Category Archives: Atheist

That Salman Rushdie was nearly murdered at an event in New York while talking about whether the United States was a safe haven for exiled writers is an irony hed have rejected as too far-fetched in even his most fantastical novels. That he was talking at all at such an event with no personal security, no special precautions will have been a shock to many, given that he will always be best known, to his chagrin, not for something he did, but for something that was done to him, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against him in 1989.

But even then, when the threats against him seemed to be at the most heated, he refused to be cowed, always looking straight ahead when he walked slowly from his hiding places to his security details car, never bowing his head, never scuttling. If you succumb to the fear, he writes in Joseph Anton, his memoir of that period, you will be its creature for ever, its prisoner.

One thing I feel, well, proud of, lets say, is if you knew nothing about my life, if all you had were my books, I dont think you would feel that something traumatic happened to me in 1989. I thought: be the writer that you want to be, he said when I interviewed him last year.

Yet I persisted in asking, to his irritation, questions about how the death threat had affected him. Because I couldnt see how it had: in person, he is warm, interested in everything and always one of the most fun people at a party. Only last week I sent him an email, and he wrote back at once, always happy to talk about anything (as long as its not the fatwa). He hates how the fatwa shaped perceptions of him as much as he resented how it shrank his life when he lived for a decade in hiding. It destroys my individuality as a person and as a writer. Im not a geopolitical entity. Im someone writing in a room, he said to me. And so, with great determination and courage, he retained his individuality by choosing freedom, with all the risks that entailed.

So the fact that Rushdie was speaking at a book event when he was attacked is entirely in keeping with the man. Even more characteristic was what he was speaking about: the rights of writers who face persecution. People who have endured far less than him have found themselves lured by the siren song of reactionary conservatism; Rushdies great friend Christopher Hitchens was not immune to it, and all that happened to him was he aged.

But Rushdies moral compass has never wavered, and he remains a fearless defender of the freedom of expression. In 2015, he was scathing about the authors who objected to PEN America honouring the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, months after the murderous attacks on its staff by Islamic extremists. Peter Carey condemned PENs seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognise its obligation to a large and disempowered segment of the population. Rushdie, an atheist who was raised Muslim, retorted: What I would say to both Peter and Michael [Ondaatje] and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.

Ignorant people have been trying to school Rushdie from the moment the extremists began to come after him. Looking back on news coverage from 1989, its striking how little sympathy there was for Rushdie then, on the left or the right. There was a general sense that he had brought this on himself because he had offended extremists. It would be extremely wrong to believe we live in more enlightened times now. Three years ago, a columnist in the Independent, who had not read The Satanic Verses, wrote, Rushdies silly, childish book should be banned under todays anti-hate legislation. Two years ago, Rushdie, along with JK Rowling herself no stranger to death threats was mocked for signing what is known as the Harpers letter, which argued against censorship on the left, as well as the right.

Theres a youthful progressive movement, much of which is extremely valuable, but there does seem to be within it an acceptance that certain ideas should be suppressed, and I just think thats worrying, he said to me. He has been thinking about these issues for longer than some of his critics have been alive. In 2005, he gave a speech, Defend the Right to Be Offended, in which he said, It seems to me to be a liberal failure to say that even though we dont understand what is upsetting those who say they are offended, we shouldnt upset them People have the fundamental right to take an argument where somebody is offended by what they say. This is not a very fashionable argument now, when Rowlings name is now considered analogous to Voldemort in progressive circles, and comedians such as Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle are physically attacked on stage because someone was offended by something they have said.

Rushdie has always stood against all this, and he stands for much more. It is completely devastating that he has been attacked. The rest of us should think how lucky we are that we only need to look to him to see what true courage looks like. And he should take enormous pride in knowing that he really is both the writer and the man that he wanted to be.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk

Originally posted here:

I could not believe how bravely Salman Rushdie faced the threats to his life. Thats true courage - The Guardian

Hours after Salman Rushdie was brutally stabbed by a 24-year-old Hadi Matar in western New York, lyricist Javed Akhtar denounced the barbaric attack on the renowned novelist, however, there was a catch. He refused to name Islamists or the threat by Islamists that he has been living under for over 3 decades.

In a tweet on Friday (August 12), Akhtar tweeted, I condemn the barbaric attack on Salman Rushdie by some fanatic. I hope that New York police and the court will take the strongest action possible against the attacker. Interestingly, his tweet made no direct reference to the Islamist who orchestrated the attack. Javed Akhtar contended that the attacker was just some fanatic.

Although the lyricist was quite prompt in condemning the attack on Rushdie (without mentioning the Islamist attacker), it must be recalled that he had earlier dog whistled against the same novelist in 2012.

Salman Rushdie came into the limelight after his book The Satanic Verses was banned in 1988 by a host of countries, including India, under the garb of blasphemy. Javed Akhtar who otherwise pretends to be an atheist was deeply offended by the novels portrayal of Islamic characters.

In an interview with journalist Barkha Dutt on NDTV in April 2012, Akhtar was asked about his stand on Rushdie and his book. What Rushdie did is not decent. I am an atheist but there is certain decorum and basic decency in life he alleged.

He has written a novel. Its a work of fiction. In that, you take real historical people who are respected and revered by billions of people. You say very dirty things about them. What will you gain? Why are you doing this? the pretentious atheist remarked.

The lyricist went on to claim that books such as The Satanic Verses are counter-productive. He emphasised, You will make them more religious and fanatic. A fundamentalist who is against freedom of expression will have a very good argument against freedom of expression.

That book was in extreme bad taste. Without having any religious beliefs, I felt that. You cant do that, Javed Akhtar warned. Whenever Barkha Dutt pointed out that free speech also includes the right to offend, Javed Akhtar started drawing false equivalence.

Can I write anything against my neighbour? Can I call him a pimp and his house a brothel?, he inquired to thwart criticism directed towards Islam. To reinstate his secular and atheist credentials, Akhtar claimed that he was not against criticism of his religion based on scholarly work.

He also claimed to have defended the right of Salman Rushdie to take part in the Jaipur Literature Festival although he had not been vocal about it. The deliberate omission of the word Islamist from his tweet and his personal disdain for the novelist demonstrates that his condemnation is political tokenism at best.

It is a tendency among the cabal of left-liberals to do lip service and shed crocodile tears following Islamist attacks, despite creating a fertile land for such tragedies to follow.

On Friday (August 12), Salman Rushdie was stabbed during an event at the Chautauqua Institution in western New York. The man involved in the attack was identified as 24-year-old Hadi Matar. A resident of Fairview in New Jersey, Hadi jumped onto the stage and attacked the novelist with a knife.

The accused reportedly had a pass for the event where Rushdie was invited to deliver a lecture.The authorities had also seized a backpack, belonging to the accused, from the crime scene. Theyclaimedthat the attacker might have been alone and have launched a probe to determine whether thats the case.

As per areportby New York Times, the local police have sought help from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for determining the background and motives of Hadi Matar.Rushdies agent Andrew Wylie informed that he is still in a critical state.

He added that Rushdie was being put on ventilator support and that he could not speak. The news is not good. Salman will likely lose one eye; the nerves in his arm were severed, and his liver was stabbed and damaged, Wylie lamented.

The author of The Satanic Verses was reportedly provided immediate medical attention by an audience member named Rita Landman. She informed that Salman Rushdie received multiple stab wounds, one to his neck and another to his abdomen.

Continued here:

Javed Akhtar condemns stabbing of Salman Rushdie without mentioning Islamists: Here is how he had dog whistled about Satanic Verses in 2012 - OpIndia

There are two pressing crises tied to the state of religion in America today. A new style of atheism can help answer both of them.

The first crisis is rooted in an excess of religion. Christian theocracy is not far-off specter but an emerging reality in America. Fueled by a radically reactionary Supreme Court that is two-thirds Catholic, Thomas Jeffersons already-dilapidated and graffitied wall of separation between church and state is crumbling. The overturning of Roe v. Wade means the lives of women across the country are being held hostage by a conservative Christian conception of life. Kennedy v. Bremerton permits school officials to publicly pray and make students feel pressured to join in. Carson v. Makin allows taxpayer dollars to be used to fund religious education. And at the state level, Republican-led legislatures have invoked Christianity as they pursue a systematic assault on transgender rights, while abortion abolitionists convinced some Louisiana lawmakers that people who get abortions should be charged with homicide.

Atheism can address the social and spiritual vacuum emerging in the wake of the slow death of mainstream organized religion.

Scholars of the religious right are also sounding alarms over the emergence of Christian nationalism, a QAnon-addled authoritarian political movement whose champions breached the U.S. Capitol and prayed on the Senate floor on Jan 6, 2021. The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a leader of the diehard Trump wing in the House, said at a church in her home state recently. Im tired of this separation of church and state junk. She received a standing ovation from her audience.

The second crisis is tied, ironically, to the decline of religion. The religious right is securing more power in courts and legislatures and becoming more influential within right-wing culture, but its not becoming more popular. Instead there has been an accelerating American drift away from organized religion and most often toward nothing in particular. A rapidly increasing share of Americans are detaching from religious communities that provide purpose and forums for moral contemplation, and not necessarily finding anything in their stead. They're dropping out of church and survey data suggests they're disproportionately like to be checked out from civic life. Their trajectory tracks with a broader decades-long trend of secular life defined by plunging social trust, faith in institutions, and participation in civil society.

My belief is that an energetic, organized atheist movement which I propose calling "communitarian atheism" would provide an effective way to guard against the twin crises of intensifying religious extremism on one end, and the atomizing social consequences of a plunge in conventional religiosity on the other.

An organized atheist community can help agitate for and finance a secularist equivalent of the Federalist Society the right-wing legal movement that helped populate the federal courts with hard right jurists and helped get us into this mess to act as a bulwark against theocracy. There has been zero, and I mean zero, innovation in the doctrine of separation [of church and state] in the last 50 years, Jacques Berlinerblau, a scholar at Georgetown University and the author of Secularism: The Basics, told me. Atheists who consciously believe in their worldview have a particularly urgent interest in helping to lead a legal and political movement to protect against theocracy.

At the same time, atheism can address the social and spiritual vacuum emerging in the wake of the slow death of mainstream organized religion. This requires learning from religion, not indiscriminately attacking it. By putting together study groups, communities for secular meditation, and elucidating the meaning and joys of atheism without spewing venom toward all religion, atheists can build spaces for religion-skeptical people to find purpose, think about ethics, form community and consider more carefully how to build a better society.

My personal journey as an atheist which involved disillusionment with religion and mainstream atheism is a big part of how I arrived at this idea. It may help to share it.

Atheism opened up my world. But it didn't hold it together.

I was raised in a Muslim household in the U.S., but I turned away from Islam in my teens after a fateful conversation with my grandfather one hot summer day in Pakistan. My grandfather was a professor who delighted in thrashing me in chess and asking me vexing questions, and he once posed to me a version of what the Columbia University philosopher Philip Kitcher has called the argument from symmetry. He questioned why I adhered to Islam in particular when so many other religions made claims about the existence of gods, some of them fairly similar to Islam, some radically different. I froze. With no basis on which to distinguish between the validity of these various claims about the supernatural by definition, I could not know or prove which god was the right one I quickly confessed that my religiosity was a mere accident of birth.

Losing my religion was an unexpected moment of ecstasy. I no longer blamed myself for not understanding the emptiness I had felt when praying to a god. I also finally felt comfortable interrogating Islam as a vehicle for social conservatism and patriarchy. I knew the claim that a god exists could not be proven or disproven, but I could not believe in one especially as traditionally understood in the major monotheistic faiths without evidence or resolution of questions like the problem of evil. And so I became an atheist.

Some people think of atheists as rudderless and living in a cold, meaningless world. My experience was the opposite. Atheism enlivened me and spurred me to develop a broader skepticism of all manner of received wisdom. The displacement of heaven inspired me to think about achieving utopia on earth; my reading skewed in a radically left-wing direction, and I pivoted toward political activism. As a student at a high school that observed the practices and philosophies of Quakerism, a small Christian sect committed to egalitarian ideals, I didnt believe the Quaker saying that there was that of God in everyone. But I often enjoyed spending the weekly worship meetings, wherein we were required to sit in silence for around an hour, lost in thought about what a more fulfilling society would look like.

I didnt, however, always enjoy breaking bread with the atheists I encountered. My personal turn to atheism coincided with the rise of New Atheism in the 2000s and 2010s as a college student I watched polemical writers like the late Christopher Hitchens lecture about how religion poisons everything with great ambivalence. On one hand, I agreed with and learned from some of the New Atheist critique of religion as a force for stifling critical thought and purveying social traditionalism. On the other hand, I found that the New Atheists caricatured religion, and neglected to consider all the nuances of religious belief and the positive role it could play in peoples lives.

Despite my many objections to Islam, I had never shed my admiration for the capaciousness and airiness of a mosque.

The most consequential example of this blindness to complexity was the New Atheist fixation on Islam as an existential threat to humanity, which led to an affinity for the post-9/11 neoconservative project. Some of its proponents backed torture and neocolonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and contemplated genocidal nuclear first strikes in the region. This group was so fixated on religion as the root of all evil and Islam as the most evil of them all that it failed to understand how Islamist terrorism might not just be about religion but also the specific political agenda of a group of extremists. As a leftist activist, and as a person who knew many liberal and fairly secular Muslims one of whom spurred me to become an atheist I found this political tilt repugnant.

The New Atheists also failed to appreciate how religion provides valuable things secular life often fails to find. As I got older I found myself circling back to the spiritual world, although in an idiosyncratically atheistic manner.

Despite my many objections to Islam, I had never shed my admiration for the capaciousness and airiness of a mosque. I found that when I was going through rough patches, there was nothing quite like the practice of mindful meditation, derived from Buddhist practices, that helped me find my footing and feel connected to the world. Living in New York, I found myself chanting Hebrew and joining hands with septuagenarians after group meditation sessions in my local Jewish community center. I started Googling Quaker meeting houses near me more often. This was not a search for god my atheism was not wavering but a desire to commune toward the end of something greater.

Political activism didn't quite scratch the itch. While I was deeply appreciative of the vital community provided by the political groups I was a part of, they didn't seek the exact kind of togetherness and quiet search for purpose I was craving. Politics, after all, is about power and justice, and needs to be balanced alongside extrapolitical quests for truth and morality.

Days after my grandfather died when I was 29, I felt unmoored. I strolled to a Quaker meeting in Manhattan, and watched towering trees gently brush against the windows of the old meeting house in the wind. One observes a Quaker meeting for worship in silence, but participants are encouraged to periodically stand up to share thoughts if moved to do so, and so after sitting for some time I shared some reflections on my grandfather. A few other people stood up and shared their own thoughts; there was little talk of god, but there was talk of the challenges and beauty of existence.

After the meeting, a few people shared announcements on study sessions, child care and organizing left-wing political activist trips. A bit later over tea and snacks, I made a few new acquaintances and learned that a former well-liked teacher of my high school was the now at the school affiliated with the Quaker meeting house I was attending. I felt nourished, and at home.

Communitarian atheism is the best of all worlds.

My case for communitarian atheism stems from my belief that atheism opens up radical new possibilities for critical thinking and freedom, but that it has a great deal to learn from religion and the religious right as well.

A quick note: I view atheism as a big tent. Atheism does not mean, as is commonly mistakenly believed, that one is certain of the nonexistence of gods. It means a lack of belief in them for evidential and sometimes logical reasons in a manner that is consistent with the popular use of the term agnosticism, which technically refers to limitations on what we can know. More important, I believe it is grounding and urgency-inducing to state, however tentative the belief may be, that our fate is in the hands of forces we can perceive or may be capable of perceiving at some point, and that we can assume no eventual refuge in an afterlife.The most urgent task for atheists right now is to guard against the astonishing uptick in the power of the religious right, with the Supreme Court favoring religious intervention in our political lives and an increasingly energized Christian nationalist alliance with the Trump wing of the party. Atheists have an intuitive understanding of and self-interest in pushing back against religious creep into the affairs of the state. If theyre more organized as an interest group, theyre more likely to help create a mandate for action.

Any such group would be well served by observing the successful activism of the far right. The Federalist Society, a right-wing powerhouse network that began as a meeting of conservative legal scholars and students at Yale in 1982, was instrumental in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the transformation of Americas federal courts. Its networking, legal creativity, organization and provision of a Rolodex for reliably conservative jurists for the Republican Party to draw from has allowed the religious right to punch well above its weight and enact an agenda that wasnt popular or even high-profile.

Berlinerblau, the Georgetown professor, worries that liberal secular America has no counterpart to right-wing legal thinking and activism that advances the goals of the religious right. I wonder who the liberal jurists are that work together that meet for a retreat once a year in Verona or Lake Tahoe? This stuff happens all the time in conservative circles, Berlinerblau said. It's these all-expenses-paid things in beautiful places where people just network for two weeks, and they have workshops on the free exercise clause [of the First Amendment] and free speech. I know of nothing comparable, in liberal, secular America."

And that's why there's probably no innovation, he continued. Because there arent the deep-pocketed funders, and there's not the long-term vision, and there's not a command and control. We just don't have that.

This kind of enterprise is not only for atheists. It should appeal to anyone with secular and liberal inclinations, and its a space where there is opportunity for coalitions with people of faith who dont think religion should shape American politics and laws. But atheists can play a key role in sounding the alarms if they articulate themselves as citizens whose rights must be respected. Berlinerblau believes that the best hope for secularists is to push for equality under the 14th Amendment rather than continue to wage an increasingly hopeless battle over the First Amendment, which the right has found to be favorable territory by effectively expanding the idea of free exercise of religion. When the Christian right is allowed to tell us when life begins, that's an affront to the equality of a Jewish woman, or a Muslim woman or a nonbelieving woman, Berlinerblau said, explaining his argument for the 14th Amendment route.

But ultimately it is not enough for atheists today to define themselves through opposition to religious overreach. Atheists excel at critiquing religion and should continue to do so, respectfully but we flounder when it comes to thinking about how to meet human needs that are rarely supported by systems of secular life. Religion seeks to answer why we exist and what ethical and social obligations attend existence, and creates rich, evocative institutions and rituals around these questions. Atheists need to do this too not just view their lives as defined in negative terms by the absence of gods, but in positive terms about the world as we believe it exists.

Cultivating a welcoming and vibrant atheism could be a gateway for many Americans to contemplate important questions.

That means less time attacking religion and more time forming an attractive, inclusive alternative to it. Atheists should create deliberate communities, and this can take many forms. For example study groups for pursuing the great questions of existence by reading works of literature, philosophy and, yes, even religious texts. "Religion can be an inspiration, but it cant be an authority," Kitcher, the Columbia philosopher, told me in an interview, and argued religious texts must always be "subject to moral deliberation and moral argument."

Atheists should form secular meditation groups or explore something else that allows for contemplation if it's not their cup of tea. (I cant help but recommend visiting a Quaker meeting house, particularly since nontheistic Quakerism is a quiet subtradition within Quakerism.)

Organized atheists have an extraordinary opportunity to welcome "nothing in particulars" into a big tent. Roughly ten percent of the U.S. adult population identifies as atheist or agnostic, but the "nothing in particulars" constitute about 20 percent, according to a 2021 Pew poll. The nothing in particulars cite questioning "a lot of religious teachings" as the biggest reason they leave formal religious affiliation, and say that their dislike of positions taken by churches on social and political issues is the second biggest reason. Moreover, experts describe the increasingly intensifying political valence of Christianity as right-wing as a significant source of alienation for people who become "nothing in particular." It seems like a ripe opportunity for atheism to band together with allies.

Some people will always want to be nothing in particulars who wish not to publicly define their position on theism and religion. Theres nothing wrong with that at all. But cultivating a welcoming and vibrant atheism could be a gateway for many Americans to contemplate important questions, form community, and think about how to collectively better the only world we can be sure we have.

More:

A new style of atheism can counter Christian nationalism and the decline of religion - MSNBC

CLAY ROUTLEDGE: Atheism is typically thought of as being a binary idea: you're either a believer or you're a non-believer. To be an atheist is to entirely reject belief in the supernatural, or belief in a God or a deity. But I actually think that it's a much more complex, and much more interesting story. Even among atheists, there's lots of different ways of conceptualizing this idea.

For instance, some atheists say that it just means that they're not religious, and it doesn't even necessarily mean that they have no interest in spiritual ideas or practices, but that they just reject traditional religious dogmas. Other atheists actually can be thought of as being, what's referred to, as 'Emotional atheist.' They actually have a very negative feeling towards the divine, which is interesting because it suggests to be angry at something means, at some level, to have a concept of its existence.Other atheists are, what you might refer to, as, perhaps, 'Social atheists,' in that they feel like there's no reason to have a public religious tradition, or they have no interest in the cultural religious practices, but are themselves interested in spiritual questions and even questions of the divine. So there's lots of different ways that atheists think about themselves, think about each other.

There's lots of different ways that believers think about atheists. It's often a very abstract concept, even though it seems so simple. Teleological thinking is really any type of thought process that involves assuming that there's purpose or design. And so it turns out that, even though this really is a form of supernatural thinking, right- to assume there's some sort of grander purpose to things- that atheists aren't immune from this type of thinking. For instance, in studies of atheists who are asked to describe certain life events, they frequently use teleological language in their written description of those events.So for instance, they might say, "I didn't get this job, and it wasn't meant to be," as if there's a part of human nature, even if people consciously reject the supernatural, that pulls them to these ideas. In some instances, our own conscious awareness of something or our own conscious beliefs may not tell the whole story of the way our brains work.

There is some research focused on atheists and their lack of belief, and the implications of that. They asked atheists to say things that shouldn't bother them because they don't believe in God, such as wishing God would do harm to their friends. Now, believers don't like saying this stuff, and indeed, in these studies when believers were asked to say that, if they complied, they immediately expressed that that made them very uncomfortable. When atheists were asked to say these things, they reported immediately that it didn't bother them at all. But what's interesting about these studies is the researchers didn't just rely on people's self-report. They actually hooked them up to equipment that measures a physiological response. If you start to look a little bit deeper beyond self-report, a lot of times the body tells a different story than what we consciously report ourselves.When it came to measuring their physiological response, atheists looked indistinguishable from theists.

One of the biggest challenges that I think creates conflict between hardcore religious believers and hardcore atheists is a misunderstanding not just of each other, but of themselves. Hardcore atheists think that they're not at all guided by supernatural ideas and concepts, but we know from research that they do have a tendency to engage in teleological thinking, to see things in terms of design and purpose. Likewise, on the other side, hardcore believers often think that most of their life decisions are guided by their spiritual nature, when in fact, like atheists, they also rely on evidence and science, they often have the same struggles, religious questions and uncertainties that other people have. It's easy to divide people into groups over something that seems so powerfully different about people, such as whether or not they believe in a God or particular religious tradition, but if we take a step back and try to look beyond these surface-level differences that seem like they should divide us and turn us against each other, we'll see a deeper part of the human condition that really is a story of commonality- and a story about what it means to be a complete human trying to live a flourishing life.

Here is the original post:

What kind of atheist are you? - Big Think

For being our subscriber, you have free access to all articles by visitors.

In its sixth month of Russias special military operation (as Moscow has defined the war from the start) in Ukraine, the Kremlin has released new propaganda manuals in which public television channels suggest taking the Ukrainian character a step further. The government is sinister instead of atheist and Nazi.

Ukrainians have no morals; They do not think in these terms because they are truly wicked. They do not fear the divine punishments they will face for their atrocities., suggests one of the manuals, It is quoted by Medusa.

Moscow also maintains that the Ukrainian military is using women and children as human shields to commit sacrificial and ritual killings. In According to El Confidential newspaperRussia adds fight against atheists to invasion objectives Those who believe in nothing are described as transgressors, thieves, and murderers.

The second of the handouts, published in early July, suggests drawing analogies between the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year and the Baptism of Rus in 988 or the Battle of the Neva in 1240.

Pub Continue reading below

Baptism of Rus refers to the baptism of the people of Kiev after Volodymy the Great, ruler of Kievan Rus, converted to Orthodox Christianity. According to Medusa, the Battle of the Neva refers to the event in which Prince Alexander of Novgorod is believed to have defeated Swedish invaders on the banks of the Neva River.

According to these two manuals, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a preventive measure to protect the country from a collective West that was attacking Moscow and demanding resources.

This August, a third Russian propaganda manual was released by the Kremlin Specially prepared for the anniversary of Germanys declaration of war against the Russian Empire in 1914.

The manual argues, According to Medusa, Russia was drawn into a military conflict by the West to protect its brotherly people because it will not abandon its own and protects the oppressed. According to the Kremlin, the West starts wars out of colonial ambitions.

After 2014 (the year it annexed Crimea), Moscow recommends the media to tell people that the West started sponsoring the hatred of Russians and the desire to kill Russians. By false ideologies and Russophobia.

A third manual makes two predictions: a wave of anti-Americanism will spread around the world, the United States will find not only military allies, but also trading partners and a new world order that will be just and secure following the end of the war in Ukraine. This new order, the Kremlin, According to, Russias Mission on the International Stage.

Russian propaganda manuals are produced Think tank Institute of Social Research Specialists, near the Kremlin. The connection of the invasion of Ukraine in world history, for the first time, was not made in the guides. Earlier, the Russian President Vladimir Putin has compared his policy to that of Tsar Peterbig

Putin likens his policy to that of Tsar Peter the Great. I didnt take anything, I was cured

View original post here:

Ukrainians are "atheists" and Moscow "protects the oppressed". Recommendations of New Russian Propaganda Manuals - Spectator -...

I am responding to Tony Benders article, Losing My Religion, in the Aug. 3 Jamestown Sun. I thank Tony for sharing his views about God and religion. Tony is concerned about Christians forcing their beliefs on others in areas such as abortion, LGBTQ issues and prayer in public school.

First, most Christians do not want the United States to become a Christian theocracy. We cant force people to believe Gods Word or to trust in Gods Son as their Savior. Only the Holy Spirit can change a persons heart. However, there are certain moral absolutes that people of all religions (or no religion) can agree on based on reason and science.

For example, the issue of abortion (like slavery in our past) is not merely a religious issue but a human rights issue. That is why even many atheists are pro-life. See http://www.secularprolife.org for arguments based on reason and science for why the lives of developing human beings in the womb should be protected by law.

As for LGBTQ issues, Christians condemn violence against people in this community and do not want them to face discrimination for things like employment or housing. Even though many Christians believe same-sex behavior (as well as heterosexual behavior outside of marriage!) is condemned by Gods Word, we still want to love such people and speak Gods truth to them. See my booklet A Biblical Response to Homosexuality (Concordia Publishing House).

However, many Christians and even non-Christians are opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage because for all of human history marriage has been understood as an institution for one man and one woman. The reason marriage has always been for two people (with the very rare exceptions of polygamy) is that there are two sexes male and female. When we ignore this paradigm for marriage there is then no reason to limit marriage to two people which is why some are now arguing for the legalization of polyamorous (group) marriage! The reason for traditional marriage is that this is the place where children are conceived and become part of a family where they are loved and cared for by their mother and father. One does not have to be a Christian to see the benefit in this. See the book What is Marriage? by Robert George for a secular defense of traditional marriage. Even though we still need to solve problems associated with traditional marriage (such as irresponsible parents and the high divorce rate), changing the definition of marriage only makes things worse especially for children.

Concerning organized prayer in public schools, Tony may be surprised to know that I and many Christians are opposed to this. We should not force non-Christians to participate in Christian prayer nor should we force Christians to participate in non-Christian prayer. For those who want prayer in school, parents can always send their children to a religious private school or home school.

Regarding Tonys questions about contradictions he sees in the Bible, I would be happy to visit with him in person, listen to his questions and answer them as best I can. The fact is that there are very good answers for what people see as contradictions in the Bible. See the book Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions by William Arndt.

Sadly, many people have issues with the Bible simply because they dont like what God teaches. We are tempted to make up a god that thinks the way we do. This is what the Bible calls idolatry and what is condemned in the First Commandment. The good news is that God sent His own Son to save us from our sin against Him! (See 1st John 1:7 2:2)

Finally, for Tony and others who have sincere questions about the Bible and Christianity, I recommend the following books: 1. I Dont Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist by Norman Geisler. 2. Why Does God Allow Evil? by Clay Jones. 3. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. 4. The Christian Faith by Robert Kolb.

Eckstein is pastor of Concordia Lutheran Church, Jamestown.

View post:

Let's talk about God and religion! - Jamestown Sun | News, weather, sports from Jamestown North Dakota - The Jamestown Sun

Kristen Sanders thought her chances of a relationship with April Hill were pretty slim when she spotted Ms. Hills profile on the dating app Bumble in January 2020.

Aprils 5-foot-10 and covered in tattoos; Im 5-foot-2 and I look like a super goody two-shoes clean cut, no visible tattoos, preppy dresser, Ms. Sanders said before naming other differences between the two that stood out. Shes atheist. Im Christian. April is a vegetarian. Im a meat eater.

Though she figured Ms. Hill would take one look at me and say, No way, Ms. Sanders said she swiped right on Ms. Hills profile anyway because she was anyone unlike I had ever seen or dated.

To her surprise, they were declared a match. Ms. Hill, after seeing Ms. Sanderss photos on Bumble, had swiped right on her profile, too. Im just a sucker for long dark hair and light eyes, and Kristen has these piercing green-hazel eyes, Ms. Hill said.

At the time, Ms. Sanders was about two months away from finalizing her divorce from her ex wife, whom she had married in September 2019. She said that Ms. Hill was my only match on Bumble.

The same was not true for Ms. Hill. She had matched with other people on the app, but Ms. Sanders, 33, quickly became the only one that mattered, she said. Once Kristen and I matched and we had our first conversation, I really felt no desire to talk to anyone else.

Also divorced and 33, Ms. Hill wed her former husband when she was 18; their marriage lasted 18 months. Following her divorce, Ms. Hill continued to date men, including the father of her daughter Jaxyn, now 10. She came out as gay at 27. It took a long time to feel comfortable and to come out to my family, she said.

A couple of weeks after matching on Bumble, the women, who live in Fort Worth, had a first date. It began at True Food Kitchen, a restaurant in Dallas. Kristen had hummus for dinner because it was the only thing she recognized, Ms. Hill said. Afterward, they joined a few of Ms. Hills friends for a drag show at the gay dance club Station 4 Dallas. We sat and talked and had drinks before her friends came, Ms. Sanders said.

Wanting to be completely upfront with each other from the start, both came to the date prepared to discuss their past relationships.

I was nervous to talk to her about my divorce, Ms. Sanders said. She asked if I still had any feelings for my ex and I said no.

Said Ms. Hill, We were both ready for love. She added, It was a really good conversation for a first date.

So good was their conversation that a second date came the next day. After meeting for brunch, the two visited the Dallas Museum of Art, where Ms. Hills nervous excitement became evident to Ms. Sanders when she took Ms. Hills hand in her own. She claimed the museum was hot, Ms. Sanders said, but her hands were clammy from being nervous.

From then, their relationship quickly progressed. We truly just never wanted to stop talking or getting attention from each other, Ms. Hill said.

As the two grew closer, they discovered that their senses of humor meshed. We find the same things hilarious and spend so much of our days together laughing a ton, Ms. Sanders said. They also introduced one another to new hobbies. April definitely reignited my love for the outdoors, Ms. Sanders said. She took me on my first hike and camping trip since I was a small child.

Within a month of their first date, Ms. Hill introduced Ms. Sanders to her daughter. They played with kinetic sand together, Ms. Hill said. I remember Kristen being pretty nervous to meet her. It was cute.

The introduction made it a lot easier to hang out, Ms. Hill added. She enjoyed and accepted my kiddo no questions asked and is extremely supportive of co-parenting with Jaxyns dad.

Binge more Vows columns here and read all our wedding, relationship and divorce coverage here.

Ms. Sanders, who was raised predominantly in Weatherford, Texas, and graduated from Sam Houston State University, is a deputy sheriff for Tarrant County, Texas. But when she met Ms. Hill, she was working as a special agent for the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Police, after previously serving as an investigator in the human trafficking-child exploitation unit at the Tarrant County Sheriffs Office.

It was while the two were dating that Ms. Sanders had the realization that I wanted to go back to real policing and get back into investigations, she said, adding that she knew it takes a very strong person to be a police spouse.

Though Ms. Hill, who grew up in Waco, Texas, supported Ms. Sanders in her career, she admitted to it causing some anxiety. The not knowing what can happen on a daily basis can be scary, said Ms. Hill, who works as a makeup artist and also sells handmade sterling silver and gemstone jewelry on Instagram. I had reservations about it when I first met Kristen and learned she was a police officer, but she genuinely has a servants heart and wants to help people.

Any reservations Ms. Hill might have felt were not strong enough to stop her from falling in love with Ms. Sanders just a few months after their courtship began. I couldnt picture my life without her, she said.

Ms. Sanders fell for Ms. Hill just as fast. I remember pretty early on a moment in Aprils living room, she recalled. We were sitting on the couch holding hands, and I had just met Jaxyn not long before. She was playing with kinetic sand on the table, and I just remember being in that moment and thinking, This is all Ive ever wanted.

A year after they met on Bumble, in January 2021, Ms. Sanders moved into Ms. Hills apartment in Fort Worth. Two months later, Ms. Sanders proposed while the couple and Ms. Hills best friend were camping at Palo Duro Canyon State Park in Canyon, Texas.

I told Kristen that she had to propose to me on a mountain or not at all, and she definitely delivered, Ms. Hill said. We hiked a total of nine miles that day and she proposed to me at the Lighthouse, a famous rock formation in the park.

On June 18, they married cliffside on the grounds of a private property they had rented in Bushmills, Northern Ireland, near the ruins of Dunluce Castle. Emma Bailie, a wedding celebrant with Humanists UK, officiated before five guests, who included Jaxyn and Ms. Hills mother, Kathy Hill.

After seeing photos online of other weddings near the castle ruins, which date to the late Middle Ages, the couple said they knew that they wanted to get married there, too. But they soon learned that the property cant be rented because it is a public space, and that many events instead take place on nearby farmland. With help from a videographer they had found online, the couple contacted the owner of that land, Sean McKinley, and had a wedding date booked days later.

Ms. Sanders said that the location, which was also chosen as a nod to her Irish heritage, was giving off the Game of Thrones vibes, and were super into Game of Thrones. (Dunluce Castle, in fact, was used as Castle Greyjoy in the HBO series.)

It felt fitting for us with all of the lush green landscape and castle ruins, Ms. Hill said. We say our love is like a fairy tale and Ireland looks like a fairy tale.

Both brides wore dresses by the designer Maggie Sottero. Ms. Sanders donned a black lace ball gown, while Ms. Hill had on a fitted white dress with a halter neckline. Each revealed their ensemble to the other at a first look on a rock that jutted out over the North Atlantic, accessible only by a bridge.

Ms. Bailie then led the couple in a ceremony that included a traditional Celtic handfasting, in which their hands were wrapped in a handmade cord with a Celtic heart in the middle. A traditional handfasting ceremony symbolizes entering into the bonds of marriage, she said. Two partners join hands and their wrists would be tied, symbolizing the binding together of their individual lives.

It is from this practice we get the term tying the knot, she added.

The brides ended the ceremony by both drinking from a quaich, a silver cup with two handles that represents love and friendship, Ms. Hill said. It was perfect.

Afterward came more drinks, this time with Mr. McKinley, the owner of the land they were married on, near the castle ruins. He had glasses of Jameson for us, Ms. Sanders said. We stood at the castle and soaked it all in.

Later, they headed to the Central Bar, a nearby pub. We ordered Guinness, Ms. Sanders said. But after a waiter took their order and went to the bar, he quickly returned to their table.

The waiter told us that the manager said, You can come behind the bar and pour your own, Ms. Hill said. And so they did.

When June 18, 2022

Where A private property in Bushmills, Northern Ireland, near the ruins of Dunluce Castle.

Needle Needs The day before the wedding, Ms. Hills veil still needed to be finished. But the couple lost the needle they had packed for the task. With the local sewing store closed, they visited a thrift store, where they found what they were looking for. The store employees insisted on knowing why, Ms. Sanders said. One thing about the Irish, the ladies at the store told us, Were nosy.

Irish Inclusiveness The brides were delighted by the welcome they received as a same-sex couple. The people of Ireland are so nice, Ms. Hill said. Everyone was toasting us, even the old ladies that you think might be hesitant said, Oh how lovely. So romantic.

View post:

Near Castle Ruins, a Wedding with a Dash of Game of Thrones - The New York Times

The truth about God has been made plain to even the most devout atheist. The invisible God has made himself visible through what you can see.

You can think of this as the wind. You cannot see the wind of a tornado, but when you see the cone-like shape touch the ground and cloud and debris circling around, you know to run.

We can say something similar about God. You cannot see him directly he transcends creation yet you can see his fingerprints on his handiwork all around you.

An article appeared in the New York Times last year titled A Guide to Finding Faith Proving the Existence of God. The author asked the reader to imagine themselves back in a pre-Darwinian time when it made sense for an intelligent person to believe in God. Things such as the apparent orderliness of the world, natural law, the complex systems that make life possible and the vivid beauty of nature all pointed to the existence of an intelligent transcendent being.

The idea that humans were fashioned in some related way to the Universes Creator explained why humans related to the world in a peculiar way. No simpler explanation existed.

The writer then pointed out that many people today view progress in science and technology as a reason for unbelief. However, science and technology have not proven anything to the contrary. The most recent scientific discoveries only further support the idea that a divine creator brought this all about.

Recent advances in physics highlight the peculiar fittedness of this universe to support human life on earth. Recent advances in neuroscience only sharpen the difficulty of explaining human consciousness strictly through physical processes. Such discoveries as these and more were given show that modern science has only increased our reasons for believing in the existence of God.

The real reason people refuse to believe in God is not logical, rational or scientific. People simply refuse to open their eyes and see what God has made plain.

The Bible gives an answer for this blindness: For [Gods] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20-21)

When you see a tornado coming, though you do not see the wind, you know what to do. Run! When your eyes are opened to the fingerprints of God around you, you then know what to do. Bow down and give thanks to God.

The Rev. Michael A. Birbeck is pastor of the First Presbyterian Church Wellsboro.

Original post:

Science and technology increase reasons to believe in God: Pastor Mike's Sermon Notes - The Wellsboro Gazette

All writers in Op Ed are here to inform and acknowledge issues of importance to our communities, however these writings represent the views and opinions of the authors and not necessarily of The Advertiser.

By Sigrid Fowler

Loneliness isaproblem today, here in the US andaroundthe world.Somepercentagesfrom one surveyare revealing:The number of people who said they felt lonelyoften, always, or some of the timevaried by country.Brazil 50%,Turkey 46%,India 43%,Saudi Arabia 43%,Italy 41%, South Africa 40%, Malaysia39%, Chile 38%, South Korea 38%,Peru37%,France 36%,Argentina 35%, Great Britain34%, Mexico34%, Canada 31%,United States 31%,Australia 30%, Singapore30%(https://socialself.com/loneliness-statistics/#1).Many causes aresuggested,pandemic isolationespecially.AnNPR title from January 23, 2020, suggests another: Most Americans Are Lonely, And Our Workplace Culture May Not Be Helping.Changing jobs or schools, moves, and work from homeare also noted(https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/chronic-loneliness#causes).As Christians,what do we say? DoesScripturehelp?

The text that comes to mind is a promise of Jesus: Be sure of this, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt 28: 20b NLT).The words comprise the last half of thefinal line of the Gospel of Matthew. They arestriking and emphatic. The other three gospels end in various ways; only Matthew chooses these particular words of Jesusas his conclusion.We can note several things about the promise.

First, Jesus lays out a time frame:even to the end of the age.In this way,he brings us all in, not just the disciples living at the timehespoke these words.A promise covering all time is a weighty assurance indeedall-inclusive, offered toall personswho by faithseethemselves among Jesus hearers. Andnotice,heusesthe broadest of pronounsI will be withyou,he says.Further, this promise recalls andfulfills a Messianic name we all know, God with usi.e.,emanu, with us;el, God: Emanuel(Matt 1: 23).

In the final half line of Matthew,Jesus doesntstate a brand-newdoctrine,and the promise isntaddedas an afterthoughttothe record ofamiracle-filled ministry. Jesus has already made similarassurances.Speaking to his disciples at the end of his ministry,hesaid, If anyone lovesme, he will keep my word.My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14: 23CSB).And again, I will not leave you orphaned, I will come to you (John 14: 18).At the same time, Jesus made anotherpromiseincidentally,areminder ofTrinitarian truth:I will ask the Father and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever (John 14: 16 NIV). Tosummarize, Jesus has promised that the Trinityspecifically, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, our Three-Person Godwillbe present to those who love Jesus,and thats forever, time without end.

What does all this have to do with loneliness?Well, maybe nothing. These words of Jesus will be of no consequence to an atheist. I spent about a year in that affliction, and one thing I remember about it was thesense ofemptinesswhen I looked up at the sky. Before that year, I had been taughtin Sunday school, from the pulpit, but especially by my father,that God can be known through nature. We sang the hymn, This is My Fathers World, and I certainly didnt see empty space when I looked up at the skynot until that unhappy year. During thattime of looking out through atheistseyes,things seemed differentempty, void of meaning. Im grateful that unfortunate condition didnt lastvery long. My point is this: An atheist wont have the same help with loneliness a theistcan anticipate. And for a theist who is also a Christian, an abundance of helpis there for the asking.The Helper, the Holy Spirit,has beenpromised to usthe Spirit of Jesus, who will be with us forever.

Finally, if we take some time to remember who Jesus ishis ministry, his character, his work and lifewe will find ourselves encouraged even in loneliness. Jesus life was a demonstration of the power of God,Love manifested.And ponderingthesuffering of Jesuswillhelp us remember thathe knows the hard things.Hes been there!Something else: ThePerson were thinking about is God the Son, eternal, never unable to address our needs, even the aches and emptiness of lonely days when life seems barren. Tellhim about it.He listens.

The number of over-50s experiencing loneliness is set to reach two million by 2025/6. This compares to around 1.4 million in 2016/7 a 49% increase in 10 years [6]https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/the-facts-on-loneliness/Brazil (50%)Turkey (46%)India (43%)Saudi Arabia (43%)Italy (41%)South Africa (40%)Malaysia (39%)Chile (38%)South Korea (38%)Peru (37%)France (36%)Argentina (35%)Great Britain (34%)Mexico (34%)Canada (31%)United States (31%)Australia (30%)Singapore (30%)Thirty-six percent of Americans felt serious loneliness in 2020 (or felt lonely frequently or almost all the time or all the time in the previous month), according to Harvard research.A large-scale Cigna survey that same year pegged loneliness in the United States as being as high as 61 percent.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/loneliness/

View post:

Never Alone The Edgefield Advertiser - Edgefieldadvertiser

Ever too clever by half, he believes common decency is beneath him. In the event, common sense has taken leave of him.

When, in July, 2021 Father Stan Swamy succumbed to the combined depredations of a venal State machine and a depraved judicial system, Jaithirth Rao wrote a column in an online newsmagazine which bore a title that to many seemed extraordinary, given the events leading up to the death. Marxist Jesuits are not for Tribal Welfare. India and Indian Catholics both must realise that screamed the caption. I, for one, was not unaware of the stable Rao came out of, of course, and yet I couldnt help marvelling at the pettiness those two sentences were dripping with. Couldnt Rao, the true-blue sophisticate, think of a slightly less in-your-face manner of celebrating the death of a frail eighty-four-year old man who was so infirm he needed a sipper which the benevolent Indian State had so diligently, conscientiously denied him to drink his tea with? As an external admirer of conservative traditions in the Catholic Church Raos own words surely it was not beyond him to spare a few words of regret at the passing of a decrepit old albeit misguided Jesuit priest who, whatever his other failings, had lived his life working with poor tribal communities, clearly not aspiring to join the well-heeled club of the best and the brightest himself? But, then, we are being distinctly unfair to righteous Rao here. For, while publicly donning the robes of supporters, helpers and padrones of the supposedly helpless tribal people, men like Father Stan Swamy were in fact acting to promote violent materialism in Adivasi settlements. Their so-called help to those communities was in fact nothing but a euphemism for manipulation. To manipulate tribals and set them up against a powerful State .. may end up being the most cynical, sordid and dangerous of approaches. Christianity, one of the most spiritually informed religious traditions of the world, can (scarcely) make friends with a violent, atheist, materialist cult. Indeed, the mission of these liberation theologians was to keep by way of an ungodly mishmash of Christian theology and revolutionary Marxism the Adivasis worked up with real and imaginary grievances and challenging the Indian State as well as Hindu society. (Emphasis added.)

That as well as is clearly somewhat disingenuous: in Raos mind, Hindu society is what makes up the Indian State. If you think this is a stretch, read this: (Liberation theologians) have to posit the existence of a wicked Hindu, male, hegemonic order that should be overthrown in the revolution that is just round the corner. You may wonder how a learned discourse around a vile materialist cult can suddenly transmogrify into a litany of the injuries done to the high-minded Hindu male. Indeed, but for Raos effortless conflating of the country with Hindu society, how would the interpolation of the (supposedly) unjustly reviled Hindu male into a sermon on the evils of violent materialism hold up? If you are still not so sure, look at the message enshrined in the very title of Raos article: India and Indian Catholics both must realise that Marxist Jesuits are not for tribal welfare. Obviously, Indian Catholics are not integral to India, for they are at a certain remove from the heart of the country which happens to throb to the chant of the real Indian faith, which without a shadow of doubt is the one that Hindus hold dear.

But even more than the virtuous Hindu male, Rao is concerned about the insults heaped by the likes of Stan Swamy upon lily-white market capitalism. Liberation theologians of Swamys ilk are looking for an alternative to market capitalism (how very vile of them!) and reject the position that this economic system has done the best job with respect to poverty reduction. So Raos real problem with Father Stan Swamy seems to be that, rather than being happy looking to the spiritual needs of their kinfolk and focusing on old-fashioned parish work (men like him) move away from their home states and turn up in tribal tracts, in order to work on the political consciousness of the people there and guide them towards the new Christian theology that resembles revolutionary Marxism. So, finally the neo-conservative comes into his element here. He makes it plain that he will not quietly suffer the challengers of the free market; indeed, that he will uncover the shenanigans of those unholy market disputers with vigour and without relent, and do so with even greater fervour if the contesters happen to be religious pretenders into the bargain.

Indeed, the neo-con and the market fetishist are not only two fully fungible categories one is really the others obverse. And thats why Raos choicest expletives make no distinction between left-wingers and market sceptics. Last week, on his favourite online platform once again, when he mounted a spirited assault on all the doubters of the current Indian regimes record of fiscal management, Raos gush of fury and vitriol was breath-taking in its intensity. In Sri Lanka-type abyss in India? Its a fantasy of the Left that can only be dismissed, Rao grandly tells his readers why he refuses to call the Indian Left, left-liberal intellectuals: these blokes, he reminds us, are not only not liberal, they are far from being intellectual also. He therefore calls them lefties, and is willing to accord them as much respect as an inveterate vegetarian reserves for a three-month-stale mackerel. His antipathy towards the Left is so visceral that he even calls President Biden a lefty who has penalised fracking and closed pipelines, has created problems for itself and the whole world. No question that anyone a touch less perverse than Donald Trump is a lefty in Raos books. No question also that the Biden administrations reluctance to be at the beck and call of the fossil fuel industry shows him up, in Raos eyes, as a numbskull capable of nothing better than pettifoggery. And if Raos tirade against even the administrations admittedly tame efforts at moderating climate change demonstrates anything, it is this: that the neo-con is pathologically incapable of enthusing over anything other than profits.

So, Rao is a tad happy (why only a tad, one wonders!) that I live in a country where lefties, who are enormously influential elsewhere, and who used to be influential here also, are being ignored. What is it that so warms the cockles of Raos heart? Thank God she (Nirmala Sitharaman) did not listen to them when they advocated greater government spending when the Covid-19 pandemic was ravaging ordinary peoples livelihoods and lives. Of course, Rao, the finance whiz-kid, doesnt consider it necessary to argue his case, or even to tell his unskilled readers how spending more money during 2020-21 might perhaps have sent India hurtling down the abyss. Why should he have to make his case, pray? Arent his words good enough and more? So, he asserts with perfect conviction that Indias sobriety and balanced approach . ranks as one of the better national economic policies anywhere in the world. Again, RBI has, on balance, been quite sensible, smart and admirably transparent. No comparison with any other national economy, any other Central bank, is offered, no stats cited because none of that is necessary when the Oracle speaks. Jathirth Raos article of 25 July 2022 is a masterclass in sweet conceit and (un)deserved immodesty.

But what in the lefties behaviour in the present context so irks Rao? Presumably, their distrust of the all-healing talents of the Market that every sensible guy everywhere in the world loves to worship. Much as lefties may not like financialisation, trust me markets are pretty accurate predictors of coming events. Well, of course. Who doesnt remember the great IL&FS saga which is not quite four years old yet? Till August 2018, two of Indias three top-drawer credit rating companies continued to award to the companys borrowings both the short-term as well as the long-term ones close to the highest possible rating grades, making it possible for IL&FS to rake in more cash by way of fresh loans and market debt, even as it had started defaulting on a few maturing liabilities in the existing portfolio already. In other words, the market, the All-Knowing Godhead, continued to behave as though all was well within a company whose management had virtually hollowed it out by then. Yet, within the month of confirming those juicy credit ratings, the same agencies scaled the same ratings down by 8 or 9 notches at one go to junk grades. And then there was the deluge. Accurate predictor of coming events, indeed! And we are not even turning to still more humongous failures of market intelligence which lie well within recent memory the ENRON disaster, for example, or Indias very own Satyam fiasco. In all such cases, the market never predicted the real outcomes it covered them up very diligently. Indeed, the great market meltdown of 2008-09 had happened precisely because the market had wilfully blind-folded itself, so that all intimations of an Armageddon were cheerfully decrypted as good tidings.

The other nuggets of wisdom this great apostle of the Market dispenses are speculative at best, for example the fiat that to say that a weak rupee may lead to inflation is a joke. Another formidable fiat: A weak rupee is good. All countries that have had good growth rates have maintained undervalued currencies. No need is felt to qualify, or even to elaborate upon, it. Paasche and Laspeyres indices are grandly mentioned, but not explained, probably because every lay reader needs to be well acquainted with these concepts at a minimum. Rao enjoins upon the Finance Minster to not lower taxes on petroleum products, because to do so would again be embracing a misguided approach to inflation. Extraordinarily in this discussion, there is not even a nod to the plight of the masses of ordinary Indians today who are perforce skipping meals, skimping on all but the very basic necessities, and are taking kids out of school. Poor, unwashed Indians are not even mentioned, no doubt because the market evangelist has no use for them. It is important to remember that Rao went to Chicago the haven for market fundamentalists of the Milton Friedman kind for his degree. Can we afford to forget how, after the abomination of the 1973 Chilean coup financed and orchestrated by the CIA Friedmans disciples laid waste to the Chilean economy in a matter of only a few years, so that Chile turned soon into one of the worlds most unequal societies? Thank god Chile is now slowly, painfully emerging out of that obscene morass of cynicism and hopelessness.

Convictions aside, one suspects Rao is not above being economical with the truth either. One would like to be enlightened on his source when he claims that the lefties hero Comrade Lenin believed in deliberately exacerbating crises in order to discredit the bourgeois State. Or maybe like macroeconomic theory, history too can today do with axioms rather than explication? After all, havent we decided that India is now ripe for the rewriting of history?

Anjan Basu writes about culture and the politics of culture. He can be reached at basuanjan52@gmail.com

Link:

The Exuberant Fatuity Of The Indian Neo-Con - Countercurrents.org