Did it ever occur to you that the reason most hospitals have explicitly religious titles is because they were founded by religious people?  It is interesting to listen to the criticisms by atheists of religion.  On the one hand, when religion hurts people (through wars or violence), that counts against religion.  On the other hand, when religion does things that incontrovertibly help people (like found hospitals), that counts against it too. 

In other words, no matter what religion does--good or bad--it counts against it in the mind of an atheist.  All evidence about religion thus automatically counts against it.  There is no evidence an atheist is willing to accept against his anti-religious belief.

 Then, ironically, atheists accuse religious belief as being unscientific because it is unfalsifiable.

Funny how that works.

By the way, when was the last time an atheist founded a hospital? 

Sorry, dude.  You missed his point.  I'll quote it so you can read it again.

You know, regulations concerning DNRs (do not resuscitate orders) abortion, treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, etc.  You do know that there is a drug that will probably cure most HPV, and the U.S. isn't allowing it to be tested because the Christians don't want to cure HPV.  The Christians think that's a bad idea because they don't want people to have sex, and they think that HPV is a deterrent, even though all the data proves that it isn't.

From now on, how about you try reading more carefully so you don't make baseless arguments again.

Technically, when the last hospital was opened. Only about 13% of the hospitals in the U.S. are religious and all of them have been built and maintained with public funding.

-Triften

I mistyped slightly, so let me be precise.  There is a vaccine that will prevent HPV, not a cure for those who already have it...

 Here's a story about it.  Emphasized text is my editing.  You can google this and get tons of stories about how Christians think it's a terrible idea to vaccinate against HPV.

******************** 

MADISON, Wis. � A proposal with bipartisan support would require all girls entering sixth grade in Wisconsin to be vaccinated for the human papillomavirus, a move recommended to prevent cervical cancer.

Similar bills have been introduced in at least a dozen other states, but some have met with opposition from groups that say government is reaching too far into girls’ personal lives.

Supporters of a mandate say it makes sense to provide the vaccine as a way to fight a cancer that kills 3,700 U.S. women yearly. But opponents say states should not push a vaccine on the assumption that young girls are or about to be sexually active.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a vaccine in June and suggested it be given to females ages 9 to 26. The CDC advised that girls be vaccinated before they become sexually active, since HPV is contracted by sexual or even skin-to-skin contact.

While that means most doctors will give the vaccination, having a state law requiring it unless a parent opts out only increases the number of girls who will get it, said Sen. Lena Taylor,

D-Milwaukee, who is sponsoring the Wisconsin bill along with Sen. Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie.

Taylor said the bill � which has three Republican co-sponsors in the Senate as well as a Republican and two Democrats in the Assembly _ is about saving lives and should find broad approval in the Legislature.

That wasn’t what happened in Michigan, where a similar proposal was narrowly defeated in December.

The Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family believes the vaccine should be available to parents who want it, but vaccination should not be required for entry to school.

Given that the vaccine’s approval just came in June, in most states this is the soonest lawmakers could propose any changes, said Linda Klepacki, an analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family. At least a dozen states have seen bills introduced and Klepacki said new ones pop up almost daily.

Under the Wisconsin proposal, students would be required to show proof that they had received the vaccine, or a statement from the parent showing they have elected not to be vaccinated.

The vaccination requirement would begin with the 2008-09 school year. The bill would have to pass both the state Senate and Assembly, and be signed by Gov. Jim Doyle, before it would become law.

Doyle spokesman Matt Canter said the governor had not reviewed the bill and had no comment.

Cervical cancer kills about 10 women daily nationwide, and about 99 percent of all cases are linked to the virus known as HPV, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, is given in a series of three shots over a six-month period and protects against types of HPV that cause cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases including genital warts.

The American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups have recommended vaccinating girls against the virus.

More...

Indiana: Thirteen female state senators -- seven Democrats and six Republicans -- recently introduced a bill (SB 327) that would say girls entering the sixth grade should receive a human papillomavirus vaccine, the Indianapolis Star reports (Hupp, Indianapolis Star, 1/18). The legislation states that students "may not be prevented from enrolling in, attending or graduating from school for the sole reason that the student has not been immunized" against HPV vaccine. The measure would require every school beginning in the 2008-2009 school year to report how many girls have been vaccinated (SB 327 text, 1/23). Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil in clinical trials has been shown to be 100% effective in preventing infection with HPV strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases. CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in July 2006 voted unanimously to recommend that girls ages 11 and 12 receive the vaccine (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/12). Opponents of the measure have said the vaccine might encourage promiscuity and have criticized the estimated $2.7 million cost for the vaccine during the 2008-2009 school year (Indianapolis Star, 1/18). 

(Hamby's edit... anybody want to guess who the opponents of the measure happen to be?)

Mississippi: State lawmakers recently introduced several abortion-related measures, including a bill (H 670) that would ban all abortions in the state except to save the life of the pregnant woman. Under the legislation, sponsored by state Reps. Deryk Parker (D) and Mike Lott (R), performing an abortion would be a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to one year in prison. Another measure (H 1241) would ban all abortions in the state if Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively barred state abortion bans -- is overturned. Legislation (SC 531) recently introduced by state Sen. Joey Fillingane (R) would place on the November ballot a state constitutional amendment that says "nothing in the Constitution shall be construed as granting to any person the right to choose to have an abortion." If state senators do not pass an abortion ban, State Senate Public Health Committee Chair Alan Nunnelee (R) said he aims to gain approval for a bill (S 2801) that would require abortion providers to give women seeking abortion a chance to hear the fetus' heartbeat and view a sonogram of the fetus before undergoing the procedure (Mohr, AP/Biloxi Sun Herald, 1/21).

From UKTimes online... 

Gardasil sounds like the sort of medical advance to which it is impossible to object. But it has inspired surprising opposition, and not just from the irrational anti-vaccine lobby, which regards all immunisation with grave scepticism. As HPV is sexually transmitted, the vaccine needs to be given to girls before they become sexually active to confer maximum protection. This has alarmed some religious groups, which argue that vaccinating at an early age will encourage teenage sex.

This objection is entirely specious. The HPV vaccine will protect against neither pregnancy nor STIs such as chlamydia or HIV, which will always be a more immediate concern. It is hard to imagine any 13-year-old deciding to have sex purely because she has been immunised against cancer. This is a campaign inspired by those who regard abstinence as the only acceptable answer to STIs and teenage pregnancy.

Gotcha. Thanks for the research. *sigh*

It is rather interesting how closely the medical and religious communities have been tied together for so long. But secular hospitals are more common than religious ones today. Though an area may have more religious hospitals than secular ones. Of all the hospitals I can remember going to, the names of them ring as follows:

Brockville General H
Toronto General H
Kelowna General H
Kingston General H
North York General H
Edmonton General H
University of Alberta H
Hotel Dieu H.

Only the last of the line has any religious tones at all, and it is owned and operated by a religious organization, within the health care laws.

Yeah, Vastet.  At least in this part of the country, I'd say that the founders of most of the hospitals are not overtly Christian.  That is not, however, saying that there is not a considerable Christian influence on the doctors.  Even the "secular" hospitals here follow essentially Christian guidelines with regard to birth control, stds, abortions, right to life/death, etc...

I think the original point of this thread is a good one, although the delivery could use some tweaking.

The medical industry, like everything else in this country, is pretty much dominated by Christians and Christian ideology.  It's hard to argue this, if you ask me.

There is a need for hospitals.  There are no laws requiring hospitals to be built by religious organizations.  Neither are there laws requiring hospitals to be built by non-religious organizations.  Currently, Christian organizations seem to be the predominate builders of hospitals.  If non-christian or non-religious organizations were so inclined, they could build hospitals as well.  I wouldn't object to that, and I personally don't know any Christians who would.

I think they might seem predominant because "St. Such-and-Such" might stick in the mind better than "Townsville General".

Non-religious groups do build hospitals and, additionally, all of us provide funding for all of them. There is not one single hospital (religiously named or otherwise) that does not rely on public funding to exist.

The last stats I have are for 1999. Anyone able to find a more recent breakdown?

-Triften 

Of course, you were completely wrong about this.  The U.S. was not  disallowing the testing of the drug at all, in fact it was promoting it.  The FDA put it on its list of recommended drugs.  You corrected yourself in the later post about this.  But you're still saying that the objections to Gardasil are only by religious people who think it promote sex.

That, of course, completely ignores several things.  First of all, the main controversy is not over the drug itself, but over whether it should be mandated for young girls when Gardasil has never been tested on the young girls it is now being mandated for.  The trial data was for girls 16-26.  In some states, including Kentucky, they want to mandate it for girls before entering middle school (about 10 years old).  Parents are objecting because 1) They don't want government mandating the health treatment of their kinds and 2) Gardasil has not been tested on girls that young.  They have no idea how this could affect pregnancy later or whether it could cause other cancers when given to prepubescent girls.

Do we just throw safety to the wind?

And what else are we going to have the government mandate?  The flu kills 36,000 people per year.  We don't mandate the flu vaccine.  We could, like New York City, ban trans fats.  That would save lives.  And how about making McDonald's french fries illegal?  They're not too good for you either.

The funny thing about all this is that it's the liberals who are always talking about choice when it comes to abortion on demand, and who say that the government should stay out of the health decisions for women, who want to mandate that little girls get the three Gardasil shots needed for the innoculation put in their veins--whether they like it or not.  Choice be damned. 

While I agree that the context you lay out for the drug at centre is better than assuming a drug that works on a 16 year old will not be detrimental to a 10 year old, I can very easily flip your liberal jab right back at you. Seems to me it's always the conservatives that whine about gay marriage. Choice be damned.