The United Nations official who was welcomed to speak at Harvard University on the same day she was banned from Israel for anti-Semitism doubled down at the Ivy League event‚ stating that Hamas isn’t motivated by hatred of Jews and that Israel has no right to defend itself. Francesca Albanese‚ the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian territories‚ stood by her position on Hamas’s motivation for its attack during the discussion with Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy on Monday afternoon. Albanese found herself in hot water and officially barred from entering Israel after she contended that French President Emanuel Macron was wrong for labeling the October 7 terrorist attack the “greatest anti-Semitic massacre of our century.” “Saying that the motivation was anti-Semitism is wrong and dangerous‚” Albanese said in the Harvard discussion. “I’m not saying that people in Hamas are absolutely not anti-Semitic. This was not the argument‚ but the argument is that this attack was launched as a way to break the occupation against the apartheid.” Harvard’s decision to host Albanese on Monday came as anti-Israel protests flare back up on campus. Harvard has dealt with severe backlash for its failure to combat anti-Semitism on campus‚ but has continued to invite anti-Israel speakers to speak at university events. Just last week it an event was announced with a Palestinian professor who said the terrorist attack was Israel’s fault. Albanese at the Monday afternoon event accused Israel of falsely claiming anti-Semitism to make it appear that there is an “existential threat” against Jews. “I understand why Israel is using this argument of antisemitism because by saying ‘we were attacked‚ because we are Jews‚’ it’s bringing the existential threat that many Jews fear‚” she added. “The real threat is the apartheid that Israel imposes on the Palestinians‚ which is a threat to both Palestinians and Israeli Jews.” Today‚ Harvard hosted UN official Francesca Albanese‚ who was banned from Israel hours before for justifying Oct 7 as a “response to Israel’s oppression.” At the webinar she doubled down‚ stating Hamas wasn't driven by antisemitism &; Israel didn't have the right to self-defense. pic.twitter.com/kLhYvpNymF — Kassy Dillon (@KassyDillon) February 13‚ 2024 She went on to claim Israel didn’t have the right to respond to Hamas. “Israel had to act under the framework of international humanitarian law in terms of law enforcement‚ because this is the powers that it has as an occupying power‚” she said. “It didn’t have the right to act in self defense‚ meaning waging a war because it couldn’t wage a war against the people it maintains under occupation.” “What Israel had to do was to repel the attack on its own territory‚ arrest and detain and treat humanely the people who had been arrested and ensure justice‚” she continued. “You could have used justice‚ used its own justice system‚ go to International Criminal Court and the‚ the other instead of taking revenge against the entire population.” READ MORE: Harvard Kennedy School To Host Radical Palestinian Professor Who Blamed Israel For Hamas Terrorist Attack Albanese stated during the event that there still hasn’t been an “official investigation” into the October 7 attacks‚ and that she hasn’t seen “evidence” to establish intent. “After four months‚ there is no official reconstruction‚ no official investigation‚ and no independent investigation on what has happened on the 7th of October and I’m not saying that to say‚ ‘oh it was not criminal‚’ of course it was criminal‚ but I do not have evidence to establish the intent.” “Hamas doesn’t have the capacity to really carry out a genocide‚” she added. She also said that while some Hamas terrorists “may have been motivated by hatred‚” that all evidence “at the level of command have not pointed to aggression against the Jews.” At the end of the talk‚ Faculty Director Mathias Risse‚ who led the discussion‚ accused people of distorting Albanese’s statements‚ adding that there is a “massive onslaught of very destructive criticism” against her. “So let me just say‚ also‚ thank you for doing this kind of talk‚” Risse said. “I think this is really the kind of work that the United Nations should be doing.” Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs‚ Israel Katz‚ announced Monday that Albanese is barred from Israel and called for her to be removed from her position with the UN. The time for Jewish silence is past. For the @UN to regain its credibility‚ its leadership @antonioguterres must unequivocally renounce the anti-Semitic statements made by their "Special Envoy" @FranceskAlbs and remove her from her position immediately. Barring her entry to… https://t.co/WrPG1O9AoX — ישראל ×›”×¥ Israel Katz (@Israel_katz) February 12‚ 2024 “The time for Jewish silence is past‚” he tweeted. “Barring her entry to Israel will serve as a stark reminder of the atrocities committed by Hamas‚ including the ruthless targeting of innocents.” The French Foreign Ministry also fired back at Albanese‚ calling her comments “more scandalous since the fight against anti-Semitism and all forms of racism are at the heart of the founding of the UN.” The U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism‚ Deborah Lipstadt praised France for condemning Albanese and her “attempt to dispute or justify the October  7 terrorist massacre‚ the largest antisemitic incident of the 21st century.” “Francesca Albanese has a history of using antisemitic tropes‚” the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council‚ Michèle Taylor‚ tweeted. “Her most recent statements justifying‚ dismissing‚ &; denying the antisemitic undertones of Hamas’ October 7 attack are unacceptable &; antisemitic.” Taylor cited a 2014 example of Albanese accusing America of being “subjugated by the Jewish lobby” and Europe of being subjected “by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust.” Last year‚ a bipartisan group of members of Congress called on the United Nations to remove Albanese for her bias against Israel. “Ms. Albanese has repeatedly refused to condemn terrorist attacks against Israelis while continuing her condemnations of Israel‚” the group wrote. “For an official tasked with serving as an independent‚ neutral‚ and expert voice on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict‚ her inexcusable silence against terrorism targeting Israelis and her outrageous and prejudicial remarks clearly reflect the irredeemable bias of her mandate.” Harvard did not respond to a request for comment.

This year‚ Valentine’s Day and the start of Lent falls on the same day. What does a day filled with heart-shaped boxes of chocolates and bouquets of roses have to do with a period of fasting and prayer in preparation for Easter?

As Christians‚ how do we submit to God’s authority while living subject to less-than-perfect earthly authorities?

Remember that God sees you. When you feel invisible‚ remember that his heart is tender toward you. He walks with you‚ guiding you‚ bringing you comfort and rest.

Tell me if you’ve heard this story before: Marriage‚ followed by childbearing‚ is the path most likely to lead to a happy‚ meaningful life for most of us. Compared to Americans who don’t attend church‚ the religiously observant say they’re happier‚ they’re less lonely‚ and they find more satisfaction and meaning in life. Shared faith matters more to a quality marriage than education‚ income‚ or political ideology. The major increase in divorce can be traced back to the 1970s with the introduction of the soulmate model of marriage. But religious attendance can reduce your risk of divorce by up to 50 percent. Women in particular report greater happiness with family responsibilities compared to freedom to prioritize work and travel over marriage and children. That’s what you hear on TV talk shows‚ watch in popular movies‚ and read in best-selling self-help books. Right? No? Well‚ it’s what the survey data says. You can see it for yourself in the new book Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites‚ Forge Strong Families‚ and Save Civilization by the eminent sociologist Brad Wilcox. You can see from the ambitious subtitle that Wilcox is writing about an epochal shift of the highest magnitude—as he puts it‚ “a shift away from marriage and all the fruits that follow from this most fundamental social institution: children‚ kin‚ financial stability‚ and innumerable opportunities to love and be loved by another.” For the first time in American history‚ less than half of adults are married. The birth rate has never been lower‚ resulting in 7 million fewer babies since the Great Recession. Wilcox has been a professor of sociology and director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia for the past 15 years. And while he doesn’t focus in this book on his personal story‚ he grew up with a single mother after his father died when Brad was 3. He’s now raising a family with his wife. Wilcox makes this bold claim in the book: Nothing less than the future of our civilization depends on more Americans succeeding in this most fundamental social institution. And in a world where trust is falling‚ loneliness is soaring‚ and economic inequality is endemic‚ nothing may matter more for your future and the sake of your children than forming‚ feeding‚ and enjoying your own family-first marriage. Brad Wilcox joined me on Gospelbound to discuss the modern priority on money and free time‚ the two-parent privilege‚ and the role of churches in reinforcing the values and virtues of good families‚ among other subjects.

Over the past decade‚ a new demographic has steadily risen to prominence in the landscape of religious affiliation—the “Nones.” “Nones” is a term used to describe individuals who‚ when surveyed about their religious identity‚ respond with “none‚” indicating no specific alignment with established religious traditions. A recent Pew survey finds that 17 percent of Nones identify as atheist and 20 percent say they’re agnostic. But the majority (63 percent) choose “nothing in particular.” Among Nones‚ 69 percent are younger than 50‚ while 31 percent are 50 or older. (By comparison‚ 45 percent of U.S. adults who identify with a religion are younger than 50‚ while 55 percent are 50 or older.) Nones overall are roughly split between men (51 percent) and women (47 percent). The evidence seems to reveal the overall number of people identifying as Nones has swelled in the past 50 years. Gallup surveys show the number of religiously unaffiliated was close to zero in the 1950s. But today‚ just over one in four Americans (28 percent) identifies as a None. This trend has garnered significant attention‚ both in religious circles and in the broader societal discourse‚ for what it seemingly indicates about the modern world’s spiritual state. The presumption is the rise of the Nones signals an abandonment of faith and increasing irreligiosity. That could be true. But it seems more likely that the Nones have always been with us. The presumption is the rise of the Nones signals an abandonment of faith and increasing irreligiosity. That could be true. But it seems more likely that the Nones have always been with us. Throughout church history‚ there have been “cultural Christians.” In Cultural Christians in the Early Church‚ Nadya Williams defines the term as “individuals who self-identify as Christians but whose outward behavior and‚ to the extent that we can tell‚ inward thoughts and motivations are largely influenced by the surrounding culture rather than by their Christian faith and the teachings of Jesus.” Williams’s book argues that while we think of cultural Christianity as a modern concept‚ it has occurred since the beginning of the church. I’d argue the rise of the religiously unaffiliated is a related phenomenon and that many Americans who identify as Nones today are merely those who would have been cultural Christians a few decades ago. Christianity as a Fashionable Belief We tend to assume people adopt a religious identity because they think the religion’s beliefs are true. We think people become Christians‚ for instance‚ because they believe the statements found in the Nicene Creed. Conversely‚ if they reject the Christian faith‚ it’s because they reject those propositions. This is‚ of course‚ one way people can form their religious identities. The reason Nones give most often for not having a religion is that they question religious teachings: 60 percent say doubt about these teachings is an extremely or very important reason why they’re nonreligious. Yet while atheists and agnostics are the most likely to say their belief is based on questioning religious teachings (83 percent and 78 percent respectively)‚ fewer than half (48 percent) of the “nothing in particulars” say the same. A near majority (47 percent) of the Nones say their dislike of religious organizations is an extremely or very important reason they’re nonreligious. About a third (30 percent) cite bad experiences with religious people. Altogether‚ 55 percent of Nones mention religious organizations or religious people (or both) as key reasons for being nonreligious. This isn’t surprising‚ since belief formation is complex and not solely based on reasoning. Tim Keller once pointed out that human knowledge has three aspects: (1) rational/intellectual‚ (2) experiential/intuitive‚ and (3) social/pragmatic. “We come to ‘know’ something well‚” he said‚ when (1) “there are good reasons for it‚” (2) “it fits with our inward experience‚” and (3) “we find a trustworthy community that holds it too.” Keller believed that “at least some folks—who go from ‘firm‚ active believers’ to ‘complete disbelievers’ through disillusionment with the church—had rested their belief in Jesus’ resurrection almost completely in the #3 social aspect.” Many of our beliefs—especially about social phenomena such as religion and politics—are essentially formed by this social/pragmatic aspect. Often‚ this type of belief is what economist Arnold Kling has dubbed a “fashionable belief”: one that will raise‚ or at least maintain‚ your status among your peers‚ regardless of whether it makes sense. “For example‚” Kling says‚ “I speculate that young‚ affluent teenagers are increasingly declaring themselves LGBTQ+ because it is fashionable to do so.” Many conservative Christians (including me) will nod in agreement. We’ve noticed the surge in negative behaviors—such as bisexuality‚ eating disorders‚ and transgenderism—and we attribute their escalation to their underlying beliefs becoming popular and being spread by their peers. What we often fail to recognize‚ though‚ is that the same process can work for beliefs that we want to become popular and widely adopted—namely‚ Christianity. Because Christian beliefs are true and important‚ we want the orthodox‚ evangelical faith to be a fashionable belief. In America‚ it was a fashionable belief for a long time. From the 16th to the 20th century‚ Christianity maintained its status as one of the most—if not the most—fashionable of fashionable beliefs. Only around the 1960s did it begin to lose dominance as a cultural brand. It would take another 50 years before a significant number of Americans felt comfortable shifting their religious label from “Christian” to “nothing in particular.” In hindsight‚ it’s easy to become nostalgic and assume that in the past‚ Christianity was a fashionable belief because people accepted its teachings as true. But as with any other belief that has become fashionable‚ there was always a large percentage of people who accepted it because it helped raise or maintain their status among their peers. If this thesis is correct and a significant number of Americans adopted Christianity as a fashionable belief‚ then the prominence of the Nones is less likely to be solely about an increase in total irreligiosity and more about an unveiling of what has always existed. Some Americans are merely exchanging one group of previously fashionable beliefs for a new set that’s more in vogue. This situation provides us with both a lamentable challenge and a considerable opportunity. Better Morality Through More Hypocrisy Let’s first consider the challenge. When Christianity was fashionable in America‚ Christian morality held a higher status. This was good for everyone. Some Americans are merely exchanging one group of previously fashionable beliefs for a new set that’s more in vogue. Admittedly‚ plenty of Christian morals—namely‚ racial equality—have been flouted for our entire national history. Yet in earlier eras of American history‚ many Christian moral principles (especially those connected to sexuality) were indeed held in high esteem in broader society and thus served as a moral compass and a check against sinful impulses. The Ten Commandments‚ the prophetic writings‚ the Sermon on the Mount‚ and the Pauline epistles‚ for example‚ provided a clear framework for ethical behavior that was widely acknowledged‚ even by those not fully committed to the faith. This societal reverence for Christian morality played a significant role in curbing certain behaviors and promoting a general sense of right and wrong based on biblical principles. Conversely‚ as the status of Christian morality has declined in the public sphere‚ there has been a corresponding erosion of these external restraints on sinful behavior. We’re seeing the result of the apostle Paul’s warning in Romans 1 about a society given over to a “debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (v. 28). Without the wider societal endorsement of Christian ethics‚ individuals are more likely to explore and act on impulses once held in check. Ironically‚ this system was held in place because many cultural Christians were hypocrites. Hypocrisy is defined as the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which your behavior doesn’t conform. For instance‚ in 1973‚ less than half of Americans (43 percent) supported premarital sex. Yet many of those who opposed sex outside of marriage‚ and did so because of Christian teachings‚ still engaged in illicit sexual behavior. They didn’t let their stated beliefs affect their behavior and thus were‚ by definition‚ hypocrites. But they at least understood or acknowledged that their behavior was considered (by society‚ if not by themselves) to be immoral. Is such hypocrisy preferable to the alternative? Many Christians would say it is. As Ramesh Ponnuru has argued‚ hypocrisy serves an important social function: “If a public standard of moral conduct is to have any force at all‚ inevitably some people who believe in that standard will sometimes fail to meet it. For a society to be both decent and tolerable requires a healthy amount of hypocrisy.” In other words‚ the best option is for people to act in a biblically moral way because they believe that’s what God requires. The second-best option is for people to pretend to believe what God requires‚ even if they have no intention of acting on such beliefs. Whether we should prefer such hypocrisy is debatable. But there does seem to be a significant loss that came with the shift from cultural Christianity to None status. When Christianity was fashionable the on-ramp to true faith didn’t have as many external obstacles as we see today. It also made it easier for genuine Christian to “lead a peaceful and quiet life” (1 Tim. 2:2)‚ without fear of losing their livelihood because of their faith. It’s therefore understandable why so many Christians in America want to return to that system. But Christianity isn’t likely to become fashionable any time soon‚ and an appeal for Nones to return to the hypocrisy of cultural Christianity will fall on deaf ears. We’re not going back to pre-Christianity or nominal Christianity. We’re entering a new‚ more confusing stage where Christian morals guide Nones in condemning Christians for not being moral enough. The challenges we face should not be underestimated. New Goat Detector Fortunately‚ along with the significant challenges comes a possible opportunity. When those who would’ve previously been cultural Christians become Nones‚ they’re more readily identifiable as “goats.” The Scriptures acknowledge that not all who are part of the religious community are true believers (Matt. 7:21–23). Jesus even says that when he returns‚ “before him will be gathered all the nations‚ and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right‚ but the goats on the left” (25:31–33). In the future‚ the goats will be identified by Jesus. But imagine if a “goat detector” had been invented in 1776. We’d be able to identify who was truly a disciple of Jesus and who was a “goat”—someone who identified with Christianity because she considered it fashionable enough to increase her status and maybe even lived a moral life‚ yet was not “born again” (John 3:3). With such a goat detector‚ Christianity may have become unfashionable even sooner—and the decline of morality in the United States might have started decades sooner. But the upside would be that we could have been‚ through every stage of our nation’s history‚ identifying the fashion-attracted goats and separating them from the true-believing sheep. Christians would have been better able to deal with the perpetual problem of not knowing who in their churches still need to put their faith in Jesus. As Bob Johnson points out‚ “Some of our most obvious evangelistic opportunities are with the people who are members of our churches.” Think of the phenomenon of the Nones as a type of self-identifying goat-detecting device. Instead of remaining unregenerate goats among Christian sheep‚ these would be unregenerate unbelievers who self-identify and self-separate in a way that makes them easily recognizable. Once recognized‚ they’re easier to evangelize. (Ask any pastor—or the short-story writer Flannery O’Connor—who is easier to lead to Jesus: an unbeliever who has never heard the gospel or a self-righteous unregenerate cultural Christian.) About 44 percent of Nones (including 73 percent of atheists) say they’re nonreligious because they don’t see a need for religion in their lives or they don’t have time for religion. We see the need in them that they’re blind to. And we’ve got a solution—Jesus—to the problem they don’t recognize they have. None like Jesus This emerging shift in religious identification presents us with a unique opportunity for evangelism. While it may seem daunting‚ the shift from cultural Christianity to a more honest self-identification among the Nones provides a clearer landscape for sharing the gospel. It’s an opportunity for us to engage with those honest about their disbelief or indifference toward religion‚ making them potentially more open to hearing the truth of the gospel without the barriers of cultural pretense. The shift from cultural Christianity to a more honest self-identification among the Nones provides a clearer landscape for sharing the gospel. It’s similar to the situation in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:3–9). The sower spreads seeds on various types of ground‚ representing different responses to the gospel. Some seeds fall on the path; some on rocky ground‚ among thorns; and some on good soil. The Nones‚ in this analogy‚ can be seen as the ground that has been cleared of the thorns of cultural Christianity. They’re not pretending to be something they’re not; their ground is ready to be worked on. Our task as Christians is to sow the seeds of the gospel diligently and prayerfully‚ trusting some will fall on good soil and bear fruit. The rise of the Nones also calls us to introspection and reformation within the church. It prompts us to ask critical questions: Are we presenting a Christ-centered gospel‚ or are we merely promoting a cultural form of Christianity? Are our churches communities where the transformative power of the gospel is evident in our lives‚ or have we succumbed to the pressures of conforming to the patterns of this world? This is an opportunity for the church to recommit to its core mission of making disciples (Matt. 28:19–20) and to ensure our faith isn’t a fashionable accessory but a life-transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. Because of this‚ the rising trend of the Nones should neither dismay us nor make us complacent. It should invigorate our evangelistic efforts and encourage us to live out our faith authentically. We can be faithful in sowing the seeds of the gospel‚ trusting in the Lord’s sovereignty to bring the increase (1 Cor. 3:6)‚ and we can live as true disciples of Jesus‚ showing with our lives the transforming power of his grace and truth. In doing both‚ we can help lead the Nones from identifying as “nothing in particular” to embracing “the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9).

Honarbakhsh was residing in Cancun but originally from California

'The panel is really cutting off Trump from one of the options usually afforded to defendants to appeal'

Hot damn‚ I wish I could've been at this show

The officer clings to the windshield and opens fire multiple times