Eternal life is one of the great promises of some of the world’s major religions. You die, but you don’t really die. Your body may stop functioning, but your “soul” continues. Forever. No end. Eternity.

Sounds wonderfully equal – until you notice one rather obvious problem: eternal life has a beginning.

Your “soul” may supposedly exist forever, but it did not exist forever in the past. It began at some point. Which means that someone born 1,000 years ago has already existed as a “soul” for 1,000 years longer than someone born today.

And this detail completely ruins the idea that everyone gets an equal share of eternity. A person who died in the year 900 has already accumulated a thousand more years of existence than someone who died in 1900. Their eternity started earlier.

So, technically, God did not give everyone the same amount of eternal life. He gave some people a large head start. Apparently, divine equality works like a concert: those who arrived earlier get in first.

And the consequences become even more absurd when we move to Heaven and Hell.

Imagine two equally righteous people. Both live decent lives. Both obey God’s rules. Both avoid sins and pass whatever theological obstacle course their religion demands.

One dies in 1026. The other dies in 2026.

The first person has already spent 1,000 additional years in Paradise. A thousand more years of happiness. A thousand more years of bliss. A thousand more years of praising God and enjoying whatever celestial entertainment Heaven has available.

Then, a millennium later, the second righteous person finally arrives. “Wait,” they might ask, “He has been enjoying Paradise for a thousand years longer than me?” “Should have been born earlier,” God shrugs. Apparently, salvation operates on a first-come, first-served basis.

But Hell is where this divine accounting system becomes truly disturbing.

Imagine two sinners who commit exactly the same sins and supposedly deserve exactly the same punishment. One dies 1,000 years ago. The other dies today. The first sinner has already been tortured for a thousand years longer.

Same crimes. Same judgment. Wildly different amount of suffering. Apparently, Hell has an Early Bird Special: die early – receive 1,000 complimentary years of torture. And believers call this perfect justice.

Of course, defenders of religion may respond that, since Heaven and Hell are eternal, an extra thousand years does not matter compared with infinity.

But a thousand years of happiness is still a thousand years of happiness. And a thousand years of torture is still a thousand years of torture. Infinity does not magically erase the difference between starting today and starting a millennium ago - or a millennium later.

If eternal life is supposed to be a perfect divine system, its starting point is remarkably arbitrary. You do not choose when you are born. Yet the date of your birth determines how long you have already existed in afterlife – and, apparently, how long you have already been enjoying Paradise or suffering in Hell.

For a system designed by an all-knowing and perfectly just God, it looks suspiciously like the universe’s most poorly designed subscription service.

Unlimited duration. Unequal starting dates. No refunds.

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

👉 Add your social profile to The Atheist Manifesto

Subscribe now

Religion has always been very good at answering life’s biggest questions: Why are we here? What happens after death? And would you like to convert before someone punches you?

According to concerns raised by government advisers and prison-extremism reviewers, some prisons in England and Wales have developed a particularly aggressive version of missionary work. Islamist gangs are reportedly pressuring vulnerable prisoners to convert, offering friendship, food, belonging and protection – with the occasional implicit or actual violence helping to make the theological argument more persuasive.

Forget knocking politely on doors. Apparently, some prison missionaries have upgraded the traditional conversion process to something closer to: “Peace be upon you. Nice face. Shame if something happened to it.”

The statistics have raised eyebrows. One in five Muslim prisoners is reportedly white, a proportion significantly higher than in the general population. Government reviews have repeatedly raised concerns about coercion and intimidation.

Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, found evidence of Islamist prisoners acting as “self-styled emirs”, exercising leadership and recruitment among other inmates. Former government adviser Ian Acheson put it rather more diplomatically, saying some prisoners converted as a “pragmatic response” to who controls power and space in prison. He concluded that, in this context, Islam could have “gang characteristics.”

Colin Bloom’s government review was blunter: prisoners who refused to identify as Muslim could, at best, be denied “protection” from the dominant gang on a prison wing – and, at worst, face violence and intimidation.

Britain’s prison system has known about this problem for years. A government review of Islamist extremism identified Muslim gang culture, aggressive encouragement of conversions, intimidation, radicalisation and extremists acting as self-appointed religious leaders as specific threats behind bars.

Meanwhile, the prison chaplaincy numbers are almost comical. England and Wales now have 140 Muslim chaplains, compared with 87 Church of England chaplains, alongside 94 Catholic,64 Free Church, and 23 other Christian chaplains.

Perhaps the authorities have mistaken the problem for a shortage of religious customer service.

Let’s be honest: if a prisoner joins a religion because a gang controls the wing, offers “protection,” and makes the alternative dangerous, that is not a “spiritual awakening”. It is a protection racket with a theology department.

British prisons do not need more mystical explanations for this mess. They need competent security, protection for vulnerable inmates, and the courage to confront religious extremism without panicking about who might call them racist.

Because when violent gangs can turn prison wings into recruitment centres, the problem is that British prisons have apparently forgotten who is supposed to be in charge.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

👉 The Atheist Manifesto

Subscribe now

The state supreme court has ruled that clergy who learn about child abuse through “confidential” religious conversations may keep the information secret. Because apparently some secrets are holier than children.

Arizona has demonstrated the remarkable flexibility of American law when religion enters the courtroom. Ordinary citizens may be required to report suspected child abuse, but if you happen to hear about it while calling the conversation a “confession,” apparently the rules can change.

The Arizona supreme court has ruled that Mormon clergy who learn about child abuse through confession or other confidential religious communications are not required to report it.

The case involved three children who were abused for years by their Mormon parents, Paul and Leizza Adams (pictured). According to court filings, their father admitted his crimes to a bishop in 2011. The abuse was later discussed during a church disciplinary process led by another bishop. One of the bishops reportedly contacted an internal church helpline and was advised not to contact police or child welfare authorities.

The abuse continued until 2017, when investigators in New Zealand discovered online a video Paul Adams had recorded of the abuse. The footage triggered an international investigation involving Interpol and U.S. authorities, who eventually traced it back to Adams in Arizona, arrested him, and removed his six children from the home.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (because apparently “Mormons” is no longer the preferred name) welcomed the ruling, while emphasizing that child abuse is “reprehensible,” that it cares deeply about victims, and that it devotes substantial resources to preventing abuse.

The court’s reasoning rested partly on the First Amendment and the principle that secular courts should not decide questions of religious doctrine. Barbarian enough.

But there is an obvious problem here: protecting religious doctrine is not the same thing as protecting religious institutions from the consequences of remaining silent about crimes against children.

Apparently, a confession can transform information about an ongoing crime from something that demands intervention into something wrapped in sacred bubble wrap. And Arizona’s highest court has now confirmed that the wrap may be constitutionally protected.

So, what exactly is the purpose of mandatory reporting laws if the people who learn about abuse can escape them by placing the information inside a religious ritual?

Children do not become less abused because the person hearing about it calls himself clergy. A crime does not become less urgent because someone whispered it to a bishop instead of shouting it to a police officer.

Religion has spent centuries insisting that its moral authority deserves special respect. Perhaps it is time to ask whether that authority should come with a very basic obligation: when children are in danger, pick up the damn phone.

Because if God’s confidentiality policy is more important than protecting abused children, perhaps the policy – not the children – is what deserves confession.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

👉 The Atheist Manifesto

Subscribe now

Serial killers claiming divine instructions are a bit like bad Wi-Fi: unreliable, invisible, and somehow always causing problems.

Take Jason Thornburg, for example. In 2021, the Texas killer murdered three people, later claiming that the killings were religious sacrifices to God. His spiritual journey apparently involved burning bodies, dismemberment, and storing human remains in containers at a motel.

Thornburg’s argument was essentially the oldest excuse in human history: God told me to do it.

Unfortunately for him, the Texas justice system did not accept a divine command as a legally binding contract. Apparently, before committing murder, it is still advisable to ask whether your imaginary supervisor has the authority to override the criminal code.

This brings us to the wonderfully named deific decree problem: what happens when someone genuinely believes that God personally ordered a killing?

A deific decree is a legal concept within the insanity defense where a criminal defendant claims they committed a crime because they believed they were acting directly under God’s command. It occurs when a perpetrator experiences a severe psychotic delusion that a divine order overrules human law, impairing their capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

One of the most notorious early cases involved Hans Schmidt, a Catholic priest who murdered and dismembered Anna Aumüller in New York in 1913. Schmidt claimed that religious visions and divine commands were involved. His case became part of the legal debate over whether a person who genuinely believes God ordered murder can be legally insane.

Then there was Jeffrey Dahmer (Milwaukee, WI, USA, pictured), who murdered 17 people and reportedly fantasized about constructing a skull altar that would give him special powers, influence, and financial success. Because apparently getting ahead in life is difficult when you’re not willing to build a shrine out of human skulls.

The altar, unsurprisingly, never launched Dahmer’s career. No supernatural powers arrived. No divine wealth package was delivered. Not even a coupon.

Then we have Ángel Reséndiz (San Luis Potosí, Mexico), the so-called “Railway Killer,” whose bizarre beliefs included supernatural and religious ideas about his own powers and protection. He apparently had more confidence in divine security than most people have in a password manager. However, God’s protection plan did not include avoiding arrest.

And finally, Adolfo Constanzo and Sara Aldrete (Matamoros, Mexico), whose cult became notorious for ritualistic violence and human sacrifice. Their spiritual business model seems to have been simple: kill people, perform rituals, and hope supernatural forces will provide protection. Spoiler: the police did not respect the terms and conditions.

Perhaps religion needs better quality control.

Because if your communication system produces prophets, priests, sacrifices, skull altars, and serial killers – all claiming access to the same celestial headquarters – maybe the problem isn’t that God works in mysterious ways.

Maybe the line was never connected in the first place.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

Remember our recent article, “No Gas for Russia: Saint’s Relics Destroyed”? The one about Russia’s brilliant solution to its growing fuel problems: transporting the relics of Alexander Nevsky around occupied Ukraine’s territories so priests could pray for more gasoline for Russia?

Well, apparently the franchise has been renewed.

After the Nevsky’s relics reportedly disappeared during an attack on the convoy transporting them through occupied Donetsk Oblast, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin have unveiled a new strategic asset: Dmitry Donskoy.

Or, more precisely, what remains of him.

According to Russian reports, workers “discovered” the relics of the medieval prince Dmitry Donskoy in Moscow’s Archangel Cathedral after dismantling part of his tomb during renovation work. The Russian Orthodox Church then suggested sending some of his remains to the “Special Military Operation” zone so Russian Orthodox soldiers could venerate them.

Because apparently drones, missiles, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers are not enough. What Russia really needed was a 637-year-old skeleton.

And Putin approves.

The Russian dictator attended a prayer service, crossed himself, held a candle, inspected the opened tomb, and reportedly expressed support for the Church’s plans concerning Donskoy’s remains. The Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate are now, apparently, working together on a new military doctrine: when conventional warfare fails, deploy more bones.

It is difficult to say exactly how the relics are expected to help Russian forces. Perhaps they will be placed next to a command post. Maybe the Russian military will finally establish a new branch of service: the Strategic Relic Forces.

Nevsky was apparently assigned to solve the fuel crisis. That mission did not go particularly well. Now Donskoy has been drafted to defeat the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

One can only imagine the meeting at the Kremlin.
- Comrade President, Ukrainian drones are destroying our equipment.
- Send more relics.
- The fuel shortage is getting worse.
- More relics.
- The previous relics were destroyed.
- Then find another dead prince.

And somewhere, presumably, a Russian Orthodox Church official is already studying the national calendar of saints like a military procurement catalogue.

The Russian Orthodox Church has enthusiastically supported Putin’s regime and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It has blessed soldiers, weapons, military campaigns, and the political leadership responsible for sending those soldiers into war. Now it seems increasingly involved in providing supernatural logistical support as well.

Reality, however, continues to show a troubling lack of respect for holy objects.

Still, the Kremlin remains optimistic. After all, if Dmitry Donskoy fails, Russia still has an entire history full of dead people.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

At Atheist News Network, we are trying to reach as many people as possible and deliver the good word of blasphemy to every corner of the internet.

That means experimenting. Trying new platforms., testing new audiences, seeing where our content works – and, just as importantly, where it doesn’t.

After a few months of trying, we’ve come to a simple conclusion: Patreon isn’t working for us. So, rather than pretending otherwise and maintaining yet another social media outpost that isn’t helping us grow, we’re stopping publication there.

No hard feelings, Patreon. It’s not you. Well... maybe it is a little bit you.

But every ending creates an opportunity for a new beginning. We’re happy to announce that ANN is now launching on Medium!

The internet is enormous, and there are millions of people out there who may enjoy atheist news, secular commentary, religious absurdity, skeptical analysis, and the occasional healthy dose of blasphemy – but who have never heard of ANN.

So we’re going to look for them.

If you’re already following ANN, why not join us on our new platform? Follow us, read our articles, clap for the ones you like, and – most importantly – tell your friends about our arrival on Medium. Every new platform gives us another chance to find new readers and spread the word.

And while we’re expanding, our biggest project continues moving forward.

Our news portal crowdfunding campaign has now reached $600 out of our $1,000 goal. That’s 60% funded. Only $400 to go! Can we do it? Now we just need one final push!

The gods aren’t helping us, becasue they don’t exist. So we’ll have to build it ourselves.

So: follow us, share our work., tell your godless friends. And support the campaign if you can.

Subscribe now

Air travel has its inconveniences. Delays. Turbulence. Lost luggage. The person in front of you reclining their seat as if they are personally responsible for destroying the concept of legroom.

And then there are passengers who apparently arrive with their own legal system.

On June 1, a 29-year-old Turkish immigrant living in Germany was traveling from Turkey to Düsseldorf when he apparently decided that sitting next to a woman was incompatible with Islam. According to German police, the passenger invoked Sharia law and refused to take the assigned seat.

When a female flight attendant intervened, the passenger slapped her.

The incident took an even more entertaining turn after the plane landed at Düsseldorf Airport. Federal police boarded the aircraft and took the man into custody. According to the reports, he confessed to the assault.

Then, apparently feeling that one criminal allegation wasn’t quite enough, he began insulting the officers in Turkish. There was just one small problem, however: one of the officers spoke Turkish, too.

This is the sort of plot twist usually reserved for comedy. “Don’t worry, officer. You can’t understand me.” “I can.” “Oh.”

The passenger was consequently facing not only an assault allegation but also a charge relating to insulting the officers. The criminal complaint was subsequently forwarded to Düsseldorf Police for further investigation.

There is something almost beautifully ironic about the whole episode. A man allegedly demanded that everyone respect his religious rules, then discovered that the people enforcing the actual laws of the country were considerably less interested in respecting his interpretation of them.

But here’s is question: the man lives in Germany – not exactly a Sharia state, at least not yet. So what gave him the impression that his personal interpretation of Islamic law should govern everyone else on the plane? One might reasonably expect living in a secular, pluralistic Western country to teach a person that other people are allowed to have different beliefs, customs, and, occasionally, the misfortune of being assigned the seat next to them. Apparently, the lesson didn’t stick.

Perhaps the West has simply been too tolerant. We spend so much time telling people that every belief deserves respect that some believers eventually hear something rather different: “Your beliefs are so important that everyone else must obey them.” At that point, tolerance stops being tolerance and starts looking suspiciously like customer service for religious entitlement.

And that creates a rather awkward situation. The secular society provides the safety, freedom, and legal protections; the religious fundamentalist arrives with his own rulebook and expects the secular society to follow it. At this rate, one can only wonder when German immigration officers will start stamping passports: “Welcome to Germany. Please note that Sharia may apply to everyone in your immediate vicinity.”

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

Look at this medieval Annunciation, now housed in the Východoslovenské múzeum in Košice, Slovakia. The Virgin Mary is sitting peacefully, minding her own business, when the Holy Spirit arrives in the form of a dove.

But how come the Virgin Mary’s ear looks more like a vagina?

No, this isn’t a modern atheist meme. It is a genuine piece of Christian religious art illustrating a genuine medieval theological idea: conceptio per aurem – literally, conception through the ear.

And once you know what the artist was trying to depict, the picture becomes considerably harder to unsee.

The basic Christian explanation was that Mary conceived Jesus when she heard the Word of God delivered by the angel Gabriel. Jesus was the Logos, the divine Word, so medieval theologians apparently decided that the Word should have a route into Mary’s body.

The ear was available – problem solved.

According to this line of thinking, God spoke, Mary listened, and somehow – theology! – Jesus appeared in her womb. No ordinary biological mechanism was involved. This was supernatural conception, achieved through the power of divine speech.

However, the scene looks like the Holy Spirit is going to sexually assault Mary through her ear.

There. We said it.

Look at the picture. Mary’s ear is enormous, strangely positioned and shaped in a way that can look remarkably more like a vulva than an ear.

Which is unfortunate. Because the theological message is supposed to be: Mary received the Word through hearing. The visual message is rather closer to: here is the exact location where the miracle happened.

Christianity, apparently, had discovered a way to make the Virgin Birth both completely non-sexual and somehow extremely sexual-looking.

The concept’s roots go back to early Christianity, when Christian writers connected Mary’s hearing with the conception of Jesus. The idea was later expressed more explicitly as the claim that God spoke through the angel and the Virgin conceived through her ear.

The symbolism was also nicely symmetrical. Eve listened to the serpent and humanity got sin. Mary listened to Gabriel and humanity got salvation.

So, in Christian theology, one woman listened to the wrong voice and doomed the human race; another listened to the right voice and became pregnant through her ear.

The idea became particularly visible in medieval Europe, and the Košice image isn’t the only example. Other medieval artworks depict divine rays, beams or the Holy Spirit approaching Mary’s ear during the Annunciation.

Eventually, the ear apparently lost its theological maternity privileges. Later Christian artists generally returned to more conventional Annunciation imagery: Gabriel speaks, Mary listens, the Holy Spirit hovers nearby, and nobody has to explain why God’s delivery system resembles an anatomical nightmare.

Conceptio per aurem is a wonderful reminder that religious ideas can become extremely complicated when mythology, wordplay and theology attempt to explain something that biology already explains rather well.

Sometimes the answer is simply reproduction.

But Christianity had a better idea: try the ear.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website

The Russian Orthodox Church has found a remarkably creative way to combine Christianity, Russian Nazism, and modern warfare: simply declare that God is on Russia’s side and let the theology take care of the rest.

Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently described the Soviet creation of the atomic bomb as a manifestation of God’s “grace and mercy.” Speaking at the Holy Trinity–St. Seraphim-Diveyevo Convent, he called nuclear weapons a “shield for the Motherland” and linked the Soviet atomic project to the prayers of the Russian saint Seraphim of Sarov.

This raises an interesting theological question: if God personally blessed the Soviet atomic bomb, what was He doing while the United States was building its own bomb first? Apparently, divine grace was stuck in customs.

But Kirill’s nuclear theology is only one part of a much larger transformation. According to Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, the Russian Orthodox Church has officially approved at least 12 war-related prayers. Among them is a mandatory prayer which includes a plea for Russia’s victory. Clergy who refuse to recite it may reportedly face punishment, including defrocking.

Some approved prayers are for soldiers and their mothers. On the front lines, unofficial prayers reportedly go even further, including one invoking “Archistrategos Vladimir,” in which Vladimir Putin is compared to the Archangel Michael.

Kirill has been an outspoken supporter of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He has claimed that dying in the war can “wash away” sins, effectively offering soldiers a theological loyalty program: fight, die, and receive eternal forgiveness. The church has also been accused of participating in the indoctrination of Ukrainian children in Russian-occupied territories.

At this point, the separation between church and military propaganda becomes rather difficult to locate. Perhaps it is somewhere underneath the camouflage.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

Have you ever wondered how much pollution it takes to please the supernatural?

According to India’s Madras High Court, authorities cleaning the Tamirabarani River between May 7 and May 28 removed an astonishing 86–90 tonnes of discarded clothing, 2.2 tonnes of sacred ash, 1,385 kilograms of plastic, 374 kilograms of sanitary waste, along with large amounts of glass, footwear, and other ritual leftovers.

Apparently, the fastest way to turn a river into a landfill is to call it “sacred”.

Every year, thousands of devotees gather to perform ceremonies for their deceased ancestors. The result is measurable in metric tonnes.

Environmental activist Thiru Moorthy told the court that roughly one tonne of ritual waste is dumped into the river every single day. Even more impressively, whenever temple authorities block one dumping site, devotees simply relocate to another stretch of the river. It’s almost like pollution is part of the pilgrimage.

The High Court, demonstrating a remarkable commitment to stating the obvious, declared: “No one has the right to pollute a water body even in the name of religion.”

One would assume this principle required no judicial clarification. Yet here we are, watching judges explain that contaminating the drinking water of tens of millions of people is perhaps not the highest form of “spiritual enlightenment”.

The environmental consequences are hardly mystical.

Cotton clothing eventually decomposes. Synthetic fabrics don’t. Instead, they lodge themselves in the riverbed, creating breeding grounds for bacteria such as E. coli. Discarded clothing also traps wildlife. According to the court, Indian black turtles and Indian flapshell turtles become entangled in ritual garments and die from suffocation.

Apparently, the turtles neglected to appreciate the sacred significance of the fabric killing them.

Broken glass from religious photo frames adds another thoughtful touch, posing risks both to aquatic life and to the workers cleaning up after everyone else’s piety.

The court reminded everyone that while India’s Constitution protects religious freedom, that protection ends where public health begins. In other words, your beliefs are your own. Your garbage is everyone’s problem.

The judges are now considering a practical solution: a dedicated ceremonial tank near the river where devotees can perform the same rituals without dumping tonnes of waste into the Tamirabarani.

It sounds reasonable. Unless, of course, the supernatural objects.

Perhaps the gods insist that discarded clothes must drift downstream, plastic must mingle with the fish, and turtles must suffocate in sacred laundry before a prayer can be processed. Maybe divine beings have an inexplicable preference for polluted rivers over purpose-built ritual tanks.

If that’s true, humanity has a much bigger theological problem than anyone realized.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

The Portuguese Parliament has approved legislation prohibiting full-face coverings such as burqas and niqabs in most public spaces, while allowing exceptions for places of worship, aircraft, and diplomatic premises.

The law also imposes prison sentences for anyone who forces another person to wear a face covering. Those details matter. The legislation is about coercion, public security, and the principle that no one should be compelled to hide their identity.

Amnesty International disagrees. According to the organization, the law violates “women’s freedom of religion”, freedom of expression, and the rights of women who choose to wear full-face veils.

That argument deserves scrutiny.

The central question is whether every apparent “choice” should automatically be treated as an entirely free and independent one. Human beings are shaped by families, communities, schools, traditions, and religious authorities. Social pressure exists everywhere. The fact that someone sincerely believes they are choosing something does not necessarily mean the choice developed in an environment free of coercion.

This is especially relevant when discussing practices that are reinforced through intense cultural expectations, legal penalties, or even violence. It is difficult to separate individual preference from lifelong social conditioning.

The irony is that Portugal’s law explicitly criminalizes forcing someone to wear a face covering. If protecting women’s autonomy is the objective, punishing coercion seems like an obvious place to start.

Amnesty argues that banning face veils may isolate some women further. That concern should not be dismissed lightly. However, it should also be weighed against legitimate interests in public identification, security, and promoting equal participation in civic life. Liberal democracies routinely place limits on individual expression when competing public interests are at stake.

Amnesty International presents itself as a universal defender of human rights. Yet in Portugal’s case, the organization seems far more concerned with defending a controversial religious practice than with acknowledging the social pressures that can sustain it – or with the rights of millions of Portuguese who reasonably expect to see the faces of the people they encounter in public, rather than garments designed to conceal them.

This is hardly the first time Amnesty has been accused of applying human-rights principles selectively. There’s a history of inconsistencies in its advocacy. For example, while the organization has strongly opposed female genital mutilation, it has not campaigned with the same intensity against the non-therapeutic circumcision of boys – despite both practices raising questions about bodily autonomy and consent.

The ban is not in force yet. The bill has been approved by Parliament but still awaits the President’s signature – or a constitutional review. We hope common sense prevails and the law takes effect. Good luck, Portugal. Europe needs more courage like this. F*ck off, Amnety.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

On January 14, 2007, Tyquan Johnson (pictured) was born at Memorial Hospital in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The newborn had suffered severe oxygen deprivation before birth and, according to the Diocese of Providence, showed no detectable heartbeat for approximately 65 minutes.

Doctors believed there was nothing more they could do.

One of the attending physicians, Dr. Juan Sanchez-Esteban, reportedly prayed for the intercession of Salvador Valera Parra, a 19th-century Spanish Catholic priest whose canonization cause was under consideration by the Vatican. Shortly afterward, Tyquan’s heart began beating again. Even more remarkably, the child reportedly grew up without the severe neurological damage doctors had expected after such prolonged oxygen deprivation.

For Catholics, it was a miracle.

After more than a decade of investigation, the Vatican concluded that no natural explanation adequately accounted for the event. In 2025, Pope Leo XIV officially recognized Tyquan Johnson’s recovery as a miracle attributed to the intercession of Salvador Valera Parra – the first miracle approved during Leo’s pontificate and an important step toward Parra’s sainthood.

Then came July 2026. At 19 years old, Tyquan Johnson was arrested in Rhode Island in connection with a shooting and charged with firearm-related offenses.

The story raises a question that believers rarely seem eager to answer: what exactly was God’s plan?

Did God suspend the ordinary laws of biology to save one particular infant because He foresaw a brilliant scientist? A humanitarian? A future peace negotiator?

Or was Heaven’s master plan simply: “Keep this one alive. He’ll be back in the headlines in nineteen years.”

Extraordinary medical events happen, and many remain difficult to explain. But “we don’t fully understand what happened” is a very different claim from “God intervened for a special purpose.”

An omnipotent being deliberately chose this particular child for supernatural intervention. That claim carries baggage.

Because once you argue that God personally rewrote the laws of nature to preserve one specific life, people are inevitably going to ask why He chose that life – and what, exactly, the grand divine objective was supposed to be.

If this was God’s plan, it turned out to be a remarkably odd one.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Subscribe now

Dear Godless Friends,

When we launched our 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign, we made a simple promise: every symbolic coffee would help fund our future independent website, and we’d publish 100 articles as a thank-you to everyone who supported the project.

Today, we’re happy to say: we’ve published all 100 articles.

First and foremost, thank you to everyone who bought us a coffee, subscribed, shared our work, or simply kept reading. Your support has allowed Atheist News Network to grow, and we’re genuinely grateful for every contribution.

While we’ve completed the 100-article campaign, we haven’t yet reached our fundraising goal. So far, we’ve raised 61% of the $1,000 needed to launch our independent atheist news website.

Our goal remains the same: to create a permanent home for Atheist News Network – a place we control, independent of platform policies and censorship.

The end of this campaign doesn’t mean the end of our publishing. We’ll keep creating godless content – and we hope you’ll keep supporting us.

👉 Follow Atheist News Network across our platforms ( Substack • Patreon • Bluesky • YouTube • Spotify ) and buy us a coffee to support this project.

Thank you for staying with us!

Subscribe now

“Freedom of religion” is widely celebrated as one of the great achievements of modern civilization. It evokes the image of thoughtful individuals exploring different philosophies, weighing the evidence, and freely choosing the worldview that best matches their prejudices and lack of critical thinking.

But that’s not how religion usually works.

For the overwhelming majority of believers, freedom of religion isn’t really about choosing a religion. It’s about being free to practice the religion you were born into. Religious affiliation is normally inherited, not discovered.

But beyond the individual right to believe and practice a religion, there is another, less discussed dimension: freedom of religion also protects the equal abilities of religious organizations to run their dirty business.

Viewed from that angle, freedom of religion begins to resemble anti-monopoly legislation.

Instead of allowing one religion to dominate the entire market for invisible beings, eternal rewards, and supernatural punishments, the government permits multiple competitors to operate side by side without being outlawed by a state-backed rival.

But there’s also another way to look at it.

Religious business is fundamentally dishonest: it promisses invisible worlds, unverifiable miracles, eternal rewards, and cosmic punishments that no customer can independently confirm. This business model relies on deception and threats.

Therefore, religious institutions resemble organized crime more than they resemble ordinary businesses.

Imagine several mafia families competing for control over the same pool of victims. Instead of fighting endless gang wars, they agree to coexist peacefully. Each family keeps recruiting, collecting money, and expanding its influence – but without trying to eliminate the others through violence.

That’s remarkably similar to modern freedom of religion.

Every religious organization gets to run its own operation. The important thing is simply that none of them starts another Thirty Years’ War over market share.

Seen this way, freedom of religion amounts to a government-enforced peace treaty between competing religious mafias.

Of course, that is still preferable to a monopoly. We know what happens when a single religion captures the state.

But perhaps the ideal shouldn’t be choosing between competing spiritual cartels.

What we really need is freedom from religion – a secular state that protects individuals from religious influence instead of merely regulating the competition between religious syndicates.

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Article 100 of 100
This piece is part of the 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign. Buy us a coffee to sponsor the next one. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Pakistan has ambitious plans to embrace cryptocurrency. Officials hope digital assets will attract investment, modernize finance, and help the country’s economy. Unfortunately, before the future can arrive, it apparently has to stop by a religious seminary for approval.

A group of Islamic “scholars” recently issued a fatwa declaring that cryptocurrency is haram – forbidden under Islamic law. Their argument is that Bitcoin and similar digital currencies do not qualify as legitimate wealth and therefore cannot be used as valid payment.

For anyone unfamiliar with the term, a fatwa is a religious opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar.

In theory, a fatwa is simply a religious opinion about what Islam permits or forbids. They debate everyday questions that many outsiders would find amusing: whether certain foods are acceptable, whether a particular hairstyle is appropriate.

In practice, however, fatwas often carry enormous social influence. Millions of believers treat them as authoritative guidance, and politicians frequently hesitate to ignore them.

The most famous example is the fatwa against novelist Salman Rushdie after the publication of The Satanic Verses in 1989. Iran’s Supreme Leader called for Rushdie’s death, forcing the author into years of hiding under police protection. Decades later, the fatwa’s shadow had not disappeared. In 2022, Rushdie was brutally stabbed during a public event and barely survived. When religious decrees can inspire violence decades after they are issued, they stop looking like harmless theological opinions.

Against that background, a fatwa about cryptocurrency sounds almost refreshing. Instead of calling for someone’s execution, this one merely declares that your investment portfolio is sinful.

There is a certain irony in declaring invisible digital currencies unacceptable because they supposedly lack sufficient reality, while making that judgment on behalf of an invisible supernatural authority whose existence has never been demonstrated.

The ruling has created a practical problem. Financial experts warn that it could slow Pakistan’s plans to develop a modern cryptocurrency industry by making banks and investors reluctant to get involved.

Ironically, the country’s financial regulator isn’t rejecting crypto – it is asking religious “scholars” to be more nuanced. Officials want them to distinguish between highly speculative coins and digital tokens backed by real assets such as gold, government bonds, or stable reserves. In other words, instead of letting economists and technology specialists settle the question, everyone is waiting for theologians to decide which blockchain entries God considers acceptable.

Apparently, even Bitcoin cannot escape divine bureaucracy.

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Article 99 of 100
This piece is part of the 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign. Buy us a coffee to sponsor the next one. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

Russia has reportedly suffered a devastating military, spiritual, and logistical loss all at once. According to Russian sources, part of the relics of Saint Alexander Nevsky was destroyed during a drone strike while being transported through Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory.

The relics were on a mission: they were being delivered to a prayer service intended to solve Russia’s growing fuel crisis. More specifically, the relic had been used throughout the summer for prayer services to overcome the fuel shortage, including prayers for restoring fuel supplies to occupied Crimea.

In other words, while Ukraine was attacking refineries, fuel depots, and petroleum convoys with drones, Russia’s counter-strategy apparently involved... a medieval saint.

It’s certainly a creative approach to logistics.

Ukraine’s strikes have inflicted serious damage on Russia’s oil infrastructure, disrupting refinery operations and fuel transportation. The resulting shortages have affected both Russia itself and the Ukrainian territories it occupies.

The miracle convoy’s tour was cut short. The truck carrying the relics reportedly came under a drone attack in the occupied Donetsk region. Three Russian officers were killed, and the relics were completely destroyed.

The choice of saint is fitting, too. Alexander Nevsky is celebrated in Russian mythology as the great defender who stopped dangerous Western invaders while happily accepting the dominance of the Golden Horde, helping keep the medieval country safely within its traditional Mongol sphere of influence. Today he has become one of the Kremlin’s favorite patriotic symbols.

The Russian Orthodox Church has enthusiastically blessed the invasion, blessed soldiers, blessed weapons, and now apparently blessed fuel distribution. Yet the laws of physics continue displaying a disappointing lack of respect for liturgical ceremonies.

So, the refineries are still burning. The fuel convoys are still vulnerable.

And now, there are no more miracle bones available to fix either. Presumably, the next shipment of saintly remains is already being prepared.

Well played, Ukraine.

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Article 98 of 100
This piece is part of the 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign. Buy us a coffee to sponsor the next one. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

The ultra-Orthodox city of Bnei Brak, Israel, is moving ahead with plans to introduce gender-segregated sidewalks on two of its busiest streets after local rabbis concluded that one of the greatest threats to public morality is the possibility of a man and a woman passing each other while buying groceries.

According to local media, the city plans to install barriers and signs along Shlomo Hamelech and Ezra streets, directing men and women onto separate sidewalks so they won’t have to endure the traumatic experience of sharing public space.

This isn’t a spontaneous burst of medieval enthusiasm. Municipal officials say the project has been in development for several years and is expected to expand to other busy streets if all goes according to God’s urban-planning department.

Residents of all ages will have to follow the new rules. Because when religion decides to redesign reality, everyone – from toddlers to grandparents – gets to participate.

The municipality made it clear that there isn’t much room for discussion. The rabbis’ instructions, officials explained, are “very clear and speak for themselves.” Since the city’s residents are committed to obeying the great Torah leaders, they are expected to comply.

The controversy has legal history. In 2017, Israel’s Supreme Court ordered another Israeli municipality, Beit Shemesh, to remove similar “modesty” signs instructing men and women to walk on opposite sides of streets in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood. Apparently, the Court believed sidewalks should function as sidewalks rather than religious obstacle courses.

Unlike Beit Shemesh – which includes ultra-Orthodox, modern Orthodox, and secular communities that have frequently clashed over gender segregation and restrictions on women – Bnei Brak’s roughly 231,000 residents are overwhelmingly ultra-Orthodox, making the city a much friendlier laboratory for experiments in faith-based pedestrian management.

After all, why stop at separate prayer sections when you can upgrade to separate sidewalks? Apparently, simply sharing public space has become too spiritually dangerous.

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Article 97 of 100
This piece is part of the 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign. Buy us a coffee to sponsor the next one. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

One of the great “advantages” of religion is that it always seems to have an answer.

Where did the universe come from? God. Who decides right and wrong? God. Why does evil exist? Mysterious ways.

But every so often reality asks a new question, and suddenly the all-knowing institution discovers that... it hasn’t updated the manual.

Welcome to Christianity’s extraterrestrial dilemma.

Washington’s Archbishop, Cardinal Robert McElroy, removed Monsignor Stephen Rossetti from his role as an official exorcist after Rossetti publicly argued that many UFO sightings are probably not visitors from another star system – but demons.

Rossetti isn’t just any priest. He’s a psychologist, an experienced exorcist, and director of the St. Michael Center for Spiritual Renewal, where people seek healing and deliverance from demonic forces. So when he talks about demons, he’s speaking as one of the Church’s designated specialists.

Rossetti isn’t alone in seeing Hell in the heavens. U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, recently said he also believes UFOs are demons, not aliens.

Cardinal McElroy was unimpressed. He announced that Rossetti’s public statements “gravely undermine the Church’s very precise teaching on the devil, demons and exorcism” and removed him from his official position.

Which naturally raises a question: where, exactly, does Catholic doctrine explain the relationship between demons and extraterrestrials? Which official Church teaching had Rossetti violated?

Surprisingly, nobody could point to one. Because there isn’t one.

Christopher Baglow, who leads the Science and Religion Initiative at the University of Notre Dame, pointed out the obvious: the Catholic Church has no formal teaching whatsoever on extraterrestrial life.

There is no official doctrine explaining whether aliens exist, whether they have “souls”, whether Christ died for them too, whether they need baptism, or whether they’re welcome at Sunday Mass.

The Vatican has spent two thousand years developing intricate theological systems explaining angels, demons, purgatory, original sin, transubstantiation, indulgences, relics, and exactly how one God can simultaneously be three persons.

Aliens? “We’ll get back to you.”

That’s what makes this story so wonderfully ironic.

A priest expressed an opinion about a subject on which the Church has no official doctrine – and somehow managed to get himself disciplined for it anyway. It’s rather like being penalized for violating the rules of a sport that hasn’t been invented yet.

The whole episode exposes just how intellectually awkward modern astronomy can be for ancient religions.

Science looks into the cosmos and says, “Let’s gather more evidence.”
Religion looks into the cosmos and asks, “Should we prepare the holy water?”

Apparently, believing in extraterrestrial life is acceptable.
Believing there is no extraterrestrial life is acceptable, too.
Believing UFOs are demons is a bridge too far.

Which raises one last question.

JD Vance has publicly expressed essentially the same view as Rossetti. Will he be excommunicated?

Just asking.

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Article 96 of 100
This piece is part of the 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign. Buy us a coffee to sponsor the next one. ☕
Your support goes toward building our future website.

Subscribe now

We all have a few online places we keep coming back to for atheist content.

Maybe it’s a website full of thoughtful essays. Maybe it’s a lively discussion forum, a Substack publication, a YouTube channel, a Discord server, a Facebook group, a Bluesky account, or a hidden gem that deserves far more attention than it gets.

Some are famous – like Reddit’s r/atheism. Others are much smaller but just as valuable.

Let’s build a community resource together.

Share your favorite atheism-related links in the comments. It can be anything that promotes reason, skepticism, secularism, science, free thought, or simply gives you a place to connect with other nonbelievers.

Browse the comments, discover new communities, and help others find their next favorite destination.

Welcome to The Godless Link Exchange – a place where atheists help other atheists discover the best corners of the internet.

Let us start. Here are our own links on Bluesky, YouTube, and Spotify.

Now it’s your turn.

Drop your favorite link (or several!) in the comments, tell us what makes it worth visiting, and let’s create a collection of atheist online communities.

☕ Support this project: Buy us a coffee.
🌍 Meet new atheist friends: Add your social profile to The Atheist Manifesto.

Subscribe now

Imagine spending your entire adult life defending democracy. You argue about elections. You complain about politicians. You demand transparency, accountability, checks and balances, independent courts, and freedom of speech.

Then you start talking about the afterlife. Suddenly your ideal political system becomes: One Supreme Ruler. Unlimited power. No elections. No opposition. No constitution. No appeals. Eternal reign.

Congratulations. You’ve just reinvented absolute monarchy and called it Paradise.

Political scientists have spent centuries explaining why concentrating unlimited power in one individual is dangerous. Religious literature responds with an elegant solution: “Yes, but this king is perfect.”

How convenient.

History is littered with kings who also claimed to be uniquely wise, morally superior, and appointed by heaven. Somehow that experiment rarely ended with universal happiness. Yet give the king infinite knowledge, infinite power, and a glowing halo, and suddenly absolute monarchy becomes humanity’s highest aspiration.

The irony is delicious.

Many deeply religious people cherish democratic freedoms. They criticize dictators, celebrate elections, and worry about authoritarian governments. Yet their ultimate vision of a perfect society isn’t a celestial parliament, constitutional republic, or heavenly federation.

It’s a KINGDOM. Not even a constitutional monarchy. Just the old-fashioned version where one ruler makes every decision forever.

Imagine suggesting this political system on Earth.

“What if we abolished elections?”
“No.”

“What if one person wrote all the laws?”
“Definitely not.”

“What if criticizing the ruler became morally wrong?”
“Absolutely not.”

“What if obedience became the highest virtue?”
“That’s authoritarian.”

“Excellent. Now imagine the ruler lives in the sky.”
“Oh! That’s completely different.”

Is it?

Religion certainly normalizes authoritarian imagery. From childhood, believers are taught to admire the ideal of the perfect king, celebrate unconditional obedience, and view ultimate authority as something admirable rather than something to question.

That’s an interesting cultural lesson.

Democracy is built on a radically different foundation: nobody should be trusted with unlimited power because nobody is perfect. Institutions exist precisely because humans make mistakes. Power should be distributed, challenged, and replaced.

Religion begins with the opposite assumption: ultimate power is not merely acceptable – it is the highest conceivable good, provided the ruler is divine.

Maybe that’s why words like “Lord” and “King” appear so naturally in religious language. They’re not accidental metaphors. They describe an ideal relationship: one commands, everyone else obeys.

Of course, believers will reply that God isn’t an ordinary king because God is perfectly just. Fair enough. But it’s still fascinating that humanity’s greatest imagined utopia isn’t organized around democratic participation, equal representation, or shared decision-making.

It’s organized around a throne.

Perhaps the most surprising political movement in history isn’t monarchy itself. It’s the millions of enthusiastic voters who spend election season defending representative government – and eternity dreaming about the one absolute monarch they’ll never be allowed to vote out of office.

But here is the uncomfortable question: are we sure this admiration for absolutism stays safely in the realm of theology? If a person’s ideal figure is an all-powerful monarch whose authority is unquestionable, whose commands must be obeyed, and whose rule is considered the ultimate good, is it really impossible for that image to influence political instincts in the real world?

It is worth asking whether decades of celebrating the idea of a perfect ruler makes some people more comfortable with earthly leaders who promise strength over accountability. Maybe that helps explain why democracies periodically choose authoritarian-style politicians who present themselves as saviors rather than servants.

***

👉 If this article resonates – buy us a coffee.

Article 95 of 100
This piece is part of the 100 Coffees for 100 Articles campaign. Buy us a coffee to sponsor the next one. ☕ Your support goes toward building our future website.