THE THOUGHT OCCURS..re wizard of ozz..of that of placaebo-affect

Baum explores the theme of self-contradiction in The Wizard of Oz.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
The Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion all lack self-confidence. The Scarecrow believes that he has no brains, though he comes up with clever solutions to several problems that they encounter on their journey. The Tin Woodman believes that he lacks a heart, but is moved to tears when misfortune befalls the various creatures they meet. The Cowardly Lion believes that he has no courage even though he is consistently brave through their journey.

Carl L. Bankston III of Salem Press noted that "These three characters embody the classical human virtues of intelligence, caring, and courage, but their self-doubts keep them from being reduced to mere symbols of these qualities."=

By the end of the novel, the characters attain self-fulfillment when they have met their objectives. To convince the characters they have the qualities they desire, the Wizard places an amalgamation>>

READ PLAEBO,,fake/it\till-ya/made\..it..

AN AMALGAMATION..<<..of bran, pins, and needles in the Scarecrow's head to inspire intellect; gives a silk heart to the Tin Woodman to inspire love; and a drink to the Cowardly Lion to inspire bravery.[17]

The character of the wizard supports the theme of self-belief and how important it is. Dorothy and her companions believed the wizard to be powerful and even when they found out that he wasn’t, they continued to ask him to grant them their wishes...[When each traveler meets with the Wizard, he appears each time as someone or something different. Dorothy sees the Wizard as a giant head, Scarecrow sees the Wizard as a beautiful woman, Tin Woodman sees the Wizard as a terrible beast, and the Cowardly Lion sees the Wizard as a ball of fire. The Wizard agrees to help each of them.]

Baum biographer Rebecca Loncraine points out that the story is a critique of power and shows how “easily people who lack belief in themselves can become willing participants in the deceptions practiced by manipulative figures who rule over them,

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/respond-to-counterattacks/respond-to-opposition/main

I like the case of
"John Traynor [who] was lifted into the bath — a physical wreck, covered with sores, a dying cripple. The signed statement of Doctors Azurdia, Finn and Harley testifies that he was suffering from:

epilepsy
paralysis of the radial, median and ulnar nerves of the right arm
atrophy of the shoulder and pectoral muscles
a trephine opening in the right parietal region of the skull — in this opening, about one inch, there is a metal plate for protection
absence of voluntary movement in the legs, and loss of feeling
lack of bodily control
A second time he was placed in the bath, and then he was taken to be blessed during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament in the great square in front of the church. Just as the Sacred Host had passed by, his right arm, which had been dead since 1915, was violently agitated. He burst the bandages and blessed himself — for the first time in years. A strange feeling came into his legs. The stretcher-bearers thought he was having another bad turn. He was given an injection to keep him quiet, and taken back to bed.(continues)

(continuation)
From Cripple to Coal-Man

That was in the afternoon. Early next morning he heard the bells ringing out the Lourdes hymn, and jumped out of bed. He fell on his knees to finish the Rosary he had been saying, and then ran out of the ward, pushed two assistants out of the way, and, in his pyjamas, ran barefoot a distance of some two or three hundred yards, over the rough gravel, to the Grotto....“All I know, he said afterwards, “was that I should thank the Blessed Virgin....I made the only sacrifice I could think of. I resolved to give up cigarettes.”

Soon after that and any time afterwards for twenty years, you could have seen in Liverpool a hefty 16-stone man, in the coal and haulage business, lifting 200 lb. sacks of coal, who was officially classified as 100 per cent disabled and permanently incapacitated. That man was John Traynor. He died in 1943 from hernia, a complaint in no way related to the illness and wounds of which he was cured in Lourdes.

Another group of experts testified, though unconsciously, to the miracle. The British War Pensions Ministry, after extensive investigations, awarded him full disability pension for life. They never revoked that decision.
http://saints.sqpn.com/catholic-truth-society-saint-bernadette-miracles-at-lourdes-the-facts-behind-the-story/

There are many other references to the story of John Traynor and, be it noted, his case was not considered miraculous by the Church.

George,
You say, "Historical events, including those studied by evolution theories, biological or not, by their very nature are not scientifically falsifiable." But we tend to go along with them anyway.

You and Banjo argue about the nature or verifiability, miracles, and common sense. My common sense tells me that reptiles don't magically turn into birds. Amphibians don't turn into mammals. Frogs don't turn into princes. But the secularists believe these sorts of miracles occurred on countless occasions (with the magic ingredient of time.)

The sophistication of the genetic structure does not allow one kind of living thing to magically turn into something rather different. There are limits. Yet the secularists need their version of the miraculous.

I suspect that turbans being tolerated at the airport security check has something to do with how easy they are to take off and put on. Would you want to be stuck behind that person in the line? Still, you'd think there should be one rule for everyone. That's what this article is suggesting.

So I still don't see anyone coming forward with a reasonable answer to my question. Why are so many here (such as the author of the article, Matthew and others) wanting to define 'religion' when we don't want to give the religious any special privileges? Is it so we can discriminate against them?

It's said that he who makes the definitions controls the debate. I think that is true. This may partly explain why some here want to insist that belief in a supernatural being is central to a 'religious belief'.

As the discussion turns to origins, how did we all get here, how did this world come to be as it is, the atheists can claim that their theory (evolution) does not include a supernatural being. Hence, it is not religious. Once categorised as 'non religious', the theory can be dressed up as 'scientific'. It all becomes a matter of categorisation regardless of the evidence, regardless of whether it actually happened like this or not.

There is the creationist view that a supernatural being created the original forms. There is the atheist view that life can be explained by the impersonal forces of matter alone. Both examine and measure the evidence. Did life as we know it arise by purely undirected process, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design?

But if we define science in a certain way, we can foreclose one of the two possible answers to that very fundamental and important question. The definition can be used to end debate before it begins.

OUG you can insult me me any way you like....you have a nice day.

Iam sure everything I've written was a waste of time:)

Kat