A tidbit that caught my (evil) eye in the summary of a Pew Research poll on the religious beliefs of Americans:
Fully 16% of Americans believe in the "evil eye" or that certain people can cast curses or spells that cause bad things to happen to someone. Although the overwhelming number of Americans describe themselves as Christians, belief in non-Christian mystical experiences is widespread according to a Pew Forum survey. Nearly three-in-ten Americans say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died, almost one in five say they have seen or been in the presence of ghosts and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or a psychic. Similar percentages of American Christians express these supernatural experiences and beliefs.Most interesting of all, despite what some may perceive as a trend toward religious skepticism or even outright atheism in recent years, the percentage of Americans unaffiliated with a particular faith who say they've experienced a "moment of sudden religious insight or awakening" has nearly doubled since 1962.
Read more:
• Pew Poll: Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths
Comments
You seem to rely on the creative writing of Carla Homan, quite a lot. Her debunkings have completely missed each and every point of each and every issue. I would suggest finding someone who actually pays attention to the fact that not only are certain things NOT deadly, they may also not be healthy. What does that mean? From her perspective it seems it’s okay to ingest a certain “minute” concentration of “generally safe” compounds, completely ignoring the fact that generally safe doesn’t negate the fact that they may be in fact harmful in certain concentrations. Propylene glycol, for instance, found in certain soft drinks (and debunked as unhealthy by this witch). Would you tell your child to drink a glass of 100% propylene glycol, because it’s generally considered safe by the EPA, FDA and whoever else out there stands for our health? I highly doubt that you would encourage that. So, why is it okay to put it in soft drinks? As far as too much of anything being harmful, that’s a useless argument. Is too much water harmful. For instance 100% water. Would you have any issues with having a child drink a glass of that? So the lack of deadliness should not be mentioned in each article. It’s is it, or is it not something you should ingest. Yes, there are corporations that feed people poison and many of them are soft drink corporations. Why does Carla Homan, and why do you, stand behind these evil-doers?
No, Sylvia, it’s you who have missed the point. Homan was asked to respond to specific allegations in specific rumors, not write in-depth articles about the pros and cons of food additives. “Lack of deadliness,” as you put it, is precisely to the point in this context. Homan does not defend or condone the use of propylene glycol in soft drinks. Rather, she counters the blatantly false claim that soft drinks contain ethylene glycol — which is, in fact, a deadly poison — with accurate information about an additive soft drinks do commonly contain — propylene glycol — which — guess what — isn’t deadly.