https://archive.ph/nXLDY

Mark Roberts was on a Spirit Airlines flight from Philadelphia to Chicago last year when a woman stood up across the aisle before takeoff and greeted her fellow passengers.

She started talking about Jesus with a bright smile, he recalled.

“Super cheery and super excited about everything and ready to have fun,” said Roberts, 25, a content creator and frequent traveler who described the scene on TikTok. “But she was talking about, like, the scariest stories in the Bible.”

To small crowds on airplanes — and often to much larger audiences via social media — self-described evangelists are seizing the opportunity to share their faith with other passengers, whether fellow travelers asked for the word or not.

“They have no choice but to hear the truth,” said Whitney Lynn, an evangelist, producer and singer-songwriter from Orlando who said she preaches on most flights she takes, filming the proclamations for social media. “When I have a gift and I have a life raft, if you’re drowning, I want to give you that life raft so you can be saved.”

A video she posted earlier this month showed a postflight preaching session given as passengers waited to disembark in San Diego. Almost no one looked around as Lynn, 40, spoke for a little over a minute about the weather, Jesus, sin, hell, redemption and heaven. Beneath the clip, she wrote: “I just love a captive audience.”

There have been viral guitar-led worship services in the air, hours-long prayer and song sessions, and quick messages during a flight delay. Where some people see admirable boldness, many recoil at the thought of an unwanted sermon.

“That would be my nightmare,” someone wrote in response to an “open air airplane preaching” video posted on TikTok in June. “Can’t even walk away.”

“The way I would open that emergency exit,” another person wrote. Someone else weighed in: “This is why I drive.”

Airline policies differ slightly depending on the carrier, but they generally require passengers to obey the instructions of flight crews and avoid offensive, annoying or disruptive behavior. Airlines do not specifically address preaching on flights.

Brett Raio, 24, a Maine-based music artist and producer, said he has been nervous before urging people to seek Jesus on planes. But he feels compelled to follow the biblical teaching to go into the world and preach the gospel to all creatures. He said he only speaks up on a plane when he feels led by God to do so, and takes seriously the thought that anyone could be spending their last day on Earth.

“You might not listen to God then that person goes and perishes,” he said of his motivation. “God had you there for that specific opportunity and you missed your shot.”

Often, plane preachers say, their messages are met with affirmations and amens — even from some flight attendants. But there are also in-person protests, not to mention pushback online.

“I’ve gotten cursed at, I’ve gotten heckled, ‘shut up,’ ‘sit down,’” said Lynn, who is also an influencer. “I’ve gotten eye rolls.”

She said Las Vegas tourists have been an especially tough crowd since she calls out “Sin City” specifically. She also documented an instance where police responded to a call about her preaching in an airport.

Writer and retired pastor Rodney Kennedy, who calls himself a “progressive preacher,” is not a fan of plane evangelism. He wrote a criticism of the practice after a widely viewed video in 2022 showed people singing praise songs during a flight.

“I don’t have any problems with people articulating their faith,” he said. “But I think it requires a relationship and level of trust and a level of permission.”

Kennedy said there’s a history of American evangelicals declaring their faith in public places; he was required to preach on Bourbon Street in New Orleans during his own seminary experience. Christians might feel they are failing to be true disciples if they don’t share their faith publicly.

But Kennedy said he thinks the message doesn’t reach the target when it’s forced on an audience.

“I think that ultimately it’s a turnoff and it kind of reinforces the ideas that they already had about Christians,” he said.

On the Spirit flight Roberts took last year, he said a flight attendant told the preacher across the aisle from him to sit down, and she complied quietly. But after the plane took off, Roberts said she got up with her Bible and started blessing people, including him. He thought he felt liquid and saw her moving her hands.

“I could have sworn it was holy water,” Roberts said. “That’s what it gave.”

She didn’t get far before a flight attendant walked her back to her seat, Roberts said. He said the passenger seemed like she was on a mission.

“She’s probably like an honest person meaning no harm, but maybe she just didn’t see how she was being a little bit too pushy,” he said. “We’re a trapped audience and I feel like if you want to get a message across, maybe try to do it more so people have agency in a way.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that incoming Texas Comptroller Don Huffines immediately disavow reported plans to judge state employees based on their beliefs.

According to reports, Huffines recently told top staff that his priorities in the workplace would be “Jesus, family and work,” and indicated that employees would be judged on how Christian they are when he decides whether to retain them after taking office. FFRF warns that any religious test for public employment is blatantly unconstitutional.

“If these reports are accurate, they describe an astonishingly blatant violation of the Constitution,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Public employment is not conditioned on religious belief, and no government official has the authority to impose a Christian litmus test on state employees.”

FFRF Staff Attorney Madeline Ziegler has sent a letter to Huffines asking that he immediately rescind any such policy and make clear to employees that there are no religious requirements for serving in the Office of the Comptroller. If he is unwilling to do so, FFRF insists that he should decline the appointment.

The Constitution is unequivocal on this point. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office. At the same time, Article I, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution likewise bars any religious test as a qualification for public office. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that neither the federal government nor any state may constitutionally require a person to profess or reject a religious belief as a condition of public service.

The Supreme Court has also repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment requires government neutrality between religion and nonreligion. Favoring Christians in hiring or retention decisions sends an unconstitutional message that non-Christians and nonreligious citizens are second-class participants in their own government.

“The Texas Comptroller’s Office serves every Texan, not just Christian Texans,” Ziegler adds. “Employees should be evaluated on their competence, integrity and job performance, not whether they subscribe to the religious beliefs favored by their boss.”

The comptroller’s office itself states that it “serves virtually every citizen in the state.” Yet roughly one-third of Texans are not Christians, including approximately 26 percent who identify as religiously unaffiliated. These Texans are equally entitled to compete for and hold public employment free from religious discrimination or coercion.

Beyond violating the Constitution, any effort to favor Christian employees or penalize non-Christian employees could expose the state to liability under federal and state employment discrimination laws.

FFRF is calling on Huffines to publicly clarify that no employee will be judged, retained or dismissed based on religion and that the office will comply fully with its constitutional obligation to remain neutral on matters of faith.

submission statement: Washington state Democrat Melissa Chaudhry, challenging Rep. Adam Smith, faces backlash from within her party after reportedly stating she omitted LGBTQ+ rights from her campaign website to avoid alienating Muslim voters. The Washington State Stonewall Democrats are urging organizations to reconsider endorsements, citing concerns about transparency and alignment with Democratic values. Chaudhry denies misrepresenting her stance, asserting her lifelong support for LGBTQ+ rights and attributing her remarks to a hostile interview environment.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing the U.S. Department of Justice’s newly issued guidance on religious liberty.

The Justice Department today released updated guidance replacing its 2017 memorandum on federal religious liberty protections and directing federal agencies to broadly accommodate religious exercise in employment, contracting, rulemaking, enforcement actions and grant programs. It also instructs agencies to proactively review regulations and policies for potential impacts on religious liberty and elevates religious interests throughout the federal administrative process. This is a sweeping effort to expand religious privilege throughout the federal government while further eroding the constitutional principle of church-state separation.

While the guidance purports to protect religious liberty, FFRF says it overwhelmingly emphasizes a favorable interpretation of the rights of religious believers and organizations while giving little attention to the constitutional rights of those who do not share those beliefs.

“This so-called religious liberty guidance is really a roadmap for privileging conservative Christianity at the expense of the constitutional rights of everyone else,” says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “Rather than reminding federal agencies that the First Amendment protects both the free exercise of religion and the prohibition against government establishment of religion, the Justice Department has produced a one-sided manifesto that treats religious belief as a trump card over neutral laws, civil rights protections and government accountability.”

The updated memorandum repeatedly cites recent Supreme Court decisions to support expansive religious exemptions, endorses broad protections for religious organizations that discriminate in hiring and federal contracting, encourages agencies to accommodate religious objections whenever possible and instructs regulators to proactively consider religious liberty concerns throughout the rulemaking process. It also emphasizes parental rights over children’s religious upbringing and reinforces the doctrine of church autonomy.

“The Constitution protects religious liberty, not religious privilege,” Elliott remarks. “This guidance instructs agencies to keep stretching the law in one direction, toward broader religious exemptions, while giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of everyone affected by those exemptions.”

FFRF notes that the memorandum repeatedly privileges religious organizations in their dealings with the federal government. It directs agencies to preserve religious hiring exemptions even when organizations receive federal grants or contracts and states that religious entities generally cannot be required to choose between taxpayer funding and adhering to their religious beliefs. The guidance further embraces an expansive view of government religiosity, declaring that “religious activity in the public square and private religious expression by government employees cannot be proscribed via heckler’s veto” and citing John Adams’ oft-quoted statement that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people” despite the Constitution itself containing no religious requirement for citizenship or government.

The guidance also directs agencies to consult with the White House Faith Office and the Department of Justice on religious liberty questions before finalizing regulations or enforcement actions.

“The Constitution protects religious freedom for everyone, including the millions of Americans who are nonreligious,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Religious liberty means the government cannot favor one faith over another, or religion over nonreligion. This guidance instead elevates the demands of religious organizations above the public interest and the equal rights of others.”

FFRF warns that the guidance is likely to embolden efforts to seek religious exemptions from civil rights laws, workplace protections and other generally applicable legal requirements, allowing religious entities to claim preferential treatment while shifting burdens onto employees, beneficiaries and members of the public.

“The Department of Justice should be defending the First Amendment in its entirety, not transforming it into a tool for advancing Christian nationalist priorities,” Gaylor adds. “True religious freedom flourishes only when the government remains neutral on matters of religion.”

Melissa Chaudhry, a Democratic congressional candidate in Washington's 9th District, has acknowledged that she does not publicly promote LGBTQ+ rights on her campaign website because she does not want to alienate Muslim voters.

When asked why her campaign lacked references to LGBTQ+ rights despite saying she supports them, Chaudhry replied: "Because a lot of Muslims do not feel that way, unfortunately."

She also said she was "careful about her Muslim constituents."

The comments sparked backlash from Washington Stonewall Democrats, whose chair, Andrew Ashiofu, said: "Our community is not expendable.

LGBTQ+ rights are not optional. They are foundational to any candidate seeking Democratic support."

Chaudhry later sought to reassure LGBTQ+ voters, writing: "If you are queer... your rights are safe with me."

She also pointed to her sister, who is in a same-sex relationship, and said she has LGBTQ+ friends.

Muslims make up around 2% of the Seattle metropolitan area, while approximately 17% of adults identify as LGBTQ+.

My (f22) boyfriend (m22) occasionally works for a pastor who is a family friend. Since he was a teen she has helped him make a little money since he has always had a hard time finding a job. He helps her around her house and yard, and helps her (let’s call her Piper, f80 something) feed homeless, fix up the church and much more. She’s always been nothing but sweet to me however more recently she’s been pushing me to go to her church and it’s getting on my nerves. I’ve always been an atheist but to appease her I just pretend to go with all her delusions.

About a month ago, my boyfriend and I went to her house to help her with something small and we stayed and talked for a little bit. After I said we were getting ready to go, she said ‘alright so I’ll see you on Sunday?’ I said no because I had work, I really didn’t. She said ‘you work on Sunday? Well you need to go to church, all young people need to stay in church. My church is all about educating young people about the lord and his teachings. So just consider going.’ I said maybe another time and left.

A couple weeks ago my boyfriend told me about how she was asking invasive questions while he was working for her. They were talking about me and my job and all of a sudden she asked if we have intercourse. Obviously my boyfriend lied and said no. She said ‘well one day 10 years down the line when you marry her she’ll realize you weren’t having sex with her out of respect, she needs to understand that.’ He left it at that because she’s just an old head and can’t comprehend anything past a Bible. My boyfriend also joked and said ‘I wish I could’ve told her that I can still respect my girlfriend while I plow her into the sheets’ but I still found it gross that she’d even be comfortable enough to ask that.

Today I went to her house to pick up my boyfriend because he worked for her and we ended up staying an extra hour so that he could finish up. As we were talking she randomly said ‘now that you’re here, you can help us at church this Sunday’ and I said no, I have work. She said ‘excuses, excuses’. Respectfully I only get 2 days off a week, I’m not going to get up early af in the morning just to be somewhere for 4 hours that I don’t want to be. And since I told her I’m working, the fact that she thinks I can just skip work to attend her church is ridiculous.

I only know it’s going to get worse when I get married and even when I’m engaged, she’s a nice lady but I don’t wanna have to just out myself and say I don’t believe her delusions, and make her try to convert me. And also my boyfriend does his best to defend me but with her she doesn’t hear anything she doesn’t want to hear so it would be pointless. I didn’t mean to stay long at her house today, but she told me to call her and said to ‘come to her house and talk’ and it was just about her giving me some antiques she thinks I might like, but now I know not to stay long if I don’t have to anymore just so I don’t have to be spiritually harassed. I am too atheist for this shit.

EDIT: bf is an atheist and acknowledged how deluded and obnoxious she can be

One thing I never understand is why honest question about religion make many people uncomfortable. If belief is really true, then why people afraid of questions? Shouldn't questions make belief more stronger, not weaker?

I'm not saying atheist always right or religious people always wrong. I just think asking question is how people learn. If nobody ask "why?" or "how we know this?", then how people know if something is actually true?

For me, skepticism should be for everything, not only religion. Even atheism should be questioned sometimes. If we only question belief we don't like, I think that is not real skepticism.

Maybe I see this in wrong way. What do you think? In your experience, are some religious communities more open to questions, or they usually avoid it?

Testify's (a popular YouTube Christian apologist) latest video on "this atheist meme needs to die" says the "spiderman fallacy" is a lazy Atheist bad meme that needs to die. He portrays every atheist making the argument, specifically against the historicity of the gospel of John, is doing it in bad faith, and is missing the point.

My response:
https://youtu.be/mYJ4TJHCh2Q

One thing funny about the first 30 seconds of his video is explaining the Spiderman fallacy-- this idea that just because a historical location or context is correct, a la New York in the Spiderman story, doesn't mean that the story is true. On face value, this is logical, because, well it is. Of course you can have a real setting with fictitious elements. Mt. Olympus is a real location but the Greek gods are myths, for example.

However, Testify uses ugly cartoons and meme images to show "atheist argument is wrong and dumb". He then goes on to say this is just a strawman of the Christian argument for the gospel of John, atheists are dumb and don't understand our real argument, and goes on to simply give more historical examples of mundane accuracies in John, as if this gives some new truth to the divinity of this Jesus character.

Your story could have 20 historical accuracies, or 200 historical accuracies, or 1000 historical accuracies, but that does not give any more credence to the fantastical/supernatural parts of the story.

Testify then claims to say "Atheists try to have it both ways" in that if something is historically inaccurate in John, skeptics claim it as an anachronism and takes away credence from the validity of John, yet if there are historical accuracies, atheists simply cry "spiderman." They have it both ways!

No-- this is not hypocritical or paradoxical, it is entirely consistent. If your story is supposed to be set in the 80s yet people use smart phones, I can tell that the story is fiction, or at the very least has fictitious elements. Similarly, if that story has historical accuracies, it's not that the the accuracies take away from the story's validity, just that it is mundane and not important.

Ultimately, Testify says John's specific historical accuracies, understanding the distance between locations, understanding specific Passover histories, show it is indeed very historically accurate. Really, all of his examples of "historical accuracies" are what any Jew of the day would understand-- they are generic and mundane. They do not give any more credence to the likelihood of a Palestinian Zombie savior and the existence of god

Edit: the linked video is not the original Testify video but my response which basically talks about the above points in more detail.

Sometimes I always think about this. Almost everybody follow same religion like their parents. Maybe this is normal, but it also make me wonder how much our belief is really our own choice, and how much because we born into it.

For me, children should learn about many different religions, and also learn that not believing is also one option. Then when they become adult, they can decide by themselves what make most sense.

I'm not saying parents should not teach their religion. Of course they will. But I think children also should learn how to ask question and think by their own, not only accept everything because family believe it.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you think religion is mostly something people choose, or mostly something people inherit from family?

My family comes from Egypt, a land colonized by Arabs. My father is an exmuslim scholar and exnassirist who spent 1 year in prison after leaving Islam but got saved by the pressures of the Bush Administration and was able to immigrate to Europe shortly after. He has taught me a lot about the dangers of Islam and I want to share this perspective with a western audience.

What I most often see in online discussions about Islam is people criticizing individual verse from Quran or Hadiths such as the ones about child marriage. All of these points are absolutely valid and I love to see them being discussed and Muslims being held accountable.
However, I think most people are missing a much more fundamental question. Islam is, ontologically, incompatible with any other form of government (doesn’t actually matter whether it’s western or not): Shari’a is not simply a personal moral code or a set of guidelines for religious rituals. It is a comprehensive legal and political system designed to regulate every sphere of public and private life.
This fundamental doctrine finds its roots in the concept of Hakimiyya, which is the absolute sovereignty of God over legal and legislative matters. Under this framework, law cannot originate from human will, nor can it be amended by popular vote; it emanates exclusively from divine revelation.

What this means is that a constitutional democracy, such as the American one, cannot exist in Islam because it would be considered blasphemy. Why? Because if you say “We the people want to emanate this law ” you are basically taking the role of Allah in emanating rules which is a major sin (shirk).

So-called "moderate" or "cultural" Muslims certainly exist as individuals who choose to live peacefully in secular societies, but they are operating in direct opposition to the core jurisprudence of their own faith. They are not presenting a reformed version of Islamic theology; they are simply choosing not to practice its political mandates. Calling someone a "moderate Muslim" ignores the fact that the underlying doctrine itself remains completely un-moderated.
Western constitutionalism wasn't achieved simply by asking Christians to be nicer or more tolerant. It required centuries-long intellectual revolution that stripped divine revelation of its direct authority over civil law.
For Islam to ever truly reconcile with democratic constitutions, a similar theological shift would have to happen. Islamic jurisprudence would need to downgrade Sharia from a divine statute book meant for state enforcement to a purely personal, ethical guide. But until orthodox theology officially separates divine morality from human legal authority, the tension won't go away.
That is why political Islam isn't just a minor cultural friction point. if we leave this idea unchecked, its fundamental rejection of human-made law makes it one of the single greatest threats not just to Western democracies, but to free societies everywhere.

in islam, if anyone leaves the religion, the ruling is to kill him, you're told the soul of the dying believer is taken very gently by the angel of death while the non believer suffers and the grave is literally described worse than hell, its said in the grave 2 angels appear and they ask you 3 questions, (who is ur God, who ur Prophet and what is your religion) all these things are implanted in your head since childhood, psychologically it scares you so much that leaving the religion is a different topic, you fear even just questioning it yourself, so people never even question it, the ones who do and leave, only they know the religious trauma they go through.

also most of the muslims who learn and memorise the qur'an aren't even arabs, they're indians, bengalis and pakistanis, they don't know what they're reciting, 85% muslims don't know what stuff there is in sahih al bukhari (hadiths)

Courtesy of James Madison

“But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses. A warning on this subject is emphatically given in the example of the various Charitable establishments in G. B. the management of which has been lately scrutinized. The excessive wealth of ecclesiastical Corporations and the misuse of it in many Countries of Europe has long been a topic of complaint. In some of them the Church has amassed half perhaps the property of the nation. When the reformation took place, an event promoted if not caused, by that disordered state of things, how enormous were the treasures of religious societies, and how gross the corruptions engendered by them; so enormous & so gross as to produce in the Cabinets & Councils of the Protestant states a disregard, of all the pleas of the interested party drawn from the sanctions of the law, and the sacredness of property held in religious trust. The history of England during the period of the reformation offers a sufficient illustration for the present purpose.”

Currently, the Church is considering what action to take regarding this case, while the mutual shifting of blame reflects the dramatic situation at Kaptol.

Long-term sexual abuse in the seminary, which began when the victim was a minor, has been systematically covered up within the Catholic Church in Croatia over the past 15 years, despite multiple reports and at least one conducted investigation, according to information exclusively obtained by DNEVNIK.hr.

Croatian bishops, as well as the Vatican itself, were informed about the abuse, but for years nothing was done to fully investigate the case and punish the perpetrator, as well as those who covered up the entire matter.

DNEVNIK.hr obtained this information through sources from Kaptol and outside the Church, as well as by inspecting documents; however, we will not disclose all the details in order to protect the victim's identity. Currently, the Church is considering what action to take regarding this case, and the attempts to avoid responsibility and shift blame among priests—who are aware of how much damage this scandal will cause the Church—speak to the gravity of the situation.

Abuse Began When the Victim Was 16

According to the victim's claims, the sexual abuse of the student at the Interdiocesan Seminary (high school) on Zagreb's Šalata began in the early 2000s, when he was only 16 years old. It continued for nearly a decade, even after he pursued his education at the Theological Seminary in Đakovo during his five-year study of philosophy and theology.

Although changes in his behavior were noticeable, no one in his surroundings—family, friends, or peers—could have imagined the trauma the young man was enduring, which caused him to slide into alcohol and drug addiction. He began drinking alcohol as early as high school, when he would get drunk to make the abuse easier to endure. Later, he also used various drugs, and in his fifth year of study, he was expelled from the Faculty of Theology due to alcoholism.

Severe Diagnoses Caused by "Trauma of Catastrophic Intensity"

According to information available to us, when the victim confessed the abuse he was experiencing to his confessors at the seminary, they told him to forget everything as soon as possible. Partly because of this, the victim developed a sense of guilt, while the abuser kept him "under control" through his authority, monetary gifts, and by providing him access to alcohol, which the young man consumed with increasing frequency.
The severity of the impact the abuse had on the victim is demonstrated by his subsequent diagnoses: post-traumatic stress disorder, enduring personality changes after trauma of catastrophic intensity, as well as disorders caused by drugs and alcohol.

Abuser Responsible for the Work of Catholic Schools

Only in 2012, after he moved to live and study theology in Vienna, did the horrors that this young man had endured begin to come to light. Namely, in a state of distress and pain, he recounted everything about the decade-long sexual abuse to a fellow student, who then wrote about it to the then-Bishop of Požega, Antun Škvorčević. The victim named a former close associate of the bishop as his abuser.

Notably, the alleged abuser currently holds a high-ranking position within the Croatian Bishops' Conference (HBK), where he is responsible for the work of Catholic schools. According to our sources, the victim's peer, who reported the case to Bishop Škvorčević, was later pressured to alter his statement and was systematically harassed.
According to information obtained by DNEVNIK.hr, Škvorčević even instructed a priest to conduct an investigation at the time. However, despite a substantial amount of written and digital evidence—including correspondence between the victim and the abuser pointing to the truth of the victim's claims and his deep dependency on the abuser—the investigation ultimately led to nothing.

The abused young man even wrote a letter to Škvorčević at the time denying the abuse, likely due to shame, fear of consequences, or his dependency on the abuser, but he later reaffirmed that the abuse had indeed taken place.

New Bishop Informed the HBK and State Authorities

In an attempt to contact Škvorčević, who has been retired for two years, we submitted an inquiry to the Diocese of Požega asking whether he, while serving as bishop, was aware of the allegations against his former close associate and what steps he took upon learning of the case. We also asked whether the diocese holds records indicating that the case was acted upon, and whether it was reported to the competent church and state authorities at the time.
"Upon learning of the allegations in question, the Bishop of Požega, Ivo Martinović, acted in accordance with applicable church and civil regulations, informing the competent state authorities and the HBK National Office for the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons.

Given that proceedings by the competent authorities are currently underway, to protect their implementation and all individuals involved, the Diocese of Požega cannot provide additional information or comment on the details of the case at this time," was the diocese's response.

This indicates that the case was reported to state authorities only after Škvorčević's departure and the arrival of Martinović, who has led the diocese for two years.

Many Knew About the Abuse, Failed to Act Out of Fear

Our sources claim that several priests from Požega, Đakovo, Zagreb, and beyond were aware of the tragic abuse, but due to fear of retaliation, many lacked the courage to speak up or help the victim and his family. The rare few who did try to take action were called out, harassed, and marginalized.
We also sought a comment on the allegations against him from the alleged abuser himself—sending him an email and calling the phone numbers at the HBK, as well as the parish in the Diocese of Požega where he recently took over as parish priest—but we received no response.

Prominent Cardinal Warned Croatian Bishops and the Vatican

One detail of the story indicating that the abuse was covered up for many years lies outside Croatia's borders. Namely, a few years after moving to Vienna—where he was admitted to the local seminary—the abused young man shared his trauma with the then-Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. In 2018, Schönborn wrote about the matter to the Croatian bishops, as well as to the Dicastery for Bishops at the Vatican.

According to the information available to the cardinal at the time, the alleged abuser was on the list for episcopal ordination. Schönborn sought a thorough investigation of the entire case to prevent a person accused of abuse from becoming a bishop, and to ensure he would not remain a priest if the allegations were proven true.

Because his initial appeal yielded no results, Schönborn repeatedly warned the Croatian bishops about the case, but to no avail. According to our information, he addressed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican early this year, expressing concern to its prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, that the case of the abused minor seminarian might be subject to a systematic cover-up.

He requested that Fernández have the Dicastery take the case into consideration, explicitly accusing Croatian bishops and priests of being aware of the entire situation while actively preventing the truth from coming to light.

Case Officially Reported to HBK Only This Year

Cardinal Schönborn, now Archbishop Emeritus of Vienna, is known for his fight against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and against the cover-up of such crimes; he has never hesitated to call out his colleagues. A notable example is a 2010 case where he publicly accused the then-influential Cardinal Angelo Sodano of blocking investigations into sexual abuse within the Church, criticizing Sodano for dismissing abuse allegations as mere gossip.

We also asked the Croatian Bishops' Conference whether they were aware of the allegations in this case, whether competent church institutions had conducted an investigation, and if the entire case had been reported to state authorities.

"This year, the Diocese of Požega notified the National Office of the Croatian Bishops' Conference for the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Adults regarding the aforementioned case. In accordance with applicable regulations, the HBK National Office informed the competent state authorities. Given that proceedings by the competent authorities are currently underway, we are unable to provide additional information or comment on the details of the case," responded the HBK.

Police and Apostolic Nunciature Without Response

According to information available to us, the then-Bishop of Dubrovnik, Mate Uzinić—now the Archbishop of Rijeka—was also made aware of the case in 2013 or 2014, but he states that he does not recall the matter.

"Unfortunately, Archbishop Uzinić does not recall the details related to that allegation, and there are no records of it in the archives. During the period you mention, in cases where he lacked jurisdiction to conduct an investigation, the Archbishop would routinely direct those who confided in him to submit a report to the competent authorities," responded Uzinić's office.

We also inquired about potential reports with the relevant police departments—Požega-Slavonia and Dubrovnik-Neretva—but they did not respond to our query, even though, according to our information, the Dubrovnik-Neretva Police Department was made aware of the case no later than 2023.

Furthermore, we submitted an inquiry to the Apostolic Nunciature in Zagreb, asking about any knowledge of the case during the tenure of Archbishop Giorgio Lingua, who served as nuncio until earlier this year, but we received no response.

We asked the State Attorney's Office whether it had received a report regarding this case, who submitted it and when, and whether proceedings are underway; we will publish their response once we receive it.

Original source: https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/uzas-u-sjemenistu-svecenici-godinama-zataskavali-seksualno-zlostavljanje-maloljetnika---992724.html

Snippet from recently uploaded video featuring a talk with Pete Russell and Tom Roberts where Pete explains why MKL are heading into the new season with only 4 out of 5 import slots filled.

A pretty significant vote of confidence for the Brits but are they putting themselves at a disadvantage early on?

Link to video: Lightning Talks - Episode 2: Aaron Viles talks to Head Coach Pete Russell and Director Tom Roberts

For years, I've been thinking about death constantly, and with each passing day it gets worse. Lately, it has reached the point where my entire day revolves around thinking about death. I don't really do anything with my life anymore besides being afraid of it and obsessing over it.

I know it's almost certain that we will simply cease to exist. Some people try to comfort me by saying that we'll return to the same state we were in before we were born, when we didn't experience anything for billions of years. I understand that, and I know it's true. But before I was born, I had never experienced existence. I had never had thoughts, feelings, happiness, sadness, enjoyment, boredom, hobbies, interests, or memories.

The idea of returning to that same state from before I was born is actually the very reason for my constant terror.

I'm extremely scared, and I believe there are people who have gone through the same thing and eventually managed to overcome it. How did you come to accept that death is your ultimate fate?

Recorded well documented human history goes back at least 6,000 years like verifiable like real stuff thats well recorded thats why im so confused by all metrics how “new” the bible and quoran is and people put it up on a pedestal… what do those people say about all human history that occured before their book was written or even simultaneously occuring well documented events globally.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is insisting to the Walton County Sheriff’s Office that a recent event where it baptized inmates was a grave constitutional violation. 

A Christian Broadcasting Network article reports that the Sheriff’s Office (headquartered  in DeFuniak Springs, Fla.) recently partnered with First Apostolic Church of DeFuniak Springs and New Life Church of Santa Rosa Beach with the apparent purpose of baptizing inmates at Walton County Jail and encouraging them to convert to Christianity. According to the July 15 article, 69 inmates were baptized at Walton County Jail in the coordinated “mass baptisms” organized by the Sheriff’s Office and the two churches. Furthermore, these churches have partnered to hold mass baptisms at other jails before, indicating that the Walton County Sheriff’s Office was aware of the churches’ intentions. The baptisms appeared to have taken place on jail property. Inmates are photographed in the article being baptized by Walton County Sheriff’s Office employees. 

The sheriff’s office public information officer, Corey Dobridnia, told reporters that part of the office’s “mantra” is “trying to make men and women who are incarcerated in our jail better people, and introducing them to the Lord. And then being baptized is sort of a rebirth for them.”

FFRF is demanding that the Walton County Sheriff’s Office immediately put a stop to this unconstitutional promotion of religion.

“By organizing and hosting inmate baptisms, the sheriff’s office is unconstitutionally favoring religion over nonreligion, and Christianity over all other faiths,” FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence writes to Sheriff Michael A. Adkinson Jr.

A correctional facility is an inherently coercive environment and inmates and detainees are literally a captive audience. When the Walton County Sheriff’s Office entangles itself with religion and makes it clear that it’s encouraging inmates to convert to Christianity, inmates will no doubt feel pressured to convert and participate in religious activities to be seen as cooperative and well behaved. Inmates and detainees who are aware of the Sheriff’s Office’s promotion of Christianity will not genuinely feel free to refuse to participate in its religious activities. This is constitutionally impermissible. 

Law enforcement must be even-handed and avoid any appearance of bias towards some citizens, and hostility towards others, the FFRF letter emphasizes. Walton County Sheriff’s Office employees can practice their personal religion any way they wish when acting in their personal capacities. However, they are not permitted to use the machinery of government and taxpayer money to promote their personal religion to inmates or the wider community. The Sheriff’s Office’s promotion of religion and conversion to Christianity needlessly marginalizes the 38 percent of Americans who are non-Christians, including the nearly one in three adult Americans who are religiously unaffiliated.

To comply with the First Amendment and to protect the rights of all inmates held in Walton County Jail, FFRF is asking that the sheriff’s office halt inmate baptisms.

“First Amendment violations in incarceration facilities are particularly egregious, given the abuse of a literal captive audience,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “The right to be free from religious coercion is not stripped from a citizen when they are in prison. These baptisms must stop immediately.”