Is it time to add ‘the great’ to St. John Paul II? – Greenville Daily Reflector

As he began his 1979 pilgrimage through Poland, Pope John Paul II preached a soaring sermon that was fiercely Catholic, yet full of affection for his homeland.

For Communist leaders, the fact that the former Archbishop of Krakow linked faith to national pride was pure heresy. The pope joyfully claimed divine authority to challenge atheism and the governments efforts to reshape Polish culture.

Man cannot be fully understood without Christ, John Paul II told 290,000 people at a Mass in Warsaws Victory Square. He cannot understand who he is, nor what his true dignity is, nor what his vocation is, nor what his final end is. ... Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography.

That was bad enough. Then he added: It is therefore impossible without Christ to understand the history of the Polish nation. ... If we reject this key to understanding our nation, we lay ourselves open to a substantial misunderstanding. We no longer understand ourselves.

This was the stuff of sainthood, and John Paul II received that title soon after his 26-year pontificate ended. But the global impact of that 1979 sermon is a perfect example of why many Catholics believe its time to attach another title to his name the great.

The informal title the great is not one that is formally granted by the church, explained historian Matthew Bunson, author of The Pope Encyclopedia: An A to Z of the Holy See.

Every saint who is also a pope is not hailed as the great, but the popes who have been called the great are all saints. ... When you hear that title, you are dealing with both the love of the faithful for this saint and the judgment of history.

When he was chosen to succeed John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVIs first words to the crowd in St. Peters Square were, After the great pope ...

Discussions of attaching the great to this saints title were jumpstarted by a recent letter from Benedict XVI that marked the centenary of the birth, in the Polish town of Wadowice, of the man who would become John Paul II.

The word saint indicates Gods sphere, and the word great, the human dimension, wrote Benedict. The term great is harder to define, he added, and in the course of the almost 2,000-year-long history of the papacy, the title the great has been maintained only for two popes: Leo I (440-461) and Gregory I (590-604). In the case of both, the word great has a political connotation, but precisely because something of the mystery of God himself becomes visible through their political success.

Just look at the dramatic life of John Paul II, Bunson said. You start with his underground work against the Nazis, then all the ways that he stood up to Communism during the Cold War. Finally, there are his encyclicals opposing the existential threat of postmodernism what he called the culture of death to the value of the human person.

Let us leave open the question of whether the epithet the great will prevail or not, noted Benedict XVI.. It is true that Gods power and goodness have become visible to all of us in John Paul II. In a time when the Church is again suffering from the oppression of evil, he is for us a sign of hope and confidence.

Read more from the original source:

Is it time to add 'the great' to St. John Paul II? - Greenville Daily Reflector

Hagia Sophia and the test of time – TRT World

Is the state of secularism in Turkey entirely predicated upon the exclusion of worshippers from the Hagia Sophia?

The long and short of it: Muslims will now be able to worship in the Hagia Sophia. To bat off the worst of assumptions: no, there will be no icon-smashing spree. Yes, tourists will be able to visit as before (without fee this time; not that money ever mattered). No, the reconversion from museum to mosque is not the end of Secularism, Christianity, Atheism, and added to that the hurrah words invoked to denigrate the reconversion: humanity and pluralism (the use of these latter two domains for added effect being particularly far-fetched). What should end, however, is the apocalypticism that has rendered the event as some sort of knock-down argument now, or an impending downward spiral towards some perilous doom.

Consider the following questions that may help assuage the fatalism at hand: have not Christianity and Islam both survived the Hagia Sophia as Mosque and Museum respectively? Would any waning religiosity and relegation of faith into the private sphere be best explained by the status of Hagia Sophia, wherever in the world such concerns exist, whenever the perpetual dynamic between faith and politics is discussed? Is the issue merely a numbers game, where people in their droves will now flock in or out of faith, or where the number of mosques, churches, and synagogues, will now become the bottom-line in all decision-making from now on? One may recall the words of the late Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus who, amid the deadly inter-communal tensions on the island, delivered a wise Solomon-like judgement when a Turkish-Cypriot married a Greek-Cypriot: Christ will not become poorer and Muhammed richer if Hassan and Hambou marry. That transcendent wisdom can apply here.

The questions can be extended further. Is the state of secularism in Turkey entirely predicated upon the exclusion of worshipers from the Hagia Sophia? In other words, void of a sizeable portion of its Islamic paraphernalia when converted to a museum in 1935, has the rug now also been pulled from under all secularism in whichever form, for ever more? The Hagia Sophia was for some the epitome of a new secular order after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. But what observers may fail to consider is the exact nature of the secularism of the time, one which the present-day decision is seen as a corrective by the countrys religious conservatives. Likewise, the corrective at hand does not guarantee some sort of a revanchist attack on all things secular; there is no compulsion in religion as mandated in the Holy Quran, and faith cannot be defined by those who abuse it.

In any case, it can beggar belief that such knock-down arguments are made. But one must still consider the power of symbology, for symbology is the motor of the controversy here that can both illuminate and obscure the perennial and immaterial ideals at play. But to consider Christianity in Turkey solely through the site of Hagia Sophia forgoes all else related to the Christian faith in the country: both the positive (of which there most certainly is), and the negative (of which reminders rightly endure, perpetuated further as they may be in times of geopolitical tension).

At the same time, to view the Hagia Sophia as nothing more than the epitome of a historical imperial Christendom now to be replaced with its Islamic counterpart, egged on by the pejoratives of neo-Ottomanism, political Islam, or reduction of any and all developments into the person of the Turkish President (reductio ad Erdoanum), or the notion of power, is as truncated as it sounds. Eerily, there are comparable imperial sentiments here that cannot entirely explain modern statecraft, cannot acknowledge the diversity of Turkish political ideology and what may unite it, nor account for the full causality of geopolitical developments.

In any case, there is an element of national fervour across the board, one that is not necessarily shared by all, but one that may override temperance. But be it the end of secularism, the rise of Islam - how illuminating have such sweeping end game slogans peddled in their various forms really been in reality, and how helpful will they be now? After the dust of the decision settles, perhaps the latent exaggerations at play will assuage. There, hidden beneath the malaise of todays fury is the apt consideration that the issue is now in some sense settled.

Opponents of AK Party and/or the reconversion might find solace in the thought that the event may no longer be made the stuff of politics, expressed in the form of political exploitation. Proponents of the AK Party and/or the reconversion may equally be content that with worship in the Hagia Sophia now secured, worship there is no longer the stuff of politics. Well-established political differences as prevalent in all countries will certainly find other avenues of expression, one hopes to occur in the least polarising of manners.

There have been many expressions of the kind that warn of the antagonistic nature of the age we now live in. Both international geopolitics and domestic political developments constitute the context that events should be examined within. But as expressed by Turkish officials themselves, the Hagia Sophia still remains the common heritage of humanity, non-Muslims and those of no faith are all still welcome, and the aesthetic beauty of the site will remain for all to revere. As a mosque, the Hagia Sophia will now live as a house of God; a positive development if ones theology or metaphysics allows it.

Source: TRT World

See the original post here:

Hagia Sophia and the test of time - TRT World

New Book Tells the Story of Beaver Island’s King Strang – MyNorth.com

Miles Harvey didnt set out to write a Mormon story when he started researching James Jesse Strang, the self-proclaimed king of earth and heavenand Beaver Island.

I didnt see him as a weird Midwestern story or (Mormon) story. I saw him as a lightning rod for all the enthusiasm, prejudices, activities of that era, Harvey says.

That era, the mid-1800s, was an era of change, upheaval and uncertainty. Sound familiar?

I dont know if I would have written the same book if I hadnt been living through the Trump era. But conversely, Strang helped me understand Trump. It helped me think through Trump, Harvey says.

Guys like (Strang) thrive in times of massive change when people want simple and hopeful answers to complex and depressing questions. He offered those things. A lot of his followers were the losers of the upheavals of the 19th century, people who had lost out economically, demographically. He told them they could be the people who ushered in the second coming of God. He offered a kind of new Jerusalem. It must have been really seductive.

Read more about King Strang

Harvey still isnt sure whether Strang was a true believer of what he preached, especially because Strang had written extensively about his own atheism prior to joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS).

We know a lot about Strangs beliefs from before Mormonism. He was an atheist. He told a reporter he was an atheist when he walked into Nauvoo (a Mormon settlement). He was well-versed in the Bible so he could talk a good game and if I was a believer at that time, with his King James-style writing thee and thou it would have taken me in.

And, while Miles Harvey is not a Mormon, he is not about to dismiss anyones faith.

I dont question anyones faith because I have it myself. I dont want anyone telling me Im silly so Im not going to tell anyone else theyre silly, Harvey says.

But The King of Confidence is not about LDS faith or even LDS history.

I was much less interested in Strang as part of Mormon history as such as a part of American history.

And he was fascinated by the eras confidence men.

Con man came into usage in 1849 in New York newspaperand spread rapidly. It was a time when confidence was a currency. It was a time of such dramatic change. You couldnt trust anything except your confidence in someone. Confidence Man. Confidence Artist. There was even a play three months after the word came into usage.

Harveys research took him deep into old newspapers, genealogy and collections, including an impressive one at Central Michigan University.

Strang and his people were savers, probably because they thought they were ushering in the Second Coming, Harvey says. There are two great archives, one at Yale because his first biographer, Milo Quaife, gave his papers to Yale. CMU also has a great collection. Another thing is the 19th-centurynewspaper databases. I was able to discover some stuff about Strang sitting in my underwear in my basement at 1 a.m. Some of the stuff was counterintuitive. If you were only looking in only Michigan newspapers, you would have missed stuff.

Harvey only made one trip to Beaver Island when he was researching The King of Confidence. He said Strangs legacy can be seen widely in place names, including the islands village, St. James, and the main road, Kings Highway.

He also fell in love with The Book of Mormon, the sacred text of the LDS church. Its an amazing literary document, he says. Im an English teacher, so thats where Im coming from. To reimagine the Bible as an ongoing story and set it in North America takes some imagination.

Harvey teaches at DePaul University.

Guest host for An Evening with Miles Harvey is Jeremiah Chamberlin, a University of Michigan instructor, contributing editor at Poets and Writersand editor-in-chief ofFiction Writers Review.

Read the original here:

New Book Tells the Story of Beaver Island's King Strang - MyNorth.com

Idiotic political turf war puts lives at risk: Letters to the editor – Echo Pilot

Lawmakers should not question science amid pandemic.

I found myself totally dismayed upon reading "Mask mandate reignites turf war" in the Erie Times-News on July 3. The article quoted some state representatives as stating, "We live in a free society, people can make decisions for themselves" and "I feel it is up to your personal choice whether or not to abide by this mandate."

Overall, I can agree with these statements with the huge exception that this mindset is promoting many people to buck wearing masks in public, encouraging people to potentially infect all of the people around them.

The article also stated, "Five House Republicans issued a statement questioning the science behind using a mask to contain the virus." This even raises my concern as to the level of intelligence in our House of Representatives. I dont feel anyone has the right to potentially pass along COVID-19, possibly leading to the serious illness and even death of others.

Wearing masks does not prevent the wearer from getting COVID-19, but does help stop the spread to others. If it were the other way around, fine, do whatever you want, but who wouldnt even voluntarily wear a mask to protect others? Unfortunately, the self-centered and severely partisan society we live in today seems more important than showing respect and kindness to others.

They are placing peoples health and even lives at risk in fighting this idiotic political turf war. Shame on these state representatives and all of the people refusing to wear a mask in public.

Gay Marie Catania, Erie

We express our faith best

through words and deeds

I agree with Charles Adamzycks recent letter. Sharing the love of Jesus by our actions and words are the best ways to share our faith. But this is not a forum to preach.

Brennan Manning said that the greatest cause of atheism are Christians who honor him with their lips but not with their lives. That is what people find unbelievable. But in my letters that the editors of the Erie Times-News graciously allow me to share, I try to show that faith and science can coexist.

I try to influence those who are sitting on the fence, so to speak. And yes, maybe I can influence atheists because their souls matters to me. Lee Stroebel, author of "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith," was an atheist who investigated the claims made by Christians.

He came to the conclusion that there is a creator and that he became a man to lead us back to our true home.

There are clues to Gods existence that support my faith, but in reality Ive experienced Gods presence, his overwhelming love, answered prayers and even miracles. I would like to encourage anyone who doubts their faith to investigate the clues of a creator and of the empty tomb.

By the way, the song "Amazing Grace" was written by John Newton, a former atheist. I dont understand why mankind prefers the created over the creator and the temporary over the eternal.

We can see whats happening in society today. Mankind is deciding what is moral without knowing the moral lawgiver (God). The world needs to turn to God for healing.

Dave Heintzel, Erie

To defeat Trumpism, we

must defeat Mike Kelly

As the HMS Trump begins its overdue and well-deserved descent to the bottom of the sea (attaching the "USS" designation to the name feels wrong, even in jest), some elected GOP officeholders are finally showing signs of donning life jackets and jumping ship.

Its not yet clear how the U.S. representative for Pennsylvanias 16th District, our Mike Kelly, is going to play this. Studying the worsening polls, he may try to recast himself as an independent sort, radiating moderation and common sense.

If he goes this route, dont be fooled. Mike Kelly is not one of those reluctant supporters of Donald Trump, duty-bound to respect his partys choice. Kelly has always been full-bore MAGA, an early and painfully visible toady. Kelly is Trump; Trump is Kelly.

I subscribe to the notion that it wont be enough to merely defeat Trumpism in November. It must be sunk with an overwhelming and historic defeat. If not, the vestiges of Trumpism always with us will remain lurking just below the surface.

The Democrats have nominated an excellent first-time candidate to run for the 16th District seat. Please vote for Kristy Gnibus on Nov. 3 and send Trump, Kelly and Trumpism back to the muddy bottom of the American psyche, where they belong.

Richard Boler, Erie

Originally posted here:

Idiotic political turf war puts lives at risk: Letters to the editor - Echo Pilot

Feuerbach’s anthropological atheism to be discussed in Tehran – Iran Book News Agency

Theosophy department of Supreme Council of Islamic Theosophy is the organizer of the program in which Iranian experts headed by Abdol-Raouf Afzali will discuss the subject.Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach (1804 1872) was a German philosopher and anthropologist best known for his book 'The Essence of Christianity', which provided a critique of Christianity that strongly influenced generations of later thinkers, including Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.His thought was influential in the development of historical materialism, where he is often recognized as a bridge between Hegel and Marx.The meeting is scheduled for today, July 6 at 7 p.m. '); $(this).after('' + $(this).attr('alt') + ''); }else{ $(this).next('br').addClass( 'clearboth' ); $(this).wrap(''); $(this).after('' + $(this).attr('alt') + ''); } thisClass=''; })});

http://www.ibna.ir/vdcbz5b5frhb99p.4eur.html ibna.ir/vdcbz5b5frhb99p.4eur.html

Copy to clipboard

Continued here:

Feuerbach's anthropological atheism to be discussed in Tehran - Iran Book News Agency

Podcast Ep. 330: It’s Okay for CNN to Say Jesus Wasn’t Perfect – Friendly Atheist – Patheos

In our latest podcast, Jessica and I discussed the past week in politics and atheism.

We talked about:

The one mom at One Million Moms is very angry at Hamilton for including an F-bomb. (0:44)

Conservative Christians are mad at CNNs Don Lemon for saying Jesus wasnt perfect. (8:05)

Dr. Nancy Goroff, a secular Jew and Ph.D. scientist, won her Democratic primary for Congress in New York. (14:50)

Will Smith used godless as a slur. Should we cancel him? (17:30)

The Supreme Court says religious schools are all-but-immune from anti-discrimination lawsuits and got in the way of women and contraception. (24:45)

Churches received billions of dollars in forgivable loans from the U.S. government. Should this have happened? (33:10)

A church threw an in-person event and a girl soon died. Who should be blamed for it? (40:58)

Donald Trump wants to build a National Garden with a statue of Billy Graham. (59:48)

Be sure to check out the Being Reasonable podcast if you enjoy street epistemology!

Wed love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or Google Play, stream all the episodes on SoundCloud or Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below. Our RSS feed is here. And if you like what youre hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

(Screenshot via YouTube)

More:

Podcast Ep. 330: It's Okay for CNN to Say Jesus Wasn't Perfect - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Key Differences Between Atheism and Agnosticism

The words atheist and agnostic conjure up a number of different perceptions and meanings. When it comes to questioning the existence of gods, the subject is a tricky one that is often misunderstood.

No matter what their reasons or how they approach the question, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different, but also non-exclusive. Many people who adopt the label of agnostic simultaneously reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them.

In addition, there's a common misconception thatagnosticismis somehow a more reasonable position while atheism is more dogmatic, ultimately indistinguishable fromtheismexcept in the details. This is not a valid argument because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and even thenature of beliefitself.

Let's explore the differences between being an atheist and an agnostic and clear the air of any preconceptions or misinterpretations.

An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods.

The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists. Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist. All that is required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others.

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know whether any gods exist or not. This is also an uncomplicated idea, but it may be as misunderstood as atheism.

One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal with questions regarding the existence of gods. Whereas atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not. Do you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but a theist. Do you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic, but an atheist.

Everyone who cannot answer "yes" to one of those questions is a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods. However, since they don't also claim to know for sure, they are agnostic. The only question then is whether they are an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in any gods while anagnostic theistbelieves in the existence of at least one god. However, both do not make the claim to have the knowledge to back up this belief. Fundamentally, there is still some question and that is why they're agnostic.

This seems contradictory and difficult, but it's actually quite easy and logical. Whether one believes or not, they can also be comfortable in not claiming to know for sure that it's either true or false. It occurs in many different topics as well because belief is not the same as direct knowledge.

Once it is understood thatatheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes clear that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a third way between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god does not exhaust all of the possibilities.

Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. It was originally coined to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. It was not meant to describe someone who somehow found an alternative between the presence and absence of some particular belief.

Yet, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which logically excludes "I believe."

On the contrary, not only are knowledge and belief compatible, but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept that some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify it as knowledge.Being a juror in a murder trial is a good parallel to this contradiction.

By now, the difference between being an atheist and an agnostic should be pretty clear and easy to remember. Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.

An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be.

In the end, the fact of the matter is that a person is not faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Not only can a person be both, but itis, in fact, common for people to be both agnostics and atheists or agnostics and theists.

An agnostic atheist wont claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label god exists or that such cannot exist. And yet, they also dont actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

Read more:

Key Differences Between Atheism and Agnosticism

Atheism | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

AtheismWonder and Relic victories take +100 years-50% Spies/Treason cost

"[Player name] mocks your puny achievements. Relic and Wonder victories will take longer."

Message when an enemy has researched Atheism

The effect regarding Wonders and Relics affects all civilizations, not just the player who researches it.

Choosing to research Atheism is entirely based on the situation of the game, and is less effective in games where players are opting to win through conquest. In games where players are attempting a Wonder or Relic victory or in the Defend the Wonder game mode, the extra hundred years combined with their special ability to quickly raze enemy structures makes it considerably easier for the Huns to spoil their opponents' attempts for a Wonder or Relic victory.

Secondly, the significant cost reduction for Spies greatly benefits the Huns in their ability to scan enemy bases and observe their activity, especially since most players from other civilizations would likely avoid researching Spies due to its profoundly steep cost (200 gold per enemy Villager).

"The paganism or outright lack of faith of the Huns offended the Romans who came to think of them as truly sub-human. The Huns, in turn, were unencumbered by the laws of structured religions. Laws of social and religious order were too restrictive for a civilization that was constantly on the move. The Huns put little faith in monuments and artifacts, therefore, focusing mainly on the here and now."

See more here:

Atheism | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

The History of Atheism – dummies

By Dale McGowan

A lot of people think that atheism is a recent idea. But religious disbelief actually has a long and fascinating history. Just as a student of Christianity would want to know about a few rather significant things that happened 2,000 years ago, someone who wants a better understanding of atheism likewise needs to know what atheism has been up to for the past 30 centuries or so.

People tend to think of certain times and places as completely uniform in their beliefs. India is full to the brim with Hindus. The Greeks all worshipped the gods of Olympus. Everyone in Medieval Europe was Christian. Right?

A closer look shows all of these claims to be misleading. Just as political red states (Republicans) and blue states (Democrats) in the United States are really all various shades of purple, every place and time in human history includes a lot of different beliefs including atheism.

Thats not to say all points of view have the same chance to speak into the cultural microphone. Religion in general and the majority religion in particular tend to call the shots and write the histories, especially prior to the late 18th century.

Add to that the fact that atheism has often been punishable by imprisonment or death, and you can see why atheists in certain times and places tend to whisper.

But the voices are there, including some in the distant past and in cultures both in and out of Europe. The thread of atheism in the ancient and medieval world is a story that very few people know. Even atheists are usually in the dark about this part of their history.

By the early 18th century, disbelief was gathering serious steam in Europe. Secret documents challenging religious belief had been circulating for 50 years, just steps ahead of the censors. French parishioners going through the papers of their Catholic priest who died in 1729 found copies of a book, written by the priest for them, telling how much he detested and disbelieved the religion hed taught them for 40 years.

By the end of the century, philosophers in France, Germany, and England were openly challenging religious power and ideas and establishing modern concepts of human rights and individual liberty.

It all culminated, for better and worse, in the French Revolution, when a brief flirtation with an atheist state was followed by the Cult of the Supreme Being and the Reign of Terror at which point atheism went back underground for a bit.

The idea that God didnt really exist never completely went away, even when someone like Napoleon shut it down for a while. It was always bubbling under the surface and occasionally shooting out sideways through someone who just couldnt stand to keep it quiet.

The poet Percy Shelley proved to be one such person, getting himself kicked out of Oxford in 1811 for expressing an atheist opinion. Then the early feminists of England and the United States made it plenty clear that they considered religion to be a stumbling block in the way of womens rights.

Science really put the wind in the sails of atheism in the 19th century. By paying close attention to the natural world, Darwin turned himself from a minister in training to an agnostic and solved the complexity problem that prevented so many people from letting go of God.

As the biologist Richard Dawkins once said, atheism might have been possible before Darwin, but Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But a flurry of activity after Darwins death tried to hide his loss of faith, including some selective slicing and dicing of his autobiography and a false deathbed conversion story dreamt up by a British evangelist with little respect for the Ninth Commandment.

In Darwins wake, a golden age of freethought opened up in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Atheism also doesnt guarantee good behavior any more than religion does, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely becomes a tragically apt phrase in the 20th century.

There are plenty of examples of corruption and immorality in positions of unchecked power, both by atheists (such as Mao Zedong in China, Joseph Stalin in the USSR, and Pol Pot in Cambodia) and theists (such as Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Idi Amin in Uganda).

But theres also good news, including the growth of humanism as a movement and court victories for the separation of church and state something that benefits both the church and the state.

The 20th century also saw one of the most fascinating developments in the history of religion as two God-optional religions formed and flourished: Unitarian Universalism and Humanistic Judaism.

Dale McGowan, PhD, writes the popular secular blog The Meming of Life, teaches secular parenting workshops across North America, and is executive director of Foundation Beyond Belief, a humanist charitable organization. He has been interviewed in major publications, such as Newsweek and the New York Times, and was 2008 Harvard Humanist of the Year.

More here:

The History of Atheism - dummies

Share the Good News in these trying times – Pratt Tribune

Bill Proctor| Pratt Tribune

I feel this Romans 1:16 verse from the Bible:Be not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is power ofr of God for salvation! takes the guesswork out of how we are to behave amidst a sin-filled world.

To hear the scramble for thoughtless power in the media, those who are declaring American is no longer a Christian nation, it must be confusing to our children and grandchildren.

Some my try to tell whos right from whos wrong withing the same exchange of ideas, but those of us who have lived the truth must be willing to share our experiences with those who have not.

To re-write history books, to even eliminate parts of history that may be upsetting to some, as some states are doing, is foolhardy.

Why did the Holy Bible withstand the eons of time and why does it remain the most-read book of all time?

It is because it contains truth!

As life-time members of the Gideon organization, my wife and I have felt how others search for this truth when our groups hand out scriptures to eager grade school children.

Many times this treasure is the first book they own. Sometimes it is the first acquaintance they make with the Word of God.

The Navigators, a group we find helpful, has a trademark motto that reads: To know Christ, make him known and help others do the same.

This is futher reason to not be ashamed of the Gospel, particularly now as evidence of Communism and Socialism abounds in our society.

The Communison we vaved against in the 60s has re-emerged with glamour and appeal. This devious thinking denies private property ownership for those who have worked hard for that right. It provides distribution of personal property to community ownership and supports the persecution of Christians. It denies God exists, fueling atheism. And it encourages the deadly sin of envy based on the destructive us verses them leadership.

Our Christian culture is at risk and we not must be ashamed to be Christians.

Now is the time, more than ever to share the Good News, the experiences of the good fight, the purposeful life and the joys of keeping faith in the one who cares for us all p Christ Jesus.

Excerpt from:

Share the Good News in these trying times - Pratt Tribune

The Presence of the Gods | John Beckett – Patheos

Over on the Patheos Nonreligious (formerly Atheist) channel, Jonathan Pearce has a post titled Playing Truant: The Relevancy of God. Heres the key quote:

Part of the case against God is the sheer absence of God. Everywhere we look, these days, God not only seems to be tangibly absent, but there is no need for God.

Im a Pagan who sees no reason to proselytize Im not really interested in debating Mr. Pearce. If hes happy with his atheism and he appears to be then Im happy for him. His criticisms of Evangelicalism and Catholicism are valid.

Honestly, anybody who can write the line there is no theodicy that does a good job of explaining the existence of Trump is somebody Id like to have a beer with (someday, when we can have beers with people weve never met again).

At the same time, his post is a reminder of what happens when you let other people set the terms of the debate, and when you define yourself by what you arent rather than by what you are.

Early Christians were considered atheists by the Romans, because they denied the existence of the many Gods.

There is no true monotheism: Christianity has its Trinity and saints, Islam has angels and a devil. Apologists argue that the Trinity is really One and that other beings are not Gods. Polytheists counter that the idea of one all-powerful being is nothing any of our ancestors would have recognized as a God (no, the One of Neoplatonism is not a God in either the polytheist or monotheist sense).

Polytheism is humanitys default setting. Left free of indoctrination, we intuitively recognize the Sun God and the Moon Goddess, the God of a Mountain and the Goddess of the Rain. Even good Christians occasionally invoke the Gods of Baseball or some such thing. Monotheism is like a manicured lawn on the edge of a forest it requires constant maintenance or the forest will reclaim it.

There have always been those for whom the existence of the Gods has seemed either unlikely or simply unimportant. So be it. Only Christianity (and these days, only certain forms of Christianity) places ultimate importance on believing the right things. Live a good, honest, compassionate life and leave the world a better place than you found it and well all get along just fine.

Theodicy is only a problem for monotheists who propose one God who is both all-good and all-powerful. For those of us who follow Gods who are the mightiest of spirits but not all-powerful, this is not a problem.

But most of the monotheist complaints of how could God allow this to happen? carry the implication that the well-being of humans is the greatest good. A simple look at life shows that this is clearly not the case.

Human life has value, but so does snake life and fish life and tree life. Is the lion who eats a human any different from the human who eats a cow? And if all living things have spirits (or if they are spirits) is it any different from a cow who eats a stalk of corn? Is the world fallen because it contains wildfires and tornados and coronaviruses? Or are we nave and self-centered because we refuse to recognize that things like wildfires and tornados and coronaviruses are just as much a part of this world as we are?

I think we lost an important concept when Christianity caused us to abandon the zoomorphic Gods.

We are not the center of the universe, and though many of our Gods have human forms or are themselves deified humans, They are the Gods of all this world, not just us.

Jonathan Pearce says the Christian God is tangibly absent. I cant argue with him. As a polytheist I have no problem acknowledging the existence of Yahweh and Jesus, but I see no reason to accept the proposition that they are one all-powerful being who created the universe and thus is responsible for its operation.

But the Many Gods? Thats a different story.

As a child I was taught there was only one God, so I didnt have the language to express the experiences of comfort and power I felt deep in the woods. I just knew there was something special there. If the Forest God had stepped out of the shadows I would have assumed He was the Christian devil, because I didnt know any better.

Later on I encountered Cernunnos in a very different setting, when I was ready to see Him for who and what He is.

The first time I experienced Him in an ecstatic setting, it took near-perfect surroundings and a fair amount of ritual for me to turn off the skepticism long enough to meet Him. Afterwards I knew it was real, but doubts remained.

The second time it took a small amount of ritual. That experience was rather demonstrative. The after-doubts were far fewer.

Eventually the experiences started to add up. By the time I led the first Cernunnos Devotional Ritual, the doubts were gone. When you experience the presence of the same spiritual person many times, its easier to go with it than to keep asking the same questions over and over again because the answers dont change.

And its not just Cernunnos. Its the Morrigan, its Danu, its the Gods of Egypt. Different Gods call to different people in different ways.

We want our Gods to make Themselves known. We want Them to appear before us in bodily form, brilliant and shining, announcing Their divinity and Their power in ways that would make even Richard Dawkins kneel in awe. Oh, and if They could smite a few of our enemies at the same time, that would be great.

They have other plans.

If convincing the masses of Their reality isnt important to Them, then I suppose it shouldnt be very important to us. None of the Many Gods seem interested in amassing millions and millions of followers.

Instead, Theyre calling a few people to worship and work with Them doing things that dont always make sense to us.

Either youre interested in that or youre not. And with a very few exceptions, if youre not interested, Theyve got better things to do than try to persuade you.

And so do I. If youre curious, I love talking religion. If youre interested, Ill do my best to point you in the right direction the right direction for you.

But for those of us who follow one or more of the Many Gods, its important to remember to not let other people set the ground rules of our religions. Christians and atheists are for the most part arguing two sides of the same coin.

Meanwhile, were foraging in the forest, and were finding all kinds of good stuff to eat.

Here is the original post:

The Presence of the Gods | John Beckett - Patheos

Reason is on the side of faith Faith works on a different plane, asking questions that science cant – Economic Times

Francis Collins, a physician-geneticist, is the director of Americas National Institutes of Health (NIH). He worked on the Human Genome Project, a 13-year collaborative effort to map the complete set of human genes, which concluded in 2003. Separately, he has also researched the complementarity of science and faith. He was recently awarded the John Templeton Prize for his work on the subject. He explains his world view to Narayani Ganesh:

You were still in medical school when you made the transition from being agnostic, then atheist, to believer. How difficult is it to straddle both reason and faith?

I find it wonderfully rewarding. Science is the way to investigate nature, to ask the how questions like how genes code for proteins. Faith works on a different plane, asking why questions that science cant answer like why is there something instead of nothing, and is there a God? I am interested in all of the questions, and I find science and faith to be complementary.

Did your science background have a vital role to play in widening your perspective to include higher dimensions associated with spirituality?

I was already pursuing a scientific career when, as a medical student, I needed to understand why people believe in God. I approached faith with suspicion that reason would have to be sacrificed to accept the spiritual world view. I found out that was not at all the case. Atheism, the assertion of a universal negative, turned out to be the most irrational of the choices. To my surprise, reason was very much on the side of faith. I ended up being converted to Christianity.

Was your best-selling book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, received well in your peer group?

There are many scientists who believe in a personal God, and they welcomed the book. Many others who are not people of faith were polite but a bit perplexed. A few of the atheist persuasion were strongly critical, arguing that my book revealed intellectual weakness, and a scientist should never write about faith.

Cutting-edge genetics include cloning and transgenetics that have raised ethical questions. How do these align with your religious beliefs?

As a Christian, I believe that we humans are special creatures with a special relationship with God. As such, the potential to reshape our very nature seems to cross a line into dangerous territory. Most ethicists agree with that, whether or not they are people of faith.

America is known for its deep divide over creationism/ intelligent design and evolutionary biology. What are your views on this?

The chronic conflict between science and faith is now particularly evident in this area of origins, and it troubles me greatly to see how this is driving people apart, and even causing young people to walk away from faith. As a scientist who studies the details of living things, including their digital record of past inheritance [DNA], I can tell you that the evolutionary relatedness of all living things, including humans, is absolutely compelling. Some say that evolution is just a theory, but this theory is about as well-established as gravity. As a believer in a Creator God, I find this all makes perfect sense God started the universe 14 billion years ago with matter, energy and a set of natural laws that would ultimately give rise to sentient creatures on a small blue planet. As the Creator is not limited in space or time, the outcome was known all along by God. That doesnt mean we dont have free will we most certainly do. And we can choose to seek God or to run the other way.

You are also a musician, and are known to have promoted music as therapy, especially in treating neurological conditions. Will you be doing further research on this?

I am fascinated by the way music can lift our spirits, inspire us to do great things, and bring us together. I am also impressed by how music therapy can help people with PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], Parkinsons disease, or chronic pain and Id like to understand that better to make the treatment even more effective. The NIH now has a research programme to study these issues bringing together neuroscientists, musicians and music therapists. I expect interesting insights to happen.

In the context of Covid-19, how soon do you think we might have a vaccine?

Progress has been remarkable since the ACTIV [Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] partnership came together in early April, bringing scientific talent and resources from all sectors onto the same team. Ive never seen such dedication and commitment. Phase I results from the first US vaccine are encouraging, others are close behind, and large-scale vaccine trials will be getting underway this summer. There are many uncertainties, but having a widely available safe and effective vaccine by early 2021 seems possible.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read the original here:

Reason is on the side of faith Faith works on a different plane, asking questions that science cant - Economic Times

We Are All Atheists – News Intervention

By Leo Igwe

It is now over two weeks since police detectives arrested Nigerian atheist, Mubarak Bala in Kaduna in Northern Nigeria. His arrest was in connection with posts that he made on Facebook. The petitioners said that the posts insulted the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Mr. Bala was transferred to Kano the following day but since then his whereabouts are unknown. He has been held incommunicado without access to a lawyer and family members. The police have not charged him in court.

Meanwhile, there have been reports that a list of atheists, to be arrested and arraigned alongside Mr. Bala, is being compiled. There is an ongoing witch hunt for atheists, especially in Northern Nigeria. One source said that these were atheists who had allegedly made comments that insulted Muhammad or posted comments that annoyed Muslims.

Some atheists have received calls from strange numbers or from unknown individuals who tried to confirm their identities. Most atheists in Nigeria are in the closet due to fear of being persecuted or killed by extremists. The situation is worse and more dangerous in Northern Nigeria where sharia law is in force in most states. Until recently, the atheist movement in the region has been underground. However, there has been growing visibility of atheism in Northern Nigeria since Mubarak came out as an atheist in 2014.

The emergence of atheism in the region has worried Muslim leaders. And last year an Islamic institute organized a seminar to discuss the disturbing trend of Atheism and Social Media.

Following the arrest of Mubarak Bala, there have been numerous threats to expose and deal with other atheists. But those Muslims who are trying to clamp down on the atheist movement have not thought it through. It may not have occurred to them that they too are atheists. n this piece, I argue that we are all atheists because atheism entails a lack of belief in a god or gods. And everybody is an atheist in relation to one god or another. My submission is that if we are all atheists, why are some Muslims in Northern Nigeria persecuting fellow atheists? Why do they want to deny other atheists their rights to life, freedom of conscience, expression, and association?

First, lets establish how Muslims are atheists or unbelievers. Muslims believe in Allah and in that sense, they are theists. They are believers. There is no doubt about it. However Muslim relationship to the god idea does not end with the belief in Allah. In Islam, there is this saying: There is no other god but Allah. Take note, no other god. This statement is an affirmation of belief in god as well as a declaration of disbelief in other gods. So concerning other gods, Muslims are atheists. Muslims are unbelievers. They are infidels. Like atheists, Muslims do not believe in the Christian god. They do not have faith in Zeus, Vishnu, Osiris, Amadioha, Sango, Ogun, Urim, Tsumburburra, Haptu, and thousands of other gods that human beings have worshipped throughout history.The difference between Muslims and other atheists is that other atheists go one god further in their disbelief. They do not believe in the Allah-god. So all Muslims are atheists, even though all atheists are not Muslims. And to make a clearer distinction between Muslims and other atheists, Believers in the Allah-god will be described as Muslim atheists. n Nigeria, Muslim atheists exercise their rights to freedom of belief and unbelief- their freedom to believe in Allah/prophet Muhammad and to unbelieve in Urim and Ogun. Muslims exercise their right to freedom of expression including their right to express their belief in Allah and their unbelief in other gods such as Odin and Krishna. In declaring their unbelief in other gods, Muslims atheists make and could make statements that others could consider to be insulting, provoking and annoying. n seeking to penalize Mubarak and other atheists for statements and sentiments, posts, and comments that they made on Facebook, Muslim atheists are trying to deny other atheists the same rights that they enjoy. That is not fair. Is it? This inequity has been central to the entrenched Islamic privilege in Nigeria. This injustice has escaped the minds of those who are persecuting Mubarak Bala and other atheists in the region. Blinded by their theism, and forgetful of their atheism, Muslims who are threatening to kill and deal with atheists need to realize that atheists are human beings and the rights of atheists are human rights. More importantly, Muslims in Nigeria need to know that they are atheists too; that they belong to the family of unbelievers and infidels.

Yes, we are all atheists!

Photo by Marcos Paulo PradoonUnsplash

Assistant Editor, News Intervention,Human Rights Activist.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He focuses on North America for News Intervention. Jacobsen works for science and human rights, especially womens and childrens rights. He considers the modern scientific and technological world the foundation for the provision of the basics of human life throughout the world and advancement of human rights as the universal movement among peoples everywhere. You can contact Scott via email, his website, or Twitter.

More here:

We Are All Atheists - News Intervention

I Believed That I Would See Her Again – The New York Times

This months conversation in our series exploring religion and death is with Karen Teel, who has been a member of the department of theology and religious studies at the University of San Diego since 2007. Her research and teaching focus on the essential beliefs of Christianity and the theological engagement with the problems of racism and white supremacy. She is the author of Racism and the Image of God. George Yancy

George Yancy: Id like to start with a personal question. What does it mean for you to embody the teachings of Roman Catholicism?

Karen Teel: I grew up Catholic, and I continue to practice Catholicism not out of obligation but because I claim it as my home. I try to live faithfully by what is highest and best in my church. This actually means that my allegiance is not first and foremost to the Roman Catholic Church, a human and imperfect institution, but to Jesus and to his God of love and justice. So, for me, embodying the teachings of my church means trying to love deeply, to live with integrity, to treat every person as beloved by God, and therefore to work passionately for justice in the world.

One way that I have chosen to demonstrate fidelity to my church is by raising my children Catholic. I want them to know in their bones what it means to belong to a faith community, so that when they grow up that is a real option for them. Embodying the teachings of Catholicism means living the truth that I believe, and really believing that this is the truth, while respecting and honoring the fact that others also live according to what they believe is true.

Yancy: What do you consider some of the essential teachings of Roman Catholicism?

Teel: Roman Catholics share the basic beliefs that all Christians hold in common. We believe that God is a Trinity, one god in three persons. We proclaim that Jesus saves. And we use the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, as our sacred text.

For me, the most important distinctively Catholic belief is the Eucharist. My church teaches that when we celebrate communion, Jesus becomes present in the bread and wine that we share. The way the people come together every week to be nourished by this concrete reminder of Gods presence with us in the struggle is really beautiful.

Yancy: We are concentrating in these discussions on learning about and understanding religious conceptions of death. How is the reality of death conceptualized in your faith?

Teel: Death is conceptualized as a transition from this life into eternal life. Christianity teaches that God is eternal; this world came from God and will eventually return to God. In that sense, this life is temporary. Moreover, God created humans with immortal souls, so the death of a human being is not the end. The body dies while the soul continues to live.

When this world comes to an end, Christianity teaches, Jesus, who has already been raised from the dead, will return to oversee the general resurrection of the dead and the last judgment. The bodies of those who have died will be resurrected rendered alive anew in a glorious, immortal state and reunited with our souls. The bodies of those who have not yet died also will be transformed into this new state. And Jesus will separate us into two groups, those who will be eternally rewarded and those who will be punished. Christians traditionally believe that heaven is where God is and hell is where God is not, but I like the idea, suggested in the teaching of one of my graduate school professors, Father Michael Himes, that we may all have the same destiny to spend eternity being loved by God. For those who want Gods love, this will be heaven; for those who dont, it will be hell.

For Christians, everything that God created is good, and God will not allow anything that is good to pass away. We are never alone, in this life or in eternity. The death of a loved one brings profound sadness. But it is a temporary separation; we hope and believe that we will see each other again. Death is not a separation from God but a return to God. When a Christian dies, we say that they have gone to be with God. And when we die, we will join them.

Yancy: This all seems to work out well for faithful Christians, but what about atheists? Should they fear death?

Teel: No more than anyone else. In the 1960s, the Catholic Churchs teaching on non-Christian religions developed beyond the ancient notion that only Christians could be saved. Now the church teaches that, under certain conditions, people who do not identify as Christians may be saved. Personally, I believe that whenever a person does their best to live rightly, according to the principles they know to be true, God honors that effort. Nothing good will be lost.

Yancy: Speaking of atheism, I read recently that cosmologist Stephen Hawking said, I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. He also added, There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. How do you respond to the charge that Christians who believe in an afterlife are just really afraid of the dark, that is, afraid of facing the inevitability of nothingness?

Teel: Thats very logical. I can see why a nonbeliever might think that. The question here is whether we are going to allow people to be the authorities on what they feel.

When my mother was 59, she was diagnosed with A.L.S., Lou Gehrigs disease. Hawking had it too. Theres no cure for A.L.S. Its a neurological disease in which the mind usually remains sharp, but the voluntary muscles gradually stop working, leaving you totally dependent on others. Hawking lived for decades after his diagnosis; most people live two to five years. My mother lived for three years.

Moms decline never hit a plateau. The diseases progression was gradual and relentless. Her arms went first, which seemed particularly cruel, since she was a pianist. When she could no longer climb stairs, she and my father moved to be near me and my children. She began to need help with everything: eating, using the bathroom, controlling her wheelchair, breathing.

During Moms last weeks especially after she asked us to stop feeding her, when we took turns sitting with her around the clock, so that she would not die alone I realized two things: She was going to die soon, and I believed that I would see her again. This had nothing to do with being afraid of losing her. I was losing her. We had known for three years, with reasonable and devastating certainty, the precise manner in which we were going to lose her. But I also believed, with a conviction I had never before felt, that she would not cease to exist upon her death. She was going to join her parents, and one day I would see them all again.

Before facing my mothers death, I never really knew that I believed that life continues. I still dont expect others to believe it. But I know it as I know the sun will come up in the morning, as I know Ill get wet in the rain, as I know I love my own children. It isnt about fear. Its a gift and a mystery, this conviction that we come from love and we return to love.

Yancy: That is a powerful story and I thank you for sharing it. How do we explain the fact that even Christians continue to fear death despite the fact that they believe that there is so much more after we die?

Teel: Well, Christians hope to go to heaven, but ultimately its not up to us. Perhaps the outcome of the last judgment will not be in our favor, or a loved one wont make it. Thats a pretty terrifying scenario. Then again, some of us probably imagine that heaven will be boring because we will no longer be doing any of the exciting stuff that we had feared might land us in hell.

Change is scary, and death is a big change. Many ways of dying involve pain. Even if we expect a good death and something better beyond, this life is familiar and beloved, and we are in no hurry to go. We also fear for the loved ones we leave behind. Who will take care of them when were gone?

Yancy: It has occurred to me at times that the atheist belief expressed by Hawking that there is no afterlife, that there is nothing after we die, might have an upside of adding value to our current lives. For example, I might treat people differently knowing that I will never see them after this life. Given that, do you think believing that one will exist forever could negatively impact how one lives in the present?

Teel: I suppose there are Christians who use their hope of heaven as an excuse to be lazy or immoral, though I dont know very many. More common, and more problematic, is our tendency to look down on people who dont believe what we do. Yet believing that life ends at death can also lead to nihilism, or to treating people horribly. Neither belief guarantees good character.

Yancy: Do you think that people lose anything by taking an atheist stance? And if they dont, why should they invest in the belief that we exist beyond the grave?

Teel: Im not terribly interested in convincing others to believe what I do about life after death. I may turn out to be wrong; and anyway, whatever is going to happen will happen whether or not anyone believes in it. Im much more interested in working to make our world more just.

In this life we have right now, people are suffering. This is not new. In his Urbi et Orbi blessing in March, Pope Francis, praying with the world from a dark and empty St. Peters Square, suggested that perhaps we can learn from the pandemic what we have failed to learn from war, injustice, poverty and environmental catastrophe: We need each other. If God is love, then we must do everything we can to reduce one anothers suffering, now and always. In fact, Jesus says that God cares far more about whether we do that than about whether we invoke God as our reason to do it. So, if believing in life after death motivates you, great. If not, then lets find another reason, pick a cause, and get to work.

Yancy: You say that your views on death and the afterlife could turn out to be wrong. If so if death were in fact final would it render life meaningless for you?

Teel: No. I dont believe that life matters because it continues. I believe that life continues because it matters. If it doesnt continue, it still matters.

We love each other imperfectly, yet love remains. My mothers love for me did not begin or end with her. She could love me because others loved her, they could love her because they had been loved, and so on. Her love is with me now. And it will continue, through me, through everyone I love, through everyone they love, long after we are all forgotten. Whether I actually see my mom again, in the specific way I anticipate, doesnt change that. As love, we live forever, we always will have lived.

George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Emory University. His latest book is Across Black Spaces: Essays and Interviews from an American Philosopher.

Now in print: Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments, and The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments, with essays from the series, edited by Peter Catapano and Simon Critchley, published by Liveright Books.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Continue reading here:

I Believed That I Would See Her Again - The New York Times

The Eagle and The Cross: Religion and the American Republic – The Yale Politic

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Proverbs 9:10 describes how God is the apex of all knowledge, the end goal of human reason. Naturally, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) takes a different view of the matter. The FFRF website asks will I join to promote nontheism and defend the constitutional separation between religion and government? One could be forgiven for being unsure what precisely the constitutional separation between church and state is, and why one ought to promote the lack of belief in something. An article they published helps illustrate precisely what they mean. In writing about a slew of laws proposing various religious activities in the public sphere, such as Bible studies or public prayer, they use pretty charged language. When describing Project Blitz, a concerted effort to promote such bills, they say the following: It seeks to inject state legislatures with a whole host of religious bills, imposing the theocratic version of a powerful few on We The People. Their proposals signal an unvarnished attack on American secularism and civil libertiesthose things we cherish most about our democracy and now must tirelessly defend. Earlier in the article, they state that Project Blitz seeks to destroy the separation between church and state, and advance a false notion that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Clearly, this organization has a particular view of the separation of church and state. To them, religion ought to play no role in the public sphere. Laws which are religiously motivated, or promote any sort of theism, are unconstitutional. Firstly, the framing of their claims is quite telling. Apparently, religious law is the machination of a powerful few. Apparently, religion is not something held by the vast majority of Americans; rather it is foisted upon those citizens who would otherwise be secular and free. Nevermind that, according to Gallup polling, nearly four-fifths of Americans are religiously affiliated. The FFRF is advancing a claim that Americas founding was an entirely secular affair, that the Founders envisioned a nation free of religion, and that religion has no place in the public sphere. No matter their claims, their beliefs do not hold up to scrutiny on historical, legal, and logical grounds.

What does the Constitution say about the separation of church and state? The obvious place to look regarding religious practice is the First Amendment. Regarding religion, it states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. How are we to interpret the establishment of religion? Here it may be useful to look to the model the Founding Fathers were rebelling againstGreat Britain. Since the 16th century, Great Britain has had an established church, led by the Monarch as Supreme Governor. Under the Act of Supremacy and Act of Uniformity passed by Parliament under Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I, all office-holders had to swear an oath recognizing the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and individuals were fined for not attending church weekly (that is, at a parish of the Church of England). Further, the Test Act of 1673 required office-holders to deny transubstantiation, a staple of the Catholic Faith. The Test Act of 1678 required all members of Parliament, with some exceptions, to deny the Mass, invocation of saints, and transubstantiation.

All of this demonstrates that the Founders were rebelling against a specific intersection of church and state. They were rebelling against an established state church, of which membership was coerced by force of arms, and in which alternate faiths were punished or denied office. This is the thrust of the First Amendment; it was feared that America would follow the mold of England (or Scotland with the Kirk) and have a mandatory state church. It seems an interpolation into the history of our more secular time to say that the Founders were concerned with the irreligious and atheists. While that may be desirable, explicit atheism, especially in the public sphere, is largely a product of later times. It seems a stretch to say that they had the freedom not to worship, rather than freedom to worship, in mind when crafting our Constitution.

Despite this, if one is not of an originalist bent, the FFRFs position is still redeemable if modern court decisions espouse the freedom from worship path. However, this is not the case. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court decided that the Bladensburg Cross, a symbol of memorializing fallen WWI soldiers, could remain despite being an unmistakably Christian symbol. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent. Here, religion is at least accepted in the public sphere, provided there are other legitimate reasons for its existence. This already discounts the view that the Constitution demands that religion be limited to the private sphere. However, the Town of Greece v. Galloway goes further, where the Supreme Court ruled that chaplains could open legislative sessions with sectarian prayer in the town. Here, religion is explicitly allowed to intersect with the public sphere. Interpreting the Constitution to mean that we must excise religion from the body politic like a tumor is simply wishful thinking.

Now, it should be noted that the position I have laid out is a far cry from the religious theocracy that the FRFF is afraid of. My position is merely that religion cant be fully removed from the public sphere. Public prayer and religious symbols are acceptable in this Republic. However, what the FRFF is afraid of is the capture of state power by Christianity. If one looks at their Legal Challenges page, all of the challenges which are against a specific religion are against Christianity. They fear both oppression and bad policy. They fear the oppression that a state religion may bring. One need only look at history to see their fear. They also fear religiously-motivated policy. After all, if one doesnt believe in God, then the Catholic Churchs teachings on a whole host of issues are misguided at best. To allow for such policy is to deny women reproductive rights, all to coddle those who foolishly believe in an Old Man in the Sky.

However, there are good practical reasons to allow for religiously-motivated politics. In its political nature, religion is a mechanism for forming beliefs. Many people take political actions for explicitly religious reasons, from abortion to prison reform to public prayer. To cordon religion off from politics, the government must assert that it is categorically unfit for forming beliefs. It is important to note that there is a difference between believing in something and thinking it is valid. For example, as a religious person, I think any non-theistic formulation of the world is categorically wrong. However, it is a valid way of generating political positions. As such, beliefs formed as a result of atheism should be welcome in the public sphere. To separate church and state in a way that groups like the FRFF would like, we would have to say that religion is so invalid as a way of forming beliefs that no reasonable person would use it to form opinions. This seems like an overly strong position from the non-theists.

Beyond this attempt to box out those with different priors, it seems odd to single out religion as an improper grounding. There are plenty of people who may form their beliefs wrongly in the eyes of some, yet they should be able to participate in the political process. Any pluralistic society must allow for various first principles, even if one does not personally agree with them.

Lastly, it seems a concerning proposition to have the government adjudicate which beliefs are acceptable. At the risk of communist-baiting, this sounds like requiring Leninism from all of our voters. If we are to say that religion has no space in the public sphere, the government is necessarily adjudicating what beliefs can be expressed there. It sounds like the elected deciding their electorate. If the government can decide who is valid in a democratic society, that seems like one is begging to disenfranchise those with whom they disagree. Such a position is authoritarian and unfit for a liberal society. People dont lose their voice merely because they are wrong. Even if we accept all of the FFRFs premises, the conclusion would not be to ban religion in politics. After all, the point of democracy is that the people get to decide, not the people get to decide but only if they make the right decision. To defend their position, the FRFF would have to claim religious people are so wrong that they do not deserve to have their voices heard. No matter their professed fidelity to the Constitution, such a position seems wholly un-American to me.

The rest is here:

The Eagle and The Cross: Religion and the American Republic - The Yale Politic

Atheist A Logo Found Near Graffiti at Site of Burned Down Mississippi Church – Patheos

We posted yesterday about how the First Pentecostal Church in Holly Springs, Mississippi had burned to the ground shortly after the church sued the city over its stay-at-home orders, which were stricter than those for the state as a whole. (That lawsuit was prompted by police going into the church during a Bible study and Easter service after members refused to respect social distancing requirements.)

The alleged arsonist was said to have left graffiti on the parking lot reading Bet you stay home now you hypokrits [sic].

Theres no indication about who did this. Ive heard conspiracy theories abound about how a church member may have done this tobolster the claims of persecution, but theres no evidence of that.

But heres a disturbing new wrinkle in the story:

A photograph of the graffiti also appears to show an atomic symbol with an A in the center, which is sometimes used as a logo for atheist groups.

Part of me is eagerly coming up with defenses against the suggestion that an atheist did this:

Thats not really the same design thats popular with some online atheists.

Atheists dont even use that symbol. (We dont have a symbol.)

Why would an atheist burn the church down and leave a calling card?

What atheist would misspell hypocrite like that?

Who would be so idiotic to burn down a church over COVID concerns when plenty of other churches are doing the same thing, when there could have been people inside this building, and when this wont resolve anything since church members will just meet somewhere else?

Thats not to go all conspiracy in the other direction. Only that Im not quite ready to take this symbol as slam-dunk evidence that an atheist did it.

Still, without any leads, what else should people think? All we know publicly is that a church has been destroyed and theres a symbol associated with atheism at the scene of the crime.

American Atheists is the group that uses the atomic logo thats also the URL the New York Times uses in their article andthe groups president Nick Fish issued a statement this afternoon:

Words cannot capture how strongly we condemn this heinous act of destruction. I hope that the perpetrator of this crime is swiftly brought to justice and held to account for their actions. No one should face violence of any kind because of their religion or lack thereof. No matter what our disagreements may be, violence is never the appropriate response.

Im disgusted that anyone would associate a symbol of our community with something so incompatible with our values as atheists. Pluralism, open dialogue, finding common ground, and protecting equality under the law have never been more important than they are today.

My thoughts are with the members of the First Pentecostal Church during this difficult time.

Theres a fundraiser for the rebuilding of the church here.

See more here:

Atheist A Logo Found Near Graffiti at Site of Burned Down Mississippi Church - Patheos

This Is a Very, Very Tiny List of Elected Atheist Republicans – Patheos

Almost a month ago, the group Republican Atheists sent a message to members hoping to publish a list of atheist Republicans who are elected officials in Republican groups and/or their cities/counties.

They wanted names.

I laughed a lot because the GOP, as a whole, is clearly hostile to people who arent white evangelicals, and thats evident through the policies they promote, their platform, and their top-tier candidates. Its hard to imagine Republican voters supporting a candidate whos openly and proudly non-religious, because Republican values go against what most non-religious people support. A party that supports Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, and Ted Cruz isnt about to throw money and support to an avowed atheist. (They had a hard enough time getting their people to support a Mormon candidate in 2012.)

Ill freely admit there are conservative atheists especially ones who feel very strongly about one or two issues and vote on those issues alone but thats different from supporting todays GOP. Being a Republican today means backing a party whose politicians are overwhelmingly anti-science, anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-choice, and anti-church/state separation. It means supporting a president who blindly accepts and promotes conspiracy theories, surrounds himself with a coterie of evangelical Christians, and condemns expertise and reason whenever they contradict his whims.

Maybe some voters can deal with that cognitive dissonance but actual politicians? Cmon now. Lets be serious.

That said, I would love to know if there are any openly atheist elected Republicans out there. That would be newsworthy! But theyre not out there! Ive looked!

Just to prove my point, here are some numbers for you. After the 2018 midterms, by my best estimate, there were 52 openly non-religious politicians in the country at the state level or higher. Were talking about state representatives and state senators, along with one congressman. Many of them use the word atheist to describe themselves. (I didnt keep track of atheists below that level because, frankly, there would be too many.)

Every single one of them is a Democrat.

In 2017, I stumbled across one guy who was both an elected Republican and, it turned out, openly atheist but he soon switched parties (becoming a Libertarian) and lost his bid for re-election.

There are currently no elected Republicans at the state level or higher who are openly atheist.

52 Democrats. 0 Republicans.

If Im incorrect, though, Im all ears. I would love to know if there are elected officials in the Republican Party who openly reject God. That would be fascinating! (It would be weird, too, but thats a different issue.) If nothing else, having prominent atheists in the GOP might mean having some voices in the party pushing for science and church/state separation and countering the weight of the Religious Right.

Thats a long way to say I really looked forward to seeingthis list from Republican Atheists.

But the weeks came and went and there was no update. I was only told the list was coming and that it was not impressive. (Shocker. But thanks for the honesty.)

Yesterday, the group finally released the list.

Are you ready for it?

There are three names.

Thats it.

Poulson is a leader within his local GOP affiliate but not elected to anything outside of that. Same with Anderson. (Correction: I said earlier Anderson had run for office, but that is not the case.)

As for Umphrey, she is indeed a Republican atheist but it should be noted that the city council elections are non-partisan and the body doesnt usually debate the more polarizing issues we see at the state level. There arent any examples of her publicly calling herself an atheist or a Republican, at least as it relates to her office or examples of her promoting atheism or the GOP during the campaign.

Thats not a criticism of her, by the way! Those kinds of issues just dont often come up at many city council meetings outside of invocations and the like. My point is that if I just looked at her record or public statements, I dont think I would be able to pin down that she was a Republican or an atheist. But shes the only person the group could find after nearly a month of searching and they already knew about her in 2018.

This whole search just proves my point: There are no openly atheist elected Republicans at the state level or higher. (Apparently they barely exist at lower levels, too.) That shouldnt surprise anyone.

Its been said that the only thing atheists have in common is one answer to one question. But many people who call themselves atheists support secular schools, oppose faith-based discrimination, want accessto birth control and contraception, etc. Its hard to imagine someone who cares enough about the topic of religion that she uses the label atheist finding a home in the GOP.

(I should also say the Democratic Party has a long way to go on these issues, too, but theres just no comparison.)

I would love for the Republican Atheists group to simply admit the current GOP is no place for open atheists but theyre working to change that and then I want to see what theyre doing to make that happen.

Instead, as far as Ive seen, all they ever do is promote MAGA memes and push conservative propaganda to their followers. Theyre like the Log Cabin Republicans a group that claims to represent LGBTQ people, but is widely considered a laughingstock because Republican politicians and judges routinely oppose LGBTQ rights. Theres no way to spin that. Every time the group tries to do it, its just pathetic.

But good luck getting Republican Atheists to admit all that.

Read this article:

This Is a Very, Very Tiny List of Elected Atheist Republicans - Patheos

One of the World’s Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles – Scientific American

When I talk to my students aboutthe tempestuous relationship between science and religion, I like to bring up the case of Francis Collins. Early in his career, Collins was a successful gene-hunter, who helped identify genes associated with cystic fibrosis and other disorders. He went on to become one of the worlds most powerful scientists. Since 2009, he has directed the National Institutes of Health, which this year has a budget of over $40 billion. Before that he oversaw the Human Genome Project, one of historys biggest research projects. Collins was an atheist until 1978, when he underwent a conversion experience while hiking in the mountains and became a devout Christian. In his 2006 bestselling bookThe Language of God, Collins declares that he sees no incompatibility between science and religion. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome, he wrote. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. Collins just won the$1.3 million Templeton Prize, created in 1972 to promote reconciliation of science and spirituality. (See my posts on the Templeton Foundationhereandhere). This news gives me an excuse to post an interview I carried out with Collins forNational Geographicin 2006, a time whenRichard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others were vigorously attacking religion. Below is an edited transcript of my conversation with Collins, which took place in Washington, D.C. I liked Collins, whom I found to be surprisingly unassuming for a man of such high stature. But I was disturbed by our final exchanges, in which he revealed a fatalistic outlook on humanitys future. Collins, it seems, haslots of faith in God but not much in humanity. John Horgan

Horgan:How does it feel to be at the white-hot center of the current debate between science and religion?

Collins:This increasing polarization between extremists on both ends of the atheism and belief spectrum has been heartbreaking to me. If my suggestion that there is a harmonious middle ground puts me at the white-hot center of debate--Hooray! Its maybe a bit overdue.

Horgan:The danger in trying to appeal to people on both sides of a polarized debate is--

Collins:Bombs thrown at you from both directions!

Horgan:Has that happened?

Collins[sighs]: The majority have responded in very encouraging ways. But some of my scientific colleagues argue that its totally inappropriate for a scientist to write about religion, and we already have too much faith in public life in this country. And then I get someverystrongly worded messages from fundamentalists who feel that I have compromised the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and call me a false prophet. Im diluting the truth and doing damage to the faith.

Horgan:Why do you think the debate has become so polarized?

Collins:It starts with an extreme articulation of a viewpoint on one side of the issue and that then results in a response that is also a little bit too extreme, and the whole thing escalates. Every action demands an equal and opposite reaction. This is one of Newtons laws playing out in an unfortunate public scenario.

Horgan:I must admit that Ive become more concerned lately about the harmful effects of religion because of religious terrorism like 9/11 and the growing power of the religious right in the United States.

Collins:What faith hasnotbeen used by demagogues as a club over somebodys head? Whether it was the Inquisition or the Crusades on the one hand or the World Trade Center on the other? But we shouldnt judge the pure truths of faith by the way they are applied any more than we should judge the pure truth of love by an abusive marriage. We as children of God have been given by God this knowledge of right and wrong, this Moral Law, which I see as a particularly compelling signpost to His existence. But we also have this thing called free will which we exercise all the time to break that law. We shouldnt blame faith for the ways people distort it and misuse it.

Horgan:Isnt the problem when religions say,Thisis the only way to truth? Isnt that what turns religious faith from something beautiful into something intolerant and hateful?

Collins:There is a sad truth there. I think we Christians have been way too ready to define ourselves as members of an exclusive club. I found truth, I found joy, I found peace in that particular conclusion, but I am not in any way suggesting that that is the conclusion everybody else should find. To have anyone say, My truth is purer than yours, that is both inconsistent with what I see in the person of Christ andincrediblyoff-putting. And quick to start arguments and fights and even wars! Look at the story of the Good Samaritan, which is a parable from Jesus himself. Jews would have considered the Samaritan to be a heretic, and yet clearly Christs message is:Thatis the person who did right and was justified in Gods eyes.

Horgan:How can you, as a scientist who looks for natural explanations of things and demands evidence, also believe in miracles, like the resurrection?

Collins:My first struggle was to believe in God. Not a pantheist God who is entirely enclosed within nature, or a Deist God who started the whole thing and then just lost interest, but a supernatural God who is interested in what is happening in our world and might at times choose to intervene. My second struggle was to believe that Christ was divine as He claimed to be. As soon as I got there, the idea that He might rise from the dead became a non-problem. I dont have a problem with the concept that miracles might occasionally occur at moments ofgreatsignificance where there is a message being transmitted to us by God Almighty. But as a scientist I set my standards for miracles very high. And I dont think we should try to convince agnostics or atheists about the reality of faith with claims about miracles that they can easily poke holes in.

Horgan:The problem I have with miracles is not just that they violate what science tells us about how the world works. They also make God seem too capricious. For example, many people believe that if they pray hard enough God will intercede to heal them or a loved one. But does that mean that all those who dont get better arent worthy?

Collins:In my own experience as a physician, I have not seen a miraculous healing, and I dont expect to see one. Also, prayer for me is not a way to manipulate God into doing what we want Him to do. Prayer for me is much more a sense of trying to get into fellowship with God. Im trying to figure out what I should be doing rather than telling Almighty God whatHeshould be doing. Look at the Lords Prayer. It says, Thywill be done. It wasnt, Our Father who are in Heaven, please get me a parking space.

Horgan:Many people have a hard time believing in God because of the problem of evil. If God loves us, why is life filled with so much suffering?

Collins:That isthemost fundamental question that all seekers have to wrestle with. First of all, if our ultimate goal is to grow, learn, discover things about ourselves and things about God, then unfortunately a life of ease is probably not the way to get there. I know I have learned very little about myself or God when everything is going well. Also, a lot of the pain and suffering in the world we cannot lay at Gods feet. God gave us free will, and we may choose to exercise it in ways that end up hurting other people.

Horgan:The physicist Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist, has written about this topic. He asks why six million Jews, including his relatives, had to die in the Holocaust so that the Nazis could exercise their free will.

Collins:If God had to intervene miraculously every time one of us chose to do something evil, it would be a very strange, chaotic, unpredictable world. Free will leads to people doing terrible things to each other. Innocent people die as a result. You cant blame anyone except the evildoers for that. So thats not Gods fault. The harder question is when suffering seems to have come about through no human ill action. A child with cancer, a natural disaster, a tornado or tsunami. Why would God not prevent those things from happening?

Horgan:Some theologians, such as Charles Hartshorne, have suggested that maybe God isnt fully in control of His creation. The poet Annie Dillard expresses this idea in her phrase God the semi-competent.

Collins:Thats delightful--and probably blasphemous! An alternative is the notion of God being outside of nature and of time and having a perspective of our blink-of-an-eye existence that goes both far back and far forward. In some admittedly metaphysical way, that allows me to say that the meaning of suffering may not always be apparent to me. There can be reasons for terrible things happening that I cannot know.

Horgan:I think youre an agnostic.

Collins:No!

Horgan:You say that, to a certain extent, Gods ways are inscrutable. That sounds like agnosticism.

Collins:Im agnostic about Gods ways. Im not agnostic about God Himself. Thomas Huxley defined agnosticism as not knowing whether God exists or not. Im a believer! I have doubts. As I quote Paul Tillich: Doubt is not the opposite of faith. Its a part of faith. But my fundamental stance is that God is real, God is true.

Horgan:Im an agnostic, and I was bothered when in your book you called agnosticism a copout. Agnosticism doesnt mean youre lazy or dont care. It means you arent satisfied with any answers for what after all are ultimate mysteries.

Collins:That was a putdown that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still dont find an answer. I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence. I went through a phase when I was a casual agnostic, and I am perhaps too quick to assume that others have no more depth than I did.

Horgan:Free will is a very important concept to me, as it is to you. Its the basis for our morality and search for meaning. Dont you worry that science in general and genetics in particularand your work as head of the Genome Project--are undermining belief in free will?

Collins:Youre talking about genetic determinism, which implies that we are helpless marionettes being controlled by strings made of double helices. That is so far away from what we know scientifically! Heredity does have an influence not only over medical risks but also over certain behaviors and personality traits. But look at identical twins, who have exactly the same DNA but often dont behave alike or think alike. They show the importance of learning and experience--and free will. I think we all, whether we are religious or not, recognize that free will is a reality. There are some fringe elements that say, No, its all an illusion, were just pawns in some computer model. But I dont think that carries you very far.

Horgan:What do you think of Darwinian explanations of altruism, or what you callagape, totally selfless love and compassion for someone not directly related to you?

Collins:Its been a little of a just-so story so far. Many would argue that altruism has been supported by evolution because it helps the group survive. But some people sacrifically give of themselves to those who are outside their group and with whom they have absolutely nothing in common. Like Mother Teresa, Oscar Schindler, many others. That is the nobility of humankind in its purist form. That doesnt seem like it can be explained by a Darwinian model, but Im not hanging my faith on this.

Horgan:If only selflessness were more common.

Collins:Well, there you get free will again. It gets in the way.

Horgan:What do you think about the field of neurotheology, which attempts to identify the neural basis of religious experiences?

Collins:I think its fascinating but not particularly surprising. We humans are flesh and blood. So it wouldnt trouble me--if I were to have some mystical experience myself--to discover that my temporal lobe was lit up. Id say, Wow! Thats okay! That doesnt mean that this doesnt have genuine spiritual significance. Those who come at this issue with the presumption that there is nothing outside the natural world will look at this data and say, Ya see? Whereas those who come with the presumption that we are spiritual creatures will go, Cool! There is a natural correlate to this mystical experience! How about that! I think our spiritual nature is truly God-given, and may not be completely limited by natural descriptors.

Horgan:What if this research leads to drugs or devices for artificially inducing religious experiences? Would you consider those experiences to be authentic? You probably heard about the recent report from Johns Hopkins that the psychedelic drug psilocybin triggered spiritual experiences.

Collins:Yes. If you are talking about the ingestion of an exogenous psychoactive substance or some kind of brain-stimulating contraption, that would smack of not being an authentic, justifiable, trust-worthy experience. So that would be a boundary I would want to establish between the authentic and the counterfeit.

Horgan:Some scientists have predicted that genetic engineering may give us superhuman intelligence and greatly extended life spans, and possibly even immortality. We might even engineer our brains so that we dont fear pain or grief anymore. These are possible long-term consequences of the Human Genome Project and other lines of research. If these things happen, what do you think would be the consequences for religious traditions?

Collins:That outcome would trouble me. But were so far away from that reality that its hard to spend a lot of time worrying about it when you consider all the truly benevolent things we could do in the near term. If you get too hung up on the hypotheticals of what night happen in the next several hundred years, then you become paralyzed and you fail to live up to the opportunities to reach out and help people now. That seems to be the most unethical stance we could take.

Horgan:Im really asking, Does religion requires suffering? Could we reduce suffering to the point where we just wont need religion?

Collins:In spite of the fact that we have achieved all of these wonderful medical advances and made it possible to live longer and eradicate diseases, we will probably still figure out ways to argue with each other and sometimes to kill each other, out of our self-righteousness and our determination that we have to be on top. So the death rate will continue to be one per person by one means or another. We may understand a lot about biology, we may understand a lot about how to prevent illness, and we may understand the life span. But I dont think we will figure out how to stop humans from doing bad things to each other. That will always be our greatest and most distressing experience here on this planet, and that will make us long the most, perhaps, for something more.

Further Reading:

In Defense of Disbelief: An Anti-Creed

Can Faith and Science Coexist?

Richard Dawkins Offers Advice for Donald Trump, and Other Wisdom

What Should We Do With Our Visions of Heaven and Hell?

Mind-Body Problems(free online book, also available asKindle e-bookandpaperback).

The rest is here:

One of the World's Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles - Scientific American

Atheism Analyzed: Principles of Atheism: The Principle of …

One Atheist claim is that Atheism is nothing more than not accepting theist claims. This ignores the existence of the Atheist VOID which is created by the rejection, and the resulting consequences of that void. Atheism is actually much more than merely not accepting claims, and it is not even that. But if it were that, and only that, then still the issue of Atheist morals comes to the fore. And Atheist morals do not exist in the VOID, they have to be created somehow and by someone. So the Atheist either creates his own morals, or he accepts the morals created by some other Atheist somewhere, or he has no morals.

Within the Atheist VOID there are an infinite number of intellectual and moral directions to choose from. However, it is very common for the Atheist to choose the path of eliteness, which leads directly to AtheoLeftism and its messiahism, based on Victimology. This in turn leads to Leftist morals, which are unilaterally for the Other.

Just as I have not encountered many Atheists who are not leftist when pressed, I have not come across any Atheists who actually have no morals. Their arguments usually devolve to moral arguments because they have no logical absolutes to tether their arguments rationally. It is common for an Atheist to claim an argument is wrong, but rather than logically wrong, Wrong, meaning morally Wrong (and therefore Hateful).

But what appears moral to an Atheist is completely different from that which is commonly thought moral by both theists and pre-Modernity culture in general. The issue of valuing humans based solely on contribution comes to mind, although most totalitarian regimes do that, whether Modern, post-Modern, or pre-Modern, so Atheists have that in common with totalitarians. Atheists tend to jump at the chance to place a value on the lives of other humans so long as they themselves are considered elite and the apogee of human value.

In the world of the VOID, there are no absolutes, no rules, and there is total freedom of thought and behavior (essentially intellectual and moral anarchy). So the necessity of having moral principles is purely pragmatic. In other words, the moral world of the Atheist is simply to define the practical behaviors expected of the Other, while maintaining total tolerance of all behaviors for the Atheist. The draw of creating two separate moralities is strong: one morality for the AtheoElites, and a completely separate morality which is applied to the Other.

The moral principles apply, not to Atheists, who have no rules other than behavior tautologies applying to themselves, but rather apply only to the Other. As described earlier, Atheist morality for themselves is merely tautological to their predilected behaviors, so is not really morality at all. In fact, their concept of morality is not principled behavior for themselves; it is principles of behavior demanded of the Other. (note 1) The two major Atheist principles of moral behavior for the Other are Tolerance and Fairness. These are loosely based on existing Christian moral principle of forgiveness and the value of the individual human. However, the similarity stops there.

Tolerance, in the Atheist redefinition of the term, means tolerance for all behaviors except dissent.

Fairness, in the Atheist redefinition of the term, means equality of outcome for the Other, not the elites.

Intolerance and unfairness, as defined by the AtheoLeftist, cannot be tolerated. Those who fail the AtheoLeft test for tolerance and fairness are deemed immoral and therefore evil, despite there being no evil under the Atheist VOID.

So opposing views are considered evil, which is codified as hate.

Atheists are religious in the use of their own morality. They use morality in its most onerous religious form: to bully other people. Because Atheists are immune to all morality including their own, even and especially while they place moral judgment on the other, Atheist morality is purely a weapon. What Atheists do with their weapon is not limited by rules: there are no rules for Atheists under the VOID. Any and all behaviors by Atheists are AOK, including intolerance of intolerance. And Atheist tactics are similarly unrestricted, including published death wishes for their designated enemies.

Unilateral Universal ToleranceUnder AtheoLeftist morals, the Other must be totally tolerant of the AtheoLeft, its acolytes and codependent victims. Intolerance is not tolerated in the Other. In other words, the AtheoLeft is totally intolerant of intolerance of their antics. So the concept of tolerance applies only to the Other, not to the AtheoLeft; it is purely a morality for other people, unilaterally applied by the AtheoLeft.

The AtheoLeftist intolerance for the dissent of the Other results in massive displays of self-righteous outrage by the AtheoLeft, which is judging the morality of only the Other based on the morality demanded of them by the AtheoLeft. The AtheoLeft has no morality for itself. (2) The resulting AtheoLeftist moral proclamations accompanied by hate rants, and even death threats do not violate any principles which the Atheists have for themselves, since they subscribe to the VOID and its emptiness of rules.

Atheists are religious in the use of their own morality. They use morality in its most onerous religious form: to bully other people. The AtheoLeft must be tolerated in every regard by the Other. The AtheoLeft has no morality for itself. They must be tolerated regardless of their action or thoughts. The AtheoLeft itself cannot be judged, because there is no moral basis upon which to judge them. Their morals are unilaterally for the Other only.

Lets repeat that:The AtheoLeft has no morality for itself. They must be tolerated regardless of their action or thoughts. The AtheoLeft cannot be judged, because there is no moral basis upon which to judge them. Their morals are unilaterally for the Other only.

Equalitarianism and the Fairness PrincipleAtheoLeftists dont give their stuff away in order to achieve equality and fairness; rather they wish to coerce the Other to do so. Empathy is an example of a principle that is understood only in the abstract by Atheists. What Atheists miss in their abstraction is that many people dont want to be helped by getting free stuff because that devalues both the stuff and the person who receives it instead of earning it. But to recognize details like that would be to jeopardize their supply of Victims to rescue, and messiahs need Victims, always.

Thus, AtheoLeftism decrees that it is not fair for one of the herd to have more than another of the herd. The one with more must give up the excess; it is only fair according to the messiahs. The messiahs would be exempt of course, being elites and all (Congress is loaded with multimillionare Leftists). Hence, many of the AtheoLeft dont even pay their taxes; taxes are for the herd, the little people. The elites cannot be expected to be equal; after all they are the elites, the messiahs, the saviors. (3) Its all part of the VOID: there are no rules for the AtheoLeft.

So, total equality is unilateral: its not for the elites, who are obviously a separate and superior class. There are no rules for AtheoLeftists.

The Principle of Thought Crimes and Anti-dissent: If ridicule doesnt work, pass lawsIts simple: if you disagree, you are intolerant; intolerance is hate; hate is intolerable. Laws against hate/intolerance/dissent are essential. This was institutionalized in the morality tribunals in Canada until recently.

Atheists are religious in the use of their own morality. They use morality in its most onerous religious form: to bully other people.

Suing for SecularityMajor AtheoLeftist organizations are constantly suing small local governments and private organizations such as the Boy Scouts in order to force the removal of religiosity from the secular scene. So small cities without much in the way of resources are threatened with financial burdens of litigation, cities such as Las Cruces, New Mexico, as opposed to Las Angeles, CA. Or for that matter, Washington DC which is loaded with government buildings sporting religious symbology. The bully factor is obvious by observing the targets these Atheists choose.

Notes: (1) Atheist organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation staunchly deny that positive character traits have value and can be beneficially taught; they are too hard for some people, and therefore are discriminatory. Thus inside the Atheist VOID, moral values are too difficult and must be ignored. This helps victims remain victims and messiahs remain messiahs.

(2) Except for those AtheoLeftists who stumble into heretical statements or actions, thereby becoming identified as Other by the elites, and thus subject to moral judgment by their betters.

(3) This might now be called the David Gregory Principle of Elite Immunity.

Go here to read the rest:

Atheism Analyzed: Principles of Atheism: The Principle of ...

Atheism to orthodoxy: Russia’s convoluted relationship with God – The Aggie

Seventy years of atheistic rule later, God finds its way into the Russian constitution

Following decades of atheism in the Soviet Union, the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church signals a new nation. Today, television stations broadcast live sermons, citizens line up for holy water and Christmas trees light up Moscows Darwin museum. President Vladimir Putin even vowed to rebuild Christian churches in war-torn Syria back in 2017.

With plans to instate Gods will into the Russian constitution, the necessary separation between church and state diminishes.

Currently, the constitution defines Russia as a secular state, stating, no religion may be established as a state or obligatory one. Including God in the document would be a major amendment, especially given Russias complicated history with religion.

The amendment would also rule out gay marriage in Russia by officially defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

We can and should address the fact that family and marriage are relations between a man and a woman, said Duma lawmaker Pyotr Tolstoi. If it is fixed at the constitutional level, this will remove a number of questions that they are trying to ask us in the European Union.

Additionally, the amendment would notably exclude members of other religious groups, such as Muslims, who already face marginalization from the government. Russias Supreme Court even previously declared Jehovahs Witnesses, a Christian denomination known for their outspoken beliefs, as an extremist organization.

Ironically, just 30 years ago, two-thirds of Russians claimed no religious affiliation.

During Vladimir Lenins reign of the early 20th century, atheism had a simple definition. Instead of disbelief in God, it implied the absence of religion entirely, a seemingly natural symptom of the Soviet Unions development into a modern society.

Although churches and monasteries were still legal, officials found ways of shutting them down, like in the 1931 demolition of Moscows Christ the Savior Cathedral. In a time of social instability and reconstruction, the Orthodox Church was a political threat.

After successful attempts to demote the church, Stalin welcomed religion back into public life during World War II, seeing it as a way to promote patriotism and win the good will of allies. Once Nikita Khrushchev entered office in 1953, his anti-religious campaign transformed atheism from the absence of religion to the commitment to science and rationalism a vision that aligned most with communist ideals.

Just before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev brought the Orthodox Church back one last time before it became state-sanctioned. At the time, religion seemed to be the solution for the nations growing moral crisis. Indifference became the dominant principle.

In the post-Soviet era, Putin continues to invoke God in his public speeches, which gives the church a more prominent place in Russian political life. He presents himself as a defender of traditional morality by supporting conservative ideas. Despite his efforts, the truth remains as such most Russians dont abide by Orthodox morals.

Although the majority of Russians identify as Orthodox Christians, just 6% attend church weekly and only 17% pray daily. In 1920, the Soviet Union was the first country to legalize abortion. Today, the rate of abortions is more than double that of the U.S., even with strong objections from the Orthodox Church. Premarital sex and divorce are also less stigmatized in Russia than in other countries.

Russia seems like it would be the last country to put God into its constitution, especially with a former KGB member as president. Although some view it as a tactic to get Russians out to vote for the other proposed amendments, Putins trivial intentions have irreversible consequences.

Enshrining God into the constitution doesnt make the government any more righteous than before especially when many political decisions are free of moral substance. If the Orthodox church does not speak for everyone, then when the decisions of the people are concerned, it should not speak at all.

Written by: Julietta Bisharyan jsbisharyan@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie

Original post:

Atheism to orthodoxy: Russia's convoluted relationship with God - The Aggie