Category Archives: Atheist

Atheist: Leaving Bryn Mawr for Hillsdale

I arrived on Bryn Mawrs campus . . . in the Fall of 2019, Jane Kitchen recalls at Common Sense. She loved it. Then came COVID: The next few months were the worst of my life. She stayed home for the entirety of my junior year Bryn Mawrs protocols didnt make coming to campus worth it. So she started looking to transfer, finding that almost every school that was operating even remotely normally was overtly religious. Though shes an atheist, these schools were far more aligned with my values like individual liberty, critical inquiry, and diversity of thought than the place that explicitly claimed to be those things. Shes now in her third week at Hillsdale, a small school of less than 1,500 students, founded by Baptists in Michigan, and life is blissfully normal.

Substacker Freddie de Boer sees huge similarities between the domestic US responses to 9/11 and COVID. Liberals doomsaying over Omicron (e.g., a tweet warning Americans to be ready for a life rendered unrecognizable by the variant) carry a mindset of mandatory panic, the insistence that anyone who does not allow the crisis to dominate their internal life is somehow guilty of causing it, which de Boer sees as much like overblown concerns on domestic terrorism post-9/11. Indeed, many on the left seek to turn disaster into opportunity. Even if its merely the opportunity to do the only thing that gets them out of bed these days, the opportunity to judge others.

Struggling Democratic parents have snapped because of school COVID policies, warns Bethany Mandel at The Daily Mail. A single case of COVID can lead to a closure of 10-14 days, with no routine or steady childcare for parents of small children. Jersey mom Ashley says shes about as lefty as they come but upset that kids are masked, have no field trips, no extracurriculars, no sports and fumes that Democrats should be paying attention instead of gaslighting me and telling me everything is fine. During 2021, the number of Americans self-identifying as Democrat or Democrat-leaning dropped from 49% to 42%, notes Mandel, with the most pronounced shift coming in the fall, as children returned to school.

The public is right to give Bidenomics a thumbs-down, Andy Puzder explains at Fox News. For starters, the 5.7% GDP growth in 2021 was no surprise as a bounceback from 2020s negative 3.4%: When states reopened, given the depths to which the economy sank, GDP was going to increase no matter what Biden did. And if Bidens massive $1.9 trillion spending spree, which the Democrats passed in March, contributed to 2021s GDP growth, it came with a costly trade-off. That spending fueled a surge in demand, overwhelming already strained supply chains and driving inflation to a four-decade high. On employment, were still 2.9 million jobs, or 30% [of the total lost in lockdowns], below pre-pandemic levels. And Republican-led states are doing the best on the jobs front.

In making race and sex the paramount considerations for his Supreme Court nomination, President Biden will deal another blow to the quality of our most important institutions, laments Heather Mac Donald at City Journal. With Justice Stephen Breyer retiring and Biden poised to fulfill his campaign pledge to nominate a black female, its worth revisiting the White Houses February 2021 little-noticed announcement: It would skip the American Bar Associations traditional nominee vetting because its incompatible with diversification of the judiciary. Its a measure of how far the Biden administration intended to stray from even a diversity-driven standard of competence that it saw identity-obsessed ABA members as a roadblock. Bottom line: The quality of our jurisprudence matters. The race, sex, and gender identity of judges do not.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

View original post here:

Leaving Bryn Mawr for Hillsdale and other commentary - New York Post

The facts of Francis Bacons life are the ones that tend to envelop interpretations of his work: he was an alcoholic, atheist, gambler, and homosexual in an intolerant age.

This fraught personalization is not so surprising given his subject matter. Bacons paintings are full of personal torment, depicting solitary figures with their faces and bodies writhing or contorted beyond familiarity, seemingly trapped in the empty, airless spaces that define his work.

The Royal Academy of Arts just-opened exhibition, Francis Bacon: Man and Beast, aims to present the 20th-century artists work through a different prism: his fascination with the animal world.

While Bacon was very much a metropolitan louche in his adulthood, his childhood was immersed in nature. Born in Ireland to English parents, Bacon was raised on a horse farm (his father, a retired army officer, trained racehorses). The impressive exhibition brings together all of Bacons bullfighting paintings for the first time, as well as images of owls, a chimpanzee, and horse-like creatures.

Several works in the show, rather than depicting animals directly, hint at humankinds most primal nature. Among these is the seminal Head VI (1949), the first of Bacons paintings to reference Diego Velzquezs Portrait of Innocent X.(He would make close to 50 screaming pope paintings in his career.) The oil-on-canvas painting was the last of his 1949 Head series, and marked an important new chapter in the artists career.

On the occasion of the exhibition, weve unearthed three fascinating facts that might make you see the artists work in a new way.

Diego Velazquez, Portrait du pape Innocent X (1650).

While Francis Bacon was a devout atheist and an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church, his oeuvre is predicated on the iconography of Catholicism. This was the case from the very start of his career:the painting that defined Bacon as an enfant terrible of the art world wasThree Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion(1945). (A secondary version of this triptych, made in the 1980s, is on view in the RA exhibition.)

Why did he return to the image of the Pope, and Pope Innocent X, so frequently? The word Pope shares its etymological root with the word papa, and many have interpreted Bacons fixation with the Pope through the Oedipal lens of Bacons tumultuous relationship with his father, who scorned both his sons homosexuality and his desire to be an artist. In this vein, some have said that the Screaming Popes were a response to the Churchs teachings against homosexuality.

Others believe that Bacons fixation is rooted in his childhood, and his experiences living as a prosperous member of the English Protestant minority in Ireland.

Bacon was brought up during the Sinn Fin movement and once the Irish Republican Army was formed in 1919 guerrilla warfare broke out. During his boyhood, Bacons understanding of religion was marked by social and religious tension and isolation, writes art historian Rina Arya.

These formative experiences led to a conflation between violence and religion, and by extension, the Pope, as the incarnation of the Catholic Church, would have been viewed within this context of opposition and conflict.

Pope Innocent X, in particular, played a role in these historical tensions. During the English Civil War (164249), the pontiff acted is an important political player, offering significant arms and finances to support the Irish fight for independence in the hopes that it might establish itself as a Catholic-ruling nation. In such a way, the image so powerfully depicted by Velasquez embeds Bacons own experiences within a greater historical narrative.

Painter Francis Bacon in front of his paintings in Paris on September 29, 1987. (Photo by Raphael GAILLARDE/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

One might wonder why a depiction of the Pope is featured in an exhibition focused on Bacons fascination with animals. A close examination of Head VI offers clues.

A clear box appears to surround the pope; such pictorial enclosures were a device Bacon adopted in 1949, and would reappear in his works for decades to follow. Many art historians have interpreted such enclosures as pens or cage-like structures, perhaps symbolic of societys norms.

His apes are usually caged, his dogs slink helpless and cringing from their broken leashes, and his humans are often segregated within small chambers or otherwise shielded from the ignored enemies of contemporary civilization, writes art historian James Thrall Soby.

Whatever its psychological implications Head VI announces with full vigor an abiding obsession of the artist: the enclosures within which animals and humans alike live out their lives, he added.

The Royal Academy alludes to this synthesizing of man and animal in an exhibition text, saying: Whether chimpanzees, bulls, dogs, or birds of prey, Bacon felt he could get closer to understanding the true nature of humankind by watching the uninhibited behavior of animals.

Moreover, Bacon believed the mouth to be the most primal part of the human body. You know how the mouth changes shape. Ive always been very moved by the movements of the mouth and the shape of the mouth and the teeth. People say that these have all sorts of sexual implications, and I was always very obsessed by the actual appearance of the mouth and teeth, the artist wrote.

If the Pope is traditionally believed to be called by the divine, here Bacon pictures him as though called by the wild.

Still from Sergei M. Eisensteins film Battleship Potemkin.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him, cried out the madman.

While Frederic Nietzsche wrote those words aboutthe death of Christian civilization in the 1880s, the experience of World War II had heightened belief in the proverbial death of God. It is here, in the immediate aftermath of war, into which Head VIs scream is best understood. Bacons interpretation is diametrically opposed to sanctifications: it is, rather, located within the context of death, Arya said ofHead VI.

Bacon was a self-taught art historian and an avid cinephile, and his scream is one that exists on a continuum of cultural history. Bacon himself acknowledged that his image alluded to a scene in Sergei Eisensteins film Battleship Potemkin (1925), in which a nurse silently screams after being shot through her glasses. (Bacons Pope similarly cannot be heard). While Bacon often tried to rebuff affinities between his work and that of Edvard Munch, The Scream is a self-evident influence.

Bacon takes Munchs kitsch Nordic universal scream, critiques it, and refines it. He gives it teeth They express pain, the agony of orgasm, pity and terror, rage, appetite, fear, pleasure, Craig Raine wrote in a 2016 article. (In the context of war, one also thinks also of Picassos Guernica of 1937, which was deeply influential to a young Bacon.)

Edvard Munch, The Scream (1893). Courtesy of the National Gallery of Norway.

Its important to note that Bacons interest in the Pope came soon after he completed his 1946 Painting, a work laden with allusions to Nazism. A tassel (as though from a curtain) that appears in Painting returns in HeadVI,creating a strange conversation between the two.

The Popes head is bisected by the Hitlerian tassel his mouth is agape in a scream like in one of Goebbelss more frenzied exultation, notes Thrall Soby.

As the Screaming Popes continued, Bacon would insert increasingly direct references to contemporaneous pontiff Pope Pius XII, who some believe appeased the Nazis and who did not openly speak out against the Holocaust.

Considering Bacons Head VIin this context, Thrall Soby wrote: In his paintings, an inexplicable sense of opulence prevails, and [curator] David Sylvester is right in saying that Bacon prefers settings which are luxurious and simple lush velvet curtains and a gilded armchair like prison cells for high-born traitors.

See the article here:

Francis Bacons Screaming Pope Embodied Postwar AnguishHere Are 3 Surprising Facts About the Influential Painting - artnet News

The militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the events of the Exodus are myth, if he took into account the conclusions of many Egyptologists such as the Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, and the American archaeologist, Neil Asher Silberman.[i] They co-wrote a book entitled The Bible Unearthed, in which they claim that the evidence showing that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible is irrefutable.[ii] Some claim that the people of Israel didnt even exist at that time.

However, the American Old Testament scholar and an Egyptologist, Professor James Hoffmeier, disagrees.[iii] He makes the following points:

The first reference to Israel

The professor makes the point that a people group called Israel did exist at that time in history. He makes reference to the existence of an engraved stone pillar (a stele), on which Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great) boasted of his conquest of the surrounding nations, including Israel. This stone is called the Merneptah stele. It was discovered in 1896 by Flinders Petrie, and it is now located in the Cairo Museum.

Is there evidence of Semites living in Egypt?

There were three periods when Egypt was powerful. These have been called the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. Between these periods, Egypt was weak and unable to police its borders. This allowed the Semitic group, the Hyksos, to live in the Nile delta.

Its worth noting that the Bible has something to say about the date of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. It mentions that the exodus occurred 480 years prior to the laying ofthe foundations of Solomons temple in 966 BC (1 Kings 6:1). If the dating of the laying the foundation is correct, it would suggest that the Pharaoh at that time of the Exodus lived just before Amenhotep II, a pharaoh who lived well before Ramesses.

There can be little doubt that Hebrew people were enslaved in Egypt. An Egyptian list of domestic slaves (probably written in the 17thcentury BCE) contains not only Semitic names, but several specifically Hebrew names.

Children of the Nursery and the story of Joseph

The Pharaohs used to take foreign captive princes, if children, and train them up to serve Pharaohs purposes. A boy trained in this way was called A Child of the Nursery, and to be trained in such a way was considered to be a great honour. The training of Moses by the royal family is entirely consistent with this practice.

It is also significant that in 1980, the limestone tomb of Aper-El was discovered in Saqqara, the necropolis of Memphis. Aper-El, (El meaning God) was a Semitic man who became the prime minister (vizier) of Amenophis III in the 14thcentury BC.

Is the Exodus story a fiction?

Is the Exodus story a fiction written to help the Jews navigate their return from captivity at the time of the Persian Empire?

Possibly not, because some of the names mentioned in the Exodus story, e.g. Miriam and Hur (which literally means of Horus the Egyptian god), are Egyptian names. It is unlikely that a writer writing a fictional account in the Persian period would have given Egyptian names to his characters.

Enslavement

There can be little doubt that Hebrew people were enslaved in Egypt. An Egyptian list of domestic slaves (probably written in the 17thcentury BCE) contains not only Semitic names, but several specifically Hebrew names. This document is known as Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446.

There is also a wall painting of Nubian and Semites (distinguished by their scruffy beards) working as slaves under the goading of the Egyptian overlords.

Plagues

Plagues of the type mentioned in Exodus chapters 7-11 happened from time to time in Egyptian history. Plague pits of hastily buried bodies have been found.

The parting of the sea

The identity of the Red Sea (or the Sea of Reeds) is uncertain. It could easily be a series of three large lakes that flooded in the rainy season to become one lake. For some periods of the year, it was possible to thread your way round the three large lakes if you knew the path.

Why is there no record of a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt?

Papyrus records dont survive. The oldest extant papyri come from Roman times. As such, there is 2,000 years of silence regarding old Egyptian written records. The number of Jews recorded leaving Egypt was 600,000 men, according to Exodus 12:37. However, in Hebrew, the number is written with three words: six (shishshah), hundred (meyah), thousand (eleph). The tricky thing is eleph not only means a thousand, but also a clan or family unit (literally: people yoked together). If this is so, then the number of people involved in the Exodus could only be as few as 3,500 men, or 10,000 people overall.

The city of Ramesses

Ramesses father began to build the city, but then Ramesses II developed it into one of the biggest cities in the world. The city flourished between 1275 1130 BC. Unfortunately, the tributary of the Nile that fed the city and facilitated transport silted up, and so the city was abandoned, dismantled and moved to Tanis. This is why Ramesses is referred to as Tanis (biblical Zoan) in Psalm 78:12,43. It would be unlikely to have this detail if the Exodus story was fictional.

So, what do you think?

[i] Richard Dawkins Foundation No Exodus no Judeo-Christian faiths? Sept 5, 2013, see: https://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/no-exodus-no-judeo-christian-faiths/

[ii] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, (Simon and Schuster, 2002), p.63.

[iii] James Hoffmeier, interviewed by John Dickson in Undeceptions, The Exodus, Season 4, see: https://undeceptions.com/podcast/the-exodus

DrNickHawkesis a scientist, pastor, apologist, writer and broadcaster. He also describes himself as an absent-minded, slightly obsessive man who is pathetically weak due to cancer and chemo, who has experienced, and needs to experience, the grace of God each day.

This article is part of a series, Things I have been asked

Nick has written a book Soar above the Storm in which he draws on his experience of cancer to encourage anyone walking through a storm in life to find rest and hope in God. It offers a 40-day retreat to be refreshed and strengthened and find deep peace in God. Order it at Koorong.

He blogs and records podcasts at nickhawkes.net

Nick told his life story to Eternity here: Deadly storms, heroin addicts, cancer and my faith.

Some prayer points to help

What does the story of Scripture mean to you? If God can guide the children of Israel, what can you as his help with in your life?

Read the original post:

Did the Exodus really happen? - Eternity News

By Brian Blackwell, Baptist Message staff writer

BATON ROUGE, La. (LBM) A diverse lineup of ECON 2022 speakers, ranging from an atheist-turned-best selling author to state leaders to national personalities, exhorted Louisiana Baptists gathered in the First Baptist Church, Covington, January 24-25, to join the fight to share the Gospel.

KEITH MANUEL

Louisiana Baptist Evangelism and Church Growth Team Director Keith Manuel encouraged the crowd to share the Gospel with their families, co-workers and community.

Lets go do it because people need Jesus, Manuel said. Do it because we can and we get to and because we really got to because weve got a Lord that loved us.

Lets pray that God will help us to see those varied people in our neighborhood, he continued. Lets tell them about Jesus.

STEVE BECKHAM

Steve Beckham opened ECON by proclaiming Christ followers not only need to confess their sins but also find restoration of joy.

Drawing his message from Psalm 51:1-12, Beckham, pastor of First Community Antioch Baptist Church, Baton Rouge, said David was confronted by Nathan the prophet about his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and his subsequent murder of her husband.

Much like David, Louisiana Baptists must examine their hearts and have a sense of brokenness, Beckham said. By doing so, they will come to a place where they can ask God for restoration of joy.

How often do we find ourselves in a place, in a space, where something is missing and we dont know exactly what it is, said Beckham, who also is a missions strategist for the Baptist Association of Greater Baton Rouge. There is a void in us and we come here with a void, something only God can fill. So often when we find ourselves in a place and space of emptiness. We need to be renewed all over again, something that only God can give and only God can do it because He is the master creator.

SHANE PRUITT

Shane Pruitt said in his message, based on Acts 1:3-11, that now is the time of the Gospel, to be the church and to go share Jesus with others.

Pruitt, national Next Gen Director for the North American Mission Board, said the world needs for the church to make Jesus known, including what he considers the largest unreached people group in the United States Generation Z (those born from 1997-2012). Therefore, he said, they must be reached and discipled.

I believe in the sovereignty of God, but if we dont reach people with the Gospel by the time they are 18 or 30, we lose a whole generation, he said. Now is the time. Young people are not looking for cool leaders. They are looking for real, authentic ones.

Now is the time to be the Church and we have the greatest power that is inside of us, he continued. You dont have to dumb the Gospel down for this generation. Disciple them up.

WILLIE MCLAURIN

Willie McLaurin, vice president for Great Commission Relations and Mobilization for the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, reminded the crowd they are called to be a witness for Jesus and must be intentional about sharing Him.

Sharing from Acts 1:8, McLaurin said believers must be committed, concerned, consistent and confident in sharing their faith.

We must speak to sinners about the Savior, he said. Once we speak to sinners about the savior, we will see sinners come to the Savior.

He encouraged the crowd to embrace a Great Commission mindset and look for ways to share their testimony of how Jesus changed their lives.

Jesus is calling for laborers and He is calling for laborers to be consistent, he said. Every believer has a testimony of what God has done in their lives. And we ought to be able to share our story everywhere we go.

RICHARD ROSS

Richard Ross, professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and co-founder of True Love Waits ministry that promotes sexual abstinence, said todays youth are reachable for Christ but churches must make changes for that to come to fruition.

Referencing Joshua 23, Ross said the church today faces a critical time in student ministry. Some decisions must be made, including having Gospel conversations outside the church building, tasking parents with the role of discipleship in their home, involving other adults with the role of discipling teens and involving youth in the life of the church.

Ross said embracing the changes could very well result in the next great Jesus Movement, a spirit of revival that spread throughout the United States in the 1960s and 1970s.

Do you believe that almost exactly 50 years after the Jesus Movement we could have a King Jesus movement in our day? Ross said. What if our people really began to see him not as a doctrine but as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I honestly believe I could see another revival among the young that would affect the entire church. And I want to be right in the middle of it.

MICHAEL WOOD

Understanding Gods grace towards His children produces Christ-centered boasting, said Michael Wood, pastor of First Baptist Church, West Monroe.

Citing 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, Wood said Christ-followers must remember God is a much bigger deal than them.

Paul, in the passage, said His followers must remember they have brought nothing to the table but rather it is God allows them to be used for His glory, in spite of their downfalls.

Its not about what weve done, Wood said. Its about what Hes done.

DAVID EVANS

Not enough Christ followers share the Gospel, but David Evans has a simple solution to alleviate the problem.

Evans, pastor of Springfield Baptist Church, Springfield, Tennessee, said the account of Zacchaeuss conversion to Christianity (Luke 19), provides a blueprint for evangelism: be passionate about telling others of Jesus, seek every opportunity to practice sharing the Gospel and make disciples.

Evans reiterated the need to share Christ with those in search of the hope that only Jesus can give.

This whole world is shackled to hopelessness, he said. He needs us, He wants us, He has commanded us to reach out to those kind of people.

LEE STROBEL

Lee Strobel, a best-selling author and former atheist and investigative journalist, urged the crowd to show Christs love with those who have doubts about the faith.

Strobel originally went on a search to disprove Christianity but instead found a relationship with Jesus on Nov. 8, 1981. Just as others never stopped praying for Him to accept Jesus during that time, Strobel encouraged Christ followers never to give up on those who they want to see come to a relationship with the Lord. He later wrote about his journey in the best-selling book The Case of Christ.

Jesus prayer for spiritually lost people continued right up until His final gasps on the cross, Strobel said. Jesus didnt just say it once, He kept praying all through the torture of cross. In light of that, how do we not justify praying fervently for lost friends in our life? Im nave to believe the prayers of righteous people make a difference. Against all odds, I have seen it.

Strobel encouraged the crowd to invite questions, but be respectful when fielding questions from those who may doubt Christianity.

We can love them into the Kingdom of God, Strobel said. If we are committed to doing that, God will take us on a series of unexpected adventures that will be one of the joys of our lives.

Strobel closed ECON by sharing four proofs of the resurrection that brought him to faith in Jesus: proof of His execution, early accounts of His resurrection, evidence of an empty tomb and testimony from eyewitnesses. He said apologetics is an important evangelism approach Christ followers can use.

Evangelism in the 21stcentury is spelled apologetics, Strobel said. They want answers. They want truth. And the good news is we have truth on our side.

All messages from ECON 2022 are available on the Louisiana Baptists website by clicking here.

Waylon Bailey, pastor of First Baptist Church, Covington, opened ECON in prayer.

Steve Beckham opened ECON by proclaiming Christ followers not only need to confess their sins but also find restoration of joy. Beckham is pastor of First Community Antioch Baptist Church, Baton Rouge and missions strategist for the Baptist Association of Greater Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Baptist Evangelism and Church Growth Team Director Keith Manuel closed ECON with a prayer to share the Gospel with their families, co-workers and community.

Shane Pruitt said in his message, based on Acts 1:3-11, that now is the time of the Gospel, to be the church and to go share Jesus with others. Pruitt is national Next Gen Director for the North American Mission Board.

Willie McLaurin, vice president for Great Commission Relations and Mobilization for the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, reminded the crowd they are called to be a witness for Jesus and must be intentional about sharing Him.

The Jason Lovins Band led times of worship at ECON.

Richard Ross, professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and co-founder of True Love Waits ministry that promotes sexual abstinence, said todays youth are reachable for Christ but churches must make changes for that to come to fruition.

David Evans, pastor of Springfield Baptist Church, Springfield, Tennessee, said the account of Zacchaeus's conversion to Christianity (Luke 19), provides a blueprint for evangelism: be passionate about telling others of Jesus, seek every opportunity to practice sharing the Gospel and make disciples.

The award-winning Christian group Point of Grace encouraged the ECON crowd with a concert of their most loved hit songs.

Russ Lee, lead vocalist for Newsong, encouraged the ECON crowd with a concert.

Understanding Gods grace towards His children produces Christ-centered boasting, said Michael Wood, pastor of First Baptist Church, West Monroe.

Continued here:

ECON 2022 speakers rally Louisiana Baptists to share the Gospel - The Baptist Message

Editors Note:SpokaneFVS is publishing a series of columns on the subject of life after death.This long fascination with the afterlife crosses centuries, cultures, geography, religions, philosophy and science. What does life after death mean?Is it a subjective existence, a continuation of our consciousness or personhood as we knew it on earth? Is it a bodily existence, or a disembodied/spiritual existence?Who or what decides the character of the afterlife ?Is it possible to believe in God and deny life after death? If there is no afterlife, does that mean religion has lost its purpose? Does it mean our lives on earth are meaningless? These and other questions will be addressed over the next few weeks.

By Steven A. Smith

It all goes by so quickly.

We are a blink of an eye in the endless passage of time. We come, we go and even the greatest of us will become the faintest of memories.

How fervently we wish that were not the case. How can our lives matter so little? There must be more. There must be some continuation, some version of our life that continues after our earthly body dies.

I imagine most of us wish that were true. Many of us believe it to be true as a matter of faith.

My mother died in April 2020 at the beginning of the COVID pandemic. She was in a Medford, Oregon, rehab hospital recovering from a fall. I had been able to visit over Valentines weekend. It was a good visit. She was frail but mentally sharp.

One evening I asked her questions about her childhood while my brother videotaped her responses. We knew there was little time left to record those stories for her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. It was a good evening.

Shortly after, the hospital went into COVID lockdown. She was not able to return to her senior home. And no more visitors. So, when my mother took a sudden turn for the worse, we were not able to visit. And as she quickly slipped away even phone conversations became impossible. My brother, who lives nearby, was allowed in at the end. Just an hour or so before she died, he held the phone to her ear so I could say my goodbyes, to tell her how much I loved her and how her life had been a good one for which she should be proud.

She may have heard. But I will never know.

Through her life, even when living across the country, I would talk to my mother once a week. On the phone and during our visits, I exchanged the usual declarations of love and devotion. Routine, almost.

But when it mattered most, given one last meaningful opportunity, I was not able to say goodbye.

Of course, I wish that on my death I would be reunited with my mother, my father, my sister, and my brothers. That I could say the things I was unable to say in life, to enjoy an eternity in the company of those I love most. To be with my dear Carla.

A person of faith believes that would happen. Of course, in some faith traditions, those happy reunions depend on some form of judgment that makes us worthy. In some faith traditions, our worthiness can be assured even after a life of misspent evil if we repent even mere moments before death.

None of that has ever made sense to me. Fairy tales rooted in the dawn of humankind.

Anthropologists and historians are uncertain at what point in pre-history humankind began to believe in life after death. Animals that die are simply left in the wild to rot, to return to the earth. That was likely the case with the earliest humans. But there is ample evidence that at some distant point early humans, cave dwellers as we think of them, began to bury their dead, often with trinkets from their lives. What may have begun as simple hygienic acts morphed into some sort of presumption of life after death, of some continuation.

To this day we are fascinated by the religious beliefs of the earliest civilizations. Who is not astonished by the funerary rites of the ancient Egyptians who stocked their burial chambers with all manner of goods needed in the afterlife? Burial mounds around the world, from indigenous populations in North America, to northern Viking mounds, to burial chambers in South America, Africa, and Asia, reflect similar beliefs.

The worlds great religions have incorporated some version of the life-after-death mythology. Fairy tales.

As an atheist, any belief in the afterlife that I might have must be separated from religion. If I do not believe in a god then I cannot believe in heaven or hell or judgment or divine redemption.

For me, a belief in an afterlife would have to be rooted in something other than faith, in science, in physics, in the complex workings of the universe. So, for me, lacking any scientific evidence of any kind, I cannot believe in any form of life after death.

It is not as if science has not tried to find that evidence. There have been experiments over time to find out what happens to the human soul on death. There have been experiments to determine what happens to the electric energy that helps fuel our bodies. Does it just evaporate into the ether?

And there is a considerable body of literature dealing with near-death experiences and even with notions of reincarnation. And out of all that, nothing.

In being asked to consider this topic for a series of Faith and Values columns, one question was posed that some might think most troubles people like me. If there is nothing to come next, are our lives somehow rendered meaningless?

On the contrary, I believe our lives have greater meaning. We have only one chance one chance to hope, to strive, to learn, to love, and to mourn. If this is it, every moment is that much more precious. Every decision we make all the more important. There is no do-over. Ever.

My mother believed in an afterlife, though her conception was elusive. My father believed. Many of my friends believe. My wife believes.

One of my closest friends, a one-time Mormon, still believes that she will be greeting me in some sort of after existence. She will give me a big hug and we will both laugh at the folly of my disbelief.

If she is right, I will laugh with her and apologize for ever disputing her. And then I will go find Mom, and Dad, and when the time comes, dear Carla.

But if I am right, there will be no hugs from friends, no reunions with loving family. We will never know, of course, and it will not matter.

Time will move toward eternity without us as it always has and always will.

Go here to read the rest:

The Afterlife: This Is It. - SpokaneFVS - spokanefavs.com

Its Evolution Weekend in Lab and Pew, one hundred years after Harry Emerson Fosdick preached his famous sermon, Shall the Fundamentalists Win?

Ibelong to a group called the Clergy Letter Project directed by Professor Michael Zimmerman. Dr. Zimmerman designates the 2nd weekend of February each year to Evolution Weekend. Why? This weekend is closest to Charles Darwins birthday, February 12. And because in recent decades too much controversy over evolution has sundered Christian unity. How can lab and pew this coming Science Sunday heal this particular division?

In this series of Patheos column posts on Science and Religion I recently asked an Evolution Weekend question: should Christians dump Darwin? My answer: no. But there is so so so much more than evolution to think about on Science Sunday.

To my observation, harmony in the congregation I now serveCross and Crown Lutheran Church and School in Rohnert Park CAhas escaped this particular controversy. Nobody has waived their angry fists and denounced Charles Darwin. Whew.

Evolution Weekend 2022 will take up the urgent matter of climate change. As important as climate change is, I have two other thoughts to share.

Even though were not addressing climate change at this moment, we should still celebrate Science Sunday together. Why? Because there are two large cultural movements that we Christians should be concerned about: (1) the anti-science movement and (2) the militant atheist movement. Let me introduce them briefly.

First, weve witnessed in recent years an unexpected rise in anti-science sentiment. Scientists fear they have lost the social respect they once enjoyed. Do scientists need the churches as allies?

The Editors of Scientific American defend themselves from the social media siege. Social media amplifies toxic misinformation on an unprecedented scale (Fletcher and Jen Schwartz September 2019, 27). What defense is called for? Cool-minded attention to the data accompanied by sober conclusions. But such careful science seems to be under attach by anti-science.

During the Covid 19 pandemic, for example, much of our nation has sought advice from public health experts at the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control. To a large degree, these medical scientists are in a position to save countless lives. Yet, these scientists are widely disbelieved. Even vilified. The result is a death toll beyond our imaginations only two years ago. This phase of the anti-science movement is self-destructive.

Why has the public lost trust in our scientific experts? Should we in the churches announce solidarity with scientific knowledge and even with the scientists as persons? My Evolution Weekend answer is, yes.

Second, a new and vicious form of atheism has arisen. It began in the fall of 2006 with the publication of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion;. It has only increased in influence since. Militant atheists blame religion for the worlds violence and attack our beliefs with incessant ridicule. Atheist missionaries recruit our teenagers daily on cell phones.

Part of the propaganda technique is to pretend that only the atheists own science. If science is the sheeps clothing, the atheist is the wolf hiding beneath the scientific cloak. [Wolf in Sheeps Clothing by Harry Warwick]

We in the churches need to discern the difference between good science and the wolf-atheist hiding beneath it. This will not be easy.

University of Chicago biologist, Jerry Coyne, for example declares war against religion. What Coyne hides here is that hes declaring war on behalf of atheism, not on behalf of science.

Religion and science are engaged in a kind of war, a war for understanding, a war about whether we should have good reasons for what we accept as true.I see this as only one battle in a wider wara war between rationality and superstition. Religion is but a single brand of superstition (others include beliefs in astrology, paranormal phenomena, homeopathy, and spiritual healing), but it is the most widespread and harmful form of superstition(Coyne 2015, xii).

Evidently, we people of faith should cower in humiliation because we fall into irrationality and superstition. Oh, my head hurts! I earned my Ph.D. at Dr. Coynes university.

When confronting the likes of Coyne on Evolution Weekend or any other time, religious eyes must see through the scientific clothing to the atheist-wolf beneath.

For the health of our society, we need a heavy dose of both science and religion. The great physicist, Albert Einstein, said: Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind(Einstein 1950, 26) To heal from being lame and blind, we ask that our scientific knowledge be complemented by our faith in God.

In a previous post I asked: can science dispense with religion? My answer: no. To be more precise, society cannot dispense with either science or religion. Chicago pastor Peter Marty recognizes the complementarity.

Scientific explanation, beautifully constructive as it is, cant exhaust reality. Faith helps complete the picture by turning our lives toward the reality of a personal God who loves and sustains this gloriously complex cosmos (Marty April 2014, 3).

Indian theologian Job Kozhamthadam draws two conclusions: (1) a constructive dialogue between science and religion is possible; and (2) such a dialogue is much needed(Kozhamthadam 2002, 40). [1]

Finally, how best to celebrate Science Sunday during Evolution Weekend? If youre in a pew, stand up. Walk to the lab. Find a scientist and deliver a big hug.

Ted Peters directs traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is a professor at the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS), in Berkeley, California, USA. He is author of Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) and editor of AI and IA: Utopia or Extinction? (ATF 2019). Watch for his forthcoming volume with ATF, The Voice of Christian Public Theology. Visit his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

ESSSAT (European Society for the Study of Science and Theology) publishes a fine newsletter. Visit also Greg Cootsonas blog, Science for the Church, along with reading the Science and Religion Initiative Newsletter. The journal, Zygon, has been a pioneer publication for half a century, drawing scholars from IRAS (Institute for Religion in an Age of Science).

In Berkeley, I work with physicist-theologian Robert John Russell at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, which is part of the Graduate Theological Union. For two decades we have published a fine scholarly journal, Theology and Science. The science-religion sandbox is filled with lots and lots of toys for our minds to play with.

Coyne, Jerry. 2015. Faith vs Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible. New York: Viking.

Einstein, Albert. 1950. Out of My Later Years. New York: Philosophical Library.

Fletcher, Seth, and and Kate Wong Jen Schwartz. September 2019. Truth, Lies, and Uncertainty. Scientific American 27.

Golshani, Mehdi, Ed. 2021. Can Science Dispense with Religion? 5th. Tehran: Al-Mustafa International Publication and Translation Center.

Kozhamthadam, Job. 2002. Science and Religion: Past Estrangement and Present Possible Engagement. In Contemporary Science and Religion in Dialogue: Challenges and Opportunities, by ed., Job Kozhamthadam, 2-45. Pune, India: ASSR Publications, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth.

Marty, Peter. April 2014. Science and Faith. The Living Lutheran 3.

Link:

Evolution Weekend and Science Sunday | Evolution Weekend - Patheos

The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) once said that "Supreme Court nominations are an occasion to pause and reflect on the values that make our nation strong." As a new confirmation process is about to begin, Kennedy's words could guide us, if only we could agree on what those values are.

Confirmations often are a reflection of our political divisions and even our rage. Even with that history, the confirmation fight over replacing Justice Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerWhite House confirms Judge J. Michelle Childs under consideration for Supreme Court Photos of the Week: Breyer retirement, bridge collapse and White House cat Willow Senate panel delays confirmation hearing for circuit court nominee amid SCOTUS speculation MORE sets a new and ominous record: The controversy began before Breyer announced his resignation, before anyone was nominated by President BidenJoe BidenFormer chairman of Wisconsin GOP party signals he will comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena Romney tests positive for coronavirus Pelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better MORE. We seem to have reached the ultimate political stage of development, of no longer even needing a nominee for our confirmation fights.

The controversy over this nomination actually began roughly two years before the vacancy was announced. In March 2019, Biden said during a Democratic primary debate that he would only consider black females for the next Supreme Court vacancy. It was a promise elicited byRep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) during a break in the debate; Clyburn then gave Biden his critical endorsement before the key South Carolina primary. The judge Clyburn supports is now on Bidens short list.

The pledge not to consider people based on their race and genderraised immediate concerns. This week, with Justice Breyer standing beside him, President Biden affirmed that he wouldexclude anyone who is not black or female. He would, in other words, not even consider Breyer himself, or even the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, because they are the wrong race or gender.

In making his pledge, Bidencreated a glaring contradictionfor the court. He is using a threshold exclusion based on race and gender that the court has repeatedly declared either unconstitutional or unlawful for schools and businesses to use in their own admissions or hirings. There is a difference between a preferential and an exclusionary rule in selection. That contradiction will be magnified this term after thecourt accepted two cases that may further curtail or even bar the use of racial preferences in college admissions. Indeed, the new justice will hear arguments on the discriminatory use of such criteria after being initially selected not in a preferential rule, but an actual exclusionary rule based on race and gender.

In response to that observation, a host of commentators insisted that PresidentsReagan, TrumpandGeorge H.W. Bushmade the same pledge.That is false.While seeking to appoint women and AfricanAmericans, none of the three excluded otherraces or genders from consideration, and they had diverse short lists.Notably, however, nocommentatorsactually denied that Biden was using a test foradmission tothe court that the High Court itself would not allow for universities or businesses. Even if not unlawful, there is a legitimate question of whether a threshold test considered unconstitutional for schools should be used for the court that is tasked with barring such tests.

After applauding Biden for excluding candidates on the basis of race and gender (including Asian Americans and Hawaiians), Sen. Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoDemocrats, poised for filibuster defeat, pick at old wounds Schumer prepares for Senate floor showdown with Manchin, Sinema Dems worry they'll be boxed out without changes to filibuster, voting rules MORE (D-Hawaii) went on MSNBC to emphasize one other important credential: a willingness to go beyond what the law says, in order to do what is right.

Hirono told MSNBC's Ari Melber that she is looking for "someone who will consider the impact, the effects of whatever decision-making is on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on which I would like them to base it on law, which would be nice, and precedent, and who are not eagerly trying to get rid of decades of precedent that would protect a womans right to choose, for example, and voting rights, et cetera. But Id like a justice who also will take into consideration the real-life impact of the decisions he or she will be making.

If you unravel that statement, you find a striking (and, frankly honest) statement that Hirono wants someone who will not be just another justice "making decisions just based on ... law" but who "will take into consideration the real-life impact of the decisions he or she will be making.

Hirono has often been criticized for inflammatory statements during confirmations, as well as hersupport for court-packing. During the Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughSchumer finds unity moment in Supreme Court fight Manchin open to supporting Supreme Court pick more liberal than him Vaccine mandate for health workers starts to take effect MORE confirmation, Hirono strongly implied more than once that the nominee wasnot entitled to a presumption of innocenceand that men should "just shut up."

While endlessly controversial, Hirono may be one of the more honest members of the Senate: Most of her colleagues adopt euphemistic or obscure terms to convey such notions without taking ownership of the real implications. Many, for example, embraced Justice Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorIncoming Georgetown Law administrator apologizes after backlash over Supreme Court tweets Supreme Court clears way for Alabama execution Sotomayor: It's important that Supreme Court not be seen as 'institution for entertainment' MORE's statement that a "wise Latina"might very well reach a better conclusion in a case than a white man. Notably, that statement wasmade in opposition to the famous statement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connorthat she did not view herself as a female jurist, that on a legal issue a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion.

There is no question that life experiences shape our perspectives and values. However, O'Connor was emphasizing that citizens rely on justices to rule on what the law means, not what they want the law to mean. If it is constitutional, what the law means should not depend on the impacts you favor or disfavor. The danger of identity politics shaping constitutional interpretations is precisely what O'Connor sought to rebut. The meaning of the Clean Air Act or the Commerce Clause should not depend on an individual justice's life experiences. Likewise, the fact that a justice is a Jew, a Christian or an atheist should not shape their interpretation of the Constitutions religion clauses.

Of course, the relevance of one's life experiences depends greatly on ones ideological bent. For example, while liberal lawmakers and many in the mediacelebratedthe background of Justice Sotomayor as "inspiring," they largely ignored the incredible life story of Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasBiden's Supreme Court choice: A political promise, but also a matter of justice Manchin and Sinema must help Biden make the Supreme Court look more like America The Hill's Morning Report - Who will replace Justice Breyer? MORE. While Sotomayor spent time in public housing with a single mother, Thomas grew up speaking Gullah, a Creole dialect, and his home was a one-room shack with dirt floors and no plumbing; he grew up without a father, who left him at age two. Thomas, the second African American to sit on the court, did notmake the cut of "Great African Americans"featured by the Smithsonians African American Museum but his accuser during his Senate confirmation hearing, Anita HillAnita Faye HillMeet Washington's most ineffective senator: Joe Manchin Joe Biden's surprising presidency Gloria Steinem: 'International Women's Day means we are still in trouble' MORE, did.

The life experience of Justice Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettBiden's Supreme Court choice: A political promise, but also a matter of justice The Hill's Morning Report - Democrats sense opportunity with SCOTUS vacancy Schumer finds unity moment in Supreme Court fight MORE also was not a positive factor in her confirmation. Ibram X. Kendi, an influential liberal race theorist, compared Barrett's adoption of two Haitian children to being a "white colonizer" and suggested that she is using them as "props." Hirono has been criticized fortargeting judicial nominees deep Catholic beliefsand amplified her opposition to Barrett by voting "Hell, no" on the Senate floor. (Hirono is now calling on GOP colleagues to "keep an open mind" with Biden's nominee.)

After the Kavanaugh bloodletting, this is not an auspicious beginning.

However, this nominee will not a transformative pick in terms of the likely outcomes of the court. Breyer will be replaced by a someone selected as a reliable vote on the left of the court; thus, the nominee will not change the courts balance.

The question is whether this confirmation will change how future nominees are selected.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Read the original:

Confirmation bias: The fighting has already begun, and Biden hasn't even named a nominee | TheHill - The Hill

Throughout 49 years of Roe v. Wade, the legal and cultural tactics around abortion may have shifted, but the central question remains the same: Where do we draw the boundaries of personhood? And how do we make law in a country where there is so little agreement on who is a person under the law?

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health by the end of June. The Mississippi law at the heart of the case bans abortion after 15 weeks, an approach that is explicitly disallowed by the viability and undue burden standards established in Roe and revised in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Simply agreeing to hear the case meant the court is conceding that Roe might be overturned.

The original holding in Roe attempted to ground its trimester framework for abortions in scientific fact, not moral values. It was shaky from the beginning. Little about the pacing of pregnancy lends itself to bright-line cutoffs. Viability has crept forward as medical science has advanced, due dates systematically underestimate actual delivery dates, and the first two weeks counted in the 40 weeks of pregnancy occur before conception has taken place. (Thus, six-week heartbeat bans actually pertain to fetuses that are only four weeks old).

But during oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made it clear she wants abortion jurisprudence to be rooted in the objective and the universal, not in questions of faith or philosophy. She asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart whether the state can have a legitimate interest in the question of when life begins, or whether raising the question at all is straying into matters of religion. Sotomayor asked, How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. Its still debated in religions.

Since the question isnt viewed as settled in America, Sotomayor saw it as inappropriate to assert the state has an interest to protect possible life. Her questioning implied that the state should restrain itself to consider unambiguous harms, such as the medical risk of pregnancy to the mother things that could be measured in maternal mortality statistics and other more scientific ways.

As a former atheist, I felt she was selling secular philosophy and politics short. We cant bracket all contested questions as religious and outside the realm of government. Atheists, no less than religious people, urgently want to know what it means to live well. Abortion attracts the attention of nonreligious thinkers precisely because the topic is contested and the stakes of the question are high. No one wants to shortchange either mother or child; the question is what we owe to each, and how we know.

As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his own comments, the question of when life begins is contested by secular philosophers, as well as religious scholars. Peter Singer argues that not just abortion, but infanticide is morally acceptable in the case of babies with serious disabilities. Secular pro-life makes its case against abortion by arguing that, from the moment of conception, a fetus is human, and alive, and that human life is human life. Neither argument hinges on specifically religious claims. Whatever the decision in Dobbs, there will be both atheists and religious people dissatisfied with the outcome.

Living in a pluralistic society means writing laws and issuing judicial decisions which dont match everyones deeply felt moral views. The state cant remain neutral on the questions of murder, just war, moral desert and welfare aid, or other contentious issues. Every law makes a value judgment, and every value judgment presumes an ethical and metaphysical basis for that judgment.

Where a loose consensus prevails, it is easy to imagine that we have left ethical and religious questions behind and are dealing with naked and incontestable facts. But this undersells how much philosophy and metaphysics are the foundation of our choices even the ones that dont feel like choices at all.

In many of the moral decisions we make, we have a strong sense of what is right, without having to appeal to first principles, religious or secular. We tend to struggle with finding the will to follow our conscience, not the initial problem of discerning what is right.

In the same way, its easy to catch or throw a ball without ever having studied the physics of how, exactly, the ball tumbles through the air. The physics are still real, whether or not we can rattle off the equations. But, in moral and material things, we often rely on a strong sense of what is true, without having to know why it is true.

Its the harder or contested cases that force us to go back and examine the foundations, although our easy choices are as rooted in religious and philosophical questions as the hard ones are. There are no neutral or unrooted moral facts. Every claim about morality, just like every claim about an object in motion, is rooted in a theory of how the world works and where we stand.

Politicians, justices and ordinary citizens dont limit their own credibility by admitting that their analysis is informed by their values. Theres no alternative to philosophy in politics or in any domain of personal life.

Leah Libresco Sargeant is the author of Arriving at Amen and Building the Benedict Option. She runs the substack Other Feminisms, focused on the dignity of interdependence.

More here:

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned? What are the arguments against it? - Deseret News

A growing number of Americans are losing their religion.

Recent numbers show daily prayer, church attendance, and the number of self-proclaimed Christians are all on the decline. Part of this trend includes the growing number of people with no religious affiliation called religious "nones."

In 2021, the Pew Research Center found self-identified Christians make up 63% of the U.S. population, a drop from 75% just 10-years ago. The majority of this decline is happening among Protestants, dropping 10-points in the last decade, while Catholicism remains relatively unchanged. During the same period, researcher Gregory Smith says the number of religious "nones" has almost quadrupled since Pew Research began its Religious Landscape study in 2007.

"When we ask people about their religious identification: Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, something else or nothing in particular the religious "nones" are those people who answer that question by describing themselves as Atheist, Agnostic, or 'nothing in particular'," Smith said.

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Religious "nones" currently account for about 3-in-10 U.S. adults or 29%. That number is up to 10-percent in the last 10 years. Smith says those secularizing shifts show no signs of changing or slowing down.

"One thing about this trend is that it's very broad-based," says Smith. "Religious 'nones' are growing among men and women they're growing among college graduates and those with less education. They're growing in every region of the country. As older Americans age and as they begin to pass away, they are being replaced by a new generation of young adults that's coming of age with far lower levels attachments of religion than their parents and grandparents before them. So that's a big key part of what's happening."

Another indicator that Americans are growing less religious includes prayer. Fewer than half of adults pray daily. Thirty percent say they seldom pray or not at all.

Still, 4-in-10 adults say they consider religion to be "very important" in their lives.

Matt Chandler, the lead pastor of the Village Church and president of Acts 29 Church Planting Network, says the data is scary because it's marked by a generation of former believers who grew up in the church.

"Somehow we missed them," Chandler said. "We were unable to get them ready to live in the world that their life is playing out in now I think the church needs to own that it's done a poor job discipling the next generation. We put a lot of weight into maybe entertaining them, but (didn't) really help them understand the beauty and depth and richness of the scriptures, and what it means to be loyal to Jesus Christ."

To better understand the reasons why someone would leave their faith, we talked with Jon Steingard, former lead singer for Hawk Nelson, a Canadian Christian rock band. His decision reflects America's changing religious landscape.

"Anybody who leaves any sort of religious community they have to figure out how to hold themselves together and also how to find their way in the world, and that's actually not so easy to do," Steingard said. "I see the value in these religious practices, even if I don't believe in the metaphysical claims of Christianity or any other religion I have become more appreciative of some of the practices and how they can (positively) impact your life."

Steingard, whose father and father-in-law are both pastors, announced his disbelief in God on Instagram at the height of the pandemic. His announcement sent shockwaves throughout the Christian music community. He said people who leave a faith tradition tend to focus on the negative aspects of that tradition.

Steingard said he thinks there are three recurring reasons why people leave the faith: differing beliefs on gay rights, failed support for social justice issues, and political platforms using faith to advance certain polarizing agendas.

"A lot of religious traditions offer you a built-in life purpose," he said. "For the religious 'nones' of America, there is no prescribed life purpose. So for someone like me, it has been a journey of discovering what I value: which are my family and the people in my life. And (I'm focused on) getting myself and family to become stable enough so we can become a stabilizing force for others."

Prolific pastors see the rise of religious "nones" as an opportunity for innovation around evangelism. Matt Chandler is working to sow seeds of hope through his church planting ministry. To encourage support, he plans to fund each new church planter who partners with the Acts 29 Network, up to $50,000. Today, the network supports over 700 churches in 50 countries.

"There's two forces at play here you've got the kingdom of God and you've got the kingdom of darkness," Chandler said. "And I think what you're seeing is a collapse of robust discipleship for an extended period of time. It's not one great big church that threatens the gates of hell, it's 1,000 little lights in the darkness that makes up the heat in the gospel. So I want to be about pouring into that and giving my influence, time, and money towards that."

Chandler and others remain undaunted by America's religious realignment. They still see fertile ground for outreach to "nones" and others and for growth among professing believers through genuine Christian discipleship.

Originally posted here:

'The Nones' Are on the Rise, That's Why This Church Movement Is Lighting '1000 Little Lights in the Darkness' - CBN News

(RNS) In the United States, secularism has become synonymous with atheism. But thats a big mistake, argues Jacques Berlinerblau, a Georgetown University professor.

At its core, secularism is an approach to governance, writes Berlinerblau in his new book, Secularism: The Basics. And critically, it is one many religious people, not just atheists and agnostics, support.

In fact, although the word secularism was first used around 1851, its key components were hammered out long before that by some deeply devout Christians. Among them, none other than Martin Luther, the great reformer, who was so distrustful of the Roman Catholic Church he wanted secular government (in the form of princes) to maintain the law.

In Berlinerblauswide-ranging but compact primer, which looks at how various countries have implemented secularism, he outlines the 10 principles of secular government, including equality for all, the supremacy of the state, freedom of conscience and the idea of disestablishment, meaning the government must divest itself of loyalty to any one faith.

Berlinerblaus book also identifies what he calls lifestyle secularisms, people for whom secularism is an identity. Among them, of course, are the so-called New Atheists, who are hellbent on eviscerating religion. That movement, he suggests, has run out of steam.

RELATED: Is God good for America? Depends whom you ask.

But as he points out, among secularisms champions are lots of religious people, most especially religious minorities. In this country, the overwhelming number of Jews, Muslims, Mormons, even Catholics, champion secularism as a form of government, because they believe it can be a better referee of their liberties than a state church.

Religion News Service talked to Berlinerblau about secularism and why its gotten such a bad rap (both from religious conservatives as well as some postmodern scholars who have criticized it).

The following interview was edited for length and clarity.

Yes, with the proviso that there is a spectrum ranging from extreme forms of secularism to theocracy. On that spectrum are perfectly livable nonsecular states. Then, as we move across the spectrum, we find all sorts of intermediary nonsecular forms of governance where there is lack of freedom of religion for minorities, crackdowns on freedom of speech, lack of tolerance for nonbelievers and heretics, etc. And then we get to out-and-out theocracy: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Iran.

Separationism is just one form of secularism; its one way of doing it. In the U.S., it hasnt been well thought out, theorized or legally grounded. Heres the problem: Separationism is not in the First Amendment. In a private letter, (Thomas) Jefferson said we must build a wall of separation between church and state. But with the Great Awakening on the horizon, and with Mr. Jefferson having a reputation as an iconoclast, atheist and a troublemaker, nobody listened to him. Separationism wasnt really in the judicial mix from 1800 to the mid-20th century.

From 1947 to 1985, separationist secularism, as a binding judicial and legislative framework, was, finally, a real live thing. Under the influence of Justice Hugo Black, our legislators and judges believed there was a constitutional mandate to separate church and state. But that argument rested on a rather wobbly foundation because, as I noted, separationist secularism isnt in the Constitution. But that doesnt nullify secularism or negate the need for secularism in the United States.

The U.S. Capitol is seen at dawn in Washington on Sept. 27, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Ive tried to chart better ways to use the Constitution to render the deliverables of separationism to long-suffering American citizens be they religious minorities, religious moderates or the religiously unaffiliated, atheists and agnostics. One possibility is the 14th Amendment. American secularism should linger on the amendments guarantee of equal protection under the law. Why should a Jewish woman in Texas be subjected to a conservative Christian conception of when life begins? Why should a gay couple in Kentucky be denied a marriage license because of the religious free-exercise right of a county clerk? I would advise the secular movement to move away from separationism and couch its legal arguments and strategy in terms of equal protection under the law.

Yes, its more accommodationist than separationist! Few are aware of the shift that occurred when George W. Bush introduced his Office of Faith-based Initiatives and Neighborhood Partnerships as his first executive act in 2001. What Bush was saying is what the Christian right was saying for decades: There was a place for religion in public life and there was a place for the government to accommodate and work with religion because that partnership accrues to the common good.

Thats a core assumption of a doctrine I call accommodationism. Accommodationisms roots are in India. It comes from the fertile imagination of Mahatma Gandhi and some others. Gandhi believed faith and spirituality were great social assets and the government should encourage and support religion for the greater good of the state itself. When Bush introduced this office, he murdered separationism. Yet strangely, many Americans dont understand that this shift happened. The American government is now trying to accommodate religion, not separate itself from it.

But accommodationism leaves a lot of unanswered questions: What do you do with religious groups that are violent or seditious or racist or homophobic? Should the government support them, too? Write them a check? But perhaps the biggest problem with accommodationism is what to do about the equal rights of nonbelievers? Can the government accommodate atheists and agnostics? If not, why not?

Secular polities are based on reason, not revelation; science, not suras. But, that said, if secularism were to engage in a PR campaign to win over religious hearts and minds, the idea of everyone being created in Gods image and therefore entitled to being treated equally by the governing authorities thats one place to start. Ive always liked the Book of Ruth and its insistence we should all just get along. Then theres Romans 13, in which (the Apostle) Paul is urging Christians to submit to the government authorities. He didnt say become the governing authorities, take over school boards, run for office, storm the Capitol!

To me, the interpretations that are dominant in conservative Christianity run against the grain of many biblical verses.

Secularism sometimes develops an addiction for order at any cost. Enlightenment theorists like John Locke saw the world almost collapse because of religious violence. So their solution was a strong government that assures order. Such a government can assure religious people the right to worship in peace and safety. Thats a very nice idea.

The problem is that secularisms sometimes fetishize order. In so doing they obliterate other secular principles, like freedom of conscience or toleration. The tragic flaw in various secular regimes the Soviet Union, Baathist Syria, the Peoples Republic of China is the elevation of the idea of order to an extent that verges on totalitarianism.

Secularisms have to learn to control themselves. Governments cant simply do anything they want. There have to be checks and balances, brakes on the awesome and often frightening power of the state. Secularism goes wrong when it elevates order to the raison dtre of the secular state.

Theres a second problem that occurs when secularisms establish atheism or nonbelief as the religion of the state. This is a recipe for disaster and the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China have followed this approach.

I was struck by a structural asymmetry. Whereas religious groups mobilize across geopolitical boundaries Islamists, Catholics, Mormons, the Jewish Chabad movement secularists are always national. Its puzzling to me that secularism never developed transnational movements or regional movements of like-minded folks who are equally chagrined or discriminated against by a given religious orthodoxy.

I wonder how different things would be if there were a secular caucus in the U.N., led by France, say. These secular countries would look at nations in which religious minorities and nonbelievers are deprived of their human rights or civil rights and advocate on behalf of secular governance rather than the states established religion. Its a thought experiment. The absence of transnational secularism is really, really interesting.

Yes (in italics, caps, and exclamation points)! That was one of the drivers of writing this book. I have nothing but respect for journalists. They have performed heroisms for this country, especially in the past few years. That said, there has been a malignant confusion about these terms secularism, secularity, atheism, secular humanism and thats what I sought to rectify.

RELATED: Dalai Lama says Chinas leaders dont understand diversity

See the rest here:

Secularism is not atheism. A new book explains why the distinction is so critical. - Religion News Service