Dostoyevsky - The Writer Who Foresaw the Rise of the Totalitarian State

A brilliant column by John Gray about a brilliant writer still so very relevant today.

The 19th Century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote about characters who justified murder in the name of their ideological beliefs. For this reason, John Gray argues, he's remained relevant ever since, through the rise of the totalitarian states of the 20th Century, to the "war against terror".

When Fyodor Dostoyevsky described in his novels how ideas have the power to change human lives, he knew something of what he was writing about.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Born in 1821, the Russian writer was in his 20s when he joined a circle of radical intellectuals in St Petersburg who were entranced by French utopian socialist theories. A police agent who had infiltrated the group reported its discussions to the authorities. On 22 April 1849, Dostoyevsky was arrested and imprisoned along with the other members, and after some months of investigation they were found guilty of planning to distribute subversive propaganda and condemned to death by firing squad.

The punishment was commuted to a sentence of exile and hard labour, but the tsar's authority to decree life or death was confirmed by forcing the prisoners to undergo the ordeal of a mock execution.

In a carefully stage-managed charade Dostoyevsky and the rest of the group were taken on the morning of 22 December 1849 to a regimental parade ground, where scaffolding had been erected and decorated with black crepe. Their crimes and sentence were read out and an Orthodox priest asked them to repent.

Three of the group were tied to stakes in readiness for execution. At the last moment there was a roll of drums, and the firing squad lowered its rifles. Reprieved, the prisoners were put in shackles and sent into Siberian exile - in Dostoyevsky's case for four years of hard labour, followed by compulsory service in the Russian army. In 1859 a new tsar allowed Dostoyevsky to end his Siberian exile. A year later he was back in the literary world of St Petersburg.

The execution of two nihilists in St Petersburg, 1880

Dostoyevsky's experience had altered him profoundly. He did not abandon his view that Russian society needed to be radically changed. He continued to believe that the institution of serfdom was profoundly immoral, and to the end of his life he detested the landed aristocracy. But his experience of being on what he'd believed was the brink of death had given him a new perspective on time and history. Many years later he remarked: "I cannot recall when I was ever as happy as on that day."

From then onwards he realised that human life was not a movement from a backward past to a better future, as he had believed or half-believed when he shared the ideas of the radical intelligentsia. Instead, every human being stood at each moment on the edge of eternity. As a result of this revelation, Dostoyevsky became increasingly mistrustful of the progressive ideology to which he had been drawn as a young man.

He was particularly scornful of the ideas he found in St Petersburg when he returned from his decade of Siberian exile. The new generation of Russian intellectuals was gripped by European theories and philosophies. French materialism, German humanism and English utilitarianism were melded together into a peculiarly Russian combination that came to be called "nihilism".

We tend to think of a nihilist as someone who believes in nothing, but the Russian nihilists of the 1860s were very different. They were fervent believers in science, who wanted to destroy the religious and moral traditions that had guided humankind in the past in order that a new and better world could come into being. There are plenty of people who believe something similar today.

Dostoyevsky's indictment of nihilism is presented in his great novel Demons. Published in 1872, the book has been criticised for being didactic in tone, and there can be no doubt that he wanted to show that the dominant ideas of his generation were harmful. But the story Dostoyevsky tells is also a dark comedy, cruelly funny in its depiction of high-minded intellectuals toying with revolutionary notions without understanding anything of what revolution means in practice.

Eve Belton as Marya in a 1969 BBC adaptation of Dostoyevsky's novel Demons

The plot is a version of actual events that unfolded as Dostoyevsky was writing the book. A former teacher of divinity turned terrorist, Sergei Nechaev, was arrested and convicted of complicity in the killing of a student. Nechaev had authored a pamphlet, The Catechism of a Revolutionary, which argued that any means (including blackmail and murder) could be used to advance the cause of revolution. The student had questioned Nechaev's policies, and so had to be eliminated.

Dostoyevsky suggests that the result of abandoning morality for the sake of an idea of freedom will be a type of tyranny more extreme than any in the past. As one of the characters in Demons confesses: "I got entangled in my own data, and my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea from which I start. From unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism."

As a description of what would occur in Russia as a result of the Bolshevik revolution nearly 50 years later, this can hardly be improved upon. Though he criticised him for relying too much on individual acts of terror, Lenin admired Nechaev for his readiness to commit any crime if it served the revolution. But as Dostoyevsky foresaw, the use of inhuman methods to achieve a new kind of freedom produced a type of repression that was much more far-reaching than the theatrical cruelties of tsarism.

Dostoyevsky's novel contains a lesson that        What Dostoyevsky diagnosed
reaches far beyond Russia. Early English          was the tendency to think of
translations bore the title The Possessed            ideas as being somehow more 
- a misreading of a Russian word more              real than actual human beings
accurately rendered as Demons. But the
earlier title may have been closer to Dostoyevsky's intentions. Though at times he is merciless in his portrayal of them, it isn't the revolutionaries who are demons. It's the ideas to which the revolutionaries are enslaved.

Dostoyevsky thought the flaw at the heart of Russian nihilism was atheism, but you needn't share his view on this point to see that when he writes of the demonic power of ideas he has fastened on a genuine human disorder. Nor do you need to approve of Dostoyevsky's political outlook, which was a mystical version of nationalism deeply stained with xenophobia.

What Dostoyevsky diagnosed - and at times suffered from himself - was the tendency to think of ideas as being somehow more real than actual human beings. It would be a mistake to imagine that we haven't also fallen into this sort of delusional thinking. The wars the West has fought in the Middle East over the past decade and more are often attacked as being little more than attempts to seize natural resources, but I'm sure this isn't the whole story. A type of moral fantasy has been just as important in explaining the West's repeated interventions and their recurring failure.

Dostoyevsky's other major novels

John Simm as Raskolnikov in BBC version of Crime And Punishment

Crime and Punishment (1866): The story of Raskolnikov, a young student in 19th Century St Petersburg, who is consumed with guilt after he kills a moneylender

The Idiot (1868): The tale of Prince Myshkin - the "idiot" of the title - whose naive and trusting nature precipitates disaster for the people around him

The Brothers Karamazov (1880) - Philosophical novel about four brothers and their dissolute landowner father, whose murder raises questions about God, free will and morality


We've come to imagine that ideas like "democracy", "human rights and "freedom" have a power of their own, which can transform the lives of anyone who is exposed to them. We've launched projects of regime change, which aim to realise these ideas by toppling tyrants. But exporting revolution in this fashion can have the effect of fracturing the state, as has happened in Libya, Syria and Iraq, leading to civil war, anarchy and new types of tyranny.

The result is the position we find ourselves in at the present time. Western policy is now driven by fear of forces and ideas that have sprung from the chaos that earlier Western intervention created. Sadly, this fear isn't groundless. The risk of these conflicts rebounding on us as Western citizens who have fought in them return home is all too real.

We like to think that liberal societies are immune to the dangerous power of ideas. But it's an illusion to think we don't have demons of our own. Possessed by grandiose conceptions of freedom, we've tried to change the systems of government of countries we don't begin to understand. Like the deluded revolutionaries of Dostoyevsky's novel, we've turned abstract notions into idols and sacrificed others and ourselves in the attempt to serve them.

Trinity Western Grad 'Attacked' for Being Christian in Job Rejection

Bethany Paquette had applied to work in Canada's North for Amaruk Wilderness Corp. Bethany is an avid outdoor adventurer, and Biology graduate from Trinity Western University.

She was “attacked” over her religion by a Norwegian wilderness tourism company, just for applying for a job.

Bethany Paquette, rejected job applicant

Bethany Paquette claims her application to work in Canada's North for Amaruk Wilderness Corp. was rejected because she's Christian.

"It did really hurt me and I did feel really attacked on the basis that I'm a Christian," Paquette said.

In her complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Paquette outlines a series of emails from executives from Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

Paquette, an experienced river rafting guide, applied to be a wilderness guide for Amaruk’s Canadian operations in the North.

She says she was shocked when she read the rejection email from Olaf Amundsen, the company's hiring manager.

He wrote that she wasn't qualified and "unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want."

Trinity Western is the Christian university in Langley, B.C., where Paquette earned her biology degree. It is also at the centre of a controversy over getting accreditation for its law degree program due to start in a couple years. Several provinces will not recognize the degrees because of discrimination against gay activity while a student there.

All students must agree to a covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage, under pain of possible expulsion, which has led to controversy over the university's new law school. Paquette was furious and told CBC, "My beliefs have developed who I am as an individual, but they don't come into play when I am doing my job."

Christianity 'destroyed our culture'

What does that mean? That you stopped slaughtering people with axes? That you stopped slave-trading?

In the rejection email, Amundsen also wrote: "The Norse background of most of the guys at the management level means that we are not a Christian organization, and most of us actually  see Christianity as having destroyed our culture, tradition and way of life."

Bethany Paquette used to be a river guide and hoped to become a wilderness guide
for Norwegian company Amaruk's expeditions to Yukon.

Paquette wrote Amundsen back defending her faith, saying "your disagreement with Trinity Western University, simply because they do not support sex outside of marriage, can in fact be noted as discrimination of approximately 76 per cent of the world population!!! Wow, that's a lot of diverse people that you don't embrace."

She also wrote that the Norse people chose Christianity.

"I signed it God Bless, probably partially because I knew it would irritate them," Paquette said.

It clearly irritated Amundsen, who wrote back, describing himself as "a Viking with a PhD in Norse culture. So propaganda is lost on me."

Olaf Amundsen - Amaruk Wilderness Corp hiring manager
a Viking with a PhD in Norse culture.

Trinity Western grads 'not welcome' in company

He explained why graduates from Trinity Western are not welcome in the Norwegian company.

"In asking students to refrain from same-sex relationships, Trinity Western University, and any person associated with it, has engaged in discrimination."

He ended the email writing, "'God bless' is very offensive to me and yet another sign of your attempts to impose your religious views on me.

"I do not want to be blessed by some guy... who has been the very reason for the most horrendous abuses and human rights violations in the history of the human race." Some guy?

Amundsen then used an expletive...Removed as offensive

It was that comment that prompted Paquette to retain a lawyer to take her case to B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal.

"That's kind of the most offensive paragraph in all the emails because that's going pretty far," said Paquette, who cringed when she re-read the email and another one that followed from Amaruk's co-CEO.

Christopher Fragassi-Bjørnsen
Co C.E.O of Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

Christopher Fragassi-Bjørnsen joined the email chain writing that while "Trinity Western University believes that two men loving each other is wrong… we believe a man ending up with another man is probably the best thing that could happen to him. Seriously? Is that Viking tradition?

"But we do not force these views onto other people, and we are completely fine if a guy decided to go the emasculation route by marrying a B.C. woman," Fragassi-Bjørnsen wrote. Ouch!

Paquette said she resents the assumption that she would impose her beliefs on others in the workplace.

"They'd never even met me and never talked to me in person, and they just assumed all these things… and found it OK to attack me."

Amaruk's emails 'over the top'

Paquette's lawyer Geoffrey Trotter said, "You are not allowed in British Columbia to refuse to hire someone because you associate them with other people, from centuries ago, who you think they did something they shouldn't have done."

Trotter called Amaruk's emails "nasty" and "over the top."

Lawyer Geoffrey Trotter reviews Bethany Paquette's human rights complaint with her.

Officials at Trinity Western University agreed, saying they've never before heard of any of their grads filing a similar complaint against a company.

Trinity Western spokesperson Guy Saffold told CBC, "Canadians shouldn't be treated this way by a foreign company." No faith should face discrimination, he said.

"Mocking of their religion — there is a personal shaming element to it that was most unfortunate."

Company says emails 'a mere expression of opinion'

CBC requested an interview with Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

In an email, Amundsen responded saying Paquette's job application was rejected "solely based on the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements of the position."

Trinity Western University

"Any further discussion after that, including the fact that we strongly disagree with the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry or even engage in sexual relationships, would have been a mere expression of opinion," the email says.

Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said employers are not supposed to express opinions about an applicant's religious background.

"You are allowed to think anything you like. But you have obligations as an employer to act in a non-discriminatory manner," Vonn said.

She said the Human Rights Tribunal will have to consider the reason Paquette was rejected.

"What you have is written documentation that more or less is tantamount to a sign on the door that says no one of religious affiliation need apply for employment here. We don't usually see discrimination cases that are quite this stark."

Not 'open season' on Christians in Canada: lawyer

Trotter said if the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal concludes his client was discriminated against, he will seek compensation for lost wages and "for injury to feelings and self respect."

"The main thing that she's been asking for is to order this company to stop discriminating."

Trotter is asking the tribunal to send "a really strong message" that "it is not acceptable to discriminate based on what somebody believes or where they went to school. That it is not 'open season' on Christians in Canada." Yet! It won't be long now!

Full statement from Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

"As per rejection letter attached, Ms. Paquette was not considered for a position with our company solely based on the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements of the position.

Any further discussion after that, including the fact that we strongly disagree with the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry or even engage in sexual relationships, would have been a mere expression of opinion.

Olaf Amundsen
Wilderness Guide/Instructor"

A Moral Revolution as Russia Comes Full-Circle in One Century

Editorial from the Manila Times

See my comments at the bottom of this article.

MOSCOW: Despite geopolitical problems in a number of fronts, Russia has tried to steal a march on the West in the area of family life and marriage, which have increasingly become major global concerns. Officially atheist from the 1917 revolution that created the Soviet Union until the end of the Cold War in 1991, Russia is now trying to lead the revival of Christian values in Europe by defending the natural family from the global “homosexual lobby.”

FRANCISCO S. TATAD

Francisco “Kit” Sarmiento Tatad (born October 4, 1939) is a Filipino journalist and politician best known for having served as Minister of Public Information under President Ferdinand Marcos from 1969 to 1980, and for serving as a Senator of the Philippines from 1992 to 2001.

This is driven mainly by Russia’s demographic winter, which had cost the country an annual loss of 250,000 people. From 1991 onward, Russia had been hoping to have 600 million people by the year 2000; when the year came, it had no more than140 million. Last year, for the first time in 20 years, the birth rate exceeded the death rate. From 1.3, the birth rate is now 1.7–still below the 2.1 replacement level.

The attempt at revival of the family puts Russia in direct clash with the European Union, which is pushing the homosexual agenda worldwide, particularly among its poorer and weaker allies. This tends to exacerbate political differences with EU and the rest of the West in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere. All of this is reflected in the liberal Western press, beginning with the home-based The Moscow Times.

Still, despite some anxieties about Ukraine, pro-family leaders from 50 countries around the world came to Moscow to take part in the International Forum on “The Large Family and The Future of Humanity” at the Kremlin Palace and the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior on Sept. 10-11. At the frontline of the conference were powerful women’s and family organizations, with strong State support.

Chairing it was Natalya Yakunina, who is head of Russia’s national program, “Sanctity of Motherhood,” vice president of “St. Andrew the First Called” and “Center of National Glory” foundations, and ranking member of the presidential coordination council for implementing the National Children’s Strategy for 2012-2017.

Together with 23 others from the US, Canada, UK, Italy, France, Poland, Mexico, Venezuela, Australia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, and Latvia, I was asked to sit on the Advisory Committee, chaired by Patriarch Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate, and to be one of the keynote speakers, led by the Holy Patriarch Kiril of Moscow and all of Russia, and including the Chief Rabbi of Russia, and Archbishop Vicenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family (through video conference call).
The conference produced a two-page declaration, which called upon governments, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Secretary General and the UN Supreme Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure utmost protection for the natural family in all its dimensions.

“The preservation of mankind is based on a system of family and kindred ties that are formed through bonds of marriage between a male and a female and the children born to them. This and this alone is ensuring the reproduction, stability and continuity or human civilization.

Moscow's new architecture

All other kinds of sexual relationships or alliances that intentionally exclude the birth of children are meaningless for they are devoid of the notion set down in the very definition of the word ‘family.’ And no political or economic interests can serve as a pretext for replacing the true and time-tested concept of ‘family’ by any kind of surrogate,” the declaration said.

It appealed to the peoples of the world “to unite amid the threat of total dehumanization of society, and set up a barrier on the road of ideology-lined, state-supported interference in the private lives of people, in an attempt to foist specific sexual lifestyles and preferences of the minority upon the majority.”

One Ukrainian speaker said: “We have one message to the world: Please do not repeat our mistakes.” And stressing that legalized abortion began in Russia in 1920, the final speaker closed the conference by saying that “what began in Russia must end in Russia.”

This is what I told the conference:
It is my third time in four years to come to Moscow to answer, as it were, the call of the Family and the Future of Humankind.

In June 2011, I had the honor of participating in the Moscow Demographic Summit.

In December of 2012, I came to keynote (together with Janice Crowse of the United States) the launching of the National Parents Association of the Russian Federation.

In-between these dates, on October 4, 2012, I was privileged to join Dr. Vladimir Yakunin, the founding president of the World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilizations,”and a panel of international speakers at the Forum’s 10th anniversary celebration on Rhodes Island in Greece.

That enabled me to speak of the family as the most undervalued actor in addressing the crisis of our age. I said then that we could never fully attain true human progress until the family was given its due in the natural order of things, and we were able to speak not so much of the “Rise of West” nor of “the Rise of the Rest” as of the “Rise of the Least,” that is to say, the rise of the family, our basic social unit.

The world has changed, and is changing, but not quickly enough to undo all the errors of the past. Population control, which has caused so much that is wrong in the world, has not completely dissipated despite its terrible effects upon families, nations, and the human race itself. One part of Europe is trying to undo those errors, but another part seems determined to propagate them far beyond its borders.

Can't have pictures of Moscow without a snowstorm

From that other part we get the feeling that the most urgent challenge to us today is how to end all of human life as quickly as possible, whether by means of the most lethal weapons of mass destruction or by means of the whole range of policies and programs intended to extinguish the family as the parent-seed and propagator of civilization.

Since the second half of the last century, certain forces have tried to make the world believe that the future lies in the disappearance of the family. If the world cannot do away with the family, it must at least make it irrelevant and obsolete, miniaturized to the point of invisibility. Family-size products have disappeared, replaced by sachets of almost everything, while houses no bigger than bird cages are built, and measures to prevent births are distributed as relief to the poor and the needy, to victims of conflicts and natural calamities.

To talk therefore of the family–not only of the family but above all of the large family–as the future of humanity is a most dangerous thing to do. For it invites sneers, ridicule and attacks from those who have mistaken political correctness for sound objective morality. But for that very reason, it is an inspired act of faith, hope, and courage. It is to swim against the current and the tide, which we must all do if we are to redirect the course of our history.

Many years ago when I first came to Strasbourg as a visiting parliamentarian, a member of the European Parliament who was directly descended from a former president of France greeted me with the words, “So you come from the Philippines, where you still have large families.” I replied that regrettably it was no longer so–I was one of the last who still had five children at the time (I now have seven, with ten young grandchildren from the four who are married); but that we have nothing against large families.

Not long thereafter, I found myself speaking to the 102 Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Berlin when the 6th billion human being was being born to a poor Bosnian couple. I could not contain my joy, but neither could I understand why so many people seemed to greet the news with alarm, if not panic, rather than with champagne and fireworks, like the fetes de Geneve.

And I said so. Some delegates from the developing countries queued up to thank me for my remarks, but I clearly annoyed some delegates from the First World.

Last July, the population of the Philippines hit 100 million, making us the world’s 12th largest nation, population-wise. We saw this as a great boon to the country. But it was a grave disappointment to those who had earlier risked a Catholic revolt to steamroll a law that prescribes birth control to all Filipinos, “in the name of democracy.”

I have come to this conference prepared to defend the conviction that the full flourishing of the family is a conditio sine qua non for the fulfillment of man’s destiny as the steward of all creation. I wish to thank and commend the organizers most heartily for the warmth and care with which they have received us here. But what you have organized here is not simply a conference but rather the launch of a global moral revolution to change the course of our fallen and misdirected humanity.

This is what the future owes you for what you did here today.

Obviously, Kit is a fierce defender of large families. While he doesn't explain in practical terms why, we can assume it has something to do with being Roman Catholic. He is, apparently, not bothered at all by the perceived overpopulation of the world. 

Nevertheless, he does raise the ironic point of Russia, standing almost alone, defending Christian family values when it was Russia who first destroyed family values with the 1917 revolution. I sincerely appreciate Russia's current stand and pray they will be strong until some semblance of common sense returns to the rest of the world.

German Scientists at Prestigious University Prove There is Life After Death

I wouldn't normally post stories like this, but since it came from what appears to be a very reliable source, I'm making an exception. Technische Universität of Berlin, or Berlin Technical University was founded in 1879 and has produced no less than 10 Nobel Prize winners.

None of the major news networks are reporting it, but Sunnewsonline, IndiaToday, and dozens of lesser sites. I can't swear to it's integrity, but I'm making it available anyway. So treat it with skepticism until there is more verification or debunking.

Near-death experiences have been hypothesized in various medical journals
in the past, as having the characteristics of hallucinations, but Dr Ackermann
and his team, on the contrary, consider them as evidence for the existence
of the afterlife and of a form of dualism between mind and body.

Berlin| A team of psychologists and medical doctors associated with the Technische Universität of Berlin, have announced this morning that they had proven by clinical experimentation, the existence of some form of life after death. This astonishing announcement is based on the conclusions of a study using a new type of medically supervised near-death experiences, that allow patients to be clinically dead for almost 20 minutes before being brought back to life.

Technische Universität of Berlin

This controversial process that was repeated on 944 volunteers (where did they find them?) over the last four years, necessitates a complex mixture of drugs including epinephrine and dimethyltryptamine, destined to allow the body to survive the state of clinical death and the reanimation process without damage. The body of the subject was then put into a temporary comatic state induced by a mixture of other drugs which had to be filtered by ozone from his blood during the reanimation process 18 minutes later. American death penalty administrators are you reading this?

The extremely long duration of the experience was only recently made possible by the development of a new cardiopulmonary recitation (CPR) machine called the AutoPulse. This type of equipment has already been used over the last few years, to reanimate people who had been dead for somewhere between 40 minutes to an hour.

Dr Berthold Ackermann Technische Universität of Berlin

The team of scientists led by Dr Berthold Ackermann, has monitored the operations and have compiled the testimonies of the subjects. Although there are some slight variations from one individual to another, all of the subjects have some memories of their period of clinical death and a vast majority of them described some very similar sensations.

Most common memories include a feeling of detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of an overwhelming light.
The scientists say that they are well aware that many of their conclusions could shock a lot of people, like the fact that the religious beliefs of the various subjects seems to have held no incidence at all, on the sensations and experiences that they described at the end of the experiment. Indeed, the volunteers counted in their ranks some members are a variety of Christian churches, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and atheists. Fascinating!

“I know our results could disturb the beliefs of many people” says Mr Ackermann. “But in a way, we have just answered one of the greatest questions in the history of mankind, so I hope these people will be able to forgive us. Yes, there is life after death and it looks like this applies to everyone.”

I Renounced Islam, So My Family Think I Should Die - Sound Familiar?

Apostasy is not just something that scandalises people in far off lands. Here's the story of a British woman whose life was turned upside down when she left Islam - echoing the plight of Meriam Ibrahim, who awaits a death sentence in Sudan for the same "crime"

If Amal Farah were not living in Britain, she believes she might well be dead.

For the 33-year-old financial manager had carried out an act so heinous, her family felt she deserved to die.

Her crime? She had renounced her Islamic faith – “and within my community, that’s a capital offence,” she said. “They believe you deserve to die.”

Mrs Farah, who was born in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, but now lives in Britain, has never told her story before.

Amal Farah renounced Islam

She was too afraid; told that, even in the UK, it was safer for her to keep a low profile.

But when earlier this month the case of Meriam Ibrahim came to light – an eight-month pregnant Sudanese woman, sentenced to death for refusing to renounce her Christian faith – Mrs Farah felt she had to speak out.

“I had to do something,” she said. “I am so fortunate to be here, and I am in a position to be able to shout and scream and say this is wrong.”

Her voice quavering, fighting back tears, she said: “I read her story and thought: 'That could so easily have been me.’”

Ms Ibrahim currently awaits her fate in a cell in Khartoum, shackled by the ankles, (she has not been in shackles since her baby was born and has been moved to a more comfortable room - see post immediately below) having refused an offer from a judge to renounce her Christianity. She also faces 100 lashes for "adultery" - the court does not recognise her marriage to a Christian man, Daniel Wani, who has American citizenship.

She told the court that her Muslim father abandoned the family when she was young, so as a child she had been brought up a Christian.

For Mrs Farah, many of the parallels between her own life and Ms Ibrahim’s are striking.

Both women are pregnant with their second child. Both were born in the Greater Horn of Africa region. And both lost their fathers when they were young girls.

Ironically, Mrs Farah’s father was very secular. A high-ranking general in the Somali army, he served under Siad Barre, the military dictator, before going into exile in Ethiopia, where he campaigned for democracy.

When Mrs Farah was aged just three, he was killed by a landmine.

“After that, little by little, my mother became more religious,” she said. “We were all Muslims, of course, but the older I got the more I was told to pray, to wear conservative clothes and so on. It wasn’t that I disliked Islam per se. But I disliked being told what to do, like being forced to wear the hijab. I dreamt of having control over my own life.”

A turning point came, she said, when her mother prepared her for circumcision, a practice now widely viewed as barbaric, and better known as female genital mutilation.

“I was really scared, and she was talking about how it was religious purification – an essential rite. I asked if there was anything I could do to change her mind, and she said no. I think that’s when I realised that I hated this feeling of powerlessness.”

When Mrs Farah was 18, the family fled Somalia – her mother, who had remarried, her stepfather, and her four half-siblings.

And it was when she began her degree in molecular biology at a British red-brick university that a new world opened up for her.

“It was a revelation,” she said. “I met atheists, staunch Christians, Jews, Hindus – they challenged me about my views, and I about theirs. It was an incredible sensation to be able to ask questions, and discuss ideas without fear, without looking over my shoulder. I had been in a cocoon – unquestioning, with everyone told they had to think the same way.

“It happened very organically for me. Initially I started exploring my own faith, reading all I could on the Koran – different translations, historical perspectives, listening to cassettes of various Saudi or Egyptian imams.

“At first my Mum thought it was wonderful. And I really did see the goodness in it; the sense of generosity, of speaking the truth, and not back biting. I don’t think it is a terrible religion at all.”

But she felt in her heart that it was not for her – and that, to be true to herself, she could no longer call herself a Muslim.

Yet finally she dared to broach the subject gently with her family – saying she was “having doubts about Islam” – her mother was “heartbroken”.

“My mother’s first words were: ’But you’re going to hell!’ They see that life is a test, and that my decision was but a challenge to my faith, and one which should be overcome.”

At first they tried to persuade her. Cousins telephoned her constantly, and an uncle was dispatched from Saudi Arabia to spend three days “answering her questions”.

In the eyes of the deeply-conservative Somali community in Leicester, of which her family was part, renouncing Islam was an act potentially punishable by death.

“It became more threatening. My mother felt incredibly guilty – she was also very, very angry.

"She blamed herself for the exposure to corrupt Western ways, and said: 'I knew it was wrong to bring you here. It was like putting you in the sea and asking you not to taste salt.’”

Mrs Farah has not spoken to her relatives since 2005.

She is adamant that it is not a problem with Islam, but rather one of intolerant societies.

“If you look at the Old Testament, there are some shocking things there,” she said. “But Jewish society realises that it’s no longer acceptable to stone someone to death, or to cut out their eyes, or enslave them. And the vast majority of Muslims realise that too. Unfortunately, with 1.6 billion adherents, a small minority can measure in the millions or tens of millions.

“It’s just the extremists in Pakistan or Saudi or Sudan who fail to see the message of humanity behind the words.” and Somalia, and Nigeria, and Iran, and Iraq, etc., etc.

The crime of apostasy – for which Ms Ibrahim has been sentenced to death – is defined as the renouncing of your religion.

Some divisions of Christianity – among them Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Baptists – believe apostasy is a sin. But it is mainly seen as an Islamic crime, based on a Hadith – saying - from Prophet Muhammad who said, “Whoever changes his religion kill him.” But many scholars point out that numerous verses in the Koran guarantee freedom of belief. You can believe whatever you want when you're dead!

Nina Shea, director of the Centre for Religious Freedom at New York’s Hudson Institute, said that apostasy from Islam is criminalised in many, though not all, Muslim-majority states. Turkey does not criminalise it, but Iran and Saudi Arabia do imprison converts. Actual executions by governments for conversion are virtually unheard of today.

“In the case of Meriam Ibrahim, the government of Sudan is adopting the practice of Islamic extremist groups like Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” she said. “All of those groups do put Christian converts to death.”

Mrs Farah tries not to think about her estranged family.

Her mother moved the family back to Somalia shortly after they last spoke – fearful that more of her children would abandon the faith. For her own safety, the Telegraph is not revealing particulars about where she now lives in Britain.

“I try to focus on the positive things,” Mrs Farah said. “I craved my freedom, and it took me a long time to be brave enough. I try not to think of my family, as it upsets me too much. I just wish, idealistically I suppose, that it didn’t have to be like this.”

Why Chechens Hate Russians, A Stalin Legacy

Isa Khashiyev with the Koran and daggers
his family hid during their 13 years in exile

Seventy years ago, in February 1944, nearly half a million Chechen and Ingush people were herded into cattle trucks and forced into exile in remote parts of the Soviet Union. It's estimated that more than a third of them died before they were allowed back 13 years later.

"At dawn, five soldiers entered each house and took all the men away - anyone over the age of 14. I was 10 years old. Then they said they would deport all of us," says Isa Khashiyev.

"We had 10 people in our family - mum and dad, grandmother and seven children. I was the eldest, and my youngest sister was three months old.

"The soldier who was assigned to deport us was very kind. He loaded our truck with five sacks of grain and helped us pack our bedding and other belongings. It was thanks to him that we survived," he says. The truck took them to the nearest railway station in Ingushetia where they were put in a cattle wagon with 10 other families.

Sanu Mamoyeva spent eight years in a
Gulag for listening to anti-Stalin folk
music - she made this case to bring
her possessions home to Chechnya.

Khashiyev's family was sent on a 15-day journey to Kazakhstan. "We had no water and no food. The weak were suffering from hunger, and those who were stronger would get off the train and buy some food. Some people died on the way - no-one in our carriage, but in the next carriage I saw them taking out two corpses."

It was cold and dark when they arrived in Kokchetav, in the plains of northern Kazakhstan. "We went off on a sledge, I fell off at one point, but they stopped the sledge and my mum ran back to find me," says Khashiyev.

"Our baby sister died that night. My dad was looking for a place to bury her - he found a suitable place, dug the grave and buried her… she must have frozen to death."

The exiles were housed by local families, not all were happy with the situation. "The landlady didn't want to let us in - she had heard that we were cannibals or something," he says. "Eventually she agreed to take us in, but she wouldn't speak to us."

Khashiyev is one of nearly 100,000 Ingush who were deported - nearly 400,000 Chechens were exiled at the same time. Both had a long history of resistance to outside authority. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (who was completely paranoid, partly thanks to the NKVD which exploited that paranoia for their own benefit) suspected them of collaborating with German forces as they pushed south into the Caucasus in 1942 and 1943.

Khumid Gabayev's father died in exile -
he brought his remains home to Chechnya for burial

Other nationalities deported en masse included the Balkars and Karachai, also from the North Caucasus, the Kalmyks, whose territory borders the Caspian Sea, the Crimean Tatars and, from the South Caucasus, the Meskhetian Turks.

Exiles who survived the difficult journey east had to abide by strict regulations curbing their movement. They had to report to the authorities regularly and if they broke the rules they risked lengthy prison sentences in labour camps where conditions were even worse.

On their return to Chechnya,
deportees had to fight
 to reclaim their land and
restore ancestral towers

The NKVD or secret police were the eyes and ears of the government and kept a close eye on the deportees. But some NKVD officers - like Alaudin Shadiyev, who had fought against the Nazis, but was deported along with all his compatriots - found this very tough.

Mukhtar Yevloyev who was deported
 as a young boy tends sheep
like his father before him

Alaudin Shadiyev fought against the Nazis and was later assigned to the NKVD secret police. "I was very upset. I used to cry every night. And I did my best to help my people, and also to help the secret police," he says.

Shadiyev's job was to check up on the exiles but he was horrified by the conditions he found at one deserted orphanage.

Shadiyev
wearing his medals

"I was asking, 'Where are all the children?' And someone waved in the direction of the forest… and under the trees I saw lots of babies lying on straw. Then a teenage girl came up to me, and more girls joined her, they were all about 12 years old, or younger.

"The eldest pointed to the babies lying around, some on rags, some on the straw, and they were stretching their arms towards me… they were asking for help."

The girls had to forage in the fields and orchards or beg for food. "All these children were dying in silence. It was too hard for me to witness this. Even today I can hardly speak about this," says Shadiyev.

The deportations were a taboo subject under Stalin - the Soviet leader died in 1953 and the exiles were not allowed to return home until 1957. Khashiyev is now 80 and lives back in his native village where he is one of the elders. Shadiyev is 94 and lives near Nazran, the capital of Ingushetia.

Chekhkiyeva on her ancestral land
Tovsari Chekhkiyeva, now 101, had to fight to reclaim 
her family's land in Ingushetia when she returned home

Atheist Explains Why Darwinian Evolution is Impossible

Doubting Darwinism – J.P. Moreland PhD, quotes atheist Thomas Nagel against Darwinism

Moreland:

Not long ago, the former professor of biology at Cornell University, a man who is known throughout the world for his expertise in biological science, William Provine, made the following statement:

“Let me summarize my views about what modern evolutionary biology tells us: There are no gods. There is no purpose to life. There are no goal directed forces of any kind. There;s no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I’m going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There’s no ultimate foundation for ethics, there’s no meaning to life, and there’s no such thing as free will. “

Now, Provine is a good scientist, but a very bad philosopher.  And, his view is widely believed among the intellectual elite of our culture. And unfortunately, the culture, and what the culture believes is largely determined by the intellectual elites. That’s just the way it is.

Now, Provine’s statement is really not true, because, if evolutionary theory is true, it doesn't mean there’s not a god. I could grant the truth of evolutionary theory, and I would still have plenty of reasons to believe in God, completely outside of the biological realm.

J.P. Moreland

There is for example an argument for God’s existence

based upon the origin of the universe
based upon the fine tuning of the universe
based on the objectivity of the moral law
based on the miracles in the New Testament
based on the reliability of the New Testament documents



So, even if evolutionary theory is true, it doesn't follow, that all the things that Provine has told us are reasonable to believe. As I said, I could grant the truth of evolutionary theory for the sake of argument, and still have plenty of reason to believe in the Christian God.

Well then,

What does evolutionary theory do?
It actually does, I think, 2 things:

First of all, it robs us of an argument for God’s existence, because we can base an argument on God’s existence based upon the design of living things. After all, living things look designed. And so, you can build an argument for God based upon the design of living things, and if evolutionary theory is true, it could be argued – that argument is off the table. Fair enough. Then, evolutionary theory would rob the Christian believer of one of many arguments  for God’s existence. That’s a legitimate point.

The real problem however, with evolutionary theory is not that it touches on whether or not there’s a God. The real problem with evolutionary theory is it tends to undermine some very plausible ways of interpreting the early chapters of the book of Genesis. And the book of Genesis is an important foundational document to the Christian community.

So, it’s important to understand that Provine has it wrong. So, nevertheless, evolutionary theory is an important thing it’s just been misunderstood by the general public and Provine, in terms of the impact of the theory, if it’s true,

Is evolution true?
Well, that depends on what you mean by it. I am going to characterize 3 different meanings of evolution and tell you where the tension lies, and then I’ll give you 3 reasons why I don’t believe in the theory of evolution.

Evolution can mean 1 of 3 things:

Microevolution- Evolution can mean that organisms change when they go to new environments. This is true. If you take a group of brown rabbits, and if they migrate to an area where there’s a lot of snow, it could be (that) after several generations their coats turn white, rather than brown, and that enables them to survive better. Is that definition of evolution true? Yes, and nobody disputes it. That’s called microevolution.


Common descent- The second meaning of evolution is called the thesis of common descent. This is the idea that living things appear on earth in a sequence of simpler life to a more complex life, in a sequence of new life forms all the way from single cell organisms (simple life, supposedly) up to human beings. That’s called the thesis of common descent (from chimps to mankind).

All of the evidence for evolution is evidence for this thesis. There is no evidence for the third thesis, I’m about to tell you (about). Well, is the thesis of common descent true? I’m inclined to say, “No.” But, let me say very clearly, “If the thesis of common descent turned out to be true, I would have very little problem with it, as an evangelical believer, because I think that the early chapters of Genesis teach us that life appeared on earth, by and large, through a sequence of events from the simple to the complex.

So, if the thesis of common descent was true, which I don’t believe it is, but, even if it were, it would cause my Christian faith very little adjustment because I am committed to the idea, according to Genesis, that living things appeared on earth, by and large, from simple to complex.

The blind watchmaker thesis- The real problem with evolution is the third definition, and that’s where all the tension lies. This is called the blind watchmaker thesis.  According to the blind watchmaker thesis of evolution, the processes that gave rise to living things are totally naturalistic processes, and there was no room for God to do anything.

We don’t need to postulate God to explain where life came from, that God was involved in creating different life forms along the way because mutations and natural selections, that is blind processes- the watchmaker who designed us was blind- that means not conscious, not intentional, had no purposes in mind. Why?

Because the processes that gave rise to us are purely material physical processes of mutation and natural selection, and that’s where the real tension lies, because this thesis says that the common descent of animals from simple to complex took place without any intervention from God creating anything, or doing anything in the process. The process is purely naturalistic, and we don’t have to postulate a supreme being to explain life.

There is, in my opinion, not a shred of evidence to this thesis.  All of the evidence in debates are evidence for common descent, not for the blind watchmaker thesis. I am going to give you three reasons why I think it’s false. In other words, I am going to give you 3 reasons why I believe that God had to be involved in the process, and that you cannot explain the living world, as we know it, without there being a Creator intelligent God.

Before I do, there are many lines of evidence I could have selected, but, I’m gonna pick 3.  In most fields there are pace setters that set the pace in that field. I am an academic and a professional philosopher, and there are certain people in my discipline that are pace setters. If you’re gonna be a responsible, professional philosopher, you have to read what they write, because if you don’t know what they say, you’re not up to speed on your discipline.

One of the professional philosophers in my field, for 50 years, who has been one of the leading intellectuals in the entire world, I would list him in the top 30 western thinkers in the world, is Thomas Nagel. He is a professor of philosophy at New York University. He is clearly an avowed atheist.

In his book ‘The Last Word’, he makes it clear “I fear God, and what I mean by that is I don’t want God to exist. I don’t want the universe to be like that and I hope there’s no God.” It’s called the cosmic authority problem.   He doesn't want an authority over his life and he is clear about that.

A week ago, a major event happened. Nagel, who is an atheist, published a book with Oxford University Press (1 of the 2 top academic Presses in the western world (Cambridge being the other)), and he has argued in this book that the general theory of evolution is nonsense for 3 reasons. 

 Now, he doesn't believe in God, he’s hoping for other solutions. But, the point is that you have one of the top academic atheists in Europe and in the United States publishing a book that just came out. I've taken notes from this book, and he says that there are 3 things that evolution cannot and will never explain and so we have to abandon the theory, in terms of its adequacy of explaining living things. I am going to use the ones he lists, because he’s a critic of our views.

Thomas Nagel, Athiest

1. The Origin of Life

Too improbable to happen by natural processes. Living things contain information & we know, as the SETI scientists themselves assume that if we discover information, that is evidence that the cause of that info is intelligent minds, Nagel claims, and he’s right about this, that the probabilities of natural law and chance to produce life  is absolutely ridiculous. That you will never get living things, by natural laws and Darwinian processes to appear.

Why is that? When Darwin looked through the microscopes of his day, a living cell looked like a simple little blob of jello. Not so anymore. We now know that the simplest single cell is like the city of Detroit or Chicago or New York. It’s got a police dept., it’s got a library, it’s got street signals… I mean, it’s as complicated as a city.

The problem has become then, how do you get through natural processes and random chance? Something that complicated in 4 billion year (let’s grant/say), and Nagel says, “There’s not a snowballs chance in a certain place (hell) that that’s gonna happen. 

Here’s an example: Suppose I filled the state of Texas a mile high with quarters and I put an X on one quarter, and I flew over it in a helicopter and I put it somewhere in the state of Texas. The chances of evolving through natural processes a single cell would be the chances of me giving the opportunity to pick one quarter and picking the right quarter on the first draw.

No one in his right mind would believe anything like that. What if I did pick the quarter on the first draw? You would know that it was rigged, that it was done by cheating, done on purpose. And Nagel says that there’s just not any possibility, that the probability of forming life through Darwinian processes are so astronomically small that they’re comparable to picking the quarter on the first draw in the state of Texas. No one in his right mind would believe that.

By the way, there is a second problem with the origin of life. We now know that information comes from an intelligent mind. When we discover information, it is evidence that intelligence stands behind that information. 

You've heard of the search for life in outer space. It’s called SETI the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The assumption that is made by the SETI scientists is that information can only come from an intelligent mind. So, if we discovered a signal from outer space that contained information, we would conclude that the origin of that signal was an intelligent mind of some kind.

What we have discovered is that there is more information in a single cell than in all the books in the libraries where I did my phD at USC. It is stacked with information and the evidence of information is evidence of mind. So, the origin of life is the first reason why Darwinian theory fails because (a) it is too improbable to be rational, to believe it happened that way, and (b) living things contain information and information is evidence that the cause is an intelligent thinker.

2. The Diversity of life forms 

(a) Diversity of life is far too complex and intricate for it to have evolved in 3.5 billion years through natural processes and chance mutations and through the laws of chemistry and physics. (b) Living systems contain irreducibly complex structures and it will not confer survival values for a mechanism if it doesn't have all the parts.

Here’s the second reason why I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution: It’s the diversity of life forms that we see all around us. The diversity and the complexity of life around us. Nagel makes the point that if evolutionary theory were true, and somehow, if we could get a single cell organism say, 3.5 billion years ago, there’s not enough time in 3.5 billion years to go from a single cell organism to lions, and tigers, and bears.

Because, if evolution were true we would not expect there to be enough time for very much diversity to have appeared. In other words, the sheer complexity and diversity of living things is far too much for the mechanisms of evolution to account for it.

And Nagel runs a probability argument on this as well, saying, pretty much like the state of Texas, “Suppose we could evolve a single celled organism, the probabilities of developing life as we know it are again, like picking the quarter on the first draw. It’s way too improbable.

Think of a butterfly, for example. The mechanisms that can take you from a caterpillar to a butterfly are staggering. You start with a caterpillar, it goes through a stage where you have a stack of goo with not much information, and then you get a butterfly squirting out that is totally different than the caterpillar. And the processes and the staggering detail, and the amount of complexity involved in something that simple are simply too much for the mechanisms of evolution to explain.

Consider the brain. I’m doing research on the soul and the brain this year. If you take a look at what are called the neural nets, these are networks of neurons, and in order for you to have a thought, you have to have billions of neurons firing in just the right place, at just the right time. There’s not a chance that that could happen through natural consequences, it’s way too complicated.  So, the probability of life diversifying into the staggering complexity that we see is simply too large for evolution to explain, says Nagel, and I agree with him.

One other problem with the diversity of life involves what is called irreducible complexity. Something is irreducibly complex if it contains parts that won’t work if all the other parts aren't there.

Let me give you an example of an irreducibly complex structure: a mousetrap. It is composed of 5 parts- the base, the spring, the trap, the thing that holds it down, and so on. A mouse trap won’t work with only 4 of the parts. It doesn't work until you have all 5 parts in the right place and then it works. That means that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

The problem is that you can’t evolve irreducibly complex structures one part at a time, because it’s not gonna work till all the parts are there. And, how is a structure that’s only got some of its parts there, but it doesn't work gonna help an organism survive ?

 Let me illustrate it. There’s a little single celled organism called a flagellum, that you can see under a microscope. It has a rotary tail. The thing will turn at 100,000 rpm’s in one direction and propel the little guy through fluid. It will stop on a dime and turn 100,000 rpm’s in the opposite direction, just like that. It contains 50 parts. Guess what? If you've got 49 of the parts it doesn't work. It needs all 50 parts, before an of it will work. How are you gonna evolve the rotary tail from precursors that didn't have a rotary tail, one part at a time?

You can’t evolve irreducibly complex structures  one part at a time because the structures will not confer survival value on their owners unless all the parts are present.  And, irreducibly complex structures are a huge, huge problem for Darwinian theory.

3. Consciousness

This is the one Nagel spends 2/3 of the book arguing. Consciousness. The real problem is that you can’t get mind from matter. If you say, “In the beginning were the particles…” then what you end up with is brute sub atomic particles, electrons, strings, protons, neutrons, whatever they think is down there. You end up with particles that aren’t conscious- an electron doesn’t have consciousness.

The laws of chemistry and physics cause these particles to bind together to form molecules. Those bind together to form cells, and those bind together to form the bodies of living things. The process is a process of taking matter and simply forming it into more complicated arrangements of matter.

But now there’s a problem here, and Nagel points it out. If you start with matter and all you do is rearrange matter, you know what you’re gonna end up with? Rearranged matter. You’re not gonna get mind squirted into existence. 

To put the point differently, you might end up with brains, but you’re not gonna end up with minds. Cause if you end up with minds, that’s getting something from nothing, and that’s a pretty tough sell.

Basically, what I mean by consciousness is what animals and we have, and that’s what we’re aware of when we introspect- when you close your eyes and introspect, you are aware of your consciousness. Your consciousness includes:

sensations – experience of pain and pleasure
thoughts – like the thought that 2+2=4
beliefs – like my belief that George Washington was the 1st president of the United States
desires – my desire to be a good dad and to have ice cream and avoid the dentist
acts of free will – where I freely choose to raise my arm to vote, for example.

So, what we have is consciousness is not physical. It is invisible. I could look all throughout your brain and I couldn’t see your thoughts or your feelings, or your desires, or your beliefs. All I would find would be  neurons firing.

The problem is, as Nagel points out, if you start at the beginning with the particles, and you rearrange the particles according to the laws of chemistry and physics you’re never gonna get consciousness.

I don’t have that problem cause I believe in God. I don’t think ‘In the beginning was the particles…”, I think in the beginning was the logos. So, I start with mind. I don’t start with matter. And it’s not a problem to explain where our minds came from because the universe began with a grand mind. Surely a grand mind could make subsequent minds.  If the universe began with consciousness, it means that there was a kind of big mind out there, a big conscious being. If you don’t mind, I’ll just use the word God for Him.

Conclusion:

If Nagel and I are right about this, why are all the scientists Darwinist? There are 2 reasons:

They are taught to think that way in graduate school. They’re internalized into a theory that you have got to force the evidence to fit. They are not open to alternative methods of explanation, because if you start appealing to a designer, they claim that you've stopped doing science. And so, they are angry at Intelligent Design advocates.

I was at UC Berkeley a couple of years ago (2010), and just before I came, William Demski was on campus defending intelligent design. Do you know what happened? The biology department boycotted the meeting and wouldn't let their graduate students attend it. There’s free thought for you. If this guy’s so stupid and his ideas are so ignorant, go to the meeting and expose him as a fraud.

But, why boycott a meeting? Because when you do an undergraduate and graduate degree in science you are taught a certain set of theories that you’re not allowed to question, because if you question Darwinism, you’re now going to religion and religion and science are not supposed to mix.

The cosmic authority problem.
Nagel says, “I don’t want God to exist.” I think, frankly, the reason Darwinism is held widely is because of sex. In the early days of Darwinism, Huxley, who was Darwin’s bulldog, stated clearly that the reason he defended Darwinism is he wanted to do sex anyway he wanted to anytime, and he didn't want anybody telling him what he should do. And today, we are a sex crazed culture in the west and I think evolution gives you the permission not to have to worry about a divine being who might judge your sexual behavior. I think that’s got a lot to do with it.

What it doesn't have to do with is the evidence. Because, I’m telling you, while there may be evidence for microevolution, there may even be evidence for common descent (though I don’t accept that), there is to my knowledge a terribly inadequate defense of the blind watchmaker thesis, and there are good reasons not to believe it.

http://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/doubting-darwinism-j-p-moreland-phd/

Atheist Ad Campaign Refused by Pattison Group

Poster ad campaign by atheist group refused by Pattison Outdoors

An atheist group is considering a human rights complaint after it says a billboard company refused to run its advertisements in Vancouver.

The Centre for Inquiry Canada created a billboard design depicting a smiling woman alongside a few phrases written in a biblical style.

“Jenn 13:1,” it reads. "Praying won’t help. Doing will.

Below the group's name, the ad says: "Without God. We're all good."

Atheist ads also vanished from some Kelowna buses.

Pat O’Brien, board member for The Centre for Inquiry Canada, said the organization submitted the ads to Pattison Outdoor but was told they were unacceptable.

God bless you Jim Pattison and your staff for not running this offensive ad. I'm sure they will find someone more greedy and less discerning to hang up their posters, but I'm proud that it wasn't you. 

Computer savvy Christians with some time on their hands can find a ministry in the "comments" section of news stories like this one on CBC.CA/news/. A calm mind, a gentle spirit, and a lot of patience may make a great deal of difference in someone's life. And perhaps, God will give you a specific word for someone who will read your comment.

God bless.

My Response to an Atheist in the Manila Times

The following is my response to a columnist at the Manila Times. It is printed on their website today. The Times freely discusses spiritual themes from different points of view, unlike most newpapers/web sites which tend to avoid the subject as much as possible unless it's a defamatory story.

The columnist, Rigoberto Tiglao is an atheist and points out some interesting fact on how "Acts of God" affect people in terms of faith. Of course, he is referring to Super Typhoon Haiyan, called Yolande in the Philippines. He also quotes Epicurus, a 4th century Greek philosopher who dismissed God through his own logic. 

The entire article can be read at: http://manilatimes.net/do-acts-of-god-create-more-believers/53511/

Epicurus argument: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? The why is there? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

The first Super Typhoon - the Biblical Flood

Responses to Do ‘Acts of God’ create more believers?
Gary Wm Myers says:
November 17, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Mr. Tiglao,

Thank you for that well-written and well thought out article. You make some excellent points. However there are some gaps in your logic. For instance, Epicurus’ reasoning is very limited; he does not understand that God gave man free will and authority over the earth. Free will means the freedom to choose good or evil. The freedom to choose evil must come with the freedom to do evil, otherwise it’s just an illusion.

If God were to intervene (for instance, to stop the sexual abuse of 100,000 children in the Philippines), then man would have no free will at all. Man must have the ability to choose good or evil in order to spend eternity with God. That is why we are here on this planet – to prepare for Eternity.

God can, and does intervene at times, but He takes His authority to do so from those who pray. To do otherwise is to usurp the very authority He gave man over the earth. Then you would call him a hypocrite.

Your article ignores the question of Who Jesus Christ was (is), and it assumes that God doesn’t exist, therefore all communication with God is one way and God has never proved His existence.

God has proved Himself to millions of Christians in many, many ways. He is not part of our imagination but a very real part of our lives. That you cannot communicate with Him is because you are not willing to believe. It’s always a question of will. Once you are willing, God can begin to open your eyes to the truth. Are you willing?