Category Archives: Atheist

A number of MPs told stories about how the Queen had helped to ease peoples nerves at official ceremonies.

Greg Clark, the Conservative former levelling up secretary,said that some ministers had found the experience of being sworn in as Privy Counsellors "so overwhelming that I understand that men have suddenly been moved to curtsy in front of Her Majesty".

Grant Shapps, the former transport secretary,recalled that during the "ancient and complex" process, he did not understand the meaning of the phrase "brush her hand" during the oath-taking.

Fifth in the line to become a Privy Counsellor, he was unable to watch what other ministers were doing ahead of him. "She stretched out her bare ungloved right hand and to my surprise moved it towards my face, it moved towards my lips. I pursed my lips. It stuck!"

With a smack of his lips, Mr Shapps added: "In what felt like an age, she was trying to pull it away and then suddenly ... her hand pulled away."

Mr Shapps said he wanted the ground to "swallow me whole" but added: "She looked me right in the eyes with those wonderful sparkling eyes, and as though to acknowledge what had happened and also to forgive me in one turn, she said 'Yes,'

"We never spoke of it again. God Save the King."

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, described the late monarch as our forever Queen.

She related how the Queen invited departing Cabinet ministers and party leaders to tea, with Ms Cooper receiving the invite after Labour lost the 2010 general election.

She didnt invite us when we were on the way up, she didnt invite us when we were playing a constitutional role, she only invited us when it was all over and the cameras had gone home, said Ms Cooper.

Most of us dont like to talk about our downfall, and so most people never knew she even held those teas It showed how privately even more than publicly she believed in selfless duty and valuing public service to our country.

Afterwards, Ms Truss took her Cabinet ministers to Buckingham Palace, where they were received by the King for the first time.

See original here:

Atheist Keir Starmer avoids reference to God in pledge of loyalty to King Charles III - The Telegraph

To a blast of trumpets, King Charles slipped into the role that was his destiny

Its the moment I have been dreading, the new King said to the new prime minister on Friday, but you do try to keep things going. In the ancient courtyard of St Jamess Palace, and among 200 assembled privy counsellors, the inevitability of that fact became law: the reign of King Charles III was formally proclaimed. The ceremony of accession was witnessed for the first time by television cameras. Viewers across the world watched Penny Mordaunt, leader of the privy council since last Wednesday, preside over a ceremony unchanged for 300 years. The new King addressed an audience including six of the 14 former prime ministers who served under his mother, their heads bobbing allegiance like extras in a Holbein painting. Observer

Liz Truss took her senior ministers to Buckingham Palace to be received by the sovereign for the first time. He was introduced to members by the Prime Minister as they lined up inside the 1844 Room at Buckingham Palace. The King spent time talking to new Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace as they were flanked by the prime minister. Following the cabinet audiences, the King spent time meeting the leaders of opposition parties, including Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. The meetings took place on Saturday afternoon following the Accession Council ceremony formally proclaiming Charles III as King this morning. Upday News

Sir Keir Starmer pledged his loyalty to the King on Saturday by choosing a form of words that avoided referring to God. The Labour leader joined Liz Truss and other senior MPs in pledging their allegiance to the new King as Parliament met for a rare Saturday sitting, before the Cabinet was received by the sovereign at Buckingham Palace for the first time. During the swearing in ceremony, MPs have an option of taking an oath or making a solemn affirmation. Sir Keir, who is an atheist, was one of a number of MPs who opted for the affirmation. He said: I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, who presided over Saturdays Accession Council as acting Lord President of the Council, also chose the affirmation. Sunday Telegraph

It was one of Liz Trusss most vociferous critics who brought into sharp focus the weight resting on the new Prime Ministers shoulders. Ian Blackford, the Scottish National Party leader, made a point of telling the Commons that his thoughts were with Ms Truss, who just days into her term in office was having to come to terms with the enormousness of the loss of the head of state, and show the leadership that is now required in her position. It had been believed that the first Ms Truss knew of Queen Elizabeth IIs declining health was when Nadhim Zahawi, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had urgently briefed the Prime Minister following a Commons statement on her energy rescue package, 24 hours earlier. But The Telegraph understands that when Ms Truss entered the Commonsshe already knew that the monarchs health was rapidly declining, and that her death was believed to be imminent. Sunday Telegraph

No one in Downing Street thought much of it when a routine briefing for the new prime minister was cancelled on Wednesday afternoon. Liz Truss was busy with her plans for an energy price freeze and her ministerial reshuffle. Future historians, however, will see that at 2.30pm that day she was due to get a bridges briefing, the codename for the preparations for the death of the Queen. [The routine bridges briefing] was cancelled because of the energy announcement and the reshuffle, a No 10 source said. Little did we know. Less than 24 hours later Truss was at the dispatch box, giving MPs the outline of her plans to freeze household energy bills at a cost estimated to be far in excess of 100 billion when she was passed a note by Nadhim Zahawi, the Cabinet Office minister. It said Buckingham Palace was due to issue a statement about the Queens health. Truss had got to her feet knowing the Queens death was imminent. Sunday Times

Russian forces suffered their worst defeat since March yesterday when they were forced to abandon their main foothold in the northeast of Ukraine to avoid encirclement in a rapid counter-offensive by Kyivs troops. Military analysts spoke of a possible turning point in the war. Moscow tried to portray the hasty retreat from several vital strategic strongholds near Kharkiv as an orderly redeployment. Ukraine broke through one of the wars most hotly contested front lines, taking back dozens of towns and villages in a shock offensive that began five days ago. Its of historic importance, said Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at Kings College London. It might be a tipping point, we dont know quite how this will work out but theres a lot of panic and anxiety among Russian troops right now. Sunday Times

Vince Cable suffered a minor stroke when he was leader of the Liberal Democrats that seriously affected his performance when giving speeches and at other political events, he in a memoir published on Sunday. The former business secretary [in the Coalition government] decided to keep his health issues secret for more than a year and to soldier on as leader, until he stepped down in July 2019. Now 79, he says in the memoir that he wrestled with whether to go public at the time, but came to the conclusion that people would have written him off as a goner had he done so. On one occasion in early summer 2018 he was addressing MPs in a Brexit debate in the House of Commons. I totally lost my bearings and for what seemed an eternity I was paralysed, he writes. The revelation about the stroke, which happened when flying to Italy in May 2018, comes towards the end of Partnership & Politics In a Divided Decade. Observer

Read more:

Sunday 11th September 2022 - ConservativeHome

Its inspiring to hear the testimony of a person whose life has been so completely changed by Christ. After many years spent astray under the influence of drugs, emotional dependence, and a serious depression, Brigitte Bdard experienced a powerful conversion. From that moment on, she has never ceased to testify loudly and clearly that Christ has set her free.

She began using drugs at the age of 11. This addiction lasted 10 years, at the end of which she fell into another addictionto sex and attention. For another 10 years I was desperate, searching for my sexual orientation, looking to get some love through sex, she tells Aleteia. I had given up drugs, alcohol and even cigarettes, but I was still collecting conquests in love.

This continued until the day when, with her head full of suicidal ideas, she went to a retreat at the abbey of Saint-Benot-du-Lac (in Quebec, Canada), at the invitation of a person she had met at a Cocaine Anonymous meeting. There, the ex-cocaine addict, atheist, and bisexual feminist (as she was at the time) spent the three days of the retreat pouring out her anger on a monk who would later become her spiritual father. I yelled at him! For three days. Throwing all my rage at him. He listened to me without flinching. He didnt talk about Jesus, but he was Jesus, she recalls. He looked at me with love. He prayed over me. He laid his hands on me. And the Holy Spirit came down on me. I understood that I was Gods beloved daughter, that Jesus was alive, truly risen. It was a revelation.

From that day on, she decided to put God at the center of her life. As a single mother of two children, she discovered friendship and the life of the Church. She made a pilgrimage to Rome, and got up every day at 4 a.m. to pray for an hour and a half. I have a very strong temperament, she says. A few years later, she met Hugues on the Internet. They got married on September 30, 2006, and have two children together. Hugues also has two children from a first union, so they form a large family.

Letting herself be loved by her husband

After having let herself be loved by Christ, she now had to let herself be loved by her husband. While the beginnings of their marriage were characterized by close unity, married life was far from being rosy.

We each lived a little on our own; God was not at the center of our lives. Its not that because were Christians we dont have problems, she says. Caught up in the whirlwind of her busy job, she never missed an opportunity to testify about her conversion, traveled across the country to give conferences, and engaged with her husband in various forms of service in the Church. Her husband struggled with an addiction to pornography. They went through a marriage crisis that lasted two years, and were accompanied psychologically and spiritually by the Chemin Neuf community.

What changed our lives was when we started praying as a couple every morning, she says. It was a way to put God at the center, to review our priorities. And what became a priority in prayer was our personal relationship with God. How far should our conversion go? Even to our bed! But there were many obstacles, given our past wounds, which prevented us from living a sexual communion.

Gradually, Bdard was able to present to God in prayer her difficulties, her fears, and her frustrations. She knew that God wanted to rebuild her marriage, to restore it. She knew that He did not judge them and welcomed them where they were at. It helped me to welcome Hugues where he was at, to welcome him as he was.

Praying as a couple forced us to live in the truth

At that moment, a piece of advice from a psychologist left a deep impression on them: You have to take care of each others wounds. Thus, prayer helped them to remain anchored in patience, trust, sensitivity, and gentleness. God taught us to love each other by ridding us of all the false ideas we had. Our failures were there to help us build love, and praying as a couple forced us to live in the truth.

That journey still bears fruit today. She joyfully testifies to these experiences through her participation on the television program The Victory of Love (La Victoire de lAmour, TVA) and in the Catholic magazine Le Verbe, as well as in her latest book I Let Myself be Loved and the Holy Spirit Carried Me Away (Je me suis laiss aimer Et lEsprit Saint ma emprs).

Continue reading here:

Former cocaine addict and atheist shares about her powerful conversion - Aleteia

A lady asked Hazrat Amirul Momineen, Khalifatul Masih Vaathe following:

[] How can one explain to an atheist that Allah the Exalted will ultimately forgive humans and grant them entry into Paradise?

Huzoor-e-Anwaraareplied:

[] Every day, we observe that if a person makes a mistake, his punishment is not permanent, rather it ends at some point as well. When this is the case with us humans and the laws we have made, then how can we ever reconcile ourselves to the idea that God would continue to make people suffer from the punishment of Hell for their mistakes and sins forever? He is God in Whom are found all the most excellent, pure and praiseworthy attributes, Who is the Most Exalted, Who manifests Himself on the highest station of holiness and Who has made a promise about Himself that:

Verily, My mercy prevails over My wrath. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitab badi l-khalq, Bab ma jaa fi qawli-llahi taala wa huwa llazi yabdau l-khalqa thumma yuiduhu wa huwa ahwanu alayh)

Moreover, He is the One Who loves his servants far more than a kind mother. [Thus, how can we even think of Him in that way?]

Hell is a hospital where the sick will be treated and discharged after their recovery. This is the reason why Allah the Exalted has also used the wordumm, i.e. mother, in relation to Hell in the Holy Quran, as He said, (Surah al-Qaraiah, 101:10), which means that Hell will be his mother. One does not live in the mothers womb forever. Rather, when the development of the fetus is complete, it comes into the world from there.

Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira, while explaining the interpretation of this verse, says:

To refer to Hell [hawiyah] as mother [umm] points to the fact that one is attached to the mother until one is fully developed and trained. After having received the training, one is separated from the mother. This word [umm] indicates that the inmates of Hell will be delivered from it after having lived in it for a long period of time. (Haqaiq-ul-Furqan, Vol. IV, p. 446)

Similarly, it is also mentioned in the Hadith that there will come a time upon Hell that there will be no human being left in it and the gates of Hell will make a rattling noise on account of the blowing winds. (Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 14, Hadith No. 39506)

Hazrat Ibn Masudranarrates that the Holy Prophetsawhile describing the condition of the last person to be taken out of Hell, said:

The person who will be the last to enter Paradise will come out of Hell, falling, stumbling and crawling while the fire of Hell will be burning him. Then, once he is out of the hell, he will look back towards the hell and address the hell and say, Blessed is He Who has saved me from thee. Allah has given me something He has not given to any one of those in earlier or later times.

Then a tree would be raised up for him and he will say, O my Lord! Bring me near this tree so that I may take shelter in its shade and drink of its water. Allah, the Exalted and Great, would say, O son of Adam! If I grant you this, you will ask Me for something else. He would reply, No. my Lord. And he would promise Him that he would not ask for anything else. His Lord would excuse him because He sees (such bounties of Paradise) what he cannot help desiring; so He would bring him near it, and he would take shelter in its shade and (quench his thirst) by drinking of the water (and the nectar of its fruits).

Afterwards, a tree more beautiful than the first would be raised up before him and he would say, O my Lord! bring me near this tree in order that I may drink of its water and take shelter in its shade and I shall not ask Thee for anything else. He (Allah) would say, O son of Adam! If I bring you near it you may ask me for something else. He would then promise Him that he would not ask for anything else. His Lord will excuse him because He would see something (of the blessings) he cannot help desiring. So He would bring him near it and he would enjoy its shade and drink its water.

Then a tree would be raised up for him at the gate of Paradise, more beautiful than the first two. He would say, O my Lord! bring me near this (tree) so that I may enjoy its shade and drink from its water. I shall not ask Thee for anything else. He (Allah) would say, O son of Adam! Did you not promise Me that you would not ask Me anything else? He would say, Yes, my Lord, but I shall not ask Thee for anything else. His Lord would excuse him for He sees something (of the blessings of Paradise) the temptation of which he could not resist. He (Allah) would bring him near to it, and when He would bring him near it he would hear the voices of the inhabitants of Paradise. He would say, O my Lord! Please admit me to it. He (Allah) would say, O son of Adam! What will bring an end to your requests to Me? Will it please you if I give you the whole world and a like one along with it? He will reply, O my Lord! Art Thou mocking me, though Thou art the Lord of the worlds?

At this, the narrator of this hadith, Hazrat Abdullah bin Masudra, laughed and said to the audience, Why dont you ask me why I laughed? The people asked, Why did you laugh? He replied that the Holy Prophetsaalso laughed in the same way and the Companionsraasked him, O Allahs Messengersa! Did you laugh for some reason? Upon this, he replied, I laughed because of the laughter of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. When that person will say, You are mocking me despite being the Lord of the Worlds, Allah will say, I am not mocking you but I can do whatever I will. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-iman, Bab akhiri ahli n-nari khurujan)

Read more:

How can one explain to an atheist that everyone will eventually enter Paradise? - The Weekly Al Hakam

I teach hundreds of students every year. I try as hard as I can to get to know them, even though some of them are a few thousand miles away and I might never meet them in person. To get to know them, I assign a standard survey with the same questions Ive been asking for 15 years. One of the questions I ask each year is to tell me three interesting things about themselves. The answers I receive stretch from I play football to I speak eight languages. Every once in a while, a student surprises me with an interesting tidbit about themselves I hadnt heard before, but for the most part, theres nothing new under the sun.

It isnt often, but every few years a student will write that theyre an atheist. This is a bold statement because the student knows that Im a rabbi and have dedicated my life to bringing my students closer to G-d. Writing Im an atheist to answer a rabbis question to tell me something interesting about yourself is the shot-across-the-bow equivalent to a student telling their vegan teacher they love steak. Its not just a call for attention, its a call to arms. A student writing Im an atheist to their rabbi-teacher is telegraphing, Im looking for a debate, bring it on. Im sure psychologists would posit that the student is actually calling out for help or attention, but Im not a psychologist, and smart educators and rabbis dont pretend they know psychology just because they teach adolescents.

As an educator and rabbi, my inner voice screams, Take the atheist on! Go for the debate! Youve studied this before, you have written and taught about G-ds existence hundreds of times. Youll convince the student there is a G-d and convince all the other students as well! Yet, I know better. I know the student hasnt developed the intellectual maturity to truly investigate whether G-d exists or not. For whatever reason, the student finds it more appealing to claim to be an atheist than to maintain there is a G-d. Debating, educating or trying to persuade this student wont succeed in moving them to be convinced there is a G-d. In all likelihood, engaging on the topic of G-ds existence with them will solidify their claims.

I loathe generalizing, but most teenagers reach a conclusion about G-ds existence before asking themselves what qualifies as a metric theyd accept as sufficiently convincing. They simply conclude that if they cant sense G-d physically (seeing or hearing G-d), there is no G-d. Not only are they unaware of how many places, events and personalities they accept as existing or have existed without physical evidence of their existence, they havent even considered that such factors exist. Teenagers, for the most part and there are exceptions do not possess the intellectual development necessary to contemplate complex abstract questions like G-ds existence. An educator cant engage a student with facts and figures if the student hasnt developed the skills to understand how to properly weigh the facts.

There will always be atheists and they will always have rationalizations that allow them to answer the challenges their position forces on them. They will claim survival of the fittest, metaverse, and coincidence. These answers arent the teenage atheists reason for claiming there is no G-d. Showing that these answers lack logic wont help them, itll push them further down. Instead of challenging the teenage Jewish atheist, show them you care for them, validate their doubts, and begin to help them think methodologically. Once they begin to think in a clearer fashion, theyll be open to hearing about G-d.

Many mistakenly think a rabbis role is to draw a student close to G-d by hook or by crook, but nothing could be further from the truth. A rabbis primary role is to be there for their students when they need them. A student doesnt feel their rabbi is there for them when the rabbi debates them; they feel a connection to the rabbi when they know the rabbi cares for them where they are not where the rabbi wants them to be. An educators role is to teach their students, not to indoctrinate them. Most importantly, a teacher instructs students not what to think, but how to think. By teaching a student a methodology of thought, the student can weigh factors themselves and reach conclusions in a logical manner. There is no greater gift a teacher can give their student. I cant be sure my educational and theological philosophy will transform my atheist students into maintaining there is a G-d, but I am confident debating my students will completely fail.

Visit link:

Engaging With The Teenage Atheist - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Perhaps one of the most significant single quotations of the 19th century was by the prodigious and often misconstrued German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who said among other things God is dead. That little sentence has caused immeasurable trouble ever since it was published in 1882 in Nietzsches The Gay Philosophy and was reiterated in the seminal Thus Spake Tharathustra. The poor little sentence has been reduced time and time again to a mere statement if atheism. That reading could hardly be more wrong.

In actual fact, when he said that God was dead, Nietzsche was not saying anything that would call for a Gods Not Dead style apologetic rebuttal. Sure, he was an atheist. Sure, underlying the famous statement is the assumption that God never existed in the first place. However, God is dead would be a pretty silly way to say, There is no God. The death of God is not a religious commentary but a societal phenomenon. God is dead, Nietzsche wrote, and we have killed him. This means that the post-enlightenment European culture had purged itself of its former obsession with God and possibly driven from its collective consciousness the ability to believe in God.

Make no mistake, a man as critical of religion and the church as Nietzsche took no issue with the death of God. Since God was not real to begin with, the death of God as a popular idea was no tragedy. What it was, however, was an intimidating vacuum in western culture. The philosophical and social question of the century became, What will replace Christianity as the guiding force behind western cultures? This question made everyone, Nietzsche included, uneasy.

The classic misunderstanding of Nietzsche is not unlike poor old John Lennon who set off riots, record burnings, and radio band in the US when he said that his band The Beatles was bigger than Jesus. As Lennon later clarified, he never meant that the Beatles were better than Jesus, more important than Jesus, or anything like that. He said that they were more popular among Western youth than Christianity was, and that was a fair observation at the time. Kids were more apt to catch Beatlemania than Jesus mania in the 1960s.

Despite being no fan of Christianity himself, Lennon was not exactly comfortable being bigger than Jesus. He seemed to be taken aback, maybe even a little scandalized underneath his jaded exterior, that a pop band was outselling the largest world religion among the new generation even if he didnt support the religion. In this way, Lennon became a lot like Nietzsche a controversial commentator on current trends, critical of the church but dismayed at the gap left by its declining influence and the things that might arise to fill it.

In a sense, Lennons observation was an answer to the question posed by the death of God. In the absence of a God-fearing culture, it was entertainment that seemed to rise up to become the predominant influence on the beliefs, feelings, and choices of the masses. The gatherings for worship were eclipsed by the wild-spirited gatherings for concerts. Spirituality, philosophy, and even salvation were outsourced to songwriters.

In response, church after church has tried to convert itself into a rock concert in a desperate scramble to entertain crowds and maybe trick them into reviving God in the process. Of course, it worked a few times. Contemporary churches have grown quite large, and some genuine conversions have occurred as a result of their efforts. In many more cases, too, though, those who were already Christian left their traditions and hopped aboard the entertainment express, finding more fulfillment in these more entertaining liturgies.

God died (in the consciousness of modern culture). The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. American Christians tried to turn Jesus into The Beatles. After more than a century of talk, rumors of Gods death have been greatly exaggerated, and religion doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Now we are all scrambling to adjust to this strange new world weve created.

See more here:

From Nietzsche to John Lennon: Death and Resurrection of Western Religiosity - Patheos

When President Ronald Reagan touched down at Vnukovo International Airport in Moscow on May 28, 1988, he had more than missiles on his mind. Reagan had ostensibly arrived for his third summit with the general secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. Publicly, the purpose of the visit was arms limitations. Privately, the Gipper (as Reagan was known) had an ulterior motive in meeting with Gorby, as some in the West called him. Reagan wanted to talk to the leader of the second-largest atheist nation in the world about God.

Not surprisingly, when Reagan was later escorted to the Grand Kremlin Palace, where he was greeted by the smiling Soviet leader, he was asked to make some remarks in St. Georges Hall. It was a Sunday, and the American president ended his comments with Thank you and God bless you. It was the first time the word God had been used in that hall in nearly 70 years. It marked a deliberate (and crafty) strategy on the part of the president to bring eternal things into the political discussion.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev died Aug. 30, 2022, at the age of 91. Born as Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was just ramping up his mass murder of Ukrainians and kulaks who resisted his collectivization efforts, Gorbachev not only would live to see the end of the Soviet Union, but he would become a principal architect in its demise. And, contrary to some contemporary accounts, he didnt like it.

At the time, Western journalists fawned over his supposed reforms in Russia, perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness), but in fact Gorbachev was responsible for neither. Both had been undertaken before he ascended to power in 1985. Indeed, perhaps shockingly, Ilya Zaslavsky, later elected to the Russian parliament after the fall of communism, called Reagan the father of perestroika.

At age 54, Gorbachev was young for a Soviet leader. In fact, his three predecessors appeared ancient by comparison. And they all died within a three-year period, leading Reagan to tell his wife Nancy, I want to talk to the Soviet leaders but they keep dying on me. Gorby had a round face, a harmless look with his glasses, and a distinctive birthmark that some would quip took on the map shape of whatever country the Soviets were invading at the time. Western media adored him, treating him like a rock star. To them, he was not a real communist.

Gorbachev himself begged to differ. Though he spoke in appropriate code that concealed his real motivations, he spoke plainly behind closed doors. He told his first Politburo meeting he was deeply devoted to the idea of collective work, adding, what we need is more socialism. While it is true that Gorbachev advanced both perestroika and glasnost, he saw both as well within Soviet dogma. Also, he had no other choice. The Soviet economy was crashing after decades of extreme military spendingspending that was undetected or misunderstood by even the CIA. By 1985, it was eating the Soviet economy alive. As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, Gorbachev didnt understand that the system is the problem.

Reagan and Gorbachev share jokes on a break during the Geneva Summit in 1985.Jean-Louis Atlan/Sygma via Getty Images

Even as the CIA focused on the Soviets remaining strengths, Reagan understood that the country teetered on the brink. Privately, in his diary, he wrote, They are in bad shape and if we can cut off their credit theyll have to yell Uncle.

Reagan was nearly alone in these assessments. Still, by 1982, he had put in place an economic program that would cut the legs out from under the USSRs economy and ultimately hasten the communist systems collapse.

Reagan recognized that, as the old joke went, Russia exported only four things: gold, oil, vodka, and spies. He thought hed let the CIA handle the spies, and he wasnt about to stop vodka shipments. But gold and oil he could do something about.

He made a deal with Saudi Arabias oil minister to lower prices and increase production. Within a year, oil was flowing more freely and Soviet prices fell. Reagan also pursued a money-tightening program that sent the value of Soviet gold exports into a nosedive. Meanwhile, on the cultural front, he followed the advice of the many who urged him to blast rock n roll music over Voice of America and Radio Free Europes systems into the heart of captive European nations. When I later interviewed people from Hungary, Romania, East Germany, and other countries behind the Iron Curtainpeople who were kids when the Berlin Wall fellevery one of them spoke of the importance of rock music at the time. They called it the music of freedom.

SHORTLY AFTER REAGANS COMMENTS at St. Georges Hall in 1988, he and Gorbachev headed off for a one-on-one meeting. It was their third since Gorbachev had become general secretary. Almost immediately, the Gipper referenced God again. What if you ruled [that] religious freedom was part of your peoples rights? he asked. No one would have dared ask such a question of Stalin or his successor, Nikita Khrushchev. But Reagan sensed Gorby might be open. Such a declaration, Reagan insisted, would make him a hero, and much of the feeling against your country would disappear like water in the hot sun.

Gorbachev bobbed and weaved. He had actually been baptized as a child, he said, but now did not believe in God Then, uncomfortably, he tried to turn the question back to civil rights in America. But Reagan was never one to be sidetracked. He told Gorbachev a true story: Reagan had once asked his son Ron, a professing agnostic, What if I served you a gourmet dinner? Would you believe there was a cook? Gorbachev, the head of godless communism, said Rons answer would have to have been yes.

The following day at Spaso House, Reagan repeated the story and injected an even more spiritual tone. I have to believe, said the Gipper, that the history of this troubled century will indeed be redeemed in the eyes of God and man, and that freedom will truly come to all. Then he again ended with God bless you.

When he met up with Gorbachev again, Reagan gave him a videotape of a Gary Cooper movie, Friendly Persuasion, about a Quaker caught in the American Civil War and the necessity of listening to God. One might have thought Reagan was on a mission to convert Gorbachev personally, a sort of Billy Graham crusade to the heart of the evil empire. After that nights dinner, Reagan ended with God bless you yet again, uttering the name of the Lord in the presence of a Soviet leader more times in a few days than in perhaps the past half-century.

Gorbachev and Reagan meet in 1986 inside the Hofdi House during the Reykjavk Summit.Maidun Collection/Alamy

BEFORE HIS MISSION TO MOSCOW, though, Reagan had to do everything he could to make sure Gorbachev had ears to hear. By 1985, when Gorbachev agreed to meet in Geneva, he was already holding a losing hand. The arms race had tilted decidedly against him, beginning with the delivery in 1981 of Americas revolutionary Trident submarines. These vessels were so stealthy that even Americas own anti-submarine methods couldnt find them. They were so successful, and so advanced, that the U.S. Navy did something it almost never did: It delayed delivery of more advanced missiles with longer range because they just werent needed.

After that, Reagans bomber programs came online. Then, he and Thatcher ordered several hundred Pershing II and cruise missiles deployed in Europe to counter the ill-conceived plan of one of Gorbachevs predecessors to sprinkle mobile, impossible-to-find SS-20 missiles all over western Russia. (Gorbachev told his advisers that was a poor decision, but for the time being he was stuck with it.) Then came 1983, and Reagan hit the Soviets with the old one-two.

First, at a convention of evangelicals, the Gipper called the Soviet Union the evil empire. That inflamed Reagans opponents like few other comments he ever made. Even Nancy urged him not to say it. But Reagan believed the Soviets were an empireand that they were evil. And the reference to the film Star Wars should not be dismissed, as culturally it was one of the most important movies of the 20th century. Everyone knew exactly what Reagans evil empire line referred to.

Second, Reagan announced his plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a system to shoot down enemy missiles in flight. Now the media thought they had him. The stupid old ex-actor walked right into that, his opponents thought. They derided the new program, dubbing it Star Warsin the process walking right into one of the biggest backfires in media history.

Instantly, what Reagans critics meant as an insult turned a difficult-to-grasp technical program into an easy-to-understand concept. More importantly, virtually everyone knew that in Star Wars the movie, the Evil Emperor was an old, decrepit, wrinkled creepwho sorta resembled Gorbachevs three predecessors. And Luke? Well, despite the difference in age, Luke and Reagan shared the optimistic belief that even the Death Star could be overcome. So, when Gorbachev came on the scene, where did that leave him? With his pale skin and that red birthmark on his head well, he reminded some folks a little of Darth Vader when the helmet came off.

It was ironic and telling that Gorbachev became obsessed with SDI before a single element of the program had ever even been fabricated or tested. He brought it up at every meeting with Reagan. In their second, critical meeting at Reykjavk in 1986, Gorbachev took the offensive. He quickly surprised the American president by offering not just to limit missiles, but to eliminate half of each nations nuclear forces.

Reagan was nothing if not quick on his feet, and quickly one-upped him. Why stop at half? Reagan said. Why dont we eliminate them all?

A stunned Gorbachev had sought a public relations coup, not a real settlement, and was so shaken by the counteroffer that he asked for a brief recess. When he came back, SDI was suddenly back on the table.

Now frustrated, Reagan wouldnt budge on Star Wars. He turned to his Secretary of State, George Schultz, and asked, Am I wrong?

Schultz, who could be quite critical of Reagan, said, No, Mr. President. You are right.

Reagan picked up his folders and left. An exasperated Gorbachev shuffled after him. I dont know what else I could have done, he muttered.

Reagan, both angry and disappointed, snapped, You could have said yes.

Twenty years later, Gorbachev returned to Iceland to visit the Hofdi House.Tom Stoddart/Getty Images

Over the next two years Gorbachev moved steadily toward Reagan, signing a treaty removing and destroying all short-range nuclear missiles in Europea first in history. Both men hoped for more in Moscow, but by then, Reagan was in his final year as president and had to attend to more eternal business.

When Reagan went to Moscow in 1988, the highlight of his trip was to be his speech to communist students at Moscow State University. These days, one can hardly imagine a Republican president getting a decent reception at any American university, so for an American president to speak to future Communist leaders was a challenge for the ages. But Reagan dove in, speaking literally beneath a giant bust of Lenin. He talked about freedom but also faith, painting a picture of families of every conceivable nationality worshipping together. Liberty, he concluded, was a gift from God.

The young communists went wild. They cheered him, and Reagan, looking at the bust of Lenin, said he thought he saw it cry.

By then it was clear that all the elements of Reagans statecraft and spiritual offensive had come together. Even the rock n roll. I interviewed a woman from the captive region of Moldova in 2010 and was surprised at her story: I was atheist but not communist. For some reason they let in the rock n roll musical Jesus Christ Superstar. I came to Jesus and was baptized because of Jesus Christ Superstar.

In his dialogues with Gorbachev, Reagan invoked the name of the Almighty at every possible opportunityand so did Gorbachev (Let us pray to God or God help us). At one point, he told Michael Deaver, his deputy chief of staff, He believes.

Deaver didnt quite know what to say. Are you saying the general secretary of the Soviet Union believes in God? he asked. Reagan said he didnt know for sure but, I honestly think he believes in a higher power. Then, as if to confirm it, Russian church leaders were allowed to appear on television for the first time ever.

Reagan never knew whether his conversations with Gorbachev bore fruit. His son Michael got to know Gorbachev and, himself a Christian, pressed Gorbachev for an answer many years later. Something had changed. Where he had earlier told Michael Reagan that he was not a die-hard atheist, now Gorbachev told a story about his Christian grandmother. In March 2008, the London Telegraph headlined a story, Mikhail Gorbachev admits he is a Christian. Historian Paul Kengor, whose God and Ronald Reagan tracked the Gippers spiritual life, told me he had received an email from a student who knew Gorbachev well in later years and insisted he had not converted. Michael Reagan, writing for beliefnet.com, came to a different conclusion: My own suspicionsand my fatherswere confirmed. Mikhail Gorbachev is indeed a man of faith.

As with the state of every soul, we wont find the final answer on this earth.

Larry Schweikart is co-author of A Patriots History of the United States and author of Reagan: The American President

See the original post here:

God, the Gipper, and Gorbachev | WORLD - WORLD News Group

Terry Mattingly| Wichita Falls Times Record News

When cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin returned to earth in 1961, after the first manned spaceflight, Soviet leaders claimed he said: "I went up to space, but I didn't encounter God."

Venturing into similar territory, superstar atheist Sam Harris rocked cyberspace during a recent Triggernometry YouTube appearance in which he discussed Donald Trump, faith elements in "wokeness" and the flocks of Americans who insist on believing in heaven.

Political Twitter screamed when he said there was "a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely, but I think it was warranted."

But comedians Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster pushed back, asking if Harris was justifying moral relativism. Perhaps today's truth wars, the Triggernometry team suggested, were linked to a famous G.K. Chesterton quip: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

During the ensuing discussion, Harris offered another viral soundbite: "Where is heaven, exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back tens of billions of years' worth of information?" Yet millions of Americans still embrace the supernatural claims of an ancient faith, including that Jesus will return to "raise the living and the dead."

"You'd be surprised by the number of percent of sober, non-Bible-thumping people who would say 'yes' to that question," he said. "They might be Christian, they might be, listen, 'I love the Bible. It gives me a great moral framework. It gives my kids a great moral framework. This is the tradition I'm identified with. This is all super important to me' but that's kind of as far as it goes. Right? Like, I'm not going to make magical claims about flying saviors who are literally going to come down from heaven."

While the Twitter masses raged, the French-Canadian iconographer and writer Jonathan Pageau recorded a video essay on his "The Symbolic World" channel about why materialists and religious believers keep debating the meaning of terms such as "heaven" and "earth."

This is a core biblical topic, since the first verse of Genesis states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Thus, the Harris heavensoundbite led Pageau to tweet: "Woah, this is one of the most embarrassing things that I have heard in awhile."

After all, even the most fervent materialist can learn to "step back into an ancient cosmology" and grasp that "these categories heaven and earth are universal, they are in every culture," said Pageau, who is best known for his online dialogues with author Jordan Peterson,professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto.

Concepts of the "visible" and "invisible" are central to religious discussions of "light," "wind," "breath," "spirit," "purpose," "beauty," "art" and "speech," as well as images of believers making spiritual quests via ladders, trees or mountains.Humans experience the world with their senses and these perceptions lead to spiritual questions, insights and truths, said Pageau.

Consider, for example, Dante's use of planets, in "The Divine Comedy," as a symbolic pathway to encountering God."You can think: 'Oh, my goodness. What a silly way of thinking.' Right? To take Sam's position, did the satellites up there did they get in the way of Dante? Did he knock himself on the satellites while he was going up the spheres?"

The Bible describes angels with wings and God is often depicted in physical terms having feet, arms and hands, as well as a heart and mind. But no one is claiming that "God is a big physical being in the sky that has these attributes," said Pageau.

"I will admit that in a world of satellites and a world of spaceships, quasars and whatever, this can be difficult. Jesus is not hanging up there in the atmosphere. He's not having to watch out for the satellites that are coming by you know maybe chatting with people at the space station," the iconographer explained.

"God is, obviously, not a king sitting on a throne in the atmosphere throwing lightning bolts. But understanding what a king is might be one of the best ways to understand how the authority of God works. Understanding what heaven is is the best way to understand the manner in which the invisible moves the visible."

See the article here:

Where is heaven? Ancient believers have answers for modern question - Times Record News

It has been a magical time for the last ten days, so much so that even the relentless rains couldnt dampen the mood of the followers. For over a week, you have seen your office team bouncing in the festivities, missing a day or two in between and regularly leaving the office early. Now, this will finally get concluded tomorrow with a perfect not to be missed finale to the carnival.

Tomorrow is the day the streets will be filled with a sea of followers dancing like no one is watching and forgetting their worries, to the tune of the deafening drums. It may not be announced officially, but the fact is, no one will be in the office tomorrow. And obviously, you cannot be the spoilsport scheduling anything important in the next 24 hours. As everyone from your team leaves one by one, its just you in the empty office. Guess it is time to call it a day till your eye meets one of the miniature divine stone Idol kept on one of the God-fearing teammates desk spaces. The atheist in you questions the big deal with this rockstar God that he is so popular among his peers and converts the otherwise time-bound Mumbai city into a carnival mode for 11 days every year. Trying to make sense and derive learning for the mortal entrepreneurs from Ganesha:

Think big: Ganeshas big head symbolises thinking big and innovation. Similarly, if you as an entrepreneur in your business are solving a big problem, but there is no category under which it falls then you are building something big; hang on! The bigger the problem your business is solving, the more prominent will be the value of the business. For an entrepreneur his big ambition is the fuel to achieve significant success.

Always listen: Ganeshas big ears symbolise the power of listening. It is essential to listen to absorb ideas and facts. With tough times around for entrepreneurs and maybe more such times, negotiating a deal for your business becomes critical. But, negotiation isnt just about saying NO all the time but saying YES at the right time; for that, you have to listen. And maybe it is better not to have the last word in a deal; let the other side say what you wanted to say; just be sure what is said is what you always wanted in the deal.

Be silent: Ganeshas small mouth means to talk less and do more. Be silent unless you dont have anything significant to say. Being off the radar works; ignoring the unwanted noise around you can become the key to your success in the long run. Most startups give more importance to marketing their product than making them more robust. Maybe thats why we see marketing spending on user acquisition by start-ups overpowering user acquisition through product excellence.

Stay focused: Ganeshas small eyes mean never to lose focus. Focus is the most underrated word in business. Ignoring the unwanted noise around you is the key to your focus. You should focus on being right rather than being quick always. Quick decisions may help you grow fast, but slow decisions help you think through the options to avoid failure. Ultimately, without focusing on your future, you end up with your past. And then, when your focus is clear your fear of failing is irrelevant.

Be yourself: Ganeshas belly contains infinite universes. Similarly, you are the by-product of your thoughts, and ultimately life is a search to become the best version of you and the dream you want to create. We all have the light we need within us; we just need to follow it. The only way to being limitless is by pushing your limits every time, and when you are limitless, even the sky isnt enough. You need to be the light that leads, not burns.As the atheist entrepreneur comes back to reality from his thoughts, he sees a smiling face in front of him of his security guard who is waiting for him to leave so the office can be shut. Keeping the stone idol back to where it belongs, he walks out of the exit. Realising that ultimately it is all about doing your karma and ignoring the drama around it, just then he hears a divine voice in confirmation behind him Ganpati Bappa Morya!

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Read more:

Five business lessons from Lord Ganesha - Times of India

Image source: Discovery Institute.

Stephen Meyer was on the Charlie Kirk Show to talk aboutReturn of the God Hypothesis. Part of the argument in the book hasnt perhaps received the attention it deserves. Its the question not of whether nature gives evidence of a designer, active from the first moment of physical existence at the Big Bang, but rather: What kind of designer, what kind of God, must that be? A member of Kirks audience asks just that at the end.

The listener says he is not an atheist, but an agnostic, and evidently a searcher and not certain whether to conclude that a pantheist deity, or a deist one, or Something or Someone other than that, best fits the evidence. Meyer distinguishes between the scientific evidence, which points to a God as pictured by Christian or Jewish tradition, and what he regards as the evidence of revelation, which is a separate subject. Watch the whole conversation, which starts at 2:06.

Here is the original post:

Stephen Meyer, Charlie Kirk: Return of WHAT God Hypothesis? - Discovery Institute