The party and the Fatherland are Christendom's true Gods?

 

Big brother is still watching?

 

Just another invisible war?

 

The black heterodoxy on Tom Sowell

 

In search of a problem for the solution?

 

It's 2024 and the skilled trades are still the smart choice.

 

A great physicist does not = a great atheist?

 My Dinner with Steven and Louise Weinberg

William A Dembski

In the late 1990s, a number of us had dinner with Steven Weinberg and his wife Louise at a restaurant in Austin, Texas. Weinberg as well as his wife were on faculty there at the University of Texas, he in physics, she in law. Another faculty member had arranged a public exchange at the university between Weinberg and Phil Johnson, Johnson at the time being a key figure in challenging naturalism and advancing intelligent design. After the exchange, we went to dinner.

A Towering Figure

Weinberg, who died in 2021, was a towering figure in 20th-century physics. Yes, he had a Nobel Prize. But he was a big deal even among fellow Nobel Prize winners. Besides a stupendous record of achievement in physics, he was also a great writer whose popular treatments of science, such as The First Three Minutes, sold well and made him not just a physicist but also a public intellectual.

I remember two things especially about the dinner. Weinberg was very smart and let you know it. He was also an outspoken atheist, and it would have taken courage to confront him on his atheism (which Phil Johnson did). But it was interesting at the dinner to hear from Weinberg a key reason why he rejected theism, namely, he knew Christians physicists who hesitated to share with him their faith. As he put it, if Christianity is true and Jesus is so important, why don’t they talk to me about their faith? 

I’m not sure how much stock to put in Weinberg’s objection. The faculty member who set up the exchange with Johnson and then the dinner wasn’t hiding his faith, nor was Johnson. But Weinberg’s objection raises an interesting point about how much faith goes unshared because we are intimidated by the people with whom we might otherwise share our faith. The consistent testimony of Scripture is that we should fear God and not man.

Not a Great Atheist

The high point of the dinner for me, however, came from his wife Louise. Weinberg was holding court, going on about how much he knew about the origin of the universe and how atheism was the only intellectually viable option. Louise turned to the table and remarked that scientists like Weinberg, who are accomplished in one area, think they speak with authority in every area, but they can’t. 

It was like air being let out of a tire. For all of Weinberg’s bluster and confidence, it was heartwarming to see him meekly accept his wife’s correction. As an attorney and law professor, Louise knew that there are no universal expert witnesses in a court of law. Weinberg was a great physicist. But he wasn’t a great atheist. And I say this to his credit.

I personally suspect that Weinberg had doubts about his atheism, and that his atheism was more a pose than a reflection of his heart. One reason I say this is that Weinberg seemed always ready to engage theists. A few years after the dinner, I helped organize a conference at Baylor titled “The Nature of Nature.” Weinberg agreed to be a speaker at the conference if we would provide a limo for the 100 mile trip from Austin to Waco. Of course, we obliged. It was an honor to have him.

Lenin was worse than you thought?

 

Be afraid,be very afraid?

 

No end in sight for catholicism's Civil war?

 Franciscans in Germany elect openly gay priest as new superior

By CNA Staff

The 300-member Franciscan province of Saint Elisabeth in Germany has elected as its new superior Father Markus Fuhrmann, who a few weeks ago publicly came out as homosexual.

In an interview with MK-Online, the official news website of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, Fuhrmann explained why he went public with his homosexuality.

“If I am gay myself, then I want to show that I can also be part of the Church in this ministry. That's important because it's not supposed to be like that in the Church. Unfortunately, there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our Church,” he said.

In addition, the new Franciscan superior said that he “personally supports the efforts of the Synodal Way, I am in favor of a critical rethinking of celibacy in the priestly way of life and I am in favor of women having access to ordained ministries.”

The Synodal Way is a controversial multi-year process that began in December 2019 and involves bishops and lay people from Germany to address issues such as the exercise of power, sexual morality, the priesthood, and the role of women in the Church, issues on which they have expressed, publicly and on various occasions, positions contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Asked about the fact that his Franciscan brothers knew of his homosexuality at the time of his election, the new German superior said that "it was very good for me to know that this is very positive for the brothers."

He added, “I get a lot of encouragement, and maybe that spark of appreciation can spread to other areas of the Church. I think that's good.”

Fuhrmann was born on August 9, 1971, in Hannover, the capital of Lower Saxony, Germany. He made his simple vows in 1998 and his solemn profession in 2003. He was ordained a priest on May 7, 2005.

In Cologne, part of Saint Elizabeth Province, he ministered to the indigent, and before his election, he served as provincial vicar.

Regarding his future work, the new Franciscan superior in Germany told MK-Online that "a big change is imminent, and I want and must shape it together with the brothers."

The Church's teaching on homosexuality

Catholic teaching on homosexuality is summarized in sections 2357, 2358, and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided

As the catechism explains, “Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

The catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Providing further guidance, the catechism says, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

The pathway to an amicable national divorce?

 

The voice of British heterodoxy?

 

The deep state is a thing?

 

Norway's targetting of JWs: the minority report

 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway: Why the Oslo District Court Decision Is Wrong

Massimo Introvigne

On March 4, 2024, the Oslo District Court ruled against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and upheld the decisions of the government and the State Administrator of Oslo and Viken who denied the Jehovah’s Witnesses the state subsidies they had peacefully received for thirty years based on Section 16 of the Norwegian Constitution (“All religious and philosophical communities must be supported on an equal footing”). Registration as a religious organization of the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses under Law No. 31 of April 24, 2020, was also denied.The District Court is aware that this was a difficult decision with serious consequences. It observes that at least, under Law No. 31 the lack of registration would not prevent the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses to continue their activities and to teach what they teach everywhere in the world (except in a few totalitarian countries that have banned them, including Russia). The consequences of the non-registration are that they will not be eligible for state subsidies, nor will they be able to celebrate legally valid marriages.

       State subsidies in Norway are not a gift. Since the Church of Norway, a Lutheran denomination, is a state church supported by the government with transfers of money proportional to the number of its members, the Constitution mandates that to respect the principle of equality other religions should receive the same proportional subsidies. The judge himself acknowledges that not being able to celebrate legal marriages within one’s religious community may be perceived as discriminatory. He also agrees that the decision may have a broader “stigmatizing effect.”Yet, the judge believes that all these admittedly important factors “are not weighty enough” when compared to the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by practicing shunning, violate in his opinion their members’ freedom to change their religion. Shunning is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching recommending that members do not associate with those who have been disassociated as unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization (as opposed to simply becoming inactive). Cohabiting relatives are not shunned, although they are excluded from the family’s religious activities.Here, I find the decision slightly confusing. At times, it seems that the judge regards the shunning both of adult and minor ex-members as grounds for his decision. In other passages, however, he seems to acknowledge that Law no. 31 includes a note that “if adult members of their own free will follow rules that restrict their rights and freedoms, they cannot be considered violations… Essentially, this also applies even if the obligations can be considered harmful.” In its conclusion, the decision cautiously focuses on the alleged violation of the “right to opt out” of children.The decision notes that the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to leave a religious organization. The judge is persuaded that Jehovah’s Witnesses in practice are prevented from leaving since they know that, if they leave, they will be shunned.

As mentioned earlier, it is at times unclear whether in the end the objection only concerns the shunning of minors or also extends to adults. In the second case, the decision is patently absurd and runs counter to dozens of decisions on shunning by jurisdictions in other countries, including supreme courts. They have noted that religious organizations have the right to self-organize themselves as they deem fit. Christian groups also have the right to interpret the Bible in their own way. The interpretation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this case is not even particularly original. Clearly, something similar to the shunning they practice today is taught in 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”), and 2 John 10–11 (“Do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work”). Others may suggest a non-literal interpretation of these passages, but it is not for secular courts of law to second-guess religious organizations on their interpretation of the Bible.The main objection is, however, another. All human organizations have what sociologists call exit costs. By leaving a demanding but well-paid job I may gain more freedom but lose a good salary. The loss of the salary is my exit cost. Shunning is a typical exit cost. A spouse that decides unilaterally to divorce and to marry a different partner may be shunned by the abandoned ex-spouse, perhaps even by children. Members of a political party who quit and join a political organization with the opposite ideology may be shunned as traitors by their former comrades. Several religions, including Islam and branches of ultra-orthodox Judaism, treat “apostates” in a less charitable way than the Jehovah’s Witnesses.The Norwegian judge’s argument is that to avoid the exit costs we are compelled to remain in a religious organization we may no longer believe in and are thus denied our right to leave it that is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. But by applying the same argument, one can argue that marriage or political parties are also institutions that violate the rights of those who want to divorce or change political affiliation, since the exit costs may make them reluctant to leave.Sociologists know that eliminating exit costs is not possible. They are an unavoidable feature of organized social life. Sometimes, one has the impression that the enemies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are precisely asking courts of law to compel those who do not want to communicate with their former co-religionists to do it, which is not only unfair but impossible. More often, opponents argue that what they want is that judges would prevent the organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching shunning. But that would put the judges in the strange position of interpreting 1 Corinthians and 2 John and substitute their opinion to the one of a religious organization in determining what these venerable Biblical texts “really” mean.In the end, the Oslo judge found it safer to focus on minors who are first baptized and then, if they become unrepentant sinners, shunned. One can measure the cultural distance of the judge’s own feelings from those of any conservative religious group, not only the Jehovah’s Witnesses, when he wrote that he finds it “reasonable to expect” that most minors would engage in “sexual relations with their boyfriends or girlfriends.” Apart from the cultural problems of the judge in understanding conservative religion, he accepts the opinion of an “apostate” ex-member that minors are baptized and become Jehovah’s Witnesses when they are not mature enough to understand their obligations. But surely this is a drastic conclusion one cannot arrive at on the basis of one witness or a few anecdotical examples. What would be required is a quantitative study of those baptized as minors. Nothing similar is quoted in the decision. Although Norway has introduced a system of “youth punishment” with more lenient penalties for them, minors can be tried from criminal offenses from age 15. If they are mature enough in Norway to stand a trial before a criminal court, perhaps they are also mature enough to make informed religious decisions.Once they have been baptized, minors run the risk of being shunned. Again, some opponents may have told the judge that this is not rare but among his numerous witnesses he found only one woman, now 40, who was disfellowshipped for a sexual offense and shunned as a minor, when she was 14, thus 26 years ago. She testifies that after a “short time” she was allowed to return to the fold by writing a “letter of regret” and attending a “short meeting.” There is simply no evidence that disfellowshipping minors, with the consequence that they are shunned (but not by cohabiting relatives), is more than a rare occurrence.It may be objected that a rare injustice would be an injustice, nonetheless. The answer is that, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in cases about the dissolution of organizations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia in 2010 (Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia) and 2022 (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia), denial or cancellation of registration of a religious organization is a serious measure with dramatic consequences for its members that states can adopt only in case of frequent and obvious crimes or misdemeanors. Shunning minors is not frequent, and the “principle of proportionality” between the fact and the sanction mentioned by the ECHR in its decisions about Russia would not be respected even if this was a crime.

But is it a crime? The judge himself admits that Jehovah’s Witnesses, in good faith, perceive shunning as a “loving and meaningful arrangement,” a painful medicine (painful, it should be added, for those who shun and not only for those who are shunned) that in many cases helps restoring family harmony and morality, as those shunned end up understanding their mistakes and repenting.According to the decision, the violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would be in the fact that to minors, just as to adults, would be denied the freedom to “opt out” of the organization. Afraid of being shunned, minors who would want to quit in the end are dissuaded from leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which the judge thinks violates their right to change their religious affiliations. However, if the minors are mature enough to understand their obligations when they are baptized—and no evidence has been offered that this is not the case—they are aware of the exit costs just as the adults are. It is also false that a young boy or girl does not have experience of exit costs: he may decide to break a relation with a boyfriend or a girlfriend, quit a group of friends, leave a sport club, in extreme cases even leave the family and go live elsewhere. All these experiences have painful exit costs.The decision argues that, because youth are especially fragile, the experience of shunning is more traumatic for them. This is possible, but youths also have greater flexibility in socialization than adults. Young Jehovah’s Witnesses attend public schools, where after disfellowshipping they can continue to attend or newly enter into circles of friends who are not part of their former religion. The judge insists on the pain of not being able to communicate with grandparents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, grandparents may cut ties with their children and grandchildren for a variety of reasons, none of which courts of law can really correct. And even outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, minors who do something that is perceived by their relatives as a betrayal of the family or an expression of moral corruption may find themselves, for all practical purposes, “shunned.”It is difficult to disagree with professor of religious history, Dag Øistein Endsjø, who told the leading Norwegian Christian daily newspaper “Vårt Land” that the verdict is against numerous decisions rendered in other countries, as well as against the case law of the European Court of Human Rights where it would have limited chances to survive. It is also against simple logic. Perhaps a higher Norwegian court will acknowledge it even before the court in Strasbourg.

The black heterodoxy on race an IQ.

 

The war to liberate the agrora rages on?

 

Why an increasing number no longer trust "the science"

 

The other prisoner of conscience? III

 

The state can't handle the truth?

 

Irreconcilable differences?