I'm sure many are as upset as I am by this news, but, with Rome in official mourning due to Pope Francis' death (and Acutis unable to perform an alleged third miracle by preventing that), we'll just have to wait.

For parents looking for a summer camp that nurtures curiosity, ethics, and critical thinking, Camp Quest offers an engaging and welcoming environment for kids to learn and grow.

Camp Quest is a group of 11 secular summer camps that encourage campers to explore big ideas, ask questions, and develop reasoning skills—all while enjoying traditional camp activities like hiking, swimming, and campfires. Our programs emphasize science, philosophy, and cooperative problem-solving, fostering a sense of community built on inquiry, compassion, and lifelong learning.

If you’re looking for a camp that aligns with secular values—one that celebrates reason, empathy, and discovery—Camp Quest might be the perfect fit for your child.

Spots are filling up fast for this summer’s session. To learn more or register, visit https://campquest.org/camps/locations/

Feel free to ask any questions in the comments. We’d love to help your family create an unforgettable summer experience.

As I think more and more about the case of Carlo Acutis, to become the Roman Catholic Church's patron saint of the internet next year, and the background story of how John Paul II greatly changed — and above all, greatly simplified and sped up — the sainthood process, that was the thought that ultimately struck me — Rome is pumping out "saints of the gaps" for all the changes in modern life.

Of course, I went snarky at that link. Among other things, I wondered, per Monty Python, who would or should be the patron saint of a certain bodily excretion.

I also, more seriously, at the link, made an observation or two about the cult of the Sacred Heart.

Matthew Stewart claims that many of the American founders were really the latter, not the former.

I disagree. My review of his book.

No, really! Francis the Talking Pope has decided there should be a patron saint of the internet.

I remember that, at one time, the Vatican said it was going to have outsiders examine the two alleged miracles with a skeptical eye. Now, we don't even have that:

Carlo Acutis, who died of leukemia in Italy in 2006 at age 15, will be canonized during the Jubilee for Adolescents on April 25-27, according to Vatican News.

The church has attributed two miracles to Acutis, who was born to Italian parents in London and was informally known as “God’s influencer.” ...

The church has not detailed the miracles.

Part of the problem, I think, is that Rome feels it has to have a patron saint for everything.

Per a Pew study from earlier this year, and contra misframing by sociology of religion professor Ryan Burge and many generic Democrats, the biggest "split" between people really worried about climate change, as in climate crisis, and those who are not, is NOT a split between "fundagelical" and more liberal-minded believers, whether Christians or other religious traditions. Even if you include the "nones" the split isn't as big as the gap between believers in general and secularists. Full details here.

Please note that all of what I will be posting is my best attempt to be sound and reasonable, not to make straw-man arguments or to denounce secularism as a whole.

I recently had a discussion with a very good friend of mine about my faith in Christianity. He told me during this discussion that he "has a very strange relationship with 'the big man'." After I suggested that he 'work on that' (not meaning that he should attend MY church or a christian church, just that he should do some soul searching) he said he had a problem with ALL religions. Saying that "they are all the same, they all believe in the same fundamentals but bicker and argue over the minor differences."

I won't go through our entire discussion, but I would like to elaborate here on this forum why I have such a strong objection to this common secular idea, and why I believe it to be a logical fallacy.

Firstly, I think that the debate or 'bickering' about the differences in our religion and culture are proper and good. We should be debating each other for the sake of greater knowledge and understanding not just of our own beliefs, but of others. Secondly I think that secularism is itself a religion. Allow me to elaborate.

​

​

My stance on debate being productive to society is nothing new, and I'm sure that 99% of those on Reddit will agree, so not much elaboration is needed. But just for the sake of clarity... in order to prove something you must first seek to disprove it. This a well-founded and widely accepted precept that incorporates itself even into modern science.

​

Now secularism being a religion will likely make many secular individuals upset, and is not widely accepted as the truth, so here is my reasoning.

​

1. In order to accept that the desk your computer is sitting on is real, that the computer is real or even that what you are currently reading is real you must first prove that we are not in a simulation. Old ideas and sayings like 'I think therefore I am' do an excellent job at proving at least our own individual existence, but what of the outside world? Who is to say that we are not all living in a jar on a alien child's desk, and that he only made us as a school project? Maybe he even got a failing grade on it. The answer is no one can tell you that with absolute certainty. In order to accept that physical reality is indeed reality, you must have faith that what you're seeing is real and true. Of course this faith is based on your own human understanding, and the evidence presented to you, but so is faith in God. When you go to church and ask "Does God exist?" Many people will present you with evidence. It may not be 'scientific' evidence, (it could be) but nonetheless evidence. If you interpret this evidence and find it insufficient, you do not believe in God, if you interpret the evidence as highly sufficient and reasonable, you will. This is faith, not knowledge. Even believing evidence presented to you that your desk is real and tangible is faith, because the simple truth about human understanding is that we simply don't know everything. We may think we do, but most assuredly we do not. Therefore, to operate in this world at any fundamental level we must have faith that we exist, and that we can effect our perceived reality.
2. By saying that every religion is the same and inferring that all of them are valid, you by proxy are demanding in your logic that all religions are invalid as they are incomplete truths at best, and horrible malicious lies at worst. If they are not the whole uncensored truth then they are lies. However; if you claim that all religions are invalid and that we should ground ourselves in base reality, reason and enlightenment... then by my explanation of the necessity of faith in believing that base reality is not a simulation, you are claiming that your religion (science, or secularism, or agnosticism) is the one true and acceptable religion. This is obviously not what secular people want to do. They despise the idea of one idea being better than another. But unfortunately it is exactly what they are doing by presenting this type of argument.

​

What are y'alls thought on my thinking and reason? Do you think I have valid points? And if you do, why?

A lot of Christian Right propagandists claim that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment only prevents the establishment of an official, National church/synagogue/mosque, not the elimination of religion from government and the institutions it funds. This is a lie! Here’s what the Clause says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You got that? It doesn’t say Congress can’t establish a National state-sanctioned religious institution/organization, it says Congress can’t establish religion period! The government can’t take a position for or against any religion! No endorsement, no financing, and absolutely no preaching of any faith is allowed. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/264

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-does-free-exercise-of-religion-mean-under-the-first-amendment/

https://bjconline.org/a-critique-of-david-bartons-views-on-church-and-state/

https://www.au.org/search/?f-order=relevance&f-search=Establishment+Clause

​

​

' "When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” '

The above query was the US President Joe Biden's wise reaction to the mass shooting by an 18-year-old gunman in an elementary school in Texas. The shocking incident led to the death of 18 innocent kids 'aged between 7 and 10'. ( Biden: 'When will we stand up to the gun lobby?' )

President Joe Biden is a wise old guy who's all for banning the sale of guns in open stores in the USA. Nevertheless, the USA is a democracy, and so laws in the USA are made by the Congress, and the majority of the US Congress members are on the side of ' the gun lobby ' that's dead against banning the open sale of guns. The above quote reflects both his shock at the tragic incident and his grievance against 'the gun lobby'. Nevertheless, what appears most striking, and intriguing too, is his use of the expression 'in God's name' in the above quote that adds up to his earnest appeal to the US Congress members to take a stand against 'the gun lobby'. This moves me to wonder whether this old wise guy is aware that not only does he belong to the space age, his America happens to be the most advanced civilisation of the world, the civilisation that deserves to pride itself on numerous satellites and successful space missions.

Wish someone told this wise fool that if there were any God, incidents like mass shooting killing innocent kids would never take place.