Will Bitcoin and Ethereum Prices Sink or Swim? Watch These Two Factors in August for Clues – NextAdvisor

Editorial IndependenceWe want to help you make more informed decisions. Some links on this page clearly marked may take you to a partner website and may result in us earning a referral commission. For more information, see How We Make Money.

Bitcoin and ethereum prices could go in one of two completely different directions over the next few days or weeks, according to one expert.

They could either experience their biggest price drop this year or rally on from here, never to revisit their summer 2022 lows again. Martin Hiesboeck, head of blockchain and crypto research at Uphold, believes the former is more likely.

He says itll all come down to the evolving geopolitical situation between Russia, China, and NATO. Bitcoin and ethereum were both down at the start of the week as the rest of global markets fell ahead of fears that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan could significantly raise U.S.-China tensions. Russia has also stepped up its attacks on Ukraine, and Europe is facing an energy crisis.

The geopolitical situation is dominating the conversation. Continued war means continued inflation, Hiesboeck says. At the same time, we have a situation we have never had before: almost full employment, expanding economy, and yet unprecedented price hikes.

Here are two potential scenarios that could play out with bitcoin and ethereum in the near term:

Bitcoin and ethereum started the week off on a slightly weaker note, but there is still more momentum behind digital assets than there was just a few weeks ago.

Bitcoin was holding steady near $23,000, and ethereum was trading above $1,600 on Thursday both down slightly after finishing off the month strong. In July, ethereum rallied by more than 50% and bitcoin was up by 20%, according to NextAdvisor data. Just last week, bitcoin hit nearly $25,000 and ethereum surpassed $1,700. Thats a significant increase from just two months ago when the crypto market crashed and bitcoin hit a low of $17,500.

The two largest cryptocurrencies have reached price levels in the last few days that could continue pushing them higher, especially since most of the recent bad news has already been priced in the market, according to Marcus Sotiriou, a market analyst at digital asset broker GlobalBlock.

After the Federal Reserve raised interest rates last week and a report revealed that U.S. GDP fell in the second quarter, investors became more confident that the Fed could slow its tightening pace if the economy begins to stall. This led to a solid rally for stocks and crypto, and July turned out to be the stock markets best month since November 2020.

The Fed is still indeed tightening, and inflation is still at a 40-year high, so we cannot be convinced of a market reversal currently, Sotiriou says. But the fact that Jerome Powell has started to say that the rate hikes have had a noticeable impact signals to me that we are in the later stages of this bear market, which we are around 8 months into.

While were still in a bear market, crypto expert and market analyst Wendy O says technical charts show that bitcoin is on a bullish uptrend in the near term. However, she says bitcoin would need to move above $26,700 for her to become short-term bullish.

Are we going to be able to do that? I dont know yet, but one thing I am noticing with bitcoin is that we kissed $24,800 [on July 30] and we had a couple of attempts to sustain and flip above but we were unable to do so, O says. We might get a little bit of a retest but then continue to go upward.

Escalating geopolitical tensions this week led to a fresh risk-off sentiment among investors, and cryptocurrencies, along with stocks, were hit harder as theyre seen as risky assets. Pelosis visit to Taiwan rocked the boat in particular, with China ratcheting up its military activity in the area while Russia accused the U.S. of provoking Beijing.

Cryptocurrencies could fall back down to lows as we saw in June, possibly even further, if geopolitical tensions continue to intensify around the world, experts say. While July was the best month since 2020 for stocks and crypto, rising tensions between China and the U.S., the two largest economies in the world, wont support risk appetite anytime soon, according to Edward Moya, a senior market analyst at brokerage firm Oanda.

The crypto market has been closely correlated with the stock market since the start of the year, so if stocks fall because of the current conflicts in the world, cryptocurrencies most likely will too. On top of that, the U.S. economy is wrestling with four-decade high inflation, rising interest rates, and a potential recession. Hiesboeck says more uncertainty around the worlds politics and the U.S. economy means more unpredictability of the markets, and investors dont like uncertainty.

The July rally was just an interlude, fueled purely by short-term opportunities and not long-term positioning of major players, Hiesboeck says.

Bitcoin, ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies are just as likely to fall as they are to climb. If youre a long-term investor, short-term volatility shouldnt drastically alter your crypto investment strategy.

Experts recommend sticking to bitcoin and ethereum, the two most well-known and established cryptocurrencies, and allocating no more than 5% of your investment portfolio to crypto. Always prioritize more important aspects of your finances like saving up for an emergency, contributing to a traditional retirement account, and paying off high-interest debt before investing in crypto. You should only invest what youre OK with losing, experts say.

These two scenarios are reminders that cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and risky assets even more so than stocks and economic and political uncertainty can create even more volatility in the markets. While bitcoin and ethereum have seen some significant gains in the last week, theyre still far away from their all-time highs last November.

One thing is certain: theres a growing list of potential worries over the U.S. economy and escalating global conflict, so experts recommend playing it safe with your investments in the meantime.

Original post:

Will Bitcoin and Ethereum Prices Sink or Swim? Watch These Two Factors in August for Clues - NextAdvisor

Bitcoin Trading Volume Remains Close To 1-Year Highs | Bitcoinist.com – Bitcoinist

Data shows the Bitcoin trading volume has remained near one-year highs recently as activity on Binance stays elevated following the fee removal.

As per the latest weekly report from Arcane Research, around 80% of the latest activity on the BTC network is driven by the crypto exchange Binance.

The trading volume is an indicator that measures the total amount of Bitcoin moved on the blockchain on any given day.

When the value of this metric is high, it means a significant number of coins are changing hands on the network right now. Such a trend can suggest that the chain is quite active currently as investors are being drawn to the crypto.

On the other hand, low values of the indicator imply the network activity isnt that high at the moment. This kind of trend can be a sign that the general interest around the crypto among traders is low currently.

Now, here is a chart that shows the trend in the Bitcoin trading volume over the past year:

As you can see in the above graph, the Bitcoin trading volume has been elevated during the last few weeks. Currently, the network activity is a little below the one-year high. However, its likely that not all of the the volume right now is caused by organic activity.

The chart also includes data for the Binance share of the total volume. It looks like when the indicators value shot up to the current high levels, the crypto exchanges contribution to it simultaneously increased.

The reason behind this is that around three weeks ago, right when these surges were observed, Binance dropped trading fee for select Bitcoin trading pairs.

Looking to exploit this fact, many traders indulged in wash trading to unlock higher rate tiers on the platform. Such activity is considered inorganic and is thus falsely inflating the real volume.

However, three weeks later the volumes still havent budged and while Binances share stays around 80%, the report notes that its possible a significant portion of the volume could be coming from organic activity.

Such activity would come from traders preferring to trade on Binance due to the fee removal, thus helping keep the crypto exchanges market share quite high.

At the time of writing, Bitcoins price floats around $22.9k, down 1% in the last week.

Read the original:

Bitcoin Trading Volume Remains Close To 1-Year Highs | Bitcoinist.com - Bitcoinist

Andrew Tate Backs Crypto, Says Bitcoin and Crypto Are Amazing – Watcher Guru

Andrew Tate is literally everywhere. It is even difficult to scroll down on social media without stumbling upon his video where he shares his opinion on money, women, and politics. Tate popped out of nowhere and has beaten the internet algorithm.

Even though he began his career as a kickboxer, he soon moved to influencer marketing and has ended up in one or other controversy. Tate has reportedly overthrown MrBeast, Donald Trump, and PewDiePie in terms of Google searches.

While many disagree with this take on women, money, and several other topics, everyone is talking about Tate. He has transformed into a lifestyle guru for many. Famous YouTubers are reacting to his ideas and views, while many claim that all of these are just pure marketing for his Hustlers University.

In an interview with Bitcoin investor Anthony Pompliano, Andrew Tate shared a lot of views on various subjects. Even though the interview was shot in May 2021, Pompliano aired the interview on his Youtube channel on August 3, 2022. Pompliano has mentioned in the video description that he doesnt agree with all of Tates opinions. Some I agree with, some I do not.

Andrew Tate spoke in the interview, stating that everything began when he began learning about money and how the entire system works. On that path, he stumbled upon crypto and bitcoin. Tate was frustrated in life by not having enough money and began experimenting with ways to make more.

Talking about things in his life, Tate opened up about having eight girlfriends and stating that beautiful women are an asset class.

Tate is an owner of several businesses, and one of his major financial streams is Hustlers University. He is luring younger generations with his fast cars, money, women, and lifestyle, taking pieces of inspiration from Dan Bilzerian.

Coffeezillas recent video on Tate reveals that his university has over 100,000 members and is likely to grow with the huge level of marketing on social media channels.

I dont want cash. I want something else. Give me an asset, okay how can I get an asset the government cant take? Bitcoin, said Tate.

Andrew Tate spoke in the 1 hour 39-minute long interview about crypto and bitcoin, stating that crypto is amazing for a bunch of things, including as a tool to hedge against inflation.

See original here:

Andrew Tate Backs Crypto, Says Bitcoin and Crypto Are Amazing - Watcher Guru

Anonymous Bitcoin Whale Just Moved $81M Worth Of BTC Off Coinbase – Benzinga

What happened: A Bitcoin BTC/USD whale just sent $81,627,009 worth of Bitcoin off Coinbase.

The BTC address associated with this transaction has been identified as: bc1qmvynfaf8h74f5knejvxa3p5ut36l4tgrurjw4s.

Why it matters: Bitcoin "Whales" (investors who own $10 million or more in BTC) typically send cryptocurrency from exchanges when planning to hold their investments for an extended period of time. Storing large amounts of money on an exchange presents an additional risk of theft, as exchange wallets are the most sought-after target for cryptocurrency hackers.

The best way to secure Bitcoin is through holding it on a hardware wallet, which can't be done through holding digital assets on an exchange. Hardware wallets store one's private keys in an offline device, making it impossible for funds to be hacked via the internet.

According to Glassnode, only 12.55% of the total supply remains liquid across all centralized exchanges.

The removal of BTC from an exchange reduces potential sell side pressure, allowing the price of Bitcoin to increase more easily.

See Also: Best Crypto Apps 2021 and Best Crypto Portfolio Trackers

Price Action: Bitcoin is down -2% in the past 24 hours.

See Also: How To Buy Bitcoin

Public Blockchain data sourced from Whale Alerts Twitter.

This article was generated by Benzinga's automated content engine and reviewed by an editor.

Excerpt from:

Anonymous Bitcoin Whale Just Moved $81M Worth Of BTC Off Coinbase - Benzinga

This Week in Coins: Bitcoin and Ethereum See Continued Growth as Merge Looms – Decrypt

This week in coins. Illustration by Mitchell Preffer for Decrypt

Last weeks market-wide positive price action was sustained this week as leading cryptocurrencies continued making significant gains.

Bitcoin, as of this writing, had added 8.5% to its market value to sell for $24,214, and Ethereum fans enjoyed an even greater rally, with their favorite coin blowing up 12.5% to $1,714.

Much of the buzz around Ethereum is down to the fact the network is laying the groundwork for a major overhaulaka the mergewhen Ethereum will cut its energy consumption by 99.95% transitioning from a proof-of-work blockchain to a proof-of-stake model. A final testnet deployment called Goerli is expected to take place in early August before the network is ready to fully transition.

While Ethereum prepares for the big changes, Ethereum Classic is also blowing up. ETC is based on Ethereums original ledger, which includes an infamous $55 million DAO hack that was wiped from Ethereum by vote. The coin surged 52% this week to $40.

Ethereum Classics rally comes after crypto mining pool Antpool announced a $10 million investment to back projects built on Ethereum Classic, which will remain a proof-of-work blockchain after the Merge.

Other notable performances this week among the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization include Cardano (up 11% to $.53), Polkadot (up 20% to $8.64), Polygon (up 14% to $.94), and Uniswap (up 30% to $8.73).

On Monday, electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla reported holding $222 million in digital assets at the end of June in the companys Q2 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Back in February 2021, the company invested $1.5 billion in Bitcoin. Last week, news broke that the company had sold 75% of its BTC, worth approximately $936 million. CEO Elon Musk said the sale was prompted by uncertainty over when China would lift COVID restrictions. Tesla currently has one factory in Shanghai.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is beefing up its technology team in preparation for a potential role as a leading overseer of crypto. Nothing is set in stone, but a bipartisan House bill, called the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which is cosponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), would give the CFTC the reins on fungible digital assets which are not securities if passed.

On Tuesday, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Patrick Toomey (R-PA) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), called the Cryptocurrency Tax Fairness Act, would exempt tax reporting for crypto transactions of less than $50, or trades in which a person earns less than $50.

Over in Europe on Wednesday, the chair of the European Banking Authority, Jos Manuel Campa, said in an interview with the Financial Times that it wont be until at least 2025 when the regulator will know exactly which cryptocurrencies it will be charged with supervising.

One of the main difficulties the EBA is facing, said Campa, is a lack of crypto experts due to high demand across society. He ruled out the possibility of baiting them with lucrative salaries, saying it was not within the range of possible discussions between the EBA and the European Commission.

That same day, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced another interest rate hike of 75 basis points aimed at stemming rampant inflation.

Last month, in response to inflation readings from May, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by 0.75%, the steepest hike since 1994. Crypto prices crashed heavily that week as investors dumped riskier assets, although this new hike seems to have had an adverse effect on Bitcoin: An hour after the announcement, Bitcoin had grown 3% while Ethereum had sunk 5%.

Finally, it appears the industry is still not completely clear of crypto winter. On Wednesday, Singaporean exchange Zipmex filed for bankruptcy protection against legal action from creditors. The news came just a week after the exchange announced it was pausing withdrawals.

Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.

Read more from the original source:

This Week in Coins: Bitcoin and Ethereum See Continued Growth as Merge Looms - Decrypt

Senate bill would hand bitcoin, ether oversight to commodities regulator – Reuters

Souvenir tokens representing cryptocurrency Bitcoin and the Ethereum network, with its native token ether, plunge into water in this illustration taken May 17, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Register

WASHINGTON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - A new bill introduced in the U.S. Senate would make the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) the direct regulator of the biggest cryptocurrencies.

The measure, introduced by the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, would give the derivatives regulator exclusive jurisdiction over bitcoin and ether, the two most popular cryptocurrencies, as well as any other crypto products that are determined to be commodities.

It would also require such companies providing crypto platforms to register with the CFTC, including brokers, custodians and exchanges. That registration would come with requirements to maintain fair pricing, prevent market manipulation, avoid conflicts of interest and maintain "adequate financial resources," according to a description of the bill provided by senators.

Register

Sponsors of the measure, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow and Sen. John Boozman, the panel's top Republican, argued it would provide much needed regulatory clarity to the crypto market by placing a major portion of its policing under a single regulator.

"This fast-growing industry is currently governed largely by a patchwork of regulations at the state level. That simply is not an effective way to protect consumers from fraud," said Boozman in a statement.

The bill joins a growing list of legislation aimed at clarifying the rules around cryptocurrency, with lawmakers in both the House and Senate working on measures intended to place guardrails around the market, which has experienced significant turmoil and high-profile failures in recent months.

Stabenow told reporters the bill is not intended to cover the entire cryptocurrency market, or undermine the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to police crypto products that function more like securities.

"We're not defining what a security is. I have great confidence in Chairman Gensler to be able to use his authorities," she said.

While the window is closing for legislative action ahead of the November midterm elections, Stabenow and Boozman both insisted they wanted to move ahead with the legislation as quickly as possible, without laying out a precise timeline.

Register

Reporting by Pete SchroederEditing by Chizu Nomiyama

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read more from the original source:

Senate bill would hand bitcoin, ether oversight to commodities regulator - Reuters

The Path Is Clear: Bitcoin And Freedom Or International Communism – Bitcoin Magazine

This is an opinion editorial by Justin OConnell is an author and founder of GoldSilverBitcoin.com and a contributor for Bitcoin Magazine.

Socialist regulators worldwide wish to curtail Bitcoins consensus method: proof of work. They are cardholders of an environmental, social and governance (ESG) cult, seeking carbon neutrality per the Paris Agreement, which was signed in 2015 to limit global warming. In short, they want to roll back civilization to neo-feudal times. Since bitcoin poses competition to central bank fiat currencies, regulators have been instructed by corporate special interests groups that the Bitcoin Experiment is bad for the environment and must be stopped.

On July 16, 2022, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin tweeted his displeasure with energy consumption in crypto mining. Its time to learn the truth about crypto, wrote the commie. Lets start with the obscene amounts of electricity needed to mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Families and businesses in America will pay the price for cryptos mining ventures.

Its important to note that whenever politicians discuss crypto mining as it relates to the environmental toll, they are speaking primarily of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, due to their energy intensity. Specifically, theyre talking about Bitcoin.

The United States, which is home to more than one-third of the global computing power dedicated to mining bitcoin, has turned its attention to domestic miners and their impacts on the environment and local economies. The move has been at the behest of socialist Senator Elizabeth Warren, who noted her concern in June 2021 over the environmental toll of proof-of-work (PoW) mining.

On December 2, 2021, Senator Warren sent a letter to New York-based bitcoin miner, Greenridge Generation, in which she requested information on the company's environmental footprint. Given the extraordinarily high energy usage and carbon emissions associated with Bitcoin mining, mining operations at Greenridge and other plants raise concerns about their impacts on the global environment, on local ecosystems, and on consumer electricity costs, the letter noted.

On January 20, 2022, a Committee Hearing on Cleaning up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains marked the start of an investigation into the blockchains environmental impact, with a particular emphasis on PoW and Bitcoin.

On January 27, 2022, eight Democrat members of Congress, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, sent letters to six crypto mining companies raising concerns over their extraordinarily high energy uses.

In the letter, Senator Warren evoked the same concerns as in the December 2021 letter to Greenridge, stating she and her colleagues observed, Bitcoin minings power consumption has more than tripled from 2019-2021, rivaling the energy consumption of Washington State, and of entire countries like Denmark, Chile, and Argentina.

Senator Warren requested information from six companies, including Riot Blockchain, Marathon Digital Holdings, Stronghold Digital Mining, Bitdeer, Bitfury Group and Bit Digital. Questions revolved around their mining operations, energy consumption, possible impacts on the climate and local environments, as well as the impact of electricity costs for American consumers.

On June 3, 2022, New York regulators passed a two-year moratorium on proof-of-work mining in the state, citing New Yorks Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which requires New Yorks greenhouse gas emissions be cut by 85% by 2050. One section of the bill calls for conducting a statewide study on the environmental impact of proof-of-work mining operations.

Representative Anna Kelles sponsored the legislation. My bill is not a ban on Bitcoin, Kelles gaslit. Its not even a ban on crypto-mining. It would not restrict the ability to buy, sell, invest, or use crypto in [New York state].

New York City Comptroller, Brad Lander, feared a strain on energy caused by mining. New York state is reaching a pivotal time in its attempt to electrify the energy sector, and the current proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining in New York state diverges from our goals by increasing our reliance on fossil fuels, thereby creating additional financial stressors and endanger investments for New York City," he wrote.

The legislation warns of increased mining in the state. The continued and expanded operation of cryptocurrency mining operations running proof-of-work authentication methods to validate blockchain transactions will greatly increase the amount of energy usage in the state of New York, and impact compliance with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

The pressure is not just coming from regulators and politicians, but local bureaucrats too. Chelan County, Washington hiked hydroelectric power rates for bitcoin miners by 29%, which went into effect June 1, 2022. The miners there once paid a lower, high-density load rate for their electricity. What we did as a commission, and what we did as a utility was industry-leading, to create a new rate for this type of demand, Gary Arseneault, a Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) commissioner, told News Radio 560 KPQ. For mining companies with substantial investments, Chelan County has reportedly approved a transition plan to increase rates.

Malachi Salcido, CEO of Salcido Enterprises, said the new rate will force him to convert his mining facilities into data farms. Do you really want to be in the business of regulating what kind of processing happens on servers in your territory," Salcido said.

European authorities want to ban bitcoin mining too. Swedish financial regulators and the European Commission considered banning proof-of-work, according to documents published by German website netzpolitik.org.

Released under the EUs freedom-of-information laws, the documents show that at a November 2021 meeting, Swedish financial and environmental regulators and the European Commissions digital policy arm discussed banning trading in proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, like bitcoin.

An unnamed attendee didnt see [the] need to protect the bitcoin community, noting it should be nudged towards the more environmentally friendly proof-of-stake, as Ethereum had done. The documents had been in part redacted due to an ongoing decision-making process.

Moreover, the sustainable finance chair at the International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO) proposed a proof-of-work mining ban in the European Union in MiCA, the EUs legislation for digital asset governance. The proof-of-work ban, however, was not included in the final bill.

For now, attempts by European lawmakers to ban proof-of-work mining have failed to receive the required votes in a EU Parliament committee vote. It seems that reason and common sense prevailed, Paris MEP Pierre Person tweeted. We must continue to defend the principle of technological neutrality. Europe must remain in the global competition!

According to an anonymous Decrypt source, there were two alternative compromises related to the watered down version of the ban on unsustainable protocols, all of which were rejected. The proposal that caused all that mobilization will not be part of the [MiCA] text, the source added, referring to the widespread opposition to a proof-of-work ban.

Furthermore, the European Green Party tabled yet another diluted version of the original text. Crypto assets shall be subject to minimum environmental sustainability standards with respect to their consensus mechanism used for validating transactions, before being issued, offered or admitted to trading in the Union, the revised proposal read.

Communist regulators, who are in power all over the world, want to ban Bitcoin. Being the gaslighters that they are, theyll tell you they are not banning Bitcoin only proof-of-work mining, because Bitcoin can adopt proof-of-stake. Theyre fools, and theyll come for proof-of-stake eventually. Say no and educate yourself. There is an international putsch a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to end the Bitcoin Experiment; it wont ever relent and neither can those who wish to live in a world of monetary choice.

This is a guest post by Justin OConnell. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

More here:

The Path Is Clear: Bitcoin And Freedom Or International Communism - Bitcoin Magazine

The Rise and Fall of a Bitcoin Mining Sensation – WIRED

It was 8:45 in the morning of June 13 when Bill Stewart, the CEO of Maine-based bitcoin mining business Dynamics Mining, received a call from one of his employees. He's like, Every machine inside of our facility in Brunswick [in Cumberland County, Maine] has been taken, Stewart says. That's crazy. I couldn't believe it.

He alerted personnel manning another mining facility, in nearby Lewiston [in Androscoggin County, Maine], and told them to be on their toes. He thought a burglar was at large. Stewart had a theory on who might have taken the machines: In those days he had been wrangling with a customer, Compass Mininga Delaware company that allowed people to buy mining machines and have them hosted in third-party facilities like Stewartsdue to a dispute over energy bills. Stewart thought Compass had to pay for them; Compass believed their contract said otherwise.

A few days earlier, Dynamics had sent Compass a termination letter demanding payment, and shortly thereafter had switched the companys machines off. Then, Compass Mining staffers had taken their equipment away from Brunswick, and they were about to enter the Lewiston plant to recover more machines. They're trying to get inside the building, Stewart says. And I'm telling my brother, who runs our security, Do not let them into the building. We're not ripping miners out of the wall. Do not let them inside.

In a lawsuit filed against Dynamics in the Delaware Court of Chancery on June 21, Compass Mining alleged that Stewart, having refused to foot the energy bill he was supposed to pay, had been holding this valuable equipment hostage to gain leverage in negotiations. The way Stewart tells it, he simply wanted the removal to happen in an orderly fashion as opposed to hastily and under cover of darkness. Whats more, he says, for a while he had considered continuing to host the machines on behalf of Compass customers, cutting out the middleman. Their customers were reaching out, saying, Hey, can we just mine directly with you? Stewart says. The reason that couldnt happen, Stewart says, is that Compass had not given its customers the identifying serial numbers of the machines they had bought, and there was no way for Stewart to know who owned what.

On July 5 the Court granted Compass request to get its machines back, but underlined that that should happen following a formal request to unmount and relocate the machines. Stewart says that during the removal, Compass team also grabbed one of Dynamics own serversthat is confirmed in an email by one of Compass lawyers to Stewart, mentioning how the server had been inadvertently scooped up and asking how to return it.

Our team is laser-focused on serving our clients, and will do so in accordance with the contracts we have in place with our service providers, and by resolving any disputes arising from a fundamental misunderstanding of these contracts in a court of law, Compass interim co-CEO Thomas Heller said in an email interview.

Even if Compass had prevailed, the optics of the row was terrible. Stewart had chronicled the dispute on Twitter as it played outaccusing Compass of owing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy bills, and of having essentially broken into Dynamics facilityand thundered at length against Compass in Twitter Spaces. After a vertiginous rise, Compass had spent the last few months in constant crisis mode, untilmere hours after Stewart had started tweeting about his early-morning showdown with the companyit decided to do away with its CEO. At the center of that crisis was Russias war with Ukraine, and a bespectacled, curly-haired cybersecurity entrepreneur called Omar Todd.

See the original post here:

The Rise and Fall of a Bitcoin Mining Sensation - WIRED

Buzzword Bingo Bitcoin Burial Burrowing Blueprint Balked At By Bureaucracy – Hackaday

Many of you will at some time have heard the unfortunate tale of [James Howells], a Welsh IT worker who threw away a hard drive containing 8,000 Bitcoin back in 2013. Over the years hes hatched various schemes to persuade his local council to let him dig up the landfill where its reputed to be buried, and every time hes been rebuffed. Despite the fall in the price of cryptocurrencies hes back with another. With the added spice of AI and robot dogs alongside the cryptocurrency angle, it reads like a buzzword bingo card and adds a whole new meaning to Bitcoin mining. Seemingly despite generous offers the local council are still not keen on letting him dig for the drive.

We cant help feeling sorry for the guy after all, in the early days of cryptocurrency the coins were a worthless curiosity so its not impossible there are readers with similar stories. But were curious how well the drive will have survived its 9-year interment even if the AI robot arm and robot dog security would ensure its recovery. With that much cash at stake the best in the data recovery business will no doubt be unleashed on whatever remains they might recover, but in the unfriendly environment of a festering landfill wed be curious as to whether chemical action might have corroded the platters to the point at which nothing might remain. Wales has a high rainfall unlike the American southwest, so we doubt it would survive as well as an Atari cartridge.

Meanwhile, tell us your cryptocurrency might-have-beens in the comments.

Landfill Site sign by Geographer, CC BY-SA 2.0.

More:

Buzzword Bingo Bitcoin Burial Burrowing Blueprint Balked At By Bureaucracy - Hackaday

Nobody wants to be a Russian footcloth – TVP World

The Frenchman came from the left, the German was a conservative. Both showed critical and independent thinking. They were a long way from conformism or group thought. This enriches the correspondence that they had with each other.

When Russia justifies its aggression on Ukraine in terms of the fight against Nazism, few in western countries take this assertion seriously. The murder and rape that Russian invaders undertake damage the image of the country that sent them there. But Russia hails itself as the inheritor of the Soviet Union or the conqueror of the Third Reich. But if the Kremlin aways reaches for the anti-Nazi rhetoric, it reflects its propaganda strength.

It is worthwhile reading the well-reviewed book Fascism and Communism (Translated as A Close Enemy, Communism and Fascism in the 20th Century) by Franois Furet and Ernst Nolte, recently translated into Polish by the Pilecki Institute in Warsaw. This is a collection of correspondence from 1996 and 1997 between Furet and Nolte, now both deceased. It is a discussion on the controversy surrounding totalitarianism

The starting point is the wide-ranging preface that Furet wrote in his book The Passing of an Illusion (which can be read in the above-mentioned A Close Enemy) an essay on the idea of communism in the twentieth century. Ernst Noltes thesis developed in the 1960s and stunned Furet. It concerned the roots of German national socialism. In short, it could be argued that if it were not for Nazism there would have been no Soviet communism.

Nolte attempted to rationalise the motivations that directed the Nazis. According to him, Hitlers project was a reaction to the threat from the Soviet Union and world communism. He maintains at the same time, that the mass extinction policy of the Third Reich against the Jews was modelled on earlier Bolshevik terror: the methods of the regime that the Nazis saw as enemies (hence the title of a close enemy referring to both totalitarianisms).

Nolte touched on the taboo subject in the public debate of the West and that of West Germany in particular. He argued a blasphemous proximity between Nazism and Communism. In addition, he maintained that the Nazis as far as genocide went, imitated that of the Bolsheviks. He questioned the status of the Holocaust as an exceptional and specifically German crime. He was attacked by left-wing intellectuals in the German Federal Republic for this reason. It must be remembered that he gained much sympathy from German organisations of post-war expellees, a feeling that he reciprocated.

Click here to read the full article.

By Filip Memches

Translated by Jan Darasz

source:TVP Weekly

Read the original here:

Nobody wants to be a Russian footcloth - TVP World

Why Hitler adored Richard Wagner | Arts.21 – The Culture Magazine – DW (English)

For years, Hitler was a star guest at the Bayreuth Festival, the consecration site par excellence for Wagner's operas. The dictator saw himself as a Wagnerian and basically became a part of the Wagner family, which managed the composer's legacy. He even interfered in the organization of the festival, helping to decide on the program and staging.

The cult of Richard Wagner, who had died 50 years before Hitler came to power, was politically fueled by Hitler's presence. Wagner's music, in turn, fueled Hitler's delusions of grandeur. But how did Hitler come to idolize Wagner? Was it simply because of Wagner's anti-Semitism, which he gave free rein to in his infamous pamphlet "On Judaism [sic!] in Music"? Was it the Germanic heroic sagas that Wagner set to music and that Hitler was able to exploit for his ideology? Was it the pull of Wagner's music? In an interview with DW, medical historian James Kennaway describes it as "background music for megalomania. As if it had been created to accompany the German attack on Crete with the Ride of the Valkyries in the "weekly preview. Finally, what role does Hitlers own self-perception as an artist play in the affinity he felt with the composer - as Wagner expert Sven Friedrich analyzes?

With scholars and musicians, Kultur Arts Unveiledexplores how Hitler's fervent admiration of Wagner turned his music into the soundtrack of National Socialism. And what Hitler's appropriation of Wagner means for the way we deal with his music today.

See the article here:

Why Hitler adored Richard Wagner | Arts.21 - The Culture Magazine - DW (English)

Commemoration of the Genocides of Sinti and Roma – Vindobona – Vienna International News

The Federal President Alexander Van der Bellen remembered the hundreds of thousands of Sinti and Roma who were killed by the Nazis in Europe.

"Half a million Sinti and Roma were victims of the greatest crime in human history. For a long time, their fate was suppressed, concealed, forgotten," Van der Bellen wrote today on Twitter. They and their descendants must make their efforts to have their culture and their suffering during the Nazi era recognized, the federal president continued. "We cannot undo the past. But we can shape the present to make the world a better place in a sustainable way."

(2/2) Der heutige Holocaust-Gedenktag fr Sinti und Roma ist ein Tag des Erinnerns & des In-Erinnerung-Rufens: Diskriminierung v. Minderheiten, Andersglubigen & Andersdenkenden, Unvershnlichkeit, Nationalismus & Sndenbockdenken haben keinen Platz in unserer Gesellschaft! (vdb)

Vienna Mayor Michael Ludwig (SP) said via Twitter, "In light of the genocide of European Roma and Sinti during the Nazi era and today's Day of Remembrance, it is a moral obligation to show solidarity with Europe's largest ethnic minority and to stand up against antiziganism."

Angesichts des Genozids an den europischen Roma und Sinti in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus und dem heutigen Gedenktag ist es eine moralische Verpflichtung, Solidaritt mit der grten ethnischen Minderheit Europas aufzuzeigen und sich gegen Antiziganismus zu wehren. /1

OSCE and Roma Holocaust Memorial Day

This day is also significant for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Roma and Sinti are still affected by discrimination today. That is why the OSCE advocates for the rights of Roma and wants to strengthen human rights in particularly affected areas.

Matteo Mecacci, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) said on Roma Genocide Remembrance Day that it is "unacceptable that Roma and Sinti communities are continuing to suffer so desperately from intolerance, systemic racism and discrimination wherever they live. Mecacci, therefore, reiterated the importance of learning from the past to combat prejudice, bias, and racism against Roma and Sinti today.

ODIHR and the Council of Europe have launched a joint Roma Genocide website that provides knowledge and information for governments, public institutions, universities, schools, and civil society organizations.

Roma Holocaust Memorial Day

The European Holocaust Memorial Day for Sinti and Roma, also known as the European Holocaust Memorial Day for Roma, commemorates the victims of the Porajmos, the genocide of European Sinti and Roma during the Nazi era, on August 2 each year. The total number of victims of the genocide is estimated at 220,000 to 500,000.

Unfortunately, to date, there has been no national implementation of the European Holocaust Memorial Day on August 2 in Austria, stressed Olga Voglauer (Greens), according to ORF. National days of remembrance are a worthy and important part of the culture of remembrance. According to Voglauer, this goes hand in hand with the recognition and condemnation of Porajmos, the genocide of the European Roma during the time of National Socialism.

OSCE

See the article here:

Commemoration of the Genocides of Sinti and Roma - Vindobona - Vienna International News

Are You Young and Eager? Try the Trades – National Catholic Register

I have a deep respect for those who work in the trades. My father was a carpenter, and my brother is a builder. Yet, it is a career path that has fallen out of popularity in the last 20 years the average tradesman is 57 years old. Meanwhile, demand for good repairmen and contractors is outstripping supply.

This presents an amazing opportunity for young Catholics to serve many people and consequently earn a great income to provide for their family by entering such a profession. The question is, will they do it?

The trend for several years has been for young career-driven professionals to go into computer programming and software development or to enter the healthcare industry. Most workers consider big businesses to be safe, secure employers and thus highly desirable. The average American is uneasy about the volatility of owning or working for a small business. Huge companies like Walmart, Amazon, McDonalds, Kroger and IBM not to mention the biggest employer of all, the U.S. Government provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to Americans. So why should a young Catholic family man be willing to take the risk of owning or working in a small business?

Most small businesses fail in the first five years. The skills of an entrepreneur and owner-manager are different from those of a laborer and all three skill sets take time to learn. Plus, it can be difficult to find reliable crew members. At first glance, it doesnt seem worth it.

Catholic Romanticism and Socialism Unmasked

Thirty years ago it was popular in some Catholic circles to be nostalgic about medieval culture. As Quixotic readers of history and classic literature, we preferred to gloss over the trials and hardships of pre-industrial cultures and thought we should try to restore these civilizations. We tended to think that everything would be better if we lived a more primitive existence.

I was surprised to discover later in life that this mode of thinking was more influenced by Marx and Rousseau than Aquinas and Augustine. I realized utopias are completely impractical. I had rashly judged that if a profession or way of life didnt exist before the industrial revolution, it was probably bad. Instead of seeing opportunities in modern businesses, I saw only moral problems and corruption. These ideas left me paralyzed and fatalistic about my career. Since the restoration of Christendom and the agrarian age are not likely to be restored in ones lifetime, one might as well work for a big company and get that steady paycheck.

As I continued to research, I realized there is even more at work in our society underlying our cultural dysphoria. The current secular mind embraces an egalitarian ideal that insists all men be reduced to the lowest common denominator the minimum wage worker. Marx recognized only two classes of people the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (the working class) and socialism insists on the reduction of all men to the proletariat for the sake of equality.

Josef Pieper, in his classic work Leisure: The Basis of Culture, defines being proletarian as being bound to the working-process. Pieper lists three conditions that bind the proletariat to the working-process:

Piepers anecdote to being a proletarian serf is likewise threefold a process he calls de-proletarianization ownership, limited state power and inner wealth. In short, families flourish economically through capital ownership which includes not just owning stocks, bonds, and real estate, but also businesses.

What is happening to the American ideal of owning ones own business? The socialist elite are desperately trying to eliminate middle-class business owners via crony-capitalist incentives for bigger businesses.

For the future of family life in this country, Catholics should push back.

Three Types of Workers

There are three types of necessary workers: laborers, managers and entrepreneurs. One person can wear all three hats, but most efficient, competitive businesses find a way to specialize by forming a team.

Take, for example, the roofing company I worked for in the first couple years of marriage. Bubba was the owner, entrepreneur and general manager. The foreman, Roger, was a manager and laborer. He took the work orders from Bubba and made it happen on the job site. Three of us were laborers who did most of the actual work, but that does not mean we deserved equal compensation with the bosses.

Catholic social teaching teaches that distributive justice demands the worker be paid in proportion to the contribution made to society. In our situation Bubba made the greatest contribution to the team because without his willingness to take on the risk of business ownership and his work as general manager, none of us would have had the opportunity to earn a risk-free paycheck. The entire success of the business fell on his shoulders. Business ownership requires a vast amount of mental work, networking, management and foresight. Aquinas affirms that those who take greater risk in business ought to be compensated with greater reward for success.

Similarly, a foreman is justly paid more than the laborers because he has more responsibility and greater skill which can be taught to less skilled laborers like myself. It takes a crew to roof a house efficiently.

The Future of Catholic Tradesman

There are three reasons why more Catholic youth should be pursuing a profession in the trades with the intention of owning or managing such a business in the future.

First, the trades, unlike some other small business opportunities, are in high demand and therefore present a lucrative income opportunity especially for owners and managers which should motivate men wanting to raise a family. It doesnt take much to stand out as a desirable tradesman in our current society and because of demand, as one of my former employers explained it, You can get paid to learn.

Second, we desperately need Catholic entrepreneurs and managers in the marketplace. Part of the problem with modern culture is that too many entrepreneurs are focused on entertainment prospects or tech-utopian, futuristic ventures that skew a Christian vision of reality. We need virtuous entrepreneurs to shape culture, employ family providers and provide customers with valuable goods and services. Everyone needs a dependable plumber, electrician, roofer and carpenter. The trades meet a very practical need for households.

Third, Catholic business owners in the trades will attract good Christian employees to their companies. Most people care more about the company culture than their paycheck. So, if one is hesitant to begin a career in the trades and work his way up because he is worried about having to hire drug addicts and other unreliable workers to compile his crew, he can learn to be the kind of business leader that attracts good reliable workers to his business. Its not that hard if one is dedicated to growing in the basic virtues of honesty, integrity, follow-through and authentic service. A good reputation will attract dependable crewmembers.

Sts. Josemara Escriv and John Paul II called for laymen to enter the public forum and do business. Businesses serve families and shape culture. Are you young and eager? Try the trades.

More:

Are You Young and Eager? Try the Trades - National Catholic Register

Letter to the editor: Instituting Socialism 101 | Winchester Star | winchesterstar.com – The Winchester Star

How do you institute Socialism in a republic that lives and breathes the values of democracy, capitalism, intrapreneurial endeavors and freedom?

First, break the nations financial system. An objective analysis of todays outrageous spending habits by congress without developing an annual budget is a recipe for overspending and national bankruptcy. Yeah, lets pass another $1 trillion green new deal at a time of record inflation, negative GDP, and higher interest rates. The result is to make the people poor by overspending (devaluation of the dollar) over taxation and confiscation (i.e., the new IRS initiative) resulting in financial dependency on the federal government for your quality of life. Federal overspending is the gateway drug to government handouts and the evolution of authoritative regimes.

Second, turn our education system into a propaganda instrument to indoctrinate all children that America is bad versusteaching the virtues that have made our country great, and once upon a time the leader of the free world.

Third, and for the second try, institute a federalized healthcare system that treats everyone the same, but with limited access within a confined and constrained system. No thank you. Why do you think individuals from other countries practicing socialized medicine come to America for treatment?

While some reading this letter may conclude that our politicians do not have a clue how to run our country, I would submit to you, they know, and are doing exactly what they need to do to enrich themselves and remain in power.

David Eddy

Middletown

View post:

Letter to the editor: Instituting Socialism 101 | Winchester Star | winchesterstar.com - The Winchester Star

Opinion: BJP Gains As Others Put Self Before Party, Family Before Self – NDTV

There are two common ways of thinking about India's political history. One is that we have journeyed from Congress dominance to BJP dominance with a quarter-century of competitive coalitions in between. The other is that more or less from the outset, Indian politics has been defined not by class or ideology, but by the competitive mobilisation of caste, communal and regional identities.

The ideological history of our politics is a story less often told. And yet, from our first general election onwards, our national politics has usually been defined by ideological distinctions.

In 1952, after those first elections, India had a range of local and regional parties, and four national ones. Those four national parties each represented a distinct ideological orientation or tradition. One right-of-centre party, the Jan Sangh; one Marxist-Leninist party, the Communist Party of India; one non-Marxist, "indigenous" Left-wing party, the Socialists; and one big-tent or catch-all centrist party, the Congress. From the Jan Sangh on the right end of the spectrum, to the Communists on the left, they presented voters with a genuine range of views on India's future.

By 1962, there was a fifth ideological group - the free-market, liberal Swatantra Party. However, by the time of the 1967 election, both the Socialists and Communists had split into two wings. These splits allowed an increasingly unpopular Congress to hold on to its majority. By 1989, both had reunited, the Socialists (along with a number of ex-Congressmen) into the Janata Dal, the Communists into the alliance that we still know as the Left Front. Swatantra had faded away. Structurally, the election of 1989 looked a lot like 1952. Except that the Janata Dal, unlike its ancestor, was not really an ideological party, and the Communists were now confined to a handful of states.

In electoral terms, 1989 was the Indian Left's greatest triumph. Socialist or Communist parties won 198 seats - one more than the Congress. It was the Left that brought down Rajiv Gandhi, as they had his mother in 1977. But as in 1977, they did so in partnership with the Jan Sangh, now rechristened the BJP. It was a triumph, we know now, that elevated the partner on the right while undermining those on the left.

Three decades later, India is a country without a meaningful political Left. In 2019, the Communists won six seats, their fewest ever, with four of those on the DMK's coat-tails. Akhilesh Yadav describes himself on Twitter as the "Socialist Leader of India", but in reality and perception, none of the post-Janata parties is in fact Socialist. What they are, with the one exception of Nitish Kumar's JD(U), is dynastic.

With the Congress no longer an active aspirant for national power, this means that only one leg of the 1952 stool is left standing. Ideologically, there is only one game in our town.

Plenty has been written about the causes of the disappearance of India's Socialists and Communists. The Communists' failure to reckon with caste; the mutation of socialism, a movement with a broad set of principles, into the narrower politics of Mandal; the inability of the Left as a whole to respond to the twin shocks of 1991 (the liberalisation of the Indian economy and the dissolution of the Soviet Union) - all these played their part.

Three other factors deserve mention. India's Left parties, and recently also the Congress, have ceded wholesale to the BJP the terrain of nationalism and patriotism. They may feebly point to the non-participation of the BJP's forebears in the national movement, but to the voter of 2022, rather than 1947, the only nationalist narrative on offer is Hindutva.

India's communists were never nationalists: before and after Independence, they were always vulnerable to accusations of excessive affinity to foreign powers. The CPI also has the dubious distinction of being the only party other than the Muslim League to have supported Partition. The Socialists, by contrast, were active participants in the freedom struggle and advocates for strategic independence on the world stage. They were proud patriots, but their successors, decades removed from Independence, have declined to take up this aspect of their legacy.

Second, India's Leftists have been as addicted to infighting as its Hindu right is committed to unity. If, in Vinay Sitapati's apt phrase, "Hindu Fevicol" is the Sangh Parivar's greatest weapon, the Left - especially the Socialists - has the opposite habit of attracting human dynamite: charismatic, talented leaders who invariably place self before party.

Self before party, family before self. So goes the dharma of dynasticism. Dynasticism, which in the Indian context was invented by Indira Gandhi, is an incurable disease. It is also inimical to any intellectually honest form of Left politics. A party cannot credibly commit itself to equality, to the challenging of social hierarchies, or even simply to the public good, if its senior posts are assigned on the basis of birth. Dynastic parties in India can only offer a kind of post-ideological populism, or the representation of a particular community, or sub-nationalism. They are, after all, vehicles for the aggrandisement of a single family. Voters have long since caught on.

Yet, what should concern us, more than the eclipse of particular Left parties, is the consequences of the absence of any. We have come to take the absence of ideological contestation for granted. It is sometimes said that despite the decline of Left parties, India has a Left-wing consensus on economic matters. This view distorts both the nature of our political economy as well as what constitutes Leftism. It reduces "statism" to the state's capacity for the obstruction and intimidation of business and the distribution of private goods.

India's broader trajectory, briefly slowed but not reversed by Covid, has been precisely the opposite of a Left-wing consensus. In sector across sector, we are privatising the provision of public goods. Private security, private electricity, private education, private healthcare, private drinking water, even private air. The old criticism that the Indian state had no business running hotels and making wristwatches was well-founded. That doesn't mean it has no business other than building roads and delivering welfare schemes.

In the absence of a Left, our other long-standing political consensus - a preference for crony capitalism to either socialism or open competition - has never been stronger. It is no accident that no Opposition party has expended any energy challenging the BJP's electoral bonds scheme; they only complain about their small share of the takings.

Why do we need a Left? The Left, in the philosopher Richard Rorty's words, is "the party of hope". It begins with a critique of society as it is - of inequality and injustice in all its forms - and is optimistic about our collective capacity to improve.

But what is needed is not a revived version of the old Indian Left that engineered or earned its own downfall. What might a 21st-century Indian Left look like? It could genuinely commit itself to the annihilation of caste, and not merely to a rearrangement of the caste hierarchy, it could focus on health, education, and the environment, three of the biggest failures of the 20th-century Indian Left. It would need to embrace technological change, and offer a strategy for growth, not only redistribution.

Of its two failed predecessors, such a Left would have much more to learn - at least in positive terms - from the Socialists. While the Communists were mere intellectual importers, the Socialists could claim thinkers of genuine originality (to name just three: Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, Jayaprakash Narayan, Rammanohar Lohia), who knew that Indian conditions required Indian answers. The difference between the Communists and Socialists is most often located on the question of caste. Just as central are gender equality and decentralisation. At their best, the Socialists actually took the former seriously; the latter is more desperately needed than ever.

Is there any chance of such a Left actually emerging? There is a political issue waiting for it - the central issue of our time. Jobs.

(Keshava Guha is a writer of literary and political journalism, and the author of 'Accidental Magic'.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.

Waiting for response to load...

Read the original:

Opinion: BJP Gains As Others Put Self Before Party, Family Before Self - NDTV

A new style of atheism can counter Christian nationalism and the decline of religion – MSNBC

There are two pressing crises tied to the state of religion in America today. A new style of atheism can help answer both of them.

The first crisis is rooted in an excess of religion. Christian theocracy is not far-off specter but an emerging reality in America. Fueled by a radically reactionary Supreme Court that is two-thirds Catholic, Thomas Jeffersons already-dilapidated and graffitied wall of separation between church and state is crumbling. The overturning of Roe v. Wade means the lives of women across the country are being held hostage by a conservative Christian conception of life. Kennedy v. Bremerton permits school officials to publicly pray and make students feel pressured to join in. Carson v. Makin allows taxpayer dollars to be used to fund religious education. And at the state level, Republican-led legislatures have invoked Christianity as they pursue a systematic assault on transgender rights, while abortion abolitionists convinced some Louisiana lawmakers that people who get abortions should be charged with homicide.

Atheism can address the social and spiritual vacuum emerging in the wake of the slow death of mainstream organized religion.

Scholars of the religious right are also sounding alarms over the emergence of Christian nationalism, a QAnon-addled authoritarian political movement whose champions breached the U.S. Capitol and prayed on the Senate floor on Jan 6, 2021. The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a leader of the diehard Trump wing in the House, said at a church in her home state recently. Im tired of this separation of church and state junk. She received a standing ovation from her audience.

The second crisis is tied, ironically, to the decline of religion. The religious right is securing more power in courts and legislatures and becoming more influential within right-wing culture, but its not becoming more popular. Instead there has been an accelerating American drift away from organized religion and most often toward nothing in particular. A rapidly increasing share of Americans are detaching from religious communities that provide purpose and forums for moral contemplation, and not necessarily finding anything in their stead. They're dropping out of church and survey data suggests they're disproportionately like to be checked out from civic life. Their trajectory tracks with a broader decades-long trend of secular life defined by plunging social trust, faith in institutions, and participation in civil society.

My belief is that an energetic, organized atheist movement which I propose calling "communitarian atheism" would provide an effective way to guard against the twin crises of intensifying religious extremism on one end, and the atomizing social consequences of a plunge in conventional religiosity on the other.

An organized atheist community can help agitate for and finance a secularist equivalent of the Federalist Society the right-wing legal movement that helped populate the federal courts with hard right jurists and helped get us into this mess to act as a bulwark against theocracy. There has been zero, and I mean zero, innovation in the doctrine of separation [of church and state] in the last 50 years, Jacques Berlinerblau, a scholar at Georgetown University and the author of Secularism: The Basics, told me. Atheists who consciously believe in their worldview have a particularly urgent interest in helping to lead a legal and political movement to protect against theocracy.

At the same time, atheism can address the social and spiritual vacuum emerging in the wake of the slow death of mainstream organized religion. This requires learning from religion, not indiscriminately attacking it. By putting together study groups, communities for secular meditation, and elucidating the meaning and joys of atheism without spewing venom toward all religion, atheists can build spaces for religion-skeptical people to find purpose, think about ethics, form community and consider more carefully how to build a better society.

My personal journey as an atheist which involved disillusionment with religion and mainstream atheism is a big part of how I arrived at this idea. It may help to share it.

Atheism opened up my world. But it didn't hold it together.

I was raised in a Muslim household in the U.S., but I turned away from Islam in my teens after a fateful conversation with my grandfather one hot summer day in Pakistan. My grandfather was a professor who delighted in thrashing me in chess and asking me vexing questions, and he once posed to me a version of what the Columbia University philosopher Philip Kitcher has called the argument from symmetry. He questioned why I adhered to Islam in particular when so many other religions made claims about the existence of gods, some of them fairly similar to Islam, some radically different. I froze. With no basis on which to distinguish between the validity of these various claims about the supernatural by definition, I could not know or prove which god was the right one I quickly confessed that my religiosity was a mere accident of birth.

Losing my religion was an unexpected moment of ecstasy. I no longer blamed myself for not understanding the emptiness I had felt when praying to a god. I also finally felt comfortable interrogating Islam as a vehicle for social conservatism and patriarchy. I knew the claim that a god exists could not be proven or disproven, but I could not believe in one especially as traditionally understood in the major monotheistic faiths without evidence or resolution of questions like the problem of evil. And so I became an atheist.

Some people think of atheists as rudderless and living in a cold, meaningless world. My experience was the opposite. Atheism enlivened me and spurred me to develop a broader skepticism of all manner of received wisdom. The displacement of heaven inspired me to think about achieving utopia on earth; my reading skewed in a radically left-wing direction, and I pivoted toward political activism. As a student at a high school that observed the practices and philosophies of Quakerism, a small Christian sect committed to egalitarian ideals, I didnt believe the Quaker saying that there was that of God in everyone. But I often enjoyed spending the weekly worship meetings, wherein we were required to sit in silence for around an hour, lost in thought about what a more fulfilling society would look like.

I didnt, however, always enjoy breaking bread with the atheists I encountered. My personal turn to atheism coincided with the rise of New Atheism in the 2000s and 2010s as a college student I watched polemical writers like the late Christopher Hitchens lecture about how religion poisons everything with great ambivalence. On one hand, I agreed with and learned from some of the New Atheist critique of religion as a force for stifling critical thought and purveying social traditionalism. On the other hand, I found that the New Atheists caricatured religion, and neglected to consider all the nuances of religious belief and the positive role it could play in peoples lives.

Despite my many objections to Islam, I had never shed my admiration for the capaciousness and airiness of a mosque.

The most consequential example of this blindness to complexity was the New Atheist fixation on Islam as an existential threat to humanity, which led to an affinity for the post-9/11 neoconservative project. Some of its proponents backed torture and neocolonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and contemplated genocidal nuclear first strikes in the region. This group was so fixated on religion as the root of all evil and Islam as the most evil of them all that it failed to understand how Islamist terrorism might not just be about religion but also the specific political agenda of a group of extremists. As a leftist activist, and as a person who knew many liberal and fairly secular Muslims one of whom spurred me to become an atheist I found this political tilt repugnant.

The New Atheists also failed to appreciate how religion provides valuable things secular life often fails to find. As I got older I found myself circling back to the spiritual world, although in an idiosyncratically atheistic manner.

Despite my many objections to Islam, I had never shed my admiration for the capaciousness and airiness of a mosque. I found that when I was going through rough patches, there was nothing quite like the practice of mindful meditation, derived from Buddhist practices, that helped me find my footing and feel connected to the world. Living in New York, I found myself chanting Hebrew and joining hands with septuagenarians after group meditation sessions in my local Jewish community center. I started Googling Quaker meeting houses near me more often. This was not a search for god my atheism was not wavering but a desire to commune toward the end of something greater.

Political activism didn't quite scratch the itch. While I was deeply appreciative of the vital community provided by the political groups I was a part of, they didn't seek the exact kind of togetherness and quiet search for purpose I was craving. Politics, after all, is about power and justice, and needs to be balanced alongside extrapolitical quests for truth and morality.

Days after my grandfather died when I was 29, I felt unmoored. I strolled to a Quaker meeting in Manhattan, and watched towering trees gently brush against the windows of the old meeting house in the wind. One observes a Quaker meeting for worship in silence, but participants are encouraged to periodically stand up to share thoughts if moved to do so, and so after sitting for some time I shared some reflections on my grandfather. A few other people stood up and shared their own thoughts; there was little talk of god, but there was talk of the challenges and beauty of existence.

After the meeting, a few people shared announcements on study sessions, child care and organizing left-wing political activist trips. A bit later over tea and snacks, I made a few new acquaintances and learned that a former well-liked teacher of my high school was the now at the school affiliated with the Quaker meeting house I was attending. I felt nourished, and at home.

Communitarian atheism is the best of all worlds.

My case for communitarian atheism stems from my belief that atheism opens up radical new possibilities for critical thinking and freedom, but that it has a great deal to learn from religion and the religious right as well.

A quick note: I view atheism as a big tent. Atheism does not mean, as is commonly mistakenly believed, that one is certain of the nonexistence of gods. It means a lack of belief in them for evidential and sometimes logical reasons in a manner that is consistent with the popular use of the term agnosticism, which technically refers to limitations on what we can know. More important, I believe it is grounding and urgency-inducing to state, however tentative the belief may be, that our fate is in the hands of forces we can perceive or may be capable of perceiving at some point, and that we can assume no eventual refuge in an afterlife.The most urgent task for atheists right now is to guard against the astonishing uptick in the power of the religious right, with the Supreme Court favoring religious intervention in our political lives and an increasingly energized Christian nationalist alliance with the Trump wing of the party. Atheists have an intuitive understanding of and self-interest in pushing back against religious creep into the affairs of the state. If theyre more organized as an interest group, theyre more likely to help create a mandate for action.

Any such group would be well served by observing the successful activism of the far right. The Federalist Society, a right-wing powerhouse network that began as a meeting of conservative legal scholars and students at Yale in 1982, was instrumental in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the transformation of Americas federal courts. Its networking, legal creativity, organization and provision of a Rolodex for reliably conservative jurists for the Republican Party to draw from has allowed the religious right to punch well above its weight and enact an agenda that wasnt popular or even high-profile.

Berlinerblau, the Georgetown professor, worries that liberal secular America has no counterpart to right-wing legal thinking and activism that advances the goals of the religious right. I wonder who the liberal jurists are that work together that meet for a retreat once a year in Verona or Lake Tahoe? This stuff happens all the time in conservative circles, Berlinerblau said. It's these all-expenses-paid things in beautiful places where people just network for two weeks, and they have workshops on the free exercise clause [of the First Amendment] and free speech. I know of nothing comparable, in liberal, secular America."

And that's why there's probably no innovation, he continued. Because there arent the deep-pocketed funders, and there's not the long-term vision, and there's not a command and control. We just don't have that.

This kind of enterprise is not only for atheists. It should appeal to anyone with secular and liberal inclinations, and its a space where there is opportunity for coalitions with people of faith who dont think religion should shape American politics and laws. But atheists can play a key role in sounding the alarms if they articulate themselves as citizens whose rights must be respected. Berlinerblau believes that the best hope for secularists is to push for equality under the 14th Amendment rather than continue to wage an increasingly hopeless battle over the First Amendment, which the right has found to be favorable territory by effectively expanding the idea of free exercise of religion. When the Christian right is allowed to tell us when life begins, that's an affront to the equality of a Jewish woman, or a Muslim woman or a nonbelieving woman, Berlinerblau said, explaining his argument for the 14th Amendment route.

But ultimately it is not enough for atheists today to define themselves through opposition to religious overreach. Atheists excel at critiquing religion and should continue to do so, respectfully but we flounder when it comes to thinking about how to meet human needs that are rarely supported by systems of secular life. Religion seeks to answer why we exist and what ethical and social obligations attend existence, and creates rich, evocative institutions and rituals around these questions. Atheists need to do this too not just view their lives as defined in negative terms by the absence of gods, but in positive terms about the world as we believe it exists.

Cultivating a welcoming and vibrant atheism could be a gateway for many Americans to contemplate important questions.

That means less time attacking religion and more time forming an attractive, inclusive alternative to it. Atheists should create deliberate communities, and this can take many forms. For example study groups for pursuing the great questions of existence by reading works of literature, philosophy and, yes, even religious texts. "Religion can be an inspiration, but it cant be an authority," Kitcher, the Columbia philosopher, told me in an interview, and argued religious texts must always be "subject to moral deliberation and moral argument."

Atheists should form secular meditation groups or explore something else that allows for contemplation if it's not their cup of tea. (I cant help but recommend visiting a Quaker meeting house, particularly since nontheistic Quakerism is a quiet subtradition within Quakerism.)

Organized atheists have an extraordinary opportunity to welcome "nothing in particulars" into a big tent. Roughly ten percent of the U.S. adult population identifies as atheist or agnostic, but the "nothing in particulars" constitute about 20 percent, according to a 2021 Pew poll. The nothing in particulars cite questioning "a lot of religious teachings" as the biggest reason they leave formal religious affiliation, and say that their dislike of positions taken by churches on social and political issues is the second biggest reason. Moreover, experts describe the increasingly intensifying political valence of Christianity as right-wing as a significant source of alienation for people who become "nothing in particular." It seems like a ripe opportunity for atheism to band together with allies.

Some people will always want to be nothing in particulars who wish not to publicly define their position on theism and religion. Theres nothing wrong with that at all. But cultivating a welcoming and vibrant atheism could be a gateway for many Americans to contemplate important questions, form community, and think about how to collectively better the only world we can be sure we have.

Read more:

A new style of atheism can counter Christian nationalism and the decline of religion - MSNBC

What kind of atheist are you? – Big Think

CLAY ROUTLEDGE: Atheism is typically thought of as being a binary idea: you're either a believer or you're a non-believer. To be an atheist is to entirely reject belief in the supernatural, or belief in a God or a deity. But I actually think that it's a much more complex, and much more interesting story. Even among atheists, there's lots of different ways of conceptualizing this idea.

For instance, some atheists say that it just means that they're not religious, and it doesn't even necessarily mean that they have no interest in spiritual ideas or practices, but that they just reject traditional religious dogmas. Other atheists actually can be thought of as being, what's referred to, as 'Emotional atheist.' They actually have a very negative feeling towards the divine, which is interesting because it suggests to be angry at something means, at some level, to have a concept of its existence.Other atheists are, what you might refer to, as, perhaps, 'Social atheists,' in that they feel like there's no reason to have a public religious tradition, or they have no interest in the cultural religious practices, but are themselves interested in spiritual questions and even questions of the divine. So there's lots of different ways that atheists think about themselves, think about each other.

There's lots of different ways that believers think about atheists. It's often a very abstract concept, even though it seems so simple. Teleological thinking is really any type of thought process that involves assuming that there's purpose or design. And so it turns out that, even though this really is a form of supernatural thinking, right- to assume there's some sort of grander purpose to things- that atheists aren't immune from this type of thinking. For instance, in studies of atheists who are asked to describe certain life events, they frequently use teleological language in their written description of those events.So for instance, they might say, "I didn't get this job, and it wasn't meant to be," as if there's a part of human nature, even if people consciously reject the supernatural, that pulls them to these ideas. In some instances, our own conscious awareness of something or our own conscious beliefs may not tell the whole story of the way our brains work.

There is some research focused on atheists and their lack of belief, and the implications of that. They asked atheists to say things that shouldn't bother them because they don't believe in God, such as wishing God would do harm to their friends. Now, believers don't like saying this stuff, and indeed, in these studies when believers were asked to say that, if they complied, they immediately expressed that that made them very uncomfortable. When atheists were asked to say these things, they reported immediately that it didn't bother them at all. But what's interesting about these studies is the researchers didn't just rely on people's self-report. They actually hooked them up to equipment that measures a physiological response. If you start to look a little bit deeper beyond self-report, a lot of times the body tells a different story than what we consciously report ourselves.When it came to measuring their physiological response, atheists looked indistinguishable from theists.

One of the biggest challenges that I think creates conflict between hardcore religious believers and hardcore atheists is a misunderstanding not just of each other, but of themselves. Hardcore atheists think that they're not at all guided by supernatural ideas and concepts, but we know from research that they do have a tendency to engage in teleological thinking, to see things in terms of design and purpose. Likewise, on the other side, hardcore believers often think that most of their life decisions are guided by their spiritual nature, when in fact, like atheists, they also rely on evidence and science, they often have the same struggles, religious questions and uncertainties that other people have. It's easy to divide people into groups over something that seems so powerfully different about people, such as whether or not they believe in a God or particular religious tradition, but if we take a step back and try to look beyond these surface-level differences that seem like they should divide us and turn us against each other, we'll see a deeper part of the human condition that really is a story of commonality- and a story about what it means to be a complete human trying to live a flourishing life.

See the original post:

What kind of atheist are you? - Big Think

These are the 4 types of atheism – Big Think

When discussing religious beliefs, the language we use often sorts people into rigid, binary groups. Youre either a theist or an atheist. A believer or a nonbeliever. But take a closer look at how people conceptualize God and the supernatural, and these distinctions begin to lose their meaning.

When somebody calls themselves an atheist, for example, what are they really conveying about their beliefs or lack thereof? Even though the dictionary definition of atheist is fairly clear someone who lacks belief in God or gods the term doesnt tell you much on its own.

To be an atheist is to entirely reject belief in the supernatural, or belief in a god or a deity, Clay Routledge, an existential psychologist and writer, told Big Think. But I actually think that its a much more complex and much more interesting story. Even among atheists, theres lots of different ways of conceptualizing this idea.

Watch our feature interview with Clay Routledge:

As religious affiliation continues to decline in the U.S. and other nations, its worth considering the different shapes that a lack of belief in the supernatural can take. While not an exhaustive list, here are a few ways to conceptualize what people mean when they use the word atheist.

Subscribe for a weekly email with ideas that inspire a life well-lived.

The nonreligious: One of the broadest types of atheism is simply not subscribing to a religion. Its often the case that nonreligious people arent necessarily rejecting the existence of the supernatural or God (after all, you can be nonreligious and still believe in forms of spirituality), but rather the dogmas of traditional religions.

Then again, not subscribing to a religion doesnt require you to actively reject any particular belief system. It simply means you dont subscribe to one. As such, disinterest might be a key factor for some people in this group; maybe they couldnt care less about grand questions concerning the other side.

In 2021, the Pew Research Centers National Public Opinion Reference Survey found that 29% of U.S. adults consider themselves religious nones. This nones group comprised multiple subgroups, including one that arguably best describes the disinterested nonreligious: people who said their religious identity was nothing in particular.

Emotional atheists: If the nonreligious are the nones, emotional atheists could be considered the religious dones. Emotional atheists are atheists whose lack of belief or active rejection of belief stems primarily from negative emotions.

One example is someone who has become understandably resentful of religion. Maybe they suffered abuse in the church, were disowned due to their parents beliefs, or experienced a tragedy so horrible that they cant understand why God would allow such a thing to occur.

The emotional atheist, driven by negative experiences, actively rejects God. Its a somewhat contradictory position to take, considering that, to be angry at something means, at some level, [you] have a concept of its existence, Routledge told Freethink.

Social atheists: This group might harbor varying levels of religious or spiritual beliefs in their private moments, but they dont care to share or broadcast them. Maybe they consider it rude. Maybe they dont care to participate in the cultural practices of religious life. In any case, the religious or spiritual beliefs are a personal pursuit to this group.

Antitheists: In addition to lacking religious beliefs, antitheists take an active stance against religions. One of the most famous and outspoken writers to argue this viewpoint in recent history was the late Christopher Hitchens, who once said:

Im not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.

No matter the type, atheists are generally inclined to think God does not exist. But how closely do atheists self-reported beliefs match what they feel deep down?

That was one of the driving questions behind a 2014 study published in The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. In the study, researchers asked atheists and religious individuals to read aloud statements that dared God to do awful things. Examples included:

When asked how unpleasant it was to utter statements like these, the atheists reported not finding it as unpleasant as believers did. Not surprising. After all, if you dont believe in God, these statements should be nothing more than empty words.

But less expected were the results of the participants skin conductance tests, which are used to measure emotional arousal. The results showed that both atheists and believers displayed high emotional arousal while reading the God statements. So, even though the atheists reported that daring God to do awful things wasnt too unpleasant, the physiological measurements suggested otherwise.

One explanation for why atheists experienced heightened arousal while reading the statements is that it would be emotionally unpleasant for anyone to utter such ugly sentiments, regardless of what they believe. However, the researchers also had participants utter statements that were offensive or which wished for bad things to happen, but didnt mention God.

The results showed that atheists were more emotionally affected by the God statements, according to the skin conductance tests. To Routledge, studies like this highlight our often surprising ambivalence toward big existential questions.

Hardcore atheists think that theyre not at all guided by supernatural ideas and concepts, but we know from research that they do have a tendency to engage in teleological thinking to see things in terms of design and purpose, he told Big Think.

Although binary categories like atheist and theist can make it seem like people are rigidly divided along the lines of belief, ambivalence and doubt might render us more similar than it seems. C.S. Lewis, the British writer who converted from atheism to Christianity after a late-night conversation with J.R.R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson, once wrote:

Believe in God and you will have to face hours when it seems obvious that this material world is the only reality; disbelieve in Him and you must face hours when this material world seems to shout at you that it is not all.

Continued here:

These are the 4 types of atheism - Big Think

Atheist turned Catholic turns comic – Thousand Oaks Acorn

Stand-up comic, author and mom of six, Jen Fulwiler will bring her comedy show to the Scherr Forum at 7:30 p.m. Fri., Sept. 23 at 2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Fulwiler was the host of the daily talk radio Jen Fulwiler Show on the national SiriusXM network. When she launched her own podcast, This Is Jen, it debuted in the iTunes Comedy Top 10.

She has been featured on The Today Show and CNN. Her standup comedy special, The Naughty Corner, is on Amazon.

Her first book, Something Other than God, a memoir about converting to Catholicism from lifelong atheism, was a finalist in the Goodreads Reader Choice Awards.

Her book One Beautiful Dream was a Wall Street Journal bestseller, hit the Amazon Top 25 and was a No. 1 bestseller at Barnes & Noble. Her newest title, Your Blue Flame, was featured on The Today Show.

For years Fulwiler has been a speaker for Catholic conferences and events. Additionally, she spent five years as a radio host for the Sirius XM Catholic Channel, and she found that her listeners enjoyed her show more when she used humor.

Fulwiler started dabbling in stand-up in 2018, doing open mic gigs at clubs in Austin, Texas, where she lives. In 2020 she started pursuing comedy full time with funny takes on motherhood and modern life.

Tickets are $40, available from Ticketmaster at (800) 745- 3000, or online at ticketmaster.com, or through the Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza box office.

For more information, call (805) 449-2787 or go to bapacthousandoaks.com.

Originally posted here:

Atheist turned Catholic turns comic - Thousand Oaks Acorn

Against Public Atheism – The American Conservative

Mark Tooley is terribly vexed. The Statement of Principles signed by national conservatives (including myself) ahead of the NatCon3 conference in Miami is deeply concerning to the president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Article 4 in particular, on God and Public Religion, is the focus of his suspicion in a recent essay over at Law & Liberty.

Tooley does not mind appreciation of the Bible as a pillar of Western civilization, nor integrating it into public-school curricula. To his credit, this distinguishes him from other right-liberals such as David French. But in Tooleys view, in the latter half of Article 4, things go awry.

That portion of the Statement of Principles reads, in part,

Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private. At the same time, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children. Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes.

Tooley wonders whether the national conservatives intend a Christian establishment. What does it mean for public life to be rooted in Christianity? he asks. What does it mean for the state to honor Christianity? And, by extension, he queries whether religious minorities would be subject to coercion. The answers to these questions are implied by the questioner: nothing good. The reader is meant to shudder.

In a Millian vein, Tooley warns that coercion, which presumably encompasses culturally cultivated social stigma, never works. As a good son of the Great Awakenings, he insists that only spontaneous revival will root the nation in transcendence. Any hint of state involvement therein, any governmental thumb on the scale, would be counterproductive, making religion forced, stale, or counterfeit. Best to not meddle as to not muddle.

Hypothetically, if national conservatives are establishmentarians, then we could call Tooleys position public atheism. This is not to imply that Tooley or Christians like himand there are manyare disingenuous or embarrassed by Christianity and the Bible. Rather, public atheism is a typical right-liberal posture akin to what used to be called practical atheism. Older Protestant theology maintained that sincere, full-throated denial of Gods existence was theologically impossible for anyone, the sensus divinitatis being a given per Romans 1 and 2. Yet people can suppress that inescapable knowledge and live as if God is dead. (Even then, as Nietzsche understood, people are not very good at it.)

Public atheism, for our purposes, is marked by suspicion of, and hostility to, whatever smells of formal, state-level recognition and privileging (i.e., honor) of Christianity over and against other faiths on offer. It decries public Christianity as an artificial limitation of the realm of possibility. It is, in a word, pluralism, insofar as it features a kind of religious market fundamentalism. For public atheists, free competition must be prioritized for two reasons: as a competition-based control against monopoly, and as an affirmation of the human faculty most valued by liberals generally, viz., unalloyed choice.

This is not a mere recognition of religious diversity on the ground, but a championing of pluralism as virtue. Usually, for public atheists, pluralism is coded as religious liberty. Specifically, a post-war, post-incorporation conception of the idea is in play. Within this paradigm, the state, the nation, must be neutral. Meaning that it must live as if there is no God, or at least in a way that no particular deity is prioritized to the discomfort of dissenters.

In defense of his position, Tooley appeals to the founding era for historical and, therefore, normative ammunition. A fine instinct, but the maneuver is largely superfluous in this case because Tooley discovers in the period only himself. In fact, the period, as it really was, would likely strike twenty-first century Americans as foreign.

In his narrative, Tooley distinguishes the United States from other nations by ascribing to it not mere tolerationthe prerequisite of which is an established churchbut religious freedom for all. To him, America has always been a pluralist and religious-liberty maximalist (and therefore publicly atheist) nation; ipso facto, national conservatives are an aberration, representing a departure from the nations history and character.

To demonstrate his claim, Tooley exhibits another good instinct: an appeal to state, as opposed to strictly national, activity in the early republic. This approach is correct because any assessment of the nations history must account for its federalist structure as a compound (not consolidated) republic in its original context wherein states served as the moral centers of the country (i.e., state police powers).

Still, his narrative is feeble in part because his source material is artificially limited to the usual suspects, viz., James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and two Virginia documents: the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom (1786). Unfortunately for Tooley, two founders and two documents do not American history make.

We will ignore at this juncture the colonial background which conditioned the resultant American nation and which, as John Adams instructed, should therefore condition our understanding of the same. Instead, we will proceed to other American source material of the antebellum period.

At the outset we should realize, as Tooley does, that the point of reference for any religious talk in the early republic was Christianity. This is true of the Virginia Statute, wherein the Holy author serves as shorthand for Jesus Christ, as Tooley knows. Even in Jeffersons famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, the language is evidently limited by Christian understanding. Astute progressives too, like Justice John Paul Stevens, and even woke scholars like Khyati Joshi, understand this well, if begrudgingly.

The entire eighteenth-century socio-religious milieu was unquestionably and thoroughly Christian, and corresponding privilege was inevitable. When texts like the Northwest Ordinance (1787) or the Ohio Constitution (1803) reference religion, we know what they were up to. When the second president declared the Constitution fit only for a moral and religious people, what brand of morality and religion was he referring to? Simple: a people who profess and call themselves Christians, as his inaugural address put itdelivered the year after the Treaty of Tripoli, by the way. The same goes for Adamss 1798 address to the militia of his home state. These things must be read in their native context.

More explicitly, we should offset Tooleys Virginian supremacy by briefly surveying other states, which is always more revealing than the private correspondence of elites. Delawares 1776 constitution, for example, required public officials to profess faith in the Trinity and affirm divine inspiration of scripture, as did North Carolina. Georgia and New Hampshire limited officeholding to Protestants whilst reserving toleration for Christians generally. Pennsylvania required an affirmation of Gods existence and a future state of reward and punishment. As a class, New England states provided for public maintenance of Protestant parish ministers.

South Carolina was even more militant. First, the lower Carolinians expressed in 1776 an anxiety typical for the time: fear of Catholic encroachment on free Protestant English settlements via the Quebec Act, as Forrest McDonald noted, an admittedly conspiratorial catalyst for action, perhaps more so than the Stamp Act. Religious sectarianism was a key motivator for eighteenth-century Englishmen. Similarly, some founders, like the so-called Last Puritan Samuel Adams while defining the rights of colonists as Christians in 1772, excluded Catholics from tolerance for reasons of suspicion of insurrectionist tendencies.

And so, in 1778, South Carolina declared itself a tolerant state. Citizens acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated, the constitution read. But, as Tooley pointed out, toleration requires an establishment referent. Hence, The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. Any Protestant denomination in South Carolina would enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. Professing Protestants alone were permitted to incorporate religious bodies.

At minimum, this data hampers any clean narrative of religious liberty triumphalism. If states besides Virginia championed broad Protestant establishments and a posture of toleration toward all other sects, then Tooleys declaration to the contrary cannot be as comprehensive as he suggests. That is, it does not provide a sufficient characterization of the nation.

Sed contra, the picture painted by the history of the early republic is one of an ecumenical pan-Protestantism, the style of establishment varying from state to state, with a toleration of non-Protestant minority sects that were not demonstrably injurious to the peace, health, morals, security, and abundance of the nation. Even states without historically strong establishments, like New Jersey, typically limited civil participation to Protestants. The ubiquitous religious tests for office were informed by Reformational doctrinal standards.

To say that America, in its first decades, honored the majority Christian religion would be only half right. It more often honored a Protestant Christianity. Outliers like Maryland, famously governed by an aging colonial Catholic aristocracy, did not offer a real alternative. Knowing the state populace was primarily Protestant, Marylands framers opted for limiting religious liberty simply to the Christian religion. Only a non-denominational general tax for the faith was constitutionally acceptable. Non-Christian minorities were not considered in this regard. Among other things, these early constitutions provided the basis for Justice David Brewers contention in a 1905 lecture series that America was, indeed, a Christian nation.

In Whig historian fashion, Tooley would summarily dismiss the thoroughgoing establishments of Massachusetts or Connecticutor the iron Quaker grip on Pennsylvania, for that matterat the founding by dubbing their demise constitutionally foreordained. Of course, the U.S. Constitution did no such thing. As Justice Clarence Thomas has rightly clarified, the Establishment Clause is properly incapable of incorporation as a federalist amendment. The works of Philip Hamburger and Vincent Phillip Muoz confirm much the same. That is, the clause was intended to protect colonial customs and norms from national government intervention; otherwise no one would have ratified the thing. The process of disestablishment was long and complicated. In the former Puritan colonies, the Great Awakenings and missteps by the Federalist Party owed more to the disintegration of the Standing Order than any constitutional measures.

Tooley wonders what weight, within the American tradition, religious majorities should be given. Historically, the national conservatism statement gets it right. As I have written elsewhere, the Anglo-American common law tradition has always recognized Christianity as integral to its systemMatthew Hale declared it part and parcel with the common law in Rex v. Taylor (1676)but has also emphasized a majoritarian aspect to this analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed more than once general Christianity, or non-denominational Protestantism, as part of the common law. As a matter of social tranquility, then, public blasphemy against Christianity was outlawed, a rationale evident in cases throughout the nineteenth century such as People v. Ruggles (N.Y. 1811) and State v. Chandler (Del. 1837), among others.

To come full circle and answer Tooleys first question: what would national, governmental honor of Christianity look like? The history recounted above notwithstanding, national conservatives are asking for considerably less than a national church, much less the Handmaids Tale-style forced-conversion dystopia our opponents indulgently imagine. Rather, a recovery of those vestiges of our Christian founding only recently jettisoned would be a start. Take two examples: blasphemy laws and Sabbath laws, to say nothing of public architecture, civil rituals, and school curriculumthe expressions of cultural Christianity.

The enthusiastic enforcement of both types of laws is not foreign to America, but fell out of style, rather late in our late-stage republic. Blasphemy laws already mentioned, we may proceed to brief consideration of the Lords Day. Vermont, to take one example, codified observance of the Sabbath in 1793. Blue laws were ubiquitous in early America. Protection of Christian practice and the morals and health of the community, as one court put it in 1878, by enforced cessation of the worship of Mammon on Sunday, endured up through the twentieth century. Economic and cultural recognition of Christian living should be unobjectionable to a Christian majority, to say the least. Would such honor of what is even now the predominant faith really be too coercive, too establishmentarian for public atheists to stomach? It has not been so for most Americans in history.

Not to be overlooked is Tooleys attempt to root his aversion to coercion (state and social) in Christian anthropology. A rebuttal can be easily formed on the same basis. National conservatives cling to the pre-modern view that man is, by nature, both religious and social. Both horizontally and vertically, so to speak, he is not alone. No hypothetical radical autonomy exists, nor would it be desirable (Genesis 2:18). All coherent societies are always and everywhere centered on shared religion. It is simply a question of which operative orthodoxy is in play. It is only natural, then, that a societys underlying morality take shape not only in law but through symbols that render social being, as Henrich Rommen called it, visible.

Subscribe Today Get weekly emails in your inbox

Everything from national anthems to flags to civic buildings to memorials express a moral and spiritual content. Whatever is so honored is what constitutes the proposed moral bond, the unitas ordinis, of the community. That the visible expressions of our national bond are still basically, like our populace, Christian is evident from the sheer fact that malcontents want to demolish them. We are engaged, as ever, in a battle over the national object of moral honor. Tooley prefers a neutral approach in this regard, a publicly atheist approach. National conservatives are tired of that defensive crouch and assert a historically and anthropologically positive vision of the national moral bond according to history, metaphysics, and justice. For social justice to the Creator and only just Law Giver is due before it can be afforded to men.

The liberty of conscience cannot, in fact or theory, be violated. We cannot pretend to peer into mens souls. No one is advocating a persecution of thought crimes. But the inescapable formal and informal public preference for a particular religion in law and memorial does not amount to forced conversion. National conservatives believe that public life should be formative (not passive) of public virtue. If Christianity and the Bible do not fuel that formation something else will (and lately has).

In 1663 John Davenport, the founder of New Haven, observed that the fact of establishment seems to be a Principle imprinted in the mindes and hearts of all men in the equity of it, That such a Form of Government as best serveth to Establish their Religion, should by the consent of all be Established in the Civil State. If this was the case in England, Holland, and Turkey, why would it not be so in New England vis a vis Christianity? Further, why would a Christian people not desire it? And so it was in America generally in the antebellum period.Historically and anthropologically, it is not the national conservatives, but right-liberals who are out of step. Article 4 of the Statement of Principles should not vex a Christian patriot. It is thoroughly, historically American. John Jay, in Federalist No. 2, identified shared religion as an indispensable ingredient for a coherent nation. The national conservatives are simply following suit.

See the rest here:

Against Public Atheism - The American Conservative