Harvard's New Atheist Chaplain - We Can Be Good Without God
BY JONATHON VAN MAREN/BRIDGEHEAD.CASEPTEMBER 04, 2021
Share this article:
Share
Tweet
Email
Share
Print
It's 2021, and anything is possible. A man can be a woman. A woman can be a man. A man can get pregnant. There are so many genders you can identify as pretty much anything you'd like to -- the trans-racial trend is just around the corner.
In fact, definitions are now so fluid that Harvard's new chief chaplain, Greg Epstein, is an atheist and the author of a book titled Good Without God.
It's worth noting that Harvard was founded in 1636 by John Harvard, a Puritan clergyman. Like other elite institutions, it was rooted solidly in the Christian faith.
Now, it is rooted in nothing at all. Greg Epstein, in fact, was elected unanimously to his new position as chief chaplain, which heads up the organization of chaplains for the entire university.
Epstein, understandably, was thrilled. "Thank you to the humanist institutions who inspired me down this now 20+ year path," he said on Twitter. "I wouldn't be here but for you; you mean so much to so many of us. Thank you humanist allies in US politics, my true religion. Thank you interfaith groups who bravely set a precedent of warm partnership w/humanists like me."
You read that right -- Harvard's new chief chaplain says that U.S. politics is his "true religion" -- that, or the Yankees. Everyone has to worship something. Epstein's choices are common, but render him particularly unqualified for the role that he's taken on.
Epstein's tasks will include leading over 40 chaplains from a wide range of religious backgrounds, including Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian. Epstein, believing in none of these traditions and rejecting the existence of God entirely, also says that he is a rabbi "through the Society for Humanistic Judaism," whatever that is.
Unfortunately, Greg Epstein does represent a growing portion of the American public: those who do not believe in God and reject Judeo-Christian values, but hold to a vague, consumer-style spirituality that allows them to cling to some semblance of transcendence while living like pagans.
Sociologist Christian Smith called it "moralistic therapeutic deism," and it is rapidly becoming the defining worldview of the upcoming generation.
00:0205:05
It is interesting to note that as Americans increasingly identify as "nones"--that is, do not fall into any traditional religious category--they do not identify as less religious.
Instead, like Epstein, they attempt to cobble together some incoherent collection of views that allows them to delude themselves into believing that "their truth" is "the Truth" in all of the ways that count.
In the world of American "nones," God does not make demands of them -- they make demands of God, whom they have attempted to reconstruct in their own image.
An atheist chaplain is a farce, but then again, so is much of modern American life. Pregnant men. Muscular, bearded women. Butchered babies as "reproductive health care."
Delusion is mainstream, and so a godless chaplain bleating to the goats is perhaps uniquely fitting for our historical moment. We lie to ourselves about everything, and so it makes sense that we'd want chaplains who lie to us, too.
Originally published at The Bridgehead - reposted with permission.
Abortion Wars - An Open Letter To Women Saying 'My Body, My Choice'
BY MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORGSEPTEMBER 04, 2021
Share this article:
Share
Tweet
Email
Share
Print
If you are a woman who believes that it is your moral right to have an abortion, you are likely quite angry or frightened over the enactment of the Texas Heartbeat Bill. All the more is the case if you live in Texas. And you likely think that people like me, conservative, male, pro-life Christians who are glad to see the bill enacted, are heartless, controlling, misogynistic monsters.
After all, you reason, what gives us the right to tell you what you can do with your own body? What makes us any different than the religious fanatics in other countries who put all kinds of restrictions on women? And how dare we interfere with these critical, life-impacting decisions that only the woman should make? Who do we think we are?
What about the 15-year old girl raped by her drunken neighbor, only to find out that she is pregnant? What gives us the right to force her to carry this baby to term, tormenting her with the memory of that rape every day for months as her body grows and changes?
How can we require her to bear the shame of that rape before her friends and schoolmates and family members, most of whom would not have learned of the rape if she had been allowed to have an abortion? And how can we claim for a moment that, for this young woman, an abortion is not the compassionate and best choice for her life?
What about the married couple so excited to welcome their first child into the world, the child they dreamed of having for years, only to learn that the baby has a serious birth defect and will not likely survive? The best case scenario is a few years of life, but only with great pain and suffering, coupled with massive, crippling hospital bills. Is it fair to bring this child into the world knowing what lies ahead? Can the parents survive the upheaval that the baby's suffering will bring on them? Doesn't love require making the difficult decision of abortion?
Or what about the single mother of three young kids who can barely make ends meet as she juggles caring for her children while working a job? She and her boyfriend didn't intend for anything to happen, but the birth control failed, and now she is pregnant again. He took off as soon he heard the news, and she is already beyond stressed with life as it is. To add one more mouth to feed seems cruel - cruel to the other kids and cruel to the mom, who is at her breaking point. Isn't abortion the practical choice?
Obviously, as a man, I cannot put myself in the shoes of these women. But I write this to say, "I can understand how you view people like me, and I can understand why, in your mind, abortion is often the most compassionate or, at least, most pragmatic choice."
I would only make this appeal to you: will you take a few more seconds and consider the pro-life side of things?
Do you realize that, at the moment of conception, the child in your womb receives its unique coding - to be precise, three billion base pairs of DNA coding? One science website explained that, "If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2 meters long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System."
Put another way, at conception, this baby, which is barely visible to the human eye, "contains more information than fifty sets of the physical 33-volume set of the Encyclopedia Britannica."
All that is planted inside that tiny baby as soon as the egg and sperm join together, almost miraculously. Talk about meticulous and careful planning. Talk about evidence of design. And it is at that moment we believe God breathes life into that little one. At that very moment, you are pregnant with a girl or a boy (or twins or more).
You can call the baby a clump of cells or a mass of tissue or a tumor or an "it." But this is a "who," not an it, a "who" that has been carefully formed in your womb with purpose and destiny and potential, even if by rape or by accident. It is God who gave this little one life, and that life is sacred.
The Texas Heartbeat Bill bans abortions after six weeks gestational age, which is four weeks from fertilization. Remember that "At 3 weeks [from fertilization], the pre-born child's heart is in an advanced stage of formation. His eyes begin to form, and his brain, spinal column, and nervous system are virtually complete."
Of course, you cannot ask the baby inside your womb how she or he feels about being born. But you can ask survivors of abortion whether they are glad they survived, and to a person, they will say yes. They are also, almost certainly, pro-life today.
And you can ask men and women who were conceived in rape if they are glad their mothers did not abort them. They too will say yes. In fact, some of the finest, most compassionate people I know on the planet were conceived in rape. They have done so much good to help so many people, but only because they were allowed to be born.
You can also talk to kids with Down syndrome along with their moms and dads and siblings: they are overwhelmingly happy with their lives and cherished by their families. According to one major survey, "Among those surveyed, nearly 99% of people with Down syndrome indicated that they were happy with their lives; 97% liked who they are; and 96% liked how they look. Nearly 99% people with Down syndrome expressed love for their families, and 97% liked their brothers and sisters."
Also, according to a major survey published in 2011 by the American Journal of Medical Genetics, "The vast majority of parents said they have a more positive outlook on life because of their child with Down syndrome. And, nearly 90 percent of siblings indicated that they feel like they are better people because of their brother or sister with the developmental disability."
Yet mothers carrying babies with Down syndrome are commonly encouraged to abort their babies, even told they should "end" the "thing" in their womb. (For the dreadful situation in Iceland, read this.)
As for children with severe health issues, the obvious question is: Where do we draw the line? And, if it's wrong to bring a child into the world who will only suffer pain and sickness, why not terminate a three-month-old infant or a two-year-old toddler if their suffering is intense? The obvious answer is, "Because that's a child."
But what if it is also a child inside in the womb? Wouldn't that same argument hold true?
This is why we are so adamantly pro-life. It is not because we are heartless. It is certainly not because we are misogynistic. (Many, if not most, of the key pro-life leaders are women.) It is because we recognize that, the moment a baby is conceived, it is a human being with rights and dignity and purpose, and no one has the right to snuff out the life of that child.
That's also why excited, expectant mothers don't say, "Look at my fetus bump!" They say, "Look at my baby bump!" And that's why they say, "The baby just kicked me" rather than, "The fetus just kicked me." And that's why they talk to the little one in their womb and sing to their precious child. And that's why they are so devastated and crushed if they miscarry and lose their baby.
That's a little human being in there, and they already love their child, sight unseen.
Now, in saying all this, I don't expect you to change your position on the spot, as if you never thought about this before. But I write all this to you for three reasons.
First, understand that those of us who hold dear the value of every human being, beginning in the womb, are not your enemies.
Second, if you've never studied the development of a baby in the womb or - this is quite jarring and shocking -looked seriously and thoughtfully at pictures of aborted babies, may I respectfully ask you to consider doing so?
Third, know that, while we are thrilled to see the Texas bill enacted and hope that it will be the first of many similar bills nationally, many of us are thinking about you too. We are saddened and burdened because of your own fear and anger and are praying for God's best in your lives.
As pro-life followers of Jesus, we care about your life too.
Originally published at AskDrBrown.org - reposted with permission.
Australian Authorities Can Now Legally Change Citizens' Social Media Posts
BY JEFF THOMPSON/ORGANIC PREPPERSEPTEMBER 04, 2021
Share this article:
Share
Tweet
Email
Share
Print
If you currently live in Australia, you're probably already aware that some pretty draconian measures have taken place in the name of public health.
The latest Orwellian development is a smartphone app that will use facial recognition and geolocation to help authorities monitor compliance with the state's mandatory isolation requirements.
The app lets the state text individuals at random times, giving them 15 minutes to respond with a picture of themselves with location data to prove they are following quarantine orders.
If the data is off, or if they don’t respond in time, they get a visit from the police.
But this next step has crossed the Rubicon into entirely new territory - one in which authorities can legally go into a citizen's social media account and change what they posted and can make changes to their browsing histories.
The bills passing through the Australian Parliament of late have been mind-boggling but this one goes so far beyond the pale that it's practically unbelievable.
Why? And why is this an issue?
Because just the other day, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment Bill of 2021 - otherwise known as the Identify and Disrupt Bill - was passed by both houses after having originated within the House of Representatives.
Even more alarming for Americans is the question that must be running through your head. "Is Australia the testing ground for a Brave New World coming to the USA soon?"
Consider this. You live in Australia and regularly read the fantastic website, The Daily Express. Occasionally, you'll post a link to one of these articles on your social media along with a quick blurb such as "great read," "something to consider," or the like.
That's all you've done. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Surely this won't be a problem, will it?
Thanks to the new law, it sure could be.
The Identify and Disrupt Bill gives both the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission the authority to "disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying, or deleting data to frustrate the commission of serious offences online." It also allows the police to "take over a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence to further a criminal investigation."
Here is the summary of the bill directly from the Parliament of Australia government website.
Australian Spokesperson for Justice heavily criticized the bill
Senator Lidia Thorpe released a statement on August 27, stating, "...this bill enables the AFP and ACIC to be 'judge, jury and executioner.' That's not how we deliver justice in this country." Senator Thorpe goes on to say amendments put forward to protect innocent people from abuse of power were outvoted by the major parties. She also brings up concerns that the bill does not identify why these powers are needed.
The bill, framed as being targeted only towards serious criminal activity, does not define that serious criminal activity. This is where it becomes ambiguous and could lead to abuse of power. Essentially, the Australian government could frame anyone, and they will then have no power to say 'that isn't me,' as it's under the person's online signature.
Activist support group says the new powers may be used against activists
MALS (Melbourne Activist Legal Support) raised concerns that the "language" of the bill enables authorities to identify and disrupt not only criminals, but activists as well. This would mean that anti-war activists, anti-mining and climate action groups, and others could face serious federal offenses. These groups could be considered "criminal networks" simply by visiting the same websites as organized criminals.
The Human Rights Law Centre explains it like this: "if someone commits a relevant offence using WhatsApp, then ... every user of WhatsApp worldwide would be a member of that "criminal network of individuals."
What does this mean?
If we go back to our initial example, authorities could easily decide that you are promoting harmful content or some other similar nonsense. For those Americans who haven't been paying attention, this is not uncharted waters for Australians.
We've recently witnessed Australia arrest a pregnant woman in her home - in front of her screaming children - simply because she attempted to organize an anti-lockdown/pro-freedom protest via a Facebook post. She was thus deemed a threat to public safety and hauled away in handcuffs one hour before an ultrasound appointment (see here)
In short, tyranny is nothing new to Australia. The history of being a penal colony seems to have ingrained itself into its politicians' minds, as they view their own citizens with an air of distrust and disdain.
How far will this go?
Now, the Aussie police can easily go to one of your posts, CHANGE WHAT YOU SAID, and then repost it. This could make it appear as if you had issued threats or requested information on how to join a veritable terrorist organization. Literally, nothing would be off the table here.
Could they change the content of what you said to make it mean the exact opposite of what you'd posted? For example, if you said, "This was a thought-provoking article and I agree" could they change it to "I think this is disinformation and it's garbage?" Could they make it seem like you were promoting something like mandatory vaccines when instead you were promoting the freedom to decide whether you get a vaccine or not?
Could your browsing history be altered to make it seem as if you had been searching sites that nobody should ever be searching? How far could this go? Furthermore, the police would be able to constantly and thoroughly monitor all of your online communications. Anything you say can and will be watched there.
Privacy has died within Australia.
So should you even post something online as innocuous as a simple link, you are fair game to be targeted by this bill. Police can now "legally" show up at your home and arrest you for exercising your right to free speech simply because you have alerted an algorithm somewhere that has red-flagged you as a cause of trouble.
Do Australians have the hope of a fair justice system if authorities arrest them under such a system? The police are both willing and able to alter evidence to make it appear as if people have done something against Natural Law.
Furthermore, authorities are willing and able to break through their door in the middle of the night and haul you away in front of their screaming children. Would you say there is any hope for justice?
One can't help but draw parallels between modern-day Australia and other governments which do the same. Alexander Solzhenitsyn's experiences, as well as Anne Frank's, come to mind.
For Americans, Australia is a warning about what happens when freedom is left to die.
What happens to your right to:
petition the government for redress to grievances?
own firearms?
privacy?
leave one's home?
free speech?
worship as you please?
assemble with other people?
All of these rights are wrongfully denied to the Australian people by a federalized police force. (Americans need to be watchful against this as well.) After a brief stint in time, Australia has once more returned to its roots as a penal colony. The people there have had the halters and chains of complete and total slavery clasped upon them.
BY JONATHON VAN MAREN/BRIDGEHEAD.CA SEPTEMBER 04, 2021
Share
Tweet
Email
Share
Print
Posts
