Category Archives: Atheist

Throughout 49 years of Roe v. Wade, the legal and cultural tactics around abortion may have shifted, but the central question remains the same: Where do we draw the boundaries of personhood? And how do we make law in a country where there is so little agreement on who is a person under the law?

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health by the end of June. The Mississippi law at the heart of the case bans abortion after 15 weeks, an approach that is explicitly disallowed by the viability and undue burden standards established in Roe and revised in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Simply agreeing to hear the case meant the court is conceding that Roe might be overturned.

The original holding in Roe attempted to ground its trimester framework for abortions in scientific fact, not moral values. It was shaky from the beginning. Little about the pacing of pregnancy lends itself to bright-line cutoffs. Viability has crept forward as medical science has advanced, due dates systematically underestimate actual delivery dates, and the first two weeks counted in the 40 weeks of pregnancy occur before conception has taken place. (Thus, six-week heartbeat bans actually pertain to fetuses that are only four weeks old).

But during oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made it clear she wants abortion jurisprudence to be rooted in the objective and the universal, not in questions of faith or philosophy. She asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart whether the state can have a legitimate interest in the question of when life begins, or whether raising the question at all is straying into matters of religion. Sotomayor asked, How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. Its still debated in religions.

Since the question isnt viewed as settled in America, Sotomayor saw it as inappropriate to assert the state has an interest to protect possible life. Her questioning implied that the state should restrain itself to consider unambiguous harms, such as the medical risk of pregnancy to the mother things that could be measured in maternal mortality statistics and other more scientific ways.

As a former atheist, I felt she was selling secular philosophy and politics short. We cant bracket all contested questions as religious and outside the realm of government. Atheists, no less than religious people, urgently want to know what it means to live well. Abortion attracts the attention of nonreligious thinkers precisely because the topic is contested and the stakes of the question are high. No one wants to shortchange either mother or child; the question is what we owe to each, and how we know.

As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his own comments, the question of when life begins is contested by secular philosophers, as well as religious scholars. Peter Singer argues that not just abortion, but infanticide is morally acceptable in the case of babies with serious disabilities. Secular pro-life makes its case against abortion by arguing that, from the moment of conception, a fetus is human, and alive, and that human life is human life. Neither argument hinges on specifically religious claims. Whatever the decision in Dobbs, there will be both atheists and religious people dissatisfied with the outcome.

Living in a pluralistic society means writing laws and issuing judicial decisions which dont match everyones deeply felt moral views. The state cant remain neutral on the questions of murder, just war, moral desert and welfare aid, or other contentious issues. Every law makes a value judgment, and every value judgment presumes an ethical and metaphysical basis for that judgment.

Where a loose consensus prevails, it is easy to imagine that we have left ethical and religious questions behind and are dealing with naked and incontestable facts. But this undersells how much philosophy and metaphysics are the foundation of our choices even the ones that dont feel like choices at all.

In many of the moral decisions we make, we have a strong sense of what is right, without having to appeal to first principles, religious or secular. We tend to struggle with finding the will to follow our conscience, not the initial problem of discerning what is right.

In the same way, its easy to catch or throw a ball without ever having studied the physics of how, exactly, the ball tumbles through the air. The physics are still real, whether or not we can rattle off the equations. But, in moral and material things, we often rely on a strong sense of what is true, without having to know why it is true.

Its the harder or contested cases that force us to go back and examine the foundations, although our easy choices are as rooted in religious and philosophical questions as the hard ones are. There are no neutral or unrooted moral facts. Every claim about morality, just like every claim about an object in motion, is rooted in a theory of how the world works and where we stand.

Politicians, justices and ordinary citizens dont limit their own credibility by admitting that their analysis is informed by their values. Theres no alternative to philosophy in politics or in any domain of personal life.

Leah Libresco Sargeant is the author of Arriving at Amen and Building the Benedict Option. She runs the substack Other Feminisms, focused on the dignity of interdependence.

More here:

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned? What are the arguments against it? - Deseret News

(RNS) In the United States, secularism has become synonymous with atheism. But thats a big mistake, argues Jacques Berlinerblau, a Georgetown University professor.

At its core, secularism is an approach to governance, writes Berlinerblau in his new book, Secularism: The Basics. And critically, it is one many religious people, not just atheists and agnostics, support.

In fact, although the word secularism was first used around 1851, its key components were hammered out long before that by some deeply devout Christians. Among them, none other than Martin Luther, the great reformer, who was so distrustful of the Roman Catholic Church he wanted secular government (in the form of princes) to maintain the law.

In Berlinerblauswide-ranging but compact primer, which looks at how various countries have implemented secularism, he outlines the 10 principles of secular government, including equality for all, the supremacy of the state, freedom of conscience and the idea of disestablishment, meaning the government must divest itself of loyalty to any one faith.

Berlinerblaus book also identifies what he calls lifestyle secularisms, people for whom secularism is an identity. Among them, of course, are the so-called New Atheists, who are hellbent on eviscerating religion. That movement, he suggests, has run out of steam.

RELATED: Is God good for America? Depends whom you ask.

But as he points out, among secularisms champions are lots of religious people, most especially religious minorities. In this country, the overwhelming number of Jews, Muslims, Mormons, even Catholics, champion secularism as a form of government, because they believe it can be a better referee of their liberties than a state church.

Religion News Service talked to Berlinerblau about secularism and why its gotten such a bad rap (both from religious conservatives as well as some postmodern scholars who have criticized it).

The following interview was edited for length and clarity.

Yes, with the proviso that there is a spectrum ranging from extreme forms of secularism to theocracy. On that spectrum are perfectly livable nonsecular states. Then, as we move across the spectrum, we find all sorts of intermediary nonsecular forms of governance where there is lack of freedom of religion for minorities, crackdowns on freedom of speech, lack of tolerance for nonbelievers and heretics, etc. And then we get to out-and-out theocracy: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Iran.

Separationism is just one form of secularism; its one way of doing it. In the U.S., it hasnt been well thought out, theorized or legally grounded. Heres the problem: Separationism is not in the First Amendment. In a private letter, (Thomas) Jefferson said we must build a wall of separation between church and state. But with the Great Awakening on the horizon, and with Mr. Jefferson having a reputation as an iconoclast, atheist and a troublemaker, nobody listened to him. Separationism wasnt really in the judicial mix from 1800 to the mid-20th century.

From 1947 to 1985, separationist secularism, as a binding judicial and legislative framework, was, finally, a real live thing. Under the influence of Justice Hugo Black, our legislators and judges believed there was a constitutional mandate to separate church and state. But that argument rested on a rather wobbly foundation because, as I noted, separationist secularism isnt in the Constitution. But that doesnt nullify secularism or negate the need for secularism in the United States.

The U.S. Capitol is seen at dawn in Washington on Sept. 27, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Ive tried to chart better ways to use the Constitution to render the deliverables of separationism to long-suffering American citizens be they religious minorities, religious moderates or the religiously unaffiliated, atheists and agnostics. One possibility is the 14th Amendment. American secularism should linger on the amendments guarantee of equal protection under the law. Why should a Jewish woman in Texas be subjected to a conservative Christian conception of when life begins? Why should a gay couple in Kentucky be denied a marriage license because of the religious free-exercise right of a county clerk? I would advise the secular movement to move away from separationism and couch its legal arguments and strategy in terms of equal protection under the law.

Yes, its more accommodationist than separationist! Few are aware of the shift that occurred when George W. Bush introduced his Office of Faith-based Initiatives and Neighborhood Partnerships as his first executive act in 2001. What Bush was saying is what the Christian right was saying for decades: There was a place for religion in public life and there was a place for the government to accommodate and work with religion because that partnership accrues to the common good.

Thats a core assumption of a doctrine I call accommodationism. Accommodationisms roots are in India. It comes from the fertile imagination of Mahatma Gandhi and some others. Gandhi believed faith and spirituality were great social assets and the government should encourage and support religion for the greater good of the state itself. When Bush introduced this office, he murdered separationism. Yet strangely, many Americans dont understand that this shift happened. The American government is now trying to accommodate religion, not separate itself from it.

But accommodationism leaves a lot of unanswered questions: What do you do with religious groups that are violent or seditious or racist or homophobic? Should the government support them, too? Write them a check? But perhaps the biggest problem with accommodationism is what to do about the equal rights of nonbelievers? Can the government accommodate atheists and agnostics? If not, why not?

Secular polities are based on reason, not revelation; science, not suras. But, that said, if secularism were to engage in a PR campaign to win over religious hearts and minds, the idea of everyone being created in Gods image and therefore entitled to being treated equally by the governing authorities thats one place to start. Ive always liked the Book of Ruth and its insistence we should all just get along. Then theres Romans 13, in which (the Apostle) Paul is urging Christians to submit to the government authorities. He didnt say become the governing authorities, take over school boards, run for office, storm the Capitol!

To me, the interpretations that are dominant in conservative Christianity run against the grain of many biblical verses.

Secularism sometimes develops an addiction for order at any cost. Enlightenment theorists like John Locke saw the world almost collapse because of religious violence. So their solution was a strong government that assures order. Such a government can assure religious people the right to worship in peace and safety. Thats a very nice idea.

The problem is that secularisms sometimes fetishize order. In so doing they obliterate other secular principles, like freedom of conscience or toleration. The tragic flaw in various secular regimes the Soviet Union, Baathist Syria, the Peoples Republic of China is the elevation of the idea of order to an extent that verges on totalitarianism.

Secularisms have to learn to control themselves. Governments cant simply do anything they want. There have to be checks and balances, brakes on the awesome and often frightening power of the state. Secularism goes wrong when it elevates order to the raison dtre of the secular state.

Theres a second problem that occurs when secularisms establish atheism or nonbelief as the religion of the state. This is a recipe for disaster and the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China have followed this approach.

I was struck by a structural asymmetry. Whereas religious groups mobilize across geopolitical boundaries Islamists, Catholics, Mormons, the Jewish Chabad movement secularists are always national. Its puzzling to me that secularism never developed transnational movements or regional movements of like-minded folks who are equally chagrined or discriminated against by a given religious orthodoxy.

I wonder how different things would be if there were a secular caucus in the U.N., led by France, say. These secular countries would look at nations in which religious minorities and nonbelievers are deprived of their human rights or civil rights and advocate on behalf of secular governance rather than the states established religion. Its a thought experiment. The absence of transnational secularism is really, really interesting.

Yes (in italics, caps, and exclamation points)! That was one of the drivers of writing this book. I have nothing but respect for journalists. They have performed heroisms for this country, especially in the past few years. That said, there has been a malignant confusion about these terms secularism, secularity, atheism, secular humanism and thats what I sought to rectify.

RELATED: Dalai Lama says Chinas leaders dont understand diversity

See the rest here:

Secularism is not atheism. A new book explains why the distinction is so critical. - Religion News Service

Michael Pulley| Springfield News-Leader

I grew up on the Midwest prairie,where the first European settlers planted hedge rows to fence in livestock,plows dug up the bluestem prairie grass followed by corn, wheat, soybeans, andhundreds of small towns flourished, some barely 12or 15miles apart.

My father made a fine living as an auctioneer and real estate agent helping the small farmers sell to the wealthy, who bulldozed the hedgerows and planted right up to the farm roads, building new houses and buying expensive machinery.

Today, corporate farms dot some of the prairie, and hundreds of giant windmills sprouted called wind farms generating energy to distant cities. Even though I've moved, Im still haunted by the prairie's long vistas and gently rolling hills. But is reconstructing the past a fool's errand, a trick to avoid the present's pressing concerns?

The writer Joan Didion, who recently died, said, "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Stories and even thoughts from the past might, mysteriously, be life-affirming, especially in troubled times.

For example, when I was about 12I sought out the town atheist. Surely there were others, but this guy had established a quiet distinction as being approachable and kind, my parents told me, never thinking I might seek him out. I noticed he did not have fangs nor horns growing from his head.

"Are you an atheist?"

"Aren't you Lee Pulley's boy?"

"Yes."

"He's a fine man. Better listen to him."

I told him my dad was not an atheist, and the conversation ended. I wanted to hear more, but nothing doing. Telling myself that story today makes me wonder if I internalized the goodness of those two men, their shared respect, in spite of differences. A story I might apply today.

One early Sunday morning while delivering newspapers on my bicycle, I saw a man I knew sprawled on his front steps, obviously passed out drunk. He was a carpenter whose shop I'd passed several times, often stopping in, watching him measure accurately before sawing. I called his name, and he moved slightly. I pedaled off, not wanting him to know I saw him, a respectable man in that condition.

As a kid, what was I to learn from encountering atheists and drunks? And according to Joan Didion, by telling their stories am I doing it "in order to live?" The atheist and drunk still reside clearly in my mind. What's their value now?

Since leaving the prairie, why do I continue telling story after story about the place? Is it for some kind of psychic cleansing that only my psychotherapist and I discuss?

And what about that atheist? Do I remember him because of my many crises of faith, some of which still exist and about which I often struggle? Do I reside somewhere between my father's theism and the atheist's non-belief? And what about the carpenter passed out on his porch steps? Do I still recall that scene because even though I've never passed out on my front steps I hope my drinking never gets out of hand? That I might remain under control?

Our past landscapes could have shaped us. Densely wooded locales, mountains. I prefer flat distances, the freedom to see, to think openly, not be encumbered, wondering about all the stories that took place on flat land from which I might, if fortunate, gain some insight about myself today.

Even though I've moved many times, perhaps I'll always be a prairie child. A product of thatlandscape and its people. Whether I want to be or not.

Michael Pulley lives in Springfield. He can be reached atmpulley634@gmail.com.

View original post here:

A look back at the people and the views on the prairie - News-Leader

By DR. DANIEL SCHNEE on January 26, 2022.

As an anthropologist I am always fascinated by how humans create systems of meaning through values and beliefs: how religion is a significant site of this activity. And, as recent statistics reveal, the number of Albertans who seek meaning through Christianity is rapidly declining.

As someone who has spent many years dealing with a variety of Christian sects and militant atheism, I happen to have a fair amount of perspective on how one finds meaning; how to gain or lose faith. The simple truth is that humans deify things: rocks, paintings, musicians, mythological figures and so on. If we got rid of all religions today, more would pop up immediately. There will never be a fully atheistic global population on this planet, ever.

So the idea that we can or must be rid of religion is as misguided as many of the religions we invent. Also, the idea that a world freed from religion would be a world of peace and equality is also misguided. This is because not all ethical and moral systems are dictated by religion, and we argue over these systems, e.g. Canadas criminal code.

This is also true for atheism, for it is not necessarily the golden shaft of rational light shining out in the spiritual darkness as often described. A true atheist can only reject religious claims via the science, logic and reason we are capable of here on Earth. We can disprove various theological claims through archeology, chemistry, and so on, but only on the scale of our current intelligence and machinery. Absolutely no one has (or may ever have) proof that in the entire span of the universe there is absolutely no god, gods, goddesses, cloud of divine particles, some alien so advanced that they seem divine, or some such thing we could call god. To assert that we might know such a fact is to once again deify ourselves, to imagine that we are growing infinitely intelligent despite living in a universe of staggering complexity.

The truth is, no matter what one believes, the most relevant factor has always been behavior; how we treat each other. Religious converts have been won or lost on these terms, and they still are today.

Cults require a lot of negative behavior to justify their own existence. Militant atheism often makes one haughty and disdainful, since it purports to rise above religious behavior. No matter how much of what we hear coming from the pulpit is true, our behavior will most likely dictate how many people are present to hear it. Our views are heavily influenced by how others behave, and nothing draws one into a church like a good example.

The stark message is this: we are seeing a decline in the number of Christians in Alberta because there seems to be a decline of Christianity in Christians. At the very least, Christianity is starting to look less about Christs love, and more about yelling and threats. As such it would only make sense that people might leave it behind, paradoxically, rejecting its theology in order to uphold the very ethics and morality it preaches.

Like any religion when it is at its best, people will return to Christianity when love, peace, and compassion return to it first.

Dr. Daniel Schnee is an anthropologist who studies Japanese creative culture.

Go here to read the rest:

The Human Condition: Declining religion - Medicine Hat News

Norris Burkes| Ledger columnist

As a hospice chaplain, Ive had to come to grips with legislation passed in my home state of California called The End-of-Life (EOL) Option Act.

This law allows for terminally ill adults to request medication that will bring about their peaceful death. However, patients must be able to verbalize their request and they must be able to swallow the meds unassisted.

The law was months away from becoming active when I first visited Ruth, a 90-year-old hospice patient in Davis, California. Within a few minutes of entering her modest apartment, she tried dismissing me by claiming to be a life-long atheist.

I told her what I tell many patients: Im not here to persuade you, convert you or even baptize you. Im here to be present with you through some tougher days.

Ruth smiled at that, cementing something between us.

Over the next several weeks, she told me stories of how shed raised two loving sons and made a good life for herself. However, she grew up in Hitlers Germany and had legitimate reasons to doubt Gods existence. Shed seen the imprisonment of relatives and the death of countless Jews.

Her childhood had been harassed by hunger and haunted by grief. Yet somehow, she became a woman who showed little regret about her life.

On my third visit, shortly before the law would take effect, she told me of her plans to request the EOL medications.

Would you, Ruth stuttered, could you, be there when I take the medications?

No, I screamed in my head. I wont! I cant.

Fortunately, the law allows medical staff to follow their own conscience on this. I could say no and would not be penalized by my employer.

But - and this is where things get dicey the legal wording expressly forbids medical staff to persuade or dissuade a patient in their EOL choices.

Instead of answering her straight away, I tried defusing the question.

You know our hospice staff would really miss you if you did that. Everyone talks about how uplifted they are by their visits with you.

Then, as if loading both barrels, she aimed a look at me.

Yes, she said, but I dont think its my job to encourage you. You must find your own reasons for living as I have my reasons for dying.

Ruth was right, of course. Her path was different than mine. She had to make her own decision.

A moment of silence broke over our bedside chat like stillness over a mountain lake. Then Ruth repeated her question.

So, will you be there when I end this life?

Let me interrupt my narrative for a moment to ask my own question: If youd been in my size-12 shoes, what would you have told the woman?

If your answer is a profound, No way, then Id follow up with, Why not?

Consider what the woman was really asking.

I think she was saying, I need to feel a kind presence. I need to know Im not alone.

When I realized that, I heard myself say, Of course Ill be there.

In the matter of our life, and certainly our death, the only thing we all want to know is that we arent alone.

Not long after our conversation, Ruth woke up to her last day on earth and had breakfast with her sons. Then surrounded by family and hospice staff, she became our first hospice patient to end her life with medications.

She was never alone.

In the weeks and months that followed, our staff saw the truth of what shed said it wasnt her job to inspire or encourage us.

Nevertheless, that truth never stopped us from celebrating her inspiring presence in our lives.

We will always remember you, Ruth.

Contact ChaplainNorrisatcomment@thechaplain.netor10556 Combie Road,Suite 6643 Auburn, CA 95602or voicemail 843-608-9715. Norris is coming to the Lakeland areaMarch 17-20 and isavailable to speak to your church, civic or veteran group, hospital, or college. For more information,email for details.

Read the rest here:

Hospice patient chooses both her life and her death - The Ledger

Arent you sick of this!? Yes! I think we all are. Some are sick with it nowadays. It used to be that we would personally know only a few with COVID-19, but it appears that now, almost everybody is testing positive. Just within the last week, I have had appointments cancelled because of COVID positivity or people coming down with symptoms. My wife and children, who are physicians, are having to take extra calls to cover for colleagues that are symptomatic or positive with COVID. Talking about this with friends, I mentioned the pandemic now feels more like a plague. Yes! they said, Exactly!

To those of us who have read our Bibles for years, the word plague is familiar. From Genesis to Revelation, it is mentioned about 100 times, and it never seems to be positive. Some think this pandemic is an act of God and therefore blame Him for it. Others link it to prophetic fulfillment and are concerned with the civil liberties they perceive have been compromised in the name of public health. Whether for these reasons or others, peoples nerves are on edge. Could we, believing whatever we believe, still find peace and joy as we start a new year? Well, not necessarily. Let me briefly share how two exemplars describe their experience with a plague and then offer a few suggestions that could be helpful as we face it.

Albert Camus did not live through a plague but wrote a classic novel with this title.1 Camus himself was an atheist, as was his main character, Dr. Bernard Rieux, who expressed his worldview. Dr. Rieux works tirelessly to care for those infected and sees the world as absurd and meaningless and life as fleeting and ephemeral. The response to the plague reveals Dr. Rieux's beliefs: work hard for the common good, but in the end, It is in the thick of calamity that one gets hardened to the truthin other words, to silence. Silence; nothing beyond; no meaning; no hope.

Now contrast Camus with renowned English poet John Donne. Donne, born in 1572, was the dean of St. Pauls Cathedral in London, England, through the plague of his time. He himself got infected and was gravely ill. He wrote his Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions while bedridden. In it, he was searingly honest about his emotional and faith struggles, yet he held on to Christ. In Philip Yanceys paraphrase,2 Donne says, Trembling, I ask, My God, my God, why have you thrown your anger so quickly upon me? (p. 26), then prays, As my body continues to deteriorate, O Lord, I only ask that you speed up the pace and lift my soul toward you (p. 27). This was similar to the suffering of those for whom Dr. Rieux worked. Donne continued working for the common good from his position until the illness took its toll on him. His response to the plague: meaning; hope; connection through faith.

What we believe makes a difference as to how we transition through this current plague. The psalmist offers a direction:

Whoever rests in the shadow of the Most High God will be kept safe by the Mighty One. I will say about the Lord, He is my place of safety. He is like a fort to me. He is my God. I trust in him. You wont have to be afraid of the sickness that attacks in the darkness. You wont have to fear the plague that destroys at noon (91:1, 2, 6, NIRV.

While offering full protection in verses 713, we know this is not always the case. However, we can always find refuge in Him and not fear the plague. John 15 offers spiritual and psychological clues. We feel safe when we feel connected, like the branches to the vine. You would not trust someone you do not know well and have not experienced as trustworthy. This type of intimate relationship is not the result of a passing thought, but it is cultivated, just as you would any other relationship you deem important. You would not trust someone you barely know and to whom you hardly talk.

Furthermore, this is the kind of Tree that bears fruit. The fruit it bears is the fruit of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22, 23). Research from the field of positive psychology identifies love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control as contributing to being resilient. As with any other fruit, it needs to be cultivated, meaning the ground needs to be worked on and the plant needs to be watered and cleared of weeds over time. Undoubtedly, we need to attend to what we cultivate. However, no fruit that can make us resilient will result unless it is connected to the Tree.

Part 2 of this article will follow next week.

1 Camus, Albert (2002), The Plague. New York: Penguin Classics.

2 Yancey, Philip (2021), A Companion in Crisis: A Modern Paraphrase of John Donnes Devotions. Littleton: Illumify Medial Global.

Carlos Fayard, PhD, is an associate professor and director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Training and Community Mental Health at the Department of Psychiatry, Loma Linda University School of Medicine. He authored Christian Principles for the Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy.

This article was originally published on the Inter-American Divisions website

Read the original here:

Cultivating Resilience in the Midst of a PlaguePart 1 - Adventist News Network

Far-right platform Gab is sponsoring white nationalist Nick Fuentes conference. The move has proved controversial for both parties. Many of Gabs donors are claiming that theyll no longer fund the platform.

Gab founder Andrew Torba announced Monday that his platform will sponsor the upcoming America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC). AFPAC is Fuentes extremist alternative to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Everyone who will be going is a member of this website, promotes Christian values, openly proclaims the name of Jesus Christ, and promotes America First political objectives, candidates, and members of Congress, Torba wrote on Gab.

He claimed to desire unity among conservatives then proceeded to slam CPAC and Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirks group for young conservatives. CPAC is sponsored by Facebook and Google among other billionaires, Torba added. TPUSA is sponsored by atheist libertarian billionaires.

Facebook and Google were last reported to sponsor CPAC in 2018. Its not clear who Torbas accusing of being atheist libertarian billionaires, though its possible hes referring to Charles Koch. Koch is a billionaire, TPUSA sponsor, and has described his views as libertarian. In 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that hes not religious.

Gab is a notorious haven for the far-right. Antisemitism and racism are common. Torba often boasts that hateful ideas are welcome on his platform.

Torbas embrace couldnt come at a better time for Fuentes. The far-right figure who launched his public persona by claiming he was leaving college after being threatened for attending the Unite the Right rally has found himself increasingly unwelcome online. His recent permanent suspension from Gettr followed bans by more mainstream platforms where hed built his audience.

The partnership is also arguably beneficial to Gab, which is struggling to compete in a crowded far-right social media landscape.

Gab sponsoring AFPAC follows its partnership with Fuentes streaming service. Alex Kaplan of Media Matters for America reported on Monday that Torba may even help Fuentes monetize it.

The move generated controversy for both parties, however. Fuentes posts about the partnership were riddled with comments trolling him.

Many pointed out that Fuentes has recently made scathing statements about Gab users, including calling them fucking r*****ed.

Youve openly degraded Gab and its users, commented one. Especially straights and women. Fuck off.

Fuentes comments include a call for Gab to ban women from the platform.

Many of Torbas followers also criticized him for embracing Fuentes, whose extremism proved a bridge too far for them.

You are aligning Gab with a movement that wants to shut up the very people who helped your platform grow in the last year, wrote one.

People who claimed to be among Gabs sponsors said that they would stop donating if he persisted with plans to sponsor AFPAC.

I didnt agree to help fund AF, wrote one. I agreed to help fund Gab, but if this is where my money ends up, I am ending that agreement. They added that this is something that should have been discussed with the Gab community beforehand, as we are the main reason Gab has $20K to throw around.

Its not publicly known what Torbas sponsorship entails, but several people implied that hed given Fuentes money.

Torbas critics included Islamophobic figure Laura Loomer. Loomer was outraged by Fuentes posting that he trusts Gab because its run by a faithful Christian. And not some Judeo-Christian either, a Christian.

On Tuesday, Loomer, who is Jewish, wrote multiple Telegram posts blasting Fuentes and Torba. She said that shes long supported Gab, Torba, and even Fuentes, and noted that she attended and promoted AFPAC last year.

The idea that you cant trust someone who is Jewish is quite absurd, Loomer wrote of Fuentes post about Christians versus Judeo-Christians. (Judeo-Christian is merely a term that notes that Christianity is derived from Judaism, as evidenced both by Jesus Christ being Jewish and its use of Jewish scripture in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.)

In another post, Loomer wrote, Does Andrew just want to create a terms of service that says no Jews allowed?

Am I not welcome simply because Im Jewish, even though I have always supported Gab, Ive been a friend to Andrew Torba and Nick, and Im America First? she added.

The criticisms grew loud enough that Torba weighed in. True to form, his stance was defiant.

Controversy is attention. Attention is influence, Torba posted on Tuesday amid the blowback.

The point of marketing is to influence people to get off Big Tech and get on Gab. In order to do that I need their attention.

*First Published: Jan 25, 2022, 1:37 pm CST

Continued here:

Gab users are furious after its CEO announces partnership with notorious white nationalist - The Daily Dot

Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schnbach meeting with German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht BERND WUSTNECK/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

German naval chief Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schnbach announced his resignation Saturday after his comments about the ongoing crisis on the Ukrainian border provoked outrage, The Guardian reported.

At a think-tank discussion in India Friday, Schnbach said all Russian President Vladimir Putin really wants is "respect," and that "giving him respect is low cost, even no cost. It is easy to give him the respect he demands, and probably deserves."

Schnbach, who has led Germany's navy since March 2020, also said the Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014, "is gone" and will "never come back" to Ukraine.

Ukraine's foreign ministry said Schnbach's remarks were "categorically unacceptable."

According to BBC, Ukraine has also criticized Germany for its refusal to provide the former Soviet republic with weapons and other forms of "lethal aid."

Schnbach also suggested that both India and Germany could benefit from cultivating closer ties with Russia as a way to counter rising Chinese influence and preserve Christian civilization against the officially atheist Chinese Communist Party.

"India, Germany we need Russia against China," he said to Sujan R. Chinoy, a former Indian ambassador. "Probably not from your perspective, but from my perspective. I'm a very radical Roman Catholic. I believe in God, and I believe in Christianity, and then [Russia is] a Christian country, even if Putin is an atheist, but it doesn't matter."

Putin is, at least nominally, a Russian Orthodox Christian, but has expressed discomfort with speaking publicly about his faith.

Florida advances DeSantis-backed ban on making white people feel 'discomfort' or 'guilt' from past racism

California deputy DA opposed to vaccine mandates dies of COVID-19

Giuliani, Trump campaign reportedly orchestrated the fake 2020 electors scheme in 7 states

See the rest here:

German navy chief who said NATO should give Putin 'the respect he demands' resigns - Yahoo News

The world-renowned Christian theologian, Alister McGrath, believes science and religion can work ... [+] together in helping us deal with life.

The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has triggered conflicting responses, and some groups have grounded their resistance to public-health guidelines in religion. While a religious mindset is driven by trust in a higher power, a science-based outlook leans on knowledge based on empirical evidence to understand life. Some may say the two are incompatible, though according to the world-renowned theologian, Alister McGrath, they inform each other.

McGrath is an old friend from when I taught at Oxford. I cant remember how it happened, what was over 20 years ago, but I ended teaching what I taught at the Said Business School, Leadership and Change to ministers of the Church of England with him.So, in the midst of the crisis, I thought of asking him some deeper questions to see what he might pitch up with.

Science can give us answers which don't necessarily solve things but provide us with a way out of some of the worst aspects of the pandemic, said McGrath, the Andreas Idreos professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford.

Known as one of the worlds leading apologists for Christianity and esteemed Christian theologians, McGrath was once an atheist. Born in Belfast in Northern Ireland, he grew up in the town of Downpatrick and majored in pure and applied mathematics, physics and chemistry at the Methodist College. He later joined Wadham College at Oxford University to study natural science before turning to theology. Noted for his work in historical and systematic theology, much of his research advances the dialogue between science and religion.

McGrath stresses the importance of scientific research and discovery. After all, the health care system is deeply rooted in religious institutions.

If you look at medieval monasteries, they always had a hospital because that was part of their faith, said McGrath. Medicine was seen very much as a means of grace, a way of actually using human knowledge and God's Earth to develop treatments.

Some would still say that science and religion are inconsistent with each other, he added. They are indeed different, but so are science and ethics, and every scientist I've met wants to be an ethical person.

By the logic that science and religion are incompatible, we would have to assume that scientists cant be religious, yet an awful lot of them are, added McGrath.

According to the Christian theologian, we are thus confronted to find a way to bring our scientific, ethical, and religious understandings together to make sense of our lives.

Scientific knowledge can lead to practical explanations, whereas religion can bring much-needed hope, especially during a time of crisis.

One of the big questions we're facing with Covid-19 is sheer exhaustion, said McGrath. We need something to animate us and give a sense of direction in what seems to be darkness and uncertainty.

In response to vaccine hesitancy, McGrath shared that although he understands the apprehension, the pandemic has reminded us that human existence is more precarious than we might think and requires us to protect ourselves and each other.

There's a logically continuous argument from taking an aspirin for your headache to getting vaccinated, he said. The question is where you draw the line.

He describes the coronavirus vaccination program asa necessary extension of the medical program which has been ongoing for the last 2,000 years. According to McGrath, Christians must then share a sense of responsibility towards the global health crisis and serve God through serving others an important principle of Christianity.

We have no idea what's around the next corner, and the whole vaccine agenda has given heightened importance to preparing for whatever may come next, he said. It's a very natural, very obvious thing for me as a Christian to do.

Earlier this month, McGrath publishedReturn from a Distant Country, a pocket-sized book in which he presents his vision of Christian theology.

I try to explain why I'm really interested in science and religion, but I'm also interested in historical theology, looking at the emergence of ideas, and why public engagement is so important to me as a theologian.

In the book, McGrath further advances the need for religion and science to work together to address contemporary social matters and urges theologians to voice their views in public debates.

There are some wonderful opportunities for discussion for showing how Christianity plays into leading cultural issues, gives good answers," he said. "Those answers are not being heard because people are not speaking up.

Watch the full interview with Alister McGrath below.

Stephanie Ricci contributed to this story.

Here is the original post:

Science And Religion Don't Have To Clash, Says World-Renowned Theologian Oxford's Alister McGrath - Forbes

NEW YORKWorried he would never be able to escape the aftereffects of his rigorous religious upbringing, local ex-Catholic Brock Lastra told reporters Tuesday that he still felt a twinge of guilt every time he masturbated on the subway. I know its not logical, but when I start to pleasure myself on the Q train, I become overwhelmed by this haunting feeling that what Im doing is wrong, said Lastra, who confirmed that despite not having stepped foot inside a church in nearly 20 years, he was still haunted by the memory of his priests stern face any time he so much as thought of whipping out his penis on a crowded car during the morning commute. I wish I could just relax and enjoy it, but I guess my childhood really fucked me up. Its definitely affected my ability to perform, tooa lot of women get mad at me. Who knows, maybe this is something I can solve by masturbating at therapy. At press time, Lastra added that as an atheist, he knew God wasnt really watching him, but he wished He were.

See the original post here:

Ex-Catholic Still Feels Twinge Of Guilt Every Time He Masturbates On Subway - The Onion