Category Archives: Atheist

Whether youre a die-hard Phillies fan who never misses a game, a casual observer known to partake in the occasional South Philly tailgate or E- A-G-L-E-S, Eagles! chant, or a sports-atheist, you may have noticed yourself feeling happier in recent weeks.

The Phillies are impressing in their first playoff run in more than a decade. The Eagles are undefeated. The Union have home-field advantage heading into the playoffs.

This weekend, postseason baseball will make its long-awaited return to Citizens Bank Park. Then, the Eagles will face the Cowboys across the street Sunday in prime time. Needless to say, fans are fired up.

It feels great coming off a win and going to work the next day, said Devin Valentine, 32, of North Wales, a lifelong Eagles, Sixers, and Phillies fan (in that order). It just brings energy and passion to me and my coworkers and my family.

While the excitement and anticipation cant eradicate other global and individual stressors, their impact on the regions communal happiness and well-being should not be disregarded, psychology experts say.

Emotions have these multifaceted impacts on people. They change our behavior. They change our thinking, said Crystal Reeck, an assistant professor at Temple University who has a Ph.D. in psychology and neuroscience. One persons positive mood can end up spreading to another, even in this case if someone is not an Eagles fan.

READ MORE: Phillies-Braves: Schedule, tickets, and everything else you need to know

In fact, its at times like these that the sports-dont-matter argument is proven most untrue, psychology experts say; the joy and camaraderie are meaningful.

Happiness is contagious, said Eric Zillmer, a clinical psychologist and Drexel University professor who teaches courses on happiness and sports psychology. Thats the beauty of these events that are happening right now.

You just cant help but be giddy, he added.

Zillmer, the universitys former athletics director and director of its Global Sports Lab, said he has studied what the happiest countries, such as Finland and Denmark, have in common.

As the Philly sports teams have been winning, hes seen four of these qualities also on display in Philadelphia.

In a region where people identify strongly with their neighborhood or county, and an increasingly polarized political climate, it can be hard to find issues that unite us.

Theres nothing better than to beat the Braves 7-6 on Tuesday, he said. This is something that creates a fabric throughout our city.

In the happiest countries, they are resilient even in the face of adversity, Zillmer noted, and in recent years, those obstacles have been plentiful: the pandemic, inflation, geopolitical conflict.

On a smaller scale, Philadelphians are enjoying a special kind of joy that comes after setbacks.

Its even more delicious to enjoy the Phillies playoff victory given we havent been in the playoffs since 2011, he said. Philadelphians love nothing more than a triumphant struggle and this is what were getting. Its kind of unexpected that the Phillies have risen to this level of play right now and the Eagles have reinvented themselves in one season.

Some people garden, meditate, or take long walks. But, even for a casual fan or someone who doesnt usually watch sports, immersing themselves in a team can have benefits, even if just for the length of the game, Zillmer said.

Sports by definition is a celebration of the here and now, he said. You cant focus on anything else.

When you play sports and watch sports, especially when its meaningful like being in the playoffs, you dont worry about the regrets of your past or the anxieties of your future, he added. So right now, its almost like were going through group therapy in Philadelphia.

Its comforting to feel a sense of belonging to something bigger than yourself, Zillmer said, and attending or watching a sports game can provide that.

Part of Phillys collective identity is its investment in its sports teams, said Temples Reeck. Thats why a lot of people here especially feel so personally impacted by the performance of these teams.

But at the same time, Zillmer added, the casual fan can feel it. They can feel this energy. It also provides meaning in their lives.

Continue reading here:

Why the Phillies and Eagles successes might have you feeling happier, even if youre not a fan - The Philadelphia Inquirer

A truly Socratic response to revelationpassive surprise, perplexed skepticism, clarifying refutation, heroic confirmation, relative exceptionalism, creative revision, and persistent serviceoffers us, perhaps, a way out of the cultural impasse we are in.

The parties of reason and revelation seldom treat one another well: Those fond of reason all too often do not believe in revelation (pick your own favorite secular atheist); those fond of revelation all too often ignore or distort reason (pick your own favorite Christian fundamentalist). Not everyone, of course, but enough to make one wonder if anyone could bring them into genuine dialogue. And, lets be honest, perhaps we ourselves, in the inner dialogue of our souls, have trouble adjudicating reason and revelation. Perhaps we might understand ourselves and our debates better if we could throw ourselves beyond the traditions of the impasse and go back to a moment before Christianity and atheism altogether.

What I would like to do is simple, even nave. I would like to examine ancient Athenian Socrates account of his own response to a Delphic revelation. If Socrates is imitable, what shall his example teach us? The account comes in Platos Apology (20d-23e).[1] Socrates is defending himself against the actual legal accusations of having invented new deities and corrupted the youngfor which he will be found guilty and executedbut he realizes that he must first refute an earlier reputation for obnoxiousness earned through his customary activity of questioning people. He suggests that he must have some kind of human wisdom, and calls as a witness the god of DelphiApollo himselfto confirm Socrates human wisdom. This begins his narration of a past revelation and his own responses to it. Notice that the wisdom or sophia Socrates acknowledges may arise from his very response to the oracle.

A friend of his, one Chaerephon, went to Apollos oracle in Delphi, and asked it if there were anyone wiser than Socrates. Now the Pythian replied there was no one wiser (21a). It is clear that Chaerephon is not acting on Socrates orders here, but acting of his own accord and even impetuously. Our first characteristic of a Socratic response to revelation is that the revelation is not sought, but received. Revelation is a passive, not an active experience. The oracle reveals that there is no one wiser than Socrates, but it was not Socrates who sought that; indeed, he is surprised, as we will see. The first response to revelation is passive surprise, for revelation seeks you, not you revelation. A question asked by another concerned him.

But Socrates does not remain thus:

For when I heard this, I thought to myself: What in the world does the god mean, and what riddle is he propounding? For I am conscious that I am not wise either much or little. What then does he mean by declaring that I am the wisest? He certainly cannot be lying, for that is not possible for him. And for a long time I was at a loss as to what he meant. (21b)

It is true that Apollonian statements are famous for being often, if not always, enigmatic: riddles. (In the museum in Delphi, the most impressive of its many statues is a towering one of the Sphinx, and there is in the Apology always a dark double of another, less Socratic response to revelation, Oedipus, but I wont explore that here.) The second response to the revelation is that Socrates notices that his reason cannot fathom the revelation. Socrates knows empirically that he is not wise, but the god says that he is so. Since the god cannot liean assumption Socrates believes without demonstration, interestinglySocrates is confused. He knows that he is not wise, but the truthful god says that he is. The second response of reason to revelation is perplexity. Socrates knows two, irreconcilable propositions: the god appears wrong; the god cannot be wrong. The perplexity comes with not a little impiety since, at least provisionally, Socrates doubts the gods veracity. The oracle cannot be true. The length of time within for a long time is a disorientation of the soul when Socrates is at a loss as to what the god means.

However long that time of disorientation was, he does not remain content with it:

[T]hen with great reluctance I proceeded to investigate him somewhat as follows. I went to one of those who had a reputation for wisdom, thinking that there, if anywhere, I should prove the utterance wrong and should show the oracle, This man is wiser than I, but you said I was wisest. (21b-c)

Socrates now begins an investigation. The third response to revelation is to examine the perplexity by trying to prove revelation wrong. If he discovers someone wiser than he, the oracle will be wrong. Notice that he assumes he will discover such a person, and he is trying to refute the oracle to maintain his own self-understanding. This is not mere submission to the divine. Reason interrogates revelation to refute it. Socrates sets out to show Apollo that he is mistaken.

What did the interrogation look like? It took the form of Socratic dialectic, the questioning of an interlocutors response to a question until the responses weaknesses are evident:[2]

So examining this man and conversing with him, this man seemed to me to seem to be wise to many other people and especially to himself, but not to be so; and then I tried to show him that he thought he was wise, but was not. As a result, I became hateful to him and to many of those present; and so, as I went away, I thought to myself, I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. (21c-d)

Socrates naturally approaches someone known to be wise, who, he thinks, will prove the oracle wrong. Surprisingly, he discovers in conversation that the one thought to be wise is not. In one sense, the investigation is a failure. Socrates failed to prove the oracle wrong. In another sense, the investigation makes progress. Wisdom is now understood in two ways, actual and reputed: to seem wise is not necessarily to be wise. This progress is modest, though, since Apollo might only think Socrates is wise, while he is not so.

Here, however, we come to a truly radical feature of Socratic response to revelation. In order to accept the oracles veracity, and this is the fourth characteristic we are seeking, he will recast it. Revelation is changed to be understood. Socrates realizes that his interlocutor does not know, but thinks that he does, while he himself neither knows, nor thinks that he does. So he concedes the oracles claimhe is wiser than his interlocutorbut only by first refining what wisdom is. The truly devout Apollonian would argue that Socrates is increasing his understanding of what Apollo said: That is what Apollo meant all along. Perhaps. The oracle is refuted in one sense, confirmed in another. Perhaps, though, the oracle intended the sense confirmed. How would Socrates know? Through reason. If neither Apollo is mistaken in his formulation that Socrates is the wisest, nor Socrates is so in his own that he is not wise, then the god must have meant what Socrates discovered. As Socrates recasts it, I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either (21d). Wisdom is now knowing that one does not know. The term is defined to be accepted, now commensurate with Socrates own self-understanding and the gods earlier, presumably intended meaning.

At this point, one might be forgiven for imagining that the Socratic response to revelation has ended since Socrates now understands what the oracle meant. But that is not the case. Even though he is becoming hated by those reputed to be wise, he continues to go about the gods business of investigating the meaning of the oracle (21e). This firth characteristic of Socratic response to revelation is surprising. Having already discovered what the oracle must have meant, Socrates continues to try to refute it by seeking through dialectic to find someone whose true wisdom will refute the oracles elevation of him:

After this then I went on from one to another, perceiving that I was hated, and grieving and fearing, but nevertheless I thought I must consider the gods business of the highest importance. So I had to go, investigating the meaning of the oracle, to all those who were reputed to know anything. And this, I do declare, was my experience: those who had the most reputation seemed to me to be almost the most deficient, as I investigated at the gods behest, and others who were of less repute seemed to be superior men in the matter of being sensible. So I must relate to you my wandering as I performed my Herculean labors, so to speak, in order that the oracle might be proved to be irrefutable. (21e-22a)

And this continual testing is not only divine service, but also divinely requested service: I investigated at the gods behest! How has Socrates discerned that Apollonian vocation? He must presume that Apollo, knowing Socrates character, knew how he would respond to the oracles pronouncement and wanted him to respond thus. Revelation seeks refutation. And it seeks continual refutation since Socrates continues to engage in dialectic. Only by doing so can the oracle be seen to be not simply un-refuted, but un-refutable. Reasons hero will wander, and like Hercules, engage in divinely mandated labors of refuting the god.

At this point, allow me to concede that refutation here does not mean only, in any simple sense, shown to be wrong. The Socratic elenchus is not only a refutation in the standard sense of the Greek term; it is also a clarificationthat is, a refutation of one casting of understanding and a clarification that it is a new understanding that is required. Of course, the new understanding must now undergo Socratic interrogation, as well, and indeed Socrates narrates going not only to the politicians, but also to the poets and the craftsmen to do just that. Socrates Apollonian vocation is a life-long service to clarifying what Apollonian wisdom is. The next two characteristics of a Socratic response to revelation, both of which may seem like afterthoughts, are actually astounding.

The sixth characteristic of a Socratic response to revelation is that sometimes Socrates does, in fact, show that revelation is mistakennot misunderstood, but mistaken. It turns out that craftsmen do actually know something Socrates does not about making things (22d). Even though they presume that knowledge means that they are knowledgeable about much, if not all else, leading to foolishness, they are wiser than Socrates in that he does not know how to make the things they do. Sometimes, revelation is simply mistaken. Refining our understanding of revelation entails discovering a portion of error in revelation.

Socrates narration of his past in Platos Apology ends up with his re-writing revelation:

I am called a wise man. For on each occasion those who are present think I am wise in the matters in which I confute someone else; but the fact is, gentlemen, it is likely that the god is really wise and by his oracle means this: Human wisdom is of little or no value. And it appears that he does not really say this of Socrates, but merely uses my name, and makes me an example, as if he were to say: This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom. (23a-b)

The oracle first said that no one is wiser than Socrates (21a); now, Socrates revises that to mean that only he is wise who (like Socrates) has little or no wisdom, and knows it. Human sophia is a recognition that there is little or no sophia for human beings. The Apollonian dictate to know thyself now means, Know that you do not know. The seventh characteristic of a Socratic response to revelation is that it revises revelation.

The eighth and last characteristic, persistent service, follows from the others:

Therefore I am still even now going about and searching and investigating at the gods behest anyone, whether citizen or foreigner, who I think is wise; and when he does not seem so to me, I give aid to the god and show that he is not wise. And by reason of this occupation, I have no leisure to attend to any of the affairs of the state worth mentioning, or of my own, but am in vast poverty on account of my service to the god. (23b-c)

There is always the possibility that Socrates will discover, in the next interlocutor, the refutation or clarification through elenchus of the oracle, so he cannot rest from his divine calling to respond to revelation.

A truly Socratic response to revelationpassive surprise, perplexed skepticism, clarifying refutation, heroic confirmation, relative exceptionalism, creative revision, and persistent serviceoffers us, perhaps, a way out of the cultural impasse we are in, where, as Matthew Arnold might have it in Dover Beach, ignorant armies of atheists and fundamentalists clash by night, armies often (remember) within each of our own souls. Why? Because it is neither an atheism nor a fundamentalism, and because it makes its progress through the instrument of reason that must be the path of discourse, be it public or private discourse, for human flourishing. Its not as easy as Platos Socrates makes it look, but the Apology is the one Platonic work with a claim to historical veracity. What has happened can happen. So theres hope for us all.

Notes:

[1] The Loeb Classical Library trans. H.N. Fowler (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1982).

[2] For a wonderful, clear account of that dialectic, see Ward Farnsworths The Socratic Method: A Practitioners Handbook (Boston, MA: Godine, 2021).

The Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politicswe approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please considerdonating now.

The featured image is a photograph of marble bust of Socrates, Roman artwork (1st century), perhaps a copy of a lost bronze statue made by Lysippos. This file is licensed under theCreative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

More here:

A Socratic Response to Revelation - The Imaginative Conservative

A major national police-community partnership event this weekend needs to be made secular and inclusive, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is insisting.

Faith and Blue, which is promoted by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice, says its mission is to build neighborhoods where everyone feels safe and included and contends that faith-based organizations are key to building these bonds.

Each year since the Faith and Blue initiative began in 2020, FFRF has received complaints from its members as well as members of the public about their local law enforcement agencies promoting religion at these events. Faith and Blue events often include religious activity that exclude the nonreligious, demonstrating the danger of governmental partnerships with faith-based groups.

Here are just a few examples of religious endeavors inappropriate for publicly sponsored events that have occurred as part of Faith and Blue.

The only activity scheduled for this Sunday in Dover, Del., as part of Faith and Blue is an invitation for the community to join Dover police officers and city officials in an afternoon of fellowship in worship at local churches. Its flier for the event proclaims that we are strongest when together, we believe! implying that nonbelievers are not contributors to a strong community. Faithandblue.org actually promotes this worship event on its website.

In 2020, the Greenville, S.C., Sheriffs Office put out a video for Faith and Blue weekend in which the sheriff shared his personal religious views: There is no doubt that we live in uncertain times. But one thing is certain, and thats the love that Jesus Christ has for each one of us. . . . Remember that God is in control.

And a Detroit police chaplain used the departments 2020 Faith and Blue event to broadcast a prayer from a patrol vehicles loudspeaker, coercing all in the vicinity to listen to a government-sponsored prayer: In the name of Jesus Christ, Father, we need you to go into each and every house, Father, and loosen those handcuffs, in the name of Jesus Christ . . . were praying for your protection.These types of incidents crossing the constitutional line are inevitable when the federal government encourages law enforcement agencies to put on a Faith event, FFRF contends.

There is no reason to single out faith-based organizations over other important community groups for their own weekend of partnerships with local law enforcement, FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor write to Department of Justice Acting Director Robert Chapman. And, under our Establishment Clause and vaunted separation of church and state, there is every reason not to sponsor or promote an event that is undoubtedly going to create confusion about those boundaries, and appears to place Faith on an exalted plane.

FFRF is urging that this annual program include all community organizations, not just faith-based ones, and that the word Faith should be deleted in the event name to make it clear that these are intended to be secular events. The Department of Justice COPS program must take immediate action to prevent future constitutional violations stemming from Faith and Blue events nationwide, FFRF is insisting ahead of the events planned this weekend.

FFRF, noting that almost a third of the population today identifies as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, adds: Minority religious and nonreligious citizens should not be made to feel excluded, or like outsiders in their own community, because the city governments, sheriffs offices and police departments that they support with their taxes put on a religious event and encourage members of the public to participate in church services, prayer or other religious activities.

You can read the letter in its entirety here.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with more than 38,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

More:

FFRF: Nationwide cop event this weekend should be secular and inclusive - Freedom From Religion Foundation

A number of MPs told stories about how the Queen had helped to ease peoples nerves at official ceremonies.

Greg Clark, the Conservative former levelling up secretary,said that some ministers had found the experience of being sworn in as Privy Counsellors "so overwhelming that I understand that men have suddenly been moved to curtsy in front of Her Majesty".

Grant Shapps, the former transport secretary,recalled that during the "ancient and complex" process, he did not understand the meaning of the phrase "brush her hand" during the oath-taking.

Fifth in the line to become a Privy Counsellor, he was unable to watch what other ministers were doing ahead of him. "She stretched out her bare ungloved right hand and to my surprise moved it towards my face, it moved towards my lips. I pursed my lips. It stuck!"

With a smack of his lips, Mr Shapps added: "In what felt like an age, she was trying to pull it away and then suddenly ... her hand pulled away."

Mr Shapps said he wanted the ground to "swallow me whole" but added: "She looked me right in the eyes with those wonderful sparkling eyes, and as though to acknowledge what had happened and also to forgive me in one turn, she said 'Yes,'

"We never spoke of it again. God Save the King."

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, described the late monarch as our forever Queen.

She related how the Queen invited departing Cabinet ministers and party leaders to tea, with Ms Cooper receiving the invite after Labour lost the 2010 general election.

She didnt invite us when we were on the way up, she didnt invite us when we were playing a constitutional role, she only invited us when it was all over and the cameras had gone home, said Ms Cooper.

Most of us dont like to talk about our downfall, and so most people never knew she even held those teas It showed how privately even more than publicly she believed in selfless duty and valuing public service to our country.

Afterwards, Ms Truss took her Cabinet ministers to Buckingham Palace, where they were received by the King for the first time.

See original here:

Atheist Keir Starmer avoids reference to God in pledge of loyalty to King Charles III - The Telegraph

To a blast of trumpets, King Charles slipped into the role that was his destiny

Its the moment I have been dreading, the new King said to the new prime minister on Friday, but you do try to keep things going. In the ancient courtyard of St Jamess Palace, and among 200 assembled privy counsellors, the inevitability of that fact became law: the reign of King Charles III was formally proclaimed. The ceremony of accession was witnessed for the first time by television cameras. Viewers across the world watched Penny Mordaunt, leader of the privy council since last Wednesday, preside over a ceremony unchanged for 300 years. The new King addressed an audience including six of the 14 former prime ministers who served under his mother, their heads bobbing allegiance like extras in a Holbein painting. Observer

Liz Truss took her senior ministers to Buckingham Palace to be received by the sovereign for the first time. He was introduced to members by the Prime Minister as they lined up inside the 1844 Room at Buckingham Palace. The King spent time talking to new Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace as they were flanked by the prime minister. Following the cabinet audiences, the King spent time meeting the leaders of opposition parties, including Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. The meetings took place on Saturday afternoon following the Accession Council ceremony formally proclaiming Charles III as King this morning. Upday News

Sir Keir Starmer pledged his loyalty to the King on Saturday by choosing a form of words that avoided referring to God. The Labour leader joined Liz Truss and other senior MPs in pledging their allegiance to the new King as Parliament met for a rare Saturday sitting, before the Cabinet was received by the sovereign at Buckingham Palace for the first time. During the swearing in ceremony, MPs have an option of taking an oath or making a solemn affirmation. Sir Keir, who is an atheist, was one of a number of MPs who opted for the affirmation. He said: I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, who presided over Saturdays Accession Council as acting Lord President of the Council, also chose the affirmation. Sunday Telegraph

It was one of Liz Trusss most vociferous critics who brought into sharp focus the weight resting on the new Prime Ministers shoulders. Ian Blackford, the Scottish National Party leader, made a point of telling the Commons that his thoughts were with Ms Truss, who just days into her term in office was having to come to terms with the enormousness of the loss of the head of state, and show the leadership that is now required in her position. It had been believed that the first Ms Truss knew of Queen Elizabeth IIs declining health was when Nadhim Zahawi, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had urgently briefed the Prime Minister following a Commons statement on her energy rescue package, 24 hours earlier. But The Telegraph understands that when Ms Truss entered the Commonsshe already knew that the monarchs health was rapidly declining, and that her death was believed to be imminent. Sunday Telegraph

No one in Downing Street thought much of it when a routine briefing for the new prime minister was cancelled on Wednesday afternoon. Liz Truss was busy with her plans for an energy price freeze and her ministerial reshuffle. Future historians, however, will see that at 2.30pm that day she was due to get a bridges briefing, the codename for the preparations for the death of the Queen. [The routine bridges briefing] was cancelled because of the energy announcement and the reshuffle, a No 10 source said. Little did we know. Less than 24 hours later Truss was at the dispatch box, giving MPs the outline of her plans to freeze household energy bills at a cost estimated to be far in excess of 100 billion when she was passed a note by Nadhim Zahawi, the Cabinet Office minister. It said Buckingham Palace was due to issue a statement about the Queens health. Truss had got to her feet knowing the Queens death was imminent. Sunday Times

Russian forces suffered their worst defeat since March yesterday when they were forced to abandon their main foothold in the northeast of Ukraine to avoid encirclement in a rapid counter-offensive by Kyivs troops. Military analysts spoke of a possible turning point in the war. Moscow tried to portray the hasty retreat from several vital strategic strongholds near Kharkiv as an orderly redeployment. Ukraine broke through one of the wars most hotly contested front lines, taking back dozens of towns and villages in a shock offensive that began five days ago. Its of historic importance, said Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at Kings College London. It might be a tipping point, we dont know quite how this will work out but theres a lot of panic and anxiety among Russian troops right now. Sunday Times

Vince Cable suffered a minor stroke when he was leader of the Liberal Democrats that seriously affected his performance when giving speeches and at other political events, he in a memoir published on Sunday. The former business secretary [in the Coalition government] decided to keep his health issues secret for more than a year and to soldier on as leader, until he stepped down in July 2019. Now 79, he says in the memoir that he wrestled with whether to go public at the time, but came to the conclusion that people would have written him off as a goner had he done so. On one occasion in early summer 2018 he was addressing MPs in a Brexit debate in the House of Commons. I totally lost my bearings and for what seemed an eternity I was paralysed, he writes. The revelation about the stroke, which happened when flying to Italy in May 2018, comes towards the end of Partnership & Politics In a Divided Decade. Observer

Read more:

Sunday 11th September 2022 - ConservativeHome

Its inspiring to hear the testimony of a person whose life has been so completely changed by Christ. After many years spent astray under the influence of drugs, emotional dependence, and a serious depression, Brigitte Bdard experienced a powerful conversion. From that moment on, she has never ceased to testify loudly and clearly that Christ has set her free.

She began using drugs at the age of 11. This addiction lasted 10 years, at the end of which she fell into another addictionto sex and attention. For another 10 years I was desperate, searching for my sexual orientation, looking to get some love through sex, she tells Aleteia. I had given up drugs, alcohol and even cigarettes, but I was still collecting conquests in love.

This continued until the day when, with her head full of suicidal ideas, she went to a retreat at the abbey of Saint-Benot-du-Lac (in Quebec, Canada), at the invitation of a person she had met at a Cocaine Anonymous meeting. There, the ex-cocaine addict, atheist, and bisexual feminist (as she was at the time) spent the three days of the retreat pouring out her anger on a monk who would later become her spiritual father. I yelled at him! For three days. Throwing all my rage at him. He listened to me without flinching. He didnt talk about Jesus, but he was Jesus, she recalls. He looked at me with love. He prayed over me. He laid his hands on me. And the Holy Spirit came down on me. I understood that I was Gods beloved daughter, that Jesus was alive, truly risen. It was a revelation.

From that day on, she decided to put God at the center of her life. As a single mother of two children, she discovered friendship and the life of the Church. She made a pilgrimage to Rome, and got up every day at 4 a.m. to pray for an hour and a half. I have a very strong temperament, she says. A few years later, she met Hugues on the Internet. They got married on September 30, 2006, and have two children together. Hugues also has two children from a first union, so they form a large family.

Letting herself be loved by her husband

After having let herself be loved by Christ, she now had to let herself be loved by her husband. While the beginnings of their marriage were characterized by close unity, married life was far from being rosy.

We each lived a little on our own; God was not at the center of our lives. Its not that because were Christians we dont have problems, she says. Caught up in the whirlwind of her busy job, she never missed an opportunity to testify about her conversion, traveled across the country to give conferences, and engaged with her husband in various forms of service in the Church. Her husband struggled with an addiction to pornography. They went through a marriage crisis that lasted two years, and were accompanied psychologically and spiritually by the Chemin Neuf community.

What changed our lives was when we started praying as a couple every morning, she says. It was a way to put God at the center, to review our priorities. And what became a priority in prayer was our personal relationship with God. How far should our conversion go? Even to our bed! But there were many obstacles, given our past wounds, which prevented us from living a sexual communion.

Gradually, Bdard was able to present to God in prayer her difficulties, her fears, and her frustrations. She knew that God wanted to rebuild her marriage, to restore it. She knew that He did not judge them and welcomed them where they were at. It helped me to welcome Hugues where he was at, to welcome him as he was.

Praying as a couple forced us to live in the truth

At that moment, a piece of advice from a psychologist left a deep impression on them: You have to take care of each others wounds. Thus, prayer helped them to remain anchored in patience, trust, sensitivity, and gentleness. God taught us to love each other by ridding us of all the false ideas we had. Our failures were there to help us build love, and praying as a couple forced us to live in the truth.

That journey still bears fruit today. She joyfully testifies to these experiences through her participation on the television program The Victory of Love (La Victoire de lAmour, TVA) and in the Catholic magazine Le Verbe, as well as in her latest book I Let Myself be Loved and the Holy Spirit Carried Me Away (Je me suis laiss aimer Et lEsprit Saint ma emprs).

Continue reading here:

Former cocaine addict and atheist shares about her powerful conversion - Aleteia

A lady asked Hazrat Amirul Momineen, Khalifatul Masih Vaathe following:

[] How can one explain to an atheist that Allah the Exalted will ultimately forgive humans and grant them entry into Paradise?

Huzoor-e-Anwaraareplied:

[] Every day, we observe that if a person makes a mistake, his punishment is not permanent, rather it ends at some point as well. When this is the case with us humans and the laws we have made, then how can we ever reconcile ourselves to the idea that God would continue to make people suffer from the punishment of Hell for their mistakes and sins forever? He is God in Whom are found all the most excellent, pure and praiseworthy attributes, Who is the Most Exalted, Who manifests Himself on the highest station of holiness and Who has made a promise about Himself that:

Verily, My mercy prevails over My wrath. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitab badi l-khalq, Bab ma jaa fi qawli-llahi taala wa huwa llazi yabdau l-khalqa thumma yuiduhu wa huwa ahwanu alayh)

Moreover, He is the One Who loves his servants far more than a kind mother. [Thus, how can we even think of Him in that way?]

Hell is a hospital where the sick will be treated and discharged after their recovery. This is the reason why Allah the Exalted has also used the wordumm, i.e. mother, in relation to Hell in the Holy Quran, as He said, (Surah al-Qaraiah, 101:10), which means that Hell will be his mother. One does not live in the mothers womb forever. Rather, when the development of the fetus is complete, it comes into the world from there.

Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira, while explaining the interpretation of this verse, says:

To refer to Hell [hawiyah] as mother [umm] points to the fact that one is attached to the mother until one is fully developed and trained. After having received the training, one is separated from the mother. This word [umm] indicates that the inmates of Hell will be delivered from it after having lived in it for a long period of time. (Haqaiq-ul-Furqan, Vol. IV, p. 446)

Similarly, it is also mentioned in the Hadith that there will come a time upon Hell that there will be no human being left in it and the gates of Hell will make a rattling noise on account of the blowing winds. (Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 14, Hadith No. 39506)

Hazrat Ibn Masudranarrates that the Holy Prophetsawhile describing the condition of the last person to be taken out of Hell, said:

The person who will be the last to enter Paradise will come out of Hell, falling, stumbling and crawling while the fire of Hell will be burning him. Then, once he is out of the hell, he will look back towards the hell and address the hell and say, Blessed is He Who has saved me from thee. Allah has given me something He has not given to any one of those in earlier or later times.

Then a tree would be raised up for him and he will say, O my Lord! Bring me near this tree so that I may take shelter in its shade and drink of its water. Allah, the Exalted and Great, would say, O son of Adam! If I grant you this, you will ask Me for something else. He would reply, No. my Lord. And he would promise Him that he would not ask for anything else. His Lord would excuse him because He sees (such bounties of Paradise) what he cannot help desiring; so He would bring him near it, and he would take shelter in its shade and (quench his thirst) by drinking of the water (and the nectar of its fruits).

Afterwards, a tree more beautiful than the first would be raised up before him and he would say, O my Lord! bring me near this tree in order that I may drink of its water and take shelter in its shade and I shall not ask Thee for anything else. He (Allah) would say, O son of Adam! If I bring you near it you may ask me for something else. He would then promise Him that he would not ask for anything else. His Lord will excuse him because He would see something (of the blessings) he cannot help desiring. So He would bring him near it and he would enjoy its shade and drink its water.

Then a tree would be raised up for him at the gate of Paradise, more beautiful than the first two. He would say, O my Lord! bring me near this (tree) so that I may enjoy its shade and drink from its water. I shall not ask Thee for anything else. He (Allah) would say, O son of Adam! Did you not promise Me that you would not ask Me anything else? He would say, Yes, my Lord, but I shall not ask Thee for anything else. His Lord would excuse him for He sees something (of the blessings of Paradise) the temptation of which he could not resist. He (Allah) would bring him near to it, and when He would bring him near it he would hear the voices of the inhabitants of Paradise. He would say, O my Lord! Please admit me to it. He (Allah) would say, O son of Adam! What will bring an end to your requests to Me? Will it please you if I give you the whole world and a like one along with it? He will reply, O my Lord! Art Thou mocking me, though Thou art the Lord of the worlds?

At this, the narrator of this hadith, Hazrat Abdullah bin Masudra, laughed and said to the audience, Why dont you ask me why I laughed? The people asked, Why did you laugh? He replied that the Holy Prophetsaalso laughed in the same way and the Companionsraasked him, O Allahs Messengersa! Did you laugh for some reason? Upon this, he replied, I laughed because of the laughter of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. When that person will say, You are mocking me despite being the Lord of the Worlds, Allah will say, I am not mocking you but I can do whatever I will. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-iman, Bab akhiri ahli n-nari khurujan)

Read more:

How can one explain to an atheist that everyone will eventually enter Paradise? - The Weekly Al Hakam

I teach hundreds of students every year. I try as hard as I can to get to know them, even though some of them are a few thousand miles away and I might never meet them in person. To get to know them, I assign a standard survey with the same questions Ive been asking for 15 years. One of the questions I ask each year is to tell me three interesting things about themselves. The answers I receive stretch from I play football to I speak eight languages. Every once in a while, a student surprises me with an interesting tidbit about themselves I hadnt heard before, but for the most part, theres nothing new under the sun.

It isnt often, but every few years a student will write that theyre an atheist. This is a bold statement because the student knows that Im a rabbi and have dedicated my life to bringing my students closer to G-d. Writing Im an atheist to answer a rabbis question to tell me something interesting about yourself is the shot-across-the-bow equivalent to a student telling their vegan teacher they love steak. Its not just a call for attention, its a call to arms. A student writing Im an atheist to their rabbi-teacher is telegraphing, Im looking for a debate, bring it on. Im sure psychologists would posit that the student is actually calling out for help or attention, but Im not a psychologist, and smart educators and rabbis dont pretend they know psychology just because they teach adolescents.

As an educator and rabbi, my inner voice screams, Take the atheist on! Go for the debate! Youve studied this before, you have written and taught about G-ds existence hundreds of times. Youll convince the student there is a G-d and convince all the other students as well! Yet, I know better. I know the student hasnt developed the intellectual maturity to truly investigate whether G-d exists or not. For whatever reason, the student finds it more appealing to claim to be an atheist than to maintain there is a G-d. Debating, educating or trying to persuade this student wont succeed in moving them to be convinced there is a G-d. In all likelihood, engaging on the topic of G-ds existence with them will solidify their claims.

I loathe generalizing, but most teenagers reach a conclusion about G-ds existence before asking themselves what qualifies as a metric theyd accept as sufficiently convincing. They simply conclude that if they cant sense G-d physically (seeing or hearing G-d), there is no G-d. Not only are they unaware of how many places, events and personalities they accept as existing or have existed without physical evidence of their existence, they havent even considered that such factors exist. Teenagers, for the most part and there are exceptions do not possess the intellectual development necessary to contemplate complex abstract questions like G-ds existence. An educator cant engage a student with facts and figures if the student hasnt developed the skills to understand how to properly weigh the facts.

There will always be atheists and they will always have rationalizations that allow them to answer the challenges their position forces on them. They will claim survival of the fittest, metaverse, and coincidence. These answers arent the teenage atheists reason for claiming there is no G-d. Showing that these answers lack logic wont help them, itll push them further down. Instead of challenging the teenage Jewish atheist, show them you care for them, validate their doubts, and begin to help them think methodologically. Once they begin to think in a clearer fashion, theyll be open to hearing about G-d.

Many mistakenly think a rabbis role is to draw a student close to G-d by hook or by crook, but nothing could be further from the truth. A rabbis primary role is to be there for their students when they need them. A student doesnt feel their rabbi is there for them when the rabbi debates them; they feel a connection to the rabbi when they know the rabbi cares for them where they are not where the rabbi wants them to be. An educators role is to teach their students, not to indoctrinate them. Most importantly, a teacher instructs students not what to think, but how to think. By teaching a student a methodology of thought, the student can weigh factors themselves and reach conclusions in a logical manner. There is no greater gift a teacher can give their student. I cant be sure my educational and theological philosophy will transform my atheist students into maintaining there is a G-d, but I am confident debating my students will completely fail.

Visit link:

Engaging With The Teenage Atheist - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Perhaps one of the most significant single quotations of the 19th century was by the prodigious and often misconstrued German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who said among other things God is dead. That little sentence has caused immeasurable trouble ever since it was published in 1882 in Nietzsches The Gay Philosophy and was reiterated in the seminal Thus Spake Tharathustra. The poor little sentence has been reduced time and time again to a mere statement if atheism. That reading could hardly be more wrong.

In actual fact, when he said that God was dead, Nietzsche was not saying anything that would call for a Gods Not Dead style apologetic rebuttal. Sure, he was an atheist. Sure, underlying the famous statement is the assumption that God never existed in the first place. However, God is dead would be a pretty silly way to say, There is no God. The death of God is not a religious commentary but a societal phenomenon. God is dead, Nietzsche wrote, and we have killed him. This means that the post-enlightenment European culture had purged itself of its former obsession with God and possibly driven from its collective consciousness the ability to believe in God.

Make no mistake, a man as critical of religion and the church as Nietzsche took no issue with the death of God. Since God was not real to begin with, the death of God as a popular idea was no tragedy. What it was, however, was an intimidating vacuum in western culture. The philosophical and social question of the century became, What will replace Christianity as the guiding force behind western cultures? This question made everyone, Nietzsche included, uneasy.

The classic misunderstanding of Nietzsche is not unlike poor old John Lennon who set off riots, record burnings, and radio band in the US when he said that his band The Beatles was bigger than Jesus. As Lennon later clarified, he never meant that the Beatles were better than Jesus, more important than Jesus, or anything like that. He said that they were more popular among Western youth than Christianity was, and that was a fair observation at the time. Kids were more apt to catch Beatlemania than Jesus mania in the 1960s.

Despite being no fan of Christianity himself, Lennon was not exactly comfortable being bigger than Jesus. He seemed to be taken aback, maybe even a little scandalized underneath his jaded exterior, that a pop band was outselling the largest world religion among the new generation even if he didnt support the religion. In this way, Lennon became a lot like Nietzsche a controversial commentator on current trends, critical of the church but dismayed at the gap left by its declining influence and the things that might arise to fill it.

In a sense, Lennons observation was an answer to the question posed by the death of God. In the absence of a God-fearing culture, it was entertainment that seemed to rise up to become the predominant influence on the beliefs, feelings, and choices of the masses. The gatherings for worship were eclipsed by the wild-spirited gatherings for concerts. Spirituality, philosophy, and even salvation were outsourced to songwriters.

In response, church after church has tried to convert itself into a rock concert in a desperate scramble to entertain crowds and maybe trick them into reviving God in the process. Of course, it worked a few times. Contemporary churches have grown quite large, and some genuine conversions have occurred as a result of their efforts. In many more cases, too, though, those who were already Christian left their traditions and hopped aboard the entertainment express, finding more fulfillment in these more entertaining liturgies.

God died (in the consciousness of modern culture). The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. American Christians tried to turn Jesus into The Beatles. After more than a century of talk, rumors of Gods death have been greatly exaggerated, and religion doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Now we are all scrambling to adjust to this strange new world weve created.

See more here:

From Nietzsche to John Lennon: Death and Resurrection of Western Religiosity - Patheos

When President Ronald Reagan touched down at Vnukovo International Airport in Moscow on May 28, 1988, he had more than missiles on his mind. Reagan had ostensibly arrived for his third summit with the general secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. Publicly, the purpose of the visit was arms limitations. Privately, the Gipper (as Reagan was known) had an ulterior motive in meeting with Gorby, as some in the West called him. Reagan wanted to talk to the leader of the second-largest atheist nation in the world about God.

Not surprisingly, when Reagan was later escorted to the Grand Kremlin Palace, where he was greeted by the smiling Soviet leader, he was asked to make some remarks in St. Georges Hall. It was a Sunday, and the American president ended his comments with Thank you and God bless you. It was the first time the word God had been used in that hall in nearly 70 years. It marked a deliberate (and crafty) strategy on the part of the president to bring eternal things into the political discussion.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev died Aug. 30, 2022, at the age of 91. Born as Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was just ramping up his mass murder of Ukrainians and kulaks who resisted his collectivization efforts, Gorbachev not only would live to see the end of the Soviet Union, but he would become a principal architect in its demise. And, contrary to some contemporary accounts, he didnt like it.

At the time, Western journalists fawned over his supposed reforms in Russia, perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness), but in fact Gorbachev was responsible for neither. Both had been undertaken before he ascended to power in 1985. Indeed, perhaps shockingly, Ilya Zaslavsky, later elected to the Russian parliament after the fall of communism, called Reagan the father of perestroika.

At age 54, Gorbachev was young for a Soviet leader. In fact, his three predecessors appeared ancient by comparison. And they all died within a three-year period, leading Reagan to tell his wife Nancy, I want to talk to the Soviet leaders but they keep dying on me. Gorby had a round face, a harmless look with his glasses, and a distinctive birthmark that some would quip took on the map shape of whatever country the Soviets were invading at the time. Western media adored him, treating him like a rock star. To them, he was not a real communist.

Gorbachev himself begged to differ. Though he spoke in appropriate code that concealed his real motivations, he spoke plainly behind closed doors. He told his first Politburo meeting he was deeply devoted to the idea of collective work, adding, what we need is more socialism. While it is true that Gorbachev advanced both perestroika and glasnost, he saw both as well within Soviet dogma. Also, he had no other choice. The Soviet economy was crashing after decades of extreme military spendingspending that was undetected or misunderstood by even the CIA. By 1985, it was eating the Soviet economy alive. As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, Gorbachev didnt understand that the system is the problem.

Reagan and Gorbachev share jokes on a break during the Geneva Summit in 1985.Jean-Louis Atlan/Sygma via Getty Images

Even as the CIA focused on the Soviets remaining strengths, Reagan understood that the country teetered on the brink. Privately, in his diary, he wrote, They are in bad shape and if we can cut off their credit theyll have to yell Uncle.

Reagan was nearly alone in these assessments. Still, by 1982, he had put in place an economic program that would cut the legs out from under the USSRs economy and ultimately hasten the communist systems collapse.

Reagan recognized that, as the old joke went, Russia exported only four things: gold, oil, vodka, and spies. He thought hed let the CIA handle the spies, and he wasnt about to stop vodka shipments. But gold and oil he could do something about.

He made a deal with Saudi Arabias oil minister to lower prices and increase production. Within a year, oil was flowing more freely and Soviet prices fell. Reagan also pursued a money-tightening program that sent the value of Soviet gold exports into a nosedive. Meanwhile, on the cultural front, he followed the advice of the many who urged him to blast rock n roll music over Voice of America and Radio Free Europes systems into the heart of captive European nations. When I later interviewed people from Hungary, Romania, East Germany, and other countries behind the Iron Curtainpeople who were kids when the Berlin Wall fellevery one of them spoke of the importance of rock music at the time. They called it the music of freedom.

SHORTLY AFTER REAGANS COMMENTS at St. Georges Hall in 1988, he and Gorbachev headed off for a one-on-one meeting. It was their third since Gorbachev had become general secretary. Almost immediately, the Gipper referenced God again. What if you ruled [that] religious freedom was part of your peoples rights? he asked. No one would have dared ask such a question of Stalin or his successor, Nikita Khrushchev. But Reagan sensed Gorby might be open. Such a declaration, Reagan insisted, would make him a hero, and much of the feeling against your country would disappear like water in the hot sun.

Gorbachev bobbed and weaved. He had actually been baptized as a child, he said, but now did not believe in God Then, uncomfortably, he tried to turn the question back to civil rights in America. But Reagan was never one to be sidetracked. He told Gorbachev a true story: Reagan had once asked his son Ron, a professing agnostic, What if I served you a gourmet dinner? Would you believe there was a cook? Gorbachev, the head of godless communism, said Rons answer would have to have been yes.

The following day at Spaso House, Reagan repeated the story and injected an even more spiritual tone. I have to believe, said the Gipper, that the history of this troubled century will indeed be redeemed in the eyes of God and man, and that freedom will truly come to all. Then he again ended with God bless you.

When he met up with Gorbachev again, Reagan gave him a videotape of a Gary Cooper movie, Friendly Persuasion, about a Quaker caught in the American Civil War and the necessity of listening to God. One might have thought Reagan was on a mission to convert Gorbachev personally, a sort of Billy Graham crusade to the heart of the evil empire. After that nights dinner, Reagan ended with God bless you yet again, uttering the name of the Lord in the presence of a Soviet leader more times in a few days than in perhaps the past half-century.

Gorbachev and Reagan meet in 1986 inside the Hofdi House during the Reykjavk Summit.Maidun Collection/Alamy

BEFORE HIS MISSION TO MOSCOW, though, Reagan had to do everything he could to make sure Gorbachev had ears to hear. By 1985, when Gorbachev agreed to meet in Geneva, he was already holding a losing hand. The arms race had tilted decidedly against him, beginning with the delivery in 1981 of Americas revolutionary Trident submarines. These vessels were so stealthy that even Americas own anti-submarine methods couldnt find them. They were so successful, and so advanced, that the U.S. Navy did something it almost never did: It delayed delivery of more advanced missiles with longer range because they just werent needed.

After that, Reagans bomber programs came online. Then, he and Thatcher ordered several hundred Pershing II and cruise missiles deployed in Europe to counter the ill-conceived plan of one of Gorbachevs predecessors to sprinkle mobile, impossible-to-find SS-20 missiles all over western Russia. (Gorbachev told his advisers that was a poor decision, but for the time being he was stuck with it.) Then came 1983, and Reagan hit the Soviets with the old one-two.

First, at a convention of evangelicals, the Gipper called the Soviet Union the evil empire. That inflamed Reagans opponents like few other comments he ever made. Even Nancy urged him not to say it. But Reagan believed the Soviets were an empireand that they were evil. And the reference to the film Star Wars should not be dismissed, as culturally it was one of the most important movies of the 20th century. Everyone knew exactly what Reagans evil empire line referred to.

Second, Reagan announced his plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a system to shoot down enemy missiles in flight. Now the media thought they had him. The stupid old ex-actor walked right into that, his opponents thought. They derided the new program, dubbing it Star Warsin the process walking right into one of the biggest backfires in media history.

Instantly, what Reagans critics meant as an insult turned a difficult-to-grasp technical program into an easy-to-understand concept. More importantly, virtually everyone knew that in Star Wars the movie, the Evil Emperor was an old, decrepit, wrinkled creepwho sorta resembled Gorbachevs three predecessors. And Luke? Well, despite the difference in age, Luke and Reagan shared the optimistic belief that even the Death Star could be overcome. So, when Gorbachev came on the scene, where did that leave him? With his pale skin and that red birthmark on his head well, he reminded some folks a little of Darth Vader when the helmet came off.

It was ironic and telling that Gorbachev became obsessed with SDI before a single element of the program had ever even been fabricated or tested. He brought it up at every meeting with Reagan. In their second, critical meeting at Reykjavk in 1986, Gorbachev took the offensive. He quickly surprised the American president by offering not just to limit missiles, but to eliminate half of each nations nuclear forces.

Reagan was nothing if not quick on his feet, and quickly one-upped him. Why stop at half? Reagan said. Why dont we eliminate them all?

A stunned Gorbachev had sought a public relations coup, not a real settlement, and was so shaken by the counteroffer that he asked for a brief recess. When he came back, SDI was suddenly back on the table.

Now frustrated, Reagan wouldnt budge on Star Wars. He turned to his Secretary of State, George Schultz, and asked, Am I wrong?

Schultz, who could be quite critical of Reagan, said, No, Mr. President. You are right.

Reagan picked up his folders and left. An exasperated Gorbachev shuffled after him. I dont know what else I could have done, he muttered.

Reagan, both angry and disappointed, snapped, You could have said yes.

Twenty years later, Gorbachev returned to Iceland to visit the Hofdi House.Tom Stoddart/Getty Images

Over the next two years Gorbachev moved steadily toward Reagan, signing a treaty removing and destroying all short-range nuclear missiles in Europea first in history. Both men hoped for more in Moscow, but by then, Reagan was in his final year as president and had to attend to more eternal business.

When Reagan went to Moscow in 1988, the highlight of his trip was to be his speech to communist students at Moscow State University. These days, one can hardly imagine a Republican president getting a decent reception at any American university, so for an American president to speak to future Communist leaders was a challenge for the ages. But Reagan dove in, speaking literally beneath a giant bust of Lenin. He talked about freedom but also faith, painting a picture of families of every conceivable nationality worshipping together. Liberty, he concluded, was a gift from God.

The young communists went wild. They cheered him, and Reagan, looking at the bust of Lenin, said he thought he saw it cry.

By then it was clear that all the elements of Reagans statecraft and spiritual offensive had come together. Even the rock n roll. I interviewed a woman from the captive region of Moldova in 2010 and was surprised at her story: I was atheist but not communist. For some reason they let in the rock n roll musical Jesus Christ Superstar. I came to Jesus and was baptized because of Jesus Christ Superstar.

In his dialogues with Gorbachev, Reagan invoked the name of the Almighty at every possible opportunityand so did Gorbachev (Let us pray to God or God help us). At one point, he told Michael Deaver, his deputy chief of staff, He believes.

Deaver didnt quite know what to say. Are you saying the general secretary of the Soviet Union believes in God? he asked. Reagan said he didnt know for sure but, I honestly think he believes in a higher power. Then, as if to confirm it, Russian church leaders were allowed to appear on television for the first time ever.

Reagan never knew whether his conversations with Gorbachev bore fruit. His son Michael got to know Gorbachev and, himself a Christian, pressed Gorbachev for an answer many years later. Something had changed. Where he had earlier told Michael Reagan that he was not a die-hard atheist, now Gorbachev told a story about his Christian grandmother. In March 2008, the London Telegraph headlined a story, Mikhail Gorbachev admits he is a Christian. Historian Paul Kengor, whose God and Ronald Reagan tracked the Gippers spiritual life, told me he had received an email from a student who knew Gorbachev well in later years and insisted he had not converted. Michael Reagan, writing for beliefnet.com, came to a different conclusion: My own suspicionsand my fatherswere confirmed. Mikhail Gorbachev is indeed a man of faith.

As with the state of every soul, we wont find the final answer on this earth.

Larry Schweikart is co-author of A Patriots History of the United States and author of Reagan: The American President

See the original post here:

God, the Gipper, and Gorbachev | WORLD - WORLD News Group