A new study has just found something rather interesting: even atheists don’t trust atheists. Or, to put it the other way around, atheists themselves assume that religious believers are more likely to act morally than their fellow atheists, and atheists are more likely to engage in grossly immoral acts. In the words of the study, “people overall are roughly twice as likely to view extreme immorality as representative of atheists, relative to believers,” so that “even atheists intuitively associate immorality more with atheists than with believers.”
Read the rest at National Catholic Register
Is it possible to talk about the pollution of sexuality in the same way that we can talk about the pollution of the air with sulfur dioxide belched out of smoke stacks or pollution of the water through industrial waste dumped in rivers?
If we can befoul nature by violating its intrinsic order and beauty, can we do the same to human nature and, in particular, human sexuality? If intemperance and greed destroy the natural environment, do they also destroy the sexual environment? Can we measure that destruction, so that it is scientifically verifiable?
Yes. Our sexual environment is about as polluted as China’s air, and the harm caused by such pollution is just as scientifically demonstrable.
Readers will forgive me, I hope, if I have to treat some rather delicate topics in what follows. Talking about the evil effects of dumping raw sewage into our streams is much less embarrassing than examining the evils of dumping the parallel equivalent of raw sewage into our sexuality. But the seriousness of contemporary sexual pollution demands some candor on my part.
Read the rest of the post at Catholic World Report
Berkeley Ditches Atheist Richard Dawkins for Criticisms against Islam--not about all the awful things he's said against Christianity
Berkeley is at it again. This time it’s Berkeley’s KPFA canceling a talk by famed atheist Richard Dawkins, which the liberal radio station was sponsoring at the First Congregational Church of Berkeley. Why? Because it discovered some alleged hate-speechery in Dawkins’ tweets toward…Islam.
Yes, you read that correctly. Over the last decade and a half Dawkins has repeatedly cursed Christianity, jabbed at Judaism, battered the Bible, and the Left loved it. The Left loves that kind of hate speech, calling it “free speech.” As long as the vitriol is directed at anything Judeo-Christian, it’s quite cheerfully affirmed. But say anything against Islam, and you’ve stepped over the liberal line from “free speech” to “hate speech.”
Dawkins’ comments on his treatment by KPFA sum up the irony. “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that,” his notes. “Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?”
Why, indeed. The answer is a bit surprising. That’s what secular liberals have been doing for hundreds of years. It’s an ingrained habit, and hence part of a long-standing historical pattern, which has its origins in the Radical Enlightenment.
For the rest of the story, see the full article at the National Catholic Register