TruthBook Religious News Blog

One of Calvin DeWitt's favorite Bible verses is Revelation 11:18:

"... The time has come for judging the dead ... and for destroying those who destroy the Earth."

DeWitt, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin, is a leader in a growing evangelical Christian movement to protect the environment in the name of God.

"This comes right out of the Christian calling of how we should live our lives on Earth," DeWitt said. "Christians are coming on board more and more because there really is an interest in seeking the kingdom of God beyond just individual needs."

On such issues as global climate change, endangered species, and mercury hazards to the unborn, many evangelical Christians are parting ways with conservatives. They are embracing environmental protection as "stewardship" of God's creation.

One such expression came last week, when President Bush gave the commencement address at Calvin College, a small school in the Reformed tradition in Grand Rapids, Mich. A third of the faculty of the college signed an open letter to Bush, citing "conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration."

Among the concerns, the faculty wrote: "As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment."

The environmental awakening among evangelicals has prompted some to seek common ground with other faiths. A group of evangelical Protestant scientists is working with Jewish scholars and scientists to form a "Noah Alliance" to protect endangered species - and the Endangered Species Act.

"Ours is the time for a concert of religious voices to proclaim our privilege and responsibility for not allowing the great lineages of God's living creatures to be broken," says a draft statement being circulated this month among Christian and Jewish scientists.

Broadly defined, evangelicals are Christians who have had a personal or "born-again" religious conversion, believe the Bible is the word of God, and believe in spreading their faith. Millions of Americans fit the definition, although estimates vary on exactly how many: Forty-two percent of Americans described themselves as evangelical Christians in a 2003 Gallup poll, while only 19 percent said they met all three criteria in a 1995 Gallup poll. The National Association of Evangelicals says about 25 percent of adult Americans are evangelicals.

Historically, many evangelical Christians have been suspicious of environmentalism as a liberal, godless movement more interested in scenery than souls.

But in recent months, a number of evangelical leaders have advocated for strong measures to protect the environment, based on biblical teachings of stewardship, helping the poor, and loving one's neighbors.

A group of 30 prominent evangelicals - including the Rev. Ted Haggard, chairman of the National Association of Evangelicals; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today magazine; the Rev. Jo Anne Lyon, executive director of the aid organization World Hope International; and the Rev. Dwight McKissic, senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas - met last summer to pledge to "motivate the evangelical community to fully engage environmental issues in a biblically faithful and humble manner, collaborating with those who share these concerns, that we might take our appropriate place in the healing of God's creation, and thus the advance of God's reign."

"We are persuaded that we must not evade our responsibility to care for God's creation," the evangelical leaders wrote after a three-day retreat at Sandy Cove, Md. "We recognize that there is much more we need to learn, and much more praying we need to do, but that we know enough to know that there is no turning back from engaging the threats to God's creation."

Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, said recent polling showed 48 percent of evangelicals rated the environment as an important priority, nearly as high a proportion - 52 percent - as those who cited abortion as a priority.

"That's an amazing statistic, considering that we've been talking about abortion for 30 years and we haven't even begun to make a case to a lot of our folks about environmental issues," Cizik said.

John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and coauthor of "The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy" and "Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches From the Front," sees a steady growth in environmental consciousness among evangelicals.

"Historically, evangelical Protestants have been slow to pick up the cause of environmentalism. The more traditional they were, the less interested they were. And some fundamentalists were, in fact, quite hostile to environmentalism.

"In recent times, though, evangelicals have developed an interest in the environment.

"Part of that may be that as more evangelicals have attained middle-class status, they have grown more interested in middle-class issues, and one of those is the environment."

In polling by the Bliss Institute last year, 52 percent of evangelicals agreed with the statement, "Strict rules to protect the environment are necessary even if they cost jobs or result in higher prices."

The Rev. Jim Ball, a Baptist minister who is executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network and organizer of the "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign, says evangelical Christians are more receptive to environmental messages "when we talk about things in terms of family and kids."

So one powerful environmental topic among evangelicals has become the threat of mercury, emitted by coal-burning power plants, to the unborn.

And environmental messages resonate more loudly when they are addressed in Christian language, he said.

"I quote the Golden Rule. I remind people that reducing pollution is loving your neighbor. I quote (the Gospel of) Matthew: '(W)hatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.' I remind people that if something we're doing impacts the poor, we're doing that to Jesus."

---
BY PAUL NUSSBAUM
Knight Ridder Newspapers
© 2005, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, May 23, 2005

Americans look to Jesus for diet

Five loaves, two fish and a goblet of red wine could be on the menu for Americans if a new diet takes off.

Don Colbert, a Florida doctor, believes asking yourself "What would Jesus eat?" is the best way to stay fit, slim and trim.

In his book, which gets its title from this question, he explores some of the Old Testament dietary laws and looks at foods mentioned in the Bible.

He says: "If you truly want to follow Jesus in every area of your life you cannot ignore your eating habits.

Reverend Dr Gordon Gatward, Director of the Arthur Rank Centre

"The health of Americans is going down and it is largely down to our bad food choices.

"We have an obesity epidemic. People eat when they are stressed and eat on the run and everyone is super-sizing their meals.

"A lot of people have no desire to change their foods. Instead, they just go on medication to control their symptoms of obesity-related disease. But it shouldn't be this way.

"By getting them to look at the biblical side it allows them to slow down and make the correct choice about their diet and lifestyle," he said.

So what did Jesus eat?

At the last supper, Jesus is said to have eaten bread and drunk wine.

Luke 24:42 says: "And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."

Eric Eve, a tutor in theology and a New Testament scholar at Oxford University

While Luke 10.8 says: "Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you," which would seem to suggest that Jesus was not encouraging fussiness about food.

Dr Colbert said: "Jesus ate primarily natural foods in their natural states - lots of vegetables, especially beans and lentils.

"He would have eaten wheat bread, a lot of fruit, drunk a lot of water and also red wine.

"And he would only eat meat on special occasions, maybe once a month, just like the parable of the prodigal son who ate fatted calf."

Mediterranean diet

Eric Eve, a tutor in theology and a New Testament scholar at Oxford University, said: "The staple diet of a Mediterranean peasant in Jesus' day would have been bread.

"Round Lake Tiberias - the Sea of Galilee - fish would also have been significant, though for peasants perhaps only in small quantities to provide a relish for the bread.

"Grapes and olives were also grown in Galilee, but more as cash crops for the wine and oil trade than for peasant consumption."

He said food was probably scarce. "Many of them probably went hungry much of the time, or achieved only bare subsistence."

But he said: "I can't imagine many modern Americans taking enthusiastically to all the features of a "biblical" diet

Biblical dietary laws

"For example Leviticus 11.22 says 'Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind.'"

Dr Colbert said: "He did not eat meats that were an abomination.

"He followed the Levitical laws. He would not have eaten pigs and rabbits or fish that did not have scales, such as crabs and shrimps.

"These foods are higher in arachidonic acid, which is an inflammatory fatty acid, as well as saturated fat that predisposes us to disease.

"So, again, it is best if we eat these animals, which were forbidden in the Old Testament, only very rarely and in smaller amounts, I tell my patients."

Gift from God

Dr Colbert said it was also the manner in which people ate in biblical times that was important.

"They would eat for hours and take their time. The disciples would be lounging around and conversing while dining, not eating fast food on the go like we do."

Reverend Dr Gordon Gatward, director of the Arthur Rank Centre, part of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, said: "Some of the stricter religious people have accused Jesus of being a wine bibber and a glutton because Jesus did like parties.

"But what is interesting is that with both Christian and Jewish faiths, the focal celebration and worship surrounds a meal. We say grace before a meal because food is a gift from God.

"But it is about more than just the physical diet. It is also about the spiritual diet. The Christian faith takes a holistic view."

By Michelle Roberts
BBC News health reporter

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

College students highly religious, recent study says

On college campuses across the country, students are becoming increasingly engaged in religion and spirituality, according to a report released by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA last month.

Three-fourths of students surveyed are "searching for meaning/purpose in life," eight in 10 attended a religious service during the past year, more than two-thirds pray and four in 10 consider it "very important" that they adhere to religious teachings in everyday life.

Ohio University keeps similar statistics for its student body. In 2004-2005, 62 percent of first-year students said that spiritual development was an important part of adjusting to college and 81 percent said that it was also important to develop personal values and beliefs, according to a report on the Office of Institutional Research Web site (www.ohiou.edu/instres/involve/index.html).

UCLA's national study, "The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National Study of College Students' Search for Meaning and Purpose," was designed to "enhance understanding of how college students conceive spirituality, the role it plays in their lives, and how colleges and universities can play a more effective role in facilitating students' spiritual development," according to the report.

Funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a nonprofit organization that "encourages the moral and spiritual dimensions of life," the study encompassed more than 112,000 students attending 236 colleges and universities.

The fall 2004 College Students' Beliefs and Values Survey, from which the findings were drawn, was administered to first-year students in addition to a traditional freshman survey conducted by another UCLA research program. A follow-up survey will be administered in 2007 to track how attitudes about spirituality and religion have changed.

Responses were examined according to 12 predetermined scales -three measures of spirituality, five of religiousness and four other dimensions expected to be related to each. Those scales were then used to map trends within various demographics such as religious denomination and political affiliation, as well as those related to overall physical and mental well-being.

Though many consider measures of spirituality and religion to be closely related, the two have discernable differences.

Alexander Keefe, a professor in the department of Classics and World Religions, said that religion commonly refers to adhering to some traditional set of beliefs. Spirituality, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily require religious affiliation, but rather a belief in something bigger than yourself.

In a previous interview, Lynn Miller, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church, 69 Mill St., also touched upon the distinction.

"Religion for many people represents only the hierarchical institution. Spirituality emphasizes for many people more the personal seeking," she said.

According to the project's Web site (www.spirituality.ucla.edu), spirituality also reflects our "values and ideals, sense of who we are and where we came from, and beliefs about why we are here." That notion "captures those aspects of our experience that are not easy to define or talk about, such as inspiration, creativity, the mysterious, the sacred and the mystical."

Despite these differences, spirituality and religion are still closely related. According to the report, students who are strongly religious also tend to be highly spiritual on all measurements.

by Patrick Mayock
For The Post
patrick.mayock@ohiou.edu

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design

Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design.

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13-15. The study was conducted as part of a continuing investigation of the social, political, and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error for the study was plus or minus 3% at a 95% level of confidence.

The responses were analyzed based on the religious affiliation. Among the findings:

-- When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (88%) and more than half of Catholic doctors (60%) said they agree more with evolution, while slightly more than half of Protestants (54%) agree more with intelligent design.

-- A majority of Catholic doctors (67%) agree with the statement that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings, while 11% believe that "God created humans exactly as they appear now." By contrast, less than half of Protestant doctors (46%) believe that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process, while 35% believe that God created humans as they appear now. The majority of Jewish doctors (65%) agree more with the statement that "humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement."

-- The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%).

-- Half of the doctors (50%) believe that schools should be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design.

-- More than half of Catholic doctors (62%) feel that schools should be allowed (not required) to teach intelligent design, conversely, more than half of Jewish doctors (59%) believe that schools should be prohibited from teaching intelligent design.

-- When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation," while more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."

"Sympathy for the idea of intelligent design comes primarily from Protestant members of the medical community, although openness to consideration of intelligent design as a legitimate speculation is strong among Catholics but completely lacking among Jews," said Alan Mittleman, director of the Finkelstein Institute.

"As our earlier physician studies indicated, religion, culture and ethnic heritage have an impact on their views of science, even from this relatively homogenous group of physicians who share similar education, income and social status," noted Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner, HCD Research.

To view detailed results for this poll, please go to: http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776

Editors/Reporters: For more information on the poll, or to speak with Dr. Mittleman or Glenn Kessler, please contact Sherry Kirschenbaum, JTS Director of Media Relations, at (212) 678-8953 (kirschenbaum@jtsa.edu) or Vince McGourty, M&M Communications, Inc., at (908) 638-5555 or (vinmcg@earthlink.net).

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Reduced Majority of Australians Favour Teaching Religion in Government Schools

Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of teaching religion in Government schools, but the trend is down, according to the Roy Morgan Research Single Source Survey.

In the March 2005 quarter, when asked, “Do you think religion should — or should not be taught once a week in Government schools?”, the majority of those surveyed (62%) said religion “should” be taught, while only 30% said religion “should not” be taught in Government schools. Eight percent were undecided on the issue. Although still a high majority, the number of Australians who think religion should be taught in Government schools (62%) has fallen 4% since the March 2000 quarter when 66% of Australians were in favour. Over this five year period the fall in support is evident across all age groups and in both country areas and capital cities.

Detailed analysis by population subgroups over the period January to March 2005, shows some interesting differences. The Baptists were most in favour of religion being taught in Government schools (88%), followed by respondents from the Uniting church (77%). Respondents from the Methodist (76%), Anglican (71%) and Presbyterian (70%) churches were also resoundingly in favour of religion being taught in Government schools. Interestingly Catholics (69%) were marginally less likely to think that religion should be taught in Government schools. Other Christian Groups (75%) were also in favour of religion being taught in Government schools. A smaller majority of Other Religions (56%), including Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist, also believed that religion should be taught in Government schools.

Of those Australians who said they have no religion, 35% said religion should be taught in Government schools, with 56% saying religion should not be taught, and 9% undecided.

Respondents who are the parents or guardians of children under 16 living in their household (63%) were more likely to say they think religion should be taught in schools than those who are not the parents of guardians of children under 16 living in their household (55%).

Women (66%) were more inclined to say that religion should be taught in schools than were men (57%), and were less likely to say that religion should not be taught in schools (women — 26% cf men — 35%). Eight percent of both men and women were undecided on the issue.

The 50+ age group was most likely to say that religion should be taught in schools, with 72%, whilst the 18-24 age group was the least likely (50%). Interestingly the 14-17 age group (51%) was slightly more inclined than the 18-24 age group to believe that religion should be taught in schools. The 25-34 (53%) and 35-49 (62%) age groups were also in favour of religion being taught in Government schools.

Analysed by education level, those with a lower level of education were most likely to say religious education should be taught in Government schools. Those respondents with primary education only (should — 77% cf should not — 17%), were the most likely to say that religion should be taught in schools. Following in descending order were respondents who had completed Year 10 (67%), those with some Secondary/Tech (65%) and Year 11/Year 12 (60%). Tertiary educated respondents, including those who are currently studying at university, were least likely to say religion should be taught in Government schools (58%).

Analysis by voting intention shows a majority of supporters of all parties except the Greens and the Australian Democrats favour the teaching of religion in Government schools. Of electors who support the L-NP, 69% say religion should be taught in Government schools, as do 60% of ALP supporters, 59% of One Nation supporters and 62% of Independent Candidate and Other Party supporters. Greens (46%) and Australian Democrats supporters (44%) had the lowest level of support for the notion that religion should be taught in schools.

Queenslanders were most likely to say religion should be taught in Government schools, with 67%. Respondents from New South Wales (65%) were also in favour of the notion. South Australians (60%), Tasmanians (59%) and Victorians (57%) were marginally less likely to be in favour of teaching religion in Governments schools. Western Australians were the least likely to say that religion should be taught in Government schools, with 55%.

There was only a small difference between respondents from the capital cities and those from country areas with regard to whether religion should (country — 63% cf city — 61%) or should not (city — 31% cf country — 29%) be taught in schools.

These are the latest findings from Roy Morgan Single Source, 2005 which interviewed 14,632 Australians aged 14 and over from January to March, 2005.

For further information:
Michele Levine Office: 03 9224 5215 Mobile : 0 411 129 093 Home: (03) 9817 3066

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, May 16, 2005

Books explore ties between popular culture, faith and values

Sleeping through Sunday school? Dozing through your devotionals?

Never fear! Superman is here, with something else more powerful than a locomotive: the Gospel.

Turns out that generations of American kids who fidgeted through Sunday services may have unknowingly received faith-based values from the Man of Steel and other characters in comic books and popular culture.

Austin writer Greg Garrett, in his new paperback "Holy Superheroes!" by Pinon Press, tries not to take the comparison too far. After all, comic books were not written for religious purposes. But the point is to see what the popular narratives can teach about life.

Consider, for example, Greg Garrett's comparison between Superman and Jesus Christ:

_ Superman was sent to this world by a wise and powerful father and was raised by an earthly family.

_ His miracles showed he was something special _ some might even say godlike.

_ As an adult, he embarked on a mission of salvation for the world.

In Batman, Garrett finds an incarnation of God's justice. The story of Spider-Man carries a theme that great responsibility comes with great power, and the followers of the X-Men learn that violence doesn't solve bigotry and hatred.

Garrett, who is studying to become an Episcopal priest, knows marrying popular culture with faith-based values is kryptonite to some Christians. But he believes mythic heroes "pull us to what is noble in our nature, remind us of what we need to be doing and why we're here on the planet."

The writer, who is also an English professor at Baylor, grew up in a Southern Baptist home where he appreciated the beauty of the language in the King James Bible.

He also developed a fondness for storytelling. But his slim, spiritual-themed volume is not about winning souls.

"I was raised an evangelical Christian, and I'm kind of off that," he said. "I'm a devout Christian, but I'm about far as you can get as far as someone trying to enforce his beliefs on anybody else."

Garrett maintains that universal truths can be found in the colorful, caped heroes of America's past. Superman, for example, was invented in 1938 by two Jewish teenagers as a force for "truth, justice and the American way."

He's not alone. New Testament scholar Burton Mack writes that secular popular culture myths "draw their power from their uncanny similarity to features of the biblical epic."

Mack, in "Who Wrote the New Testament?", compares the Lone Ranger with Jesus "coming into a world unable to solve its problems."

God can even be found in places some consider godless, like R-rated movies, Garrett and others contend.

Presbyterian minister Ed McNulty took Quentin Tarantino's film "Pulp Fiction" _ criticized for its violence _ as a movie about the concept of grace.

"In scripture, God almost always communicates with people not in so-called religious ways but in secular ways," said McNulty, who produces a Kentucky-based film journal called "Visual Parables."

Garrett, 43, previously gained widespread attention for "The Gospel Reloaded: Exploring Spirituality and Faith in the Matrix," with Houston pastor Chris Seay. In their 2003 book, the authors examined the action movie for hidden spiritual meanings.

The idea angered some conservative Christians. Conversely, Garrett said, some secular critics panned it because of its Christianity.

"Gen X and Gen Y, what we largely call the unchurched, seekers, people who are spiritual and not necessarily religious _ they got it," he said.

Associated Press
05/15/2005

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Prayer Effective As Painkiller?

Americans have found a no-cost painkiller they say is as effective as prescription drugs: prayer.

More than half of those who responded to a USA TODAY/ABC News/Stanford University Medical Center poll released Monday say they use prayer to control pain. Of those, 90% say it worked well, and 51% say "very well."

Among a dozen therapies, including bed rest, massage and herbal remedies, only prescription drugs were as successful as prayer in easing pain: 89% report that such drugs work well and 51% say "very well."

This comes as no surprise to preachers and doctors who say they have seen the way personal faith can influence a patient's reaction to all kinds of pain, psychological or physical.

Hundreds of papers have been published on the possible link between faith and health, but scientifically, "it's very hard to measure," says John Tarpley, professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University.

Pain, in particular, is subjective and can be influenced by a variety of factors that are difficult to assess by scientific standards.

"What we have to worry about is the difference between showing association and causation," says Tarpley, who teaches a class on spirituality and medicine at Vanderbilt.

Harold Koenig, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University [says that] faith and medicine "work beautifully together. Just praying alone doesn't work as well as if you're (also) taking your morphine."

Koenig and colleagues reported last month in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease that among sickle cell patients, those who go to church at least once a week had the lowest pain scores.

"People who are more involved with religious organizations seem to be able to cope with stress," Koenig says.

By Anita Manning, USA TODAY

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, May 05, 2005

In forgiveness, consider spirituality

The ability to forgive someone depends on a number of factors, including the forgiver’s spirituality, according to researchers at an April conference on psychology and religion.

“Beliefs clearly make a difference in whether people will forgive,” said Everett L. Worthington Jr., chairman of the psychology department at Virginia Commonwealth University and director of the nonprofit A Campaign for Forgiveness Research.

“In the field of forgiveness, you could put three forgiveness researchers in a locked room, ask them to come up with a definition of forgiveness, and end up an hour later with five definitions of forgiveness,” Worthington joked in his talk.

Positive feelings such as empathy, sympathy, compassion and altruistic love can erode the negative, and these feelings can play powerful roles when religion and spirituality enter the picture, Worthington said. Religion stimulates these emotions, which in turn can “stimulate a mercy motive and a grace motive,” he said.

But understanding forgiveness and having positive attitudes about it don’t necessarily translate into practice in real-life situations, said Eadaoin K.P. Hui, a professor of education at the University of Hong Kong.

Many of the researchers pointed out that true forgiveness means more than just accepting an apology. Granting emotional forgiveness is much different than forgiving someone in order to continue the relationship, Worthington said.

Although religion ultimately influences forgiveness, the practice of forgiveness isn’t easy and the circumstances matter, the researchers said. For example, with couples experiencing marital problems and in conflicts between different societies, granting true forgiveness gets even more complicated, Worthington said.

In his talk on the difficulty of forgiveness, Paul Whittemore, a clinical psychologist from Newport Beach, California, said that forgiveness relates to how safe and secure the person who has been hurt feels. “True forgiveness requires fundamental feelings of security. We have to feel safe and be safe in order to offer forgiveness,” Whittemore said. “And getting safe is tough.”

Forgiving also involves accepting limitations, offering empathy and possessing emotional maturity, he said. “More emotionally mature people are more willing to forgive because they are less needy and, therefore, more secure,” Whittemore said.

By Alexandra R. Moses
(May 5, 2005)
Alexandra R. Moses is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C.

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, May 02, 2005

Meditation 'leads to longer life'

The American Journal of Cardiology reports in its May 2, 2005, issue that the Transcendental Meditation technique, a non-drug stress-reduction method, reduces death rates by 23% and extends lifespan.

The first-of-its-kind, long-term, randomized trial evaluated 202 men and women, average age 71, who had mildly elevated blood pressure. Subjects in the study participated in the Transcendental Meditation program; behavioral techniques, such as mindfulness or progressive muscle relaxation; or health education. The study tracked subjects for up to 18 years. Vital statistics were obtained from the National Death Index.

The study found that compared to combined controls, the TM group showed:

-- 23% reduction in the rate of death from all causes

-- 30% reduction in the rate of death from cardiovascular disease

-- 49% reduction in the rate of death from cancer

"Research has found the Transcendental Meditation program reduces risk factors in heart disease and other chronic disorders, such as high blood pressure, smoking, psychological stress, stress hormones, harmful cholesterol, and atherosclerosis," said Robert Schneider, M.D., FACC, principal author of the study and director of the Center of Natural Medicine and Prevention.

"These reductions slow the aging process and promote the long-term reductions in death rates."

Researchers collaborated on the study from Harvard, University of Iowa, Medical College of Georgia, West Oakland Health Center, and Maharishi University of Management. The study was funded, in part, by a grant from the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.