Friday, April 18, 2025

What Kind of Christian Are You?

 What kind of Christian are you?

 

Are you an Old Testament Christian living under the law?  Are you convinced that you cannot do anything that isn’t decreed by “the Bible” through the interpretation of some Priest or Minister?  Are your actions based on the teachings of others and not your own sense of Compassion and Empathy? 

 

Are you a Jesus Christian living a life of Compassion and Empathy towards others?  Are your actions based on your Principles, Values, and Virtues (PVVs) focused on Love (Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion)? 

 

Or are you a Saint Paul Christian where you are convinced that What You Believe is the most important aspect of your Christian life?  Even more important than living a life of Compassion and Empathy?

 

 

Secular Values 01

 

Secular Values 01

Stand For Something

A leadership vacuum

By 

Elliot Kirschner

Apr 12

Too many of our elected officials are too steeped in focus groups and political calculus—they measure their actions based on fear of reaction, and are trapped by the battlelines of the past, unable to reimagine the decisions we’ll need to shape a better future.

I sense a public eager for clarity and conviction—for leaders who are bold but responsive, unafraid to take risks, and uncompromising in their pursuit of what they believe is right.

I suspect that many of the stances that now feel like prudent caution will be seen by future voters as acts of political cowardice—maybe even as soon as the next election cycle. This will extend to those in leadership at places like universities, law firms, and industry.

I’m reminded of lessons from the past: how voting to go along with the war in Iraq because it seemed overwhelmingly popular ultimately helped cost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination in 2008. Or how a failure to take the financial industry to task for the Great Recession helped fuel a wave of disillusionment that hollowed out trust in government and left space for dangerous populisms to rise.

I worry that in trying to piece together a majority, too many Democratic officials see only a patchwork of voting blocs, each needing a different message. But the whole point of a big tent is that it isn’t a collection of little tents. It’s an audacious structure—broad and open enough to shelter difference, held up by the tentpoles of shared purpose, strong enough to withstand the winds of division that hope to tear it down.

We should not fear policy differences. Debate and compromise have been essential for the stability that has allowed America to thrive. But this approach to governance only works if it builds on a foundation of core democratic values. 

We don’t have to agree on everything to agree that:

A functioning democracy depends on truth—even when it’s inconvenient,
Corruption erodes both our moral credibility and our economic resilience,
And strength isn’t measured in bluster but responsible restraint.

Public health decisions should be grounded in evidence, not ideology,
Peaceful protest isn’t a threat to law and order,
And the separation of powers protects judgment from impulse.

No one should be seized off the streets without explanation or recourse,
Scientific progress should be a public priority—not a political target,
And scapegoating “others” doesn’t solve our problems—it multiplies them.

Voting should be easy, accessible, and protected from manipulation,
Workers deserve a fair share of the prosperity they help create,
And children should feel safe in their schools and communities.

Climate change demands action rooted in science and justice,
We have a responsibility to the wider world,
And journalism, free from intimidation, is essential to accountability.

When we stand for these ideals—when we stand for something—we find the strength to stand for and with each other. There’s power in knowing we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. Purpose-driven action draws others in. It’s how mass movements have changed the course of history—more often than not, for the better.

This is both our challenge and our opportunity. But the past teaches us that we cannot wait to seize the moment. We must act with uncompromising urgency. And we need to find and empower the leaders who will rise to join us.

 

Lacking in Critical Analysis

 

Lacking in Critical Analysis

Producing Something This Stupid Is the Achievement of a Lifetime

By David Brooks, New York Times, April 10, 2025

You might have seen the various data points suggesting that Americans are losing their ability to reason.

The trend starts with the young. The percentage of fourth graders who score below basic in reading skills on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests is the highest it has been in 20 years. The percentage of eighth graders below basic was the highest in the exam’s three-decade history. A fourth grader who is below basic cannot grasp the sequence of events in a story. An eighth grader can’t grasp the main idea of an essay or identify the different sides of a debate.

Tests by the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies tell a similar story, only for older folks. Adult numeracy and literacy skills across the globe have been declining since 2017. Tests from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that test scores in adult literacy have been declining over the past decade.

Andreas Schleicher, the head of education and skills at the O.E.C.D., told The Financial Times, “Thirty percent of Americans read at a level that you would expect from a 10-year-old child.” He continued, “It is actually hard to imagine — that every third person you meet on the street has difficulties reading even simple things.”

This kind of literacy is the backbone of reasoning ability, the source of the background knowledge you need to make good decisions in a complicated world. As the retired general Jim Mattis and Bing West once wrote, “If you haven’t read hundreds of books, you are functionally illiterate, and you will be incompetent, because your personal experiences alone aren’t broad enough to sustain you.”

Nat Malkus of the American Enterprise Institute emphasizes that among children in the fourth and eighth grades, the declines are not the same across the board. Scores for children at the top of the distribution are not falling. It’s the scores of children toward the bottom that are collapsing. The achievement gap between the top and bottom scorers is bigger in America than in any other nation with similar data.

There are some obvious contributing factors for this general decline. Covid hurt test scores. America abandoned No Child Left Behind, which put a lot of emphasis on testing and reducing the achievement gap. But these declines started earlier, around 2012, so the main cause is probably screen time. And not just any screen time. Actively initiating a search for information on the web may not weaken your reasoning skills. But passively scrolling TikTok or X weakens everything from your ability to process verbal information to your working memory to your ability to focus. You might as well take a sledgehammer to your skull.

My biggest worry is that behavioral change is leading to cultural change. As we spend time on our screens, we’re abandoning a value that used to be pretty central to our culture — the idea that you should work hard to improve your capacity for wisdom and judgment all the days of your life. That education, including lifelong out-of-school learning, is really valuable.

This value is based on the idea that life is filled with hard choices: whom to marry, whom to vote for, whether to borrow money. Your best friend comes up to you and says, “My husband has been cheating on me. Should I divorce him?” To make these calls, you have to be able to discern what is central to the situation, envision possible outcomes, understand other minds, calculate probabilities.

To do this, you have to train your own mind, especially by reading and writing. As Johann Hari wrote in his book “Stolen Focus,” “The world is complex and requires steady focus to be understood; it needs to be thought about and comprehended slowly.” Reading a book puts you inside another person’s mind in a way that a Facebook post just doesn’t. Writing is the discipline that teaches you to take a jumble of thoughts and cohere them into a compelling point of view.

Americans had less schooling in decades past, but out of this urge for intellectual self-improvement, they bought encyclopedias for their homes, subscribed to the Book of the Month Club and sat, with much longer attention spans, through long lectures or three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates. Once you start using your mind, you find that learning isn’t merely calisthenics for your ability to render judgment; it’s intrinsically fun.

But today one gets the sense that a lot of people are disengaging from the whole idea of mental effort and mental training. Absenteeism rates soared during the pandemic and have remained high since. If American parents truly valued education would 26 percent of students have been chronically absent during the 2022-23 school year?

In 1984, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, 35 percent of 13-year-olds read for fun almost every day. By 2023, that number was down to 14 percent. The media is now rife with essays by college professors lamenting the decline in their students’ abilities. The Chronicle of Higher Education told the story of Anya Galli Robertson, who teaches sociology at the University of Dayton. She gives similar lectures, assigns the same books and gives the same tests that she always has. Years ago, students could handle it; now they are floundering.

Last year The Atlantic published an essay by Rose Horowitch titled “The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books.” One professor recalled the lively classroom discussions of books like “Crime and Punishment.” Now the students say they can’t handle that kind of reading load.

The philosophy professor Troy Jollimore wrote in The Walrus: “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters. It’s not just the sheer volume of assignments that appear to be entirely generated by A.I. — papers that show no sign the student has listened to a lecture, done any of the assigned reading or even briefly entertained a single concept from the course.”

Older people have always complained about “kids these days,” but this time we have empirical data to show that the observations are true.

What happens when people lose the ability to reason or render good judgments? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Donald Trump’s tariff policy. I’ve covered a lot of policies over the decades, some of which I supported and some of which I opposed. But I have never seen a policy as stupid as this one. It is based on false assumptions. It rests on no coherent argument in its favor. It relies on no empirical evidence. It has almost no experts on its side — from left, right or center. It is jumble-headedness exemplified. Trump himself personifies stupidity’s essential feature — self-satisfaction, an inability to recognize the flaws in your thinking. And of course when the approach led to absolutely predictable mayhem, Trump, lacking any coherent plan, backtracked, flip-flopped, responding impulsively to the pressures of the moment as his team struggled to keep up.

Producing something this stupid is not the work of a day; it is the achievement of a lifetime — relying on decades of incuriosity, decades of not cracking a book, decades of being impervious to evidence.

Back in Homer’s day, people lived within an oral culture, then humans slowly developed a literate culture. Now we seem to be moving to a screen culture. Civilization was fun while it lasted.

 

There is No Other

 

There is No Other

When one says “There is no ‘them’” they do not mean that they agree on and identify with everything and with everyone.  It should mean that there are no Groups with a label that I consider “other”.  I cannot say  that the “Russians are my enemy” as there is no one who fits the label of “Russian”.  People are unique and not subject to being objectified by a label.  There may be certain Russians that I don’t agree with, but they would be individuals who happen to be Russian – not the whole group with the label of “Russian”. 

 

I don’t want to be identified as “American” as that word means so many different things to everyone that it means nothing to anyone.  I grew up during the Viet Nam War where the motto for many were “My country – right or wrong”.  I do not subscribe to that.  I don’t want to identify (or be identified with) the “wrong” of my country.  I don’t want to label a person a “Frenchman” and think that that will define him sufficiently.  It isn’t enough to identify anyone with a  label – even identifying a person as a “child molester” is putting a label  on someone else that is a false, or insufficient label.  Labels do not identify or describe anyone. 

 

When we label a person, we de-humanize them and consider them as “other”.  We form this in-group and out-group (others) and form this barrier between us and “them”.  By identifying an “other” with a label, we deliberately draw assumptions that are not warranted.  That is why, in this essay, he mentions that governments try to de-humanize other people under other governments as being “other” as a beginning of the journey from “murder with language” to “murder by bullets or bombs”. 

Craziness in Old Testament

Craziness in Old Testament 


In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. 

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. 

A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. 

The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. 

The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. 

Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)


 

The following is an essay/sermon from the Executive Director of the American Humanists Association.

 

A Message from Executive Director Fish Stark

EMPATHY IS WHAT SAVES US (March 21, 20250

We’ve got a new big lie to fight.

People are being thrown into economic chaos – they don’t know what’s happening to their student loan repayment programs, their retirement savings are being tanked and it seems increasingly likely that Social Security is on the chopping block. Israeli theocrats are once again raining down missiles on civilians in Gaza, other theocrats have responded with rocket attacks in kind. People are being thrown in prison with no criminal charges.

The radical right – the unholy alliance of bishops and billionaires – has turned on the firehose of cruelty.

And they’re telling us that the real problem is that we care too much.

“The fundamental weakness of Western Civilization is empathy,” Elon Musk said on Joe Rogan’s podcast. The right-wing intelligentsia has been talking louder and louder about suicidal empathy recently. Their allies on the religious right are piling on further: empathy is a sin, we’re told, because its focus on human suffering distracts us from heavenly commands.

It’s horseshit.

I don’t just mean it’s morally bankrupt – although that’s true.

But it’s completely counterfactual. It is an intentional lie, obscuring or misrepresenting facts of neurobiology, psychology, and history.

They want us to believe that empathy is killing us. The truth is that empathy is what saves us.

There’s no way for the billionaires and the bishops to get what they want – a society where they’ve consolidated economic and cultural power, where the Musks of the world can amass unlimited profit from our increasing productivity and the Timothy Dolans of the world can force us to structure our personal lives according to their parochial dictates – without doing things that are offensive to human consciousness.

They cannot enforce the economic order they want without cruelty towards the poor, sick, and old. They cannot enforce the social order they want without punishing people who have done nothing wrong but defy their made-up commandments.

And they cannot get away with it unless we let them. So they tell us to turn off the part of ourselves that is naturally wired to be attuned to injustice, to care about the pain and safety of others, to be repulsed by cruelty.

Cognitive empathy – being able to understand and relate to the feelings of others – is proven to improve emotional regulation. We feel better – we are better – when we feel connected to others, when we care about them.

Dr. Kristin Neff at UT-Austin does work on the theory of common humanity – the idea that by realizing the ties we have to other people, our common failings and frailties, we are more forgiving of them and ourselves. Seeing ourselves as more connected to others, rather than isolated within smaller and smaller circles, improves mental health.

There’s also a clear, science-based link between empathy and prosocial behavior. People with empathetic instincts help other people. And prosocial behavior is a positive feedback loop – kindness engenders kindness, generosity sparks generosity.

We have built civilizations not because we followed the dictates of the most self-interested among us but because we created social contracts – systems of laws and rules and ethics that allowed us to keep competing human needs in balance, driven by the recognition that we cannot survive if we don’t trust our neighbors.

Sure, there is such a thing as getting too wrapped up in the concerns of others, of sacrificing one’s own needs too readily. But this is a problem with reasoning and judgment, not empathy. The presence of empathy informs reasoned decision-making, but doesn’t guarantee it. But that’s not what this is about.

The truth is that the billionaires and the bishops don’t want us to be mentally healthy. They want us crying out in desperation, lacking purpose and meaning, so they can tell us to fill the hole with God. And they don’t want prosocial behavior. They want us to be dependent on them, not each other, so they can work us for lower wages and longer hours.

And so they wage a war on empathy.

It seems to me that in doing so, they sow their own downfall. Caring about people is an evolutionary instinct. We are wired to have concern for others in our species, and balance that with their own self-interest.

When you turn one of the most natural human impulses into an act of revolution – well, good luck with that, Elon.

As for me and my house – we will serve humanity. We will not turn inward and ignore the missiles aimed at civilians and the social security checks ripped away from the elderly and indigent.

We won’t look at our empathy as a sin or a weakness, but a tool. A tool that helps deepen our own humanity and ensure the humanity of others is respected and uplifted. A tool that keeps us close to our neighbors when those in power would rather pit us all against each other.

They talk about “suicidal empathy” because they want us to fall into suicidal apathy. But we’re smart enough not to take the bait.

For humanity,

Fish

 

Criticism of Democrats

 Why I still criticize Democrats more than Trump

They can still disappoint me.

Washington Post February 17, 2025 by Shadi Hamid

Here’s a counterintuitive answer.

The comment sections of my recent columns have been awash with a familiar refrain: How dare you criticize Democrats when President Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy? The anger is palpable, particularly on left-leaning platforms such as Bluesky, where my attempts to understand — rather than simply condemn — certain Trump-adjacent ideas have sparked accusations of legitimizing fascism. But this reaction reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both Trump’s presidency and the role of political commentary in our deeply polarized era.

Make sense of the latest news and debates with our daily newsletter

Here’s the counterintuitive truth: I’m more critical of Democrats precisely because I expect more from them. When Trump disregards human rights abroad or undermines democratic norms at home, he’s not being hypocritical — he’s being exactly who he has always claimed to be. The man who called for a “Muslim ban” in 2015 and praised strongmen throughout his first term hasn’t suddenly changed his stripes in 2025.

In his Feb. 4 news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. That seemed clear enough. But because it was so clear, it seemed redundant to just condemn him. Instead, I interviewed Oubai Shahbandar, an Arab American defender of Trump who saw the president’s Gaza comments in a more positive light. I found this mystifying, but that seemed all the more reason to ask him why he thought what he thought. And then I could leave it to readers to come to their own conclusions.

This gets at a larger question. As much as moral condemnation might make us feel good, what does it accomplish? More than enough journalists and commentators are already documenting Trump’s abuses of power and holding him to account.

 

As his comments on Gaza as well as his flurry of aggressive and legally suspect executive orders make clear, Trump is a threat, including to some of the values I hold most dear. The question isn’t who is worse — that answer is obvious — but, rather, who is better. Who can still be held accountable to their own stated ideals? And the answer there is also clear: Democrats. They claim to be the party of values — of fair competition, freedom, tolerance and pluralism.

Yet Democrats consistently fall short of the very ideals they profess to champion. Under the Biden administration, party leaders — including President Joe Biden himself — spoke of the “indiscriminate” bombing of Gaza while refusing to do anything to stop it. Instead Biden said, chillingly, that “we’re not going to do a damn thing other than protect Israel.” But it’s not just Gaza. The Democratic Party has long preached tolerance and inclusion while marginalizing pro-life Democratstalking down to Black and brown votersignoring religious conservatives and dismissing the growing ranks of Americans who felt the party had become too radical on issues such as gender identity. On policy, what was once the working-class party chose to prioritize things such as college debt relief, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

This is hypocrisy. But hypocrisy has its silver lining. The hypocrite, in claiming to uphold certain values but falling short, is providing, perhaps unintentionally, a service. The hypocrite, unlike the purely cynical actor, at least acknowledges the existence of moral standards — and in failing to meet them illustrates the gap between the ideal and the reality. Political theorist David Runciman extends this insight in his book “Political Hypocrisy,” arguing that “hypocrites who pretend to be better than they really are could also be said to be better than they might be, because they are at least pretending to be good.”

This gap — between what the Democratic Party is and what it might still become — presents an opportunity for the millions of Democrats, like myself, who have grown disaffected with the party’s choices. We should demand more and expect better. It isn’t enough — and it surely wasn’t enough on Election Day — for Democrats to merely be the anti-Trump party and hope for the best.

None of this is to downplay the dangers Trump represents. But we’ve reached a point where reflexive Trump criticism has become a form of virtue signaling — a way to demonstrate one’s allegiance to the “right side” of history without engaging the harder question of why Trump grows more popular rather than less, including with Americans younger than 30.

Put simply, the argument that writers shouldn’t provide a platform for bad or otherwise morally objectionable ideas misunderstands the current political reality. These ideas are already in the air. They’re shaping policy decisions every day. Creating a cordon sanitaire around Trump-adjacent voices such as Shahbandar or Michael Brendan Dougherty, whom I also interviewed, doesn’t make their ideas disappear — it merely ensures that we never truly understand them.

And understanding is crucial. With four years still of Trump, we must wrestle with the fact that millions of our fellow Americans apparently disliked the status quo so much that they now seem indifferent to its dismantling. This isn’t about legitimizing the GOP’s burn-it-down approach to governance but rather trying to grasp why it came to this. Because it did come to this. Only in confronting these realities can Democrats rebuild and reposition themselves in the coming years to win back voters they alienated.

I’m steeling myself for four years (if not longer) of a conservative party that no longer seems interested in conserving. For Republicans, now under the full sway of a man they once detested, the chaos — it seems — is the point. Because I’ve calibrated my expectations accordingly, Trump has lost the ability to disappoint or really even shock me.

We’ve become too quick to label every Trump statement or action as unprecedented or democracy-ending. This rhetorical inflation not only diminishes our ability to respond to genuine crises but also alienates those who might otherwise be receptive to legitimate criticism of Trump’s policies.

In an era in which preaching to the converted seems more important than thoughtful debates, perhaps making my own “side” uncomfortable is exactly what’s needed. After all, if we’re not challenging Americans to think differently about this odd, unsettling political moment, then what’s the point?