Category Archives: Atheist

by Hannah Brockhaus

Rome Newsroom, Jan 10, 2021 / 02:30 pm MT (CNA).- In the face of political discord and self-interest, we have an obligation to promote unity, peace, and the common good in society and in the Catholic Church, Pope Francis said Sunday.

At this moment, a politician, even a manager, a bishop, a priest, who does not have the ability to say we is not up to par. We, the common good of all, must prevail. Unity is superior to conflict, the pope said in an interview that aired on Italian news program Tg5 Jan. 10.

Conflicts are necessary, but right now they have to go on vacation, he continued, noting that people have a right to different points of view, and political struggle is a noble thing, but what matters is the intention to help the country grow.

If politicians emphasize more self-interest than the common interest, they ruin things, Francis stated. The unity of the country, of the Church, and of society must be emphasized.

The papal interview took place following the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building Jan. 6 by pro-Donald Trump protestors, as Congress was in the process of certifying the presidential election results.

Francis said in a video clip from the interview, released Jan. 9, he was astonished, by the news, because the U.S. is a people so disciplined in democracy, right?

Something isnt working, Francis continued. With people taking a path against the community, against democracy, against the common good. Thanks be to God that this has broken out and there was a chance to see it well so that now you can try and heal it.

In the interview, Pope Francis also commented on the societal tendency to discard anyone who is not productive to society, especially the sick, the elderly, and the unborn.

Abortion, he said, is not primarily a religious issue, but a scientific and human one. The problem of death is not a religious problem, be careful: it is a human, pre-religious problem, it is a problem of human ethics, he said. Then religions follow it, but it is a problem that even an atheist must solve in his conscience.

The pope said he asks two things to the person who questions him on abortion: do I have the right to do this? and is it right to cancel a human life to solve a problem, any problem?

The first question can be answered scientifically, he said, pointing out that by the third or fourth week of gestation, there are all the organs of the new human being in the womb of the mother, it is a human life.

Taking a human life is not okay, he said. Is it okay to hire a hitman to solve a problem? One that kills human life?

Francis condemned the attitude of the throwaway culture: Children do not produce and are discarded. Discard the elderly: the elderly do not produce and are discarded. Discard the sick or hasten death when it is terminal. Discard so that it is more comfortable for us and does not bring us so many problems.

He also spoke about the discarding of migrants: the people who drowned in the Mediterranean because they were not allowed to come, [this] weighs heavily on our conscience How to deal with [immigration] later, that is another problem that states must approach cautiously and wisely, but letting [migrants] drown in order to solve a problem later is wrong. Nobody does it with intention, it is true, but if you dont put in the means of help it is a problem. There is no intention but there is intention, he said.

Encouraging people to avoid selfishness in general, Pope Francis recalled several grave issues affecting the world today, especially war and the lack of education and food for children, which have continued throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

They are serious problems and these are just two of the problems: children and wars, he said. We must become aware of this tragedy of the world, its not all a party. To get out of this crisis head on and in a better way, we must be realistic.

Asked about how his own life has changed during the coronavirus pandemic, Pope Francis admitted that at first, he felt like he was caged.

But then I calmed down, I took life as it comes. Praying more, speaking more, using the phone more, taking some meetings to solve problems, he explained.

Papal trips to Papua New Guinea and Indonesia were canceled in 2020. In March this year, Pope Francis is scheduled to travel to Iraq. He said, now I dont know if the next trip to Iraq will take place, but life has changed. Yes, life has changed. Closed. But the Lord always helps us all.

The Vatican will begin administering the COVID-19 vaccine to its residents and employees next week, and Pope Francis said he has booked his appointment to receive it.

I believe that, ethically, everyone has to get the vaccine. It is an ethical option because it concerns your life but also that of others, he stated.

Recalling the introduction of the polio vaccine and other common childhood immunizations, he said, I dont understand why some say this could be a dangerous vaccine. If doctors present it to you as something that can be fine and has no special dangers, why not take it?

See more here:

Pope Francis: We need unity in the Catholic Church, society, and nations - The Catholic Telegraph

KARACHI -- A deadly attack by the Islamic State group in the southwestern region of Pakistan targeting Shiite coal miners has again revived security threats for China's Belt and Road Initiative and increased pressure on Prime Minister Imran Khan to act against the militants.

In the morning of Jan. 3, unidentified assailants abducted 11 coal miners from Mach town, 48 km east of Quetta, the capital of southwestern Balochistan Province. The attackers blindfolded the coal miners and killed them by slitting their throats. All the slain coal miners belonged to the ethnic minority Shiite Hazara community.

Later, Islamic State Khorasan Province -- an IS offshoot with purported hideouts in Pakistan and Afghanistan -- claimed responsibility for the attack via the group's Amaq news agency. The militant group also released pictures of the slaughter.

These brutal killings triggered a protest in Quetta by the Hazara community with the bodies of the slain coal miners. Protesters refused to bury the dead until the Pakistan government took concrete steps to provide security in the future. The protest ended on Saturday at midnight when the regional Balochistan government agreed to form a high-powered investigative commission.

This attack by IS has revived security threats to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC -- the $50 billion Pakistan component of the Belt and Road Initiative.

According to IS ideology, atheist China is an enemy because it has forcibly encroached on Muslims in China's Xinjiang Province by not allowing Uighur Muslims to practice Islam.

Islamic State has previously attacked Chinese nationals in Balochistan. In May 2017, the group kidnapped two Chinese nationals from Quetta, announcing that both had been killed the following month. That incident halted the free movement of Chinese nationals in Quetta city.

According to experts, this attack by IS has left Balochistan unsafe for Belt and Road projects in the future. Bostan, the site chosen for one of the nine Special Economic Zones under the second phase of CPEC, is located 100 km north of Mach where the coal miners were killed.

"The deteriorating situation in Balochistan is only likely to generate more difficulties for the already problematic implementation of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects in the province," Jeremy Garlick, an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Economics in Prague, told Nikkei Asia. He added that this terror incident could also hinder further initiatives to obtain foreign direct investment in Balochistan.

Despite mounting security threats, experts believe that Beijing will not delay projects in Balochistan. "Beijing has long demonstrated a large risk tolerance for deploying capital in unstable areas," said Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at Wilson Center, adding "We see this not only in Pakistan but also in its investments in volatile areas of Africa and Southeast Asia."

But this latest attack will further show Beijing just how precarious the security situation is in Balochistan. "We've already seen recent upsurges in separatist violence, and the additional reality of [Islamic State] means that Chinese projects face the twin threat of separatist and Islamist terror," Kugelman added.

This terror attack and the subsequent protests by the Hazara community have also put huge pressure on Pakistan's government to root out IS militants from Balochistan. Experts believe that the government has been put on the defensive, and the optics have been dreadful.

"This [terror attack] will, at the least, prompt Beijing to pressure Islamabad to provide better security in the region; not a new demand by Beijing, and one that hasn't had its intended effects, given that the violence continues to flare," Kugelman said.

While Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, Pakistani officials still blame India for orchestrating this attack to destabilize Pakistan.

"It's a well-thought-out move and in this gambit, the target is to stir the Shiite-Sunni fault line in the country, which will have negative domestic and foreign policy implications for Pakistan," Senator Anwaar ul Haq Kakar told Nikkei.

Read the rest here:

Deadly IS attack threatens China's Belt and Road in Pakistan - Nikkei Asia

I admit that I dont know anything about the popularity of brothels. They may well be as old-fashioned as Blake Morrison thinks. His theologising and preoccupation with sainthood now look as old-fashioned as his fondness for brothels, he writes in The Guardian. Hes reviewing a new biography of the writer Graham Greene, who was a Catholic, but lets say a peculiar one.

Morrison may be right about brothels. I dont know anyone who goes to them or even where youd find one, but maybe he has a wider experience of life than I do. But I do know hes wrong about theologizing and sainthood. People will always think about the deepest things and always pursue deep goodness, because thats part of being human.

His is what I think of as Yeah, whatever atheism. Its a lot more common than we realize and a lot harder to deal with.

Christian apologists love jumping on the new atheists and for that matter the old atheists. Those guys say with great certainty and clarity, No one can believe that religious stuff, and we can respond with Yes we can, and for very good reasons. They make arguing for the faith easy.

Even in my secular youth, atheists annoyed me, because they were so triumphantly confident about things they couldnt know. For all they knew, God could be working behind the scenes for reasons of his own. Or he might be working right in front of them and they either refuse or are unable to see him at work. I grew up in an academic world and knew a number of atheist academics who would find God really annoying, and their disbelief seemed self-interested.

But the yeah, whatever atheists, theyre a problem. You can play a kind of theological whack-a-mole with the hard atheists. You cant with the Yeah, whatever atheists. All you can do is play whack-a-fog.

The English newspaper The Guardian is like our Washington Post, though farther to the left and more secular. Its produced by people and read by people for whom Christianity is as relevant to real life as the kind of conversation you had with your favorite stuffed toy when you were 3.

Morrisons a good example. He seems not to believe anything religious. He doesnt seem to see the point. He believes you can think about the deepest things if you want to, as long as you dont expect to find anything there.

In another review, he approves the definition of religion as wrestling with the mystery of existence. But he doesnt really mean wrestle. When you wrestle, you either pin the other guy or you get pinned.

Morrison doesnt believe this. He believes that when you wrestle with the mystery of existence, you wont find any conclusive answers, because the universe remains unfathomable. The universe, he says, is ungetbehindable. You cant pin the universe, and it cant pin you.

But like many such people, he also insists that doesnt invalidate the struggle to make sense of how we began, why were here and what (if anything) happens next. Why struggle to do something he says we cant do? He doesnt really believe we should. We should, he declares, live with uncertainty without any irritable reaching after fact.

Its all a mess. Wrestle and struggle, he says. But theres no point in doing that, he says. Wrestle and struggle anyway, he says. Well, okay, dont wrestle and struggle, he says. If I were him, I wouldnt bother. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die. That would be my motto, were I him. All that time pointlessly wrestling and struggling is time you could be spending eating a steak, drinking a beer, and having a good time with your friends.

Thats what Yeah, whatever atheism is. Theres no God to be found, but you can think about him if you want. Theres no meaning to your life that you can find, but if you feel like it, you can ponder this too. You can do either of those as long as you dont find God or the meaning of life. Because its relaxed atheism, a casual unconcerned atheism, even genial atheism, but its still atheism.

Its the most common kind of atheism youre likely to run into. In your secular friends, for example. Maybe without realizing it, because its not obvious, like the kind of direct attacks on Christianity and religion you see in the Richard Dawkinses and Christopher Hitchenses of the world. You can argue with those guys. But arguing with the Yeah, whatever atheist is like boxing with a big foam pillow or a giant marshmallow. Every time you land a punch it dimples a little, but then in a few seconds the dimple pops out.

What do you do when you see that youre engaging a Yeah, whatever atheist? In my experience, you dont bother arguing, the same way you dont box a big foam pillow. Theres no point. But the Yeah, whatever atheist very often has a weak spot. He cares for real goods. As Morrisons struggle/dont struggle confusion suggests, hes not always very clear about what he wants. His desires can be better than his beliefs. Try to find those desires, desires only God can satisfy.

Morrison himself is an example. In the reviews very last sentence, he calls Greenes book The End of the Affair his masterpiece. It tells the story of a writer who falls in love with a married woman who gives up their affair for God, and after some miracles, the writer himself becomes a believer.

Remember that Morrison patronizes Greenes theologising and preoccupation with sainthood. Theyre as old-fashioned as brothels! But what is The End of the Affair, the book he acknowledges as a masterpiece, about? Its a theologically informed story that reflects on the love of God above worldly loves, which is one way of saying sainthood.

If you find yourself talking with a Yeah, whatever atheist, ask him what he wants from life and what he respects and admires. Perhaps ask who his heroes are and what he thinks makes a good man, who he wants to be like. You should find, eventually, that he believes more than his atheism supports. That only gives you a starting place, but he may be open to looking for God when he realizes his casually waving God away keeps him from something he truly wants.

Visit link:

Wrestling With Foam-Pillow Atheism - National Catholic Register

The famous magician and skeptic never missed an opportunity to denounce Christ and the Catholic Church.

Born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge on Aug. 7, 1928, in Toronto, Canada, magician and escape artist James Randi died in Plantation, Florida, on Oct. 20 at the age of 92.

Like me, he was a stage magician and a debunker of those who claimed psychic and other preternatural skills and abilities. We examined the claims of those who inevitably prove themselves to be nothing more than charlatans.

I consulted with him several times while writing my dissertation on charlatanism and secularism. Unfortunately, my conversations with Randi were marked by his self-inflated ego, anger, embittered worldview and a remarkable anti-intellectualism. Again, Im not judging him as no one has the right to judge others. But to suggest Randi was all sweetness and light would be, in essence, a lie not unlike the lies of other charlatans he decried publicly.

Randi called himself a scientific skeptic but he was in no way qualified to express an opinion on any scientific matter. According to his former colleague Ray Hyman whom I also interviewed European universities rescinded their invitations for him to lecture once they found out Randi had no academic credentials. He decried advanced degrees and those who had earned them.

To be clear, Randi was a high school dropout with no scientific training or experience. I dont fault him for that. Ive met plenty of people who have extensive degrees who are quite foolish and even undereducated. Some might equate education with moral worthiness or impeccability and I avoid those people. Randi had the opposite problem. Regardless of whether or not someone ultimately agreed with him (as I do) regarding psychics and other nonsense he wouldnt give the time of day to any who simultaneously believed in God. He classified Christianity as being no better than belief in healing crystals, Bigfoot and UFOs. He called anything outside of his strict materialism woo-woo. However, he had no ready opinion of Islam he would share.

I pointed out to Randi that everything he ever learned about science or history came solely from books written by men and women with doctorates. This is not an attack on uneducated people. Rather its a blow against narcissism of fundamentalist atheists who think themselves smarter than everyone else.

Randi was always impressed with his own knowledge but contemptuous of everyone elses. He insisted that even people with advanced degrees can be wrong. I pointed out to him that though an expert can be wrong, a non-expert is always wrong unless he were to accidently stumble upon some correct but simplistic explanation. Its impossible for someone ignorant of a technical subject to know anything in-depth about it. They will always be armchair scientists armed with no more knowledge than anyone else who watches a Nova or Animal Planet episode. Its preposterous to claim that watching TV for 30 minutes a week would magically endow a non-expert with an understanding surpassing that of a published scholar holding a doctorate in his field of research. If this were true, then men like Randi would have created countless and accurate Nova or Animal Planet episodes already.

You cant simply ape the words of a scholar and demean to be recognized as a scholar equal to the author of original scientific and historical research. One of the most chillingly humbling experience I ever experience was when dealing with a brilliant mathematician who couldnt get his point across to me because as he politely pointed out I didnt have a basic understanding of multi-variable calculus. Readers may rest assured that I struggled at geometry more than most. Advanced mathematics will always be beyond my ken.

Randi never missed an opportunity to denounce Jesus and Christianity. The Catholic Church was on the top of his hit list. In 1968, Randi was sanctioned by New York City radio station WOR for exclaiming "Jesus Christ was a religious nut" during his eponymously named The Amazing Randi Show. In consultation, Randi told me of his fury at an unidentified Catholic priest an admirer of his who sent Randi a flattering letter along with a Miraculous Medal. He wrote back to the priest railing he had no need for his trinkets and good-luck talismans.

Among his many other faults, Randi was a strong believer in racist Social Darwinist theories for most of his life, but when he came under pressure for such opinions in 2013, he backtracked on them. Not a good look for someone who pretends to know more than the experts.

Randi identified himself as an atheist in his essay, Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why Im a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright. He used the pretentious term bright to refer to someone he considered too intelligent to believe in God. As he wrote, A belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history. Please remember Randi wrote this despite the fact that atheists have killed 320 million people since the Reign of Terror in 1793. This includes the 155 million people killed by atheist communists since the beginning of the 20th century. If he had proof the Catholic Church had killed more in 2,000 years than the atheists did in a single century, he was shy about pointing it out.

As to his general honesty, Randi falls miserably short. In 1986, a 58-year-old Randi met his 24-year-old partner, a Venezuelan citizen and illegal immigrant named Deyvi Orangel Pea Arteaga, in a Fort Lauderdale public library. The young man was known by all of Randis colleagues with thatname and by no other.

After being in a live-in relationship for 20-years, Randi assisted his boyfriend in procuring false citizenship papers, at which point the later starting referring to himself as Jos Alvarez. In 2012, Alvarez was charged with federal felony charges of identity and immigration fraud in stealing the real Jos Alvarezs date of birth and Social Security number. He used this information to illegally obtained a twice-renewed U.S. passport. Randi defended his boyfriend in court saying his was a victimless crime. He lied claiming that he always knew Deyvi Orangel Pea Arteaga to be Jos Alvarez. This is flatly untrue as he always introduced him by his actual birth name, Deyvi, not his assumed illegally-gotten name. This is a falsehood as bad as any of that of any other charlatan Randi exposed and condemned.

Jos Alvarez, a Bronx teachers aide, was constantly in trouble with the IRS regarding his income because both the real and fake Jos Alvarezs paychecks came to the attention of the authorities. The real Alvarez had his bank account periodically frozen and it was phenomenally difficult for him to renew his drivers license or procure a passport.

As an aside, Randi, age 84 at the time, and his illegal alien boyfriend were married in Washington, D.C., on July 2, 2013, immediately after publicly announcing his homosexuality.

Putting aside Randis obvious hypocrisy and fraud, a far more disturbing incident plagued him all his life. Recordings of Randi allegedly propositioning teenage boys popped up in the 1980s. Randi never denied the tapes but instead claimed he knowingly participated in the recording as part of an undocumented police sting to entrap boys who were trying to blackmail him none of whom were ever identified or arrested. When I asked Randi the name of the officers who had recruited him, he said he couldnt remember. Further, there are no police records to collaborate Randis story. In addition, he told me that the very boys who tried to blackmail him subsequently burgled his home and stole the recordings from him. Its odd to think Randi would have unsecured police evidence just lying about his home in the first place. I asked Randi four times as to those allegations and he gave me four different, contradicting stories with enough holes to drive a semi through.

I didnt write this article to diminish Randis work but rather to put it into perspective. His contributions to the field of magic and his dedication to exposing those who lie about God and instead offering paganism and occultist lies are legendary. However, theres another side to the Amazing Randi which those who defend him are reticent to mention.

Read more from the original source:

Theres More to James Randi Than Meets the Eye - National Catholic Register

Cheryl K. Chumley is one of the worst writers for the conservative Washington Times, which isnt easy. Its not enough to just offer right-wing takes on current events; she willfully misunderstands what shes writing about, whether shes calling for the takedown of Satanic monuments that dont exist or saying that Christians who oppose Christian Nationalism are very un-Christian.

Her latest diatribe involves trashing Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the only voices of reason coming from the government during the pandemic.

She doesnt bother pointing out anything he said thats untrue. Instead, shes criticizing him for being an atheist. Fauci said in a 2015 interview that he was a humanist despite his Catholic upbringing because I have faith in the goodness of mankind.

This is apparently very problematic for Chumley.

More than that, hes a humanist meaning, he takes his moral compass from his own mind. He has little-to-no concern with the stuff of higher authority the constraints that come from fears of heavenly accountability.

An atheist in charge of U.S. government, policy, economics, education and constitutional freedoms, as they relate to coronavirus response what could go wrong, right?

Hes unelected. Hes largely unaccountable to the people. Hes atheist, which speaks volumes about his character, his moral compass and his understanding of American Exceptionalism and basic founding and constitutional principles. And hes just been outed for lying.

The path is clear: He has to go.

He was not outed for lying. Shes referring to a piece written by Sen. Marco Rubio, whos downplayed the pandemic, in which he criticized Fauci for saying the percent of immunized Americans needed to achieve herd immunity was higher than he felt Americans could tolerate. In other words, he made a decision when it comes to communicating the importance of getting vaccinated because he didnt want to generate fear in a public that includes many anti-vaxxers. Maybe that deserves criticism, but thats a far cry from lying about the science, and nothing he said changes COVID restrictions or policies regarding the vaccines.

But Chumley, who cant simply criticize that decision, thinks his non-religiosity is why he cant be trusted, even though the entire administration is full of conservative Christians who have been openly lying to the public about damn near everything for the past four years.

As for his character, Fauci was recently named one of the most admired men in America by Gallup, though that poll is really more about fame than anything else. (Trump was at the top of the list.)

Heres a difference Chumley never brings up: Fauci doesnt spend any time talking about his personal religious beliefs unless hes specifically asked about them. The evangelicals surrounding Trump cant stop talking about their faith because they constantly fantasize about a theocracy.

Also: Why is it okay to slander Fauci because of his humanism? As American Atheists president Nick Fish rightly noted, you would never see something like this in a legitimate publication:

If the New York Times calls out conservative Christians, its because theyre using those beliefs to inflict harm upon other people, not because theyre Christians. Chumley has no substance to use against Fauci, so she just cites his religious label, as if atheists shouldnt be allowed in positions of power. Its embarrassing and its awful journalism. Which means its par for the course for the Washington Times.

By the way, not that it matters, but Faucis boss is Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. Collins has no issue with Fauci. You would think that would carry some weight with Chumley. I guess not.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

Go here to see the original:

Conservative Writer: Dr. Anthony Fauci is Immoral Because He's a Humanist - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

As part of an occasional series on how the end-of-year holidays are celebrated in our broadcast region, we talked to Irina Lagunina from RFE/RL's Russian Service about seasonal traditions in her country.

Western visitors to Russia at this time of year may be surprised to discover that the locals usually refer to the seasonally decorated conifers you see everywhere as "New Year firs" or "New Year spruces."

So why would they call them this when they're commonly known as Christmas trees in many other places?

According to Irina Lagunina from RFE/RL's Russian Service, it's largely a quirky legacy of the country's Soviet past.

"It was really weird because, after the socialist revolution, the Bolsheviks actually banned not just the festivities of the Christmas season -- this wonderful season of the year -- but also the Christmas tree, which was considered to be a religious symbol," she says.

"They decided that, since the main ideology is atheism, the Christmas tree should be banned. And that remained up until the mid-1930s when the New Year and the Christmas tree were kind of rehabilitated."

When the Christmas tree was "rehabilitated" amid much fanfare in 1935, the official atheist ethos of the time ensured that it would primarily be associated with New Year celebrations and its Christian connotations were jettisoned.

It's something that has endured to this day and the unveiling of the "New Year spruce" at the Kremlin every year is still a big event for thousands of children, although it is no longer decorated with a big Soviet star.

In a way, it's perhaps fitting that the tree is still firmly associated with New Year's rather than Christmas, as "Novy God" (New Year) has long been the focal point of the festive season in Russia.

Like many other Orthodox believers, most Russians typically celebrate Christmas Day on January 7. But for many, the day itself is quite low-key compared to other festivities that are observed in the country at this time of year.

"For those who celebrate it in Russia right now, Christmas is a purely religious event," says Lagunina. "Believers go to the churches -- the churches are actually full these days -- but there is still no kind of notion and tradition of family gathering on this day or having something special."

According to Lagunina, the main day of celebration "is actually not Christmas, but New Year."

"It's all about New Year," she says. "This comes first in the Orthodox calendar, so Christmas is basically the next seven days, [but] the main festivity is New Year's night, and that's when Russians prepare the dinner of the year, the main celebration for family, unity, and so forth."

Although Lagunina says New Year in Russia is "like everywhere else in the world, with a lot of champagne and a lot of fireworks," it is also the centerpiece of a wider tapestry of formal and informal celebrations that are observed at this time of year.

"Well, in Russia right now, of course, there is a reason to celebrate everything," she says. "Russians start to celebrate with the Western Christmas, then New Year, Orthodox Christmas. Basically, it's three weeks of festivities. You cannot get sober during this time!"

One of the most famous traditions observed during this period is not for the fainthearted.

"Ice swimming is a big deal in Russia," says Lagunina, referring to the many hardy souls who brave the freezing waters of their local lakes and rivers for a bracing dip on January 19 to celebrate the Epiphany.

Amid all the festivities, however, New Year is always seen as the big event when people get together with close friends and relatives.

Gifts are exchanged and copious amounts of food and drink are often consumed.

Many families also take the time to watch The Irony Of Fate, a Trading Places kind of musical comedy that has been broadcast on state TV every New Year's Day since 1976 and is now a firmly established tradition.

But it is frequently the food that is at the heart of New Year proceedings.

Lagunina says her seasonal table usually includes typical Russian fare, such as "pirozhki" pastries with various fillings and "kholodets" -- cold stewed meat in aspic. Stuffed duck is also a very common dish on this day and "a regular middle-class family" might even have "a little bit of red caviar, sometimes salted salmon," the main idea being that the choice of food on offer is "the best of what you can imagine."

No New Year's feast is complete, however, without a typical Russian salad or "Salad Olivier," which according to legend was first invented by a French chef of that name while he was working in tsarist Russia.

Lagunina says a Salad Olivier is one of the "absolute must-have dishes on the table" at New Year. She puts the dish's popularity down to its versatility, which allows it to be easily adapted for anyone observing a strict pre-Christmas fast.

"Olivier is made of peas, potatoes, carrots, pickles, ham, and mayonnaise, but the ham can be replaced," she says. "Depending on how strong a believer you are, it can be replaced with chicken, crabmeat, fish, practically everything. So it's this kind of multicultural, multireligious, suitable-for-everybody dish, and you can even make it for vegetarians without any meat or chicken."

Ingredients

1 small can of peas (100 grams)

1 large or two small potatoes, peeled and boiled

1 large boiled carrot

4 hard-boiled eggs

10 salted pickles (Irina makes these herself at home, but they can be shop-bought)

2 slices of sweet onion, finely chopped

200 grams (about 1/2 pound) of ham (common alternatives include a Mortadella type of sausage, crabmeat, boiled beef tongue, or fish. Irina has chosen "Doktorskaya kolbasa or "Doctor's sausage," a lunch meat that has been popular in Russia since Soviet times.)

Method

"Like all Russian salads, all the items should be the size of the smallest ingredient that cannot be divided," says Lagunina. "The peas are the smallest undividable element, so everything you cut should be the size of a pea [at most]. That's the basis of all Russian salads."

As everything should be cut into pea-sized cubes, Lagunina uses a potato slicer for this purpose.

"This tool is very popular not only in Russia but also in the Czech Republic, Austria, and all other places where they make potato salad," she says.

Lagunina is in favor of breaking with tradition and grating the carrots even smaller, however, as cutting them into cubes gives the salad "an overwhelming taste."

Like the carrots, Lagunina also prefers to cut the eggs smaller than the peas, as they help "cement the salad."

Once all the ingredients have been tossed in a bowl, mix in some mayonnaise (according to taste) and sprinkle with black pepper as the "final touch."

Lagunina stresses that the mayonnaise should be added "only before you serve the salad on the table," as it will ensure a "fresher" flavor.

Written by Coilin O'Connor based on an interview with Irina Lagunina from RFE/RL's Russian Service

See the original post here:

Russian New Year: At The Heart Of A Wide Tapestry Of Winter Traditions - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most famous atheists of the 20th century, left his unbelief aside at least temporarily in December 1940. It was while he was a prisoner of war in a German camp, and it was all because of a Christmas play, the first play he ever wrote.

Drafted into the French army in September 1939, Sartre was captured by the Germans in June 1940 as his company retreated, and was imprisoned in the Stalag 12 D camp in Trier.

To keep himself intellectually stimulated, Sartre gave a series of lectures to fellow prisoners, most of whom were priests. He spoke to them about authenticity, freedom and hope. The priests were spellbound by his inspiring talks.

Paul Feller, a Jesuit seminarian at the time, was so moved that on being ordained after the end of the second World War, he dedicated the remainder of his life to living and working among the poor.

Sartre composed a play for these priests to perform on Christmas Eve 1940. Entitled Bariona, or The Sons of Thunder, it was a nativity play with a difference. Bariona, the chief of a poor village, takes a stand against the rising taxes from Rome by ordering that no more children are to be born in his village.

But when he hears of the birth of a messiah who will grow up to be a man of peace, he is incensed, because he wants a leader who will overthrow the Roman occupiers. Bariona sets out for Bethlehem to kill the baby. However, when he arrives at the stable he is captivated by the look on Josephs face and changes his plan altogether.

Instead of killing Jesus, he goes to his own death, by gathering his men to fight a hopelessly lopsided battle against Herods soldiers who are intent on putting an end to the newborn child.

The most remarkable moment in the play is when Sartre tries to enter into Marys state of mind. He provides an astonishingly warm portrayal of her relationship with Jesus: And no other woman has had God just for herself in that way. A very tiny God whom she can take in her arms and cover with kisses, a warm-bodied God who smiles and breathes, a God she can touch, a God who is alive. And if I were a painter, it is at a moment like this that I would paint Mary. I would try to capture the air of affectionate daring and delicate shyness with which she puts out her finger to touch the soft little skin of this baby God whose warm weight she feels on her lap and who smiles at her.

This is not the same nihilistic Sartre who published the novel Nausea in 1938, just two years beforehand. It is a different Sartre, a man touched by the wonder of being, by the hope of new birth, and by the genuine affection of Mary: She looks at him and thinks: This God is my child, this divine flesh is my flesh. He is made of me, he has my eyes and the shape of his mouth is the shape of mine . . . He is my God and he looks like me!

These are the words of someone who has entered so imaginatively into the faith of the Christians imprisoned with him that it almost seems like he himself shares their faith.

Sartres positive take on Christmas was so out of character that years later his companion Simone de Beauvoir claimed he had never written this play in the first place, as a result of which Sartre himself was forced to confirm that he was indeed the author.

He explained that the play did not signal any essential change in his atheistic stance but was a particularly fitting way to foster unity among the prisoners during that Christmas of 1940.

As a believer, I am grateful to Sartre, an unbeliever, for expressing the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus through the eyes of Mary, and in such a fresh and vivid way.

May we too experience something of the wonder and simplicity of the infant Christ, as we celebrate this Christmas.

See the original post:

To the atheist Sartre: Thank you for this vivid incarnation of Jesus - The Irish Times

The Brevard County Commissioners in Florida have adopted a new invocation policy that appears to be inclusive of non-Christian groups, but it may have to be tested to see if it actually works. Whats amazing is that theyre even bothering with this considering how many problems their previous invocation policy gave them. They couldve gotten rid of the archaic practice. Instead, theyre attempting to inject religion into politics again and hoping it wont blow up in their faces this time around.

Their previous attempt cost them nearly half a million dollars in penalties.

You can read all the details right here, but the story goes like this: The County previous limited invocations to faith-based groups only. The only time members of the Central Florida Freethought Community could speak was during the Public Comments portion of the evening. It had a very separate-but-equal vibe to it.

A coalition of lawyers representing church/state separation groups then sued the County on behalf of local atheists, and they won. The County appealed, and they lost yet again. Earlier this year, they were sent a bill for $490,000 (covered by the Countys insurance provider).

They could just drop the practice. Its been three years since theyve had any invocations and the sky has not fallen.

But last week, County Commissioner Curt Smith, the same fool who helped create this mess several years ago, said he wanted to bring them back.

Last night, there was a formal discussion about the topic. 10 citizens spoke in favor of the policy, including one Christian, Evie Ostrander, who brought Christian torture devices to hand out to people. (No one spoke out against the new policy.)

The County eventually adopted that invocation policy after being assured that it passes every legal test. But there is some concern about the wording:

[David] Williamson, a director of the Central Florida Freethought Community, said he remains concerned that the countys new policy refers to clergy giving the invocation.

In addition to there not being clergy in non-theist organizations, Williamson noted that some faiths do not have clergy, citing the Bahai faith as an example.

However, the boards attorney said the invocation system a first-come, first-serve policy that would allow anyone with a footprint in the County to deliver the invocation would be inclusive.

It is a very open system, [County Attorney Eden] Bentley said.

Bentley told commissioners that you certainly could see some unusual, unique and possibly even fringe organizations qualifying for giving an invocation under the countys new policy.

So the spirit of the new rule appears to be that any group would theoretically be allowed to speak. But that obviously opens the door to everyone. And that could be a problem for some:

Another of [Commissioner Bryan] Lobers fear was speakers gaming the system by saying they are a member of a fringe organization like the Cult of Cthulhu or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that they will make a mockery of the invocation.

I pray that my concerns prove to be unfounded, and that we dont come to regret this down the road, Lober said.

Christians made a mockery of invocations a long time ago by trying to inject it into local politics. An atheist or Pastafarian participating in the process isnt gaming the system. Theyre literally following the rules set by the Commissioners.

In fact, the best thing that could happen now is for every fringe group in the area to request that opportunity. We need The Satanic Temple and other non-Christians jumping on this chance and making plans to apply to speak before Christians get around to it. If its first-come, first-serve, may a whole bunch of non-Christians start standing in line so that these Commissioners realize they would be better off saving prayers for their homes and churches.

The new policy was adopted 4-1, with Lober being the only person against it.

Let the games begin. Its what the County wants.

(Image via Shutterstock. Large portions of this article were published earlier. Thanks to Brian for the link)

Go here to read the rest:

FL County That Blocked Atheists from Giving Invocations Adopts Revised Policy - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

F. F. Bruce is one of those scholars I have had to spend a lot of time reading in seminary. He researched and wrote some of the best material on the history of the Bible and its accuracy. In studying the ancient texts that we have, Bruce has noted that there are only around nine or 10 manuscripts of Caesars Gallic War, which was composed between 58 and 50 B.C. The oldest manuscript we have originates from 900 years later.

Bruce writes: The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight (manuscripts), the earliest belonging to circa A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest (manuscripts) of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

Take, as well, something like Homers Iliad, which people passed to one other over the centuries by oration, until it was finally written down. Until the 19th century, most people presumed Troy a myth. Then, archeologists found it. The rage of Achilles was probably true. In the centuries before the printing press even before monks and script people preserved their histories through accurate recitation over generations. Apply this all to scripture.

Regarding the Old Testament, it is perhaps the most accurately reproduced ancient text in the entire world. Scribes took great care, because they were writing Gods word. We know the accuracy of the text has been beyond reproach for at least 2,500 years. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls confirms this.

Regarding the New Testament, we possess enough of the writings of early church leaders who wrote within about 100 years of Christs resurrection to be able to reproduce the gospels and letters of Paul and John. There are over 20,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament from the first few centuries of Christianity, written in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac and other languages. There are 5,700 New Testament Greek manuscripts known to exist, and some of those were written within about 100 years of Christs resurrection.

We do not, to our knowledge, have the original New Testament texts as actually written by Luke, Paul, John and others. But we have the copies of them from very close in time to the originals. The scribes of the New Testament sometimes working at a furious rate to outpace Roman soldiers made occasional errors. But those errors were mostly in grammar and punctuation, not errors of substance.

Bart Ehrman is one of the scholars on whom Biblical skeptics rely. Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian but now considers himself an agnostic atheist. He studied under Bruce Metzger, who, like F. F Bruce, is noted for his scholarship on the Biblical texts. Ehrman writes that though he has textual criticism of scripture, his criticism does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzgers position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. When an agnostic atheist like Ehrman agrees with a highly respected Christian scholar like Metzger who was Ehrmans professor that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants, you should pay attention.

One of those essential Christian beliefs is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It is as foundational a belief to the Christian faith as the resurrection. In fact, I suspect the very people who doubt the miracle of the virgin birth also doubt the resurrection. I believe both are true. We celebrate Christs birth this Christmas season in communion with more than 2 billion other Christians globally who accept the virgin birth as true. For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Go here to see the original:

The authenticity of the virgin birth | Editorial Columns - Brunswick News

Eds: This story was supplied by The Conversation for AP customers. The Associated Press does not guarantee the content.

Phil Zuckerman, Pitzer College

(THE CONVERSATION) The voting patterns of religious groups in the U.S. have been scrutinized since the presidential election for evidence of shifting allegiances among the faithful. Many have wondered if a boost in Catholic support was behind Bidens win or if a dip in support among evangelicals helped doom Trump.

But much less attention has been paid to one of the largest growing demographics among the U.S. electorate, one that has increased from around 5% of Americans to over 23% in the last 50 years: Nones that is, the nonreligious.

I am a scholar of secularism in the U.S., and my focus is on the social and cultural presence of secular people nonreligious people such as atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and those who simply dont identify with any religion. They are an increasingly significant presence in American society, one which inevitably spills into the political arena.

The new values voters

For years, both scholars and pundits have referred to the political impact of values voters in America. What that designation generally refers to are religious men and women whose scripturally based values coagulate around issues such as opposing marriage equality and womens reproductive autonomy.

But dubbing such religious voters as values voters is a real semantic bamboozle. While it is true that many religious Americans maintain certain values that motivate their voting behavior, it is also very much the case that secular Americans also maintain their own strongly held values. My research suggests they vote on these values with just as much motivation as the religious.

Sex education

This played out in November in a number of ballot initiatives that have flown under the national media radar.

Voters in Washington state, for example, passed Referendum 90, which requires that students receive sex education in all public schools. This was the first time that such a measure was ever on a state ballot, and it passed with ease thanks, in part, to the significant number of nonreligious voters in the Pacific Northwest.

The fact is, Washington is one of the least religious states in the union. Well over a third of all Washingtonians do not affiliate with any religion, more than a third never pray and almost 40% never attend religious services.

The referendums passing was helped by the fact that nonreligious adults tend to value comprehensive sex education. Numerousstudies have found that secular Americans are significantly more likely to support comprehensive sex education in school. In his research, sociologist Mark Regnerusfound that secular parents were generally much more comfortable and more likely to have open and frank conversations with their children about safe sex than religious parents.

Drugs policy

Meanwhile, voters in Oregon another Pacific Northwestern state that contains one of the most secular populations in the country passed Measure 110, the first ever statewide law to decriminalize the possession and personal use of drugs.

This aligns with research showing that nonreligious Americans are much more likely to support the decriminalization of drugs than their religious peers. For instance, a 2016 study from Christian polling firm Barna found that 66% of evangelicals believe that all drugs should be illegal as did 43% of other Christians, but only 17% of Americans with no religious faith held such a view.

Science at the ballot box

Secular people are generally more trusting of scientific empiricism, and variousstudies have shown that the nonreligious are more likely to accept the evidence behind human-generated climate change. This translates to support for politicians and policies that take climate change seriously.

It may also have factored in to the success of a November ballot measure in Denver, Colorado, to fund programs that eliminate greenhouse gases, fight air pollution and actively adapt to climate change. The ballot passed with over 62% of the vote and it is of note that Denver is one of the most secular cities in the nation.

Meanwhile voters in California another area of relative secularity passed Proposition 14 supporting the funding of stem cell research, the state being one of only a handful that has a publicly funded program. Pew studies have repeatedly found that secular Americans are far more likely than religious Americans to support stem cell research.

Values versus values

On issues that the religious right has held some sway in recent years, there is evidence of a counterbalance among secular value voters.

For example, while the religious have been more likely to oppose same-sex marriage, secular Americans are more likely to support it, and by significant margins. A recent Pew study found that 79% of secular Americans are supportive, compared to 66% of white mainline Protestants, 61% of Catholics, 44% of Black Protestants and 29% of white evangelicals.

There are many additional values that are prominent among secular Americans. For example, the U.S. Secular Survey of 2020 the largest survey of nonreligious Americans ever conducted, with nearly 34,000 participants found strong support for safeguarding the separation of church and state.

Other studies have found that secular Americans strongly support womens reproductive rights, women working in the paid labor force, the DACA program, death with dignity and opposition to the death penalty.

[Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter and get expert takes on todays news, every day.]

Secular surge

According to Eastern Illinois University professor Ryan Burges data analysis, around 80% of atheists and agnostics and 70% of those who described their religion as nothing in particular voted for Biden.

This may have been decisive. As Professor Burge argues, its completely fair to say that these shifts generated a two percentage-point swing for Biden nationwide. There were five states where the gap between the candidates was less than two percentage points (Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina). Four of those five went for the Biden and the nones were between 28% and 37% of the population in those key states.

As this past election has shown, secular values are not only alive and well, but they are more pronounced than ever. It is also noteworthy that more openly nonreligious candidates were elected to public office than ever before. According to an analysis by the atheist author and activist Hemant Mehta, not only did every member of the secular Congressional Freethought Caucus win reelection, but 10 state senators who are openly secular that is, they have made it publicly known that they are nonreligious were voted into office, up from seven two years ago. There is now an all-time high of 45 openly secular state representatives nationwide, according to Mehtas analysis. Every one of them is a Democrat.

Religious voters will certainly continue to vote their values and for politicians that express similar views. But so, I argue, will secular voters.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content.

More here:

Secular 'values voters' are becoming an electoral force in the US just look closely at 2020's results - Jacksonville Journal-Courier