Category Archives: Atheist

There can be no doubt about it: Religion, especially Christianity while still powerful in American culture is in decline. Fewer than half of Americans even belong to a churchor other house of worship. Rates of church attendance are in a freefall, as younger Americans would rather do anything with their precious free time than go to church. As religion researcher Ryan Burge recently tweeted, "Among those born in the early 1930s, 60% attend church weekly. 17% never attend. Among those born in the early 1950s, 32% attend weekly. 29% never attend. Among those born in the early 1990s, 18% attend weekly. 42% never attend."

In response to Americans losing interest in faith, Republicans are in a full-blown panic, lashing out and accusing everyone else liberals, schools, immigrants, pop culture, you name it for this shift in religious sentiment. Worse, more are advocating the use of force to counter this decline. If people don't want religion, well, too bad. More Republicans are arguing that Christianity should not be optional First Amendment be damned.

"There's also growing hostility to religion," Justice Samuel Alito recently whined, in response to criticism of recent Supreme Court decisions meant to foist fundamentalist beliefs on non-believers, particularly the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Republicans are justifying this turn towards compelled religious performance by whining about the empty pews in their church.

As Jack Jenkins of Religion News Service reported, increasing numbers of Republicans are ignoring the plain text of the First Amendment which says the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in favor of the tortured myth that there's no separation of church and state. FormerOhio treasurer and failed Senate candidate Josh Mandel, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and, most troublingly, Justice Neil Gorsuch have all dismissed the idea that such a separation is mandated by the Constitution.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Christian nationalism, the idea both that the U.S. should be an explicitly Christian nation and that the laws should enforce fundamentalist Christian beliefs, used to be an unthinkable idea in American politics. Now it'snormal among the Trumpist branch of the GOP. As Heather "Digby" Parton writes, the GOP candidate in Pennsylvania's gubernatorial race, Doug Mastriano, barely hides his Christian nationalist views. Instead, he pals around with Gab CEOAndrew Torba, who openly says things like, "We don't want people who are atheists. We don't want people who are Jewish," because this is supposedly "an explicitly Christian country."

And, of course, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has made this crystal clear, recently declaring:"We should be Christian nationalists."

This term, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school football coach who wants to lead Christian prayers from the 50-yard line during games, which is a direct reversal of decades of jurisprudence against coerced religious displays in public schools. Gorsuch defended the ruling by claiming that the prayer was merely a private act, despite being held in public and done in a way to make players feel they would be penalized for not joining. But right-wing groups understand fully that the ruling was meant as an open invitation to forced Christian prayer in schools. As the Washington Post reportedthis week, "activists are preparing to push religious worship into public schools nationwide." Your kid may be Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist or otherwise non-Christian, but too bad. They better recite the Lord's Prayer in class or risk being punished or ostracized.

Since the churches won't reform to be more egalitarian and pro-science, they find that these younger people are walking away altogether.

As blogger Roy Edroso documents, Republicans are justifying this turn towards compelled religious performance by whining about the empty pews in their church. He points to an op-ed by David Marcus at Fox News in which Marcus complains about declining faith and argues that the recent Supreme Court ruling will turn things around. "[I]t will be a new day forprayer in public schools. And God will operate a bit more openly," Marcus gushes.

Mandated faith is morally reprehensible and in direct violation of human rights. But it's also wrong to pin this decline in religious fervor to laws and customs protecting religious minorities from such coercion. On the contrary, if Republicans want to know who is to blame for young people abandoning the church in droves, they should look in the mirror.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

As Robert Jones of thePublic Religion Research Institute told Salon in 2017, there's "a culture clash between particularly conservative white churches and denominations and younger Americans" over issues like science, education, and gender equality. Younger people brought up in these churches increasingly reject the sexism, homophobia, and anti-science views of their elders. Since the churches won't reform to be more egalitarian and pro-science, they find that these younger people are walking away altogether.

These trends will likely only accelerate in the wake of the Roe overturn, especially as Republicans grow more fanatical in their efforts to punish Americans for having sex. All but eight Republicans in the House voted againstthe legal right to use contraception. Fewer than a quarter of them voted to support same-sex marriage rights. Both of these rights are wildly popular. Eighty-four percent of Americans believe in the right to use contraception (and over 99% of those who have had heterosexual sex have used it). Over 70% of Americans believe in the right to same-sex marriage.

The more both Republicans and the Christian establishment reject these basic rights, the more they can expect to be rejected themselves, especially by younger people.

"[T]hese days it seems the people most likely to identify themselves as Christians tend to be Republicans as well the most vicious, hateful,un-Christian sons of bitches you'd ever want to meet," Edroso writes. Sure, some people respond by seeking liberal churches. But it's simpler and easier to just give up on being a Christian altogether, to drop all that baggage.

As an atheist myself, I really don't care if large numbers of people give up religion. On the contrary, it seems like a sensible choice to me. But if Republicans don't like people losing faith, well, they need to admit they did this to themselves. If they'd moderated their views and made their churches more tolerant and welcoming places, more people would be interested in attending. And all this talk of forced prayer and Christian nationalism isn't going to help matters, but will instead make ordinary people hate them even more. As with the GOP-led book bans only leading more kids to read the forbidden books, Republican attempts to foist their beliefs on others only causes more backlash against Christianity itself.

More:

The backlash to Christianity: Republicans are now panicked but they only have themselves to blame - Salon

Photo: Statue of Charles Bradlaugh, Northampton, England, by en:User:Cj1340, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

One unwelcome result of the publishing success of theOrigin of Speciesfor Darwin was that its author had come to appear to some militant secularists as the unofficial patron saint of their own cause. The predominantly working-class radical movement simply styled Secularism, which had its origins in earlier decades of the 19th century, had been gathering steady momentum since the early 1850s.1On one occasion in the late 1870s two of its leading lights, Charles Bradlaugh (pictured above, the first atheist member of the British parliament) and his associate Dr. Edward Aveling, a young biology professor, came to solicit the by now venerable Darwins support for their cause. Darwin was never less than polite to both, having extended to them the invitation to join him at his country home at Down House, but finally felt obliged to turn down both mens requests that he endorse their enterprise.2In contradistinction to the era following the authors death, when persons can at will arrogate to themselves the Darwinian name in order to push their own interpretations and agendas, Darwin did at least in his own lifetime have the chance to turn down the self-interested appeals to him made by more aggressive secularists (Bradlaugh was a burly London East Ender who rather relished his frequent skirmishes with the police authorities).

Darwins reasons for refusing to lend the two petitioners his intellectual patronage were various. He maintained to the end of his days a residue of his earlier Christian faith and in later years was still apt to call himself a theist. He continued to harbor a nagging suspicion that there might be, in Thomas Huxleys phrase, a wider teleology in natures processes far exceeding the naturalistic bounds of natural selection. Furthermore, on purely ethical grounds he felt that people should not be bludgeoned into changing their ideas. Also, in a kind of not in front of the servants reflex characteristic of the English upper classes (a sentiment which persisted right up the notorious trial ofLady Chatterleys Loverin the early 1960s) he felt that ordinary people might not yet be ready to hear the revolutionary truth of natural selection. Here, noted James Moore, spoke the parish naturalist seeking not to disturb the social equilibrium.3

In that regard, his anxieties were not entirely misplaced, for grassroots secularism had been closely linked with political radicalism ever since Tom PainesThe Rights of Man(1791-2) had laced ideals of political emancipation with extended critiques of Biblical anomalies worthy of the German Higher Criticism (except that Paines criticisms were couched in a rather more defamatory linguistic register). Paine, later to be driven into exile, was widely seen as a public enemy who had defended not only the French Revolution but also the American Revolution which only a century earlier had deprived Britain of its most valued overseas colony. The conservative bourgeois Darwin was then understandably wary of having his name linked with persons potentially capable of political insurrection.

The arresting historical vignette of Darwins fraught meeting with Bradlaugh and Aveling at his country retreat would doubtless make for a good TV docudrama, but of far greater significance historically is the fact that this single episode shines a light on wider societal trends not always sufficiently heeded in discussing the reception of Darwinism, namely, those associated with the already well-established British secularist movement.

In examining the subject of Darwins philosophical precursors, much is conventionally made of two poems originally conceived about a decade before the publication of theOrigin of Species, namely, Matthew Arnolds poem, Dover Beach, where Arnold imagined the melancholy withdrawal of the tide of (Christian) faith, and that of the poet laureate, Alfred, Lord Tennysons In Memoriam, where grief for a deceased friend is broadened in scope to encompass the theme of the Victorian crisis of faith in a broader perspective. Such fine-feeling products of literary high culture are rightly adduced as important adumbrations of that greater loss of faith to be induced by peoples later acquaintance with Darwins work. Yet it should also be pointed out that other, more important harbingers of future events were in a sense hiding in plain sight (from many modern historical accounts, at any rate) in the thought and writings of denizens of less exalted echelons of society, as Timothy Larsen makes clear in hisCrisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England(Oxford: OUP, 2006, reprinted 2013), a work to which I will make frequent reference in what follows.

As Larsen documents, there had already been an atheistic newspaper in circulation from the early 1840s calledThe Oracleof Reasonstaffed by several transmutationists who accepted many pre-Darwinian speculations about evolution long before Darwin came on to the scene and even before the publication of that work widely seen as a prelude to DarwinsOrigin of Species, Robert ChamberssVestiges of the Natural History of Creationof 1844. There was also a weekly penny periodical,The Plain Speaker, which ran for a short time in 1849, plus a whole host of secular societies nationwide. One of the secularists chronicled by Larsen, the indefatigable John Henry Gordon, is on record as presenting papers in 1861 to secularist societies in Leeds, Bramley (Greater Leeds area), and at a south London branch in 1862.

The movement was then not just a metropolitan phenomenon, and reference was routinely made to the Northern circuit of speaking engagements arranged for speakers.In the heyday of the Industrial Revolution, Britain was considerably less London-centric than is the case today and it was widely acknowledged that most important working-class movements and initiatives had originated and become widely diffused over what are now somewhat ruefully referred to as the old industrial heartlands (the equivalent of the American Rust Belt).

John Gordon and other speakers at such events were exceptionally well informed across a whole range of disciplines. Adrian Desmond pointed out some decades ago in hisPolitics of Evolutionthat many new ideas in this period were typically introduced not by conservative Oxbridge dons but by medical and scientific radicals. As Larsen remarks with regard to another prolific speaker, Thomas Cooper, if in 1850 any Britons wished to have a serious encounter with the latest modern Biblical criticism, they would have been better off going to hear Cooper lecture than attending any British university.4This was an era in whichformalhigher education was the preserve of privilege and wealth, an exclusion which, however, spurred many enquiring minds to alternative, autodidactic expedients.

Although Darwin ostensibly provided a better explanation of evolutionary developments than predecessors in the form of what he touted as thevera causaof natural selection, in reality his ideas were no more extreme than ones long in circulation in the radical press and aired at the secularists public meetings. The English upper classs virtual monopoly on higher education proved no impassable barrier to enquiring minds with access to public libraries and the pooling of collective knowledge facilitated by local learned societies. Many radicals had absorbed ideas from theSystem of Natureof the French materialistphilosopheBaron dHolbach (translated into English in 1797), and Erasmus Darwins ideas of evolution had been more or less common knowledge since the end of the 18th century.

The relative chronology is important here because the so-called plebeian writers and speakers were well ahead of the curve in their readiness to accept and promote advanced forms of intellectual speculation. An illuminating example of this chronological priority, discussed by Larsen, concerns the loss of faith suffered by Sir Leslie Stephen in the 1860s when he was no longer able to accept as literal truth the Biblical account of the flood and Noahs Ark.5Remarks Larsen,

From the perspective of plebeian radicals, what is surprising about this [loss of faith] is not the critique [of the Bible] but rather the late date. One could have gone to a freethinking hall decades earlier and heard a careful catalogue of reasons why the account of the flood, on a standard, literalist reading, could not be squared with what was known of geology, and how it was filled with a wide range of absurdities.6

The above chronology of events shows clearly that the plebeians skepticism about the truth of Biblical revelation must have begun some decades before the publication of theOrigin. For such radicals, theOriginmust have represented not so much a surprised Aha! moment as a more confirmatory Aha I TOLD you so! In other words, they will have welcomed theOriginas scientificvindicationof a religious skepticism they had come to by a different route. Even if, like Thomas Huxley, one did not at the time think that the theory of natural selection made sense in purely scientific terms, it would certainly have provided many people with a very convenient confirmation of their disbelief (provided of course they were willing to abstain from questioning Darwins scientific postulates too closely!). The radicals must then have viewed the publication of theOriginas something of a very welcomedeus ex machinain that here was Darwin wheeling out unheralded support for their cause, support which they could not have anticipated receiving in their wildest dreams before 1859. Arguably and somewhat perversely, Darwins most noteworthy contribution to what may be termed the forward march of ideas may be viewed as having been not so much to biology (the first reviewers were almost universally scathing) but to the cause of secularism. This of course was an unintended consequence and an unwanted achievement which we know from the riven state of Darwins mind in later age that he will have found deeply uncongenial.

Tomorrow, Darwin, Group Think, and Confirmation Bias.

The rest is here:

Darwin and the British Secularist Tradition - Discovery Institute

Shiromani Akali Dal's (Amritsar) Simranjit Singh Mann asked for the removal of Bhagat Singhs portrait from the museum at the Darbar Sahib, calling him a terrorist, and sent shockwaves through the political landscape of Punjab.

However, this is not the first time that he has raised this demand, but the shock value this time is higher given that now he is a Member of Parliament from the Sangrur Lok Sabha seat.

Criticism has come from every party, with people asking him to stop insulting the image of Bhagat Singh and his role in the freedom struggle.

What is interesting though is the silence of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) on the entire matter. The youth wing of Manns SAD(A) has actually shared a letter with the SGPC to support their demand.

In this letter, Bhagat Singh claimed that he was an atheist. That is definitely true; in fact, one of his most famous essays, Why I am an Atheist is a major lighthouse for the Marxists of India despite the fact that Bhagat Singh definitely was not one.

The argument that SAD(A) youth wing has given is that by displaying the photograph of an atheist in the Central Sikh Museum, the SGPC was promoting idolatry under the influence of Hindutva ideology which was not only against the Sikh culture, traditions and ideology but also against maryada (Sikh code of religious conduct).

It is indeed ironic given how only Bhagat Singhs photo is seen as supporting idolatry but not those of the likes of terrorist Balwinder Jatana.

Outside of the national glare, there has been a lot of politics around Bhagat Singh and his identity in Punjab. Questions are raised on his faith, especially by Sikh extremists, who quote his essay on why he was an atheist. To quote from the relevant part:

The truth is a little more complicated of course, and points to a past that was ruptured by the communal politics of Punjab. Bhagat Singh was born in a Sikh family, but that family was associated with the Arya Samaj. It was an era that was marked by a fading syncretism between Hinduism and Sikhism.

Today, such has been the wish of those who want to appropriate Bhagat Singh for themselves, be it Akali Dal or the Aam Aadmi Party, that they have always tried to portray him with a turban. This, when among the grand total of four photos of him, there is just one where he wears a turban - as a child.

For the record, the way the Sikh panthic leadership treated him should be stated as well. Here is what Manjit Singh GK said in 2016, when protesting against the Bhagat Singh statue in Delhi Assembly not having a turban:

Bhagat Singhs Stance on the Supposed Language Issue

That Bhagat Singh was wise beyond his years was reflected in many of his writings, whether one agreed with them or not. One such piece was an essay that he had written on the issue of the Punjabi language.

This essay is a bulwark against the toxic politics that the Akalis played in the post-independence era to hide their own communal agenda. It is thus, a reminder of an inconvenient truth for them.

The essay, which is available easily for all to read, had highlighted how the Punjabi language had become mired in communal problems. Some context to this essay must be provided of course.

In 1923, the Punjab Hindi Sahitya Sammelan had organised an essay competition. The theme was The Problem of Punjab's Language and Script. The General Secretary of Sahitya Sammelan, Shri Bhim Sen Vidyalankar had immensely liked Bhagat Singhs writing on the subject.

Bhagat Singh won a prize of Rs 50 for his essay and subsequently, it was published in Hindi Sandesh on 28 February 1933. While writing a controversial take, Bhagat Singh had written:

In this essay, however, was also the seed of syncretism:

In fact, Bhagat Singh had advocated for the adoption of Mahatma Hansrajs formula of a standard Hindi script, and identified how language differences had assumed communal colours in Punjab:

Discomfort Around Hindu Leaders Of The Time

Another uncomfortable topic for many politicians in contemporary Punjab has been the fact that Bhagat Singh murdered a police official of British origin, J P Saunders, to avenge Lala Lajpat Rais death, and Lala ji was associated with the Hindu Mahasabha.

Having suffered grievously from the lathi-charge during the protests against the Simon Commission, Lala ji had passed away soon after. The pamphlet released by the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HRSA) soon after the death of Saunders was in fact titled J.P. Sunders is dead; Lala Lajpat Rai is avenged, making the reasons amply clear.

However, the views of Sikh extremists about Lala Lajpat Rai today range from dismissive to downright vulgar. Questions on his martyrdom, and comments about him being a British stooge remain a part of mainstream discourse.

Several claims are made about Lala Lajpat Rai being a coward, who did not participate fully in the Pagdi Sambhal movement against oppressive British taxes on agriculturists alongside Sardar Ajit Singh, Bhagats uncle.

But that is not all.

In 2010, famous singer Babbu Mann, in a concert in the United Kingdom, had claimed that freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai did not die of cane blows but of a heart attack many months later.

This claim was later attributed to a book called Sachi Sakhi by Kapur Singh, who had been a civil servant under the British but went on to play a major role in Sikh politics with the Akali Dal in the future. What is ironic is that in the same book Kapur Singh had this to say about the incident:

Incidentally, this man had also said the following about Hindus in the Parliament in 1960:

This not only shows the attitude towards Hindus, but also bares open the truth of the Punjabi Suba movement. Incidentally, Lala Lajpat Rai had been associated with the Hindu Mahasabha in an era when there were fierce debates on the question of the status of Sikhs as a separate religion or a sect of Hindus.

At that time, the Hindu Mahasabha had in fact conducted a meeting in Punjab chaired by a Sikh to underscore the point.

Bhagat Singhs association with Veer Savarkar has emerged as a problematic point in recent times for many Punjabi politicians. Author Vikram Sampath had recently pointed out that in an article "Vishwa Prem" published twice in Matwala of 15 and 22 November 1926, Bhagat Singh spoke of Savarkar's tender heart despite being a revolutionary. Sampath quoted the following:

Savarkar had been extremely appreciative of the Sikh community, and had called them the very embodiment of Hindus, classifying them as that. That very point has been a bone of contention throughout, with the mainstream view being that we are not Hindus.

Bhagat Singhs legacy will remain contested, and his ideas debated. But it is not in the least surprising that we have people like Simranjit Singh Mann claiming what they do - that Bhagat Singh was a terrorist because he had also killed a Sikh constable Channan Singh alongside Saunder. As if the terrorists who are being glorified did not kill any.

Also Read: Portrait Of Former Punjab CM's Assassin Inside Golden Temple Complex: When Will SGPC Speak About Sikh Victims Of Khalistani Terror?

Read the original:

Punjab: Why Panthic Politics Has Never Been Comfortable With The Legacy Of Bhagat Singh - Swarajya

In a recent statement, the incoming European Union ambassador to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Jorge Toledo Albinana, said that the EU believes that Taiwan is part of China. He said Europe supports Taiwans peaceful unification with the PRC and not Taiwanese independence.

The PRC is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), an atheist Marxist-Leninist regime that exercises total control over all aspects of the state and society in China. Taiwan is a fully independent and sovereign country that has never been part of the territory ruled by the authorities in Beijing. Unlike PRC nationals, Taiwanese citizens exercise popular sovereignty and have the right to self-determination. In official settings, Taiwan is called the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan).

Ambassador Albinanas remarks were notable because the term he used, peaceful unification, is a CCP euphemism that refers to the subversion and coerced annexation of Taiwans ROC government. Its a seemingly benign phrase that, in reality, describes the destruction of a nation-state that is ranked among the top ten democracies in the world.

The PRC claims all of Taiwans territory and has been conducting a global campaign to isolate and weaken the country, laying the groundwork for a future takeover that would likely involve a mix of clandestine operations and overt military attacks.

Experts believe it is unlikely that Taipei will capitulate to Beijings demands, a view backed by polling data. On March 15, 2022, a Taiwanese public opinion poll found that 70.2 percent of respondents were willing to go to war in defense of Taiwan.

Another poll found that over 60 percent of Taiwanese between ages 20-39 said they were willing to go to the battlefield if China attacked. The same poll showed that 72 percent of respondents between the ages of 40-49 said they would fight.

The PRC is engaged in the largest peacetime military buildup undertaken by any country in over a century. Beijing now has the largest army, navy, and theater missile force in the world along with a rapidly growing nuclear arsenal capable of intercontinental strikes. Chinese military officers writing in authoritative documents describe the United States as their main enemy and portray the conquest of Taiwan as their number one mission.

Chinas ruler, Chairman Xi Jinping (), has said that his government aims to export its totalitarian model abroad and achieve what he calls world socialism and international communism. World socialism is a concept that envisions the overthrow of all liberal democratic governments and the formation of an integrated system of one-party dictatorships under Beijings control. Xi calls this process the construction of a community of common destiny for all mankind and the construction of a shared future for all mankind.

According to Xi, the violent socialist phase in humanitys political development would be followed by a borderless utopia: international communism. Since 2020, new textbooks have been published by the CCPs Central Party School and the Central Propaganda Department on Xi Jinpings personal ideology. Some texts suggest Xi believes his goals could be realized in the next three decades.

Analysts cannot measure the degree to which Xi and other CCP elites believe in the radical ideas they publicly espouse. It may be the case that Chinese officials view ideology as an instrument for accruing greater levels of state control and international power. But according to their own words, Chinas ruling class is driven by an irrational and regressive dogma that rejects science, reason, humanism, and universal values.

The US and PRC are locked in a war of ideas, and the outcome will hinge, in part, on the future of Taiwan. However, the US government continues to support the legitimacy of the PRC (China), while consciously undermining the legitimacy of the ROC (Taiwan). An example of this could be seen on July 21, 2022, when President Joe Biden publicly discouraged Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from taking a long-planned trip to visit Taiwan. President Biden said, The military thinks its not a good idea right now.

In October 2021, over 150 Chinese warplanes, including a significant number of nuclear-capable bombers, conducted a threatening exercise inside Taiwans air defense identification zone. President Biden refrained from calling President Tsai Ing-wen () to express support and solidarity. Instead, he requested a call with Chairman Xi, and the two held a 3.5-hour virtual summit.

To date, President Biden has not called, met with, or emailed Taiwans president. While the Biden administration has hailed bilateral relations as rock solid, little movement has occurred to make progress on building closer US-Taiwan relations.

Absent real policy changes in Washington, Chinese military operations could fundamentally transform the security situation in the Taiwan Strait. As such, the US and Taiwan should consider integrating their forces into future joint training and operational readiness exercises. Both sides should consider how to safely conduct coalition operations, something they are currently unprepared to do without a significant risk of friendly fire.

The US government should give careful consideration to the benefits of establishing a significant presence of Special Operation Forces and Marines in Taiwan for training, advisory, and liaison missions. They could serve as a strategic trip-wire, signaling American resolve in the face of military coercion.

Ship visits, joint Taiwan Strait patrols, and routine senior leader delegations from Washington to Taiwan are additional low cost and high impact options that are available to deter CCP aggression, bolster Taiwans defense, and enhance prospects for peace.

While sometimes overlooked, the survival and success of Taiwans democracy is of vital importance to American efforts to stop the spread of illiberal forces around the world.

Ian Easton is a senior director at the Project 2049 Institute.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

View original post here:

Ian Easton On Taiwan: Why Taiwan matters in the US-PRC war of ideas -

If a zombie uprising were to take place tomorrow, Emily Aboud wouldnt mind one bit. The fear of a zombie is only if my lineage has stolen something from their lineage, she shrugs nonchalantly. They wouldnt be coming for me.

Aboud, who uses she/they pronouns, is a Trinidadian playwright, director and drag king. Her latest play, Bogeyman, explores the question of what we fear and why. Its story is rooted in the history of the 1791 Haitian revolution, when the people overthrew the French colony to free themselves from enslavement. Nobody knows about the uprising, she says, and I want them to know.

Unlike in British schools, Abouds Trinidadian education taught the importance of the Haitian revolution. This was a story of the underdogs winning. But the spiritual aspect of the event was missing. At her Catholic state school (she is now a raging atheist) she was never told that the uprising is thought to have started with a Vodou ceremony in Haitis Bois Caman, the alligator forest. Theres a whole wealth of community and spirituality that made this revolution happen, Aboud says, and we didnt learn any of that because its considered demonic. She wonders about the narrative she and her classmates were told about Vodou, the same one that proliferates around the world about the much-misunderstood religion. Is it considered demonic because its what defeated the oppressor?

Growing up in Trinidad, Aboud attended Lilliput theatre, a drama group that has been running since 1975. Aboud is kinetic when she speaks, and never more so than when shes talking about this group, which ingrained in her a total belief in the power of community. Its the greatest thing on the whole planet. I genuinely think that getting people together to talk and make stories together saves the world. This training, which she then took on to student theatre at the University of Edinburgh, informs her process in the rehearsal room now, where she prefers to write, discuss and devise with cast and crew, before going back to writing again. She has just been shortlisted for 2022s JMK award, an annual prize given to visionary young directors.

Soon heading to the Edinburgh fringe, Bogeyman sits somewhere between ghost story and thriller. I dont want to do a jump scare, and Im not into blood and guts, Aboud says. I dont want to traumatise the people Im trying to empower. She is far more interested in the origins of fear. There is a PhD to be written on the Haitian uprising and horror. Zombie itself is a Haitian word, she points out, with roots in Haitian folklore and the injustices of slavery.

By veering between 18th-century Haiti and modern-day London, Bogeyman explores how many modern fears are steeped in the continuing legacies of racism and empire. In discussions with her cast, they have shared feelings of living in a haunted city. Looking at the Tate Modern, the Bank of England they are built from money from enslavement, she says. I cant even watch Downton Abbey. I just want to burn it all down.

For Aboud, the revolution is an inspiration, but also a warning. In order to become independent, Haiti was made to repay the French for their loss of property. This debt, paid off in 1947, amounted to billions in todays money, and has prevented the country from becoming economically stable. The oppressed did win, Aboud says drily, but theyve been punished ever since.

So Bogeyman must be a celebration as well as a mourning. This double-edged approach was evident in her previous show, Splintered, which at once cheered Trinidads creation of carnival and the events embrace of queerness, and lamented the homophobia and misogyny many have to face in the rest of the year. I think you need to have a sense of cynicism, Aboud says of her feelings around Caribbean culture. Nothing is black and white. Its layered and complex. Thats why Aboud called her theatre company Lagahoo, after the shapeshifter from Caribbean folklore. Being allowed to be two things at once is really important to the work that I make.

Navigating the historical legacy of the Haitian revolution and the ripples of empire in present-day life, Bogeyman encapsulates Abouds desire to use storytelling as a tool for empowerment and understanding. We are trudging along to fascism right here in the UK, she says, her voice a blend of despair and disgust. I feel really hopeless about that all the time. For me, the Haitian revolution is an amazing inspiration. They literally abolished enslavement, on one of the most profitable colonies in the new world. Aboud wants this story to serve as a reminder. We can get rid of the oppressor. It has been done.

Bogeyman is at Pleasance Dome, Edinburgh, 3-29 August.

Read the original here:

Emily Aboud on Bogeyman: I dont want to traumatise the people Im trying to empower - The Guardian

It is quite astonishing how the critical issues of socio-economic justice are being banished to the background in this leadership renewal debate and emotive issues are being pushed to the foreground. Shouldnt the country, including our religious groups and denominations, rather engage in the fight for gender justice in our representative democracy and political system, to bring about a male-female/female-male ticket, across the board, as an immediate affirmative action, instead of crusading for a Christian-Muslim/Muslim-Christian ticket?

In liberal democratic elections, the ideology of political parties, including their programmes, manifestoes, platforms (containing social services, welfare issues and interests of the working class), and sensitivity to diversity, including the issue of gender justice, are the critical, ideal factors that should guide the choice of voters. The religious identity of candidates in a secular state like Nigeria should not be an overriding factor.

In Nigeria, a political party is not an ecumenical gathering or an interfaith amalgam. A political party system is the vehicle that drives governance of the affairs of men and society; not an ark that sails the righteous to the heavenly shore. The church, the mosque and the shrine must be kept separate from the affairs of the State; that is a neutral state.

The choice of a vice presidential candidate in the All Progressives Congress (APC) is generating a loud debate on whether that choice is sensitive to and respectful of the Christian faith.

We presume this debate has become urgent for many in view of the reality of religious intolerance and fanaticism in Nigeria. Since 2009, groups of Islamists and jihadists, known as Boko Haram and theIslamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) terrorists (that many Muslims have rightly condemned and denounced as not being true Muslims), have been waging a war against the Nigerian state with the declared goal of carving a theocratic Islamic state out of it.

For us, unless there is clear evidence or strong inferences that the said choice is meant to foster Islam as a state religion in Nigeria, promote political Islam and empower Boko Haram and ISWAP in such a way as to deny, abuse and abridge the enjoyment or religious rights and liberties, this loud debate is not important. The debate on the Muslim-Muslim ticket, we opine, should not be conducted in a ramifying and Islamophobic manner, as if the ticket, a free exercise of democratic right, is an extension of the murderous Boko Haram and ISWAPs theocratic campaigns.

The important issue is whether the political party that has put together this Muslim-Muslim ticket is deserving of renewal of the presidential mandate that it currently holds, and whether the joint ticket-holders have the qualifications, character, class interests, competence, fitness, capacity and integrity to lead Nigeria at this time.

In 1979, the Christian-Christian ticket of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), under which Chief Philip Umeadi was fielded as a vice-presidential candidate, on the platform of the then newly adopted presidential system of government (in departure from the parliamentary system of the First Republic) was a no issue. In the Yoruba West, Awolowo secured votes across faith lines. The integrity of that Christian-Christian ticket was, in a way, litigated and validated in the election petition case of Awolowo v Shagari, up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The big issue in that ticket, by a way of recall, was whether Chief Obafemi Awolowo was trustworthy and electable by the Igbo electorate, and whether he did not hate the Igbo, given the roles he placed especially during the unfortunate civil war between 1967 and 1970, when he did not only serve as the war-time minister of Finance but also as the vice chairman of the Federal Executive Council under the Federal Military Government of General Yakubu Gowon, during the civil war.

In 1993, the Muslim-Muslim ticket of Chief MKO Abiolas Social Democratic Party (SDP) was not a big issue. Abiola attended a Christian institution, the Baptist High School, Abeokuta, where, although a Muslim, he compulsorily participated in Christian religious activities; learnt and indeed could sing Christian hymns. The fact that his joint presidential ticket was a Muslim-Muslim one was not a big deal; the real issue then was the need to democratically and electorally sack from stolen political power, a cunning military dictatorship, unwilling to vacate the military presidency, and thus perpetually manipulating the transition to civil rule programme.

Added to that burning issue was a pan-Nigerian, inter-faith unity to bring about an organic rotation of presidential power in Nigeria. Undeniably, across Southern Nigeria, there was an inter-ethnic and inter-faith solidarity to equally cause a power shift to the South and put an end to the political power hegemony of the Northern wing of the ruling class, represented then by a gang of military plutocrats, mainly of northern extraction, and their collaborating civilian bureaucrats.

It was that putative consensus on power-shift, truncated by the annulment of the June 12 election and the Abacha reign of terror that followed, that made the Nigerian ruling class seek vindication arranging for two Southerners to contest the presidential election in 1999, with the predictable outcome that, invariably, a Southerner would emerge the president of Nigeria.

The Abiola/SDP Muslim-Muslim ticket was a faith uniting one, not a faith-dividing ticket. Many Nigerians of different faiths were persecuted (imprisoned, exiled or killed) for fighting for the actualisation of the mandate that emanated from that Muslim-Muslim ticket. Many who fought and those who were killed while fighting, were not fighting for their religious beliefs or faiths when doing so. They were fighting (and for those who were slain or had died) for electoral and political justice to be done in the country.

A foremost patriot and celebrated atheist, Dr Tai Solarin, who repeatedly said he never believed in the existence of God, fought hard for the actualisation of that mandate, physically participating in the Campaign for Democracy-organised nationwide protests that greeted the annulment of the election, on July 5-7, 1993, leading a column of protesters from Ikene, his domicile in Ogun State, to Ikeja, Lagos.

We submit that religious identity or diversity, sect affiliation or denominational association was never intended to be the constitutionally prescribed plank for bringing that unity or inclusion about. The focus was to attempt to grow national unity and democratic government from our ethnically diverse communities. The goal was to prevent ethnic domination, subjugation or emasculation.

The Nigerian Constitution decrees no state religion, although the Nigerian state, immorally and unlawfully, has been using state funds and other resources to promote the hegemony and dominance of the two Abrahamic religions Islam and Christianity. This is in spite of the fact that the Constitution clearly recognises Nigeria as a secular or multi-religious state.

While it is true that in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, it is stated that the Constitution is made for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of Freedom, Equality, and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our people, it is submitted that this declared purpose, in constitutional theory, is achieved by the constitutional guarantees (freedoms) referenced below and the federal character principles etched on the pages of our Constitution.

We admit, though, that as it is the case in all spheres of our national life, there is a wide chasm between theory and practice on the issue of fostering these noble constitutional ideals.

Section 14(1) of the Constitution declares that, the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of democracy and social justice, and the document further declares in Section 14 (3&4) that the composition of government in the Federation and in the States and Local Government Councils or any of their agencies; and the conduct of their affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies (and for the Government of a State or Local Government Council), the conduct of their affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to recognise the diversity of the people within its area of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all the peoples of the Federation.

It is crystal clear that the imagination and intendment of the framers of the cited provision is to foster unity amongst peoples, states, ethnic groups and such other sectional groups, and bring about their inclusion in government at all levels.

We submit that religious identity or diversity, sect affiliation or denominational association was never intended to be the constitutionally prescribed plank for bringing that unity or inclusion about. The focus was to attempt to grow national unity and democratic government from our ethnically diverse communities. The goal was to prevent ethnic domination, subjugation or emasculation.

Section 15(2) of the Constitution states that national integration shall be actively encouraged, whilst discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited.

We submit that while the goal of Section 15(2) is ostensibly to promote national integration, including religious harmony, still on the ground of that same Section 15(2), rejecting a Muslim-Muslim or a Christian-Christian presidential ticket, solely on the ground of religious differences, is discriminatory of the candidates, running foul of the non-justiciable prohibition of such discrimination.

The federal character principles in our Constitution are further strengthened by the establishment of the Federal Character Commission under Section 153 (1) of the Constitution, and a specific codification of the Federal Character Commission Act to enable the Commission discharge its mandate. The principles also are further strengthened by provisions like Section 147(3) and Section 192(2) of the Constitution, which respectively obligates the president and the governor to comply with the federal character provision in Section 14(3&4) of the Constitution in their appointment of ministers in the government of the federation, and commissioners in the government of a state.

In appointing ministers and commissioners, the Federal Character Principles stipulate that the ministers must be sourced from all the states in the federation, and the commissioners from the local government areas in a state. The religious background or beliefs of the appointees is not a constitutional requirement; nor is balance or equality of religious or faith representation in the Executive Council, of the federation or in the states, between the two religions or amongst all the faiths practiced in the country or state a constitutional mandate.

It is very instructive that in the prescribed qualification for the office of president under Section 137 of the Constitution, and in the prescribed qualification for the office of governor under Section 182 of the Constitution, the faith or religion practiced is not an eligibility requirement for an aspirant or a candidate, vying for a presidential or gubernatorial seat.

And it is also instructive to note that upon being elected on a Christian-Christian ticket, a Muslim-Muslim ticket or an atheist-atheist ticket, it is permissible under the law for a president-elect and/or a vice-president elect to decline to be sworn on the Holy Bible or the Holy Koran, and for him/her to take the right under the law to be sworn on affirmation, by raising his hand and affirming, without placing same on any Holy Book (see the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution for the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Offices; also see Section 205 of the Evidence Act, 2011 ; and Section five, seven and eight of the Oaths Act, which make provisions for forms and manner in which oath may be taken; absence of religious belief; and affirmations. Under the provisions, affirmations and declarations may be made, without swearing or referencing God at the end of the oath).

Faith, religion and spiritual matters are very important to man. But they are not the critical and major determinants of mans socio-economic existence in temporal terms. There are, at any given time, many identities: social, economic, political, religious, group, professional, ethnic, national, international (country), gender, age-group, and class. A religious identity is not foundational in social relations. We affirm, class identity is.

Section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. And Section 42 guarantees the right to freedom from discrimination on account of community, ethnic, group, place of origin, sex or religious identity, or political opinion.

A combined application and effect of the two above cited constitutional (human rights) guarantees would mean that an atheist or a polytheist (for example an African indigenous religion believer) may contest for the presidency of Nigeria with the constitutional assurance that he shall not be discriminated against by voters on account of his non-belief in the existence of God or non-belief in monotheism. If such a scenario were to occur, it would be interesting to see whether the two main religions in Nigeria would, in defence of their beleaguered faiths, work in concert to shoot down the candidature of such a pagan, idolator or satanic instrument!

Faith, religion and spiritual matters are very important to man. But they are not the critical and major determinants of mans socio-economic existence in temporal terms. There are, at any given time, many identities: social, economic, political, religious, group, professional, ethnic, national, international (country), gender, age-group, and class. A religious identity is not foundational in social relations. We affirm, class identity is. Class identity largely determines how interests are advanced and protected, and who gets what in a class society. A practiced religion, therefore, should not be the overriding determinant of the qualification of any Nigerian to hold political office. And in our humble opinion, a forced religious balancing or pairing of political office seekers should not be an overriding determinant of eligibility or electability.

The critical question before Nigerians must be which of the presidential tickets thrown up by the current election cycle (presidential and vice-presidential candidates combined) is good enough (and not religious or religiously twined enough, religiously balanced being a misnomer, given the exclusion of the other faiths or non-faiths in the exclusionary and religiously arrogant equation) to govern Nigeria at the highest level, come May 2023.

It is quite astonishing how the critical issues of socio-economic justice are being banished to the background in this leadership renewal debate and emotive issues are being pushed to the foreground. Shouldnt the country, including our religious groups and denominations, rather engage in the fight for gender justice in our representative democracy and political system, to bring about a male-female/female-male ticket, across the board, as an immediate affirmative action, instead of crusading for a Christian-Muslim/Muslim-Christian ticket? How does equal faith representation in government override the need for gender justice, for example?

For our fellow Christians in the North, who in many places are a religious minority, who may regard the presence of a Christian in a joint presidential ticket at any point in time a sin qua non, there are many options, including voting for candidates of other political parties, who have such faith-balance. Multi-party democracy guarantees freedom of electoral choice.

For the APC (whether the presidential ticket is Christian-Christian, Muslim-Muslim or atheist-atheist), the real question is, given the calamitous manner in which the government produced by the party has governed at the federal level, especially on its tripod cardinal promises of enhacing security, the economy and an anti-corruption regime, should it be rewarded with a fresh mandate? Does the party have any redemption potential left in it? If it does, why is the Muslim-Muslim ticket a barrier to its acceptability? If it does not, are the other front-running political parties, whose presidential and vice presidential candidates are tainted and contaminated parts of the Nigerian ruling (ruining) class, viable options? If any one of them is viable, why cant the angry electorate embrace that alternative, not because of a Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Christian ticket, but because it is likely to provide a better leadership than another APC government? If none of them is a better alternative, as it is glaringly clear, can the Nigerian electorate search for their salvation elsewhere, by giving life to the other idealistic, fledgling political parties, earnestly asking for, and fervently praying for their support? What is to be done?

Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN, SAM), was one such giant of an idealist in 2003. With his National Conscience Party (NCP), he begged Nigerians, unsuccessfully, to embrace self-deliverance from oppression and liberation from the oppressive shackles and manacles of poverty. Alas, discounting the incidence of votes-rigging, which was rife in that year, the national conscience of Nigerians, largely, remained inactive!

The problem of governance in Nigeria, which the ruling class, election after election, has proven unable to solve is not insurmountable. It is not a problem to be solved only by the devout, spirit-filled, Holy Ghost fire-spitting, Holy Bible wielding, perennially-tithing, psalms-reading, night vigil-going, robe-wearing, and prayer mountain-visiting Christian; or a problem to be solved only by a devout, five prayers daily-observing, mosque-going, ever-fasting, Holy Quran-quoting, permanent Holy Pilgrimage-going, alms and Zakat-giving, hijab-donning, and ever rosary (tesbiu)-counting Muslim.

It is a problem to be solved by Nigerians of all faiths; or of no religious faith or belief at all.

Those who have brought our country to its sorry state on its crippled legs are persons of faith Christians and Muslims. Unfortunately, many Nigerians are sanctimonious in their ungodliness and pietistical in their immoralities and perversity.

Nigeria needs leadership redefinition and reinvention. She does not need religion but redemption.

Jiti Ogunye, lawyer, and Principal Counsel, Jiti Ogunye Chambers, is the Legal Adviser to Premium Times.

Donate

TEXT AD: Call Willie - +2348098788999

See original here:

Crying over a religiously inclusive presidential ticket in a thicket of national woes, By Jiti Ogunye - Premium Times

By Katherine B. Waddell

HAS RELIGION become too much of a factor in politics? Have our religious leaders, and our elected and appointed leaders, become so involved in politics to a point that they no longer are able to separate church and state? Are people in positions of power imposing their personal religious beliefs onto all of us?

These questions all pose disturbing scenarios and warrant serious scrutiny. But speaking in opposition to those who impose their personal religious beliefs onto others is not easy because it can be misunderstood as being anti-religion. It actually is a decision in support of religious freedom and of a long-held American freedom: separation of church and state.

In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson wrote, Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

People are also reading

The role of religion in politics has dramatically changed over the past 50 years (Jan. 22, 1973, being the day of the Roe v. Wade decision). In 2022, religion has played a role of epic proportions in dictating public policy and opinions at both state and federal levels.

Freedom of and from religion is one of those distinct qualities that makes our country great. Americans cherish that freedom whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, Mormon, agnostic, atheist, or other.

Has religion ever been an issue for voters?

In 1928, New York Gov. Al Smith reportedly lost his presidential bid due to his Catholic religion; and in 1960, that question again came up. Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, also was questioned about his religion. Many feared he would be unable to separate his religious beliefs from policy.

To address those fears, Kennedy spoke to a group of ministers in Houston, saying: It is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe infor that should be important only to mebut what kind of America I believe in. He continued, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ...

Does the candidates religion matter? It should not, but much has changed since 1960, back when many feared Kennedy would make policy decisions based on his personal religious doctrine. Today, that fear has become reality.

It is widely known that some elected or appointed officials at federal and state levels have initiated policies that impose their personal religious beliefs.

These include decisions on birth control, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, sex education, gay rights, and end-of-life issues.

It began with Pat Robertsons Christian Coalition and Jerry Falwell Sr.s Moral Majority movements.

Newer groups call themselves Value Voters or members of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, but their goal remains the same. Most prominently, Don McGahnWhite House counsel under former President Donald Trump and a board member of the Federalist Societyhelped select federal judges with the goal of establishing public policy and opinions that mirrored his own religious views.

Religious freedom is in the eye of the beholder. Religious leaders praise legislators who impose their religious beliefs onto women by restricting abortion rights.

But they also claim their religious freedom is at stake when government mandates contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans for employees.

Whose religious freedom is at stake?

You might be Jewish or Mormon and not want to be forced to live by the Catholic doctrine; just as if you are Catholic or Baptist, you might not want to live by the Mormon or Jewish doctrines.

It is not the role of government to promote policy that imposes one groups personal religious beliefs on all people.

Presently, the majority religious groups of elected or appointed officials who are imposing their religious views include Catholics, Protestants, and evangelical or fundamentalist Christians.

What if the predominate religious group of people in power was Muslims, Mormons or Scientologists? What if there was talk of imposing Sharia law? One might think it a ridiculous idea but many thought overturning Roe was a ridiculous idea, too.

Should public policy be established on the basis of an elected or appointed officials religious doctrine?

Of course not, but examples have been happening right under our noses.

This has happened because we didnt call it out and we didnt heed Kennedys 1960 warning: Today I may be the victimbut tomorrow it may be you...

Katherine B. Waddell, IRichmond, is a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates. She previously served as special adviser on womens issues for former Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Contact her at kbwaddell@comcast.net.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read more from the original source:

Commentary: Government has to uphold separation of church and state - Fredericksburg.com

Back in 2015, I interviewed presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for C-SPANs Book TV. His newest book at the time, God, Guns, Grits and Gravy was a chicken-fried paean to all the Bubbas of the American heartland.

The god-fearing superiority of Bubbaville over the folks in coastal Bubbleville was Huckabees schtick, and he came by it naturally.

The interview was returning an odd favor. Though I was and am an atheist, Id previously written a book defending Christian America. Hed written the forward for my book, and now asked the atheist to interview him about his book celebrating religious America.

I say all this as a point of illustration: There was in fact a time when Republicans had a sense of humor about God.

Somehow, in 2015, God, Guns, Grits and Gravy, though soapy and somewhat cartoonish in its populist portrait of American believers, didnt feel confrontational, menacing or even all that exclusionary. (When pressed by Jon Stewart on whether Huckabee believed that the Bubbas are better than the Bubbles, Huckabee said, No, different.)

In contrast, the new rights variations of God and Guns bumper stickers, t-shirts, yard signs and rallying cries can feel today like an actual threat, one that sometimes even implies violence.

The insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was in many ways a Christian nationalist event. Crosses, Christian banners and signs reading Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president, were unavoidable. Michael Sparks, charged by the FBI for entering the Capitol through a broken window, wrote on Facebook that Trump will be your president four more years in Jesus name. Many touted Jesus and Trump as their reason for being there.

The QAnon Shaman, having breached the Senate chamber, led a group in prayer thanking Heavenly Father for allowing them to send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.

The threatening rhetoric has permeated parts of Congress, where posing with guns, often in the name of Christianity, has become de rigueur for far-right electeds and candidates. Last year Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert traded Christmas cards on Twitter with their arsenals of firearms.

In 2020, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posed on Facebook with a gun and images of three Democratic members of Congress, writing, We need strong conservative Christians to go on the offense against these socialists who want to rip our country apart. Facebook removed the post for violating its policies.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the state Republican Party is voting on a new platform, which puts God and guns front and center.

The first five words are Affirming our belief in God. The platform includes 10 mentions of guns and 16 mentions of God, including the belief in the laws of nature and natures God, giving schools the option to display the national motto In God We Trust, affirming Gods biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior, and declaring all gun control a violation of the Second Amendment and our God-given rights. Youd almost think we were a theocracy.

All of this the rise in Christian nationalism and the literal and metaphorical weaponizing of faith to intimidate opponents while the country grows less and less religious.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

A new Gallup poll found 81% of Americans now believe in God, down from 87% in 2017, and a new low in Gallups trend.

With nearly 20% of the country considering themselves non-believers, its hard to believe there arent more open atheists in Congress. The closest we get is Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who identifies as religiously unaffiliated (her spokesperson says she is not an atheist). And California Rep. Jared Huffman, who announced in 2017 that he was a humanist, and has also called himself a non-believer and a skeptic.

That news wasnt met with much fanfare. When appearing on Stephen Colberts show, the host jokingly said, Ill just put you down for heathen-slash-hell-bound.

Perhaps another poll shows why weve had no avowed atheists elected to Congress since the late Pete Stark, the brash California congressman who served from 1973 to 2013.

A 2019 Gallup poll asking Americans who they were willing to vote for revealed 60% said they would vote for an atheist, compared to 96% who would vote for a Black candidate, 94% for a woman, 76% for a gay or lesbian candidate and 66% for a Muslim. The only category an atheist beat out was a socialist (47%).

Surely, there are atheists in Congress and running for Congress, just as there are atheists everywhere else in America, even if they remain closeted. With the right using God to coax the party into regressive, punitive and at times increasingly scary places, heres hoping theyll finally have the courage to come out of the shadows.

secuppdailynews@gmail.com

Excerpt from:

The GOP weaponizes faith; will atheists object? New York Daily News - New York Daily News

BAKERSFIELD, CAThis week, longtime evangelist Nate Groze found himself grappling with his Christian beliefs during an online debate. He was presenting evidence for the resurrection when interrupted by the revelation that Jesus wasnt white, shaking the very foundations of his faith.

Why wasnt I told this before?? Mr. Groze cried after "Truth_S33ker_12345" broke the news to him on an atheist forum.Ive staked my faith on firsthand experience of Gods saving power, the historical evidence for the Bibles truth, and my unwavering faith that Jesus was a white man who looked exactly like me. How did I miss thisand how did my decades-long study of apologetics miss such a bombshell?

Sources confirm that Grozes feelings turned to guilt from not being prepared to give an answer for his hope of eternal life in Christ. I was prepared for the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and even the if sky Daddy real, why I no have girlfriend argumentbut never that Jesus was a brown man. Im devastated! I don't know what to believe anymore!"

At publishing time, Groze had his faith restored when he ate a banana, remembering Gods intelligent design in the natural peel, curve of the banana for easy consumption, and delicious taste with potassium to spare.

Judges at a school spelling bee are stumped and infuriated when a child dares to ask them for a definition of the word woman.

Read the original here:

Christian Has Devastating Crisis Of Faith After Internet Atheist Informs Him Jesus Wasn't White - The Babylon Bee

All Photos From The Pomona/Glass House Show By Thomas Delgado (For The Horde Productions)

As I made my way back up the 5 freeway leaving behind the anti-climactic NAMM (Nation Association Of Music Merchants) convention, I also left behind the hangover I was feeling from the day before. I had to get myself in order and cruise back to L.A. for another killer show at the 1720. Ive said before, the skid row-adjacent hood location isnt the most appealing, nor are the over-priced beers but its a venue that is holding it down in terms of great HEAVY shows and tours hitting Los Angeles. On this night in particular, the line-up was stacked with Brutal and Technical bands in that of CONTRARIAN and SOREPTION, capped off by a pair of Old School names in that of ATHIEST and the mighty SUFFOCATION.

Up first and opening the night was CONTRARIAN, a progressive Death Metal band from New York of which on this tour only consisted of 3 out of 5 regular members. Vocalist Jakob Sin was filling in on this tour for an absent Cody McConnell and also absent was drummer Bryce Butler who was currently out on tour with SHADOW OF INTENT. Not much was known of this band but they made a good impression despite a thin crowd. Very technical stuff almost made it hard to wrap your head around but they have a strong sound. Still a young band with only 4 albums under their belt, the lastest in 2020 and one album Their Worm Never Dies (2019) features Sick Drummer George Kollias its obvious they arent kidding around demonstrating their musical ability of chords and melodies, and drumming as complex as possible. Id be interested to see these guys again in full-form.

SOREPTION was a band that was on my radar for some time now. Swedish Death Metal is another label that deserves a hefty representation and SOREPTION definitely has all the meat-and-potatoes to carry the label. Unlike most Swedish DM, these guys are graced with awesome technicality and are more Brutal and a lot less melodic. They are one of modern Death Metals best with a young career of 4 albums and just over 10 years as a band. It takes a lot of effort playing complex, technical stuff and sometimes your stage presence suffers a little, which was the only thing missing from them. Otherwise, their music really took hold of the crowd who was just in awe of their skills. We got a taste of a couple of songs off their new album Jord and they performed this new material with ease.

I had always known the name ATHIEST but I admit that I wasnt really at all familiar with them other than a tune here and there that I heard and that they are legends from Florida. They have an avant-garde approach to their style of Death Metal that has gained them a loyal following ever since 1990s debut Piece Of Time (Active Records). There was a lot of energy coming off that stage thanks to frontman Kelly Shaefer and bassist Yoav Ruiz-Feingold (who actually came through on tour recently with HIDEOUS DIVINITY). After their split in 1994, then reforming in 2006, theyve only released 1 album since then in 2010, so their whole set was mostly all classic tunes from the 90s that demonstrates how ahead of the curve they are as being recognized as one of the early technical death metal bands, especially one to come out of Florida, ripe with Technical and Brutal Death Metal. Very entertaining to watch and hear.

Now with SUFFO, what can I say that I havent already stated. One of my favorite Death Metal bands of all time, Ive seen them several times late in their career and Ive been lucky enough to see them with Frank, Mike and Guy. Its be an understatement to point out the tremendous amount of respect I have for Terrance Hobbs and bass-beast Derek Boyer to keep SUFFO going. Guitarist Charles Errigo, Eric Morotti and his man-bun on Drums and drummer-turned-vocalist Ricky Meyer (DISGORGE) have done more than just earn their stripes. Theyve damn well murdered it. Ive caught this new line-up several times and they get better and better each time. SUFFOCATION came to kill. L.A. always shows love and I think Terrance and the guys were feeling it. With a setlist that was non-stop brutality, only playing 1 track of the last album while the rest went all the way back with cuts off Effigy OF The Forgotten, opening with "Liege Of Inveracity" and then the title track.

For an hour and 15 minutes, a set way too short, it was hard to fit in everyones favorites for sure but we needed songs like "Catatonia", "Thrones Of Blood", and a couple of my all-time favorites with "Bind/Torture/Kill" and "Infecting The Crypts". With a birthday shoutout to their merch girl right before "Entrails Of You" and a honorable mention of the recently departed Trevor Strnad to introduce "Pierced From Within" this only emphasized the Metal-bond that was felt not only in the room but the whole night.

*We were unable to provide photos from the L.A. show due to vandalism, but we got photos from the Pomona/Glass House show June 6th by Thomas Delgado (For The Horde Productions).

Check out some more photos from the tour!All Photos From The Pomona/Glass House Show By Thomas Delgado (For The Horde Productions)

If you don't have a username, click here to create an account!

Follow this link:

Reviews - SUFFOCATION, ATHEIST In Los Angeles With Photos! - KNAC.com