Category Archives: Atheist

LORD Patten of Barnes told pupils, staff and parents of St Benedicts School, Ealing, this week of the lasting influence teachers can have on their students.

He was presenting the Patten Scholarship awards as a former pupil and now patron of the Roman Catholic independent day school.

Lord Patten stressed the vital role staff play in an individuals formation.

He contrasted his St Benedicts history teacher a Christian socialist - with the Marxist atheist historian Christopher Hill, who interviewed and later taught him at Oxford.

While Hill had been an outstanding historian and teacher, he didnt make the young Patten a Marxist atheist.

On the current debate around free speech on university campuses, Lord Patten said it was "important to appreciate the difference between an argument and a quarrel.

Three of this years five Patten scholars also spoke, describing how St Benedicts had encouraged them to read widely, to be intellectually curious and open to learning about a wide range of subjects.

This years award for the most successful scholar went to Niall Wynne (Year 13), who intends to read physics at university and has been researching Airborne Wind Energy.

Lord Patten attends the Academic Scholars Evening at St Benedicts each year. He is Chancellor of Oxford University, a crossbench member of the House of Lords and the last British Governor of Hong Kong.

Read the original here:

Lord Patten on Ealing history teacher who helped influence his life - Ealing Times

Pearces Potshots #53: Omniscience, Omnipotence, Foreknowledge, Judgment, Animals & Humans, Free Will, Anthropomorphism, & Anthropopathism

From dialogue on atheist and anti-theist Jonathan MS Pearces Tippling Philosopher blog, under his article, The Bible Shows God Is Not Omniscient (11-11-21). Words of eric will be in blue, those of Ben B in green, of Jonathan (from the original post) in brown, and words of MadScientist1023 in purple.

*****

I feel like triggering Dave Armstrong and what better way to do this than to get his longjohns in a twist about the Noahs Flood story. This is from a chapter I am editing in a book I am just finishing (would be ready for proofers to look at later today I have appealed to three previous proofers, but if anyone else wants to look at it, please let me know below):

The final story here that shows that God really doesnt have omniscience is the Noahs flood story. This never happened, that much is true. . . .

We must understand that this is a story of God killing all of humanity, bar eight [He didnt; it was not anthropologically universal], and all of the animal kingdom bar two of each kind [He didnt; it was a local Mesopotamian Flood] (or seven depending on which iteration of the story from Genesis you read) [Ive addressed that issue, too]. That is an awful lot of death. Why? Because God thenrealised how wicked humanity had become. He either never knew this before or he is very forgetful.

In fact, the whole nature of the story is one big invalidation of his omni-characteristics. He realises that he has messed up his creation in that his designed and created humans were all wicked, destroys them all and starts over, all the while promising never to send such floods and destruction again. This is a very human anthropomorphic god acting in a very human, non-omniscient way.

God is clearly showing a limited knowledge of how his creation would operate going forward he is being reactive and not proactive. Simply put, this story as told invalidates Gods omniscience and foreknowledge.

A truly omnibenevolent and omniscient god would not have knowingly designed and created something for the main components to go wrong right at the start and then have to destroy them all (you know, with healthy loving dollops of suffering and death) and start again. This is incompetence at best, malevolence at worst.

Or, the flood never happened and OmniGod doesnt exist.

There, fixed it.

Nothing here to get ones longjohns in a twist about.

Different Christians believe different stuff (really!!!), and there are hyperliteralist fundamentalists (nokidding!!!). Ho hum. Yawn. Truth is not determined by taking a poll of heads. Thats thead populumfallacy.

The other stuff about God being ignorant, supposedly taken by surprise, etc. has to do with the non-literal literary devices of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism and their frequent employment by the biblical writers. Ive explained this many times, including to you, but obviously to no avail.

For those who want to actuallyproperlyunderstandthis aspect, so they can cease being profoundly ignorant and from saying idiotic things about the Bible and Christianity, see my articles (links are in the texts below):

Anthropopathism and Anthropomorphism: Biblical Data (God Condescending to Human Limitations of Understanding)[1-7-17]

Seidensticker Folly #33: Clueless Re Biblical Anthropopathism[7-24-19]

***

Your god still either didnt see the Fall coming, or he knew what would happen and deliberately set up Adam and Eve. Which one is it?

Neither. He knows all things. He gave Adam and Eve and all human beings free will to follow Him or go their own way. He warned them the consequences of doing the latter, but they chose to rebel, and He has the prerogative as Creator to judge them (and all the world, as the case may be), just as by analogy we have human judges and courts for the purpose of judging wrongdoers who break human laws (based on absolute standards of morality and right and wrong).

But the judges dont know who is going to steal or kill or rape before it actually happens. If your god did know that it would happen and not only did nothing to stop it but actively arranged things so that it would happen, then, by definition, he set them up. Blaming Adam or Eve, who couldnt have known any better since they had yet to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is as morally wrong as a judge sending a mentally ill person to the gallows.

He didnt actively arrange it; Hepermittedit because of human free will and free choice. Thats your mistake. In some forms of Calvinism and fundamentalism derived from it He did (so they wrongly believe) what you say, but thats a tiny Christian position, numbers-wise, now and throughout history and so cant claim to represent Christianity as a whole.

The choice of Adam and Eve, and all of mankind with them (as Christ theology teaches) was to obey God or to go their own way and rebel against Him. They knew enough to make that choice, just as an infant knows the difference between disobeying their parents and obeying them.

Yeah but they didnt have free will if your god is all knowing, thats the thing. If hes all knowing they couldnt do anything that he did not know they were going to do. Which brings me back to my original question. Did your god create Eden thinking everything would be peachy forever, or did he know they were going to disobey?

The first line is clearly untrue. For example, I know that if I drop a bowl of ice cream from six feet above the ground that it will fall to the ground. Did Icausethat? I partially did in terms of letting it drop, but themain reasonwas its being subject to gravity. In other words I know about gravity and thus knew what the bowl of ice cream would do. But I didnt cause the gravity I know about. If I were in outer space I would know that the bowl wouldnt fall down if I let go of it, but I didntcauseits floating in space.

Likewise, God set the wheels in motion, and knows what will happen when human beings make free will choices, but He doesnt control those choices. He permits them if they go against His will; He doesnt ordain them.

So to answer your very last clause: yes, He knew they would disobey but for reasons often incomprehensible to us, He thought it was worth it to let this process take place and to give every human being enough grace for salvation,providedthey accept it.

For example, I know that if I drop a bowl of ice cream from six feet above the ground that it will fall to the ground. Did I cause that? I partially did in terms of letting it drop, but the main reason was its being subject to gravity.

If you also created that gravity, youd be fully responsible for the bowl smashing. In your theology, God created the gravity (and its figurative equivalents), so Hes fully responsible.

Creating something and making it possible is not the same as responsibility for each act of free will that was made possible by God allowing these people to exist and to think and act freely. Its cause in one large, broad sense, but not in the specific sense.

God, for example, gave the angels free will to follow or reject Him, just as He gave it to human beings. Satan and the demons chose to rebel, which was not His perfect will, but He did permit it (permissive will).

Who chose the properties of the fruit? A: God, because he created it. Correct?

Could that person have chosen to make the properties different, such that eating it would not cause the fall? A: Yes, because hes omnipotent. Correct?

Did that person know before A&E decided to eat it, that the result would be A&E deciding to eat it? A: Yes, because hes omniscient. Correct?

Where am I getting it wrong here?

That part of the story (the fruit) is symbolic (as 99.9% of thinking, educated Christians believe). Its simply a way of expressing obedience to God vs. disobedience.

Who chose the properties of Eve? A: God, because he created Eve. Correct?

Could that person have chosen to make Eve still free willed, but more obedient? A: Yes, because hes omnipotent. Correct?

Did that person know before Eve chose to be disobedient, that the personality he gave to Eve would result in Eves disobedience? A: Yes, because hes omniscient. Correct?

So again, what am I missing here?

I think the most likely response is that youre going to say #2 is impossible: it is logically impossible for God to have created beings with free will but who would be more obedient. But this is both theologically and empirically not true. Empirically, humans have a range of personality types, including people who deeply respect and adhere to authority. Theologically, 2/3 of the angelsdidntrebel, so clearly there is nothing in the theology that leads us to believe that obedience to God and free will are incompatible.

Could that person have chosen to make Eve still free willed, but more obedient? A: Yes, because hes omnipotent. Correct?

No; incorrect. Omnipotence means the power to do all that islogically possible; notabsolutely everything. There are many things even an omnipotent God cant do:

1) He cant make a square a circle.

2) He cant make 2 + 2 =5.

3) He cant make the universe exist and not exist at the same time.

4) He cant make Himself not eternal.

Etc.

A creature with free will really is free to make voluntary (not controlled) decisions. God knew the human race would rebel, and so He devised the plan that would make possible the salvation of every human being who would accept it and believe and behave accordingly. Heaven makes all the suffering we experience here worth it, because the whole perspective is changed: eternal life in heaven in bliss vs. the tiny tiny, infinitesimal time we spend here on earth.

***

Its fun pressing Christians on that point, because none are willing to admit it was a set-up. Theyll agree that their God knows everything, but then try making excuses as to why he didnt see the Fall coming. Which is especially funny, because any parent would know that leaving unsupervised kids in a room with a tasty treat that theyve been told not to eat will only have one possible outcome, no omniscience required.

I agree its fun, but for totally different reasons than you. Itis humorous (though tragi-comic) to see atheists make asses and fools of themselves in their gross ignorance of biblical literary forms and exegesis. Though I admit it does get tiresome, seeing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

In any event, it does have considerable humorous and entertainment value, which I always appreciate. One can always use more good laughs.

***

The deep spiritual message is given in the first part of the quote, which is also literally true. God saw that every living human on Earth (except Noah) was doing evil, just evil, nothing but evil. This saddened Him enough that He resolved to stop it, fix it. As the story describes in clear words, His solution was to cause a local flood to wipe out some mesopotamiansand their little dogs, too. Its a really critical part of the solution that toto has to die. And if you critics would just stop trying to find fault with it and read it for what it means, youd see how sensible, effective, and necessary Gods regional bambi-killing solution was to stopping human evil all over the earth. Because look, when youre rebooting the Shang Dynasty and Olmec civilizations (and everything in between) from evil to good, how else would you do it but cause a local flood in mesopotamia?

But oh, its possible Im wrong about that. It may be that the clear and obvious interpretation of the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth really meant the wickedness of mankind was great between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Because sometimes one needs greater expertise than what I have to understand what the clear, obvious, and logical meaning of the text is.

Just curious: do you eat meat or fish or poultry?

Yep.

Your turn: just curious, do you see a moral difference between between killing an animal for food and drowning an animal because your neighbors immoral conduct makes you angry?

Ill answer first, in case you think its an unfair question. Yep, I see a moral difference.

Yes.

Nice try. God can kill animals, just as we can kill them for food. They have no inherent right to life, and we have dominion over them. And thats because they are on a fundamentally different level, having no rational souls and not being made in the image of God.

At the same time, as compassionate, humane human beings, we can be against cruelty and unnecessary suffering of animals (as I certainly am).

Many atheists and otherwise politically / socially liberal folks turn all this on its head: animals becomemore important than human beings insofar as many of them (usually rare, almost extinct ones) are protected under penalty of law, while young human beings in their mothers wombs are slaughtered and butchered by the millions: all being perfectly legal (just as the Nazi Holocaust was in Germany).

Thats because non-theists and their lackeys have a theory of value based on how many of something exist. Lots of human beings, so we can butcher them at will. Few rare species of animals, so they have the highest inherent value, based on their numbers, rather than absolute values set up by a God Who is over all.

God can kill animals, just as we can kill them for food.

Then Im not sure I understand your yes answer. Yes implies you see amoral differencebetween killing an animal for food and drowning an animal because you are angry at your neighbor for their immoral conduct.

But then you spend the next paragraph arguing, essentially, that the latter is just as moral as the former. Is it perhaps the case thatfor humansyou see killing animals for food as more moral than drowning animals out of pique, butfor God, you see drowning animals out of pique to be perfectly moral? Again, Im trying to understand your yes answer in the context of your next paragraph, because that next paragraph sounds more like a no, theres no moral difference morally God is on just as good footing doing the drowning as we are doing the eating than support for a yes, eating is more moral than drowning.

Drowning an animal is wrong because there is no reason for it. Its wrong because its basis (anger at a neighbor) was already wrong. And because it is cruel and unnecessary. Thats why its entirely morally different from shooting a deer for food in November (hunting season here).

Full disclosure: I have never hunted an animal or shot one in my life. Never even caught a fish. I have killed flies and mosquitoes and set mouse traps (also have had mice for pets).

God has the prerogative as Creator to grant life or take it away. That applies to human beings and animals.

I dont expect you to grasp these distinctions in Christian theology anymore than I expect atheists here to understand biblical / Hebraic anthropopathism, that I have explained over and over to no avail. It just aint gonna happen. Yall are too hostile and it affects your objective reasoning ability.

And because it isnt understood you will attempt to show that the problem lies on our end, not in your faulty understanding.

Good ol blameshifting, that goes back to Adam (the woman made me do it) and Eve (the serpent made me do it).

I think I do grasp the prerogative argument.

First, you agree that it would be less moral for humans to do the drowning (vs. the eating), sofor humansyou see a moral difference there.

Second, for God, you disagree that the drowning is at all immoral. Leave them alive, kill them instantly and painlessly, or have them suffer and die in a flood all three options are moral (and equally moral) for God, because He created them. Thats the prerogative argument, right?

And because it isnt understood you will attempt to show that the problem lies on our end, not in your faulty understanding.

Right now Im trying to shore up my faulty understanding of why God killed bambi as part of his decision to kill hunter Bob for Bobs wickedness. And I admit, I still dont understand it. Even accepting God has thatprerogative, why did He choose to exercise it in this case? You say there is no reason for it when talking about humans, but that is true of God too: there is no reason for God to have killed animals. And when you say it is cruel and unnecessary when talking about humans drowning animals, at a minimum the unnecessary bit is also true of Gods decision: He has all sorts of ways to kill humans. It was unnecessary to have used a way that also killed lots of animals.

Im willing to accept that you hold the Gods prerogative view of morality. And I understand what that is. But prerogative means a right to do something, it doesnt provide a reason for doing it. I have the prerogative to destroy all my furniture, toss it in the dumpster, paint the walls black, and play Chers Do You Believe In Love on repeat 24/7 (at decibel levels below the legal limit). But if I did that, my friends and family would rightly ask eric, why the frak are you behaving this way? Its crazy. So Im asking you, why the frak did God drown all the animals? Because it seems crazy. Even under the prerogative moral model where he has a right to do so, there is no reason to do so, no need to do it.

I would guess that He did because that is simply the result of a massive Flood (whether local, as I believe, or global). Judgment almost always (for perhaps inexplicable reasons) entails the killing of the relatively innocent. Its not the same as damnation. If a nation is judged by God (say ancient Babylon, which was conquered by the Persians), it doesnt follow that every human being there will go to hell as a damned soul.

Likewise, the animals didnt rebel against God, because they are too low to have the ability to do so. They are amoral. But they were killed in the Flood because thats what a Flood does (save for perhaps fish).

I guess we can imagine a scenario whereby God simply caused every human being except Noah, his wife and sons and their wives to drop dead and to thus allow the animals to live. WhydidntHe do that? I have no idea. I can ask Him (along with many other questions) if I make it to heaven.

It still remains true, as always, that an infinitely intelligent, omniscient, all-powerful Supreme Being will domanythings that we find it virtually impossible or extremely difficult to understand. Atheists say this is just a cop-out that the Christian always has. I say it is simply the nature of an omniscient, all-powerful Supreme Being. We willnotunderstand all that He does because we arent anywhere near His level of knowledge and wisdom.

But we can accept in faith His revelation of what He has done, and trust that He has adequate and justified reasons, based on what we do know and understand of things whereby He revealed His goodness, love, benevolence, mercy, etc. (chiefly among them Jesus death on the cross).

Judgment almost always (for perhaps inexplicable reasons) entails the killing of the relatively innocent.

Not for an omnipotent being it doesnt. For such a god, collateral damage is anintentional choice, not an inevitable consequence. He meant to kill them; its right there in the text of verse 7. If Hed wanted to kill the humans without the animals suffering in a flood, He couldve used his angel of death as He did in Exodus. Or something like smallpox. Or even, given He miracled some animals to come to Noah and you believe in a local flood, He couldve instead miracled all the unpenned animals to leave the flood zone. Same basic miracle as the one in the story, just a reversed direction version. He meant to kill them, Dave so,why? Why cause the unnecessary suffering?

We dont know all the fine details. See the final two paragraphs of my last reply.

So what Ive learned of your theology is:

1. Causing a flood to kill animals in a way that makes them suffer, because youre angry at the wickedness of humans, is immoralif youre human2. The same action however is not immoral, if youre God. Since God created all the animals, causing them unnecessary suffering is moral for him to do. It is his prerogative to cause them unnecessary suffering and kill them whenever he wants.3. But prerogative /= reason. So saying Gods actions were not immoral is not the same as saying He had a good reason to cause those animals unnecessary suffering or really any reason at all.4. This lack of a reason is not resolved by the bible. You resolve it theologically by premising that since God is good, just, etc. such a reason must exist, it is just unknown or unknowable.

Is that an accurate summary?

As for 1 and 2: by analogy, we have human laws against killing other people (defining murder in a specific way, legally, so that it is distinct from, e.g., killing in self-defense or as a policeman taking out a madman to prevent a mass murder, etc.

On the other hand, juries or judges can determine guilt and judges have the power and prerogative to pass sentence, including the death penalty (historically, but less and less now). Thus, the judge can properly proclaim such a sentence, whereas the man on the street cannot. Analogy to God and His judgment . . .

And as I have pointed out, those of your atheist and of the liberal / leftist perspective see no problem with murdering innocent, helpless babies in the womb. Yet they will howl and protest about Bambi being killed in Noahs Flood.

As for 3 and 4, I speculated briefly, but conceded that we dont know and that the Bible (as far as I know) does not specifically give us a reason.

Its not an accurate summary insofar as you so slant it according to your hostility to the Bible, that it is unrecognizable as my view, short of me clarifying, as I just did. 🙂

How should I describe those four points in a way that is not slanted? Particularly given that youve not objected to any of them in substance. Ill try again.

1. It is immoral for humans to kill animals in an unnecessary flood.2. Because of Gods prerogative, it is not immoral for him to do #1.3. Gods prerogative to do X is not the same thing as a reason to do X.4. The text does not discuss the reason.

Ive tried to parse those sentences in a completely non-normative way. No judgement words in them, just flat descriptive text as best I can. So whats incorrect about them?

Visit link:

Exchanges with Atheists About God's Attributes | Dave Armstrong - Patheos

For the tenth straight year, Humanists International has released its annual Freedom of Thought Report describing serious cases of discrimination and persecution against atheists around the world. You can download the report right here by clicking on the Download the 2021 Key Countries link.

The bottom line is not great.

Humanists are discriminated against in 144 countries across the globe. 83 countries have criminal punishments for blasphemy or apostasy, including 13 where it remains a capital offence. In 12 countries, government figures or state agencies openly marginalise, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious.

In recent years, there has been an increase in attacks and persecution of humanists and other non-religious people across the globe. There have been murders, arrests, and disappearances of outspoken humanists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India. There are state-sponsored crackdowns on the non-religious communities in Egypt and Malaysia.

Said President of Humanists International Andrew Copson:

This years Freedom of Thought Report offers, once again, grim reading. In it we detail the discrimination that humanists and other non-religious people continue to face as a result of daring to express their beliefs and to try to live according to their conscience.

The non-religious are one of the most persecuted groups across the globe. But they are also one of the least visible and their persecution is amongst the most under-reported. We welcome this report and hope that it will influence governments both in the UK and abroad to prioritise protecting freedom of religion and belief for all.

The full report is worth reading if you have the time, but in case youre wondering about the United States, we get a lower rating on matters of Constitution and government and society. Thats due to official symbolic deference to religion, infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalization against the non-religious, and discriminatory prominence given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders.

Still, despite any social stigma against atheists, theres very little legal opposition to our existence. When it exists, its not enforceable. With Democrats in control of the federal government, the worst faith-based actions of our country have at least taken a brief rest but theres plenty to worry about at the state level, especially on issues involving bodily rights and social justice. Our nation should be a model for free speech and freedom of thought; unfortunately, weve allowed right-wing Christians to dictate policy all too often. The Supreme Court, for example, is controlled by a conservative super-majority that has shown unnecessary deference to religion. Itll take a lot to fight back.

(Large portions of this article were published earlier)

More:

Freedom of Thought Report: Humanists Are Discriminated Against in 144 Nations - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Thomas Paine, the 18th-century author ofThe Age of Reason, once claimed that arguing with someone whod renounced the use of reason is as effective as administering medicine to the dead or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.

Bad Religion, as their name suggests, have no interest in converting atheists. But on their current album, Age of Unreason, the L.A. pop-punk stalwarts do share a similar exasperation with what Paine famously called the times that try mens souls.

The album is the bands first collection of new music in six years. Not surprisingly, it includes more than a few less-than-veiled references to a certain previous commander in chief. I dont believe in Golden Ages, or presidents that put kids in cages, sings frontman Greg Graffin in End of History, one of the albums few songs to approach the three-minute mark.

But Bad Religions primary target isnt former President Donald Trump so much as that special combination of bigotry, nationalism and apathy that helped to enable him, which is part of the reason the sarcastic shout-along 2018 single, The Kids Are Alt-Right, didnt make it onto the album. That may come as a surprise to those who recall guitarist Brett Gurewitzs widely circulated quote about the band having an albums worth of F*** Trump songs up its sleeve.

Metaphor of Hatred

I hope its not that singular, said Bad Religion bassist, vocalist and co-founder Jay Bentley. In my mind, using Trump as a metaphor works for many things, but historically we havent been too focused on any single individual. Because in 10-years-time, who the f*** is gonna give a s*** about Donald Trump?

Musically, the album finds the band working for the first time with Carlos de la Garza, the Grammy-winning producer whose recent credits include Paramore, Ziggy Marley and Cherry Glazerr. But the British punk and L.A. hardcore influences, which have worked so well for bands like Bad Religion and their less-cerebral Northern California counterparts, Green Day, are still very much in evidence. And Bentley, who holds the distinction of playing on all but two of the bands 17 studio albums, is uncharacteristically enamored with the results.

Ive listened to it many times and thats rare for me, because I dontlikeus, he said, only half joking. And thats because Iminthe band, so Im too close. Its really hard for me not to listen with that critical ear, instead of just enjoying it. So when I can just sort of tap my foot along and go, Damn, this is good, thats shocking to me. And this album is front-loaded with great songs, and then by the end, its justscreaming.

WhileAge of Unreasonis best listened to loud, standout tracks like Old Regime and What Tomorrow Brings also showcase the three-part harmonies that Bad Religion originally modeled after their favorite Orange County punk band.

If Im to be brutally honest, we got all our ideas from watching The Adolescents, who were all phenomenal vocalists, said Bentley. We were also fans of Crosby, Stills & Nash, Elvis Costello, and other music where background harmonies were important, which wasnt so much the case in punk rock. So when we saw The Adolescents, we thought, If they can do it, we can do it. It just took us a long time to figure it out.

Bad Religion perform Nov. 14 at the Eagles Ballroom.

More:

Bad Religion Bring 'The Age of Unreason' to Milwaukee - Shepherd Express

OPINION:

The Islamist movement, which seeks to apply medieval Islamic laws and build a worldwide caliphate, has expanded massively in the past half-century. It now, however, faces a significant and growing counter-movement, especially in Muslim-majority countries. Increasing numbers of Muslims, spurred by shocks like the fall of Kabul, fear and reject this radical version of Islam. Awareness of the anti-Islamist surge has been largely limited to those directly involved, but it deserves to be much better known.

Anti-Islamism comprises four complementary trends. Going from quietest to most radical, they are: Moderate Islam, irreligiosity, apostasy, and conversion to other religions. All have an international presence but, for illustrative purposes, I shall focus in each case on a key Middle Eastern country: moderate Islam in Egypt, irreligiosity in Turkey, atheism in Saudi Arabia, and conversion in Iran.

Moderation: Husni Mubaraks 30-year police state so consistently accommodated Islamists that Egyptians dared not oppose them. His fall from power in 2011 finally permitted an open expression of views, which the one-year Islamist rule of Mohamed Morsi further galvanized. The results have been hyperbolically anti-Islamist, as seen by street attacks on Muslim Brotherhood-appearing men, by women discarding the hijab, and the immense popularity of scathingly anti-Islamist figures such as Islam al-Behairy, Ibrahim Issa, Mukhtar Jomah, Khaled Montaser, and Abdallah Nasr. Even President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a former Islamist sympathizer, has accommodated these moderate sentiments.

Irreligiosity: Turkeys Islamist president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, has dominated the countrys politics since 2002 with the goal of raising a pious generation. But younger Turks are adopting non-Islamic ways. Survey research by Volkan Ertit found that the sacred had less influence regarding belief in supernatural beings, clothing that reveals body shape, premarital flirtation, non-marital sex, and homosexuality. A government report documented the appeal of deism among religious school students. A 2012 WIN/Gallup survey found that Not religious persons make up 73% of Turkeys population (the highest of 57 countries surveyed).

Apostasy: In Saudi Arabia, flat-out rejection of Islam is spreading like wildfire, says a Saudi refugee. The WIN/Gallup survey found that convinced atheists make up 5% of the population in Saudi Arabia, the same as in the United States. The monarchy has responded in two ways. First, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman partially acquiesced to such sentiments by opening the country to many modern ways. Second, he promulgated anti-terrorist regulations that punish Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based. Yes, the monarchy fights atheism with anti-terrorist regulations.

Conversion: Shay Khatiri, an analyst, writes about Iran that Islam is the fastest shrinking religion, while Christianity is growing the fastest. The Christian Broadcast Network goes further, asserting that Christianity is growing faster in the Islamic Republic of Iran than in any other country in the world. David Yeghnazar of Elam Ministries finds that Iranians have become the most open people to the gospel. According to a former Muslim, now an Evangelical priest, We find ourselves facing what is more than a conversion to the Christian faith, he said. Its a mass exodus from Islam.

Lela Gilbert and Arielle Del Turco report that the mullahs consider Christianity an existential threat to their rule. Reza Safa predicts Iran will become the first Muslim-majority country to convert to Christianity. Confirming these trends, the Iranian intelligence minister Mahmoud Alavi publicly expressed fears about Muslims converting to Christianity.

Some observations about this anti-Islamist surge: It appears limited to Muslim-majority countries; among Muslim minorities, especially in the West, Islamism continues to grow.

Conspiracy theories to the contrary, this anti-Islamist movement results almost entirely from internal developments among Muslims; non-Muslim have a limited supporting role. As ever, Muslims determine their own destiny.

Anti-Islamists almost diametrically oppose Islamists on faith, family, social relations, politics, and beyond. Among other implications, free-thinkers and ex-Muslims tend to be intensely pro-West, pro-America, and pro-Israel.

Expect to see anti-Islamist surges to appear in Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, for Islamic trends historically begin in the Middle East and migrate outwards.

Thus does Islamism inadvertently drive Muslims away from Islam and potentially shake the very foundations of the faith? One Christian broadcaster even holds that the hold of Islam on the Muslim people has crumbled. Radical utopianism has pushed the worlds second-largest religious community into a concealed but severe crisis with volatile results.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. 2021 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Read the original here:

Will Islam survive Islamism? - Washington Times

patpitchaya/stock.adobe.com

If youre not familiar with the term the nones, you should get acquainted with it.

One of the best ways to do that is by reading Ryan P. Burges book, The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going.

The nones represent both the demographic group in this country most likely to be reached with the gospel and the group most resistant to its appeal.

The reason behind that apparent contradiction lies in a quirk in the way that social scientists describe religious affiliation in this country, generally placing Americans in one of seven categories:

These nonaffiliated Americans, the nones, are lumped together even though their situations differ. As a whole, they represent the fastest-growing category, and Burge is one of the leading experts on their rise. A pastor in the American Baptist Church, he is also a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University.

When raw data from the 2018 General Social Survey (GSS) came out, he began to crunch the numbers. It had finally happened: the nones were now the same size as both Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants, Burge wrote. That meant that the religiously unaffiliated were statistically the same size as the largest religious groups in the United States.

Burge put together a graph showing the trend, tweeted it, and, when he checked his phone later, found it had been retweeted almost one hundred times.

What followed was one of the busiest periods of my life, he wrote.

Reporters lined up to interview him. Most major news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, carried the story. C-SPAN interviewed Burge on Easter Sunday.

Journalists, podcasters, and pastors were all asking me the same questions: How did this happen? And what does this mean for the future of American religion? Burge wrote.

The Nones provides some of the answers, but there is still much to learn, including the number of nones. Estimates vary by as much as twenty million people.

Burge described the GSS as the gold standard in measuring religious change in America, largely because it has been asking questions about religious affiliation in basically the same way since the survey was created in 1972.

But it does not ask people who describe themselves as unaffiliated if they are atheist or agnostic. The Pew Research Center, on the other hand, offers three options for the religiously unaffiliated: atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.

In 1972, just one in twenty Americans said they had no religion. In 2018, the GSS indicated that group had grown to one in four. As the group has grown, it has become more diverse and now represents every segment of our society.

Mainline Protestants have declined from 30 percent of the population to 10 percent in about four decades, but Burge said it would be too simplistic to give this as the sole reason for the rise of the nones. Many factors seem to be at work, including secularization, politics, and the internet.

However, he wrote, In essence, moderate Protestants are going extinct, while conservative Christianity is holding the line.

Instead of people growing up in a religious tradition, drifting away from it in their teens and twenties, and then returning to it as they age, Burge wrote, More people are entering adulthood without a religious affiliation, and they become more likely to stay a none as they age.

He continued: Its clear that every successive generation starts out less religious than the one prior, but thats only a part of the puzzle. As these young people [have] become more outspoken about their move away from religious affiliation, that gave permission to older people who had been sliding to disaffiliation to finally declare their true religious attachments. If this is truly the case, then many more nominal Christians are going to check the no religion box going forward, and thats not necessarily true just among the youngest Americans.

Atheists and agnostics are much more likely to be openly hostile to religion than Americans who would check the nothing in particular box. And thats of more than academic interest.

Burge put it this way: If one wants to identify the harvest for new religious converts, it can be found in the one in five Americans who say that they are nothing in particular.

See the rest here:

Who are the nones and why are they important? - Denison Forum

Its the season of the witch, so our Writer at Large Neil Mackay a sceptic if ever there was one spent the afternoon with Malcolm Robinson, the countrys leading paranormal investigator. Dare you read what happened next?

MALCOLM Robinson is sitting in his study with a portrait of a saucer-eyed alien staring down at him. He is recounting his greatest adventures with ghosts: there is the spectre in Stirling who gave him a slap, the spook who kicked him, and the spirit from Kirkintilloch who pulled his hair. And thats before he even gets to the Clackmannanshire poltergeist - an entity he is still hunting.

It is Halloween so if there is ever a time to indulge that most marvellous of species the great British eccentric its today: the spookiest, silliest, strangest season of all.

Robinson is Scotlands most famous paranormal researcher. You may not have heard of him, but thousands around the planet have he has travelled the world giving lectures about ETs and ghosts, Nessie and demons, and written a slew of books on weird phenomena.

You dont have to believe what Robinson says I certainly dont, Im an atheist and sceptic but hes fascinating company, and if like me youre curious about why so many of us obsess on the paranormal then he is the man to talk to. After all, half the planet has probably had at least one odd experience they cant quite explain.

I have interviewed a fair number of paranormalists over the years and while I dont buy into their claims at all, Ive always thought most truly believed what they are saying. In other words charlatans aside these people seem well intentioned and not deliberately lying, even though their claims are false to many.

Someone can be genuinely convinced they have seen a ghost even though there is no such thing as ghosts. I dont view Robinson as a charlatan or a liar I view him as a pretty decent guy who really believes what he says, despite folk like me viewing his claims as fundamentally impossible. Its a neat little paradox, given were talking about the paranormal.

Obviously, millions of people around the world would disagree with me those who believe in ghosts and UFOs and see Robinson as an important researcher in a much-mocked field.

Anyway, whether you believe in the paranormal or not, its Halloween so lets give him a hearing at least.

Birth of an obsession

ROBINSON says he started out as a sceptic and there are still some signs of healthy scepticism alive in him today. Id like to impress this upon people, he says.

We laughed at John Logie Baird and said his invention [television] would never work it did. We laughed at the Wright Brothers, saying itll never fly. Just because something sounds ridiculous doesnt mean it is so. Mankind has much to learn, were at the bottom rung of understanding.

However, its quite right in these times that we question everything, but dont turn your head away just because something sounds ridiculous.

As a kid in the 1960s, Robinson was fascinated by science fiction and spooky stories. While working in a glass factory as a young man in between playing lead guitar in a band he began reading about cases of so-called real life hauntings and devoured books by Erich von Daniken, who has made outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about aliens visiting Earth.

I started out to disprove these subjects. I thought there was no validity in them that it was all nonsense, Robinson says. Then I began my own investigations. Ive seen things unbelievable things. Thats when I came off the fence.

UFO encounter

THE case which changed Robinsons life was the infamous incident which has gone down in the annals of ufology as the Dechmont Woods Encounter. In 1979, Scottish forestry worker Robert Taylor was walking through Dechmont Woods near Livingston when what he described as a flying dome appeared, hovering over the forest floor. Taylor who everyone claimed was a sober and serious man said something like sea mines emerged from the craft and seized him.

He lost consciousness and later awoke, bruised, with this trousers ripped and the craft gone. Taylor tried to drive away but careened his car into a ditch. When he made it home to his wife, says Robinson, he said these famous words: Ive been attacked.

His wife asked who attacked him and Taylor replied: A spaceship.

Taylor received medical treatment as he was genuinely hurt and police were called. What makes the case remarkable is that this is the only alleged UFO incident where police recorded a criminal assault. Officers also found marks on the ground where Taylor said the craft had been.

Now, there are plenty of facts that can be found to dismiss any notion of ET in this case. Taylor previously had meningitis and reported a strong smell during the incident. It could have been a mini-stroke or psychotic episode. Taylor is now dead so well never truly know.

But Robinson now the proud owner of Taylors ripped trousers - believes the case to be a real alien encounter. At the time, the event was big news in Scotland. Robinson heard the story on the radio and went to interview Taylor.

It stands the test of time as a great case, he says. Youll never meet a more genuine, sincere man who didnt want any attention in his life. This was my first big investigation though Ive done so many since. You get to know peoples body language whos telling lies. I saw the depth of honesty in this man.

Robinson went on to write a book about the case. He does retain a sliver of scepticism, however. I do agree with the statement could it not have been a medical episode which meant Taylor believed hed been attacked. Thats the only other possibility. Other than that I do believe he saw what he saw that day.

After investigating the Dechmont Woods Encounter, people began banging on my door and phoning me up, says Robinson. And thats when he began hunting ghosts

Haunted houses

ONE case involved an elderly woman in Stirling who had heard about Robinson, by now the founder of Strange Phenomena Investigations, with a team working alongside him. Just like with UFOs, I started out to disprove ghosts too, he says. However, once again, Robinson adds, as with his UFO investigations, his experiences turned him into a believer.

This old lady was getting bombarded with paranormal events, he says. Things were falling off shelves. Shed lost her husband. Chests were moving all that stuff.

One of Robinsons team was a psychic. In an upstairs bedroom, the psychic asked Robinson if he felt a spirit in the room.

I felt nothing, Robinson says. Then a ghost slapped him. Suddenly, he says, theres this tremendous force, which pushed itself down on my hand my hand actually hit my leg. Nobody was near me. It was incredible.

At another case in Tullibody, Robinson was investigating a haunted bedroom. Its always a haunted bedroom for some reason, he laughs.

Nothing happened for hours and Robinson was questioning why I do this to myself. One of his team was filming while the room was in darkness. Then out of nowhere, he says, the whole room illuminated with thousands of tiny pinpricks of light in the air, adding: It only lasted 20 seconds before the room was catapulted back into total darkness.

And was there evidence on camera? Nothing. Nothing appeared. Robinson says that even if hed captured proof, sceptics wouldve said its a hoax.

Clearly, no evidence has been found anywhere or ever to prove any haunting or alien encounter.

Later, during another ghost hunt at Stirling Tolbooth jail, he felt a kick on the leg. I thought it was one of our investigators, but nobody was near me. I turned around and I can only tell you what I saw: a leg, from the knee down. It was only there for two or three seconds and it disappeared.

Robinson is now rattling through his adventures at a rate of knots. Theres another case we were working in Kirkintilloch. It was an ex-police officers home. Every wall had a photostat copy of the Lords Prayer on it, there were crucifixes everywhere. It was creepy. As were walking into a room upstairs, it was like somebody grabbed my hair and pulled me back. I shouted for one of my colleagues to put the light on. I thought Id walked into a childs mobile or Airfix model or loose plaster, but there was nothing hanging down. It was like fingers going through my hair it was extraordinary.

Now, obviously, sceptics like me would say of these cases that perhaps some of the people seeking Robinsons services were a little disturbed, or that creeping around in a house youve been told is haunted might play tricks on the most logical mind, or that even group hysteria might kick in. Robinson says he asks people who call on him to investigate whether they use drink or drugs or have mental health problems, and he insists he is seasoned enough not to let his imagination run away with him.

Hoaxes and lies

WHAT about being conned? Many well-intentioned or gullible ghost hunters have been duped by charlatans and Robinson tells of one incident where he witnessed the most sensational thing Ive ever seen.

Robinson has taken his investigations all over Britain and this case happened in Chingford, north London. He was invited to a home where a medium sat behind a curtain in a darkened room. Bells tinkled, voices wailed, faces emerged from curtains and a chest of drawers rose up and flew across the ceiling. Robinson says he thought it all a hoax until he placed his hands on the chest of drawers, holding it down, and asked the medium to move it again. Once more it rose and flew through the air. I cannot stress enough that even though I believe in the paranormal, Im still sceptical about every case I go on, he says.

I point out that Im a bit of an amateur student of stage magic and theres a history of such tricks played by phoney spiritualists going back to the Victorian period. Theres even a trick called The Spirit Cabinet which sounds a little like the event Robinson witnessed.

Robinson accepts that theres wonderful magicians who can do wonderful spooky things but its all a trick. However, he insists that he cannot explain how the chest moved the second time as he held it down. Do I have evidence? No, the lady whose house it was wouldnt allow cameras.

As we talk through his cases, I tell Robinson that when it comes to events where he was present I wont call him a liar. He seems a genuine man who believes what he thinks he saw and what he thinks happened. However, that doesnt mean those events really involved ghosts. Other explanations are clearly more likely and when it comes to the Chingford event, its stinks of trickery, I say.

I agree that you have to think that way, youve got to think its a magic trick. The medium is behind a curtain. Why? Why did he have to do that? It makes you wonder. I couldnt see any form of trickery but there are magicians, so people can be fooled. The phenomena was amazing but there mightve been something there to fool me.

However, his scepticism is clearly beaten by his need to believe, as he quickly adds: What happened after that was this tremendous cold gust of wind pervaded a small council bedroom. It was so cold you could see your breath. It was like being in an industrial freezer.

Again, thats not a trick which is hard to pull off. Just ask Derren Brown. But Robinson has another encounter to tell of: the Sauchie Poltergeist.

Scotlands poltergeist

ROBINSON has been down into the depths of Loch Ness in search of the monster in a mini-sub but theres only one thing that really scares him: the ouija board. He believes it can raise malevolent spirits intent on harming humans. Its a fear which the classic horror movie The Exorcist was built around.

Events in 1960 in the town of Sauchie in Clackmannanshire have weird echoes of the film. We dont have to take Robinsons word for it even though he recently wrote a book about the case and interviewed folk involved in the tale. We can just flick through Alloa Advertiser reports.

The claims go like this: 11-year-old Virginia Campbell moves from Donegal to Scotland with her family. The move makes her unhappy. Strange noises begin to plague her, and one night she goes downstairs to tell her family but a terrifying sound follows her. The sounds continue, ornaments move, a linen basket opens by itself.

The family see a sideboard move.

A local minister is called and is said to witness the linen basket move again. Virginias bedclothes, says Robinson, would ripple as if a stone had been thrown into water.

At school, Virginias desk lid begins banging up and down and her teachers pointer moves of its own accord. Then the teachers desk is said to move and a bowl smash in the class.

The teacher, it is claimed, tries to let the children out of the class as by now theyre hysterical but the door wont open. Later, a doctor is called to attend Virginia and shes sedated. The doctor

is said to have witnessed Virginias pillow rotate on the bed. Virginia even moved house but the knockings followed her.

In December 1960, the Alloa Journal reported Virginias aunt being pushed off a bed and blankets rising up of their own accord. Not long afterwards, the story dies down and Virginia vanishes. Nobody knows where she is to this day.

Robinson, who spoke to Virginias classmates for his book The Sauchie Poltergeist, tried to find her and traced her to Bedfordshire in the 1980s but after that the trail goes cold.

Robinson doesnt believe that the Sauchie events were a con, or down to a mixed-up, unhappy child acting out, either consciously or subconsciously, or mass hysteria, or a child going through puberty and sexual energy projecting out and moving things like cupboards. I believe a bad spirit attached itself to her in Ireland and moved to Scotland with her and its been with her ever since. Theres a nasty side to the spirit world.

What do you think?

ROBINSON says he has not made much money out of a lifetime as a paranormal researcher. Books dont earn a fortune, he adds, and mostly he simply gets his expenses paid for travelling to and from lectures.

Proof, he says, is in the eye of the beholder. When it comes to the individual theyll know themselves whether what theyve experienced is true. Proof is always nice, but belief is personal. Weve seen so many photographs claiming to be ghosts or UFOs that were nothing of the kind.

He accepts, though, that with so-called hauntings, creaky floorboards and cooling pipes could lead people to believe in the supernatural.

For Robinson, around 98 per cent or even higher of ghost cases are easily explained and not otherworldly. With UFOs, he says, only about 1% of sightings cannot be explained as either natural phenomena like planets or military aircraft.

However, that 1%, he genuinely believes, are aliens.

As long as folk dont mock Robinson, he says, hes perfectly content to be the subject of doubt and questioning. My raison dtre is just to tell people about these subjects and say there you go, its up to you to believe it or not thats all.

If youve got a paranormal experience youd like to share why not write in and let us know to sunday-letters@theherald.co.uk

Link:

The Big Read: A spirited conversation between an atheist and Scotland's top ghost hunter - HeraldScotland

Photo credit: AleksandarGeorgiev - Getty Images

I would like to apologize to the people of Russia on behalf of two generations of Catholic schoolchildren. Day after day, year after year, we were told to pray for the people held under the rule of the atheistic Communists in the Soviet Union. There was a brief break in the action in October of 1962, when we prayed instead that we would not have Soviet ICBMs landing on our heads before lunch, but we were back at it as soon as the missiles in Cuba were on their way back to their atheistic Communist masters. Evidently, even though it took several decades, apparently, our prayers were answered. With a fcking vengeance. From meduza.io:

On Friday, October 29, a Moscow court sentenced blogger Ruslan Bobiev and his girlfriend, model Anastasia Chistova, to 10 months in prison for offending religious sentiment. The couple was convicted over a photo they posed for, pantomiming oral sex against the backdrop of St. Basils Cathedral. According to Holod Media, these are the first ever prison terms handed down in Russia for offending religious sentiment. Bobiev posted the supposedly offending photograph on his Instagram and TikTok accounts on September 29. In the photo, Chistova is wearing a jacket with the word Police across the back. The blogger captioned the photo, The Labor Code is not the Criminal [Code], you can break it.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been a formidable ally to Vladimir Putins development of his authoritarian Russian kleptocracy. The relationship has not always been a smooth one, but both sides certainly have benefitted from it. From The New York Times:

Indeed, the ties between the Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate are as old as Russia itself. Throughout its history, the Russian Orthodox Church was subservient to the state and an unshakable supporter of autocracy. Starting in the 16th century, the church provided Moscows rulers with a political theology of Manifest Destiny, asserting that Moscow had become the Second Jerusalem and the Third Rome (after Rome and Constantinople).

Story continues

This is what we prayed for.

The emergence of the atheist Soviet state in 1922 dealt a severe blow to the church. The state confiscated most ecclesiastical property, and few seminaries survived. The KGB infiltrated the priesthood, informing on clergy and promoting Soviet interests abroad.

This is what we prayed against. And this is what we got for it.

During Russias brief experiment with democracy in the 1990s, the church rebounded from the decades of suppression. But under Mr. Putin, the state has co-opted and subsumed the church. The Kremlin has relied on the Orthodox Church as the main unifying force in the country and provides it with generous financial support. In return, the church has been the key promoter of a Russian world concept that casts the Kremlin as a defender of Russians outside Russia. Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has gone so far as to call the Putin era a miracle of God.

Alsothe bombs never fell on our heads. Jesus Christ clearly was on our mainline. Sorry, Russia.

You Might Also Like

Here is the original post:

We Got What We Prayed For In Russia - Yahoo Eurosport UK

A survey of more than 15,000 religious congregations across the United States by Faith Communities Today (FACT), fielded just before the pandemic lockdown, was recently released. It found a median decline in attendance of 7% between 2015 and 2020.

It gets worse.

It also found that half of the countrys estimated 350,000 religious congregations had 65 or fewer people in attendance on any given weekend. In 2000, when FACT first began surveying data, the median attendance level was 137. Thats a drop of more than half in just two decades.

And before you think this is reflective of only mainline Protestant groups, as opposed to more theologically conservative evangelical groups, think again. Yes, mainline churches are worse off (median average 50), but evangelicals reflect the median 65. In other words, this decline is across the board.

So whats the problem? Why are churches of any and every stripe in such steep decline?

It would be easy to blame the cultural context, but that would be mistaken. The real reason was revealed in a recent survey of churches conducted in Canada that found 65% of church leaders say that evangelism hasnt been a priority for their congregations over the last several years. In fact, only 9% said it was a high priority for members of their congregation to share their faith.

And again, before you think the survey was focused on mainline churches, think again.

The majority of those surveyed came from evangelical traditions, including leaders from Baptist churches, Pentecostal churches, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Evangelical Free Church, the Church of the Nazarene, the Foursquare Church, and the Salvation Army.

So lets be clear.

The church is in decline because we are turned inward instead of outward. Our hearts are not breaking for what breaks the heart of God, which is people facing a Christ-less eternity. And sadly, only a simple invite is all that is often needed: Come and see, come and hear, come and explore.

Ive long been taken by something Penn Jillette, of the famed Penn and Teller magic/comedy duo, once said in a vlog: I [am] an atheist.... I dont respect people who dont proselytize.... If you believe that theres a heaven and hell and that people could be going to hell... How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize?

Apparently, a lot.

James Emery White

Sources

Yonat Shimron, Study: Attendance Hemorrhaging at Small and Midsize US Congregations, Religion News Service, October 14, 2021, read online.

Adam MacInnis, Evangelism Not a Priority in Canadian Churches, Christianity Today, October 13, 2021, read online.

Penn Jillette, Penn Says: A Gift of a Bible, Crackle, December 8, 2008, watch online.

Original post:

The Real Reason Churches Are in Decline - Crosswalk.com

South Korean President Moon Jae-in has given Pope Francis a statue of a cross made with barbed wire from the demilitarized zone separating the Koreas

By NICOLE WINFIELD and TONG-HYUNG KIM Associated Press

October 30, 2021, 11:30 AM

3 min read

VATICAN CITY -- South Korean President Moon Jae-in gave Pope Francis a statue of a cross made with barbed wire from the demilitarized zone separating the Koreas and told him Friday that a papal visit to the North would help create momentum for peace" on the peninsula, officials said.

Moon, a Catholic, called on Francis before the start of the Group of 20 summit in Rome.

The Vatican, which didnt allow independent media in the audience, said the talks touched on the role of the Catholic Church in promoting dialogue and said hopes were shared that joint effort and good will may favor peace and development in the Korean Peninsula, supported by solidarity and by fraternity."

Ahead of the visit, South Korean presidential officials said they expected Moon and Francis would discuss a possible papal visit to the officially atheist North, since Francis had previously expressed a desire to visit if it becomes possible. The Vatican made no mention of a possible trip in its statement Friday and none is currently believed to be under consideration.

Moon first floated the idea of a papal visit to the North in 2018 when he revealed that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had said during a summit between the Korean leaders that the pope would be enthusiastically welcomed.

Kim then was actively engaging in diplomacy with Seoul and the Trump administration in an effort to leverage his nuclear programs for an easing of U.S.-led economic sanctions. But the diplomacy derailed and the North also cut off cooperation with South Korea while expressing frustration over the Moon governments inability to wrest concessions on its behalf from Washington.

Moon told the pope on Friday that if he does get an opportunity to visit North Korea, it would create a momentum for peace in the Korean Peninsula and that South Koreans have huge expectations (for a papal visit to the North), said Moon spokesman Park Kyung-mee.

Park said Francis told Moon that he would gladly visit the North if he receives an official invitation, so that he could help the Korean people and contribute to peace. He described the people of the two Koreas as brothers who share the same language.

During the exchange of gifts, Francis gave Moon a medallion replicating Berninis original plan for St. Peters Square. The design envisages the two main colonnades of the Vatican piazza embracing humanity in the church. He also gave him copies of some of his main texts, including one outlining his vision for greater human fraternity.

Moons statue of a cross was made with barbed wire from the DMZ. An accompanying note, written in Spanish, said his hope was that the spikes and iron used to make the barbed wire could be used instead as a symbol of peace.

I pray devotedly that this cross sprouts deep roots and that peace may flourish, the note said.

Tong-Hyung Kim reported from Seoul, South Korea.

See original here:

Moon tells pope a visit to North would help peace in Koreas - ABC News