airing ‘Ghost Hunters.’” Entertainment Weekly. Oct 29. http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/10/29/ghost-hunters/

Hillstrom, Elizabeth L., and Melissa Strachan. 2000. “Strong Commitment to Traditional Protestant Religious Beliefs is Negatively Related to Beliefs in Paranormal Phenomena.” Psychological Reports. 86:183-189.

Jorgenson, Dale W. 2001. “Information Technology and the U.S. Economy.” The American Economic Review. 91(1): 1-32.

Karp, David A. 1999. “Social Science, Progress, and The Ethnographer’s Craft.” Journal  of Contemporary Ethnography. 28(6): 597-609.

Klenow, Daniel J., and Robert C. Bolin. 1990. “Belief in an Afterlife: A National Survey.” OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying. 20(1): 63-74.

Kwilecki, Susan. 2009. “Twenty-First-Century American Ghosts: The After-Death Communication—Therapy and Revelation from Beyond the Grave.” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation. 19(1): 101-133.

Mencken, F. Carson, Christopher D. Bader, and Ye Jung Kim. 2009. “Round Trip to Hell in a Flying Saucer: The Relationship Between Conventional Christian and Paranormal Beliefs in the United States.” Sociology of Religion. 70(1):65-85.

Michel, Aimé. 1969. “Palaeolithic UFO-Shapes.” Flying Saucer Review. 15(6): 3.

Molle, Andrea, and Christopher Bader. 2014. “’Paranormal Science’ from America to Italy: A Case of Cultural Homogenisation.” Pp. 121-138 in The Ashgate Research Companion to Paranormal Cultures, edited by O. Jenzen and S. R. Munt. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Montgomery, James A. 1908. “The Holy City and Gehenna.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 27(1): 24-47.

Orenstein, Alan 2002. “Religion and Paranormal Belief.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 41(2): 301-311.

Puthoff, H.E. 1996. “CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing Program at Stanford Research           Institute.” Journal of Scientific Exploration. 10(1): 63-76.

Rice, Tom W. 2003. “Believe it or Not: Religious and Other Paranormal Beliefs in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 42(1):95-106.

Smith, Christian, Michael Emerson, Sally Gallagher, Paul Kennedy, and David Sikkink. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.” Social Forces. 79(1): 291–318.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review. 51(10): 273-286.

The Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). 2015. “Baylor Religion Surveys.” Retrieved Oct. 13, 2015 (http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/BAYLORW2.asp).

The Urantia Book: Revealing the Mysteries of God, The Universe, World History, Jesus, and Ourselves. 1955. Chicago, IL: Urantia Foundation.

Whitehouse, Harvey. 2008. “Cognitive Evolution and Religion; Cognition and Religious Evolution.” Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology n.s. 3(3): 35-47.

Wuthnow, Robert. 2007. “Cognition and Religion.” Sociology of Religion. 64(8): 341-360.

Zizek, Slavoj. 2012. “Capitalism.” Foreign Policy. 196: 56-57.

## Social Media Responsibility

Most of us feel compelled to post only the “best” aspects of our lives on social media. Others post mostly the “worst”.
Those of us who present the “best” parts of ourselves on social media are not only seeking validation and praise, but are inadvertently harming others.
Those of us who present the “worst” are not only seeking validation and sympathy, but are inadvertently harming ourselves by perpetuating pain for temporary relief in the form of pity.
We constantly seek validation for our lives. We need to either feel praise or pity from the masses. We, as a society, are beginning to measure our self-worth based on “likes” or retweets.
I do my best to be honest with anyone who reads my posts. I do not seek sympathy or self-esteem. I view social media as a means to distribute information as quickly as possible to many people at once. Not every one of my posts are meant for you specifically, though I desire for those who do read what I write to know that they are not alone in their pain, passions, or pleasures. Not everything I write lands as well as I would like, and I accept that reality. That does not stop me from attempting to reach out, nor do I re-evaluate my own self worth if I receive zero “likes.”
We are complicated beings with a myriad of emotions and experiences and we can often feel like we are alone and isolated in our lives; like “no one understands” what we are going through at any given moment. We hop on Facebook to see how our friends and family are doing, only to see them living the “perfect” life filled with beautiful family photos and elaborate vacations.
We then internalize the envy we experience, because our lives are not perfect. We cannot afford to pay a professional photographer or go to the beach with the family. We are struggling to pay our bills, while our high school and college classmates appear to have everything going right.
This is why social media is dangerous in an age when most of us lack the ability to self-reflect. We should not covet the “perfect” lives of others. We also should not be prideful. The Bible warns of both of these extremes. Numerous academic studies have been warning of “social media depression” as suicidal feelings in kids younger than 13 has seen a 300+% increase over the last decade.
Adults are becoming more depressed, and our kids are attempting to kill themselves in near record numbers. As both producers and consumers of social media, we need to be more responsible. Seek validation from your immediate family or closest friends, not your extended social network. Most of all, understand that we are all intrinsically valuable and your life matters to someone who you personally interact with. Spend real time with those you love and who love you. You will benefit in ways you never thought possible.
Most importantly, develop a personal relationship with God. When you feel that no one else will be there for you, know that you have a heavenly Father who loves you and cares for you. He will make sure your basic needs are met, and He never leave or forsake you.

## Exposing the “Mental Health Crisis”

In sociology, mental health has long been viewed as a “social construction” like gender, race, etc. It is absolutely true in this case. Autism is new a “spectrum” that can be as wide as the mental health community wishes it to be. Homosexuality and transgenderism used to be afflictions that no longer appear in the DSM-V (the psychologists’ Bible for mental illnesses).

The United States of America is the most medicated society in the history of mankind. Do we really have a mental health crisis in which growing numbers of citizens are suffering from a mental illness, or are doctors and therapists merely prescribe more medication? I have always believed that the latter is the most likely answer, but my recent experiences have served to solidify that opinion.

I have been working as a mental health counselor in a local middle school for a few weeks now. It is a personally rewarding job, as helping kids overcome their social problems is an extremely important job. However, the unholy alliance of the education system, mental health industry, and government healthcare in the pockets of a private business has created an incredibly dangerous and destructive environment for our children.

My employer requires a minimum number of billable hours known as “productivity.” These hours are billed to Medicaid. The company needs to bill Medicaid so they can cover costs (payroll, rent, keeping the lights on, etc.) of doing business. I have to provide an average of 5 hours of productivity every day. I also need to have enough students on my caseload to meet those productivity standards. I share my caseload with a therapist who also has their own productivity numbers to meet.

Thus, a school therapist is incentivized to diagnose “enough” kids in the school to meet the productivity standards in order to bill Medicaid enough money to pay all of us.

The real consequence of this policy is an uptick in mental health diagnoses. I have already met with a number of students who have behavioral problems, not mental health problems. Most of them are on the “spectrum” – basically any kid who has trouble making friends ends up here. Several have been diagnosed with ADHD – any kid who has a hard time paying attention to boring teachers in classes that they don’t care about.

I have sat in public school classrooms. My clients are supposed to sit and exhibit ideal behavior while a half-dozen students who have not been diagnosed are acting like wild animals. My kids have “mental health” problems, but these other kids do not.

Many of my clients do not take prescribed medication because they say, “it makes me feel weird” or “I don’t feel like myself.” I completely understand this. In college, I read a paper about “the medicated self” which argues that those on anti-depressants are unsure which “self” is their true self.

Imagine being told that your “self” is not complete unless you are taking medication that basically turns you into a different person. This medicated “self” is the “good self”, while your natural existence is viewed as incomplete.

So we now have a group of students who are “mentally ill”, while other students who exhibit the same behavior are “mentally healthy.” One group is told that they need drugs to be complete, while the other is told they are whole. One group is diagnosed with “mental illnesses” whose definitions change over time, often due to social pressure from social justice lobbyists. One group needs to be diagnosed as mentally ill in order to keep therapists and CPSTs employed. One group is told they are incomplete, and we wonder why they grow up into adults who continue to exhibit mental health problems.

This does not even address the potential damage that a psychotropic drug can have when introduced to an otherwise healthy brain. Most people who are diagnosed have not had any sort of brain scan. An “expert” who sits in an office determines the brain chemistry of a client after a conversation or two – not an MRI or C/T scan, but a chat determines that neurons and synapses are not working properly –  and prescribes drugs to these individuals.

This is the reality of America’s “mental health crisis.” We are creating mental illness by redefining what makes someone ill and introducing brain chemistry altering drugs into potentially healthy brains.

**This is not to say that there are not legitimate cases of mental illness. I am merely saying that they are far less prevalent than we are led to believe.**

Many of our schools are filled with mental health workers who are incentivized to diagnose a certain number of students as mentally ill in order to fulfill arbitrary “productivity” standards.

It is my experience that the overwhelming similarity between clients is the lack of a two-parent household. Some poor kid who experiences abuse or abandonment in the home acts out at school to get attention to show that he has power somewhere. These kids do not have broken brains, they are victims of broken homes.

We must fix families. We must worry more about making these kids whole rather than meeting “productivity”. We must allow teachers and schools to deal with kids in a more effective way than slapping them with a mental health diagnosis that excuses bad behavior and will follow them for the rest of their lives.

We must stop telling our kids that they are not whole.

I would gladly sacrifice my job for the greater good. The “mental health crisis” needs to be discussed. We must shine a light on the dark corners of the mental health industry before it all gets worse.

If you are a mental health worker, do you agree or disagree? Where am I wrong? Where am I right? I would love to hear from you by either commenting on this post or you can email me at scornedchaos@hotmail.com.

## Ohio State Juvenile Reforms

A Brief History of Ohio Juvenile Institutions

Prior to the institution of the Ohio Reform School in 1857, male juvenile offenders were sent to adult penitentiaries. The ORS housed boys between 8 and 18 years old. It adopted the cottage style “open system” rather than a large structure to house inmates. Boys entered the ORS with a number of “demerits” that were based on the nature of their crimes. Bad behavior led to additional demerits, but good behavior led to the loss of demerits. Once a boy reached zero demerits, they were freed and returned to their families (Ohio History Central n.d.).

The Breaking Point

By 1992, the Ohio juvenile prison system was breaking down. The state had 11 facilities with the capacity to house 1,400 inmates. However, there were nearly 2,500 boys held in these institutions. Nine counties instituted a pilot program in 1993 to curb the rising problems within the system. They began to funnel non-violent offenders into community based programs with mental health services, family counseling, and substance abuse treatment, rather than youth prisons (Shaffer 2015).

The immediate results were clear. The number of inmates dropped 40% in the first year, the daily cost per offender in youth prisons was around \$550, but community-based programs cost only \$200. Recidivism rates were cut in half, and 85% of the courts in the system approved of the reforms. Although a marked improvement, Ohio juvenile corrections facilities suffered from many of the same problems that most institutions do.

The Institutional State of State Institutions

In 2010, the Children’s Defense Fund, in conjunction with the Annie E. Casey Foundation – the organization most famously connected with the uber-successful “Missouri Model” – released a report on the state of juvenile institutions in the state of Ohio. The Missouri Model promotes keeping youths in smaller facilities rather than gigantic institutions. They focus on treatment over incarceration. They promote group therapy over isolation. The staff promotes positive interaction over abuse and intimidation. They encourage education, family involvement, and stay with youths after they are released.

Abuses and Lawsuits

The Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) faced a federal lawsuit filed in 2004 that was finally settled in 2008, over its unconstitutional treatment of inmates. There were complaints about increased violence and abuse coming from both guards and other inmates. In one incident, inmates were being transferred in a face down position from one facility to another (Prison Legal News 2015). Other accusations involved isolation, and racial bias in mental health treatment.

By 2012, the ODYS filed a motion to terminate a stipulation requiring court-ordered monitoring of the system. The court agreed that no more, or at least, very few unconstitutional actions were taking place within the ODYS, and monitoring ended (Prison Legal News 2015).

In 2014, the ODYS settled another lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department over the unlawful seclusion of inmates. As part of the settlement, ODYS agreed to reduce and eventually end seclusion of youths and increase the availability of mental health treatments to better determine the root causes of behavior that led to such a punishment (Department of Justice 2014).

A 2016 lawsuit was filed by Disability Rights Ohio (DRO) against the Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center (MCJDC) in Lancaster, OH for refusing to allow DRO to investigate their facilities with private and confidential access. While given a tour, the MCJDC did not allow DRO to have private conversations with inmates – a confidential discussion that ensures the safety of an inmate who may have concerns about their treatment at the facility. This is a violation of state and federal law (Disability Rights Ohio 2016).

JDAI

The state of Ohio began instituting a national program of Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) in the state’s five largest counties in 2010. Prior to the implementation of JDAI, Ohio’s juvenile incarceration rate was among the top third of all states. Only 33% of juveniles were detained for person-offenses, more than 40% for drug offenses, and 25% for violating probation, status offenses, violating court orders, or other technical offenses (Children’s Defense Fund 2010).

The four core goals of JDAI are to: 1) Eliminate the overuse of secure detention; 2) Minimize failures to appear in court and reduce delinquent behavior; 3) Redirect public finances from building new facilities to creating responsible alternative strategies; and 4) Improve conditions in secure detention facilities.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund (2010), a multi-level approach was proposed for juvenile reforms in Ohio, including:

1. Continue and Expand County-Based Detention Reform.
2. Continue State Leadership on Reducing Incarceration Rates.
3. Create a System of State Oversight, Assistance and Accountability for Detention.
4. Ensure that All Youth Risking Detention Have Effective Legal Representation.

Results

By 2017, there was a 29% reduction in juvenile admissions across the eight sites that implemented JDAI reforms (Kuhlman 2017), and many other sites were closed. The institution of Community Intervention Centers have been implemented in Cleveland and Dayton, and the state plans to hire more guards and train them in de-escalation techniques (Shaffer 2017). Unfortunately, there is a severe lack of statewide data on the successes (or lack thereof) of JDAI reforms in Ohio’s juvenile facilities. However, one of the five initial reform sites in Franklin County “experienced a 90% success rate at their evening reporting center for youth at high risk for reoffending, with not one participant being readmitted to their Reception Center with a new charge” (Children’s Defense Fund 2015). If we extrapolate these results to the other sites, that is an amazing positive development in Ohio’s juvenile justice system.

The facilities run by the ODYS have instituted reforms over the same period as well. The daily population has fallen dramatically in the ODYS, many facilities have closed, and an increase in behavioral and mental health treatment programs. However, recidivism rates are all over the place – they are up and down depending on the length of stay and age of the inmate. Regardless, they are nowhere near as low as rates in the JDAI facilities (Children’s Defense Fund 2015).

Discussion

Ohio is a state that is desperately trying to reform its facilities. The long-lasting ODYS has been essentially court-ordered to reform its institutions. Meanwhile, JDAI reforms have been implemented in many other facilities. This is a positive development in both cases, but the JDAI results are outpacing that of ODYS. As mentioned earlier, statewide data from JDAI in Ohio is lacking. However, given the results that we do know from Ohio counties and similar results from other states that have implemented the Missouri Model, we can assume that statewide data would yield similar outcomes.

Closing facilities, eliminating huge detention centers, treating inmates like human beings, focusing on education, lowering recidivism rates, and helping released youths to reintegrate back into society after leaving a facility have made Missouri the most successful state for juvenile reforms in the country. Their results outpace all other states. JDAI in Ohio appears to be delivering similar results. Therefore, I believe that the Missouri Model based JDAI reforms should be the new standard for juvenile reforms in not just Ohio, but in all states.

Works Cited

Children’s Defense Fund. 2010. “Rethinking Juvenile Detention in Ohio.” Retrieved from http://www.cdfohio.org/research-library/2010/JuvDetention_Issue_Brief.pdf

Children’s Defense Fund 2015. “Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet Series.”

Department of Justice. 2014. “Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Against State of Ohio to End   Unlawful Seclusion of Youth in Juvenile Correctional Facilities.” Retrieved from             https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-lawsuit-against-state-ohio-end-  unlawful-seclusion-youth-juvenile

Disability Rights Ohio. 2016. “DRO Files Federal Lawsuit Against Juvenile Detention Facility for Denying DRO Access to Detained Youth.” Retrieved from     https://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/news/dro-files-federal-lawsuit-against-juvenile-detention-facility-for-denying

Kuhlman, Mary. 2017. “National Model Inspires Juvenile Detention Reform in Ohio.” Public News Service. Retrieved from http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2017-04-17/juvenile-    justice/national-model-inspires-juvenile-detention-reform-in-ohio/a57182-1

Ohio History Central. n.d. “Ohio Reform School.” Retrieved from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Ohio_Reform_School

Prison Legal News. 2015. “Court Ends Injunctive Monitoring of Ohio Juvenile System.” Retrieved from https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jan/12/court-ends-       injunctive-monitoring-ohio-juvenile-system/

Shaffer, Cory. 2015. “Ohio’s Effort to Reform Juvenile Prisons is a National Model.” Cleveland.com. Retrieved from             http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/10/ohios_efforts_to_reform_juveni.html

Shaffer, Cory. 2017. “Reforms to Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center Will Balance Public Safety with Dignity of Teens, Officials Say.” Cleveland.com. Retrieved from             http://www.cleveland.com/courtjustice/index.ssf/2018/04/reforms_to_cuyahoga_county_juv.html

## Take a Stand on Your Knees

Modern American Christians are emotionally and spiritually soft. We believe that society is persecuting us when stores greet us with “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. We feel as though society is after us when a baker is fined and put out of business for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. Sure, this is a departure from past traditions, but is this religious persecution?

Is the government burning our churches down during a worship service? Are sales of Bibles illegal? Are any of us afraid to tell our co-workers about our Christianity because they might tell the authorities? Are we being stoned to death in the streets because we prayed in a public space?

There are Christians around the world who literally put their lives on the line to share their faith; and they still do it. We are afraid to ask our colleagues to church because they might stop inviting us over to watch the football game next week.

What happens when someone uses a racial slur among our friends and family? The person using the epithet is chastised, punished, probably even fired. Their reputation is devastated as they are labeled a racist for life. They need not even speak the offensive term to a person of color. The effects are the same.

A similar fate awaits those who use an anti-LGBT slur.

But what happens when someone takes the Lord’s name in vain in front of a Christian? Nothing. Society finds no offense. This is to be expected. However, should Christians not do something or say something about being offended? Are we so afraid to be sanctioned by peers BECAUSE of our faith that we, like Peter, deny Christ in public?

Race and sexual orientation, at least as a means of discrimination, has only been a thing for about 170 years. Christianity, as a means of discrimination, has been around for 2,000 years. Our savior was crucified. His closest disciples were tortured, killed, and exiled. Our religion was born from suffering in the name of love and salvation. Our history is filled with being enslaved and slaughtered. Our forefathers were fed to lions in the Colosseum. Our martyrs have been beheaded, burned at the stake, placed into iron maidens, flogged, drawn and quartered, and faced the worst punishments that human beings have ever devised.

We have as much right to be offended when Christ’s name is used as a joke or a swear as any race has when someone uses a slur.

We have as much right to be offended when society bashes our God and our beliefs as any sexual orientation has when someone refuses to bake them a cake.

No. Not as much. More.

We know that Christianity is losing its influence. We know that society respects us less and less. I think a big part of the reason is how we respond. We take offense and whine. We take to Facebook to complain or we might file an anti-discrimination lawsuit. What would happen if we actually took a stand, or a knee, in the moment?

Philippians 2:10 says, That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Imagine the testimony we might have if when someone uses the Lord’s name in vain, we take this verse literally and take a knee and profess our faith. How the LORD would smile upon us at such a powerful display of faith.

Colin Kaepernick lost his job for taking a knee over police brutality. Would you be willing risk your career for God?

How much strength would we show if we were able to muster some fortitude in the face of adversity, rather than slinking away into the shadows? Maybe someone watching us take a stand (or knee) is a Christian who shares our apprehension, but is inspired by our displays of courage. Maybe our colleagues would begin to treat us with as much respect as they do minorities. Maybe someone would see us living our faith and come to salvation.

Christianity is not a joke. Our Savior is not a punchline. Our LORD is not to be mocked. Our God is the creator of the universe. He will punish the unjust and unsaved. He is coming to judge and destroy the world as we know it.

And we allow people we associate with to insult us and our God without mustering one ounce of character. Until we do, we will continue to lose our society. Even if we do not go as far as to literally get on our knees when someone utters the name of our Savior, the least we can do is say “I’m sorry, but I do not appreciate your using the name of my Lord in that way.”

It’s not much, but it’s more than we do now.

## Social Suicide and Mass Murder

On Valentine’s Day a 19-year-old kid marched into his old high school and opened fire on students who walked out of their classrooms when the killer pulled a fire alarm just before the end of the school day. Reports have come out giving us some insight on his life. The media (both mainstream and social) is focusing on guns and mental illness. Here is why I believe they are looking at the wrong thing.

In Emile Durkheim’s seminal work, Suicide, he looked at death records from several countries in Europe. He found that there are essentially four types of suicide: 1) Egotistic – when someone experiences a lack of social integration or are isolated (widows, hermits, victims of bullying); 2) Anomic – lack of moral regulation or a sudden change in life where the “new normal” feels overwhelming. There is a sense of “normlessness” where all of the social norms we abide by change and the new rules are difficult to grasp (losing a job or loved one; moving to a new country); 3) Fatalistic – overwhelming oppression and hopelessness (prisoners, terminally ill); 4) Altruistic – for the greater good (soldiers, firemen, suicide bombers).
Durkheim found that suicide is not a psychological phenomenon, but a social one. Changes in one’s social integration is a greater indicator of violence against oneself than any psychological condition.

Now, let’s apply this theory to what we know about the Valentine’s Day shooter.

1. He was social isolated. Most reports are that he was bullied pretty regularly. He had very few friends. He was kicked out of school and other social organizations. This is indicative of Egotistic suicide.
2. His adopted father died a few years ago, but his adopted mother died just three months ago. This dramatic social event would be a likely catalyst for anomic suicide.
3. He apparently exhibited numerous histrionic outbursts – I believe these were to draw attention to an otherwise lonely boy – yet still managed to fly under the radar of law enforcement.
4. Therefore, he was isolated from peers by choice (making numerous threats) or force (expulsion and bullying), as well as dealing with the death of his last remaining parent (and I have to wonder if being adopted started his feelings of social isolation). He also lives in a country where guns are weaved into the fabric of the nation and are constantly depicted in the media in both positive and negative lights.

It seems to me that this is a social recipe for a disaster. Rather than turning the weapon on himself, he turned it on others. Regardless, he follows a similar pattern to other mass murders, serial killers, and the suicidal. Reports are that the Vegas shooter, Steven Paddock, lost a lot of money before his rampage and was socially isolated from almost everyone except his roommate/girlfriend. The Columbine shooters were socially isolated and bullied. The same goes for the Aurora shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, and almost all other mass murderers over the last 20 years.

I truly believe that we need to stop thinking of these events as psychological anomalies. There is something wrong with the SOCIAL fabric of the nation right now.

We have been in perpetual war since 2001. We just experienced a major economic recession. Social media and online video games are keeping kids from face-to-face interactions. We are the most medicated society in history. Our social and demographic categories are being constantly challenged and redefined. Religion is becoming less and less of an effective institution. Our electorate is becoming more and more divided.

Basically, we are in a national state of anomic normlessness that is leading to increasing social isolation. As our institutions continue to crumble, so does our ability to maintain solidarity. Without social solidarity and stability, we feel hopeless. We feel socially suicidal.

Some of us develop depression. Some of us do kill ourselves. Some are committing mass murder. The signs and symptoms are all there.

Since Suicide was published in 1897, data continues to back up Durkheim’s theory. I truly believe that we are experiencing social suicide that is beginning to manifest in social homicide.

These shooters are not “mentally ill”, they are socially constructed monsters. No laws can stop the inevitable destruction brought about by social unrest. Medicating the problem like we medicate our citizenry will not solve the problem.