Very good opinion piece.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/04/who-n...anity.html

Even Owl69 might want to pause on it for a bit.

What a great argument - tolerate Christianity because it is the less offensive than other religions. This is one article that you would have been better off keeping to yourself.

(04-05-2010 11:41 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  This is one article that you would have been better off keeping to yourself.

Wow, Gil didn't understand an article I linked. What are the odds?

(04-05-2010 11:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Very good opinion piece.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/04/who-n...anity.html
Even Owl69 might want to pause on it for a bit.

Hey, you're destroying my image as a right wing nut.

Off a quick read, I'd say that I agree that Christian societies have progressed in a much better way than non-Christian, but I don't believe that rigid adherence to Old Testament morality is the reason. Islam holds strongly to most, if not all, of those same moral tenets, particularly the ones involving sexual "deviance," and it hasn't exactly done them a lot of good.

If there's more to it than that, I'm sorry I don't have time for more than a quick read at present.

(04-05-2010 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 11:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Very good opinion piece.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/04/who-n...anity.html
Even Owl69 might want to pause on it for a bit.

Hey, you're destroying my image as a right wing nut.

Off a quick read, I'd say that I agree that Christian societies have progressed in a much better way than non-Christian, but I don't believe that rigid adherence to Old Testament morality is the reason. Islam holds strongly to most, if not all, of those same moral tenets, particularly the ones involving sexual "deviance," and it hasn't exactly done them a lot of good.

I agree with you that there's more to the story. But that doesn't mean it's a pick-and-choose smorgasbord.

I think the author of the column is mostly saying, that based on empirical observation, things don't get better when you toss out Christianity. Regardless if you choose another religion or pure "secularism" or atheism.

As for the progress of Christian societies, I am enjoying Rodney Stark's book "The Victory of Reason." Although I can understand if you Rice alumni shudder at the thought of reading a Baylor professor.

(04-05-2010 12:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I agree with you that there's more to the story. But that doesn't mean it's a pick-and-choose smorgasbord.
I think the author of the column is mostly saying, that based on empirical observation, things don't get better when you toss out Christianity. Regardless if you choose another religion or pure "secularism" or atheism.
As for the progress of Christian societies, I am enjoying Rodney Stark's book "The Victory of Reason." Although I can understand if you Rice alumni shudder at the thought of reading a Baylor professor.

I'm actually reading it, too. Good book, and definitely thought-provoking.

As for Baylor, I liked this comment from the NCAA basketball tournament. Baylor's progress was amazing, particularly considering they had to play zone defense because if they tried to play man-to-man, someone might think they were dancing.

Back in the old SWC days, in one year's football issue, Playboy had a photo collection of "The Girls of the Southwest Conference." There were no Baylor girls, as the university threatened to expel anyone who posed. This prompted the line, "Baylor girls don't." A couple of months later, the letters to the editor included one, from College Station, Texas (of all places), which said simply, "The reason Baylor girls don't is because Baylor boys don't know how."

Not sure i follow... Christianity isn't contained in the old testament, but the new. The rules changed with Jesus It seems that if you leave out these changes... that I am the way... as opposed to adhering to traditions from the old testament, you miss Christianity entirely.

It seems to me that adherence to the old is the problem, not the solution.

maybe I should read more closely?

and preacher's daughters were ALWAYS the wild ones

(04-05-2010 12:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I think the author of the column is mostly saying, that based on empirical observation, things don't get better when you toss out Christianity. Regardless if you choose another religion or pure "secularism" or atheism.

Where's the empirical observation? There's only vague reference to such. And the author makes no claim as to what secularism or athiesm would do as a follow-up to Christianity because he says that another religion would take the place of Christianity. Are you intentionally mischaracterizing the argument, or did you just misinterpret? It's pretty sad that the person who posted the article doesn't seem to understand it.

(04-05-2010 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure i follow... Christianity isn't contained in the old testament, but the new. The rules changed with Jesus It seems that if you leave out these changes... that I am the way... as opposed to adhering to traditions from the old testament, you miss Christianity entirely.

It seems to me that adherence to the old is the problem, not the solution.

maybe I should read more closely?

and preacher's daughters were ALWAYS the wild ones

Not exactly sin as defined in the old testament is sin, that never changed. The way to atonement changed.

(04-05-2010 07:23 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure i follow... Christianity isn't contained in the old testament, but the new. The rules changed with Jesus It seems that if you leave out these changes... that I am the way... as opposed to adhering to traditions from the old testament, you miss Christianity entirely.

It seems to me that adherence to the old is the problem, not the solution.

maybe I should read more closely?

and preacher's daughters were ALWAYS the wild ones

Not exactly sin as defined in the old testament is sin, that never changed. The way to atonement changed.

WAS there atonement in the old Testament? God was vengeful

the point was that failure to adhere to strict guidelines meant banishment with little/no chance for redemption.... Punishment was death... and heaven was closed. The New wasn't about adherence to rituals, but to love one another and believe in Him... whomsoever does shall not perish but shall have everlasting life?? No??

(04-05-2010 08:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 07:23 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure i follow... Christianity isn't contained in the old testament, but the new. The rules changed with Jesus It seems that if you leave out these changes... that I am the way... as opposed to adhering to traditions from the old testament, you miss Christianity entirely.

It seems to me that adherence to the old is the problem, not the solution.

maybe I should read more closely?

and preacher's daughters were ALWAYS the wild ones

Not exactly sin as defined in the old testament is sin, that never changed. The way to atonement changed.

WAS there atonement in the old Testament? God was vengeful

Thus the term "scapegoat".

Quote:the point was that failure to adhere to strict guidelines meant banishment with little/no chance for redemption.... Punishment was death... and heaven was closed.

I'm not sure where you get that:

Ps 51:1-17
Have mercy on me, O God,according to your unfailing love;according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,and my sin is always before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. 5 Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me. 6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness;let the bones you have crushed rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.
10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,and renew a steadfast spirit within me. 11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,and sinners will turn back to you. 14 Save me from bloodguilt, O God,the God who saves me,and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. 15 O Lord, open my lips,and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;a broken and contrite heart,O God, you will not despise.
NIV

Quote:The New wasn't about adherence to rituals, but to love one another and believe in Him... whomsoever does shall not perish but shall have everlasting life?? No??

Loving God comes first, even before loving one another. And loving God is more important than just belief.

Rituals aren't condemned, but their purpose is reinforced. Constantly throughout the OT Israelites are condemned for looking to ritual instead of love for God. That's a recurring message from Moses to the other prophets.

Looking at the Old Testament one thing is apparent, GOD is in relationship with his people. One side (man,His chosen people) always does something to adversely effect that relationship (sin), there is then punishment, acknowledgment of that sin, repentance, forgiveness and his people are back in good standing.

What can we learn? When the most blessed people walk away from GOD they will be punished. As a people we are either walking away from GOD (man's natural walk) or walking toward GOD, drawing nearer to HIM. His rules are not there to punish us, but protect us. We follow his rules to prove that we want to be in relationship with HIM.

(04-05-2010 08:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 08:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 07:23 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-05-2010 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure i follow... Christianity isn't contained in the old testament, but the new. The rules changed with Jesus It seems that if you leave out these changes... that I am the way... as opposed to adhering to traditions from the old testament, you miss Christianity entirely.

It seems to me that adherence to the old is the problem, not the solution.

maybe I should read more closely?

and preacher's daughters were ALWAYS the wild ones

Not exactly sin as defined in the old testament is sin, that never changed. The way to atonement changed.

WAS there atonement in the old Testament? God was vengeful

Thus the term "scapegoat".

Quote:the point was that failure to adhere to strict guidelines meant banishment with little/no chance for redemption.... Punishment was death... and heaven was closed.

I'm not sure where you get that:

Ps 51:1-17
Have mercy on me, O God,according to your unfailing love;according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,and my sin is always before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. 5 Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me. 6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness;let the bones you have crushed rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.
10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,and renew a steadfast spirit within me. 11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,and sinners will turn back to you. 14 Save me from bloodguilt, O God,the God who saves me,and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. 15 O Lord, open my lips,and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;a broken and contrite heart,O God, you will not despise.
NIV

Quote:The New wasn't about adherence to rituals, but to love one another and believe in Him... whomsoever does shall not perish but shall have everlasting life?? No??

Loving God comes first, even before loving one another. And loving God is more important than just belief.

Rituals aren't condemned, but their purpose is reinforced. Constantly throughout the OT Israelites are condemned for looking to ritual instead of love for God. That's a recurring message from Moses to the other prophets.

I don't want to get into a theology debate here or into the nuances of speech... but because you asked where I got "it" from

Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death... pretty clear if you ask me.

and my understanding is that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to earth was to create a means for sinners to "reconnect" with God.

The details are unimportant in this context. The only way into heaven is through Jesus Christ. That wasn't the case in the old Testament. Adhering to those rules and not following Jesus isn't CHRISTIAN at all.

Let's take a quaint corner of America, Lancaster County, PA with a ton of Amish. Amish are by and large a very fundamentalist Christian sect with very strict rules. But they are some of the most loving, kind and generous people you will ever meet. Whenever I've been there, I've never heard an unkind word from them. That is in a microcosm, the mystery of Christ. Christ teaches us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. The Church (and I don't mean the institutional church, but the Universal church of believers), is full of human beings. Humans are imperfect and manage to mess up things, even good things (remember "United Way" scandals). So, many times we get that simple directive messed up as well. Christians fiercely believe that Christ is Lord. Christians believe in salvation through grace from God. We all have our weaknesses. The question is whether a Christian society is better than an atheistic society, look at China and Communist Soviet Union. By and large, there is no individual freedom, people are accountable solely to the state and not to a higher calling, and there is real fear. Western Democracies came about from reformation Christian principles. Read Montaigne, Pascal, Locke, Calvin, and Luther, and see if you disagree with that thesis.

(04-06-2010 11:24 AM)EastStang Wrote:  Let's take a quaint corner of America, Lancaster County, PA with a ton of Amish. Amish are by and large a very fundamentalist Christian sect with very strict rules. But they are some of the most loving, kind and generous people you will ever meet. Whenever I've been there, I've never heard an unkind word from them. That is in a microcosm, the mystery of Christ. Christ teaches us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. The Church (and I don't mean the institutional church, but the Universal church of believers), is full of human beings. Humans are imperfect and manage to mess up things, even good things (remember "United Way" scandals). So, many times we get that simple directive messed up as well. Christians fiercely believe that Christ is Lord. Christians believe in salvation through grace from God. We all have our weaknesses. The question is whether a Christian society is better than an atheistic society, look at China and Communist Soviet Union. By and large, there is no individual freedom, people are accountable solely to the state and not to a higher calling, and there is real fear. Western Democracies came about from reformation Christian principles. Read Montaigne, Pascal, Locke, Calvin, and Luther, and see if you disagree with that thesis.

Your comparison of "Christian" societies to "athiest" China and the USSR is flawed. You have to be in a ceteris paribus state to make any determination about the effect of religion, and clearly all other things are not equal. It would be more appropriate, but still dubious, to look at states within the USA. At least then you would be holding government fairly equal. The most religious states are Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Texas. The least religious states are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Rhode Island, Nevada, and Connecticut. If you don't like the comparison between states, you could make comparisons between Western nations. The USA is one of the most highly religious countries, whereas the UK, Germany, and Japan are much less religious.

Additionally, China and the USSR are cases where oppressive regimes imposed athiesm on a society rather than an athiestic society naturally progressing. The oppressive nature of those governments doesn't have anything more to do with their official lack of religion than the brutal nature of Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy had to do with their allegedly Christian orientations.

(04-06-2010 01:09 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-06-2010 11:24 AM)EastStang Wrote:  Let's take a quaint corner of America, Lancaster County, PA with a ton of Amish. Amish are by and large a very fundamentalist Christian sect with very strict rules. But they are some of the most loving, kind and generous people you will ever meet. Whenever I've been there, I've never heard an unkind word from them. That is in a microcosm, the mystery of Christ. Christ teaches us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. The Church (and I don't mean the institutional church, but the Universal church of believers), is full of human beings. Humans are imperfect and manage to mess up things, even good things (remember "United Way" scandals). So, many times we get that simple directive messed up as well. Christians fiercely believe that Christ is Lord. Christians believe in salvation through grace from God. We all have our weaknesses. The question is whether a Christian society is better than an atheistic society, look at China and Communist Soviet Union. By and large, there is no individual freedom, people are accountable solely to the state and not to a higher calling, and there is real fear. Western Democracies came about from reformation Christian principles. Read Montaigne, Pascal, Locke, Calvin, and Luther, and see if you disagree with that thesis.

Your comparison of "Christian" societies to "athiest" China and the USSR is flawed. You have to be in a ceteris paribus state to make any determination about the effect of religion, and clearly all other things are not equal. It would be more appropriate, but still dubious, to look at states within the USA. At least then you would be holding government fairly equal. The most religious states are Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Texas. The least religious states are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Rhode Island, Nevada, and Connecticut. If you don't like the comparison between states, you could make comparisons between Western nations. The USA is one of the most highly religious countries, whereas the UK, Germany, and Japan are much less religious.

Additionally, China and the USSR are cases where oppressive regimes imposed athiesm on a society rather than an athiestic society naturally progressing. The oppressive nature of those governments doesn't have anything more to do with their official lack of religion than the brutal nature of Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy had to do with their allegedly Christian orientations.

Yet everything else in his post is spot on.

You spent two paragraphs disputing 1 sentence from his post, yet your proof doesn't change his truth. Arguing a disputed detail in volume doesn't dismiss the bulk of the argument.

Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you? Does athiesm teach you that even when you are in full compliance with man's laws, that there is a higher calling for you to help the needy?? I'm sure that some athiests are quite giving people... but where does the encouragement come from that Christianity doesn't already have and more??

(04-06-2010 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you? Does athiesm teach you that even when you are in full compliance with man's laws, that there is a higher calling for you to help the needy?? I'm sure that some athiests are quite giving people... but where does the encouragement come from that Christianity doesn't already have and more??

Atheism doesn't teach anything. It's not a belief system. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in god.

Just like Christians, atheists have to decide on their own what moral values to base their life on, and just like Christians they can get them from many different places.

(04-06-2010 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you?

This is actually a tenet that I follow myself, but I think that Christians have unfortunately misinterpreted it.

Loving your neighbor, in spite of the fact that they might wrong you from time to time, is essential if you are going to continue to build relationships with those you deal with regularly. In addition, life teaches us that being kind is better than being mean.

But if some slime ball tries to steal my wallet or kill a family matter, tough ****. I don't go home and lose any sleep over how big the hole in the back of his head is.

Remember, it's the neighbor part. In an increasingly global world, that can also mean people (or countries) where you might forgive a perceived slight from someone you don't know. But you have no moral obligation to love ANYBODY who tries to deny you life and liberty. In fact, that just makes you a da*n fool.

(04-06-2010 06:03 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-06-2010 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you? Does athiesm teach you that even when you are in full compliance with man's laws, that there is a higher calling for you to help the needy?? I'm sure that some athiests are quite giving people... but where does the encouragement come from that Christianity doesn't already have and more??

Atheism doesn't teach anything. It's not a belief system. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in god.

Just like Christians, atheists have to decide on their own what moral values to base their life on, and just like Christians they can get them from many different places.

I know that and you missed the point. Every place that an athiest can get their moral values from, a Christian can as well... and Christians have one more... Barring misplaced faith, which could come from ANY of the sources we're talking about... how would MORE sources ever be WORSE than fewer? I'm not knocking athiests as a whole and claiming Christian superiority here... I'm merely saying that athiesm lacks the additional encouragement to live a moral life that Christianity has. If you don't need that encouragement, fine... but SOME people do.

(04-06-2010 06:09 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(04-06-2010 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you?

This is actually a tenet that I follow myself, but I think that Christians have unfortunately misinterpreted it.

Loving your neighbor, in spite of the fact that they might wrong you from time to time, is essential if you are going to continue to build relationships with those you deal with regularly. In addition, life teaches us that being kind is better than being mean.

But if some slime ball tries to steal my wallet or kill a family matter, tough ****. I don't go home and lose any sleep over how big the hole in the back of his head is.

Remember, it's the neighbor part. In an increasingly global world, that can also mean people (or countries) where you might forgive a perceived slight from someone you don't know. But you have no moral obligation to love ANYBODY who tries to deny you life and liberty. In fact, that just makes you a da*n fool.

you're certainly entitled to that opinion, and most Christians (including me) follow you to some degree... but if you honestly believe that life and liberty here are the "goal", then you aren't really a Christian. Would you be willing to give up your wallet here for eternity in paradise? Would keeping your wallet here be worth an eternity of torment?? Of course, practicality in this world plays a huge part... and we're expected to FOLLOW Jesus, but also expected to fall short. You can only do what you can do, and seek forgiveness and strength when we fail. I fail a lot. Mother Theresa, not so much.

I don't think they/we misinterpret it,.... they merely (at least TRY and) have a different set of priorities.

(04-06-2010 07:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-06-2010 06:03 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-06-2010 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you? Does athiesm teach you that even when you are in full compliance with man's laws, that there is a higher calling for you to help the needy?? I'm sure that some athiests are quite giving people... but where does the encouragement come from that Christianity doesn't already have and more??

Atheism doesn't teach anything. It's not a belief system. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in god.

Just like Christians, atheists have to decide on their own what moral values to base their life on, and just like Christians they can get them from many different places.

I know that and you missed the point. Every place that an athiest can get their moral values from, a Christian can as well... and Christians have one more... Barring misplaced faith, which could come from ANY of the sources we're talking about... how would MORE sources ever be WORSE than fewer? I'm not knocking athiests as a whole and claiming Christian superiority here... I'm merely saying that athiesm lacks the additional encouragement to live a moral life that Christianity has. If you don't need that encouragement, fine... but SOME people do.

(04-06-2010 06:09 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(04-06-2010 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does athiesm teach and reinforce loving your neighbor even when they wrong you?

This is actually a tenet that I follow myself, but I think that Christians have unfortunately misinterpreted it.

Loving your neighbor, in spite of the fact that they might wrong you from time to time, is essential if you are going to continue to build relationships with those you deal with regularly. In addition, life teaches us that being kind is better than being mean.

But if some slime ball tries to steal my wallet or kill a family matter, tough ****. I don't go home and lose any sleep over how big the hole in the back of his head is.

Remember, it's the neighbor part. In an increasingly global world, that can also mean people (or countries) where you might forgive a perceived slight from someone you don't know. But you have no moral obligation to love ANYBODY who tries to deny you life and liberty. In fact, that just makes you a da*n fool.

you're certainly entitled to that opinion, and most Christians (including me) follow you to some degree... but if you honestly believe that life and liberty here are the "goal", then you aren't really a Christian. Would you be willing to give up your wallet here for eternity in paradise? Would keeping your wallet here be worth an eternity of torment?? Of course, practicality in this world plays a huge part... and we're expected to FOLLOW Jesus, but also expected to fall short. You can only do what you can do, and seek forgiveness and strength when we fail. I fail a lot. Mother Theresa, not so much.

I don't think they/we misinterpret it,.... they merely (at least TRY and) have a different set of priorities.

You're right; I'm not a Christian, and I'll keep my wallet, thanks. Just happens to be my personal preference.

AS for whether Mother Teresa actually believed in God, here is a letter she wrote on the subject, which was not intended for public consumption:

Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
— addressed to Jesus, at the suggestion of a confessor, undated

Tell me, Father, why is there so much pain and darkness in my soul?
— to the Rev. Lawrence Picachy, August 1959

"If I ever become a Saint — I will surely be one of 'darkness. I will continually be absent from Heaven — to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth," she wrote in 1962.

These could well have been just moments of doubt, but it sounds to me more like someone dealing with a fair amount of trouble dealing her religious faith.