Vatican launches public dialogue with atheists in Paris
The Vatican has launched a series of public dialogues with non-believers, choosing leading intellectual institutions in Paris to present its belief that modern societies must speak more openly about God.
The decision to start the series in France, where strong secularism has pushed faith to the fringes of the public sphere, reflected Pope Benedict’s goal of bringing religious questions back into the mainstream of civic debates.
The dialogues, called “Courtyard of the Gentiles” after the part of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem where Jews and non-Jews met, will continue in at least 16 cities in Europe and North America over the next two years.
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s culture minister, told the opening session on Thursday at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) that the dialogue was meant not to confront believers and atheists but to seek common ground.
Rather it was “an invitation to non-believers … to start a voyage with believers through the desert,” he said.
The meeting was due to continue Friday with sessions at the Sorbonne university and the Institut de France, home of the prestigious Academie Francaise.
from Tales from the Trail:
At prayer breakfast, Obama calls Jesus “my Lord and Savior”
President Barack Obama made a clear declaration of his Christian faith on Thursday and seemed to express some frustration that his beliefs continue to be called into question.
"Let me tell you, these past two years, they have deepened my faith," Obama told a ballroom full of applauding believers at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
"The presidency has a funny way of making a person feel the need to pray."
He detailed how, after a non-religious upbringing, he came to define himself as a Christian.
"A call rooted in faith is what led me, just a few years out of college, to sign up as a community organizer for a group of churches on the south side of Chicago," he said.
"And it was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods, that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior."
Obama joked that he prayed for patience while watching his children grow up.
There are few real Christians living in America anyway. The more devout and pious they claim to be, the more unchristian their actions towards others are.
“I like your Christ, but I don’t like your Christians. They are so unkike your Christ.”– Ghandi
Guestview: “Almost Christian” teens challenge U.S. parents and churches
The following is a guest contribution. Reuters is not responsible for the content and the views expressed are the authors’ alone. Elizabeth E. Evans is a freelance writer, columnist and priest-in-charge at St. Marks Episcopal Church, Honey Brook, Pennsylvania.
By Elizabeth E. Evans
A large-scale study charting the religious habits of American teenagers has quietly been underway for almost a decade but has received relatively little media attention until now. As the data from the longitudinal analysis performed by the National Study of Youth & Religion is released, (NSYR) it could and should stimulate unsettling questions for Christian parents and churches alike.
Featuring phone interviews with 3,300 teens and their parents and three-hour interviews with close to 300 of them, the NSYR research random sampled feedback by kids from any tradition – or none.
Impassioned and articulate, NSYR research team member Kenda Creasy Dean has distilled her reflections on the findings into a volume that is both a critique of “status quo” Christian practice and encouragement to take faith more seriously.
In Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church, the Princeton Theological Seminary professor mines the NSYR information to examine a virus she believes is currently wreaking havoc with American denominations — “moral therapeutic deism.” Coined by NYSR chief investigator Christian Smith, a Notre Dame professor, the term symbolizes the view that “religion is about being nice, feeling good about themselves, and that otherwise God pretty much stays out of the way — unless you need to call upon God to serve your needs,” says Dean.
Obama answers the question: Why are you a Christian?
President Barack Obama spoke openly about his faith on Tuesday, describing himself as a “Christian by choice” while reiterating his belief in the importance of religious tolerance. Obama, who polls show many Americans think is a Muslim, was asked by a participant at a campaign-style event in Albuquerqe, New Mexico about why he was a Christian.
“It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brother’s and sister’s keeper, treating others as they would treat me,” he said. “And I think also understanding that, you know, that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings — that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes, and that we … achieve salvation through the grace of God.”
The president, who has voiced strong support for the right of Muslims to build a community center near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York, said he tried to express his religious beliefs through his job. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith,” he said.
Excerpts from Pope Benedict’s speech to British society
Pope Benedict addressed British society on Friday in a speech in Westminster Hall and argued that faith and reason are not in conflict.
Here are excerpts from the pope’s speech:
“…I recall the figure of Saint Thomas More, the great English scholar and statesman, who is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose “good servant” he was, because he chose to serve God first. The dilemma which faced More in those difficult times, the perennial question of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God, allows me the opportunity to reflect with you briefly on the proper place of religious belief within the political process…
“…Britain has emerged as a pluralist democracy which places great value on freedom of speech, freedom of political affiliation and respect for the rule of law, with a strong sense of the individual’s rights and duties, and of the equality of all citizens before the law. While couched in different language, Catholic social teaching has much in common with this approach, in its overriding concern to safeguard the unique dignity of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, and in its emphasis on the duty of civil authority to foster the common good.
“And yet the fundamental questions at stake in Thomas More’s trial continue to present themselves in ever-changing terms as new social conditions emerge. Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved? These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident – herein lies the real challenge for democracy.
“The inadequacy of pragmatic, short-term solutions to complex social and ethical problems has been illustrated all too clearly by the recent global financial crisis. There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for economic activity has contributed to the grave difficulties now being experienced by millions of people throughout the world. Just as “every economic decision has a moral consequence”, so too in the political field, the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore…
This a very important speech .it touches to the issue of reinserting morality in the secular wold of today.This is one question modernity has to address if we want to preserve liberty and avoid the peril of social anarchy this question was explored in depth by Susan Neiman a remarkable german philosopher i recently discovered.Society does not need Faith but it surely needs what Susan calls Moral Clarity and reason alone too often fail to bring moral clarity to human actions.
God did not create the universe, gravity did, says Stephen Hawking
God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book “A Brief History of Time,” an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity. His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.
For an initial sceptical reaction, see Mark Vernon’s Philosophy and Life blog.
Okay, I am not a scientists, and I am a dumb when it comes to mathematics, but very soon, we’ll see true facts behind every false theories from our scientists ( Science is not the problem, the problem is “some” of our feeble scientists who wanted to be renowned by force, thus creating problems to make science a problem). They are using calculation to define issues of observation; they are proving to you things they themselves haven’t seen with their own eyes; they designed cameras and computers to make their theories work in line; they thoughts ” we can remove the hand of the Creator by denying Him in our theories, so people could believe they existed for nothing”. They said things drop to the centre of the earth because a force attract them, and whatever does go up must come down. Well, I have seen things which goes up but never come down- How about that? Why isn’t gravity attracting it? Can we breathe in the air in the space? Is there atmosphere there atall? Not really! The theory of gravity is hoax; there is no gravity! Though it may be in the space, but never ever on this very planet I live.
Was this not the same Hawking who said God created the Sun? Few months later, he denied God didn’t! Now he is telling you gravity formed you from nothing, to make you feel nothing from nothing, so you can live for nothing and die for nothing! Guys, wake up! If you need to understand any mysteries behind human existence, please read the Bible, and simply ask for wisdom, knowledge and understanding. I did just this and I have been inspired things that can be done to effectively stop the “giant pilar that riad our lands”. All I know, and that I’ll adhere to is that there is a Creator whose hands are full of wonders and mind with creative thoughts; He created the stars and the sun, he created the moon, too. HE CREATED YOU- All these I knew before reading the Bible atall. And if you don’t want to bring in religion in this sense, simply put away religion theories and explanation of Life, and embark on serious NATURE EXPLORATION, and you’ll see a creative mind in the centre of everything in LIFE.
There is a loving, intelligent, sweet, faithful and mighty creator who created every discovered and undiscovered species we have seen and yet to see and that we’ll never see; His name is Jehovaah, the almighty, the all-powerful, the all-controller!
Thank you,
Emmanuel.
Israel Museum takes a new look at the history of the Holy Land
A new Jerusalem exhibit displaying a million years of history in the Holy Land offers Bible buffs and skeptics alike a chance to say: “I told you so!” The Israel Museum, fresh-faced after a three-year, $100 million upgrade, offers an unparalleled look into the development of monotheistic religions, while leaving plenty of room for both science and faith.
The museum’s more devout visitors may feel vindicated by a collection of three-thousand-year-old weapons used by ancient warriors in the Battle of Lachish, verifying the fighting as depicted in the Bible. The scientifically minded can point to a set of 1.5 million year old bull horns on display around the corner, by far predating Earth’s creation as described by the book of Genesis.
A new exhibit features the reconstruction of a church originally built about 400 years after the time of Jesus. It has daunting similarities to a synagogue of the same period reconstructed alongside. The influence can also be seen in later Islamic relics on display nearby.
from Global News Journal:
Religious leaders and the EU take tentative first steps
Top European Union officials held talks this week with religious leaders, part of a policy of holding consultations with religious groups that was enshrined in the EU's Lisbon reform treaty, which came into force last December. But not everyone supports the move. More than two dozen Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders -- joined by a representative each from the Hindu and Sikh communities -- met the presidents of the European Parliament, European Commission and European Council on Monday to discuss how to fight poverty and social exclusion.
It was the the sixth such consultation since 2005, but the first to take place in the context of the Lisbon treaty, the EU’s latest collective agreement. Article 17 of the treaty commits the EU to maintaining "an open, transparent and regular dialogue with ... churches and (non-confessional and philosophical) organisations".
But opponents of the guidance say that because many Europeans are secular and an increasing number practise non-Christian religions, churches should not have special rights.
“Leaders need to respect the separation between church and state,” said Jean de Brueker, deputy secretary general of the European Humanist Federation, which advocates more secularism in Europe. De Brueker’s organisation says separate consultation agreements should be limited to elected officials and those with recognised special expertise. Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, said the EU was a secular organisation but spoke about the moral significance of the 27-country bloc, hinting at the need for spiritual and religious input. “The European Union has to be a union of values. That is our added value in the world. That is the soft power of Europe in the world,” he told reporters. Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz of Poland, who spent decades in the Vatican as private secretary to Pope John Paul II -- who played a subtle but intimate role in late Soviet politics -- has spoken in favour of Article 17. “I believe there is a need for such consultations with churches so as not to make mistakes on moral or ethical issues, for the benefit of societies,” Dziwisz told Reuters in December. “Let’s not forget that religion is also a great force that creates cultures and societies. It cannot be bypassed.” The European Parliament will meet Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders on Sept. 30 to discuss how to implement Article 17, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek said.
One way or another, debate over what role the Church, and by extension churches, can play in engaging with the European Union is only likely to intensify. The EU's hopes of 'reaching out' to religious communities may very well end up drawing it deeper into a complex, centuries-old debate.
No religious war can ever match the anti-religious hatred and destruction of human life of:
Hitler
Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot
Wars are endemic to man. No group, religious or otherwise, has monopoly on them.
As for ignorance and brainwashing, the secularists have their versions of those as well.
from The Great Debate UK:
Interfaith centre at New York 9/11 site sparks controversy
- Mark Kobayashi-Hillary is the author of several books, including ‘Who Moved my Job?’ and ‘Global Services: Moving to a Level Playing Field’. The opinions expressed are his own. -
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 was a Muslim.
That’s the kind of aphorism being bounced around the Internet because of the news that a nineteenth-century building located close to Ground Zero in New York may be demolished to make way for a community and cultural centre aimed at improving relations between Islam and the West.
Naturally the new building will include a mosque and there is outrage on the blogs and social networks after a three-hour hearing of New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission this week.
The focus of the hearing was officially to examine whether the building earmarked for demolition is actually worthy of preservation, but it seems that most of the campaigners asking for it to be awarded heritage status were more interested in heading off the proposed community centre.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opted to avoid defending either side by saying: "The government should never be in the business of telling people how they should pray or where they can pray."
from Afghan Journal:
Afghanistan: the Gods of war
[CROSSPOST blog: 27 post: 4308] Original Post Text: In openDemocracy, Paul Rogers writes that one of the great mistakes of the media is that it tends to assume the only actors in the campaign against Islamist militants are governments, with al Qaeda and the Taliban merely passive players.
"Beyond the details of what the Taliban and its allies decide, it is important to note that most analysis of Barack Obama’s strategy published in the western media is severely constrained by its selective perspective. There is a pervasive assumption - even now, after eight years of war - that the insurgents are mere “recipients” of external policy changes: reactive but not themselves proactive," he writes.
"This is nonsense - and dangerous nonsense. It would be far wiser to assume that these militias have people who are every bit as intelligent and professional in their thinking and planning as their western counterparts. They have had three months to think through the Obama leadership’s policy-development process; and much of this thinking will be about how the US changes affect their own plans - not how they will respond to the United States. Thus they may have very clear intentions for the next three to five years that are embedded in detailed military planning; and what is now happening on their side will involve adjustment of these plans in the light of the great rethink across the Atlantic."
So how will al Qaeda, the Taliban and other Islamist groups respond?
As discussed before in openDemocracy, and highlighted on this blog more than a year ago, the Taliban has been pretty good at studying the lessons of history, including taking inspiration from the Vietnamese war commander General Vo Nguyen Giap, who successfully employed guerrilla tactics against the French before crushing them in the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
It is reasonable to assume they have also studied the spillover of the U.S. war in Vietnam into Cambodia where the United States, reluctant to send in its ground troops, resorted to special ops and bombing campaigns to choke off the Vietcong's supply routes - rather as Pakistan now fears the Afghan campaign will spill into its territory as Washington tries to eradicate Afghan Taliban leaders and bases there. The ensuing chaos paved the way for the takeover of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge.
It would be a step too far to suggest that the Afghan Taliban and their allies are set on taking over Pakistan. As it is, there is still a fierce debate on how far they are primarily Afghan nationalists who would settle for a return to power in Afghanistan and how far they have bought into al Qaeda's global Islamist agenda.
Anon which is more dangerous, a religious zealot or an empire seeking material gain?
-
Resident FaithWorld Expert
-
The public dialogue with Atheists could benefit from the new publication „The Great Leap-Fraud, Social Economics of Religious Terrorism.“ It is a saga of deceit and fraud under cover of religion through 2300 years of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In its approach as one piece of the struggle against poverty, it includes all necessary primary evidence how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unfolds through the eye of history.
Herbert L. Calhoun asks in his review for The Great Leap-Fraud by author A.J. Deus:
“Is this the Historico-religious Trifecta of the Century?
It is my considered opinion that all the Sam Harrises, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennetts in the world could not have made a more profound statement about why ridding the world of organized religion must remain postmodern man’s most urgent task than the case made here by this author.”
Summaries can be found at ajdeus.org.