Daily Archives: May 6, 2017

MN town set up ‘free speech’ vets tribute area and got a satanic monument – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Posted: May 6, 2017 at 3:25 am

BELLE PLAINE, Minn. A veterans memorial park in Belle Plaine will soon include a satanic monument among its tributes, as an unintended consequence of a free-speech debate.

The city of Belle Plaine, about 45 miles southwest of the Twin Cities, is allowing the monument in its Veterans Memorial Park after the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to sue over another statue that features a soldier praying over a grave marked with a cross. The cross was removed once the issue was raised, but more than 100 residents rallied to put it back.

City Administrator Mike Votca said the city knew it had to include everyone, so it created a free speech area for all as long as the tributes honor veterans.

The memorial from the Satanic Temple in Salem, Mass., features a black cube with inverted pentagrams, a soldiers helmet and a plaque honoring veterans who died in battle.

Doug Mesner is founder of the Satanic Temple and its nonprofit group Reason Alliance. He said the group doesnt worship Satan, but is a nontheistic religious group.

Its certainly better to preserve the First Amendment than to preserve your notions of religious supremacy on public grounds. Thats certainly not what America was founded on and certainly not what our soldiers fought for, he said.

Some residents of this town of about 6,700 felt the citys initial decision to remove the cross was an insult to veterans who sacrificed their lives, and they accused groups like the Satanic Temple of preying on small towns. For nearly a month, protesters occupied the park daily and put their own handmade crosses in the ground.

The residents feel a sense of duty, Andy Parrish, a Belle Plaine resident who led the effort to restore the cross, said at a city council meeting. Our veterans defended us and its our duty to defend them.

While some residents arent fans of the satanic memorial, Parrish said everyone understood something like that was a possibility.

Its more annoying than it is offensive, he said.

See the article here:
MN town set up 'free speech' vets tribute area and got a satanic monument - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on MN town set up ‘free speech’ vets tribute area and got a satanic monument – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

What If College Students Have the Same Views on Free Speech As Everyone Else? – New York Magazine

Posted: at 3:25 am

Ad will collapse in seconds CLOSE / campus culture wars May 5, 2017 05/05/2017 3:23 pm By Jesse Singal Share Photo: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

College students, you may have heard, are increasingly opposed to free speech. Especially liberal ones they just cant handle views they disagree with, especially conservative ones. Except: It might be more complicated than that. Thats the takeaway of a new survey of Yale University students who made national headlines for an uproar over a Halloween-costume email back in 2015 summed up by James Freeman in The Wall Street Journal.

The survey was commissioned by the William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale, and there were 872 respondents. Freeman, who is on the board of that organization, notes that 72 percent of respondents were opposed to the idea of Yale having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. And when presented with an either-or question about controversial views, 84% opted for intellectual diversity and just 5% favored muzzling people with controversial views.

Freeman cites this as both good news, from his point of view, and as a novel finding: The first sentence of his column is At last, theres hopeful news on intellectual liberty from a college campus. But this isnt entirely new, even for Yale. Last year, in the course of debunking some claims about how ostensibly anti-free-speech college students are, I highlighted a previous iteration of that same survey of Yale students which found that they generally reported being staunchly supportive of free-speech rights, at least when the question was asked in certain ways (the slide deck I reference doesnt appear to be available online anymore, unfortunately):

Now, surveys are complicated and susceptible to rather wild swings based on question wording, so it would be wrong to cherry-pick any limited set of findings and then make sweeping generalizations about college students these days. Plus, there were some items on the survey where students werent quite so free-speech-friendly. And it goes without saying that what happens at Yale might not be applicable to the rest of the college population.

But whats striking is, zooming out a little, just how little empirical evidence there is to suggest college students differ in big ways from the broader population when it comes to their support for free speech, despite how often we hear confident assertions that campuses are free-speech no-go zones. People clearly think there is a big difference and will sometimes point to survey evidence to support this view, the best recent-ish example being a Pew survey from a year and a half ago finding that 40 percent of students favored government bans on certain forms of offensive speech. I initially covered that finding as though it were alarming, but when I looked around at other past surveys of Americans views on free speech, it was clear that the 40 percent number wasnt an outlier. In other words, as I wrote in a subsequent mea culpa:

Part of whats going on here could come down to preference intensity and opportunity. By which I mean that college students who are in favor of expanding restrictions on free speech might feel relatively more strongly about it than do their pro-free-speech peers, and they have highly visible opportunities to express those views by attempting to no-platform speakers they dont like, or responding assertively to instances of perceived administrator insensitivity. Whenever they do so, of course or whenever they engage in any other act that can be portrayed as yet another instance of out-of-control college activists it gets blown up to the status of a national news story. Twenty years ago, no one would have heard of a small group of Oberlin students protesting about the cultural appropriation of Banh Mi going on at a dining hall there, or about any of the dozen other similar blowups that seem to occur on a monthly basis.

Furthermore, its very hard for stories that buck the trend stories about how most college students arent sent into conniptions by appropriated Banh Mi to get much traction because of the whole dog-bites-man thing: No one wants to write about college students who are acting like everyday American adults with fairly standard views on free speech. So while the phrase silent majority has some unfortunate political baggage affixed to it, it might accurately capture whats going on here. There may not have been much real, substantive movement in the anti-free-speech direction on campus a lot of kids dont see the need to ban or no-platform offensive speakers, but they arent in the streets about it, and may simply not want to bother stating their own views during those instances in which things get out of hand. Because theyre quiet, they dont get much coverage, skewing everyones view of college students as a group.

In Trumps America, Being Sexually Assaulted Could Make Your Health Insurance More Expensive

Why Is Stan Lees Legacy in Question?

Museum Donors Are Pissed Celebs Were Smoking in the Met Gala Bathrooms

This Is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like

Trumpcare Destroys Any Notion That American Conservatism Gives a Damn

Republican Blurts Out That Sick People Dont Deserve Affordable Care

Star Wars Superfan Adam Scott Quivers With Panic and Joy After Being Surprised by Mark Hamill

Exclusive! Sebastian Gorka Leaves a Note for His McDonalds Server

Whats New on Netflix: May 2017

One Personality Trait Predicts Domestic Nudity

Most Popular Video On Daily Intelligencer

In the new issue of its magazine, the terror group implores would-be jihadists to take advantage of Americas lax gun laws.

In rough justice for GOP candidate and voting-rights pariah Karen Handel, a judge has extended registration for her runoff contest with Jon Ossoff.

Oh gosh I dont think any individual has read the whole bill.

The Senate Intelligence Committee finally appears to be getting to work.

In 2018 Democrats can take advantage of millennial antipathy toward Donald Trump. But first they must address millennial antipathy toward voting.

Heres why House moderates voted for a more unpopular, right-wing version of a bill that was too unpopular and right-wing for them just weeks ago.

White House: The president didnt mean he loves socialized medicine. Trump: Yes, I really meant it.

Who needs the truth?

A new survey highlights the lack of good empirical evidence to suggest that college students are the free-speech enemies many suppose them to be.

Thats Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D.

While House passage of Trumpcare was essential for GOP plans, Senate concerns and procedures will make the next stage of the debate very different.

The position is not political and firings are extremely rare.

Murders are down about 13 percent compared to this time last year.

Whatever else it means, passage of Trumpcare spells trouble for the House Republicans especially Californians in tough districts who voted for it.

Despite the big bump in hiring, wages remained stagnant.

The presidents Twitter engagement has been on a steady decline since the inauguration.

North Korea accuses America of a lot of things. But this allegation is unusually detailed.

A callous abandonment of the American people.

Albany is considering a bill that would publish the state returns of certain elected officials.

He tells the public one story, while his staff tells the judge another.

Visit link:
What If College Students Have the Same Views on Free Speech As Everyone Else? - New York Magazine

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on What If College Students Have the Same Views on Free Speech As Everyone Else? – New York Magazine

The lies we were told about who would silence free speech – DesMoinesRegister.com

Posted: at 3:25 am

John Kass, Tribune Content Agency 11:44 a.m. CT May 5, 2017

Tensions were high after both President Trump supporters and critics showed up. Veuer's Emily Drooby (@emilydrooby) has the story. Buzz60

Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass(Photo: Bill Hogan)

The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right.

Conservatives would take away our right to speak our minds, and use the power of government to silence dissent. The right would intimidate our teachers and professors, and coerce the young.

And then, with the universities in thrall, with control of the apparatus of the state (and the education bureaucracy), the right would have dominion over a once-free people.

Some of us were taught this in school. Others, who couldn't be bothered to read books, were fed a cartoon version of the diabolical conservative in endless movies and TV shows. The most entertaining of these were science fiction, sometimes with vague references to men in brown shirts and black boots goose-stepping in some future time.

Women would become handmaids, subjugated and turned into breeders. And men would be broken as well. The more lurid fantasies offered armies of Luddites in hooded robes, hunting down subversives for the greater good.

But the lie is obvious now, isn't it?

Because it is not conservatives who coerced today's young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.

The left did all that.

It's there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.

They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.

Some wear masks to cover their faces, or hide bike locks in scarves and swing them at the heads of any who disagree. They're all about intimidation. And intimidation on a national scale, so angry and violent, is a fascist thing of the left.

Many liberals journalists, senators, television comedians and others are properly appalled at what their political children, born of the hard left, have done. Many liberals have warned about this, and so many must wince as the fruits of their labor turn bitter in their mouths.

But they are also complicit, because they've taken advantage of the anger and energy of this hard-left fascism to leverage their own politics. And Democratic operatives still hope to use this emotional frenzy and muscle for political gain in the next elections.

What is the cost for all this?

Free speech, without which there is no republic.

American universities were once thought to be the last great refuge of ideas, where ideas could flourish and be challenged and debated. But today, the university is the place where liberty and ideas go to die.

The American university is where intellectuals with dissenting views are silenced even physically assaulted by mobs. And administrators sit by and watch, afraid to anger those mobs.

What has been the general liberal response to Americans who insist on speaking after being threatened?

Annoyance. The response sounds like this: Hush. Go away. Come back later when it's quiet. Why cause trouble? Shhh.

Right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter has been silenced at Berkeley, where the free speech movement was born. And other intellectuals, including Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald, have been silenced at other colleges, attacked by mobs.

If the left agrees with your views, you may speak. If the left doesn't agree, they will shut you down. This is America now.

Some liberals also have seen their careers ruined by mob rule. Those two professors at Yale, a husband and wife, come to mind. She told Yale students not to worry if some other student wore a sombrero as a Halloween costume, that there were more important things to worry about than political correctness and a student wearing a sombrero.

But a Yale student, a woman, a minority, screamed in response, weeping in hideous self-indulgent theatrics captured on video. And all of this caught fire on the internet and sparked the virtual mob on social media. The professors, the husband and wife, with decent records and obvious care for the intellectual development of their students, were shamed out of Yale.

And all educators across the country took note.

University administrators have made a show of wringing their hands. But they're hypocrites. They're part of this. They are of the same cloth. They allowed this seed to bloom. They watered it, by giving in to the young who demanded a safe space from intellectual challenge.

Safe spaces are not about learning or critical thinking. Safe spaces belong to education camps, where future bureaucrats are trained in the Orwellian shaping of language and the culling of threatening ideas.

The universities molded the federal education bureaucracy, which turned out teachers that shaped the minds of American children. And some of those children are in college now.

Surveys suggest that many young Americans think the First Amendment should be amended so as to not allow offensive speech. So the students have learned their lessons well.

All speech challenging the status quo is offensive to the establishment. And free speech is what American liberty is about.

Unless, of course, you're of the hard left, and can hunt free speech at American universities and crush it.

That's not fiction. That's not fantasy. And it is not a lie. It's happening now, in the United States.

JOHN KASS is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Twitter: @john_kass

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2p4SARs

Go here to read the rest:
The lies we were told about who would silence free speech - DesMoinesRegister.com

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on The lies we were told about who would silence free speech – DesMoinesRegister.com

A Freedom Of Speech Argument Over Instagram Likes – Vocativ

Posted: at 3:24 am

Four high school students who were disciplined over their interaction with racist Instagram images have filed a federal lawsuit, accusing the school of violating their right to freedom of speech for punishing them with suspensions and shame parades.

The students, who are juniors at Albany High School in Albany, California, were suspended from school inMarch after they were caught interacting withracist Instagram images of their classmates.According to the Mercury News, the images were of the schools girls basketball team nearly all of whom are people of color with nooses drawn on their necks or comparisons made to photos of apes. Another student, who was not named in the court documents and is facing expulsion, posted them on his private Instagram account. In total, more than a dozen students were disciplined for the Instagram posts according to a local news station. Now, four of them are suing the school district for allegedly violating their First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

The complaint says that the students simply liked the images or commented on them. The lawsuit doesnt go into much detail on what the comments were, describing them as a sarcastic remark and responsive to comments previously made on two images. The complaint statesthat the Instagram activity happened through their personal accounts, which are not related to the school, and took placehappened off-campus.

When administrators found out about the images in March, theypromptly suspended the students who interacted with them. One plaintiff, who also posted a picture to his Snapchat account, according to the complaint, was later recommended for expulsion, and has not returned to the school. Although theother three students were allowed to come back, the lawsuit claims the three students were forced to march through the school while other students yelled at them as an atonement measure. They then were coerced to attend a restorative justice session that ended in violence, according to the complaint.

Much of the argument in the lawsuithinges on whether thestudents can be disciplined by their school for actions that took place off-campus. Generally, this is difficult to prove unlessthe school can prove that a students off-campus actions caused a substantial disruption to learning environment. But this could be more difficult to prove, especially sincetheInstagram account was private and wasnt discovered by the administration until months after the images were posted.

Parents of some of the students who were targeted by the images, however, disagree. Quoted in various media reports, parents said that the suspended students bullied the students whose photos were posted on Instagram, and that freedom of speech should not extend to what they called hate crimes. There is a California law allowing public schools to discipline students for cyberbullying, even when it takes place off-campus. For the law to be enforced, the school district would still have to prove that interacting with a photo not posting the photo itself fits its definition of cyberbullying.

The students are asking for damages, the ability to make up the work missed when they were suspended and that the suspensions are removed from their permanent records.

Original post:
A Freedom Of Speech Argument Over Instagram Likes - Vocativ

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on A Freedom Of Speech Argument Over Instagram Likes – Vocativ

Network Ad Refusal: Trump Has No Clue How Free Speech Works – Peacock Panache

Posted: at 3:24 am

In astatement released by the Trump 2020 campaign this afternoon, Donald Trump argued that media outlets ongoing refusal to accept his First 100 Days self-congratulatory adinfringes on his First Amendment free speech rights. In reality, privately-owned media companies are under no legal obligation to accept political advertisements.Moreover, the First Amendments free speech provisions apply only to government censorship of speech.

In the press release, Trumps 2020 campaignstated:

Setting a chilling precedent against free speech rights, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has just learned that now, all of the mainstream media television networks have decided to block the paid placement of a campaign ad that celebrates the achievements of President Trump in his first 100 days in office. The ad was first released on Monday, May 1. Since then, one by one, the mainstream TV networks have blocked the ad from running, including CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Lara Trump, the wife of Eric Trump and daughter-in-law of President Trump, who serves as a consultant to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. said: Apparently, the mainstream media are champions of the First Amendment only when it serves their own political views. Faced with an ad that doesnt fit their biased narrative, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have now all chosen to block our ad. This is an unprecedented act of censorship in America that should concern every freedom-loving citizen.

On Thursday night, Lara Trump, defended the ad on Fox News Channels Hannity, stating, Its a great ad and it highlights all the wonderful things that have happenedIts really disappointingthis is supposed to be a free society. We have freedom of speech. The fact that this ad is not being shown on CNN, on NBC, on CBS, on news networks who have a duty to report to the public the factsis really, really ridiculous to me. Its really sad.

The statement contains a few glaring errors.

For starters, accepting paid political advertising is not the same thing as a duty to report to the public the facts. In fact,researching, checking and reporting on facts is the reason the advertisement was rejected by every major network.

Moreover, Trump doesnt seem to have an understanding of broadcast regulations and what qualifies as censorship. The Washington Post touched on this noting:

In this case, the free-speech argument is not a winning one. TV stations even over-the-air broadcasters, which are subject to tighter regulation by the Federal Communications Commission than their cable counterparts do not have to allow the president to buy airtime for his ad.

Hereis the relevant FCCrule:

No station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate.

Remember: Were talking about candidates for president in 2020. Trump doesnt have opponents yet not any serious ones, anyway, and certainly none buying ad time.

If, for example, Martin OMalley were already in the race and if ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates had been airing his commercials, those stations would have no choice but to show Trumps, too. And they would haveno power of censorship.

But the networks, which are not licensed by the FCC, do not have to show Trumps ad, and their affiliates can turn down Trump, so long as they have not said yes to any other 2020 presidential candidate.

Basing their refusal to air the ad in law and logic, every major media network has thus far refused to accept Trumps newest political ad for the 2020 elections.

CNN was the first network to reject Trumps ad. In a public statement accompanying the refusal, they explained,CNN requested that the advertiser remove the false graphic that says the mainstream media is fake news,. The mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false. Per our policy, it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted. Those are the facts.

After CNNs statement,Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner released a statement condemning the action saying, It is absolutely shameful to see the media blocking the positive message that President Trump is trying to share with the country.

This is censorship pure and simple, Glassner added. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view. President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

Subsequent to CNNsrefusal earlier this week, three other networks rejected Trumps ad.

Consistent with our policies, we have agreed to accept the ad if the inaccurate graphic which refers to journalists as fake news is corrected, said NBC commenting on their public refusal toaccept the campaigns political advertisement.

ABC and CBS have not yet madeany public statements.

At the heart of the matter other than thelegal fact that no network is currently required to accept Trumps ad and that refusing to air a political candidates ad does notconstitute an abridgment of free speech lies the ad itself.

The crux of every networks refusal to accept the Trump campaigns advertisement is Trumps ongoing mischaracterization of what constitutes fake news. While the phrasefake newsrefers to the spreading of false information and hoaxes with the intention to mislead its audience, Trump uses the term to refer to perceived bias and/or critical coverage of his campaign and administration in mainstream media reporting.

Thelatter is not fake news, and labeling it as such is inappropriate.

In Trumps campaign ad, photos ofNBCs Andrea Mitchell, CNNs Wolf Blitzer, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, ABCs George Stephanopoulos, and CBSs Scott Pelley have the phrase fake news superimposed over their faces in bold red capitalized letters.

The arrogance and ignoranceinherent in the Trump 2020 campaign and Trump administration responses to the ad refusal demonstrate yet againeverything Trump does is not normal.

As SlatesWill Oremus succinctly put it, Trump is now calling CNN fake news on the grounds that CNN declined to air pro-Trump propaganda calling CNN fake news. Say what you will about his politics, you have to hand it to the president: Hes making tautologies great again.

Like Loading...

See original here:
Network Ad Refusal: Trump Has No Clue How Free Speech Works - Peacock Panache

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Network Ad Refusal: Trump Has No Clue How Free Speech Works – Peacock Panache

Opposed to Catholicism – Church Militant

Posted: at 3:24 am

TRANSCRIPT

"All religions are of equal value and viable paths to God and Heaven." This is the main attitude that has been adopted by way too many clerics in the Catholic Church these days if even indirectly. They refuse to talk about the superiority, the uniqueness, the special place that Catholicism occupies in relation to all other religions.

All other religions, no matter how well-intended their adherents may be, are false because they are man made. And what we are talking about here are the beliefs, not the individual human beings who hold these beliefs. All people, no matter how mistaken or deluded, are deserving of respect owing to their human dignity. Their beliefs, however, are not deserving of respect. The beliefs are wrong.

A simple analogy might help. If a teacher asks the class what is 7 x 7, and she gets answers that are wrong, those incorrect answers cannot be respected. They are wrong and need to be called wrong. That doesn't mean the teacher should insult the student but the student needs to be shown that the answer is incorrect. That's the whole point of being taught in the first place to arrive at truth. There's also the matter of justice for the student who correctly answers the question. Those who arrive at truth need to be applauded and rewarded for it.

We are all equal in our dignity. We are not equal in our apprehension of the truth. And people who are wrong should not be given the impression that their understandings are correct when they are, in fact, incorrect. To place error alongside truth is wrong on two counts; it rewards error and diminishes truth.

But in the monstrosity of a building, passing itself off as a cathedral in the archdiocese of Los Angeles, this is exactly whats going on. There are a number of alcoves on the sides of the interior where art is exhibited from students at various Catholic schools in the Los Angeles archdiocese. On the walls of the alcoves, you will find paintings done by students from some of the most distinguished Catholic high schools in the archdiocese. Each work also had a placard with a one or two sentence description of their work. And they are loaded with heresy.

Before we show you some of the works, we want everyone to know, we are not going to show the names of the students who painted the images because that would be unfair. We also offer no opinion on the quality of work. Thats not the point of this Vortex. The students are only representing what theyve been taught after all those years of Catholic "education." The teachers and clergy who have corrupted and malformed their young minds and the senior clergy, which have let this happen will have a lot to answer for when they die.

So now to the images and the students own descriptions of their work. First, we have a piece entitled Drawn to the Light where the Catholic student promotes the idea of Eastern mysticism by saying there is a balance between light and dark. The Yin and the Yang notion completely opposed to Catholicism.

Next, the Wings of Hope, and the hope expressed by the student is the hope of the coming together of all religions. Might as well have a coexist bumper sticker plastered along beside it. Thats indifferentism opposed to Catholicism.

This one is called Pantheism and the student description says that God made man and the rest of creation in His Own image. Pantheism certainly and opposed to Catholicism.

This work is entitled Heaven Only Knows and insists that humans are created from star matter and connected to space. A kind of New Age spirituality. Again opposed to Catholicism.

Of course no display of heretical work would be complete without an ode to homosexuality, and here it is Ode to Orlando where the description says, in effect, everyone is equal and God loves everyone no matter what. What it leaves out is that our moral choices can cut us off from God. God love us, yes. But not all love Him back.

This one called Flamingo the student description says that man and nature complete each other. No, grace completes man, not nature. Opposed to Catholicism.

This one entitled My Spiritual Mandala promotes the Eastern notion that everything is related to everything else and destined to be united in the end. Opposed to Catholicism.

And what heresy parade would be complete without opening the door for false religions like Islam. Which is exactly what this work does. It is a direct quote from the Quran opposed to Catholicism. And again, the students who produced these works are only artistically representing what they've learned from their Catholic high schools all across Los Angeles.

Why are these paintings up on the walls in the cathedral, celebrated and presented for all to see and marvel over their depth and profound insights? Any faithful Catholic should be deeply disturbed by this. There are so many things wrong here, its hard to begin to even number all of them.

Why does the archdiocese permit or perhaps even encourage this? Who is checking the schools to ensure that pantheism, eastern mysticism, new age, homosexuality, false religions are not being taught?Judging from these works no one.

And yet, the bishops of America will be gathering in Orlando over the fourth of July weekend with Catholic "leaders" from around the country to figure out whats wrong and how to get Catholics back in the Church. Seriously? You have to have a four-day session to figure that out.

How about stop teaching heresy in the schools and plastering up blasphemous paintings inside the cathedrals? Why these bishops are not terrified of going to Hell is the greatest mystery on earth. They have corrupted the little ones for nearly four generations now. If the so-called Catholic leaders who have been privately invited dont stand up and oppose this sort of thing then they too will be held accountable for not declaring the truth.

This is evil. Period. And how dare the clergy allow this to happen.

Go here to read the rest:
Opposed to Catholicism - Church Militant

Posted in Pantheism | Comments Off on Opposed to Catholicism – Church Militant

Atheism UK – Challenging Religious Faith

Posted: at 3:23 am

Featuring UK events etc announced by members & supporters of Atheism UK.

Chris Street (President) invites paid-up members of Atheism UK to join us in Central London at 1.30pm for our quarterly Council meeting. Contact: president@atheismuk.com for an invite.

Continue reading Whats On?

Update 9th April 2017: The on camera interview with Ahlulbayt TV lasted 90 minutes. I spoke about many of the points raised by the twenty supporters/members of Atheism UK who emailed me or left comments on this post. Thanks all, for your comments. If any ex-Muslimswould like to give their views about the failures of organised religion, let me know and Ill put you in contact withAhlulbayt.The documentary will be aired on Sky 831 channel during Ramadan (27th May 25th June 2017) Ill add the precise date when known.

**********

Atheism UK will be interviewed by the Islamic channel Ahlulbayt TV (Sky 831 channel) this Wednesday morning (22nd March 2017).

Id be interested in any comments (today or tomorrow, 20-21st March) from Atheism UK members and supporters about What are the failures of organised religion?

Continue reading Atheism UK to appear in Islamic documentary. What are the failures of organised religion?

Norman Bacrac (1) has been a member of the Council of Atheism UK since 2011 and is a former editor of the Ethical Record (2).

This edited article, first published in the Ethical Record (3), refutes the first of William Lane Craigs eight reasons for God. In further articles, published at Atheism UK during 2017, Bacrac will refute Craigs seven other reasons for God.

In the Philosophy Nowmagazine, William Lane Craig (4) wrote in The God Issue, Does God Exist? (5). In this article, Craig argues there has been a resurgence of interest in natural theology.

Continue reading William Lane Craigs First Reason for God Refuted by Norman Bacrac

The first time I set eyes upon the glorious House of Lords chamber, in the summer of 2013, I was an ignorant tourist in the UK. With blissful awe I gazed on the golden decorations, the wooden benches, the leather seats, the red armrests. The red armrests which only seemed to be added to one bench. But the question why did not race through my fifteen-year old mind. Only much, much later did I find out the Bishops were granted those seats. The Bishops? Yes, the Bishops.

To a Dutchman, the notion of an unelected body of Parliament was a strange one although after moving here, I have grown used to it but the right of senior clergymen to help decide laws that apply to everyone, including non-Anglicans, is one I still cannot get behind. And I know Im not alone. This tradition is but one of the examples that show faith, not just the Church of England, but faith in general, is still paid extraordinary deference in twenty-first century Britain, and beyond.

Moreover, in a type of Americanisation and a bad type at that we seem to be stuck with leaders who claim to feel inspiration from God; although, if the recent past is anything to go by, it could be argued Gods sense of direction is about as bad as the average tourists in Birmingham. Especially to relative newcomers like myself the strange and worrying excess of respect paid to bringing ones religion into public life is an inexplicable concept.

The twenty-six Lords Spiritual, as the aging Bishops given the privilege of attending Parliament are called, have been in the House of Lords since its early days. One of them opens the House with prayers every day perhaps an interesting, objectionable notion for another piece of writing and their role in the Lords is, thank God, non-partisan. Although, perhaps the party of God is more limiting than any political grouping we know.

Interestingly, the Church of England website states the bishops represent all people of faith. Im positive most Muslims would disagree. As a matter of fact, when Henry VIII founded the Church of England and allowed Bishops to remain in Parliament, he inevitably set the precedent for an inherently divisive Parliament. Putting representatives of the cult that burned multiple people alive on unprovable claims in your legislative is in itself a rather extraordinary move, but there we are.

Moreover, the Bishops intelligence, and their ability to govern us, is questionable. I would not want to insult any fellow primate, but when the Archbishop of Carlisle claimed the 2007 floods were Gods punishment for the moral decadence of our country, I cant but doubt his judgement. Gods aim must have been slightly off, though; why else would these floods have hit largely rural areas, and not major cities, the centres of arrogance and greed? I dont think Worcestershire is a hot-bed of explicit homosexuality, after all. But the Archbishop can dream. As can anyone. But dreamers should not decide matters of national importance.

When Parliament came to represent not just the English and Welsh, but also the Scottish and Irish, the Anglican bishops were already stuck in the limbo of having to represent a multi-denominational country. With the influx of migrants with other beliefs in modern times, no one can seriously argue the Bishops are in Parliament to make the case for people of faith. Religion is divisive, as we have seen countless times again. In Northern Ireland, people killed each other and each others children for what kind of Christian they were for decades. Do you think any Irish Catholic would be happy to have an Anglican bishop speak on behalf of them? What about our fellow Muslim citizens? And, more to the point, what about the most important minority in British society today: those of us who do not believe? Are we even a minority anymore?

I think it is more than evident these Bishops, however well-intended they may be, do not deserve to have a special say in how our laws are made. Not a bigger say than the rest of us, anyway. The refusal of successive governments to reform this antiquated arm of our legislative is worrying, and is yet another example of how religion still very much has its own way in this country.

The annual ceremony held at the Cenotaph in honour of military dead is, to any benevolent human being, a worthwhile cause and something we must continue to adhere value to. Unfortunately, this occasion, too, has been poisoned by Gods meddling finger. In remembrance ceremonies around the world, the dead are remembered and their names passed on to posterity in a secular way. But not here.

The Cenotaph ceremony is enriched by the presence of a squadron of patriarchs, priests, bishops, imams, rabbis, and other religious prelates who seem to convey a general aura of look at us, were so co-operative. Lets not mention the fact that presumably each one of them believes servicemen belonging to any of the other representatives religions are now in their imaginary hells, but oh well. Moreover, the service is partially led by the Bishop of London, surprise surprise.

The main issue with this, of course, is one of inclusivity. Not only are not all religious denominations represented at the Cenotaph I bet Scientologists would love to commemorate the dead but far more importantly, there is no secular presence attending. When the Cenotaph was built in 1920, King George V intentionally refused to add religious symbols to the statue. It was designed to be an irreligious monument, commemorating servicemen and women of all faiths and, importantly, none. Why have our leaders forsaken the intended sentiment of this national monument?

Here, too, Gods breath seems to infect our national ceremonies without anyone except the religious themselves having any say in it. I would ask him to eat a mint or spray some mouth freshener and allow us to conduct our memorial services, and our state politics, taking everyones views into account. Not just those of a limited amount of religious people. War dead commemoration is too much of an important issue to be left to religious men.

A rare interview opportunity by the Sunday Times exposed Prime Minister Theresa May as a theist stateswoman. I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth, that lies behind what I do, the woman in charge of Britain during one of its most turbulent times in recent history claimed. Whatever one might think of Brexit the beauty of atheism is that it rises above politics as far as issues like this are concerned I dont think God is going to have a positive influence on the exit process.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister then went on to say about decisions she makes with help of her God Hotline: Ill think it through, have a gut instinct, look at the evidence, work through the arguments. The evidence? I dont want to claim Mrs May is unintelligent, but stressing the importance of evidence whilst being a practising Church of England member is one of the most self-imploding and self-refuting positions I have ever heard.

The idea of having a Church of England-inspired government is in itself a rather scary one. The church founded on the family values of Henry VIII, as Christopher Hitchens aptly put it, isnt one I would base my morals off. God sending himself as his son down to earth to be hideously maimed doesnt provide a decent example to our politicians. Nor, more to the point, does the man who was prepared to viciously murder his own child to show devotion to a deity (Genesis 22:2-13). Will the divine injunctions to murder entire peoples guide our negotiations with the EU? (Genesis 19:24-5; Exodus 14:28; Numbers 11:1-2-33; 16:35; 49; 1:7; 25:8-9; Joshua 10:10-11; I Samuel 6:19; I could go on, and on, and on)

Many heads will roll before Article 50, it seems, if Gods example is anything to go by.

In short, the obviously fake guidance from God some politicians seem to enjoy, and the privileges they demand from it, should be met with strong opposition. Are there any reasons that prevent politicians from saying theyre not religious? From saying they derive their decision-making from factual evidence, from experience, from learned instinct? I cannot think of any. Religion, therefore, seems to still enjoy this special status in the minds of most people. Extraordinary deference is paid to those who claim to be inspired by blood myths and masochistic worship. By slaughter, murder, torture, and belief without evidence. This is the twenty-first century. It is high time to stop this medieval chain of thought and focus on the material world, which is the only world we have.

Should faith schools be able to select up to 100% of pupils based on their faith?TheCatholic Education Service (CES) has proposed that the current 50% cap be scrapped.

In September, TheresaMay announceda consultative Department for Education (DfE) Green PaperSchools that workfor everyone.For Faith Schools, the DfE say they intend to deliver more good school places, while meeting strengthenedsafeguards on inclusivity.

The Green PaperconsultationCLOSES 12th December 2016. Please send your comments (see below) before that date.

Chris Street, President of Atheism UK commented:

It seems to me that the Green Paper gives some spurious arguments for changing the 50% cap on selection in faith schools. If you are concerned about social integration and inclusive childrens education, I urge you to complete the Department for Education feedback form before 12th December.

Continue reading Catholics lobby for state funded faith schools to select 100% pupils on faith

Go here to read the rest:
Atheism UK - Challenging Religious Faith

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheism UK – Challenging Religious Faith

What Is Atheism? – POPSUGAR

Posted: at 3:23 am

Why Millennial Women Are Embracing Atheism

Danielle Schacter never thought she would become an un-Christian. "I slowly became more and more disgusted by the way I saw people treating others," says the 32-year-old, who was raised Baptist. "I didn't want to be associated with a religion that preached so much hate."

Danielle Schacter, who identifies as agnostic, is one of a growing number of people who identify with no religion. Photo courtesy of Danielle Schacter.

Schacter, like so many millennials, has chosen a secular life, and she's not alone: according to the Pew Research Center, only four in 10 millennials say that religion is very important to them, compared with six in 10 Baby Boomers.

The numbers of religiously unaffiliated support this, too: 23 percent of the population identifies with no religion. This number is up from 2007, when it was only 16 percent. Of older millennials, 35 percent are religiously unaffiliated and they're driving the overall growth of the nonreligiously affiliated in America.

Kayley Whalen, a queer transgender Latinx woman who identifies as "a humanist and an existentialist and an atheist." Photo courtesty of Kayley Whalen.

What's fascinating is that while millennials are moving away from religion, they are moving toward spirituality. This demographic considers itself just as spiritual as older demographics, even as they represent an exodus out of organized religion and into the throes of secularism. When you consider the issues facing young people today, the reasons for the exodus are easy to understand. In rejecting religion, millennials are asserting their progressive attitudes and passion for social justice. They're committed to the idea that they don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong.

Perhaps no one represents this cultural shift better than millennial atheist women. While they may sit at the most extreme side of the nonreligious spectrum, atheist women are fueled by the same concerns plaguing millennials in general: a quest for independence and a rejection of the status quo.

Lauryn Seering, 27, has never been religious, but she found atheism in high school in reaction to mainstream fundamentalist Christian ideas that condemn her lesbian mother. "Millennial women want autonomy over their own bodies," says Seering, communications coordinator for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is dedicated to protecting the separation of church and state.

"They recognize that all the arguments against this autonomy (contraception, birth control, marriage) are religiously fueled," Seering continued. "Women aren't being pressured by society anymore to get married at a young age, have children right away, and tend house while their husbands work."

Lauren Seering, an atheist who works for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Photo courtesy of Lauren Seering.

Schacter identifies as agnostic. She's based in Kansas City, MO, where she founded a digital marketing agency called Boxer & Mutt. To her, growing secularism is a sign of independent women. "It's becoming more socially acceptable for women to think for themselves and really question why things are the way they are rather than blindly accepting them," she says.

Kayley Whalen, 31, is a queer transgender Latinx woman who identifies as "a humanist and an existentialist and an atheist." These different identities certainly influence how she approaches the world. "We have ethical values without the need for the supernatural," Whalen says. "We believe in social justice, that we can live a life with meaning, purpose, and dedication to social justice without the need for supernatural guidance." Unsurprisingly, Whalen's beliefs are tied up in her activist work: she's the digital strategy and social media manager for the National LGBT Task Force and is on the board of directors for both the Secular Student Alliance and the Trans United Fund.

As Whalen epitomizes, many young women who do not believe in god share a point of view that goes beyond just being atheist or just being a woman. The two are intertwined identities oppressed similarly in the United States.

Blackwolf's concerns hint at societal assumptions about atheist women, which every woman we spoke with touched on: being a woman who isn't religious breaks away from the social norms that frame femininity. Emily Greene, an artist and activist working in promotional marketing in Augusta summed it up best. "You're probably seen as less feminine," the 32-year-old said. "You're definitely judged, looked at more harshly. It's an assumption that it's a negative thing."

Ironically, being atheist can mirror being religious, as it plays a role in many aspects of young life. "That was very important to me in choosing a partner," says Katherine, a 32-year-old HR manager in California. "I have gotten into some debate with friends before where they're like, 'If you're an atheist, why do you care if the other person is of faith?' I'm like, 'You as, say, a Christian person would not want to marry a non-Christian person."

Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College, believes that young people are turning away from religion as a result of how closed-minded and conservative many congregations can be, particularly when they are responsible for enabling xenophobic and queerphobic mindsets. For instance, many churches reject the idea of same-sex marriage, while 71 percent of millennials support it (in comparison with only 46 percent of Baby Boomers).

"A lot of young people are being turned off of by that brand of Christianity," he explains. "They're just seeing religion as an institution and saying, 'Ah, screw it.' Even though that brand of Christianity is not the majority most Christians are decent, kind people who aren't anti-gay and aren't racist and aren't anti-Islamic. But they don't make the headlines. They're not dominating the news."

Emily Greene, an artist, activist, and atheist. Photo courtesy of Emily Greene.

The internet is also serving as a conduit for less religion. As technology occupies more of our time, says Zuckerman, it chips away at "religion's ability to maintain a monopoly on truth . . . It's really corroding religion's ability to dominate our culture and dominate people's lives."

While there have always been religious skeptics the farthest back is believed to be the Charvaka movement in 7th century BC the present shift away from religion is notable because the numbers of religiously unaffiliated and atheists are way up. Although the movement is still predominately male and white, more women are stepping forward as religion reveals itself to be optional in their lives and sometimes to stand in the way of their independence.

Zuckerman believes this has to do with traditional organized religions' male-centrism: teaching women that they're second class, must remain virginal, and must stay out of leadership positions. Pair this with the amount of women in the workplace rivaling men, and the group doesn't need to turn to a church for social or financial support that churches typically offer.

Molly Hanson grew up in a Catholic household but has always been skeptical of the "invisible man in the sky" who tells people what to do. The 23-year-old Hanson, like many atheists, finds that questioning faith and religion makes people wonder if something is wrong with her womanness.

"If a woman doesn't bow down to this god and lord, she must have an issue with that god or lord," says Hanson, an editorial assistant at the Freedom For Religion Foundation. "She must have been damaged. There's a reason why she decided to leave that god. She might have been morally corrupted by another man or might have I don't know been wronged."

This issue isn't confined to religious communities. One woman a 30-year-old Indian American writer in New York who declined to give her name finds this flaw in atheist leaders, too.

"The movement itself is really alienating toward women," she says. "Leaders like Richard Dawkins are pretty sexist and condescending and talk down to women. Women have been left out in those major discussions of atheism."

For women who are atheists, discrimination is complicated further by the many ways their identities intersect. Gender as it relates to religious affiliation is complex, and it's even more complicated as it relates to black female atheists, as Blackwolf can attest. "A lot of black atheist men are often heard saying, 'Black women sure do love them some church!'" she says. "When we start having a discussion, there are implications about where my place in the community should be, and that's behind the man.'"

In speaking with young atheist and secular women, some through lines appear, among them a hope for equality that could be stymied by religion's grasp on society. There is a desire to normalize differing points of view, from LGBTQ people to atheists.

Katherine sees public events like the inauguration of President Donald Trump as a perfect example. "I was really struck by so much praying happening," she says. "I'd like to see us move kind of away from that and use logic and science and that holistic definition of freedom."

The nonreligious believe that, once the church is taken out of the state, equality can be achieved. Hansen believes these roadblocks arise as the result of unequal representation. "Women understand what it's like to be oppressed by laws that are rooted in religious ideas that oppress women and their sexuality," she explains. "To get more women in government positions is going to be a challenge, especially right now."

When women hold elected office, it inspires more women to run and more women in government has a powerful trickle-down effect on women as a whole.

But what if these women leaders were atheists? Would they still succeed?

Surveys have shown that atheism is one of the traits in a leader that Americans are most biased against. "I cannot imagine a president who identifies as an atheist," says the Indian-American writer in New York. "I'm a woman and a person of color: a female person of color who is an atheist could never be the president of the United States. It feels like another barrier."

Others, like Whalen, see these many layers as vital to change: "I want a woman politician to run and say that she's an atheist and that she's for reproductive justice, that she's for transgender rights, and win. I want a transgender woman to be able to do that."

Ultimately, for atheist women (and atheists in general) to succeed at changing society, they need to continue on the path they are on and not settle for being silenced. Zuckerman draws parallels to the LGBT community. "Coming out does have an effect," he says. "More and more people feeling comfortable saying 'I'm not that religious' has an effect." Atheists just want to be seen as starting from the same place as any other decent American.

Greene sums it up nicely: "We want to get up, go to work, and enjoy our friends and families and our lifestyles just the same way as the person who gets up on Sunday and goes to church. We have our own ways of self-care. A lot of people find religion and that's how they take care of themselves and that's great. We just do things a different way and that's OK."

You'll Want to Live Inside This Gorgeously Decorated Matcha Cafe

by Dominique Astorino 1 week ago

If You Thought France's Burkini Ban Was Completely Unfair, Good News: the Court Agrees

by Samantha Sutton 8/27/16

The 1 Experience That Made Me Redefine Being a Catholic Latina

by Arianna Davis 2/17

A Catholic Priest Sums Up Why Trump's New Travel Ban Is "Anti-Life"

by Victoria Messina 3/08

9 Decorating Tips Tailored to Millennials

by Maggie Winterfeldt 6 days ago

The Man Who Posted a Facebook Video of Himself Murdering Someone Is Dead

by Ann-Marie Alcntara 2 weeks ago

You Won't Know Whether to Laugh or Cry Over These 26 Embarrassing Pregnancy Stories

by Lauren Levy 2 weeks ago

7 Reasons I Wish I Hadn't Taken My Husband's Last Name

by Natasha Smith 9 hours ago

12 Times Game of Thrones Sneakily Foreshadowed the Future

by Erin Hurley 9 hours ago

8 Easy Ways to Update Your Bathroom in 1 Weekend

by Erica Young 8 hours ago

These Smoothies Are Millennial Pink and Ready For Your Instagram

by Dominique Astorino 1 week ago

11 Reasons to Follow Elsa Pataky on Instagram Chris Hemsworth Is 1 of Them

by Emilia Benton 7 hours ago

Read more:
What Is Atheism? - POPSUGAR

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on What Is Atheism? – POPSUGAR

Atheists Have National Day of Reason, But American Atheism is Irrational – Patheos (blog)

Posted: at 3:23 am

(Cranach, Agony in the Garden, 1526; Wikimedia, PD-Old-100).

Today is something called National Reason Day, on the atheist calendar. The National Day of Reasoncommittee describes their goals in this apocalyptic register:

Now, more than ever, America needs a Day of Reason.

With the religious rights influence in Congress, and with the threat to our Judiciary looming large, there has never been as important a moment in which to affirm our commitment to the Constitutional separation of religion and government, and to celebrate Reason as the guiding principle of our secular democracy.

During the past year we have witnessed the intrusion of religious ideology into all spheres of our government, with such assaults on the wall separating church and state as:

As in previous years, this years National Day of Reason coincided with the Congressionally-mandated and federally-supported National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 4, 2017. We thank all who value the separation of religion and government & joined us in commemorating this years Day of Reason, and in building awareness for this important cause.

How can a body supposedly devoted to reason make such unreasonable claims?

For example, there has never been a separation of religion and government in the United States. This is a total myth, more strongly, a lie.The wall between church and state was intended to protect the former, rather than the latter. Furthermore, not only has the US favored religion in the public square, but it has tended to favor certain particular manifestations of it (Mainline Protestant) against others. The whole dirty story can be found in Sehats The Myth of American Religious Freedom. Im not trotting this out because it favors me, being Catholic and all its quite the opposite, but because thats the truth about American politics, not the Reason Day alarmism.

Once we sincerely and reasonably acknowledge this most of the other objections (no matter how silly some of them are theologically) fall away. Both bad religion and good religion have always heavily influenced American politics and learning.

European theory usually does a better job of explaining American experience. Which is why were going to try something completely different now.

There are atheistphilosopherssuch as Marcel Gauchet (The Disenchantment of the World) andJean-Luc Nancy (The Dis-Enclosure of Christianity) who argue theres a reason why atheism could only develop within the bosom of Christianity. Namely, because Christian mercy permits the persistence of that which is not God, namely, sinners. The communion of sinners is just as much a part of Christianity as is the Communion of Saints.

Even stranger, we find atheists trying to recover religious language for their own purposes, because they admit they cannot gain legitimacy for themselves on purely atheist footing. On a crassly popularizing level you have someone like Alain de Botton (Religion for Atheists: A Non-believers Guide to the Uses of Religion) and on a much more sophisticated level there is someone like Simon Critchley The Faith of the Faithless: Experiments In Political Theology.

These two groups of thinkers make me wonder whether their explorations are what Simone Weil meant about atheism when she said in Gravity and Grace:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

The Evangelical salvation-language Bill Nye used during the March for Science confirms all this, although hes has as much nuance as the National Reason Day. It makes you want to throw your arms up in frustration. Sometimes you want to give up, butwhen you dodont forget even those trulylazydisciples of Jesuseventually woke up. Be patient, wait for the godless, and dont lose your religion over National Day of Reason.

The symmetry between low church Evangelical pietist enthusiasmand the enthusiastic science pietism of Nye and the Reason Day crowd fits into a larger historical pattern of atheist protest mirroring the practices and ethics of predominant religious cultures in the regions where the atheist movements emerge.That pattern isdiscussed in detail inAtheists: The Origin of the Species, a book by Nick Spencer that Ive feature in Atheisms Ancient Creation Myth.

Hope you enjoy people emoting in the comments section since it only proves my point.

See also: 2 Reasons Why the March for Science is a Losing Strategy.

Please also make a donation to this blog through the button on the upper right side of this page to help keep it going.

Stay in touch! Like Cosmos the in Lost on Facebook:

See the original post here:
Atheists Have National Day of Reason, But American Atheism is Irrational - Patheos (blog)

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheists Have National Day of Reason, But American Atheism is Irrational – Patheos (blog)

Keeping the faith: Lee Rhiannon on balancing atheism and spirituality – ABC Online

Posted: at 3:23 am

Updated May 05, 2017 10:52:26

She walks the corridors of power, but Lee Rhiannon's focus is the green spaces she glimpses through the windows.

The Greens senator from NSW still reads botany books in bed and keeps a list of the species of birds she spots from within the walls of Parliament House (she's just reached double figures).

For her, the fascination with the natural world has a spiritual dimension.

Rhiannon is a firm atheist her parents were atheists and told her school she wouldn't be going to religious classes.

But she says she has a strong sense of wonder at nature and believes in "non-god-centred spirituality".

"I really want to use the word 'spirituality' carefully, because for a lot of people it does mean spirits, like things out there," she says.

"I don't see the world at all like that.

"I find it hard to find the right language but particularly for my love of the environment, my fascination with people, you do feel a deep connection, you do feel these extraordinary bonds."

But she says she learnt to respect other people's beliefs from her parents.

"I grew up in what I suppose these days might be an activist household."

Senator Rhiannon and her parents would discuss the state of the world around the dinner table.

Even years later, when her father was suffering Alzheimer's, her complaints about the local pool brought him a moment of clarity.

"All of a sudden he said to us, clear as a bell, 'And what are you doing about it?'," she says.

"It was sad in one way, but it made me laugh as well because it was like all his brain cells or whatever goes on in your mind all lined up.

"And that was like how I grew up."

Rhiannon's parents campaigned on issues such as Aboriginal rights, the Vietnam War, anti-Apartheid and women's rights.

But during her political career, the focus has often been on the fact they were Communists.

She says it reminds her of McCarthyism.

"Some of the things that go on these days do actually remind me of the Cold War that I grew up in, where people throw around names, throw around slogans, and they don't actually look at what people did," she says.

"I've seen my parents vilified, but that doesn't mean they did bad things."

Senator Rhiannon travelled to Russia with her then-partner in the 1970s and studied political economy, philosophy and Marxist philosophy.

She said it was an enlightening time experiencing life under Brezhnev.

"We were in the middle of the Cold War, remember," she says.

"And this is a country that's been invaded so many times and that rigidity, in terms of how they interact with their own people and the world, I think is explained by that.

"It was a rigidity I found I could understand, but I was pleased I lived in Australia."

She says she's learnt over time not to be too trusting of the media.

One example of that was the reporting over the years on the reasons for her chosen surname.

She decided on "Rhiannon" with the help of friends, as an alternative to returning to her maiden name.

But somewhere along the line various reports emerged it was based on the Fleetwood Mac song, or styled after a Celtic goddess of wetlands.

"None of them are true," she says.

"My friends were very helpful and I wanted to change my name."

Despite the frustrations, she says politics has brought a "richness" to her life and a sense of hope.

"When I was growing up, I never thought the Vietnam War would end, I never thought Apartheid would end," she says.

"When I talk to people these days who often feel quite hopeless about whatever their campaign is, I give those examples.

"You never know you do your little bit in life and you can have a breakthrough."

Topics: government-and-politics, parliament-house-2600, nsw

First posted May 03, 2017 06:02:38

Read the original here:
Keeping the faith: Lee Rhiannon on balancing atheism and spirituality - ABC Online

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Keeping the faith: Lee Rhiannon on balancing atheism and spirituality – ABC Online