"The merely rich are not rich enough to rule the modern market. The things that change modern history, the big national and international loans, the big educational and philanthropic foundations, the purchase of numberless newspapers, the big prices paid for peerages, the big expenses often incurred in elections - these are getting too big for everybody except the misers; the men with the largest of earthly fortunes and the smallest of earthly aims. There are two other odd and rather important things to be said about them. The first is this: that with this aristocracy we do not have the chance of a lucky variety in types which belongs to larger and looser aristocracies. The moderately rich include all kinds of people even good people. Even priests are sometimes saints; and even soldiers are sometimes heroes. Some doctors have really grown wealthy by curing their patients and not by flattering them; some brewers have been known to sell beer. But among the Very Rich you will never find a really generous man, even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egoistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it."
Alan: Rabbi Sacks spotlights the unpalatable truth that the relative number of religious fanatics in the world will likely soar over the next century because fanatical religionists breed lots of offspring.
NPR's Robert Siegel talks with Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks about his new book, Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his new book about religious violence, writes a great deal about the book of Genesis. All the major figures of the first book of the Hebrew Bible are complex characters. The best have their faults, he writes. The worst have their virtues. And Sacks insists on the importance of that moral complexity. He writes this. Dividing the world into saints and sinners, the saved and the damned, the children of God and the children of the devil, is the first step down the road to violence in the name of God. Rabbi Sacks joins us from London. Thanks for joining us today.
JONATHAN SACKS: Good to be with you.
SIEGEL: We should note that most of the political violence of the last century was the work of secular movements - Nazism, communism. How important is religion to violence in the world today?
SACKS: I think it's absolutely fundamental, certainly in the Middle East, certainly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and certainly in parts of Asia. And nobody expected this because for the last three centuries, every self-respecting Western intellectual has been predicting that religion was in intensive care and soon to leave humanity altogether. So this is really unexpected. But what we are seeing is, after a set of failed secular ideologies and, in the Middle East, secular nationalisms, a set of religious counterrevolutions that are combining religion with politics in the most destructive way.
SIEGEL: And you observe that the future is - could be more of that because demographics favor the religious.
SACKS: There is no doubt that demographically, the 21st century is going to be more religious than the 20th century because the more religious you are, the larger the family you have. And that's happening throughout the world. So even if the religious do not persuade a single skeptic or atheist, they're nonetheless going to be much more in evidence throughout the world. And I don't think people have really anticipated this.
SIEGEL: You've set out to demonstrate in the book that one can and should acknowledge the validity of another faith within the framework of one's own faith, something that I think many nonreligious people and quite a few ultra-religious people would dispute. I want you to get rabbinical for us and give us an example of a story in Genesis that's typically misunderstood and that really says you should love the other guy.
SACKS: Well, you know, Genesis is structured around a series of sibling rivalries - Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers and the two sisters, Leah and Rachel. And what I've argued is, a superficial reading of those stories always says there's a chosen one and a rejected one. But actually, it's not hard to see if you, without any preconceptions, read the story.
For instance, of the birth of Isaac, when Sarah says to Abraham, send away that slave woman and her son, Ishmael and we see Hagar and her child, Ishmael, going out into the desert in the midday sun - their water supply runs out. They're both about to die. Hagar can't bear to see her son, Ishmael, about to die. And there is no way that you can read that story without your heart going out to Hagar and to Ishmael.
In other words, our sympathies are enlisted not for the chosen but for the other, the apparently rejected one. And you can see that in all those stories. So what you are seeing is that on the surface, these are stories of God choosing X and rejecting Y. But read seriously from a position of some maturity, we can see that God's choice is not like that. His love is not like that. To love X, he doesn't have to hate Y. To choose X, he doesn't have to reject Y. In other words, the very theologies that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have at their roots and that, of course, such violence between them through the centuries may actually be the wrong way of reading those texts.
SIEGEL: I was thinking, though, in reading "Not In God's Name" that - here you're a Cambridge-educated rabbi. You're the former chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. You start from a position of tolerance in a tolerant society. How does this reach out to young Muslim men in Iraq and Syria who are decapitating people in the name of their faith? What's the connection?
SACKS: I did not write this book to convince jihadists in the Middle East to sit down and read a book and change their view of the world. I think I might've realized that was a fairly quixotic thing to do. My audience here is actually young Muslims who are living or being educated in the West who really are appalled by what is being done in God's name, in the name of Islam, in the Middle East, in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere and who want to hear a different voice. And oddly enough, the warmest responses to the book have come from young Muslims.
SIEGEL: A few years ago when you wrote things like, no one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth and, God has spoken to mankind in many languages through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims, some orthodox Rabbis in Britain came down on you as a potential heretic. If that is the reality of religious discourse in the United Kingdom, what can we expect of the Sunni Muslim Al-Azhar University in Cairo or the Shiite holy city of Qum in Iraq? It seems you're pushing the rock uphill here.
SACKS: (Laughter) I tried to explain to people at the time that when extremists call you a heretic, that's their way of giving you an honorary doctorate. So you know, I was very relaxed about that.
SIEGEL: It's claimed by some that you've retracted some of the statements.
SACKS: I toned down several of the sentences because the truth is, if you're going to be a leader, lead at a speed that people can follow. And I just think I was trying to do too much too fast. Don't forget that book was written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and was published on the first anniversary of 9/11. And in the end, I said, this is going to be my first word on the subject, not my last. So I deliberately toned down just a few phrases, and that was enough.
But the truth is that this book is dedicated to religious people. It is written as a religious book. So much of the critique of Islam today comes from a secular perspective. So much of the criticism of religion has come from fundamentalist atheists who are every bit as angry as some of their religious extremist counterparts. I'm not saying they commit acts of violence, but they do regard everyone who disagrees with them as less than fully sane. And what I've tried to do is to speak in a religious language to show people that tolerance is not a matter of religious compromise. If we read our sacred texts correctly, that is what God is calling us to do.
SIEGEL: Rabbi Sacks, thanks for talking with us today.
SACKS: Robert, thank you.
SIEGEL: Rabbi Sacks' book is called "Not In God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence."
This is how rising seas will reshape the face of the United States
Chris Mooney
In a new study, a team of scientists who specialize in studying rising seas bring the implications of their research right to the U.S.’s doorstep — calculating just how many American cities and municipalities are at risk of being flooded in the future, as well as how many may already be committed to that fate.
The striking result is that millions of Americans may already live on land destined to be someday — albeit perhaps in a very distant future — reclaimed by the sea. But the number for whom this is true will rise dramatically if carbon dioxide emissions continue unchecked — or, if recent concerns about the destabilization of the ice sheet of West Antarctica turn out to be well founded.
“Future emissions will determine which areas we can continue to occupy or may have to abandon,” note the researchers, led by Benjamin Strauss of Climate Central in Princeton, New Jersey. The work appeared Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and was co-authored by Scott Kulp of Climate Central and Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
The analysis turns on a critical number: For every 1 degree Celsius of warming, the scientists estimate that we should expect 2.3 meters of long term, eventual sea level rise, playing out over millennia. That calculation is based on much foregoing research and represents the “state-of-the-art,” says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research, who was not involved in the study but has published previously with Levermann. “It is the best estimates we can make with the understanding that we have today about the processes leading to sea-level rise.”
The authors do not say anything as to the time frame for how fast the sea level rise could occur — the basic assumption is that the 2.3 meters estimate plays out over a 2,000 year window, as the planet’s huge masses of ice slowly adjust to a change in its temperature. But much of the sea level rise could happen a lot faster than that. Its precise rapidity is a key question for scientific inquiry right now.
Using this understanding of the link between warming and eventual ice melt, the authors estimate that with current carbon emissions, the world has likely already committed to 1.6 meters of very long term sea level rise — over 5 feet. And if you take into account existing, carbon-spewing infrastructure and the added emissions that it implies in the future, that rises to over 7 feet.
How much more sea level rise than that we get, in their analysis, then depends upon how much more carbon we emit and — critically — whether or not a loss of the vast West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already inevitable, as some recent research has suggested.
Of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Strauss says: “Its contribution is going to be measured in inches per century, until it’s measured in feet per decade. And the question is, how long is the fuse and has it been lit yet.”
Indeed, Antarctic scientists recently issued an “urgent” call for more study of West Antarctica, in order to determine just how rapidly the gigantic Thwaites glacier, which is perched deep below sea level and exposed to flows of warm water, could actually become destabilized.
“The potential magnitude of sea level rise is staggering,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University climate researcher who is on the board of Climate Central and says he offered comment on a version of the study. “In the short term, it risks serious disruption of life along the coast while in the long term, it could lead to obliteration of a large and priceless amount of our cultural heritage, worldwide.”
The authors don’t stop at calculating the current sea level rise commitment — they then translate different sea level scenarios for specific places in the U.S. (regional sea level changes will vary because of gravitational and other geophysical factors). And this is how they reach some central — and very striking — numbers.
Namely, in a very high emissions scenario, which would represent “business as usual” if no actions are taken on climate change, the current locations of over 26 million Americans’ homes might be inundated, and more than 1,500 U.S. cities and municipalities might find the areas where half of their residents live inundated. The world is moving towards cutting emissions — so this extreme sea level scenario probably won’t happen. But what’s striking about the study is how much very long term sea level rise we’ve already committed to. For instance, the research finds that current and already locked in emissions from existing infrastructure lead to over 600 cities or municipalities in that same situation — where land that is home to 50 percent of their current population is under water — and might flood the current homes of more than 9 million people.
Climate Central has created an interactive that lets you see the different scenarios for different parts of the U.S.
“If we don’t cut emissions,” says Strauss, “we’re talking about losing American land home to more people that live in any state, except for California and Texas. Home to more people than the state of Florida and New York.”
Granted, the key question is how fast this would play out – sea level rise in 50 years is a much bigger deal to people living today than sea level rise in 1,500 years.
“Under all scenarios, Florida has the plurality or majority of committed cities with total population greater than 100,000,” the study reports. It also finds that decisions made in this century will determine whether or not 14 U.S. cities with populations over 100,000 will also be locked in for at least half of their populated areas — such cities include Jacksonville, Norfolk, and Sacramento.
In some ways, the most troubling thing about the analysis is how the wild card — West Antarctica — makes the best case scenario a lot closer to the worst case. For instance, if West Antarctica is already committed, then current emissions alone go from implying 600 at least half flooded municipalities to over 1,100, and from 9 million people’s current places of residence flooded to nearly 20 million.
Nonetheless, sharply cutting emissions still has a very significant impact — it “can lead to the avoidance of commitment for nearly 900 US municipalities, and, more broadly, for land that is home to 15.8 million people in the baseline case, using central estimates, and for nearly 400 municipalities and land that is home for 6.6 million people assuming WAIS collapse,” says the study.
There are several gaps in the study worth noting — many of which the authors directly acknowledge. For instance, the research only calculates what the sea level will be in the future, and compares that with the current elevation of cities. But it does not take into account the fact that, say, New Orleans is currently protected by a 26 foot high sea wall, and that the state of Louisiana is contemplating diversions of the Mississippi River that would create new wetlands that might keep pace, at least to some extent, with rising seas.
In other words, there are a variety of admittedly expensive ways in which some cities may be able to “adapt” and partly ward off rising seas. And they will certainly be easier to adapt to if the oceans rise more slowly than if rise is more rapid.
Also, the populations living in the places committed to rising seas may be considerably larger — or, considerably smaller — by the time those rising seas actually arrive.
Finally, the fact remains that the most important question of all about sea level rise — how fast it will happen — is still inadequately understood.
Still, the research underscores that ultimately, rising seas may be the most consequential of all implications of climate change. And as the authors note, these results are only for the United States — but rising seas will not distinguish between nations. All will be affected, albeit with relatively slight differences depending upon gravitational and other factors.
“Historic carbon emissions appear already to have put in motion long-term [sea level rise] that will endanger the continuity and legacy of hundreds more municipalities, and so long as emissions continue, the tally will continually increase,” the researchers conclude.
"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand... The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious and everything else becomes lucid... A symbol from physical nature will express sufficiently well the real place of mysticism before mankind. The one created thing which we cannot look at is the one thing in the light of which we look at everything."
36 mins agoIf you subscribe to Playboy, you’ll no longer need to hide your magazines under the bed. The New York Times reports that starting next March, the company will cease to publish nude photographs of women.
The decision marks a landmark shift in direction for the publication, which became a cultural touchstone for its trademark mixture of racy images with top quality journalism.
The very first issue in 1953 featured a nude photo spread with Marilyn Monroe, taken before she became a star, and laid out a commitment to meshing curves with class that helped elevate Playboy beyond the realm of mere smut.
The first issue of Playboy magazine featuring Marilyn Monroe, left.(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
As the first issue explained:
Most of today’s ‘magazines for men spend all their time out-of-doors, thrashing—through thorny thickets or splashing about in fast flowing streams. We’ll be out there too, occasionally, but we don’t mind telling you in advance—we plan on spending most of our time inside. We like our apartment. We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’ouevre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph, and and inviting a female acquaintance for a discussion of Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.
Throughout the sixties, seventies, and eighties, Playboy published fiction from Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Ian Fleming, and Raymond Carver, just pages away from scantily clad models and celebrities. In some cases, a Playboy photoshoot helped emerging stars grow even more popular, as was the case for Jenny McCarthy, who went on to become a 90’s cable TV staple after appearing in the magazine.
Now, though, naked photos are “passé” the company’s CEO told the Times. With free pornography of all types just clicks away, and magazine advertising plummeting, Playboy has lost its main selling point and its profit center. The magazine’s circulation dropped from 5.6 million in 1975 to just 800,000 today, the New York Times reports, citing the Alliance for Audited Media. Lackluster sales led Hugh Hefner, Playboy’s robe-clad founder, to de-list the company in 2011 at a $207 million valuation.
Cory Jones, an editor at Playboy responsible for the brand’s re-embrace of garments, said he hopes a gentler, hipper image will appeal to male urban millennials. He references the current enfant terrible of publishing as a partial inspiration: “The difference between us and Vice is that we’re going after the guy with a job,” he told the New York Times.
NEW YORK — It could be hard to make your way to pray at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan on Sunday mornings. There’s the distraction of New York City pulling you elsewhere – the pace, the intensity, the famousness of it all. Then there are the thoughtful, sometimes vital, diversions of the St. Bart’s community itself: the outdoor cafe, the homeless shelter, the Thomas Merton books in the lobby. There are invitations to programs ranging from mindful eating to Bible study, yoga, and tai chi.
Amid these distractions, hundreds nevertheless do find their way to pray on Sunday mornings at the imposing complex on Park Avenue. They filter into the vast space, gradually replacing the tourists who have been tiptoeing down the side aisles, taking pictures of the dark Byzantine interior. Soon, richly vested clergy, cross bearers, torch holders, and choir members begin making their way up the center aisle – in an entrance procession 30-strong.
The congregation knows its job: Sit, stand, recite familiar prayers in between the Scripture readings, sermon, and announcements. Pass the collection plate. Periodically, in Latin and English, the legendary St. Bart’s choir leads a hymn, sometimes in a crystalline a cappella. Finally, the worshipers’ own moment seems to arrive, as row by row they stand and slowly make their way forward to the communion rail. They are of all races, men and women, old and young, singles and couples, families with carefully dressed, well-behaved children in tow.
“I don’t think it’s just the desire to have prayers answered that brings people to church,” says the Rev. F.M. Stallings Jr., recently retired rector of the church. “I think people do want to come for a sense of peace.”
The tableau on Sundays at St. Bart’s symbolizes an important reality about religion in America: It is far from dead, even though it may not always seem that way.
While headlines often decry the “dechurching of America,” and experts talk about the country becoming more secular, like Europe, people are going to church – and embracing religion – in numbers that defy popular perceptions.
True, recent figures from the Pew Research Center show that 35 percent of Millennials – adults born between 1981 and 1996 – identify as “nones,” saying they are atheists or agnostics, or have no religious affiliation. And, yes, a host of other studies have, over the years, noted a similar drop in religious attendance in the United States, especially among the young. Many mainstream denominations, too, have been closing or consolidating churches.
But, experts note, America is far from becoming a churchless nation. On any given Sabbath, for instance, some 4 out of 10 Americans will make their way to churches and synagogues, mosques and temples – a number that hasn’t fluctuated dramatically in the past half century.
Gallup polls, along with other data, seem to support religion’s resilience. More than 81 percent of Americans say they identify with a specific religion or denomination; 78 percent say religion is a very or fairly important part of their lives; 57 percent believe that religion is able to solve today’s problems.
Organized religion this summer ranked fourth among 15 American institutions in the degree of public confidence it inspired – ahead of the presidency, the US Supreme Court, and medicine, behind small business, the military, and (perhaps surprisingly) police. The company’s data also suggest that the secularization trend may have slowed if not halted.
In fact, Gallup reported recently that while attendance may be off, Americans are no less likely now to attend religious services than they were in the 1940s and ’50s. This was the period just before the über-religious years of the mid-1950s and early ’60s, when Americans, in lockstep, got married, had children, and went to church. The lesson, says Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, whose company has tracked church attendance for 70 years, is that religious worship in the US is cyclical.
Forecasts for the future don’t portend a religious resurgence in the US, but neither do they predict a faith-free culture. Pew predicts a drop in the number of Americans identifying as Christian, for instance, from three-quarters of the population today to two-thirds in 2050. Many consider that a slim decline over 35 years – especially in a material age and when society no longer exerts the pressure it once did to believe in God.
More than anything, some experts argue that the US isn’t becoming more secular as much as it’s becoming more devout – a country with fewer followers but ones who are more serious about their faith.
“There’s a greater willingness now to say ‘I’m not religious,’ ” says Christian Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame and co-principal investigator of the noted National Study of Youth and Religion. As a result, he adds, “for people who do continue to practice religion, [their communities] tend to be made up of the seriously committed, not just those swept along by obligation.”
• • •
Meghan Cokeley’s devotion to church today is rooted in a religious experience she had when she was younger. Brought up Roman Catholic, she says she had a kind of “conversion” when she was 18 years old.
As she learned about St. Francis of Assisi, who chose a life of poverty over his family’s riches, she began to feel “restless” about her own, less-than- serious lifestyle. When visiting the town of Assisi during a senior year high school trip to Italy, she recalled, “At the tomb of St. Francis, I had my first experience of the palpable love of God. I was so deeply moved I wept.”
She came home, switched majors from chemistry to theology, and 18 years later is now director of evangelization at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Such an “encounter with God” is not rare, she believes, but each “looks different,” some dramatic, some subtle.
A personal religious experience often drives people to worship. “A lot of people claim to have had a moment of access to a divine being,” a feeling that God is holding them or comforting them or similarly is present with them on a personal level, says Christian Miller, who teaches philosophy of religion at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. “It can lead the person to respond by practicing religion.”
Many other factors bring worshipers to the pews as well. Habit. Social expectations. Upbringing. Guilt. Many also come seeking a sense of purpose, a feeling of community, meaning, self-improvement, assurance that one’s faith is true, and answers to questions about death and the afterlife. Studies say worshipers tend to find all this in religion, as well as peace and joy, security, and freedom from guilt over past wrongdoing.
Ideologically, Professor Miller adds, liberals tend to look for a sense of community in religion, while conservatives want to live in alignment with the Bible, which they believe is true. Even in the South, fear of hell is less a factor in attending church than it used to be, while there is more yearning for meaning and purpose.
People who go to services regularly are more likely to be older, female, and Southern. They have a better education and higher economic status than those who don’t, says Mr. Newport. What’s uncertain, he says, is whether the less-practicing Millennials, who thus far are putting off having children, will marry, have kids, and follow their predecessors into the sanctuary.
If they do, they’ll find a vibrant religious landscape. There are churches like St. Bart’s, where parishioners recite the ancient Nicene Creed, affirming beliefs they share with many of their fellow Christians. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the nondenominational churches, which have undergone the greatest growth in recent decades. Unanchored by a shared creed and often reliant on a single charismatic leader, these churches can adapt to changing interests quickly, evolving their theology as they go. Some of these ministries are stadium-size megachurches; others are storefront operations. Still others offer religion via radio, television, or the Internet.
With the shedding of widespread traditions and “shalt nots,” creeds – when recited – may be said with less fervor these days, and the denominations’ books of rules (where they exist) may be stored in a closet.
As Cynthia Bond Hopson, a Methodist from Lebanon, Tenn., puts it: “Certainly hell is real, but I’d much rather focus on God’s grace.” Of the traditional sanctions against things such as alcohol, tobacco, and dancing, she quips, “I never got the memo.” Competition from the nondenominational movement has made mainline Protestantism, which as recently as the mid-20th century banned contraception, softer across the board with its demands, say observers. Some believe that trends such as the move toward Calvinist theology among evangelical Protestants may have developed in response. Ironically, as standards drop, says Mr. Smith, religions that place high demands on their members are gaining in appeal.
This is causing a conundrum for leaders of that less-fervent mainline Protestant middle, whose attempts to appeal to everyone may wind up making the religion itself less compelling.
“Everybody tells me to be a nice person,” says Smith, but people want more from their religion than the kind of answers they can get anywhere.
• • •
In Gladstone, Ore., Dennis Dalling has long been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one of the rapidly growing religions. “One of the hallmarks of the church is that family is the most important element of society,” says Mr. Dalling, the father of 6, grandfather of 29, and great-grandfather of 33.
Dalling says the decision he and his wife, Ramona, made 64 years ago to become “sealed for all eternity” by marrying in a temple ceremony, as opposed to a less demanding and more permissive civil ceremony, “has been the supreme blessing of our lives,” removing the option for divorce and strengthening the couple in demanding times. Mormons tithe 10 percent of their earnings; eschew alcohol, tobacco, and coffee and tea; and are expected to live a morally upright, honest life.
Sometimes what brings the worshiper into the fold is not religious belief at all, says Rabbi David Teutsch, former president of Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and now head of its Center for Jewish Ethics. “Everyone is battered by a culture of increasing materialism and isolation,” he says. “There is a lot of meaning-seeking going on in America, and Judaism has a lot to say about that.”
According to Mr. Teutsch, middle-ground Jewish congregations tend to appeal to seekers through interest in one of three areas at first: spiritual life, social action, or community. The longer that members stay with the synagogue the more they participate in all facets, he says.
It’s that way for Methodist LaNella Smith from Durham, N.C., too. She says that for her, church is part worship, part song, and part social justice work, through her affiliation with United Methodist Women. She begins each day praying quietly with a devotional text, “a constant reminder that God is with me, no matter what is going on,” she says.
Her keenest sense of God, she says, came the day of her grandmother’s funeral. “I was very, very, very close to her.” That day she went alone, early, to the funeral home. She recalled simply, “I had a conversation with my grandmother. I had a conversation with God.” She sang the beloved hymn “Blessed Assurance” and went home. “I felt so much better in my soul, after that time alone, me believing in that ‘blessed assurance,’ ” she recalls. “God assured me everything was going to be OK.”
If the great hymns of American worship provide comfort to Ms. Smith, so the great traditions of Judaism delight and direct Mitchell Marcus, professor of computer science, linguistics, and artificial intelligence at the University of Pennsylvania. Having been brought up on “Judaism lite,” Mr. Marcus saw in college the “tremendous value” the great faith traditions had for his non-Jewish friends.
“I realized there are a number of these ancient traditions around, and [learning] your own seemed like a really good place to start,” he says. Thus began a love affair with Judaism that continues. “Sabbath for me has always been very, very important,” he notes. While he worships in a Conservative synagogue, he incorporates many Orthodox Jewish practices into his own life. He loves studying his sacred texts while awaiting a Sabbath visit from his daughter and her family.
In his form of voluntary Orthodoxy, he keeps kosher at home and has Friday night meals only at home, or at the homes of his children or his friends. “For me, observance is a spiritual practice rather than a ‘have-to,’ ” he says.
Structure is a tough sell in the free-for-all of American culture, but for some believers it illuminates the journey. Muslim Sarah Ali, a young economist from Washington, D.C., had a “moderate” religious upbringing, one she believes allows her to enjoy her faith all the more as an adult. Not only did she avoid the teenage temptation to rebel against too-strict parents, but because she needed to study much of Islam on her own, she feels she better appreciates her religious traditions.
“I fast for Allah, not for the whole world,” she says. Even as some of her Muslim friends eschew the hijab – or headscarf – hoping to increase their chances of finding a husband, Ms. Ali wears one. She tries to say her prayers (five times a day) at home, but sometimes she needs to find a mosque or even a store dressing room for prayer. She prays formally, in Arabic, then includes her own petitions.
Typical of these were her prayers for a better work situation, which she says were answered. After praying about it, she waited, and eventually got five new job offers. The scrutiny accorded Muslims after 9/11 is never far from her thoughts. “I have to be very vigilant with how I conduct myself in public,” says Ali, who was born in Texas. “It frustrates me, but it’s part of life for me.”
While some people today may get their moral education from YouTube and Twitter, many others see social media as a superficial spiritual guide. Theological nuance can’t be had in 140 characters, says Emily Sullivan, a Millennial who notes that religions need to distinguish themselves from upbeat Oprah-like sentiment.
The Pennsylvania stay-at-home mother of two practices what some dub “John Paul II Catholicism,” an observant, orthodox approach to the faith gaining popularity among some young people. Working part time from home, speaking and writing content for the World Meeting of Families, she pushes back against what she sees as a mind-set that insists that a male-only priesthood demeans women, and that a sexually permissive culture frees them. She believes that the theology underlying the morality of her church – which addresses divorce, abortion, contraception, and restriction of sex to marriage – has been poorly taught for generations and as a result is misunderstood. She readily admits she and her husband view themselves as “countercultural.”
• • •
Every age seems to put religion in the middle of the latest cultural controversy. A flashpoint for many today is same-sex marriage. But while a public debate rages, individual believers are pursuing their faith in their own way.
New York art dealer Tod Roulette, for example, who is gay and black, found his place at the table at Harlem’s St. Philip’s Episcopal Church, which is a departure from the lively but strict Pentecostal congregation of his Kansas childhood. His Kansas congregation reviled homosexuality, and still does, while at St. Philip’s, Mr. Roulette not only sings in the choir, prays the rosary, and serves as Eucharistic minister, but he also participates in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ministry.
He’s looking for an app to help him recite the Holy Office prayers of the priesthood, practicing for the day when he might become a monk. On his most recent trip home to Kansas, the Pentecostal clergy were less judgmental with him than normal, he says, and he has developed some insight into their theology. “I can see [being against homosexuality] if you’re wedded to a certain translation of the Bible,” he says. “There’s no way around that. I can support that.”
Ms. Sullivan’s objection to same-sex marriage, she says, has nothing to do with individuals, but rather is rooted in a Catholic theological principle that limits sex to within marriage, that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and that applies to single people “across the board.” She makes sure her gay friends don’t feel “Emily’s coming after me,” when they talk religion. By sticking to ideas, rather than passing judgment, she says she has been able to remain friends with a gay couple even though she didn’t attend their wedding for religious reasons.
In Oregon, one of Dalling’s granddaughters is marrying a woman this year, prompting him to stretch his Mormon thinking. Though he senses that the marriage “thwarts the plan of salvation in a way,” he and his wife have decided to attend the wedding and to love the granddaughter’s spouse as much as they do the rest of the family. “We try to be in the world but not be of it,” Dalling says. “But we can’t isolate ourselves anymore.”
The current rise of atheism – exemplified by a range of figures, including writer Richard Dawkins, author of the 2006 book “The God Delusion”; outspoken talk show host Bill Maher; and British scientist Stephen Hawking – highlights another enduring clash: that between science and religion. It suggests reason and religion are perpetually in conflict.
But that’s not necessarily the case. People at the University of Pennsylvania think Marcus’s PhD students, smart as they are, must be avowedly secular. But the professor finds the opposite to be true. His students, regardless of faith, have in fact been religiously curious, often very devout, and eager to talk about their beliefs, he says, and he encourages it.
The many wrongs associated with religion over the millenniums don’t negate its value, he believes. “Being human is hard and is challenging,” he says. “Religion holds up for us an ideal behavior and ideal practices to strive for.”
Samantha Evans, a newly ordained Presbyterian pastor doing a residency at Philadelphia’s Broad Street Ministry, was herself once a physics major bent on saving the world through biomedical research. After college, she followed a vague hunch and decided to apply to the Princeton Theological Seminary. For her, the limitations of science often bolster religious faith.
“At the end of the day, I think a lot of people are seeking understanding,” she says. Ministering to them requires stepping away from the need for answers and finding “room for ambiguity.”
For Mr. Stallings – you can call him “Buddy” – his time at St. Bart’s caps off a career’s worth of working on Sundays. His ministering took him from San Francisco to Mississippi to 9/11-ravaged Staten Island.
Despite his love for liturgy, he thought he might take a well-deserved break from Sunday services when he retired. Read The New York Times. Linger over coffee. But after hanging up his vestments in May, when he finally had his Sunday mornings to himself, he was surprised to find himself back in church.
“I went. And I will go again,” says the erudite priest, who has a slight Southern drawl and a full New York skepticism. Though as a priest administering communion he felt “more connected to others than anywhere else,” he has no desire to preach again, no desire except to be back at the communion rail on the receiving side. To Stallings, what happens on Sundays is simple:
“I don’t think it has to do with correct belief, not with orthodoxy but with people joining together – the sights and sounds of people getting up from their pews and going to communion ... there’s something so common about that desire to come and receive.”
177-year-old Hillsborough inn could be acquired by town through eminent domain
By Justin Quesinberry, WNCN NewsPublished:
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. (WNCN) – Hillsborough town commissioners will meet Monday night to discuss authorizing eminent domain proceedings in order to acquire the Colonial Inn property.
For many years commissioners have been concerned about the deteriorating condition of the Colonial Inn Property built in 1838 and located at 153 West King St. The Hillsborough fire marshal condemned a section of the property as unsafe for occupancy in late July.
The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners, members of the public, and even the current owner of the property has expressed an interest in preserving the historically significant building. In the past, the owner has also supported demolishing the building.
There have been discussions for several years about the various options available to preserve the Colonial Inn, but nothing has been done and the property continues to deteriorate.
Action needs to be taken soon if the property is to be saved.
There have been talks recently that suggest steps will be taken very soon to secure the property and to make some needed repairs. The owner’s representatives have indicated that a structural engineer has been, or within 30 days, will be retained to perform an inspection and prepare a report concerning the structural integrity of the buildings on the property.
The area condemned by the fire marshal, the rear dining area, is scheduled to be demolished within the next month.
If commissioners agree to use eminent domain to acquire the property, the Town of Hillsborough will be required to pay “just compensation” to the owner of the Colonial Inn.
That compensation must be equal to the “fair market value” of the building. Current tax value of the property, including the land and the building, is about $690,000.
A report from earlier this year suggests a fair market value for the property is around $150,000 considering its current condition.
If the town proceeds with eminent domain, the amount of compensation given to the owner would ultimately be determined by the court or a jury based on testimony from an appraisal expert.
The board will meet Monday at 7 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center.
Paul Ryan (or, fill in "the conservative blank") spends last day of campaign reminding homeless people they did this to themselves.
The Hard, Central Truth Of Contemporary Conservatism
The hard, central "fact" of contemporary "conservatism" is its insistence on a socio-economic threshold above which people deserve government assistance, and below which people deserve to die.
The sooner the better.
Unless conservatives are showing n'er-do-wells The Door of Doom, they just don't "feel right."
Almost "to a man," contemporary "conservatives" have apotheosized themselves and now -- sitting on God's usurped throne -- are rabid to pass Final Judgment.
Self-proclaimed Christians, eager to thrust "the undeserving" through The Gates of Hell, are the very people most likely to cross its threshold.
Remarkably, none of them are tempted to believe this.
"The moral flabbiness born of the exclusive worship of the bitch-goddess Success. That - with the squalid cash interpretation put on the word success - is our national disease." William James
Thomas Merton was once asked to write a chapter for a book entitled "Secrets of Success." He replied: "If it so happened that I had once written a best-seller, this was a pure accident, due to inattention and naivete, and I would take very good care never to do the same again. If I had a message for my contemporaries, I said, it was surely this: Be anything you like, be madmen, drunks, and bastards of every shape and form, but at all costs avoid one thing: success."
Satellite images comparing Oct. 1, 2015, and Oct. 2, 1997, show large areas of white, which indicate high sea levels -- a reflection of high sea temperatures. The images show how this year's El Nino could be as powerful as the one in 1997, the strongest El Nino on record.
(NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
Massive El Niño Is Now "Too Big To Fail," Scientist Says
An El Niño that is among the strongest on record is gaining strength in the Pacific Ocean, and climate scientists say California is likely to face a wet winter.
“There’s no longer a possibility that El Niño wimps out at this point. It’s too big to fail,” said Bill Patzert, climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge.
“And the winter over North America is definitely not going to be normal,” he said.
Just three weeks ago, the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center raised the odds of California getting doused with a wetter-than-average winter. Southern California now has more than a 60% chance of a wet winter, a 33% chance of a normal winter and less than a 7% chance of a dry winter.
The odds of a wet winter farther north are increasing too. San Francisco has more than a 40% chance of a wet winter, 33% chance of a normal winter and less than a 27% chance of a dry winter.
Scientists know that El Niño is getting stronger because of rising sea-level ocean temperatures in the Pacific west of Peru, and a change in directions of the wind along the equator that allow warm waters to surge toward the Americas.
“The trade winds are weakening yet again. That should strengthen this El Niño,” Patzert said.
Those factors can cause a dramatic change of patterns in the atmosphere, and can take winter storms that normally pour rain on the jungles of southern Mexico and Central America and move them over California and the southern United States.
“The ocean has warmed up a little bit more. ... It’s certainly still a strong event,” said Mike Halpert, deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center. Halpert said this El Niño still isn’t quite as strong as the current record holder, the El Niño that developed in 1997, but it’s “still respectable. Probably the second strongest we’ve seen at this time of year.”
“We certainly favor a wetter-than-average winter,” Halpert said. Though he cautioned that “when you’re dealing with climate predictions, you can never get a guarantee,” he added, “this could be one of the types of winters like in 1997-98.”
That winter was dramatic for California. Heavy rains came to Orange County in December 1997, dropping an astonishing 7 inches of rain in some parts of the region, flooding mobile home parks in Huntington Beach and forcing crews to use inflatable boats to make rescues, while mudslides destroyed hillside homes.
El Niño rains started in Los Angeles County in January 1998, and were the worst across the region in February. Downtown L.A. got about a year’s worth of rain in February alone. Two California Highway Patrol officers died in San Luis Obispo County after their car fell into a massive sinkhole, and devastating mudslides plowed into hillside homes in Laguna Beach, killing residents. More than half a billion dollars in damage was reported in California, and 17 people died.
El Niño is a relatively newly studied phenomenon. Halpert said the 1982-83 El Niño, the second-strongest on record, came as a shock, with few prepared for it. But there was warning about the 1997-98 El Niño, and Halpert said he hopes people in California are preparing for the prospect of a damaging wet winter now.
“Hopefully, the fact that this has been well-advertised, folks are preparing now for what could be a very wet-type winter,” Halpert said.
Patzert, the climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said “it’s fair to say” that the current El Niño will be similar to the strongest two El Niños on record.
“If you look at the really big El Niños, that’s ’82-’83 and ’97-’98, essentially the whole state got hosed, from north to south,” Patzert said. “For instance, Northern California, Sacramento, got almost double the rainfall, and we certainly got double here in L.A.”
Patzert said satellite images of the Pacific Ocean showing the height of seawater -- a reflection of how warm the water is -- show an enormous area at a higher temperature, an area of the ocean that is larger than it was at this time in 1997.
It is so big, Patzert said, that even if ocean temperatures were to start dropping now, El Niño would still have a significant impact on this winter’s rains.
Patzert said Southern California and the rest of the southern U.S., all the way to Florida, can expect a very wet winter, while it should be relatively mild in the upper part of the United States, including New England, a dramatic contrast to the intense snowfall Boston received last winter.
But Patzert issued a note of warning to Californians: Don’t think this El Niño spells the end of this state’s punishing four-year drought.
The last record El Niño that ended in 1998 was quickly followed by the arrival of El Niño’s dry sister, La Niña.
“Thinking ahead one year, could we be whiplashed from deluge back to drought again?” Patzert said. “Because remember, La Niña is the diva of drought.”
Patzert said that in the last 140 years in California, seven out of every 10 years are dry, so it would be foolish to declare an end to water conservation during this winter’s rains.
“This is no time to celebrate and backtrack on our water-saving habits that we’ve developed recently,” Patzert said. “Because conservation is going to be our new lifestyle. Our new normal.”
Follow me on Twitter for more news on El Nino: @ronlin
(CNN)Hillary Clinton swept confidently into the campaign season's first Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday, denying she flip-flopped on key issues for political gain and rebuking her top rival Bernie Sanders for not being tough enough on guns.
In a performance aimed at solidifying her lock on the Democratic nomination, Clinton sought to pivot from a tough summer in which the controversy over her private email server triggered a slump in popularity ratings. She proved to be a polished debater, showing little rust after enduring 25 debates during the 2008 campaign.
The former secretary of state dominated the opening exchanges, parrying questions on the depth of her political convictions and insisting she is a "progressive" despite the doubts of some on the left of the party.
"I have been very consistent," Clinton said. "Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings, including those of us who run for office, I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world."
She quickly took shots at progressive challenger Sanders, first for his political philosophy.
Sanders defended his self-identified status as a democratic socialist, which many commentators believe frames him as far too left-wing to be able to win a general election. He said he wanted no part of the "casino capitalism" economy and railed against a system where the top 10% in the country have more wealth than the bottom 90%.
He went on to argue that his vision for politics was akin to Scandinavian nations with strong health care systems and social safety nets.
Clinton replied, "I love Denmark!" but argued that they were running for president of the United States of America and such economic policies would not work here.
The former secretary of state also slammed Sanders for his positions on guns, including voting against legislation such as the Brady Bill. Clinton was asked whether Sanders had been tough enough on regulating firearms.
"No, not at all," Clinton said. "This has gone on too long and it is time the entire country stand up against the NRA."
But Sanders hit back, telling Clinton sharply that "all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I hope all of us want," namely more restrictions on firearms.
Despite the heated back-and-forth, Sanders came to Clinton's defense on the email saga from her stint as secretary of state.
"The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails," Sanders said to applause that was followed by a handshake between Clinton and the senator.
The White House hopefuls were in Las Vegas at the Wynn hotel and casino for one of just six Democratic debates slated before the party chooses a nominee.
Sanders sought to appeal to a wider audience of Democrats beyond those who have flocked in the thousands to his events in early-voting states such as Iowa, where he is polling just behind Clinton, and in New Hampshire, where he is leading in several surveys.
Clinton holds a commanding lead nationally despite Sanders' strong performance in the early states.
Three other candidates -- former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley -- were on stage with Clinton and Sanders. Their campaigns are languishing in the single digits so they tried to use the debate to create much needed buzz.
In his opening statement, Chafee seemed to take a clear shot at Clinton and her struggles to overcome the email controversy, saying that in all his years of public service, he had shown "high ethical standards" and had not been involved in any scandals.
O'Malley warned of a deep crisis of "economic injustice that threatens to tear our country apart."
The candidates also differed on foreign policy.
Clinton defended her role in engineering a "reset" of relations with Russia while secretary of state and said things had changed only when Vladimir Putin returned to the presidency. She said the United States must stand up to Putin's "bullying" and must take "more of a leadership position" to help end the bloody civil war in Syria.
That prompted Sanders to slam the war as a "quagmire in a quagmire" and argued that it was triggered by the war in Iraq -- a clear reference to Clinton's decision as a New York senator to authorize the war in Iraq in late 2002.
Seeking to prevent yet another presidential election being consumed by a debate over that fateful vote, Clinton invoked President Barack Obama to defend herself.
"After the election (in 2008) he asked me to become secretary of state. He valued my judgment and I spent a lot of time with him in the Situation Room going over some very difficult issues."
Both Sanders and O'Malley hit Clinton over her call for a no-fly zone in Syria, with the former Maryland governor warning it could cause a clash with Russian forces operating over the war-torn Middle Eastern nation and that as president, he would be less likely to use a "military tool" than she would be.
Clinton reminded O'Malley that he endorsed her for president in 2008.
Republicans have already held two fiery debates dominated by the presence of Donald Trump.
Trump was live-tweeting during what he predicted would be a "very boring" debate, which could create an unwelcome distraction for candidates trying to get their message out.
He started tweeting before the debate even began, bemoaning the fact that three lower-polling candidates will get so much time.
"But who knows, maybe a star will be born (unlikely)," he wrote. "We will all have fun and hopefully learn something tonight. I will shoot straight and call it as I see it, both the good and the bad. Enjoy!"
In an election that has elevated politicians seen as outsiders and non-politicians, Clinton sought to play up her own historic status.
"I can't think anything more outsider than electing the first woman president."
She also took aim at the perception that electing her would perpetuate the kind of dynastic politics that many Americans dislike.
"I would not ask anyone to vote for me based on my last name," she said. "I am certainly not campaigning to become president because my last name is Clinton. I am campaigning because I think I have the right combination of what the country needs at this point and I think I can take the fight to the Republicans because we cannot afford a Republican to succeed Barack Obama as president of the United States."
The candidates were behind five debate podiums -- but there could have been six.
Vice President Joe Biden is still agonizing over whether to jump into the race even at this late stage and spent the weekend going over his options with his family in Delaware. But he didn't announce a decision in time to join the debate.
Sanders was joined at the debate by his wife, Jane, and two of his children, Levy and David.
Former President Bill Clinton planned to watch his wife's performance on television, though he did arrive in Las Vegas on Monday with the former secretary of state.
And in a reminder of the stakes facing Democrats desperate to hold the White House, the crowd was shown a taped message from Obama before the debate began.
The President recalled the hard-fought primary in 2008, and the video highlighted his legacy, including health care reform and the push for same-sex marriage.
"We are going to have to fight just as hard in this election, as we did in the last two ... that is why I am still fired up and I am still ready to go," Obama said, repeating a 2008 campaign mantra.
O'Reilly and his guest, Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney, lit into Media Matters with a vicious, foaming-at-the-mouth glee. They never actually said what they were so riled up about. Generally such a display of animus is prompted by a critical article or a disparaging public statement. But the furious Foxies didn't offer a single example of a recent atrocity by Media Matters or any other reason for their drooling disgust. They simply hauled off on a manic rant and demanded that the watchdog group's tax-exempt status be revoked.
O'Reilly: This is not a group that deserves this tax free status. What can someone do to make the IRS revoke it? Varney: Okay, an individual could file one of these forms with the IRS. It's form 13909. It's the tax-exempt organization complaint referral form. Simple form. Fill it out, complain, say what your beef is with Media Matters, and you can complain. That's how you do it.
See how easy it is? Just say what your beef is. Even though O'Reilly and Stuart weren't able to, you'll come up with something. Not that it matters. This is a tactic that Fox News tried four years ago. They made a full court press to enlist their viewers to complain to the IRS about Media Matters. It was promoted for weeks on multiple programs by the network's biggest names, including Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer, James Rosen, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Bernie Goldberg, Keith Ablow, Jon Scott, and of course, O'Reilly. They posted the IRS complaint forms on Fox Nation with instructions that encouraged filers to lie. They even had one of their own contributors, former Bush lawyer C. Boyden Gray, file his own complaint.
After months of this charade the result they achieved was a big fat nothing. It's not unlike the current investigations in Congress, hyped feverishly by Fox News, over Benghazi, Planned Parenthood, and Hillary Clinton's email. Every inquiry into these subjects has produced complete vindication for the political targets of Fox and the right, but that hasn't stopped the persecutors from persisting. So it's no surprise that O'Reilly would dust off this hoary contrivance to hammer away again at his old enemy.
So why is O'Reilly dredging up this old story, and why now? The answer sneaked in at the closing of the segment as he teased the next segment saying "The Factor Tip of the Day: Attacking Killing Reagan. Wow. Wait til you hear this." If you were bored enough to wait you would have heard O'Reilly whine about some criticism of his new book "Killing Reagan."
O'Reilly: "A published report says a group of Reagan loyalists are organizing to attack the book. We know these people. They threatened me and Martin Dugard [the co-author]even before we put the book out."
Indeed, there was a published report. It appeared in the Washington Examiner and was laterreported by Media Matters, which O'Reilly failed to mention for some reason. The report identified several people close to Reagan who dismissed O'Reilly's book as "garbage" and"total BS." So obviously Media Matters should have its tax-exempt status revoked.
Did the story in Media Matters spur O'Reilly to suddenly relaunch this campaign against them? Who knows? Media Matters has been a thorn in his side for a long time. Earlier this year they published the ebook "Killing Truth" that detailed many of the lies O'Reilly told about his alleged combat duty. And they are a constant source of irritation to Fox News due to their annoying habit of exposing Fox's journalistic failures. But the fact that O'Reilly went after them just a few hours after the negative report on his new book was posted suggests that it had something to do with his decision.
For a taste of the insane obsession that Fox News has with trying to politicize the tax-exempt status of Media Matters, watch this 2011 video. And you may also enjoy this one showing the depth of the hatred Fox has for Media Matters.
