Kinda like consulting the RCC on what should be done about priests raping children.

is difficult unless you investigate the organization giving the award and grant. That takes a little effort, and the information isn't found on sites like religionnews.com, which has a distinct pro-religion bias.

Quoting brief excerpts of articles on sites that have such biases without investigating further often leads to a distorted view of the story, I think. Even going to the link does not provide information about the organization being discussed, so further research is needed. On sites like DU, even getting people to click to read the article from which a brief excerpt is quoted is problematic. That makes it easy to post slanted information that misses important information.

I often click through to such links, and then go further and research other elements of such stories. Very often, I find that material excepted from biased websites is incomplete and does not reveal important information that is relevant to the validity of the information presented.

I suspect I'm not typical of DU readers though, and even I often don't bother to look further if the original source is easily recognizable as biased.

Rather like crowing about some miniscule percentage of clergy in a state who oppose hate legislation, when most of them are supporting it. It's interesting how often stories find their way here that clearly show that most of the religious people are being "intolerant", and we're expected to celebrate because there are a few exceptions here and there. Someone obviously searches diligently for that particular kind of story.

Prior to Christianity there's very little evidence of authoritative intolerance towards homosexuality. From what we know of recorded western history, it was quite well tolerated and accepted as perfectly normal.

Standing alone, the phrase "Over 100 Tennessee religious leaders" sounds sort of impressive. The word "Over" enhances the positive framing, as well. Put that way, the mind sees the information as important. However, if you add perspective by saying "About 1% of Tennessee religious leaders," the framing is different and helps readers understand that only a small portion of the many religious leaders did something. Add an factual perspective in the framing and the statement is more accurate, and less deceptive. However, it's less effective in selling some point you are trying to make.

Many people use framing unconsciously when telling a story. Others use it deliberately to enhance their argument, disregarding the deceptiveness of some framing.

They set out to prove prayer works in a scientifically valid experiment and ended up demonstrating a slight negative correlation between prayer and prayer subjects. But only if the subjects knew they were being prayed for. Otherwise, nothing.

This is, however, yet another example of the need to double check sources when looking at excerpts from biased sources like religionnews.com. It's a PITA to do, though, so most of the time people don't even click the link in the original DU post, much less investigate further.

Knowing that DUers don't usually investigate quoted material makes it easy to inject biased information into thread-starting posts. It works especially well if you only excerpt very small portions of an sourced story. I find that troublesome.

However, in the case of religionnews.com, I know immediately that the source is biased toward the religionist viewpoint, so I often just consider the source and move on. However, I was not familial with the Templeton Foundation, so I looked into it more deeply.

either don't know about that study, or they've chosen to ignore it. People still constantly offer to pray for others, and people still ask for prayers.

If the study were more widely known and accepted, then the statement "I'll pray for you" could be considered to be a hostile statement. "Why did you say that? Don't pray for me! What, do you want me to die on the operating table? Get away from me!"

along the lines of "I'll pray that you find God someday, you going to hell atheist, you."

But in this context:

"I'm going in for surgery day after tomorrow."
"Oh, I'll pray for you."

It's usually not meant or taken as a hostile thing to say. If everyone knew that being prayed for - and being told about it - actually makes your chances worse ...