Category Archives: Atheist

From Richard Rodgerss melodic music to Arthur Millers tragic dramas to Stephen Sondheims brilliant scores, Jewish artists have been essential contributors to Broadway theater.

This years spring season is a testament to that legacy, with a list that includes Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize-winning Jewish playwrights and librettists. I talked to three: Harvey Fierstein, a winner of multiple Tonys who has revised the book for the first-ever Broadway revival of Funny Girl; Paula Vogel, who is reexamining her Pulitzer Prize-winning play How I Learned to Drive for its 25th anniversary and its Broadway debut; and Richard Greenberg, whose 2003 Tony Award-winning play Take Me Out tells of what happens when a Major League Baseball player comes out as gay.

Image by Getty

Harvey Fierstein.

First premiering in 1964, Funny Girl tells the partly biographical story of Fanny Brice. The daughter of Hungarian Jewish immigrants, Brice rose from the tenements of the Lower East Side to show-business fame in the Ziegfeld Follies in the first decades of the 20th century only to languish in a doomed relationship with an infamous gambler. In the original production, Brice was portrayed by Barbra Streisand, who soared to stardom from Flatbush, the then-Jewish neighborhood where she grew up. The revivals star is Beanie Feldstein, whose movie credits include Lady Bird and Booksmart.

While critics raved about Streisand, they were much less enthusiastic about the musicals book. I dont think it was ever really a classic book, Fierstein, 67, said in a recent telephone interview. I think they sort of gave up after Act One and just made it a Barbra Streisand concert for Act Two. It had its problems.

So what has he done to improve things? When you rewrite, when you reshape, when you come in like this, the idea is to not give up any of the stuff that people want to see. Youre coming in to fix something and hopefully not leave fingerprints, so that nobody really knows what it is you did.

Asked what exactly hes changed, Fierstein said, Ive restructured it somewhat, taken a song out, added a song, moved things around, but in such a way that you will get every thrill that you want from what you remember. There are things that have never been in Funny Girl before that hopefully will be delightful.

Its a terrific show, he said. That score is such a fabulous score it includes the classic Streisand hit People and its a good-hearted show. Its a heartbreaking relationship between two people who really wanted something to work out and it didnt.

Why has it taken so long for a Broadway revival and why is now the right time? The show has had its problems and nobody really felt like taking it on, Fierstein said. But we did. We did it in London. I rewrote the show and we put it up at the Menier Chocolate Factory where it was a huge hit. And we moved it to the Savoy Theater and then we took it on tour and then the plan was to bring it to New York. But then the pandemic hit and it delayed everything. But here we are now.

Funny Girl was originally composed by Jule Styne, with the lyrics by Bob Merrill and a libretto by Isobel Lennart. The revivals director is the Tony-winning Michael Mayer (known for Spring Awakening), completing the all-Jewish creative team.

Fierstein, who has won four Tony awards in four different categories, played the iconic Jewish storyteller Tevye in the 2004 revival of Fiddler on the Roof. His Jewish heritage, he said, shows in the way that he thinks, in the way that he writes being Jewish figures into it all.

I was born and grew up in Bensonhurst, he said, referring to the Brooklyn neighborhood. I lived Jew-centric, because on one corner was the Jewish Community House and on the opposite corner was the Yeshiva of Bensonhurst. The rabbi walked past my house six times a day. I grew up in a household that spoke Yiddish. My mother and her friends rolled bandages for the Israel Defense Fund in the basement and for cancer care, and there was a woman with the tattooed numbers on her arm from the Sobibor concentration camp, so I grew up with that reality of the inhumanity against the Jews.

Sure, hes also an atheist. But as he sees it, that has nothing to do with his Jewish identity. Im a very Jewish person. Somebody said to me, How can you be Jewish and an atheist? I said, I guess youve never really met Jews. He laughed. Because if you took three rabbis and put them in a room together, one of them would be an atheist. Just so they could have a conversation. Jews have to have something to argue about. Its just our nature.

Image by Getty

Paula Vogel.

Paula Vogels How I Learned to Drive won a Pulitzer Prize when it premiered Off Broadway in 1997. Now the show, which explores a sexually abusive relationship between a young woman and her uncle, is making its Broadway debut with its original stars, Mary-Louise Parker and David Morse, and its original director, Mark Brokaw.

Vogel, 70, whose father was Jewish, is no stranger to Jewish themes. Her recent play Indecent riffed on Sholem Aschs God of Vengeance, an early-20th century play about a daughter of a Jewish brothel keeper who falls in love with one of her fathers prostitutes.

Like the iconic How I Learned to Drive, the play frankly addresses topics that are hard to talk about. Indeed, theater theorist Jill Dolan has noted that Vogel gravitates toward sensitive, difficult, fraught issues. Vogel, reached by phone for an interview, agreed.

I think thats true of every artist, the playwright said. This is what theater is made for for us as a community, to examine the fraught issues that are hurting us.

And this, she said, is where her fathers Jewish heritage has influenced her as a playwright and as a person. What I knew from my fathers side of the family is that all topics were ripe for conversation at the dinner table. No topic was barred. The whole purpose of having dinner was actually to have the arguments and the conversation. The food was nice too. But just this notion that if something is troubling us we need to examine it, we need to talk about it, we need to look at what our values are. And then we need to take action.

Vogel is thrilled by this revival of How I Learned to Drive, noting that female playwrights rarely see their work revived during their lifetimes.

Rather than doing this as a revival, we are doing it as a reexamination, she said. Were going to get back into the room and were going to apply and share the insights and experiences weve had as artists and as human beings living in this world for the last 25 years.

While 2022 is very different from 1997, the plays central preoccupations will still ring true with modern audiences, Vogel said. In a way, this is asking us to reexamine as audience members what Im afraid never goes away, which is the use of sex as a kind of power as an obsessional power.

Image by Getty

Richard Greenberg.

Richard Greenbergs Take Me Out is another revival with modern themes. When we first started talking about reviving Take Me Out it was several years before it happened I thought, this is great, Greenberg, 63, said in a telephone interview. It will be a diagnostic or an image of how far weve come. And then things happened, and people started saying to me things like, Its so relevant now again.And I thought, thats good for me but terrible for the world.

I didnt expect it to have the relationship to the present it does, Greenberg added. When we first did the play I thought wed better do it quickly because there will undoubtedly be an active Major League Baseball player who comes out any minute now. And that still hasnt happened. And the sort of fascistic trend in this country was not something I was expecting back then. And the kind of astonishing bald-faced racism.

How has his Jewish heritage influenced his life, his writing, the way he looks at the world? Its probably not quantifiable, but its pervasive, he said. We were quite secular. I did have a bar mitzvah. But all of history courses through us. And my parents, my family, were absolutely Jews.

There was the sound of the way they talked, he said. They were either first- or second-generation children of immigrants. And you could hear it in the wit. You could hear it in the language. You could hear it in the constructions. You could hear it in the sprinkling of Yiddish that was supposed to keep me ignorant but didnt, because I figured out what they were saying. The sound of the way the people I grew up with spoke has been going out of the world, and sometimes Ive written plays just because I wanted to hear it again.

A revival of Neil Simons 1968 comedy hit, Plaza Suite, starring husband-and-wife team Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker, will also debut this spring. In the three-act play, three couples, portrayed by Broderick and Parker, occupy the same Plaza Hotel suite at different times. John Benjamin Hickey is the director.

For Simon, who died in 2018, almost everything he wrote was implicitly, if not explicitly, Jewish. The speech patterns and rhythms, subject matter and concerns of his work were New York Jewish, as was he, so much that he once said Jewishness was so deeply embedded in me and so inherent in me that I am unaware of its quality.

Billy Crystal, who hails from Long Island, stars in and co-wrote the libretto for Mr. Saturday Night, the new musical version of Crystals 1992 comedy-drama film about the troubled life of a stand-up comedian. Music is by three-time Tony winner Jason Robert Brown and lyrics by Tony nominee Amanda Green.

The revival of David Mamets 1975 American Buffalo, about a junk shop, the American dream, American greed and a buffalo nickel, will star Laurence Fishburne, Sam Rockwell and Darren Criss. Mamet won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984 for Glengarry Glen Ross.

These revivals all differ from their originals in one big way: Theyre all premiering in a world plagued by coronavirus. Commenting on the situation, Vogel put what felt like a very Jewish emphasis on community.

In the midst of Covid, plays need to give us a journey thats collective, Vogel said. Weve been isolated. Weve been bearing the trauma and isolation alone. And to come together as an audience and have a common journey, where we go through the dark and enter into the light, I hope is going to be uplifting.

Funny Girl begins previews March 26 and opens April 24 at the August Wilson Theater.

How I Learned to Drive begins previews March 29 and opens April 19 at Manhattan Theater Clubs Samuel J. Friedman Theater.

Take Me Out begins previews March 10 and opens April 4 at Second Stage Theaters Hayes Theater.

Plaza Suite begins performances February 25 at the Hudson Theater, opening March 28.

Mr. Saturday Night begins previews March 29 and opens April 27 at the Nederlander Theater.

American Buffalo begins previews March 22 and opens April 14 at Circle in the Square Theater.

Read the original:

Coming to Broadway this spring, a bevy of Jewish themes and writers - Forward

Image: Artemis, goddess of the hunt, with nymphs; a fresco from Pompeii, by ArchaiOptix, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

Editors note: We are delighted to present a new series by Neil Thomas, Reader Emeritus at the University of Durham, Charles Darwin and the Ghost of Epicurus. This is the third article in the series.Look here for the full series so far. Professor Thomass recent book isTaking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design(Discovery Institute Press).

The ancient voices of Epicurus and Lucretius, whose resonance in antiquity right up to the middle of the 19th century was but meagre, have been hugely amplified by the appropriations of post-Darwinian mediators who have, in effect, co-opted the atomist philosophy and adapted it for consumption by the modern worldon the back of the Darwinian hypothesis of natural selection. Such voices have rendered considerably less audible the voices of the ancient teleologists whose ideas successfully supported Western civilization for two millennia. Atomism as instrumentalized by Epicurus and his successors was, as David Sedley remarked, a vital weapon against divine creation.1The atomists contention that all was due to accident was touted not as what it was an unsubstantiated philosophical lucubration without any empirical back-up but taken at face value and used as a means of freeing fellow citizens from what was taken at the time to be multiple divine persecutions.

One can understand and even sympathize with the atomists argument from a purely tactical point of view. From all that we know from Homer, the gods and goddesses of popular conception were little but fallible human beings writ large. They had the same vices as their mortal counterparts and had little enough to do with the later human tendency to project moral ideals into that non-finite and unconditioned realm imagined to be that of the divine. The classical pantheon, lacking the moral credibility that goes with an identification of gods with ideals of purity and moral sublimity, had become a source of embarrassment to thoughtful Greeks. Lucretius contended that the gods inspired fear rather than allegiance and were more to be propitiated than venerated.2

Hence Epicurus was an atheist in the original sense of the word of being an anti-theist, one who rejected the baleful and destructive values of the Athenian pantheon. His was more a declaration of war against the flawed moral nature of the gods (technically termed theomachy or misotheism) than it was a statement of outright disbelief (a-theism).3He was often in fact referred to by his contemporaries as Epicurustheomakhos.4Today we have thankfully come a long way from the times of child sacrifice and other cruel propitiatory rites, yet the anachronistic thought of divine persecution has curiously been rescued from near-oblivion in our own day by the atheistic proselytizing of Richard Dawkins.

When some two decades ago Dawkins paid to have a somewhat underwhelming motto Theres probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life emblazoned on the side of London buses, many were bemused and prompted to ask themselves what precisely they might have to be worried about. The sentiment seems more than a little anachronistic. It is as if Dawkins were living in the time of Epicurus when conceptions of the gods as capricious, amoral, and unhelpful to humankind were commonly held. The slogan appeared to represent a projection of Dawkinss own thinking rather than an effective means of outreach to the generality of people.5It is perhaps not too difficult to imagine him clothed in an Epicurean toga with an imposing-looking scroll in hand intoning the message of Absolute Truth in his latter-day guise of Grand Pontiff of Humanity.

However much Dawkins lays himself open to parody,6there is no denying that this latter-day avatar of the ancient atomists has achieved some degree of traction through his indefatigable channeling of the spirits of Darwin, Epicurus, and Lucretius. Indeedcountless instances of Epicurean notions abound in modern, advanced thought. In Jacques MonodsLe Hasard et la Necessit(Chance and Necessity), for instance, the author advances a number of arguments which are quintessentially Epicurean/Lucretian, to such an extent, it has been observed, that it would be an exaggeration, but a pardonable one, to say that no leading principle of significance separates Monod from Lucretius than that the former merely knows more chemistry.7

In fact, David Sedley has gone so far as to claim that the atomists, with their faltering anticipations of Darwinism, may for the majority of readers have emerged as todays winners by proxy.8Quite so. Darwin, largely innocent of formal philosophy himself, was nevertheless able to pull off a dazzling intellectual coup against the major thinkers of repute in the Western tradition going back over two millennia and to single-handedly rehabilitate the reputation of a philosophical school once almost universally excoriated. The coup is particularly notable since Darwin succeeded where all the argumentative brilliance of David Hume had struck little fire. So how did Darwin pull off this astounding philosophical manoeuvre?

Next, For Darwin, Timing Was Everything.

Read the original:

Epicurus and Natural Selection - Discovery Institute

German Navy Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schnbachannounced his resignation Saturday after his comments about the ongoing crisis at the Ukrainian border provoked outrage, The Guardian reported.

At a think-tank discussion in India on 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."

Additionally, Schnbachsuggested 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.

Read the original post:

German navy chief who said NATO should give Putin 'the respect he demands' resigns - The Week Magazine

If someone proclaims that he or she is an atheist and not heard of God or does not have faith in the creator can be excused, but someone who claims that they have not heard of 'mother', cannot be forgiven. MOTHER is the adult form of a GIRL. Mythology whether its Indian or Greek accords a status of absolute equality to women. The world is barren and incomplete without the females.

In Rigveda, a feminine energy is the essence of the universe, that creates the cosmos - she is the empowering force. Lord Shiva is powerless without Shakti, the powerful feminine form. They are complementary to the point that they are indistinguishable and equal in every respect. Athena of Greek mythology, was the goddess of wisdom, intellect, war, arts, industry, justice and skill. She leaps from her father Zeus' skull and was considered a great warrior who protected many cities of ancient Greece. Aphrodite, the Goddess of beauty and creation was a living example of perfection in every way. Do not determine the role of a girl or a woman by her beauty or intelligence but by her kindness, her generosity, her power and strength and her ability to fight for truth, and for her fellow human beings with undaunted courage.

Girls and boys who are the same age can be at different developmental stages at different times but eventually they catch up with each other. Brain is flexible for both. They build connections and change as they grow depending upon the upbringing and home atmosphere. Charity begins at home. The family plays a vital and a crucial role in encouraging and supporting the girl inside and outside home. Safe spaces should be created by both men and women for the growth of a multifaceted personality of a girl. Education is the ammunition for the girl with which she can fight her battles and face challenges. Employment is like a fully loaded rifle that gives a girl the power and strength to fight alone in this world.

Gender inequality should be rooted out and girls should be made for the empowerment of themselves. Don't forget that though she is small, fragile, delicate and emotional, she is fierce and when in need ferocious.

The most beautiful creation of God in the universe is the girl child. The entire existence and survival of human race depends upon the girl child. She is wholly and solely responsible for the continuity of human species from extinction. She should be loved, cared and respected. Girls play multiple roles in the household and in the economic well being of the society. The educationalists time and again reiterated that girls given an opportunity, are ahead of boys in many fields. They are faster in learning and understanding. They are flexible and has potential to understand the situation and has the power to turn it around to suit everyone. Education involves a lot of communication and verbal responses and these skills are generally more developed in girls.

Girls have an inside voice and a strong sixth sense. They display great intelligence, vitality and a strong sense of personal independence and often surpass their male counterparts in unpredictable situations. Awards and recognition help girls in discovering themselves. This is nothing but empowering women. Encourage girls, let them dream to build their citadels, they thrive, excel, achieve and conquer the world where no man has gone before.

It's not the laws or initiatives we need from the rulers, we need newer outlook and better awareness among people. GIRLS ARE A BOON, NOT A BANE.

Go here to see the original:

National girl child day: Love me for what i am - The Hans India

At the end of each podcast, Babylon Bee leaders ask guests the same 10 questions, including this stumper: Calvinist or Arminian?

That caught Elon Musk by surprise, and he needed clarification on the difference between Arminian believers and persons from Armenia. After some background on Protestant history, he said: My mind would say determinism and my heart says, free will.

Why was the mastermind behind Tesla and SpaceX a man worth $278 billion at the end of 2021 talking to a Christian satire website? The answer: Musk has 69.7 million Twitter followers, and he frequently responds, even if its a U.S. senator questioning his taxes.

You know, he engages with our content from time to time, Bee CEO Seth Dillon told Fox News. After email exchanges about a meeting, Musk said: Fly to me and well do it.

The result was 100-plus minutes of conversation in Austin, Texas, ranging from satire to science, from politics to pop culture. Topics included why entrepreneurs are fleeing California, sustainable energy, superheroes (Musk would choose to be Irony Man), the physics of reusable rockets, cyborgs, how wokeness threatens humor, CNN morality and the future of a planet near an expanding sun.

Musk discussed his journey from South Africa to America, including his days as a manual laborer while struggling to pay student loans. Then he dove into computer coding and online commerce, making millions of dollars that led to Tesla. The rest is history.

On celebrity websites, Musk is often described as an atheist or agnostic. Asked if he prays, Musk once replied: I didnt even pray when I almost died of malaria. But after the success of the first manned Falcon rocket mission, Musk said, in his public remarks: You know, Im not very religious, but I prayed for this one.

In the Bee interview, Musk discussed his complex religious background, which included going to Anglican Sunday school, the Church of England, basically. But I was also sent to Hebrew preschool, although Im not Jewish. I was singing Hava Nagila one day and Jesus Our Lord the next. Later, he had an existential crisis, read the Bible and other religious classics and concluded: Theres a whole bunch of things in there they didnt teach you in Sunday school.

There was humor in these exchanges, along with serious questions, said Bee editor Kyle Mann, via email. After all, these podcasts have featured atheists, agnostics, Christians of all stripes and everyone in between.

This chance to pick Elon Musks brain and get his thoughts on God, faith, religion and the Gospel was incredibly humbling. You could certainly feel him searching and working through the eternal question everyone has to encounter at some point: Does God exist and what do you do with Jesus Christ? Mann said this dialogue continued after the recording stopped.

In the podcast, creative director Ethan Nicolle did ask: To make this church, were wondering if you could do us a quick solid and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

After an awkward pause and some laughter, Musk took the question seriously.

Theres great wisdom in the teachings of Jesus, and I agree with those teachings. Things like turn the other cheek are very important, as opposed to an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, said Musk, paraphrasing a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. Musk also quoted Albert Einstein, affirming belief in the God of Spinoza, in which the material universe is seen as an expression of God.

Forgiveness, you know, is important and treating people as you would wish to be treated, added Musk. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Very important. But hey, if Jesus is saving people I wont stand in his way. Sure, Ill be saved. Why not?

At the very end, Musk described his confusion as a 5-year-old, receiving Holy Communion without understanding what was happening and why. At that stage, he said, he was still asking basic Bible questions, like how Jesus fed the crowd with five loaves and three fish. Where did the fish and the bread come from? Would you, like, take a bite and the bread would come back to being a full bread?

He said, They left out the details. Im not saying that I know all the answers.

See the article here:

Terry Mattingly: Jokes and big questions: The Babylon Bee meets with Elon Musk and learns a few things - Joplin Globe

Ricky Gervais only cares about getting laughs with his comedy.

The creator of The Office wants people - of all political stripes - to laugh at his comedy as he loves the buzz of it.

The 60-year-old funnyman told Closer: You hone the jokes to them bulletproof - its not like I go out there and say, Im going to say the first thing that comes into my head, I dont care what people think. I do care, but shouldnt worry about what people think of the politics of the joke.

He continued: Ill pretend to be right wing, left wing, clever, stupid - I just want everyone to laugh at the joke, whatever their politics, whatever their real beliefs. I want to be more honest, thats all I care about. It gives me an adrenaline rush. I think, Can I say that? Of course, I can, Ive just got to say it right. And thats the buzz for me.

The After Life creator is moved by the response to the Netflix series - that he also stars in alongside Diane Morgan, Kerry Godliman, Penelope Wilton and Tony Way- which focus on Tony Johnson, a local newspaper journalist dealing with the loss of his wife.

Ricky said: I think the important thing about the show is that it deals with grief more openly. Even therapists will come to me and say they use this in their grief counselling sometimes. One grief counsellor said to me, Please dont let Tony commit suicide and I took that on.

The five-time Golden Globe host - whose jokes held nothing back with the star-studded guest list as the punchlines - added that he was worried about the reaction to things he gets Tony to do but it has been positive.

He said: I was worried about the bit where I threatened a little bully with a hammer, but all these posh middle-class people come up to me and they go, Ive wanted to do that because someone was bullying my son.

The avowed atheist - who has never gotten married to his partner of over

40 years, the novelist Jane Fallon, 60, due to his lack of religious belief - argued that creating fiction is so great because it's the closest thing to being God.

Ricky said: All I want to do is get my point of view across, be honest and make people think about stuff. Its never been about viewing figures, awards or money. Its always, I can get this off my chest, I can say this, can I do this? And I love creating characters and their worlds. Its the closest thing to being God.

See the original post:

Ricky Gervais only cares about getting laughs with his comedy. - KHQ Right Now

Morality is a deep subject. Books with thousands upon thousands of words have been written, and still there is no concrete conclusion on what it necessarily means to be moral. One thing I think we can all agree on is that morality is dependent upon the well-being of humans; it comes in degrees of morality. Certainly there is no strict black and white to morality; there are more gray areas of varying amplitude instead.

Our well-being is the foundation to what we would consider a normative moral definition. Without human well-being as the starting point, what would it be worth calling it morality? If god is put first as the center for morality, then what happens to us is irrespective of humanity; we are simply fodder for something that hasn't been shown to exist, equivalent to the sacrifice of thousands of humans for heathen religions of old and in current religions: apostasy in Islam, death via failed pregnancy in Catholicism where abortions are a no-go, and murder of LGBTQ people in Christianity, as examples.

Atheists like me tend to center our morality on the well-being of humanity through humanism. Most theists (Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, etc.) also focus morality upon the well-being of humans. Given we both center our moral framework upon the well-being of our species, it would appear that you don't need a god to be good; one only needs empathy, compassion, and reflection upon actions to determine moral goods.

We all tend toward doing good for the benefit of our species. The next time you're questioning a decision as to whether it's a moral good, I'd suggest putting humans before a god.

Adin Briggs

Duluth

The writer is a life-long atheist and founder of Twin Ports Humanists.

Letters are limited to 300 words, must be the original work of the author and must be exclusive to the News Tribune. Letters are edited for style, space, accuracy and civility.

Letter writers are limited to one published submission every 30 days.

With rare exceptions, the News Tribune does not publish poetry; letters that are anonymous, libelous or attack other writers; consumer-complaint letters; thank-you letters; or letters generated by political or special-interest campaigns.

We will consider exclusive Local View columns of 600 words or fewer. Authors should possess unique insights, and their commentaries should demonstrate greater knowledge of their subject than letters.

Email submissions to: letters@duluthnews.com

Mail to: Readers' Views, Duluth News Tribune, 424 W. First St., Duluth, MN 55802.

Fax to: 218-720-5120.

Include a full name, address and daytime phone number. Only names and hometowns will be published.

Read more here:

Reader's View: No god needed to be good - Duluth News Tribune

There is a growing sense that the more educated you are, especially in the field of Science, the more likely you are to be an atheist or agnostic. The Quran actually challenges us to ponder over nature as signs of God, rather than as reasons to disbelieve, as we will see below.

There are two prevailing myths when it comes to religion and science.

I will not address the first point here except to say that this may be partly true as the rate of atheism, or disaffiliation from organized religion is on the rise and disproportionately higher in the scientific community. However, it wont be true to make a statement that the scientific community does not believe in God.

For those who use science as basis for their disbelief:

When they find a scientific reason for certain natural phenomenon, they somehow start to conclude as if it means there is no God who created these phenomenon. When they find out that the universe started with a big bang, or the origin of life was from the water and that various species developed/evolved from a single source, they somehow interpret this as a sign of God-less creation and evolution.

They tend to forget that all of this knowledge tells us the HOW part, but it fails to answer/address the WHY part.

The Quran is full of passages that address the nature and it in-fact invites us to ponder and contemplate, with a focus on the WHY part as well as the WHO part- WHO made all this possible? In this article, I will quote a series of four verses that caught my attention (again)recently.These four verses are from chapter 21, The Prophets.

Do the Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit), before we clove them asunder? (another translation- before we split them apart?) .We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 21:30

And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance. 21:31

We made the sky a protective ceiling. Yet they are turning away from Our signs. 21:32

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. 21:33

I will address the last three verses in the next post, but here my focus is on the first verse- 21:30

This verse points to two key astrophysical and biological theories currently accepted by scientists: the Big Bang theory and the origin of life from water.

The other point I wanted to emphasize was the question asked at the end of the verse- Will they not then believe?

In other words, finally figuring out that the universe came into being with the big bang some 14 billion years ago, or finding out that life is either predominantly made of water and/or has aquatic origins, should not lead one to disbelieve but actually are the very reasons to believe in Gods creativity.

According to the American Museum of Natural History:

The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.

Not only WHAT caused the explosion is still a mystery but HOW did what was present before the Big Bang come into existence in the first place?

How could life randomly and spontaneously develop from a very simple cell to a highly complex organism we see today (actually millions of organisms) without a purpose and without a planner is mind-boggling. Think of how many super smart scientist are working for so many years on artificial intelligence to reproduce a tiny piece of what we can do naturally. As a physician when I study natural processes and millions of mechanisms to maintain normal body function, I find it hard to fathom that this is a result of random, spontaneous process over millions of years without a super intelligent planner.

This is why the Quran challenges us to ponder nature and then to ask ourselves as to why we would still not believe in God. Finding out how our body naturally fights the foreign harmful invaders on a daily basis, and finds ways to heal up an open wound are not reasons to disbelieve. They are the very reasons to believe in God-the Creator-in-Chief. These are just a couple of thousands of examples, if we were to contemplate a little deeper.

The Quran was revealed some 1400 years ago. The Carbon dating of some of the manuscript confirms that rough timeline. For a Scripture to talk about the Big bang at that time, to me, is one of the many reasons for my belief in that One God. At the end of the day faith means you dont need a proof for Gods existence- the type of proof we need in a lab experiment using the existing scientific methodology. Reading these passages does not make me believe in God, but rather strengthens my faith in God.

In part 2, I will cover the last three verses in more details.

Portions of the article were based on the section Quran and Science of my book, The Quran: With or Against the Bible?

Dont forget to sign up for my newsletter (see sign up in the upper right corner) to receive the latest blog posts.

Images: courtesy of Pixabay.com

Read the original here:

Big Bang: Reason to Believe in God, and Not To Disbelieve Part 1 - Patheos

Photo credit: Dellex, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

Darwinist Jerry Coyne has been at the forefront of efforts over the past couple of decades to censor advocates of intelligent design and anyone who questions the Darwinian paradigm. Coyne, who was Discovery InstitutesCensor of the Year in 2014,has been an enthusiastic practitioner of cancel culture when it comes to Christians and anyone who questions the atheist Darwinian paradigm.

For example, Coyne tried to silence and damage the career of a young physicist at Ball State University,Eric Hedin, who had the audacity to teach an honors course entitled The Boundaries of Science which included optional readings on intelligent design. Coyne, along with his colleagues at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, made thebizarre claimthat Hedin, teaching at a state university, violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by offering his students an opportunity to read about intelligent design. That is, Coyne and his fellow atheists accused Hedin of violating the First Amendment which guarantees the right to freedom of speech merely because he was offering his students an opportunity to learn about design perspectives on the origin of the universe. Fortunately, Hedin survived the atheist onslaught on his career and kept his job and ultimately published a superb book titledCanceled Science(highly recommended!).

Coyne, who is blind to irony, is now upset at the same cancel culture that he fervently unleashed on Christians and on scientists who question his atheist materialism. The woke thugs are going afterDarwinistsandpaleontologists!

Oh my.Scientific Americandid an asinine hit job on E. O. Wilson,calling him a racist.

Scientific Americanhas hit rock bottom with this new op-ed that is nothing more than a hit piece on Ed Wilson, basically calling him a racist.

It is written by someone who apparently has no training in evolutionary biology, though she says she intimately familiarized [herself] with Wilsons work and his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior. I usually dont question someone because of their credentials, but this piece is so stupid, so arrantly ignorant of Wilsons work, that I can attribute its content only to a combination of ignorance (perhaps deliberate) or a woke desire to take down someone as a racist who wasnt a racist. Or both.

In fact, the piece below could have been written by any social-justice ideologue, for its real aim is more than smearing Wilson; its also to change the nature of science. Read on.

Once again, the magazine evinces a ridiculous wokeness; how could its editor, Laura Helmuth, allow this to be published?

How could the editor of a scientific publication viciously attack a fellow scientist for advocating politically incorrect scientific theories and stepping outside of the boundaries set by sciences self-appointed censors? Actually, all the editor had to do was read Coynes blog for the past decade and she could learn all she needed to know about censorship and ideologically motivated professional destruction from Coyne himself.

The woke thugs are coming for Darwin. And of course, Darwin deserves every bit of it the social impact of Darwinism and the eugenics that follows naturally from it on our societyhas been catastrophic.I dont like cancellation and I despise the woke thugs, but if anybody deserves to be in their crosshairs its the Darwinists.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institutes Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Originally posted here:

Woke Comes Back to Bite the Darwinists - Discovery Institute

In 1612, Thomas Helwys published the first book in English arguing for true religious liberty for all people. One of the two founders of the first Baptist church (of the world) formed just three years earlier, Helwys went beyond the normal demand that persecution cease towards ones own sect to insist on religious liberty for everyone, even Jews, Muslims, and atheists. Radical stuff even in a radical age.

He then sent the King of England a copy ofA Short Declaration on the Mistery of Iniquitythat included a blistering critique of state-church alliances, like the one enjoyed by the Church of England. Helwys even scrawled a note inside: The King is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them.

The king didnt like that too much. He threw Helwys and some other Baptists in jail, where Helwys died a few years later. The king kept ruling over both the nation of England and the churches in the land for another decade. Who was this royal figure?

King James.

Perhaps youve heard of him. Maybe check an old Bibles cover for a reminder. As Helwys in 1611 crafted hisMistery of Iniquityto call for religious liberty for all that led to his persecution and death behind bars, King James released the authorized version of the Bible. Apparently His Majesty, metaphorically smited on thy right cheek by Helwys, missed the admonition in Matthews Gospel to turn to him the other also.

So, we find it a bit ironic that a Baptist in Oklahomaintroduced a bill in the state legislature this month to mandate the use of the King James Bible as the translation for use in public schools. Senator George Burns wants classes that teach the Bible as a historical text to no longer primarily use a multi-translation book. Instead, his legislation requires that the Authorized Version of the Bible, which is more commonly known as the King James Version of the Bible, shall be the primary text of the course. In addition, his bill making the KJV the Oklahoma Authorized Version includes a provision that each school district library in this state shall include the Authorized Version of the Bible, more commonly known as the King James Version of the Bible.

Burnss bill doesnt just mandate a specific translation. It also attempts to marshal state power to force his religious beliefs on public schools. Hes amemberof Lukfata Baptist Church in Broken Bow, which includes in its 4,265-wordstatement of beliefsone bolded, underlined sentence: The King James Version of the Bible shall be the official and only translation used by this church. It then adds for clarity, Special note: the King James Version and the New King James Version are two different translations, and only the King James Version will be the accepted translation used by Lukfata Baptist Church. No word on if the pastor preaches in Shakespearean verse (or if theyve decided to go full 17th century and try to survive a plague without vaccines).

Burnss move would make King James proud but likely spark a harsh response from his Baptist ancestors. Trying to codify ones own convictions into law is just the kind of state infringement of religious liberty that would inspire Helwys or other historical Baptist figures like Isaac Backus to protest even to the point of imprisonment (though well note that Burns isnt proposing to send any wayward teachers or librarians to jail though others have alreadygone there).

While the Sooner State considers this extreme and clearly unconstitutional bill, lawmakers in other states have similarly sought to to authorize official Bible classes in public schools. In this issue ofA Public Witness, we study the political effort behind the Bible blitz. We also quiz this movement to consider the pedagogical and religious problems with such legislation.

Dont miss the next issue ofA Public Witness. Sign up now for this e-newsletter on faith, culture, and politics!

Dismissing Sen. Burnss legislative antics as insignificant would be a mistake for at least two reasons. First, seven states havealready passedsimilar bills (minus the King James requirement). Second, the introduction of these measures is not an accident. Rather, it is part of a concerted campaign to use political power and public resources to teach sectarian beliefs.

Originally deemed Project Blitz, the effort involved a constellation of individuals and groups on the Christian Right who saw state legislatures as an easy avenue for chipping away at church-state separation. Borrowing the approach of conservative business interests and others, the campaignprovidesstate legislators with model legislation to be introduced on a range of topics as innocuous as license plates to more contentious measures around human sexuality.

Its kind of like whack-a-mole for the other side; itll drive em crazy that theyll have to divide their resources out in opposing this, is how the controversial, self-styled historian David Bartondescribed the strategy. [The model bills are] going to be things that people yell at, but they will help move the ball down the court.

Virginia House of Delegates. (Brian Kaylor/Word&Way)

Perhaps due to the negative publicity generated by the push, Frederick Clarkson the researcher who helped first bring it to light documenteda more covert approach by the coordinating groups over the last two years. Critics see that realityas botha sign their pushback is working and cause for continued alarm.

What remains quite noticeable is the impact on our public life. Fromsupportive tweetsby then-President Donald Trump to teachers in Kentuckyteachingmoral lessons explicitly drawn from Christian scripture, the foundational idea that public education is offered to everyone regardless of identity or creed remains under concerted attack.

Bryan Kelley, an education policy researcher, told us that bills proposing Bible classes be taught are inherently controversial to some extent, and some are definitely more controversial than others.

Its also obvious that states introducing bills to teach the Bible in public schools arent doing the same thing with the sacred texts of other faiths and that Bible courses can certainly be taught poorly/unconstitutionally, Kelley added.

He cautioned that while theres not a particularly big wave or prominent trend in state legislatures yet this session, it could be an important area to watch amid the surge of bills looking to ban critical race theory or other topics from public school curriculum.

Help sustain the ministry ofWord&Wayby subscribing toA Public Witness!

Two Bible literacy bills are pending before committees in Missouri this year. For the third time in four years, Republican Rep. Ben Baker filed abillto encourage schools to create an elective social studies course to teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding American history and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy. And in the other chamber, Democratic Sen. Karla May introduced for the second year in a row an identicalbill.

The Missouri bills claim that such a class on the Bible shall not endorse, favor, or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward, any particular religion or nonreligious faith or religious perspective. Yet, both sponsors are Christians and have been outspoken in previous years about their desire for more people to understand and follow the Bible. Baker is even a lay Assemblies of God minister and former dean of students at Ozark Bible Institute (he was also the sponsor of the unsuccessfulbillwe referenced earlier to imprison librarians). Their passion for the Bible rightly comes not from its historical impact but from their own faith.

Both versions of the Missouri bill also insist that a student in the course shall not be required to use a specific translation, though as Senator Burns in Oklahoma shows that provision would be vulnerable to an amendment in a later legislative session.

Back in 2010, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry signed intolawOklahomas bill encouraging Bible literacy classes. This put the state well ahead of the curve, predating the nationwide Project Blitz push on this topic by several years. Now the decade-old status quo appears no longer good enough.

Our Founding Fathers relied heavily upon the scriptures in the formation of our country, and the Bible they used was the King James Bible, which makes it an important historical document, Burnsarguedas he introduced his bill to amend Oklahomas Bible classes.

Burns insisted to us that hes not pushing mine when it comes to translations but pushing the most historical document as far as the Bible goes. He added that he reads several different versions, but noted his pastor helped him put this together.

Im mainly doing it to preserve the Bible, he told us.

Burns also connected his bill to the threat he sees from critical race theory, especially because he thinks people pushing critical race theory will also oppose the KJV Bible.

Youve heard of critical race theory going on right now, right? In Oklahoma, were trying to protect ourselves from the federal government wanting to destroy the 10 Commandments, all the monuments of our presidents, and that type of stuff, he explained. Its our history. Theyre trying to get rid of our history.

Burns bill would also amend current law so that an ordained or licensed member of the clergy may be selected by the school district to teach a course offered pursuant to this section. We seem to be moving away from the claim these courses are just about historical influence and more accurately acknowledging this is about using the public school system to indoctrinate and evangelize.

Thats why Amanda Tyler, executive director ofBaptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, told us these Bible literacy courses promote Christian nationalism.

The idea that one must know the Bible in order to be an educated American silently implying that other religious texts are not as important perpetuates that insidious ideology that merges American and Christian identities, Tyler explained. If a public school wants to teach about religion in order to further religious literacy, there is a better path: use a religiously-neutral curriculum that includes diverse religious texts. In practice, these Bible literacy courses could easily morph into devotional religious instruction, which violates a fundamental principle of religious freedom: the state should never try to do the job of the church.

Lawmakers in other states where the Bible blitz has thus far failed havent yet filed new bills this year. But its early in some legislative sessions, and the pandemic has altered the focus of many of the church-state fights.

There is, however, a bill in Mississippi from a Democratic state representative (and Sunday School teacher at a Baptist church) tonamethe Bible as the official state book. A similar billfailed(again) last year in Tennessee after being pushed by a Republican state representative (and former Baptist pastor). If both states were to pass such a resolution we might need old Solomon to help us split the baby for custody. While King James would likely be sad to see we gained independence from England, we suspect hed probably be pretty pleased with these legislative efforts.

Get cutting-edge analysis and commentary like this in your inbox every week by subscribing today!

One of us (Brian) has testified six times over the last three legislative sessions against these Bible literacy bills in the Missouri legislature and we suspect hell be back at the state Capitol soon for another round. In addition to invoking Thomas Helwys and other Baptists, his testimony noted that what the bills push for cannot truly be implemented without violating the First Amendment. Heres the core of that testimony about whats wrong with these bills.

First, the legislation singles out the Bible as the sole sacred text worthy of study in public school classrooms.Are there no other religious writings of significant historical and literary influence? A course surveying the impact that a variety of religious texts have had on our culture and society would make far more sense, given the stated purposes of the legislation. To single out the Bible as the only one worthy of study seems designed to sneak Christian teaching into public school classrooms. This looks more like evangelism than education.

Second, you have to determine what Bible will be taught.The proposed bills in Missouri say that no requirement shall be made by the district on the text translation students must use. And thats the standard in Oklahoma (unless Senator Burns gets his KJV-only way) and other states that have already passed similar legislation. But those pushing these bills dont seem to understand that the very concept of the Bible remains contested. One teacher could not possibly teach a course on the Bible to students who are simultaneously reading from the Jewish Tanakh (that doesnt include any of the New Testament), the 66 books in most Protestant Bibles, the 73 books considered authoritative by the Roman Catholic Church, or the 80 books included in the Orthodox Church of Americas Bible.

If a teacher picks just one list of books as the Bible, the state will be choosing winners and losers when it comes to religion and faith. But to teach all of the various lists as books of the Bible is to undermine the faith teachings of parents and churches that pick a particular list for profoundly religious reasons. Either the supporters of this bill have not considered this problem or they are making an assumption that their preferred version of the Bible is most likely to be used as seen by the fact that the bills only use explicitly Christian language to describe the Hebrew scriptures.

A related problem is the identity of the teacher leading the course. What happens when a non-Christian is assigned to teach about the Bible? Theoretically, any social studies or English teacher is qualified to educate students about the historical and literary role of the Bible. Would the legislators pushing these bills (and the constituents supporting their efforts) really accept an avowed atheist designing the syllabus and offering the lectures?

Perhaps well see more bait-and-switch amendments like the one in Oklahoma that will keep making these classes more sectarian. Regardless, the result will be alienated students, offended parents, and a violation of constitutional principles.

Brian Kaylor testifying in Missouri hearings against Bible literacy bills.

Third, we cannot separate the historical and literary elements of the Bible from its supernatural claims.The resurrection of Jesus features heavily in our cultural imagery because of its widespread belief among Christians. How can a course consider the Bibles impact without talking about the resurrection? If taught as a supernatural act, that would be unconstitutional. But equally problematic would be to undermine the historicity of the resurrection. We can already imagine the outrage and the headlines that will emerge when the views of the teacher come into conflict with the convictions of students and parents.

That gets us to the heart of the issue: The Bible cannot be reduced to an elective social studies class. Yes, this collection of religious texts has impacted literature, politics, history, culture, and so much more. But the reason for its influence is due to peoples belief in what the Bible reveals. This is notMoby DickorA Tale of Two Cities. The Bible is not influential because it is great literature but because so many people believe it is the word of God.

That is certainly our belief. The Bible is the foundational text of our faith. It is how we learn about God. It teaches us what it means to follow the Lords commands and worship our Creator. This book is inherently religious and pretending otherwise is foolish. Stripping away its sacredness under the pretext of treating this text as just good literature is to profane the Bible.

We need the state to teach our young sons reading, writing, and arithmetic. It would be nice if they could also cover basic computer science, critical reasoning, foreign languages, the arts, and a few vocational skills. We neither want nor trust the government to educate them about the Bible. Thats the job of our churches and families.

We need state lawmakers to stop failing this basic test of religious and constitutional logic.

As a public witness,

Brian Kaylor & Beau Underwood

See the rest here:

Bible-Thumping Bills - Word and Way