Category Archives: Atheist

I am one of many people who have found both wisdom and wit from the writings of C.S. Lewis. Clive Staples Lewis known always as Jack to his friends was born in Northern Ireland in 1898 and grew up in a house overflowing with books. He was sent to England to be educated where he left his familys formal Christianity to become a professing atheist. After a time on the frontline during the First World War, he began an academic career in English Language at Oxford University which was in effect to last all his life. Even when he was made a Professor at Cambridge, Lewis still returned to Oxford for weekends.

As a young man Lewis found himself increasingly unhappy with his atheism. With a vivid imagination enriched by extensive reading, he found himself longing for something more satisfying than anything atheism could offer. Conversations about God with many Christian friends, including J.R.R. Tolkien, gradually convinced him that religion could be true and, in 1929, Lewis became a reluctant believer in God, moving within months to a full acceptance of Christianity.

Without neglecting his increasingly acclaimed academic career, Lewis started defending and promoting his new-found faith. The result was a wide variety of books which were all brilliantly written, well-argued and thoroughly accessible. The Second World War brought him more attention when he became a popular radio speaker; his talks on the Christian faith were published as _Mere Christianity_, a book widely considered a spiritual classic. Lewis wrote many other books on subjects that he knew people found difficult: miracles, pain, prayer and other issues. He also wrote a range of fiction, all of which involved his

faith: _The Screwtape Letters_, a science fiction trilogy and the seven childrens books of _The Chronicles of Narnia_. Lewiss success came at a cost: his outspoken defence of the Christian faith was resented by his colleagues.

Lewiss social circle in Oxford was almost entirely masculine but, to everyones surprise (including his), in his late fifties he found himself in an unlikely romance with Joy Davidman, an American writer.

Their happy marriage lasted four years before her passing from cancer.

Lewis himself died in 1963 but his books continue to have an extraordinary influence within Christianity and beyond.

Many books have been written about Lewis as a theologian, a writer and a defender of Christianity. Here are some of my favourite C.S. Lewis quotes.

I think that if God forgives us we must forgive ourselves.

Otherwise it is almost like setting up ourselves as a higher tribunal than Him.

From a devils point of view: The safest road to Hell is

the gradual one the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

All that is not eternal is eternally out of date.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

As an evangelist, what I most appreciate about Lewis is the superb way in which he communicated Christian truth. Somehow, he was able to hold together a number of virtues.

First, Lewis communicated with _both depth and simplicity_. For a man who lived the cloistered life of an Oxford academic, Lewis was profoundly sensitive to the concerns and struggles of ordinary people.

At a time when theologians were discussing questions no one was asking in language no one could understand, Lewis spoke simply and directly to everybody. He had the gift of taking profound and complex theological ideas and, with memorable phrases and relevant illustrations, transforming them into truths that everybody could understand. With his extraordinary knowledge and profound intelligence Lewis could easily have talked down to his readers, yet he had the ability and the humility to put himself alongside them. Theres a lesson there.

Second, Lewis communicated to _both imagination and intellect_.

Lewiss personal road to faith had begun with his imagination. He never forgot that and even in his most reasoned works we find him using sparkling language and evocative imagery. That appeal to the imagination is even stronger in his fiction. Yet at the same time, Lewis knew that appeals to the emotions alone can be dishonest and unhelpful unless they are based on reason. Much of the power of Lewiss writing lies in this simultaneous appeal to head and heart: persuasive claims delivered in gripping prose. There is good sense here. A faith based only on emotions can fail in a time of testing, while one based only on reason can leave the heart barren. Another lesson.

Finally, Lewis communicated with _both focus and breadth_. Lewis was a bold defender of the Christian faith but he was selective in what he defended. So, he was outspoken on the fundamentals of the faith as the deity of Christ, the truth of the Gospels and certainty of heaven:

essentials that he famously termed Mere Christianity. Yet beyond such matters he refused to be drawn. There is no agreement on who originally said, In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity, but Lewis would have agreed with it. I find there is another lesson there.

Lewis speaks powerfully to those on the edge of faith. Yet he also speaks to us Christian believers who are in need of encouragement and direction. C.S. Lewis is a truly outstanding hero of the faith.

Revd Canon J.John

Director: http://www.canonjjohn.com

Read the rest here:

Heroes of the Faith: C.S. Lewis - Keep the Faith

One of the more unpleasant aspects of contemporary life is the hyper-tribalisation of every disagreement into a binary choice . On the progressive side of the aisle, they even have a word for it: allyship. If you agree with us on subjects A, B and C, then youd better sign up wholeheartedly for cause D. If you dont, then youre either a traitor or a dupe. Deviation from this rule will not be tolerated.

So when it comes to the recent controversy over a woefully unfunny Waterford Whispers News sketch broadcast by RT on New Years Eve, criticism of the decision to broadcast the skit inevitably came almost exclusively from religious leaders and conservative commentators. And the (much quieter) defence inevitably derived from the secular left. In this instance, the conservatives are (mostly) right and the liberals are (mostly) wrong. So should I send my membership card back or just burn it at home?

If you missed it, the sketch, which took the form of a fake bulletin presented by former newsreader Aengus Mac Grianna, featured God being arrested. In another shocking revelation this year, Mac Grianna told viewers, God became the latest figure to be implicated in ongoing sexual harassment scandals. The five-billion-year-old stood accused of forcing himself on a young middle-eastern migrant and allegedly impregnating her against her will. He was sentenced to two years in prison with the last 24 months suspended.

Watched live, as part of a mainstream flagship entertainment programme in the context of a national lockdown which would have boosted audience numbers well above the norm, the item was crude, jarring and clearly offensive to many viewers. Buried somewhere within the bad writing was a hamfisted attempt to make a point about the Irish court systems treatment of sexual assault by making a rape joke about Christian belief. And a Happy New Year to you too.

In a hanging-out-to-dry process which will be familiar to freelance writers and entertainers everywhere, it was left to poor Mac Grianna to make the most heartfelt apology, even though hes unlikely to have had script approval. Truly I am deeply sorry for the offence, distress and hurt caused, he wrote on Twitter. It was wrong for me. It was wrong of me.

So far, so familiar. A more modern twist to the tale centredon the fact that the offending item was still available on the RT Player, giving rise to inevitable demands for its removal (although, given the shortcomings of the player, that wasprobably the best place to keep it safely hidden).

But when Atheist Ireland, whove never seen a bandwagon they didnt fancy jumping on, correctly pointed out that nobody has the right not to be offended, they also managed to miss the point in a particularly 21st century sort of a way by conflating censorship and editorial decision-making.

Yes, of course RT has the right to broadcast whatever it wants within the limits of the law of the land. It is also, like other media organisations, constrained by its own ethical and editorial guidelines. And it has an internal decision-making team of producers, editors and managers whose job it is to make sure those guidelines are observed, that quality thresholds are met and whatever material is being produced is appropriate for the timeslot and context in which it is being broadcast.

All of this complex machinery is designed, in theory at least, to ensure that media companies may aspire to the publishing equivalent of Tom Waitss definition of a gentleman as someone who can play the accordion but doesnt. Good editorial judgment is often about recognising when to put the bloody accordion down before its too late.

That process clearly failed here, a fact RT acknowledged on Thursday of this week, when it published the findings of its own Editorial Board that the sketch had failed to comply with its own standards as well as with a number of legislative and regulatory requirements. The processes which led to the piece being broadcast will be reviewed, it has been removed from the Player and an apology will be published. To be fair, it's a clear and comprehensive acknowledgment of a serious lapse in standards. But its also legitimate for critics to ask whether such a failure of judgment reflects a lack of respect for that part of the population in this case, presumably, practising Christians most likely to be offended.

There is, of course, a certain wearisome pattern to these things. Everyone has their part to play the TDs railing against godless media types, the calls for unspecified but serious penalties against RT, the outraged letters to the editor so that it feels properly like the relevant Reeling in the Years clip from the 1970. But its four decades now since Ireland banned The Life of Brian, the bishops crozier has long lost its power and, to this atheists eye, the decision to broadcast the sketch looks less like a fearless commitment to satire and more like a gross failure of imagination and empathy.

Note: the print version of this article went to press beforeRT published the findings of its Editorial Board and announced the actions it wouldtake as a result of those findings. Thisdigital version has been amended to reflect those developments.

See the original post:

RTs Waterford Whispers News sketch was woefully unfunny, crude and offensive - The Irish Times

The DMK leader talks about fighting polls without Karunanidhi, says DMK is at forefront of fighting BJPs polarising tactics in TN, claims Rajinikanth would not have been a factor, and rules out any tension with the Congress over seat-sharing talks. The session was moderated by National Editor (Mumbai) Nirupama Subramanian.

NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN: You have already started campaigning in the western and southern districts of Tamil Nadu. This will be the first Assembly election that the party will contest without your father and former DMK chief M Karunanidhi. How difficult will this election be for the party as you take on the AIADMK that has the BJPs support?

We have already faced the Lok Sabha election without him (M Karunanidhi), under the leadership of M K Stalin. He steered the party to an amazing victory. Except for one seat, Theni, we won everything else. The difference in votes between the winning and the losing candidates was in lakhs. So, I think we have already proven that we can win Our founding leaders have made sure that the core ideology of the party is very firm in the minds of the cadre and all the leaders It is well-established Our present leader has been in the party for many years, he knows how to guide us in these elections. We have faith in his leadership.

Of course, there are going to be challenges. The AIADMK is going to completely depend on money for votes. The BJP, we all know, never shies away from using anything to win an election. So that will be a challenge. They (the BJP) will use their usual techniques of polarising voters, bringing in religion, which has never happened in Tamil Nadu This is not just a challenge in these elections, it is a larger issue that the entire country has to deal with. The DMK will be at the forefront of working against it.

What I have seen during campaigning is that people are quite fed up with the AIADMK. They always give in to what the Centre wants, they never stand up for our rights. Take the farmers issue. Even though there are no protests in Tamil Nadu, when you speak to farmers individually, they feel very let down because of the AIADMK governments support to the farm Bills. People are disillusioned with the AIADMK government, and they believe that a DMK government is the answer Employment is a huge issue in these elections and when the DMK comes back to power we will bring in investments and industry so that there is more employment. Administration will also be much better under a DMK government.

LIZ MATHEW: So far it seems that in the Tamil Nadu elections you are going to follow the Bihar formula, where the DMK will contest together with the Congress and the Left. But giving the Congress more seats in Bihar didnt work very well for the Oppositions alliance. Will you keep that in mind during seat-sharing talks?

I dont think there will be any issue over allocation of seats. There is a good understanding between the leadership of the Congress and the DMK. We will be able to work around it (the seats) to everybodys satisfaction. Everybody understands that it is an important election for the state also.

LIZ MATHEW: The BJP was trying to woo superstar Rajinikanth. Will his decision to exit the poll fray before even entering it affect the BJPs prospects in the state?

Mr Rajinikanth has given a statement saying that he will not enter politics, and why it is not right and fair to do it now and get others involved and then let them down I dont know if they (the BJP) can find anybody on a par with him.

Also, even if he (Rajinikanth) had come into politics, I dont think it would have made a difference in this election.

P VAIDYANATHAN IYER: As somebody who has been a part of Tamil Nadu politics for many years, how do you look at the attempts at polarisation in the state that you mentioned? How does it impact the states secular fabric?

Fortunately, the BJP, at the most, tries to paint the DMK as an anti-Hindu party or something like that They havent been able to say anything against the minorities in Tamil Nadu. And, they also understand that even the Hindus in Tamil Nadu are not like that (communal). I think, even in Kerala, people will not accept divisions on religious lines. We have all lived together comfortably Even caste-wise There have been no issues in living with people from other religions, or a temple being built Its a different kind of culture here. People dont feel threatened. They are very comfortable. I dont think polarisation on religious lines would be a problem here They (the BJP) will not be able to create fear of other religions That is what they play with, and that will not work in Tamil Nadu.

P VAIDYANATHAN IYER: The BJP has found resonance among some sections in Tamil Nadu. Over the next five years, do you see the party emerging as an important player in the state?

They would want to become a prominent party (in Tamil Nadu), and it cannot be denied that they are working towards it. And, I cannot deny the fact that the BJP has more cadres and leaders now in the state. But I dont think it has had a significant growth that should worry us. They are working towards it And, despite all the confusion within the AIADMK, eventually they will be able to sort themselves out.

ARUN JANARDHANAN: The BJP seems to be working to a plan. They are trying to become the main opposition party in Kerala and Tamil Nadu by 2026. Do you see that happening? And, can you say that the DMK will never ally with the BJP in the future?

The DMK is one of the most vocal parties against many of the things that the BJP stands for. I dont see the possibility of an alliance with the BJP because we stand for two different things completely I really believe that in Tamil Nadu and Kerala politics, you cannot divide people on religious lines very easily.

ARUN JANARDHANAN: But do you think the BJP has made parties such as the DMK and the CPM in Kerala more careful while talking about religion?

NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN: Also, how do you respond to the charge by the BJP, and by many others on social media platforms, that the DMK is an atheist party in a state where people are quite religious. They are religious in a non-communal way, but people in Tamil Nadu are religious

Why should someone be charged for being an atheist? Its not a crime. Why should we defend it? I dont think there is a need to defend it. I am an atheist and I am very proud of it. The DMK has atheists, but our leader MKS (Stalin) has said that 90 per cent people in the party are Hindus also. So, it is not like the DMK is against Hindus. We have Muslims, we have Christians, agnostics and atheists. We are not saying that we are a Hindu party or an atheist party. When Anna (C N Annadurai) started the party he said there is one God, that God can be anything to anybody. Or, you dont have to have a God. I dont think we have to defend ourselves for being atheists.

(On being careful) They (the BJP) are saying that the CPM and the DMK are against the majority, so we have to give an explanation. We have to say that we are not against the majority. If we will fight for the Muslims, we will fight for the Hindus too The DMK does not want to take away the right to believe from anybody. But of course, we stand against the caste system, against untouchability, against anybody who takes away others rights on the basis of caste or religion. We believe in social justice. We are not saying everybody should become an atheist. We dont force it on anybody. Being an atheist also is not wrong in our party.

ARUN JANARDHANAN: Where do you place Kamal Haasan in Tamil Nadu politics, given that an alliance with his party doesnt seem likely?

With Kamal Haasan or without him, the DMK is winning this election. If Haasan wants to work with the DMK or the latter with him, it is a decision that the leadership has to make. We did very well in the Lok Sabha elections without any new additions to the alliance. So, who comes in and goes out is the party leaderships decision.

HARISH DAMODARAN: Do you think Tamil politics has gone beyond the Dravidian identity? Periyar (E V Ramaswamy) statue being vandalised would have been unimaginable once. Do you think the politics is now more conservative?

Periyars statue was vandalised because of the weak, backbone-less government that we have. The police should have taken action but they are scared to do so. But in one way, I think, attacking Periyar ideologically and even vandalising his statues it has brought in more youth who are interested in finding out about Periyar and his ideology. You can see on social media platforms that now there is a strong presence of people defending the Dravidian ideology. They are not a part of the AIADMK or DMK. So, I dont think it has become negotiable. People are doing it (defending the ideology) from the comforts of their homes on social media and not on the streets. That is the change. And, Covid-19 also has contributed to it.

Most of the exchange of ideas now happens on social media. And, its political parties like us who still take to the streets and meet people. Nobody is against learning another language, whether it is Hindi, Malayalam, German or anything We are saying dont impose a language on us. Dont take away our right to choose. You dont have to make the choice for us, whether we have to learn Hindi or Sanskrit. If people just want to learn only two languages, they have the right to choose I think we still believe in social justice. That is the core of the Dravidian ideology. I dont think we have moved away from that.

MANOJ CG: Do you think the Congress has failed to provide leadership for the Opposition at the national level?

All the opposition parties have to come together to work towards creating a strong Opposition. We cant expect only one party to do that I think it (the Opposition coming together at the national level) will happen as time passes by because it has not even been two years since the Lok Sabha elections. Parties are also concentrating on state elections. We have elections in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and in West Bengal As time goes by, the Opposition will come together more strongly and work out strategies on how to deal with the issues facing the nation.

AMRITH LAL: Tamil language and culture used to be a very important aspect of the Dravadian movement and Dravadian assertion. Now, increasingly, both the DMK and the AIADMK generally tend to speak more about governance. The emphasis on culture and language has reduced

When the Jallikattu protests happened, everyone asserted that it is an important part of our culture. So, nothing has changed when it comes to protecting our culture and language See, Tamil is not being threatened today. Even if the Central government and the BJP are trying to impose Hindi in different ways, Tamil (language) is in a very comfortable space. Its not being threatened in any way. There is no need to talk about preserving the language as such. If there is a threat to our culture and it has to be protected, its not just political parties the people also react The DMK has to talk about governance and development because we have had zero governance and development in the past 10 years.

VANDITA MISHRA: You said that religion doesnt play the same role in Tamil Nadu as it might in the northern states. But apart from religious mobilisation, the BJP puts a lot of energy into constantly manufacturing some kind of mobilisation among people on different issues. How can regional parties reinvent themselves to face this challenge?

The needs, the problems, the issues, everything changes, and every party has to keep reinventing and adapting to changes. That cannot be denied The DMK is a cadre-based party and we reach out to people directly. Now, of course, with modern technology, and we know that the BJP uses social media we also have to adopt social media to reach out. We have to make it part of our election process This is one thing we have to keep working at. This election, investment and employment are the most important issues in Tamil Nadu. We have to talk to people about it and give them the confidence that Tamil Nadu will be put back on the growth path.

NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN: The DMK is focusing a lot on womens rights in its campaign. After Jayalalithaas death, there is no big woman leader in Tamil Nadu politics. Do you see yourself taking that place?

Ive always taken up womens and human rights issues There is a need for more womens participation in politics, and that is why the DMK has been insisting on 33 per cent reservation for women I dont understand why the BJP, which made it a part of its manifesto, is refusing to bring it in.

I do see women coming in larger numbers for our election campaign because there are a lot of issues which have not been addressed. The self-help groups, for example, had created a solid base for many women, especially in rural areas, and enhanced their social participation. But because the SHGs are not getting loans and support from the government, they are not functioning as before. This has taken away empowerment from these women and they are quite disillusioned. It is a major issue in this election.

P VAIDYANATHAN IYER: In December 2018, Stalin had proposed Rahul Gandhi as the prime minister candidate for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Since then, there has been a lot of confusion about the UPA alliance. Do UPA members meet?

The UPA in Tamil Nadu is very strong and we are working together. We do meet We shared the stage in support of the farmers protesting in Delhi. Our leader had invited leaders from all parties to come and be part of it. As far as Tamil Nadu goes, I dont think theres any confusion. We work together and there are regular meetings. At the national level, in Delhi, leaders meet when there is a need to When Parliament is in session, we have regular meetings about how we are going to respond to a Bill etc.

NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN: Recently, M K Stalins son Udhayanidhi Stalin was elevated to star campaigner. He has also become the secretary of the youth wing of the party. Are these signs of a leadership progression in the DMK?

I dont think we should be discussing leadership right now. We have a leader and everybody is focusing on his leadership. This whole election is about the DMK coming back to power. Our election campaign is completely focused on our CM candidate, M K Stalin.

NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN: The CBI has appealed against the acquittals in the 2G case. Will it become an issue in the election campaign?

We have all been acquitted. Nobody was convicted. The judge has very clearly said that there is no evidence How can they use this against the DMK?

NIRUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN: Following Rajinikanths decision to not enter politics, do you think the space for film stars in politics has reduced?

I will not say that. Who you are, what you stand for, and what you are capable of is what is going to decide what you become in politics. Just because somebody is a popular star If youre talking about somebody like M G Ramachandran, he was not just a star. He came from the Dravidian movement and he worked for the DMK for many years. He had a base and that is what made him what he was. So, I will not say that no other film star can ever make it in politics You can come from any field but you will have to understand the kind of hard work that is needed. This doesnt happen overnight because you are a face which everybody likes or you have been popular in films. People may recognise you more than anybody else, but your face doesnt mean that people will accept you as a leader.

See the article here:

Kanimozhi: Our culture is different. They (BJP) cant create fear of other religions here. It wont work in TN polls - The Indian Express

by Hannah Brockhaus

Rome Newsroom, Jan 10, 2021 / 02:30 pm MT (CNA).- In the face of political discord and self-interest, we have an obligation to promote unity, peace, and the common good in society and in the Catholic Church, Pope Francis said Sunday.

At this moment, a politician, even a manager, a bishop, a priest, who does not have the ability to say we is not up to par. We, the common good of all, must prevail. Unity is superior to conflict, the pope said in an interview that aired on Italian news program Tg5 Jan. 10.

Conflicts are necessary, but right now they have to go on vacation, he continued, noting that people have a right to different points of view, and political struggle is a noble thing, but what matters is the intention to help the country grow.

If politicians emphasize more self-interest than the common interest, they ruin things, Francis stated. The unity of the country, of the Church, and of society must be emphasized.

The papal interview took place following the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building Jan. 6 by pro-Donald Trump protestors, as Congress was in the process of certifying the presidential election results.

Francis said in a video clip from the interview, released Jan. 9, he was astonished, by the news, because the U.S. is a people so disciplined in democracy, right?

Something isnt working, Francis continued. With people taking a path against the community, against democracy, against the common good. Thanks be to God that this has broken out and there was a chance to see it well so that now you can try and heal it.

In the interview, Pope Francis also commented on the societal tendency to discard anyone who is not productive to society, especially the sick, the elderly, and the unborn.

Abortion, he said, is not primarily a religious issue, but a scientific and human one. The problem of death is not a religious problem, be careful: it is a human, pre-religious problem, it is a problem of human ethics, he said. Then religions follow it, but it is a problem that even an atheist must solve in his conscience.

The pope said he asks two things to the person who questions him on abortion: do I have the right to do this? and is it right to cancel a human life to solve a problem, any problem?

The first question can be answered scientifically, he said, pointing out that by the third or fourth week of gestation, there are all the organs of the new human being in the womb of the mother, it is a human life.

Taking a human life is not okay, he said. Is it okay to hire a hitman to solve a problem? One that kills human life?

Francis condemned the attitude of the throwaway culture: Children do not produce and are discarded. Discard the elderly: the elderly do not produce and are discarded. Discard the sick or hasten death when it is terminal. Discard so that it is more comfortable for us and does not bring us so many problems.

He also spoke about the discarding of migrants: the people who drowned in the Mediterranean because they were not allowed to come, [this] weighs heavily on our conscience How to deal with [immigration] later, that is another problem that states must approach cautiously and wisely, but letting [migrants] drown in order to solve a problem later is wrong. Nobody does it with intention, it is true, but if you dont put in the means of help it is a problem. There is no intention but there is intention, he said.

Encouraging people to avoid selfishness in general, Pope Francis recalled several grave issues affecting the world today, especially war and the lack of education and food for children, which have continued throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

They are serious problems and these are just two of the problems: children and wars, he said. We must become aware of this tragedy of the world, its not all a party. To get out of this crisis head on and in a better way, we must be realistic.

Asked about how his own life has changed during the coronavirus pandemic, Pope Francis admitted that at first, he felt like he was caged.

But then I calmed down, I took life as it comes. Praying more, speaking more, using the phone more, taking some meetings to solve problems, he explained.

Papal trips to Papua New Guinea and Indonesia were canceled in 2020. In March this year, Pope Francis is scheduled to travel to Iraq. He said, now I dont know if the next trip to Iraq will take place, but life has changed. Yes, life has changed. Closed. But the Lord always helps us all.

The Vatican will begin administering the COVID-19 vaccine to its residents and employees next week, and Pope Francis said he has booked his appointment to receive it.

I believe that, ethically, everyone has to get the vaccine. It is an ethical option because it concerns your life but also that of others, he stated.

Recalling the introduction of the polio vaccine and other common childhood immunizations, he said, I dont understand why some say this could be a dangerous vaccine. If doctors present it to you as something that can be fine and has no special dangers, why not take it?

See more here:

Pope Francis: We need unity in the Catholic Church, society, and nations - The Catholic Telegraph

KARACHI -- A deadly attack by the Islamic State group in the southwestern region of Pakistan targeting Shiite coal miners has again revived security threats for China's Belt and Road Initiative and increased pressure on Prime Minister Imran Khan to act against the militants.

In the morning of Jan. 3, unidentified assailants abducted 11 coal miners from Mach town, 48 km east of Quetta, the capital of southwestern Balochistan Province. The attackers blindfolded the coal miners and killed them by slitting their throats. All the slain coal miners belonged to the ethnic minority Shiite Hazara community.

Later, Islamic State Khorasan Province -- an IS offshoot with purported hideouts in Pakistan and Afghanistan -- claimed responsibility for the attack via the group's Amaq news agency. The militant group also released pictures of the slaughter.

These brutal killings triggered a protest in Quetta by the Hazara community with the bodies of the slain coal miners. Protesters refused to bury the dead until the Pakistan government took concrete steps to provide security in the future. The protest ended on Saturday at midnight when the regional Balochistan government agreed to form a high-powered investigative commission.

This attack by IS has revived security threats to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC -- the $50 billion Pakistan component of the Belt and Road Initiative.

According to IS ideology, atheist China is an enemy because it has forcibly encroached on Muslims in China's Xinjiang Province by not allowing Uighur Muslims to practice Islam.

Islamic State has previously attacked Chinese nationals in Balochistan. In May 2017, the group kidnapped two Chinese nationals from Quetta, announcing that both had been killed the following month. That incident halted the free movement of Chinese nationals in Quetta city.

According to experts, this attack by IS has left Balochistan unsafe for Belt and Road projects in the future. Bostan, the site chosen for one of the nine Special Economic Zones under the second phase of CPEC, is located 100 km north of Mach where the coal miners were killed.

"The deteriorating situation in Balochistan is only likely to generate more difficulties for the already problematic implementation of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects in the province," Jeremy Garlick, an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Economics in Prague, told Nikkei Asia. He added that this terror incident could also hinder further initiatives to obtain foreign direct investment in Balochistan.

Despite mounting security threats, experts believe that Beijing will not delay projects in Balochistan. "Beijing has long demonstrated a large risk tolerance for deploying capital in unstable areas," said Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at Wilson Center, adding "We see this not only in Pakistan but also in its investments in volatile areas of Africa and Southeast Asia."

But this latest attack will further show Beijing just how precarious the security situation is in Balochistan. "We've already seen recent upsurges in separatist violence, and the additional reality of [Islamic State] means that Chinese projects face the twin threat of separatist and Islamist terror," Kugelman added.

This terror attack and the subsequent protests by the Hazara community have also put huge pressure on Pakistan's government to root out IS militants from Balochistan. Experts believe that the government has been put on the defensive, and the optics have been dreadful.

"This [terror attack] will, at the least, prompt Beijing to pressure Islamabad to provide better security in the region; not a new demand by Beijing, and one that hasn't had its intended effects, given that the violence continues to flare," Kugelman said.

While Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, Pakistani officials still blame India for orchestrating this attack to destabilize Pakistan.

"It's a well-thought-out move and in this gambit, the target is to stir the Shiite-Sunni fault line in the country, which will have negative domestic and foreign policy implications for Pakistan," Senator Anwaar ul Haq Kakar told Nikkei.

Read the rest here:

Deadly IS attack threatens China's Belt and Road in Pakistan - Nikkei Asia

I admit that I dont know anything about the popularity of brothels. They may well be as old-fashioned as Blake Morrison thinks. His theologising and preoccupation with sainthood now look as old-fashioned as his fondness for brothels, he writes in The Guardian. Hes reviewing a new biography of the writer Graham Greene, who was a Catholic, but lets say a peculiar one.

Morrison may be right about brothels. I dont know anyone who goes to them or even where youd find one, but maybe he has a wider experience of life than I do. But I do know hes wrong about theologizing and sainthood. People will always think about the deepest things and always pursue deep goodness, because thats part of being human.

His is what I think of as Yeah, whatever atheism. Its a lot more common than we realize and a lot harder to deal with.

Christian apologists love jumping on the new atheists and for that matter the old atheists. Those guys say with great certainty and clarity, No one can believe that religious stuff, and we can respond with Yes we can, and for very good reasons. They make arguing for the faith easy.

Even in my secular youth, atheists annoyed me, because they were so triumphantly confident about things they couldnt know. For all they knew, God could be working behind the scenes for reasons of his own. Or he might be working right in front of them and they either refuse or are unable to see him at work. I grew up in an academic world and knew a number of atheist academics who would find God really annoying, and their disbelief seemed self-interested.

But the yeah, whatever atheists, theyre a problem. You can play a kind of theological whack-a-mole with the hard atheists. You cant with the Yeah, whatever atheists. All you can do is play whack-a-fog.

The English newspaper The Guardian is like our Washington Post, though farther to the left and more secular. Its produced by people and read by people for whom Christianity is as relevant to real life as the kind of conversation you had with your favorite stuffed toy when you were 3.

Morrisons a good example. He seems not to believe anything religious. He doesnt seem to see the point. He believes you can think about the deepest things if you want to, as long as you dont expect to find anything there.

In another review, he approves the definition of religion as wrestling with the mystery of existence. But he doesnt really mean wrestle. When you wrestle, you either pin the other guy or you get pinned.

Morrison doesnt believe this. He believes that when you wrestle with the mystery of existence, you wont find any conclusive answers, because the universe remains unfathomable. The universe, he says, is ungetbehindable. You cant pin the universe, and it cant pin you.

But like many such people, he also insists that doesnt invalidate the struggle to make sense of how we began, why were here and what (if anything) happens next. Why struggle to do something he says we cant do? He doesnt really believe we should. We should, he declares, live with uncertainty without any irritable reaching after fact.

Its all a mess. Wrestle and struggle, he says. But theres no point in doing that, he says. Wrestle and struggle anyway, he says. Well, okay, dont wrestle and struggle, he says. If I were him, I wouldnt bother. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die. That would be my motto, were I him. All that time pointlessly wrestling and struggling is time you could be spending eating a steak, drinking a beer, and having a good time with your friends.

Thats what Yeah, whatever atheism is. Theres no God to be found, but you can think about him if you want. Theres no meaning to your life that you can find, but if you feel like it, you can ponder this too. You can do either of those as long as you dont find God or the meaning of life. Because its relaxed atheism, a casual unconcerned atheism, even genial atheism, but its still atheism.

Its the most common kind of atheism youre likely to run into. In your secular friends, for example. Maybe without realizing it, because its not obvious, like the kind of direct attacks on Christianity and religion you see in the Richard Dawkinses and Christopher Hitchenses of the world. You can argue with those guys. But arguing with the Yeah, whatever atheist is like boxing with a big foam pillow or a giant marshmallow. Every time you land a punch it dimples a little, but then in a few seconds the dimple pops out.

What do you do when you see that youre engaging a Yeah, whatever atheist? In my experience, you dont bother arguing, the same way you dont box a big foam pillow. Theres no point. But the Yeah, whatever atheist very often has a weak spot. He cares for real goods. As Morrisons struggle/dont struggle confusion suggests, hes not always very clear about what he wants. His desires can be better than his beliefs. Try to find those desires, desires only God can satisfy.

Morrison himself is an example. In the reviews very last sentence, he calls Greenes book The End of the Affair his masterpiece. It tells the story of a writer who falls in love with a married woman who gives up their affair for God, and after some miracles, the writer himself becomes a believer.

Remember that Morrison patronizes Greenes theologising and preoccupation with sainthood. Theyre as old-fashioned as brothels! But what is The End of the Affair, the book he acknowledges as a masterpiece, about? Its a theologically informed story that reflects on the love of God above worldly loves, which is one way of saying sainthood.

If you find yourself talking with a Yeah, whatever atheist, ask him what he wants from life and what he respects and admires. Perhaps ask who his heroes are and what he thinks makes a good man, who he wants to be like. You should find, eventually, that he believes more than his atheism supports. That only gives you a starting place, but he may be open to looking for God when he realizes his casually waving God away keeps him from something he truly wants.

Visit link:

Wrestling With Foam-Pillow Atheism - National Catholic Register

The famous magician and skeptic never missed an opportunity to denounce Christ and the Catholic Church.

Born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge on Aug. 7, 1928, in Toronto, Canada, magician and escape artist James Randi died in Plantation, Florida, on Oct. 20 at the age of 92.

Like me, he was a stage magician and a debunker of those who claimed psychic and other preternatural skills and abilities. We examined the claims of those who inevitably prove themselves to be nothing more than charlatans.

I consulted with him several times while writing my dissertation on charlatanism and secularism. Unfortunately, my conversations with Randi were marked by his self-inflated ego, anger, embittered worldview and a remarkable anti-intellectualism. Again, Im not judging him as no one has the right to judge others. But to suggest Randi was all sweetness and light would be, in essence, a lie not unlike the lies of other charlatans he decried publicly.

Randi called himself a scientific skeptic but he was in no way qualified to express an opinion on any scientific matter. According to his former colleague Ray Hyman whom I also interviewed European universities rescinded their invitations for him to lecture once they found out Randi had no academic credentials. He decried advanced degrees and those who had earned them.

To be clear, Randi was a high school dropout with no scientific training or experience. I dont fault him for that. Ive met plenty of people who have extensive degrees who are quite foolish and even undereducated. Some might equate education with moral worthiness or impeccability and I avoid those people. Randi had the opposite problem. Regardless of whether or not someone ultimately agreed with him (as I do) regarding psychics and other nonsense he wouldnt give the time of day to any who simultaneously believed in God. He classified Christianity as being no better than belief in healing crystals, Bigfoot and UFOs. He called anything outside of his strict materialism woo-woo. However, he had no ready opinion of Islam he would share.

I pointed out to Randi that everything he ever learned about science or history came solely from books written by men and women with doctorates. This is not an attack on uneducated people. Rather its a blow against narcissism of fundamentalist atheists who think themselves smarter than everyone else.

Randi was always impressed with his own knowledge but contemptuous of everyone elses. He insisted that even people with advanced degrees can be wrong. I pointed out to him that though an expert can be wrong, a non-expert is always wrong unless he were to accidently stumble upon some correct but simplistic explanation. Its impossible for someone ignorant of a technical subject to know anything in-depth about it. They will always be armchair scientists armed with no more knowledge than anyone else who watches a Nova or Animal Planet episode. Its preposterous to claim that watching TV for 30 minutes a week would magically endow a non-expert with an understanding surpassing that of a published scholar holding a doctorate in his field of research. If this were true, then men like Randi would have created countless and accurate Nova or Animal Planet episodes already.

You cant simply ape the words of a scholar and demean to be recognized as a scholar equal to the author of original scientific and historical research. One of the most chillingly humbling experience I ever experience was when dealing with a brilliant mathematician who couldnt get his point across to me because as he politely pointed out I didnt have a basic understanding of multi-variable calculus. Readers may rest assured that I struggled at geometry more than most. Advanced mathematics will always be beyond my ken.

Randi never missed an opportunity to denounce Jesus and Christianity. The Catholic Church was on the top of his hit list. In 1968, Randi was sanctioned by New York City radio station WOR for exclaiming "Jesus Christ was a religious nut" during his eponymously named The Amazing Randi Show. In consultation, Randi told me of his fury at an unidentified Catholic priest an admirer of his who sent Randi a flattering letter along with a Miraculous Medal. He wrote back to the priest railing he had no need for his trinkets and good-luck talismans.

Among his many other faults, Randi was a strong believer in racist Social Darwinist theories for most of his life, but when he came under pressure for such opinions in 2013, he backtracked on them. Not a good look for someone who pretends to know more than the experts.

Randi identified himself as an atheist in his essay, Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why Im a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright. He used the pretentious term bright to refer to someone he considered too intelligent to believe in God. As he wrote, A belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history. Please remember Randi wrote this despite the fact that atheists have killed 320 million people since the Reign of Terror in 1793. This includes the 155 million people killed by atheist communists since the beginning of the 20th century. If he had proof the Catholic Church had killed more in 2,000 years than the atheists did in a single century, he was shy about pointing it out.

As to his general honesty, Randi falls miserably short. In 1986, a 58-year-old Randi met his 24-year-old partner, a Venezuelan citizen and illegal immigrant named Deyvi Orangel Pea Arteaga, in a Fort Lauderdale public library. The young man was known by all of Randis colleagues with thatname and by no other.

After being in a live-in relationship for 20-years, Randi assisted his boyfriend in procuring false citizenship papers, at which point the later starting referring to himself as Jos Alvarez. In 2012, Alvarez was charged with federal felony charges of identity and immigration fraud in stealing the real Jos Alvarezs date of birth and Social Security number. He used this information to illegally obtained a twice-renewed U.S. passport. Randi defended his boyfriend in court saying his was a victimless crime. He lied claiming that he always knew Deyvi Orangel Pea Arteaga to be Jos Alvarez. This is flatly untrue as he always introduced him by his actual birth name, Deyvi, not his assumed illegally-gotten name. This is a falsehood as bad as any of that of any other charlatan Randi exposed and condemned.

Jos Alvarez, a Bronx teachers aide, was constantly in trouble with the IRS regarding his income because both the real and fake Jos Alvarezs paychecks came to the attention of the authorities. The real Alvarez had his bank account periodically frozen and it was phenomenally difficult for him to renew his drivers license or procure a passport.

As an aside, Randi, age 84 at the time, and his illegal alien boyfriend were married in Washington, D.C., on July 2, 2013, immediately after publicly announcing his homosexuality.

Putting aside Randis obvious hypocrisy and fraud, a far more disturbing incident plagued him all his life. Recordings of Randi allegedly propositioning teenage boys popped up in the 1980s. Randi never denied the tapes but instead claimed he knowingly participated in the recording as part of an undocumented police sting to entrap boys who were trying to blackmail him none of whom were ever identified or arrested. When I asked Randi the name of the officers who had recruited him, he said he couldnt remember. Further, there are no police records to collaborate Randis story. In addition, he told me that the very boys who tried to blackmail him subsequently burgled his home and stole the recordings from him. Its odd to think Randi would have unsecured police evidence just lying about his home in the first place. I asked Randi four times as to those allegations and he gave me four different, contradicting stories with enough holes to drive a semi through.

I didnt write this article to diminish Randis work but rather to put it into perspective. His contributions to the field of magic and his dedication to exposing those who lie about God and instead offering paganism and occultist lies are legendary. However, theres another side to the Amazing Randi which those who defend him are reticent to mention.

Read more from the original source:

Theres More to James Randi Than Meets the Eye - National Catholic Register

Cheryl K. Chumley is one of the worst writers for the conservative Washington Times, which isnt easy. Its not enough to just offer right-wing takes on current events; she willfully misunderstands what shes writing about, whether shes calling for the takedown of Satanic monuments that dont exist or saying that Christians who oppose Christian Nationalism are very un-Christian.

Her latest diatribe involves trashing Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the only voices of reason coming from the government during the pandemic.

She doesnt bother pointing out anything he said thats untrue. Instead, shes criticizing him for being an atheist. Fauci said in a 2015 interview that he was a humanist despite his Catholic upbringing because I have faith in the goodness of mankind.

This is apparently very problematic for Chumley.

More than that, hes a humanist meaning, he takes his moral compass from his own mind. He has little-to-no concern with the stuff of higher authority the constraints that come from fears of heavenly accountability.

An atheist in charge of U.S. government, policy, economics, education and constitutional freedoms, as they relate to coronavirus response what could go wrong, right?

Hes unelected. Hes largely unaccountable to the people. Hes atheist, which speaks volumes about his character, his moral compass and his understanding of American Exceptionalism and basic founding and constitutional principles. And hes just been outed for lying.

The path is clear: He has to go.

He was not outed for lying. Shes referring to a piece written by Sen. Marco Rubio, whos downplayed the pandemic, in which he criticized Fauci for saying the percent of immunized Americans needed to achieve herd immunity was higher than he felt Americans could tolerate. In other words, he made a decision when it comes to communicating the importance of getting vaccinated because he didnt want to generate fear in a public that includes many anti-vaxxers. Maybe that deserves criticism, but thats a far cry from lying about the science, and nothing he said changes COVID restrictions or policies regarding the vaccines.

But Chumley, who cant simply criticize that decision, thinks his non-religiosity is why he cant be trusted, even though the entire administration is full of conservative Christians who have been openly lying to the public about damn near everything for the past four years.

As for his character, Fauci was recently named one of the most admired men in America by Gallup, though that poll is really more about fame than anything else. (Trump was at the top of the list.)

Heres a difference Chumley never brings up: Fauci doesnt spend any time talking about his personal religious beliefs unless hes specifically asked about them. The evangelicals surrounding Trump cant stop talking about their faith because they constantly fantasize about a theocracy.

Also: Why is it okay to slander Fauci because of his humanism? As American Atheists president Nick Fish rightly noted, you would never see something like this in a legitimate publication:

If the New York Times calls out conservative Christians, its because theyre using those beliefs to inflict harm upon other people, not because theyre Christians. Chumley has no substance to use against Fauci, so she just cites his religious label, as if atheists shouldnt be allowed in positions of power. Its embarrassing and its awful journalism. Which means its par for the course for the Washington Times.

By the way, not that it matters, but Faucis boss is Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. Collins has no issue with Fauci. You would think that would carry some weight with Chumley. I guess not.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

Go here to see the original:

Conservative Writer: Dr. Anthony Fauci is Immoral Because He's a Humanist - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

As part of an occasional series on how the end-of-year holidays are celebrated in our broadcast region, we talked to Irina Lagunina from RFE/RL's Russian Service about seasonal traditions in her country.

Western visitors to Russia at this time of year may be surprised to discover that the locals usually refer to the seasonally decorated conifers you see everywhere as "New Year firs" or "New Year spruces."

So why would they call them this when they're commonly known as Christmas trees in many other places?

According to Irina Lagunina from RFE/RL's Russian Service, it's largely a quirky legacy of the country's Soviet past.

"It was really weird because, after the socialist revolution, the Bolsheviks actually banned not just the festivities of the Christmas season -- this wonderful season of the year -- but also the Christmas tree, which was considered to be a religious symbol," she says.

"They decided that, since the main ideology is atheism, the Christmas tree should be banned. And that remained up until the mid-1930s when the New Year and the Christmas tree were kind of rehabilitated."

When the Christmas tree was "rehabilitated" amid much fanfare in 1935, the official atheist ethos of the time ensured that it would primarily be associated with New Year celebrations and its Christian connotations were jettisoned.

It's something that has endured to this day and the unveiling of the "New Year spruce" at the Kremlin every year is still a big event for thousands of children, although it is no longer decorated with a big Soviet star.

In a way, it's perhaps fitting that the tree is still firmly associated with New Year's rather than Christmas, as "Novy God" (New Year) has long been the focal point of the festive season in Russia.

Like many other Orthodox believers, most Russians typically celebrate Christmas Day on January 7. But for many, the day itself is quite low-key compared to other festivities that are observed in the country at this time of year.

"For those who celebrate it in Russia right now, Christmas is a purely religious event," says Lagunina. "Believers go to the churches -- the churches are actually full these days -- but there is still no kind of notion and tradition of family gathering on this day or having something special."

According to Lagunina, the main day of celebration "is actually not Christmas, but New Year."

"It's all about New Year," she says. "This comes first in the Orthodox calendar, so Christmas is basically the next seven days, [but] the main festivity is New Year's night, and that's when Russians prepare the dinner of the year, the main celebration for family, unity, and so forth."

Although Lagunina says New Year in Russia is "like everywhere else in the world, with a lot of champagne and a lot of fireworks," it is also the centerpiece of a wider tapestry of formal and informal celebrations that are observed at this time of year.

"Well, in Russia right now, of course, there is a reason to celebrate everything," she says. "Russians start to celebrate with the Western Christmas, then New Year, Orthodox Christmas. Basically, it's three weeks of festivities. You cannot get sober during this time!"

One of the most famous traditions observed during this period is not for the fainthearted.

"Ice swimming is a big deal in Russia," says Lagunina, referring to the many hardy souls who brave the freezing waters of their local lakes and rivers for a bracing dip on January 19 to celebrate the Epiphany.

Amid all the festivities, however, New Year is always seen as the big event when people get together with close friends and relatives.

Gifts are exchanged and copious amounts of food and drink are often consumed.

Many families also take the time to watch The Irony Of Fate, a Trading Places kind of musical comedy that has been broadcast on state TV every New Year's Day since 1976 and is now a firmly established tradition.

But it is frequently the food that is at the heart of New Year proceedings.

Lagunina says her seasonal table usually includes typical Russian fare, such as "pirozhki" pastries with various fillings and "kholodets" -- cold stewed meat in aspic. Stuffed duck is also a very common dish on this day and "a regular middle-class family" might even have "a little bit of red caviar, sometimes salted salmon," the main idea being that the choice of food on offer is "the best of what you can imagine."

No New Year's feast is complete, however, without a typical Russian salad or "Salad Olivier," which according to legend was first invented by a French chef of that name while he was working in tsarist Russia.

Lagunina says a Salad Olivier is one of the "absolute must-have dishes on the table" at New Year. She puts the dish's popularity down to its versatility, which allows it to be easily adapted for anyone observing a strict pre-Christmas fast.

"Olivier is made of peas, potatoes, carrots, pickles, ham, and mayonnaise, but the ham can be replaced," she says. "Depending on how strong a believer you are, it can be replaced with chicken, crabmeat, fish, practically everything. So it's this kind of multicultural, multireligious, suitable-for-everybody dish, and you can even make it for vegetarians without any meat or chicken."

Ingredients

1 small can of peas (100 grams)

1 large or two small potatoes, peeled and boiled

1 large boiled carrot

4 hard-boiled eggs

10 salted pickles (Irina makes these herself at home, but they can be shop-bought)

2 slices of sweet onion, finely chopped

200 grams (about 1/2 pound) of ham (common alternatives include a Mortadella type of sausage, crabmeat, boiled beef tongue, or fish. Irina has chosen "Doktorskaya kolbasa or "Doctor's sausage," a lunch meat that has been popular in Russia since Soviet times.)

Method

"Like all Russian salads, all the items should be the size of the smallest ingredient that cannot be divided," says Lagunina. "The peas are the smallest undividable element, so everything you cut should be the size of a pea [at most]. That's the basis of all Russian salads."

As everything should be cut into pea-sized cubes, Lagunina uses a potato slicer for this purpose.

"This tool is very popular not only in Russia but also in the Czech Republic, Austria, and all other places where they make potato salad," she says.

Lagunina is in favor of breaking with tradition and grating the carrots even smaller, however, as cutting them into cubes gives the salad "an overwhelming taste."

Like the carrots, Lagunina also prefers to cut the eggs smaller than the peas, as they help "cement the salad."

Once all the ingredients have been tossed in a bowl, mix in some mayonnaise (according to taste) and sprinkle with black pepper as the "final touch."

Lagunina stresses that the mayonnaise should be added "only before you serve the salad on the table," as it will ensure a "fresher" flavor.

Written by Coilin O'Connor based on an interview with Irina Lagunina from RFE/RL's Russian Service

See the original post here:

Russian New Year: At The Heart Of A Wide Tapestry Of Winter Traditions - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most famous atheists of the 20th century, left his unbelief aside at least temporarily in December 1940. It was while he was a prisoner of war in a German camp, and it was all because of a Christmas play, the first play he ever wrote.

Drafted into the French army in September 1939, Sartre was captured by the Germans in June 1940 as his company retreated, and was imprisoned in the Stalag 12 D camp in Trier.

To keep himself intellectually stimulated, Sartre gave a series of lectures to fellow prisoners, most of whom were priests. He spoke to them about authenticity, freedom and hope. The priests were spellbound by his inspiring talks.

Paul Feller, a Jesuit seminarian at the time, was so moved that on being ordained after the end of the second World War, he dedicated the remainder of his life to living and working among the poor.

Sartre composed a play for these priests to perform on Christmas Eve 1940. Entitled Bariona, or The Sons of Thunder, it was a nativity play with a difference. Bariona, the chief of a poor village, takes a stand against the rising taxes from Rome by ordering that no more children are to be born in his village.

But when he hears of the birth of a messiah who will grow up to be a man of peace, he is incensed, because he wants a leader who will overthrow the Roman occupiers. Bariona sets out for Bethlehem to kill the baby. However, when he arrives at the stable he is captivated by the look on Josephs face and changes his plan altogether.

Instead of killing Jesus, he goes to his own death, by gathering his men to fight a hopelessly lopsided battle against Herods soldiers who are intent on putting an end to the newborn child.

The most remarkable moment in the play is when Sartre tries to enter into Marys state of mind. He provides an astonishingly warm portrayal of her relationship with Jesus: And no other woman has had God just for herself in that way. A very tiny God whom she can take in her arms and cover with kisses, a warm-bodied God who smiles and breathes, a God she can touch, a God who is alive. And if I were a painter, it is at a moment like this that I would paint Mary. I would try to capture the air of affectionate daring and delicate shyness with which she puts out her finger to touch the soft little skin of this baby God whose warm weight she feels on her lap and who smiles at her.

This is not the same nihilistic Sartre who published the novel Nausea in 1938, just two years beforehand. It is a different Sartre, a man touched by the wonder of being, by the hope of new birth, and by the genuine affection of Mary: She looks at him and thinks: This God is my child, this divine flesh is my flesh. He is made of me, he has my eyes and the shape of his mouth is the shape of mine . . . He is my God and he looks like me!

These are the words of someone who has entered so imaginatively into the faith of the Christians imprisoned with him that it almost seems like he himself shares their faith.

Sartres positive take on Christmas was so out of character that years later his companion Simone de Beauvoir claimed he had never written this play in the first place, as a result of which Sartre himself was forced to confirm that he was indeed the author.

He explained that the play did not signal any essential change in his atheistic stance but was a particularly fitting way to foster unity among the prisoners during that Christmas of 1940.

As a believer, I am grateful to Sartre, an unbeliever, for expressing the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus through the eyes of Mary, and in such a fresh and vivid way.

May we too experience something of the wonder and simplicity of the infant Christ, as we celebrate this Christmas.

See the original post:

To the atheist Sartre: Thank you for this vivid incarnation of Jesus - The Irish Times