Three on religion (at least tangentially)

First, the Pew Global Attitudes survey which finds, among other things, a correlation between religiousness and wealth on a national level. The chart is about halfway down the page. None of this is too surprising, really, but I found it interesting to see it laid out graphically. Most notable outlier? Surprise, surprise: it's the United States.

Commenters on Alas, a Blog (where I found the graph) raise the fair point that we can't tell from that chart how religiosity is measured.

Next, a piece at Shakesville on the potential resurrection of the woolly mammoth. What does that have to do with religion? That's what the Shaker would like to know:

It was a geniunely fascinating article. Until i got to end, where I read this bit:

"Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically acceptable in humans," said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

What is that quote even doing in a science article? You never read a story about a church bake sale being interrupted with an interview from some Nietzschean saying "God is dead, cookies are pointless and futile."

It's as though the New York Times has a clause somewhere in all their science writers' contracts: no article about cloning without a quote from some religious official reminding us that human cloning is wrong.

Finally, on the lighter side, and also from Shakesville, here's a bit on write-in votes for Jesus, who came in fourth among in write-ins among Jacksonville, FL voters, tied with None of the Above. The write-in winner? Hillary Clinton. The whole post and as well as the comments are a highly amusing read; recommended.