Delusions of Antiquity – Splice Today

Posted on by

I dont preach peace and love.

Voltaire famously quipped, Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Religion is the ultimate absurdity, and with the noteworthy exception of the Bolshevik genocide against Russian Orthodox Christians, the most horrific atrocities in history have been committed in the name of God. Belief in an anthropomorphic creator God who takes a keen interest in the minutiae of everyday human affairs is completely irrational and clear evidence of derangement. Unable to comprehend adult human beings praying to an invisible friend for favors and protection, I took a keen interest in religion at an early age.

Raised as an American Baptist, I began my inquiry with Christianity. I found out pretty quickly that modern Christianity was at best a very distorted series of mistranslations and selective editing of the ravings of a mad Palestinian mystic attempting to overthrow the authority of the Sanhedrin Rabbinate, and at worst a pastiche of the various regional dying god myths associated with the development of agricultural society crafted to reinforce existing social hierarchies and injustice by promising that well-behaved slaves will receive pie in the sky when they die.

I next examined the staggering complexity of Hinduism. The sacred texts read more like an alternative history than a religion. The Upanishads consist of sound straightforward philosophical ideas, but the Mahabarata reads like a science fiction novel describing a war between two highly advanced civilizations. My studies of Hinduism resulted in a lifelong fascination with the missing millennia of human history and the notion that theres a lot more to our past than the simple narrative that civilization begins at Sumer. Standing on the summit of Mount Meru, one can almost glimpse the shores of Atlantis.

Of all the sacred texts I examined, the Dhammapada made the most sense. The tenets of Buddhism are less concerned with an external deity or afterlife than the basics of living a satisfactory and rewarding life. Its a very practical set of rules that boil down to Dont be an idiot. The best modern exponent of Buddhism is Alan Watts. Lately Ive listened to his lectures on YouTube, and recommend them as an antidote to the hysteria currently raging across the globe.

By comparison, the three great Semitic traditions are insanely paranoid and relentlessly genocidal. Judaism is predicated on the idea that only the Jews are fully created in the image of God, and that gentiles are mere beasts of burden, created by God to serve the Chosen, like donkeys or cattle. The Talmud is unquestionably the most viciously racist religious text Ive read yet. You wont find it at Barnes & Noble, with very good reason. Gentiles are forbidden to study it, under penalty of death by stoning. It goes a long way toward understanding why the Jews have been expelled from 109 countries. It codifies and enshrines hypocrisy and deception as social strategies.

The Koran is merely a revised version of the Bible, with an insanely expanded set of arbitrary rules and regulations and the same twisted concept of eternal punishment for disobedience to the impostor demon at the center of it, dumbed down for the kind of semi-literate peasant that needs just one book in his life. Its aimed at men who have trouble getting laid. It takes the inherent misogyny of Judaism and Pauline Christianity several steps further, relegating women to the status of cattle.

Ive studied Satanism and its variants at great length, and can say with some authority that theres nothing of value there. Its Ayn Rand in Goth drag, an empty sales pitch for selfishness and a never-ending cottage industry of occult trinkets and books.

I used to dismiss the Wicca as a clearly synthetic invention of no greater antiquity than the incandescent light bulb, but Ive come to admire them enormously. For all of their silly delusions of antiquity, the fact remains that they worship nature, and can prove that nature exists. That works.

I can tolerate Jews, Christians, and Moslems. If they cant tolerate me, thats fine. As the old saying goes, God made men, but Colt made them equal. The Semitic religions prance around preaching peace, love and killing people. I dont preach peace and love.

Originally posted here:

Delusions of Antiquity - Splice Today

Pissed Jeans Why Love Now review: ‘nihilism and cynicism’ – Evening Standard

Posted on by

Theres something endearing about a band of rust-belt punks (from Allenstown, Pennsylvania) fronted by a sometime insurance claims adjuster (name of Matt Korvette) whose stated aim is to bludgeon the listener with dull, monotonous droning rock music that just sucks the energy out of you. Like life, then!

Pissed Jeans fifth album catalogues Korvettes frustration at mainstream moeurs in the time-honoured Black Flag mode, only with a binding theme of masculine sexual despondency and a sound a bit like mud with shards of glass in it.

The opener, Waiting On My Horrible Warning, is a test of faith, but the ensuing The Bar Is Low casts an almost Houellebecqian eye on the 21st-century douchebag.

Elsewhere Korvette examines the despondent allure of the Ignorecam there are men whose peculiar fetish is to pay women to ignore them, did you know? while Im a Man, narrated by author Lindsay Hunter, is an everyday horror story of office predator (Lick that envelope Fill that stapler.)

Beneath the nihilism and cynicism and bile, one suspects Pissed Jeans are the last decent men in America.

(Sub Pop)

Read more here:

Pissed Jeans Why Love Now review: 'nihilism and cynicism' - Evening Standard

Pastor’s column: Hedonism: Self-driven life of pleasure – Gridley Herald

Posted on by

The worldview of unhindered pleasure in life is often called hedonism, a word derived from a Greek word that means pleasure or delight.

The worldview of unhindered pleasure in life is often called hedonism, a word derived from a Greek word that means pleasure or delight. Its main concern in life is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. We know from history about the orgies and drunkenness in the ancient world in Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. And we see the same thing in our culture today.

But what does the Bible say about pleasure? Hedonism can be traced all the way back to the Garden of Eden. There, Eve was tempted by the devil to eat the forbidden fruit, seeing that it was good for food and a delight to the eyes. Ironically, her pleasure led to pain in childbearing, pain in toil for Adam, and pain in husband-wife relationships.

In contrast to this godless life of pleasure that many hedonists pursue today, Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 tell us that certain pleasures in life are approved by God: Food and drink, delightful possessions and romance. But in all the writers talk of enjoying the pleasures of life, God is the center. Eating, drinking, possessions and finding enjoyment in our toil under the sun are from the hand of God (Eccl 2:24-25; 3:13; 5:19). The Bible even says, Enjoy life with the wife whom you love (Eccl 9:9).

These pleasures are Gods good gifts, so we are to give thanks to God for them (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Even work is given by God for our pleasure. Our toil is not in vain when we find enjoyment in the fruits of our honest and diligent toil because it is from the hand of God (Eccl 2:24).

Enjoy all these pleasures today, because life is very short, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun. These pleasures will one day come to an end, to which [we all are] going.

The pursuit of pleasure is not a sin in itself. But it becomes sin when it turns into hedonism, the priority in your life, apart from serving and living for God. When this happens, real pleasure becomes only temporary, fleeting pleasures. Life is so short that God-less pleasure ends in eternal death and pain. After death, there is no pleasure or joy for those who have no fear of the LORD. Instead of joy, there is only fear of a future judgment (Hebrews 10:27). Instead of gladness of heart, there is only weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So why enjoy pleasures that are godless and meaningless? Our lives become meaningful only when we know the salvation that Jesus Christ gives. We can only eat bread with joy, drink wine with a merry heart, enjoy the love of our wives, husbands and children, and find joy in our labors, when we know that these earthly pleasures do not come to an end at death.

Continued here:

Pastor's column: Hedonism: Self-driven life of pleasure - Gridley Herald

What is Hedonism wines? Mayfair vendor owned by Russian exile counts Jose Mourinho among its clientele and … – The Sun

Posted on by

Leicester City chairmanVichai Srivaddhanaprabha boasted of axing Claudio Ranieri whileon booze spending spree

JOSE MOURINHO celebrated landing the Manchester United job in the same exclusive wine shop where Claudio Ranieris future was decided.

The Sun exclusively revealed Leicester chairmanVichai Srivaddhanaprabha boasted of axing the Italian during a 500,000 spending spree.

Getty Images

Here is everything you need to know about pricey Mayfair vendor Hedonism Wines used by some of footballs richest men.

Keep up to date with ALL the football news, gossip and transfers

Sir Alex Fergusons love of fine wines saw him label Chelseas collection of plonk as like paint stripper.

So when Mourinho prepared to visit Old Trafford he tried and failed to impress the picky Scottish connoisseur.

Fortunately the Special One learned his lesson and started frequentingHedonism to avoid upsetting legendary Old Trafford chief Fergie.

Getty Images

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Getty Images

Mourinho was then spotted with a bag from the posh retailer a day before he officially became the third man to try and replace Ferguson.

Off Licence News installed the merchant as the fifth best in the country as itchallenged industry experts to make their picks in 2016.

Hedonism is owned byRussian exile and fierce Vladimir Putin critic Yevgeny Chichvarkin.

Getty Images

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Getty Images

A simple Halloween prank caused chaos in 2015 as a fake crime scene complete with blood and body line was reported as a murder.

Several Russian media outlets reported thatScotland Yard detectives were at the scene investigating, withChichvarkin hitting out at the coverage.

The outcast opened his shop which has over 5,000 bottles of plonk in 2012.

Cheaper varieties include a 2014 Rose going for just 11.60 while a rare Penfolds Block 42 Ampoule will set punters back a staggering 120,000.

See the original post here:

What is Hedonism wines? Mayfair vendor owned by Russian exile counts Jose Mourinho among its clientele and ... - The Sun

Modernism and Its Rages – City Journal

Posted on by

Age Of Anger: A History of the Present, by Pankaj Mishra (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 416 pp., $27)

ABritish writer of immense learning, Pankaj Mishra has authored a new book, Age of Anger: A History of the Present, that reflects an extraordinary breadth of reading. It opens as a conventional work of intellectual historyin this case, the history of modernization and its travailsbut soon becomes more of a collage of aperus organized around themes laid out by the path-breaking critic of modernity Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 1920s Iranian writer Jalal al-Ahmed, and the Italian poet-cum-Duce Gabriel DAnnunzio, among many others.

For instance, Mishra pits Rousseaus finicky quest for authenticity against Voltaires heirs, the mimic men who try to replicate Anglo-French manners and mores. Mishra sees Voltaire as primarily a champion of enlightened despotism, while Rousseau is presented as a clear-eyed critic of liberal rationalism and cosmopolitan pretension. Mishra is sympathetic to al-Ahmeds obsession with the psychic damage or Westoxification imposed on the Islamic world by Western colonialism. Hes fascinated by DAnnunzio, who, in the wake of World War I, choreographed a disastrous fascist future that paved the way for Mussolini. DAnnunzio was the first Italian politician who decked out his supporters in black uniforms and stiff armed salutes. He cheered on the Italian armies as they conquered the Ottoman provinces that came to be called Libya and which, Mishra notes, suffered the worlds first aerial bombing in 1912. Libya became the testing ground for the New Man theorized by Nietzsche and Sorel.

Mishras loosely connected pearls of insight about belief, mindsets and outlooks are tied together by his anti-anti-Communism, an outlook echoed by todays anti-anti-Islamicism, exemplified in the pages of the British Guardian, which paints the Muslim world as the victim of Western liberalism. Mishras disdain for the liberal ideals of progress and reasoned choice, understood as excesses of individualism, will be familiar to readers of Elie Kedourie on nationalism, Jacob Talmon on the creation of secular salvationism, Christopher Lasch and John Gray on the paradoxes of progress, and William Pfaff on the pent-up violence of the modern world. But his discussion of the Nazi origins of Hindu nationalism will be eye-opening to many readers.

Mishras intermittent account of how the writings of Giuseppe Mazzini, the liberal nationalist founder of modern Italy, inspired nationalists in India and China places the problem of modernization in an illuminating context. On a darker note, Mazzini influenced Georges Sorel, whose anti-liberal paeans to the power of myth excited would-be dictators on both right and left. Sorel saw in the working class the collective incarnation of the Nietzschean superman. Mussolini first read Sorels work on violence when he was a socialist, but he continued to incorporate his ideas as he moved to develop fascism.

Mishra is right to argue that attempts to modernize traditional cultures involve, as in Italy and Germany, considerable psychic dislocation. It can produce a burning anger fueled by the emotional displacement of communal cultures fractured by the demands of economic individualism. But Mishra goes off the rails when he tries to assimilate the acquired insanity of Islamic jihad into the pains of modernization. Modernizationas in Iranoffered an alternative to the meld of entitlements and resentments borne of Islamic claims to rule over infidels. Islam has always been a political theology of the sword. Muhammad wasnt responding to modernization when he slaughtered the Jews of Medina.

The books failing is its lack of historical context and slipshod understanding of America. Mishra insists on seeing constitutionalist America, which had little interest in Britains Benthamism, as a utilitarian nation. He sees early twentieth-century social Darwinism as an American right-wing ideology when its appeal, as the great historian of liberalism Eric Goldman documented, was almost entirely to the liberal Left. Reading Mishras repeated references to Timothy McVeigh, one might think that the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber had inspired an army of imitators comparable in size and strength to al-Qaida. Mishra writes that centuries of civil war, imperial conquest and genocide in Europe and America has been downplayed in the West, which suffers from a lack of self-criticism. Its hard to take such an assertion seriously. Can Mishra really be unaware of the epidemic of political correctness and self-hatred infecting the universities and the broadsheet press?

Mishra disdains the new nationalism as an expression of irrationalist urges, concluding, in the words of Alan Bloom, that fascism has a future. But he has nothing to say about the E.U. autocracy thats governed Europe so ineptly. He seems unaware of the close connection between liberal nationalism and the practice of democracy. Hes similarly contemptuous of Donald Trump, proclaiming his administration a disaster even before the New York real-estate dealer took office. Trump may well turn out to be a failure, but Mishra seems not to grasp the connection between Barack Obamas insistence that Islamophobia is as great a problem as terrorisma view that Mishra sharesand Trumps rise to power. Similarly, the E.U., which proclaims itself an expiation of past nationalist excesses, has unwittingly midwifed a new nationalism.

A book lacking a conventional structure, Age of Anger repeatedly circles around the subject of modernization. Mishra doesnt so much conclude as exhaust his conceptual repetitions. Nonetheless, Age of Anger is well worth reading, even if its best approached like a rich buffet that should be selectively sampled.

Fred Siegelis aCity Journalcontributing editor, Scholar in Residence at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, and the author ofThe Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class.

Read more:

Modernism and Its Rages - City Journal

The History of Censorship in the United States

Posted on by

By Tom Head

Updated February 10, 2017.

The right to free speech is a long-standing U.S. tradition, but actually respecting the right to free speech is not.

"Old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, toothless Adams," one supporter of challenger Thomas Jefferson called the incumbent president. But Adams got the last laugh, signing a bill in 1798 that made it illegal to criticize a government official without backing up one's criticisms in court. 25 people were arrested under the law, though Jefferson pardoned its victims after he defeated Adams in the 1800 election.

Later sedition acts focused primarily on punishing those who advocated civil disobedience. The Sedition Act of 1918, for example, targeted draft resisters. More

The bawdy novel Fanny Hill (1748), written by John Cleland as an exercise in what he imagined a prostitute's memoirs might sound like, was no doubt familiar to the Founding Fathers; we know that Benjamin Franklin, who himself wrote some fairly risque material, had a copy. But later generations were less latitudinarian.

The book holds the record for being banned longer than any other literary work in the United States--prohibited in 1821, and not legally published until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ban in Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966). Of course, once it was legal it lost much of its appeal; by 1966 standards, nothing written in 1748 was liable to shock anybody. More

If you're looking for a clear-cut villain in the history of U.S. censorship, you've found him.

In 1872, feminist Victoria Woodhull published an account of an affair between a celebrity evangelical minister and one of his parishioners. Comstock, who despised feminists, requested a copy of the book under a fake name, then reported Woodhull and had her arrested on obscenity charges.

He soon became head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, where he successfully campaigned for an 1873 federal obscenity law, commonly referred to as the Comstock Act, that allowed warrantless searches of the mail for "obscene" materials.

Comstock later boasted that during his career as censor, his work led to the suicides of 15 alleged "smut-peddlers." More

The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice successfully blocked the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses in 1921, citing a relatively tame masturbation scene as proof of obscenity. U.S. publication was finally permitted in 1933 following the U.S. District Court ruling United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, in which Judge John Woolsey found that the book was not obscene and essentially established artistic merit as an affirmative defense against obscenity charges. More

The Hays Code was never enforced by the government--it was voluntarily agreed upon by film distributors--but the threat of government censorship made it necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) that movies were not protected by the First Amendment, and some foreign films had been seized on obscenity charges. The film industry adopted the Code as a means of avoiding outright federal censorship.

The Code, which regulated the industry from 1930 until 1968, banned what you might expect it to ban--violence, sex, profanity--but also prohibited portrayals of interracial or same-sex relationships, as well as any content that was deemed anti-religious or anti-Christian. More

Like the Hays Code, the Comics Code Authority is a voluntary industry standard. Because comics are still primarily read by children, and because it has historically been less binding on retailers than the Hays Code was on distributors, the CCA is less dangerous than its film counterpart. This may be why it is still in use today, though most comic book publishers ignore it and no longer submit material for CCA approval.

The driving force behind the CCA was the fear that violent, dirty, or otherwise questionable comics might turn children into juvenile delinquents--the central thesis of Frederic Wertham's 1954 bestseller Seduction of the Innocent (which also argued, less credibly, that the Batman-Robin relationship might turn children gay). More

Although Senator Reed Smoot (shown left) admitted that he had not read D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928), he expressed strong opinions about the book. "It is most damnable!" he complained in a 1930 speech. "It is written by a man with a diseased mind and a soul so black that he would obscure even the darkness of hell!"

Lawrence's odd story about an adulterous affair between Constance Chatterley and her husband's servant was so offensive because, at the time, non-tragic portrayals of adultery were, for practical purposes, nonexistent--the Hays Code banned them from films, and federal censors banned them from print media.

A 1959 federal obscenity trial lifted the ban on the book, now recognized as a classic. More

The massive military study titled United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, later known as the Pentagon Papers, was supposed to be classified. But when excerpts of the document were leaked to the New York Times in 1971, which published them, all hell broke loose--with President Richard Nixon threatening to have journalists indicted for treason, and federal prosecutors attempting to block further publication. (They had reason to do so; the documents revealed that U.S. leaders had--among other things--specifically taken measures to prolong and escalate the unpopular war.)

In June 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Times could legally publish the Papers.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Warren Burger (shown left), outlined the current definition of obscenity in Miller v. California (1973), a mail-order porn case, as follows:

While the Supreme Court has held since 1897 that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, the relatively small number of obscenity prosecutions in recent years suggests otherwise. More

When George Carlin's "seven dirty words" routine was aired on a New York radio station in 1973, a father listening to the station complained to the FCC. The FCC, in turn, wrote the station a firm letter of reprimand.

The station challenged the reprimand, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's landmark FCC v. Pacifica (1978) in which the Court held that material that is "indecent," but not necessarily obscene, may be regulated by the FCC if it is distributed through publicly-owned wavelengths.

Indecency, as defined by the FCC, refers to "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." More

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 mandated a federal prison sentence of up to two years for anyone who...

The Supreme Court mercifully struck the Act down in ACLU v. Reno (1997), but the concept of the bill was revived with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, which criminalized any content deemed "harmful to minors." Courts immediately blocked COPA, which was formally struck down in 2009. More

During the live broadcast Super Bowl halftime show on February 1st, 2004, Janet Jackson's right breast was exposed (sort of) and the FCC responded to an organized campaign by enforcing indecency standards more aggressively than it ever had before. Soon every expletive uttered at an awards show, every bit of nudity (even pixellated nudity) on reality television, and every other potentially offensive act became a possible target of FCC scrutiny.

But the FCC has gotten more relaxed over the past five years, and under the Obama administration is likely to become more so still. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the original Janet Jackson "wardrobemalfunction" fine and with it the FCC's indecency standards--later in 2009. More

Original post:

The History of Censorship in the United States

Free Speech Fireworks in Florida – National Review

Posted on by

I testified yesterday before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House on the model campus free speech legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute. After my initial presentation, fireworks followed. Although my sense is that the majority of the committee is positively inclined toward legislation designed to ensure campus free speech, a few of the Democratic representatives were more skeptical. These skeptics dominated the questioning. One skeptic in particular, Orlando Democrat Carlos Guillermo Smith, pressed me repeatedly on the need to limit freedom of speech in order to combat hate speech. If you want to see an open clash on the free speech vs. hate speech controversy, this is it.

You can find video of the hearing here. My initial presentation runs about 17 minutes, from the 35:5053:27 mark of the video. The fireworks come during the 32 minute question period, particularly (but not exclusively) during the back and forth with Rep. Smith, which begins at the start of the question period (53:30) and returns again at the 1:18:16 mark.

Also note that in my response to questioning by Democratic Representative Robert Asencio (Miami-Dade), (which begins at 1:12:22), I refer to an incident in which leftist students silence a conservative student by way of the rehearsed and coordinated tactic of clapping her down. Video of this clap-down can be found here.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read more:

Free Speech Fireworks in Florida - National Review

Study Ranks Georgetown Low for Free Speech – Georgetown University The Hoya

Posted on by

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER The Georgetown University Law Centers policy against campaigning was criticized as anti-free speech.

Georgetown University was included in a list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education based on free speech cases the foundation has worked on during the previous year.

In a report released Wednesday, FIRE a nonprofit focused on defending individual liberties at educational institutions citied an incident last year at Georgetown University Law Center in which students were blocked from campaigning for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on campus.

During the September 2015 primary season, GULCs Office of Student Life rejected students request to table for Sanders outside GULCs McDonough Hall. The group instead used tables inside the McDonough cafeteria to campaign, but Oct. 13, 2015 the day of the first Democratic debate the group was asked to leave by university officials.

The university cited that because of its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization under the 501(c)(3) category of the Internal Revenue Code, it could not engage in partisan political campaign activity.

FIRE Director of Litigation Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon cited the status of the student group H*yas for Choice, which is not formally recognized by the university, as an additional reason behind Georgetowns position on the list.

Georgetown has made some efforts to improve its policies on speech and expression in recent years, but its execution has not always been great, as Im sure H*yas for Choice can attest, considering they are still not a recognized student organization, Beck-Coon wrote in an email to The Hoya. The Law Centers confusing and overly restrictive handling of student partisan political speech this election year is another example of that.

FIRE wrote an open letter to Georgetown University Law Center Dean William Treanor on Feb. 1, 2016, on behalf of Alexander Atkins (LAW 17) and other students who were tabling in support of Sanders.

Additionally, the group spoke on behalf of Atkins at a subcommittee hearing of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, entitled Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses, on March 2, 2016.

Georgetowns Office of Federal Relations wrote in a letter to the subcommittee hearing on Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses that it was changing its policies to better protect Georgetown Law students right to political expression.

The Office of Federation Relations wrote in a letter to the Chairman Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Ranking Member of the subcommittee John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Feb. 29, 2016, to further explain changes in its policies.

We are adjusting the policies to make very clear that individuals as well as groups are able to reserve tables for organized activity and that all members of our community are able to make reasonable use of University resources to express their political opinions, the letter reads.

Treanor stressed the importance of free speech at GULC in an email to The Hoya.

We share Georgetowns commitment to the fundamental right of members of our community to free expression, dialogue and academic inquiry and are aware of the concerns expressed by our students, Treanor wrote. We are currently exploring the best ways to respond to these issues.

Despite these changes in university policy, some groups still say they encounter restrictions.

2017 marks the second year Georgetown has appeared on FIREs list. Georgetown was first listed in 2014 because of a free speech incident regarding H*yas for Choice in which the group was removed from tabling in Healy Circle and was relocated outside of Georgetowns front gates.

Additionally, two condom envelopes were removed Sept. 23, 2016, from the doors of students who volunteered with H*yas for Choice on the fifth floor of Village C West.

According to a September email interview with Georgetown University Police Department Chief Jay Gruber, the envelopes were removed because GUPD had received a report of vandalism on the fifth floor of VCW and interpreted the envelopes as part of the vandalism.

Georgetown University Student Association and H*yas for Choice cited the incident as a violation of the free expression policy at Georgetown.

H*yas for Choice Co-President Brinna Ludwig (NHS 17) said she believes there has been little policy change in recent years, and free speech restrictions are still a major problem for the organization.

H*yas for Choice has encountered a number of issues related to free speech, Ludwig wrote. We are also restricted by the tabling zone policy, which limits where we are allowed to set up our table.

Georgetown College Republicans President Allie Williams (SFS 19) also highlighted the importance of expanding free speech areas on campus. Williams wrote in an email to The Hoya that because the student body tends to be more liberal, free speech issues occur particularly in regard to GUCR and the speakers the group invites to campus.

As a college campus with a student body that inevitably leans left, Georgetown has had its fair share of free speech issues and, as a conservative organization that often invites controversial speakers, we have absolutely suffered from closed dialogue at GUCR, Williams wrote. The limited areas for free speech on campus is concerning and something that the University should definitely work on going forward.

GUSA free speech policy team chair D.J. Angelini (MSB 17) wrote in an email to The Hoya that students should see the ranking as motivation to continue to fight for free speech improvements across campus.

I look at that rating not as an indication of what Georgetowns doing wrong, but rather to show that we need to constantly regard speech and expression as one of the most important pieces of campus life today, Angelini wrote. I believe Georgetowns administrators and students are committed to these ideals and I hope the rating energizes more students to get involved in promoting a culture of free speech on campus.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

See the rest here:

Study Ranks Georgetown Low for Free Speech - Georgetown University The Hoya

Canadian Conservatives Vow To Defend Free Speech – Daily Caller

Posted on by

5500509

The annual Manning Centre Conference in Ottawa Canadas answer to CPAC focused on free speech and Islamophobia Friday.

Interim Conservative Party of Canada leader Rona Ambrose began the event with a passionate pledge to continue to fight for freedom of religion and free speech. Ambrose had led the fight the previous week in the House of Commons to stop an Islamophobia motion from an Ontario Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) that could eventually criminalize criticism of Islamic extremism.

The Conservatives were the only political party to oppose Motion M-103, opting to propose their own that would not have granted special status to Islam and its adherents.

At a special session at the event, noted critic of Islamic extremism Raheel Raza, herself a Muslim, warned the audience that radical Islam is dedicated to infiltrating and destroying Western countries like Canada and the U.S. After reading from polling that revealed a majority of Muslim around the world are in favor of Sharia law replacing the secular criminal codes of the countries in which they live, Raza stated that radical Muslims have an ideology that is not in-synch with human rights.

Raza noted that she cant remember how Canada removed the Lords Prayer from schools when she was a child but now in Toronto-area schools there are Muslim prayers on Friday, that has established an ominous double-standard.

She blasted M-103 as akin to a blasphemy law and ridiculed the motions author, MP Iqra Khalid more suggesting that one million Canadian Muslims are victims of racism and bigotry.

Raza asked, Seriously?

She suggested that Canadians are being subjected to a disinformation campaign by Muslim extremists while the Canadian government continues to deny the existence of radical Jihad.

The Muslim Brotherhood, she said, has publicly stated its intention of eliminating and destroying U.S. civilization from within.

Raza was followed by Terrorism and Security Experts Network director Thomas Quiggan, who also said the Liberal Islamophobia motion was a danger to free speech and democracy. Quiggan said that the motions author should be asked, Is it Islamophobic to say that women might not enjoy being beaten, after citing Muslim literature that advocated wife-beating.

Quiggan said the Quebec City mosque shooting was a clear failure of intelligence because the targeted congregation had received threats prior to the fatal event. With that tragedy, Quiggan said, the cycle of violence has come to Canada with terrorist organizations raising money, indoctrinating agents and ultimately breeding more violence and death.

In a question and answer session, Raza contradicted one member of the audience who termed radical Islamic terror as delicate issue, saying, It is an important, not a delicate issue. It has an aura of delicacy around it because of political correctness.

Follow David on Twitter

Read the original post:

Canadian Conservatives Vow To Defend Free Speech - Daily Caller

University Free Speech Chair Slams ‘Stifling Politically Correct Left’ – Daily Caller

Posted on by

5500053

The chair of a university Free Speech Task Force bashed what he called the stifling politically correct left and is planning to create content and events pertaining to free speech.

Censoring, just banning someone on campus and saying we consider you dangerous because of your ideas, because of [sic] what you said doesnt have a lot of educational value, said Glenn Geher, Chair of the Free Speech Task Force at State University of New York (SUNY) New Paltz. This is a place where all voices can be heard, even if some of them are unpleasant.

The cancellation of SUNYs debate with Accuracy in Media (AIM) director of investigative journalism Cliff Kincaid, yet again puts the university at the center of the national discourse about free speech on college campuses.

What I find troubling, which people dont seem to be talking about that much, is what is the point of bringing people who are essentially hate mongers to a college campus? said SUNY sociology professor Anne R. Roschelle. I disagree with the idea of a university spending money on someone [sic] is a known hate monger.

The discussion was cancelled after Roschelle complained about Kincaids participation during a conversation over faculty email. The would-be debaters were paid $7,500 in total for the unexpected cancellation. The sociology professor later said that she supported the expression of different perspectives.

I have a couple of problems with [faculty resistance to speakers]; one is that makes this presumption that students arent bright enough to come up with their own opinions, said Geher, in response. If were doing a good job educating students, they should be able to listen to something like that and if there are genuine problems with their argument or if the student is concerned about what theyre saying, then they should be able to process it and argue back.

Gehers Free Speech Task Force has already hosted events on campus, one of which was a talk by Dr. Jonathan Haidt on victimhood culture, safe spaces, and political correctness.

Resources offered by SUNY New Paltzs Free Speech Task Force can be accessed here.

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Send tips torob@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Visit link:

University Free Speech Chair Slams 'Stifling Politically Correct Left' - Daily Caller

‘Free speech’ isn’t a justification for being terrible – R Street

Posted on by

Given what Ive seen lately, Im not sure most of us really understand the concept of free speech enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment is essential to the preservation of our liberty, and weve treated it with all the respect of a box of Kleenex use it when convenient and toss it.

Lets review the historical context first. English common law contained a doctrine called seditious libel that essentially prevented criticism of the state. Many of Americas founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson recognized the potential threat that kind of speech restraint posed to our young republic. In fact, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789 would test the mettle of the Bill of Rights only a few years after its adoption. In the modern context, the First Amendment preserves the right of the people to criticize government and public officials without fear of punishment.

As powerful as it is, the First Amendment is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the government may impose speech restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech. Such restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest and provide for alternative channels of communication. So, no, you dont have a constitutional right to protest in the middle of the interstate at night.

Here are some critical speech and press issues we ought to address:

The First Amendment protects our rights in wonderful ways, but theres nothing magic about the paper or ink of the Bill of Rights. Our speech, press and religious freedoms depend on us. Its time we use them more frequently to advance liberty and less often to tear each other down.

Image by Chris DeRidder and Hans VandenNieuwendijk

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/02/free_speech_isnt_a_justificati.html

Alabama Media Group

Read the rest here:

'Free speech' isn't a justification for being terrible - R Street

‘Protecting’ free speech – The Register-Guard

Posted on by

State Sen. Kim Thatcher has what she says is a plan to help protect free speech and ensure student safety on college campuses.

It involves expelling students.

Thatcher, a Keizer Republican, deserves points for originality sort of. The qualifier is needed because one suspects that Thatchers main goal is to yank Democrats chains, given that her bill has less chance of passing the Oregon Legislature than a resolution honoring President Trump.

Thatchers Senate Bill 540 would require community colleges and public universities to expel students found criminally guilty of violent rioting.

Thatcher says she is a huge supporter of the First Amendment and that this is a free speech issue.

Free speech protects us all and ensures we can exercise the critical right to share our truth., she said by way of explanation. Violence is not free speech. My bill will help protect students who are peacefully protesting from bad apples in the crowd who exploit peaceful protests to engineer violent riots.

Thatcher is not an attorney she owns a highway construction firm so her bill glides past several issues. These include the states legal definition of a riot, which requires that there are a minimum of six people acting violently.

Theres also the difficulty of convicting someone of rioting.

Portland police arrested almost 20 people after a January protest turned violent but later dropped charges against all but four of them. It is not clear if any of the four remaining people are 1) still facing charges and 2) students at state colleges or universities.

Then theres the question of whether the Legislature really wants to get into the business of writing student conduct codes for the state schools, which are unlikely to greet the prospect warmly.

Thatcher has had her fun. She and her colleagues need to settle down now to the serious business of dealing with the states massive budget deficit, figuring out how to fund health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and what to do about Oregons dismal high school graduation rate.

More Editorial articles

See the original post here:

'Protecting' free speech - The Register-Guard

Bob Dunning: Safeguarding free speech, and easy listening – Davis Enterprise

Posted on by

After issuing a warm Aggie welcome to incoming UC Davis chancellor Gary May from Georgia Tech, interim UCD chancellor Ralph Hexter delivered A message to our campus community about a completely different subject.

Hexter, who has agreed to carry on in his interim role until the new chancellor comes aboard on Aug. 1, begins with the words I have no doubt that the next few years will be ideologically charged ones for many college campuses across the country.

Certainly doesnt take a Ph.D. behind your name to agree with that statement.

As I said at our Fall Convocation, Hexter continues, I cannot recall a moment in my lifetime when the discourse of our national community was more vitriolic and polarized.

Given that I have a few years on the interim chancellor, I can state with authority that his words are correct. We are most definitely sailing in uncharted waters.

Hexter then leaves the national arena to discuss recent polarizing events on the UC Davis campus itself.

Because UC Davis is a public university, he notes, our faculty and duly registered student clubs are allowed to invite speakers with diverse perspectives to share their views and insights with the larger community. Consistent with our legal responsibilities, we do not screen these speakers based on the content of their views.

Many U.S. Supreme Court decisions have rested on that very principle. However, there are still folks out there who wish to ban anything that might hurt their feelings or rupture their eardrums.

Added Hexter, We have for many years received demands from individuals in our community to ban invited speakers whose views they found objectionable, and those demands have recently intensified. (Can you spell Yiannopoulos?)

Again, consistent with our legal responsibilities, grounded in the First Amendment to the Constitution, we do not exercise prior restraint on speech.

Thank heavens for clear thinking in the face of the recent ugliness on campus.

We understand that controversial speakers may well inspire protest, and we fully support properly conducted protests. Protesters, too, enjoy free-speech protections, but like any expression, protest is subject to time, place and manner restrictions.

Which means no reading the Bible out loud in advanced calculus, and no yelling someone stole my popcorn in a crowded theater.

Yes, all you purists, free speech does come with limits. But not many.

Unfortunately, at one event last year, protesters shouted down and for a time physically blocked the audience from observing the speaker. Recently, a student club invited a speaker with views abhorrent to many. On this occasion, protesters managed to prevent the orderly entry of ticketed audience members to the lecture hall so that the speech was cancelled before it could even begin.

A hecklers veto, as the court would call it.

I am mindful that some speakers may be extremely upsetting to members of our community, particularly those who believe they are targets of the speech. However, I am also vigilant about our obligation to uphold everyones First Amendment freedoms. This commitment includes fostering an environment that avoids censorship and allows space and time for differing points of view.

UC Davis is a community for all ideas, and our campus is committed to ensuring that all members are allowed to freely hear, express and debate different points of view. In the incidents I described above, we fell short of permitting free expression and exchange of ideas.

Indeed, it was an unnecessary, but well deserved black eye.

Our First Amendment rights are treasures provided to every member of our American community, but those rights do not include the silencing of speakers or blocking of audiences from hearing speakers. When we prevent words from being delivered or heard, we are trampling on the First Amendment. Even when a speakers message is deeply offensive to certain groups, the right to convey the message and the right to hear it are protected.

Hexter has hit on a key, but unwritten part of free speech when he talks about the right to be heard. While the Constitution does not specifically say that anyone has a right to be heard, the whole reason behind free speech goes out the window if no one can hear you.

Of course, no one can be forced to hear what you have to say, but on the flip side, no one should be allowed to prevent others from hearing you.

Hexter also is right to point out that the campus oft-mentioned Principles of Community are aspirational in nature and not grounded in Constitutional law.

Concludes Hexter, In the coming weeks, I will be creating a work group of campus representatives students, faculty and staff and key campus constituents to develop recommended practices and policies to ensure invited speakers can deliver their messages unimpeded.

Hopefully, participants will take a serious stroll through the First Amendment and study the many volumes of case law on the subject before instituting any such practices and policies.

Reach Bob Dunning at [emailprotected]. Catch Bobs Tuesday and Thursday columns at http://www.davisenterprise.com, under web update

See the rest here:

Bob Dunning: Safeguarding free speech, and easy listening - Davis Enterprise

Universities violate students’ free speech | Letters To Editor … – Greensboro News & Record

Posted on by

In your Feb. 12 editorial dismissing Lt. Gov. Dan Forests proposed Restore Campus Free Speech Act as unnecessary, you appear to be woefully uninformed on university speech codes and how they often violate students First Amendment rights.

You dont have to look far to find a concrete example. The nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has given UNC-Greensboro a red-light rating for policies that both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.

UNCGs sexual harassment policy prohibits remarks about an individuals body or appearance and sexual jokes. Under this broadly written ban, complimenting a classmates new hairdo runs afoul of the rules.

In their zeal to prevent a legitimate problem, administrators have created one by taking what appears to be a boilerplate workplace policy on harassment and improperly applying it to a college campus. Students are not employees and enjoy the full exercise of their free-speech rights.

The N&R argues that universities are perfectly able to craft their own policies with input from faculty, staff and students. Its a sad day when a newspaper advocates for censorship by committee. If the press wont stand up for First Amendment rights, who will?

More:

Universities violate students' free speech | Letters To Editor ... - Greensboro News & Record

Free speech isn’t free – The Echo News

Posted on by

Not everything that can be said should be said

ByMarshall Oppel | Contributor

Image provided by National Archives and Records Administration

Political correctness. Censorship. Being a decent human being. Violating our First Amendment rights.

The topic of political correctness is a fairly heated one. On the one hand, we have a group of people who want to tailor our language to avoid offending peopleseems reasonable. But on the other, we have people who dont want to be censored. These people cite our First Amendments freedom of speech; this also seems reasonable. There has to be a balance somewhere, right? I have conservative views; people should be able to live without someone controlling every aspect of their lives. As a result, Im against anyone telling me what I can and cannot say. Yet I recognize that not everything should be said. For example, look at recent comments made by the YouTube comedian Pewdiepie. For those unaware, in a recent video he paid a group to hold up a sign saying death to all Jews while singing and dancing. He did this as a joke and claims he didnt expect the group to actually do it, yet the event was still streamed to his channel.

Should he have paid the group to do this? Absolutely not. And yet he has the freedom of speech to do this. Should he have taken precautions so that the footage would be not shown if the group did what he paid them to do? Absolutely. Now he faces backlash from fans, YouTube and people whove never heard of him before this. He used to star on Disneys Maker Studios, but now theyve pulled his support. And while he has many vocal fans defending him, it seems hell learn a very expensive lesson from thisyou cant publicly say or do anything you want, not even as a joke.

Isnt that what freedom of speech is all about? No, absolutely not. Freedom of speech is the right that protects us from the government telling us what we can and cannot say. Other people likewise have the right to tell us we shouldnt say something; thats their freedom of speech.

As Christians, we fall between the main positions in this debate. On the one hand, freedom of speech is an important right to protect, for if we ever lose that, it would not be a far step to see censorship of preaching and evangelism. And yet we are also called to be kind and loving. I hate to use a massive clich, but the political correctness debate comes down to a heart issue. Why do we say what we say? If we are speaking out of love, which we should be, we wont use language that hurts someone else just because we can.

Many of us will leave the Taylor bubble in the next three months. As we enter the world, well undoubtedly face opinions that offend us. And thats a good thing. It means were in a country of freedom. But we shouldnt throw that freedom around and use it as an excuse to say whatever we want because we will still face consequences from those around us. You have every right to say something racist if you so choosebut your employer has every right to fire you for doing so, and your customers have every right to boycott you.

Read more from the original source:

Free speech isn't free - The Echo News

Poet Robinson Jeffers to be topic at OLLI meeting – Chico Enterprise-Record

Posted on by

Osher Lifelong Learning Institute will host a meeting, 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. March 8 at the Chico Masonic Family Center, 1110 W. East Ave. Socializing precedes the program at noon.

OLLI is Chico State Universitys learning-in-retirement program. The educational program is centered on classes developed and taught by volunteers who share their time and knowledge. There are no grades or tests.

For more, call 898-6679 or visit http://tinyurl.com/jcs4no9.

Chico >> James Karman has studied literature, religion and humanities extensively. In fact, he is a professor emeritus at Chico State University who was coordinator of the Humanities Program there.

Years ago, one poet caught his attention and his respect. Karman will discuss the life of Robinson Jeffers during the general meeting March 8 of Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, Chico States learning-in-retirement program.

Jeffers became Karmans topic for his Ph.D. dissertation at Syracuse University in the 1970s.

Robinson Jeffers was the perfect candidate for my research, he said of the poet who lived from 1887 to 1962. His poetry is deeply spiritual but had a vision of life as essentially religious. His orientation might be called pantheism: that God is in everything.

Karman has written nine books about the poet, including five published by Stanford University Press. The latest, Robinson Jeffers: Poet and Prophet, was published in August.

Jeffers did much more than write poetry, and Karman explained the prophet in the books title.

Jeffers had a wide open vision of life. He could see far into the past and future, as well as very precisely into the present moment. Profits are described that way. A profit looks at the present moment, can see distant past, how we got to where we are and see future implications of present behavior.

Karman is considered a world renowned expert on Jeffers.

In the 1920s and 30s, Jeffers was very aware of what humans are doing to themselves and to planet Earth. Specifically, he was worried about over-population and pollution, about the exploitation of resources.

He was also concerned with human cruelty, and condemned war. When World II was coming which he predicted and condemned before, during and after people reacted to him with anger. He showed in no uncertain terms what people were doing to themselves.

Karman said Jeffers was ahead of his time. He is considered one of the founders of the modern environmental movement. He was raised by parents who were highly educated and he was given an education in Europe. By the time he was a teenager, he was in complete command of French, German, English, Greek and Latin.

Advertisement

As an adult, Jeffers moved to Los Angeles. He fell in love with a married woman and after being publicly disgraced about it, they married in 1913 and moved to Carmel.

The coastal area was barely developed then. They built a stone house and lived in the wilderness, which forced him to reconsider everything he brought with him. Studies of science, literature and language, combined with the raw, wild natural world.

At the time, Jeffers was a maverick. He brought all his own wisdom to literature and languages, augmented by his research in the medical sciences.

In all his years of teaching at Chico State 1977 to 2003 Karman said he never taught a class about the poet. Never in my entire career, he said. I always taught about world religions, western literature. He is the object of my scholarship and research.

Karman also has a perspective about Jeffers. There was a time when he hit his stride. In 1932, he was on the cover of Time magazine. But once he condemned the U.S. for wartime behavior and humanity for the environment, people turned against him.

He said Jeffers is really very fascinating and timely. He is a poet for our own times. The half of the American population today who does not believe in climate change, who are trying to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, wouldnt like Jeffers. Anybody who is for peace on Earth and protecting the environment, will love Jeffers. It is a definite divide.

Last year, Karman was awarded the Robinson Jeffers Associations Lawrence Clark Powell Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Carmel. Last year he also won the Oscar Lewis Award for Western History. Karman and Stanford University Press were honored last year at the 85th annual California Book Awards for Karmans book, The Collected Letters of Robinson Jeffers.

Contact reporter Mary Nugent at 896-7764.

The rest is here:

Poet Robinson Jeffers to be topic at OLLI meeting - Chico Enterprise-Record

Pope Francis Slams Hypocrite Christians, Suggests Atheists Are Better – Huffington Post

Posted on by

Pope Francis is lashing out at Catholics who live what he called a double life by not practicing Christian values. He even suggested that atheists might be better than members of the faithful who dont practice the tenets of their faith.

According to a transcript posted online by Vatican Radio, the pontiff called it a scandalduring his morning mass on Thursday:

Scandal is saying one thing and doing another; it is a double life, a double life. A totally double life: I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this association and that one; but my life is not Christian, I dont pay my workers a just wage, I exploit people, I am dirty in my business, I launder money A double life.

The pontiff said many Christians were living this double life.

How many times have we heard all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere but to be a Catholic like that, its better to be an atheist, he said.

He gave an example of a Christian boss taking a vacation as his workers went unpaid -- and issued a stern warning about where that will lead.

You will arrive in heaven and you will knock at the gate: Here I am, Lord! But dont you remember? I went to Church, I was close to you, I belong to this association, I did this Dont you remember all the offerings I made? Yes, I remember. The offerings, I remember them: All dirty. All stolen from the poor. I dont know you. That will be Jesus response to these scandalous people who live a double life.

He then called on Catholics to examine themselves.

Francis has addressed atheism in the past, and in 2013 he seemed to suggest they may have a path toward Christian salvation.

A church official later clarified that those who reject Christ cannot be saved, but added that therejection of Christianity may not mean the rejection of Christ.

We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity... is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God,Rev. Thomas Rosica wrote at the time.

Visit link:

Pope Francis Slams Hypocrite Christians, Suggests Atheists Are Better - Huffington Post

The belief in atheism – Daily News & Analysis

Posted on by

Atheism or the absence of belief in deities has seen resurgence in recent times. It is most common is Western and Northern Europe where according to the 2010 Eurostat Eurobarometer Poll, only 51% of Europeans believed there was a God, while another 26% believed there was some sort of spirit or life force. 20% respondents claimed they neither believed in God or other spirits and forces. Individual countries had more extreme results with 40% of French citizens and 37% of Czech Republic residents claiming to be atheists or religiously unaffiliated.

Atheism and disaffection with organised religion is also evidenced in India these days where some people are renouncing organised religion and self- identifying either as outright atheists or non-religious. In fact, as per the 2012 WIN-Gallup Global Index of Religion and Atheism, 81% of Indians were religious, 13% were not religious and 3% were convinced atheists while the remaining 3% were unsure how to respond.

Bangalore based author and educator Ketan Vaidya has been an atheist for over 20 years. I realized religion evolved in the early civilizations of hunter-gatherers as a shield against fear of natural vagaries and bigger beasts.

Later Abrahamic religions fostered a sense of brotherhood and belonging. But I started feeling disconnected from organized religion around the time I was in 12th standard. Vaidya belongs to the very traditional Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu community and it was very difficult for his family to accept his new life as a 'non-believer'. However, with the passage of time they got used to it. Its probably because my atheism is not the vitriolic kind. I dont judge or shame others for believing. Infact, when my children are old enough, I will introduce them to atheist thinking and let them decide for themselves, says Vaidya.

Mumbai based writer Fairy Dharawat who is also an atheist, concurs, I think atheism gets a bad rap due to some very aggressive atheists who try to drown out the arguments of believers. I believe in a live and let live approach. Infact, I sometimes participate in small rituals and ceremonies to keep peace in the family. Fairy moved away from religion because she was disturbed by the bloodshed caused in the name of God. She also finds several religious practices rather inexplicable. Why should I fast? Why would God want me to go hungry? If there is a God, shouldnt he be more concerned about solving bigger problems like global warming, hunger and poverty, she wonders.

Psychologist Deepak Kashya explains, A lot of educated Indians are beginning to see through the tactics of so called Godmen who use religion to control peoples lifestyles. This ability to identify religious hypocrisy makes people question their own belief systems. Freedom of thought and expression is important to modern educated Indians and often this manifests in their departure from ritualism and religious practices that they dont find relevant anymore, says Kashyap.

But there are many other Indians who havent completely disconnected from religion and yet understand why atheism is becoming popular. There are so many wars being fought in the name of religion. While there are terror groups and religious extremists killing and beheading people in the name of religion, closer home in India, we have seen political parties use religion as a trump card during elections to cultivate and sustain their vote banks.

Its no wonder people start feeling disconnected. Young people today dont want to be associated with something that is the reason for so much misery, explains 28 year old film exhibitor and distributor Akshaye Rathi. However, Rathi is a believer and feels that if religion inspires people to become the best version of themselves, perhaps it still has relevance in the world. Im not overtly religious. I just have a small shrine in my house. Every morning I stand in front of it and express gratitude to my maker for giving me such a blessed and privileged life, he says.

Meanwhile, as per the Pew Research foundations Global Study 2012 spanning 230 countries, 16% of the world population is not affiliated with any religion. This was corroborated to an extent by the findings of the subsequent Gallup International poll of 2015 that covered 65 countries where 11% of respondents were convinced atheists.

Read this article:

The belief in atheism - Daily News & Analysis

PM Modi unveils 112-foot tall bust of Lord Shiva in Coimbatore – Zee News

Posted on by

Coimbatore: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday unveiled a 112-foottall statue of Lord Shiva here on the occasion of Maha Shivaratri.

The bust of Lord Shiva has been installed at the premises of Isha Foundation and dedicated to its founder Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

Addressing the gathering, PM Modi said, 'Maha Shivratri' symbolises a union of divinity with a purpose of overcoming darkness and injustice.

He also said, India has given the gift of Yoga to the world and bypractisingYoga, a spirit of oneness is created.

Also Read:PM Narendra Modi's gift on Maha Shivaratari: A 112-foot face of Lord Shiva - Read details

"Today whole world wants peace, not only from wars and conflicts but peace from stress, and for that we have Yoga.

"Rejecting an idea just because its ancient, can be potentially harmful," Modisaid.

A tight security was put in place for the PM's visit which coincided with a planned protests by tribal groups and political parties.

They alleged that the idol has been built on encroached land. The Left parties had asked the PM to keep away from the venue.

"This iconic face symbolises liberation, representing the 112 ways in which one can attain the ultimate through the science of yoga," the Foundation had earlier said in a statement.

PM Modi, who inaugurated the statue at 6.30 pm, also lit a sacred fire to mark the start of 'Maha Yoga Yagna' across the world when one million people would take theoath to teach yoga to others.

"For the first time in the history of humanity, Adiyogi introduced the idea that the simple laws of nature are not permanent restrictions.

If one is willing to strive, one can go beyond all limitations and attain liberation, moving humanity from assumed stagnation to conscious evolution," Sadhguru Vasudev had said.

Continue reading here:

PM Modi unveils 112-foot tall bust of Lord Shiva in Coimbatore - Zee News

NATO develops telemedicine system to save lives in emergencies – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

NATO has developed a multinational telemedicine system, enabling medical specialists to provide real-time recommendations to first responders at emergency scenes or in combat zones. On Friday (24 February 2017), a high-level conference at NATO headquarters marked the completion of this project, supported by the NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme.

The telemedicine system can be used both by the military and civilian paramedics. In the event of a disaster, telemedicine helps eliminate distance barriers and improves access to medical services that would often not be available on the ground, even in remote areas, explained Ambassador Sorin Ducaru, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges.

Thanks to telemedicine, medical specialists, located in different parts of the world, are ableto assess patients, diagnose them and provide real-time recommendations. Portable medical kits allow first responders at the scene to connect to the system, receiving expert advice from medical specialists. This allows the right aid and care to reach those who need it most quickly, with the potential to save many lives in disasters.

Launched in 2013, the project was led by scientists and experts from NATO Allies Romania and the United States and partner countries Finland, Moldova and Ukraine. Allies and partners provided advanced equipment, such as kits for connectivity and solar panels, as well as training for experts. NATOs Communications and Information Agency (NCIA) provided expertise on communications technologies.

See the original post here:

NATO develops telemedicine system to save lives in emergencies - NATO HQ (press release)