Podcasts about disaffection

0:00:  Christy Cabiniss, the new Director of Missionary Discipleship joins us.1:30:  We read the entire question:  Are they leaving because they disagree with the church, or they don't believe in God?2:00:  Lots of Young Adults have less familiarity with religion in general.3:00:  Parents often say "We'll let the children decide."  Bad move.5:00:  What about those who are disaffecting?  Is it mostly the "pelvic issues?"6:25:   What about the kerygma? Should we start there?7:50:  We've focused on ethics rather than evangelization.8:50:  Science or Religion?9:30:  Charles Taylor's work is key here.10:30; Athiests have gotten more hostile.11:13:  These guys came after 9-11....they wanted to get rid of religion.12:30:  Faith and reason go together in Catholicism.12:50:  Isn't it empiricism vs. biblical literalism?13:21:   Catholicism has a great history of intellectualism and philosophy.14:19:  Going, Going, Gone:   Drifters are key.14:50:  Faith formation:  When did it reach its zenith?  How can you match it with your sense of critical thnking?16:40:  Everyone is searching for meaning! 18:07:  Hard to deal with quiet.  Can you stand yourself?19:48:   Cradle and the Cross - meditate on the images.21:00:   Eve Tushnet's thoughts on the Eucharist.22:00:  Church Search goes to St. Bernadette's in Westlake. 22:45:  Lord I am not worthy song by Fr. Joe Menkhaus22:50:   Readings for Epiphany.24:00:  Fr. Damian's World Youth Day story on the Three Kings.25:22:  The Catholic Leadership Network Podcast is Christy's other podcast.

The term “voter apathy” has become part of the common political discourse and is often used to give the impression that voters do not vote due to political ignorance or carelessness. Radio Islam International discussed with The Rivonia Circle's Songezo Zibi his latest opinion piece findings after almost a year of fieldwork, such as focus groups, surveys, community meetings, and online discussions. According to Songezo, he is convinced voter abstention is typically a very deliberate political choice.

Once upon a time her Husband was so passionate in LOVE with his wife that he would wait to see her and spend time with her at the end of the day, but today, that has changed. Love has grown cold. He doesn't even want to look at his wife's face. A similar situation happened to women as well, Years ago, she was so excited to get married because she was marrying the man of her dreams. He was the perfect one for her but now after several years, all that passion, and drive seem to have disappeared. It seems as if the man of her dreams has now turned into a nightmare., How does one respond to a Lack of Love in Marriage? Pastor Joshua shares Six Reasons for Disaffection and Five ways to fix it. Listen, Share & Blessed.

In this fourth episode of this 5 part analysis of the LDS Faith Crisis Report, Nathan and Valerie break down what the researchers call the “Perpetual Cycle of Disaffection”, the typical and predictable emotional experience of one who experiences the LDS faith crisis. The 8 stages are as follows: 1. Initiation 2. Search 3. Troubling Discovery 4. Betrayal 5. Harsh Treatment 6. Distancing 7. Anger Magnification 8. Disaffection. Val and Nathan highlight how this painful experience is tragic in part because those in faith crisis are already experiencing massive anguish due to what feels like the crumbling of their very foundation and really want, need, and deserve compassion, love, and support.  But often they are shamed, shunned, or avoided.  They are hoping that shining a spotlight on this phenomenon will help more people become educated and eventually ease the grief and isolation of those who suffer. PLEASE SHARE THIS SERIES.  **Due to the rapid growth of this podcast and the obviously huge need for members of our faith to have more support in our  faith-expansion experience, Valerie is currently piloting a few 3 month long weekly online support groups to help you connect with her and others who are in a similar place in your faith experience. Space is limited and first come first served. 20 people per group.  For more information e-mail Valerie at info@valeriehamaker.com. The report referenced in this episode is linked here: https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_R28e.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0HEjV8dDVB9J1__x6ISIgHBRFw5TL06l-mr38edrjdAqbVZbp7Ox2ZvuU&fs=e&s=cl&fs=e&s=cl

  Introduction: 6 दिन पहले Supreme Court ने केंद्र को राजद्रोह कानून के अंदर आने वाले सभी cases को थामने के लिए कहा। जितने भी trials, proceedings, सुनवाई Indian Penal Code (IPC) की धारा Section 124A के तहत होनी थी, उन सभी को रोकने के आदेश दिए जब तक केंद्र अपना वादा नहीं निभा लेता। कौन सा वादा? IPC की 124A पर पुनर्विचार करने का वादा और उसमें ज़रूरी बदलाव करने का वादा। मगर ये कब हुआ, क्यों Supreme Court चाहता है Sedition के क़ानून में बदलाव, क्या होता है Sedition का कानून, क्या कहता है ये कानून और आख़िर क्यों अब तक केंद्र नहीं निभा पाया बदलाव लाने का वादा, इन सभी पेचीदा सवालों के जवाब जानेंगे इस FYI में  Body: नमस्कार,आदाब, सत्श्रीअकाल, मैं वही पुरानी होस्ट Sahiba Khan और आप सुन रहे हैं ज्ञान के भंडार वाला favourite podcast - FYI. आज थोड़ा दिल थाम कर बैठ जाएं क्योंकि आज बात होने जा रही है एक ऐसे कानून की जिसने दशकों से भारत में डर बरपाये रखा है, जो हमारा नहीं बल्कि अंग्रेज़ों को हमें दी गई सौगात थी जिसे वैसे तो हमें आज़ादी के समय ही हटा देना चाहिए था मगर कुछ कारणों से नहीं हटाया। आज हम बात करेंगे IPC की धारा 124A यानी कि Sedition law की - बोले तो राजद्रोह कानून। अब इसी कानून में SC ने बदलाव करने को कहा है और आपको बताती चलूँ कि जो BJP सरकार इस कानून की सरपरस्त हुआ करती थी और इसी कानून के तहत कई लोगों को जेल में भी डाला, उसी कानून पर कोर्ट की फटकार के बाद कहा है कि वो इसमें बदलाव सुझाएंगे , मगर कुछ दिनों में।   मगर सबसे पहले आ जाते हैं कि ये Sedition Law होता क्या है? IPC की धारा 124A कहती है कि - “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law shall be punished with im­prisonment for life, to which fine may be added…” हिंदी में समझेंगे अब -  "जो कोई भी, शब्दों द्वारा, या तो बोले गए या लिखित, या संकेतों द्वारा, या साक्षात दिख रहे प्रतिनिधित्व द्वारा, घृणा यी कि नफ़रतें फैलाने का या अवमानना माने बात न सुनन, ये काम करता है, या सामने वाले को provoke यानी कि उत्तेजित करता है या कानून द्वारा स्थापित सरकार के प्रति लोगों में असंतोष पैदा करने की कोशिश करता है, उसे दंडित किया जाएगा। आजीवन कारावास से, जिसमें जुर्माना जोड़ा जा सकता है…”   तो ये हैं देशद्रोह कानून के शब्द, संविधान के अनुसार। इस प्रावधान में 3 और explanations जोड़े गए हैं: Disaffection शब्द जो असल कानून में इस्तेमाल किया गया है उसमें disloyalty यानी कि गद्दारी और दुश्मनी में शामिल होगा दूसरा, गर किसी ने कुछ ऐसा कहा है जो सरकार की नीतियों या उनके प्रयासों की निंदा करता है, इस उद्देश्य से कि वो कानून या फिर वो नीति दूसरों के हित के लिए कानून के दायरे में रहकर बदली जा सके, बगैर नफरत या असंतोष फैलाये, तो वो भी इस कानून की श्रेणी में नहीं आएगा। और तीसरा और आखिरी विवरण है कि अगर किसी ने सरकार के खिलाफ अपना रोष जताया या असंतोष जताया, नफरत फैलाये बिना या फिर किसी को उत्तेजित किये बिना, तो उसे भी इस कानून से बाहर रखा जाएगा।  मगर ये कानून आखिर आया कहां से? चलिए इसके इतिहास में थोड़े गोते लगाते हैं  ये कानून Thomas Macaulay नाम के अंग्रेज़ के दिमाग की उपज था। उसी ने Indian Penal Code भी बनाया था जिसके अंदर ये धारा आती है। 1860 जब ये IPC लगाया गया, तब किसी भूल-चूंक से देशद्रोह वाली धारा उसमें लगाना भूल गए। मगर 1890 में Special Act XVII (17) लगा कर इसे IPC की धारा 124A के तहत add कर दिया गया।  इसमें आपको उम्र क़ैद की सज़ा हो सकती थी इसे अंग्रेज़ों ने लगाया था ताकि उनके खिलाफ जो बग़ावत हो रही है उस पर काबू पाया जा सके। आपको शायद जानकर ताज्जुब होगा कि हमारे सबसे बेहतरीन freedom fighters जैसे Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad और Mahatma Gandhi, इन सभी को देशद्रोह कानून के तहत सज़ा सुनाई गई थी।  1898 में Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak के केस की सुनवाई हुई थी जो काफी मशहूर रही और इतिहास के पन्नों में जिसका नाम दर्ज कराया गया।    उसके बाद आज़ाद भारत में भी ये कानून रहा और कई बार सरकारों ने इस क़ानून का गलत इस्तेमाल किया उन लोगों को जेल में पहुंचाने के लिए जो सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करते थे। कई बार अदालतों ने इस कानून के तहत बदलाव लाने की बातें कहीं और ये भी कई बार अपने बयानों में बोला कि केवल सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करना इस कानून के तहत नहीं आता। कभी Supreme Court ने Romesh Thapar v State of Madras में यही बात कही तो कहीं Punjab and Haryana High Court ने Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) में यही दोहराया। यहाँ तक कि Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) के केस में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने ये तक कह दिया कि आईपीसी की धारा 124ए मुख्य रूप से अंग्रेज़ों के लिए देश में असंतोष और dissent यानी कि असहमति को दबाने का एक उपकरण एक टूल थी, और फिर अदालत ने इस प्रावधान को असंवैधानिक घोषित किया। हालांकि 1962 में Supreme Court ने Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar के केस में इस धारा के तहत सजा सुनाई मगर साथ ही साथ सरकारों को ये भी कहा कि वो इसका दुरुपयोग करने से बचें। अदालत ने ज़ोर दिया कि हर भाषण या comment जो सरकार की निंदा करता हो या फिर अपना असंतोष बयान करता हो वो देशद्रोह नहीं हो सकता जब तक उस बयान ने अफरा-तफरी न मच रही हो या फिर कानून व्यवस्था में कोई दिक्कत ना आ रही हो। मतलब Public law and order maintain रहे बस। आपको बताती चलूँ कि ये public order की बात कानून में कहीं लिखी नहीं गई है मगर कई बार अदालतों ने ये कहा है इसलिए अब ये एक norm बन गया है कि अगर ऐसा हो रहा हो तब ही आप किसी बयान को देशद्रोह में count करें। और इसी केस के बाद से public order एक बहुत बड़ा शब्द बन गया आगे इस कानून के तहत आने वाले cases में। Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) के केस में कहा गया कि किसी भी बयान को sedition या देशद्रोह मान लेने से पहले सही से आंकना चाहिए कि लोग ये क्यों कह रहे हैं।    Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) के फैसले में ये कहा गया कि भले ही आपने वो स्पीच या वो बयान नहीं लिखा हो मगर अगर आप उस बयान को circulate करते पकड़े जाते हैं  देशद्रोह का मुक़दमा लगेगा।    भारत के law commission और यहां तक ​​कि Supreme Court  की लगातार रिपोर्टों ने राजद्रोह कानून के बड़े पैमाने पर दुरुपयोग पर ज़ोर दिया है।Kedar Nath वाले मामले में  तो पुलिस पर आरोप लगा कि वो पहले देखें कि जिस बयान की वजह से वो IPC की धारा 124A लगा रहे हैं वो सही में इसके अंतर्गत आता भी है या नहीं।  पिछले साल की ही बात है - Vinod Dua v Union of India का केस देख लें। दिवंगत पत्रकार Vinod Dua पर देशद्रोह कानून के अंतर्गत आरोप लगा कि उन्होंने आख़िर कैसे प्रधानमंत्री Narendra Modi के खिलाफ ये बोला कि उन्होंने Covid-19 महामारी को भारत में सही से नहीं संभाला। हालांकि अदालत ने उनके खिलाफ सभी FIR रद्द कर दी थीं और कहा था कि ऐसा कोई भी केस उनके खिलाफ नहीं बनता।     तो इस कानून की अब क्या स्थिति है ?   Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha, Kanhaiya Lal Shukla जैसे कई और पत्रकारों ने और Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra ने इस कानून के खिलाफ याचिकाएं दायर की इसमें 7 -judge बेंच ये फैसला लेगी कि क्या Kedar Nath केस में जो observations किये गए थे वो सही थे या नहीं, क्या उस केस में सही तरीके से सुनवाई ली गई थी, फैसला हुआ था या नहीं।  हालांकि सरकार ने पहले तो कहा कि कुछ cases में इस कानून का दुरुपयोग का मतलब ये नहीं कि इस कानून को ही हटा दिया जाये। मगर फिर केंद्र भी इस पर राज़ी हो गया कि colonial क़ानून पर सलाह-मश्वरा उन्हें मंज़ूर है।    Conclusion: अदालत का हस्तक्षेप इस केस में बहुत ज़रूरी इसलिए है क्योंकि अगर अदालत इस प्रावधान को रद्द करता है, तो उसे Kedar Nath वाले फैसले को रद्द करना होगा और पहले के फैसलों को बरकरार रखना होगा जहाँ freedom of speech को तवज्जो दी गई थी हालाँकि, अगर सरकार कानून पर सोच-विचार करने का निर्णय लेती है, तो होगा ये कि या तो भाषा को तोड़-मरोड़ कर बात वही हो जाएगी और प्रावधान को दोबारा नए सिरे से सोचने का पॉइन्ट ही नहीं रहेगा। अब देखना ये होगा कि ये सोच-विचार, परामर्श इस कानून को कहाँ तक लेकर जाती हैं।  क्या अदालत कानून ही रद्द कर देगी या फिर सरकार को मौक़ा देगी इसे दोबारा बेहतर तरीके से फ्रेम करने का। हम आपको बताते रहेंगे। हमें बताएं कि आपको क्या लगता है - आज़ाद भारत में कितना ज़रूरी है ऐसा अंग्रेज़ों द्वारा बनाया गया कानून। हमें बताएं ABP Live Podcasts के twitter handle पर। फिलहाल मैं चलती हूँ। मैं हूँ Sahiba Khan, podcast की sound-designing की है ललित ने और आप सुन रहे हैं ABP Live Podcasts की पेशकश FYI. 

  Introduction: 6 दिन पहले Supreme Court ने केंद्र को राजद्रोह कानून के अंदर आने वाले सभी cases को थामने के लिए कहा। जितने भी trials, proceedings, सुनवाई Indian Penal Code (IPC) की धारा Section 124A के तहत होनी थी, उन सभी को रोकने के आदेश दिए जब तक केंद्र अपना वादा नहीं निभा लेता। कौन सा वादा? IPC की 124A पर पुनर्विचार करने का वादा और उसमें ज़रूरी बदलाव करने का वादा। मगर ये कब हुआ, क्यों Supreme Court चाहता है Sedition के क़ानून में बदलाव, क्या होता है Sedition का कानून, क्या कहता है ये कानून और आख़िर क्यों अब तक केंद्र नहीं निभा पाया बदलाव लाने का वादा, इन सभी पेचीदा सवालों के जवाब जानेंगे इस FYI में  Body: नमस्कार,आदाब, सत्श्रीअकाल, मैं वही पुरानी होस्ट Sahiba Khan और आप सुन रहे हैं ज्ञान के भंडार वाला favourite podcast - FYI. आज थोड़ा दिल थाम कर बैठ जाएं क्योंकि आज बात होने जा रही है एक ऐसे कानून की जिसने दशकों से भारत में डर बरपाये रखा है, जो हमारा नहीं बल्कि अंग्रेज़ों को हमें दी गई सौगात थी जिसे वैसे तो हमें आज़ादी के समय ही हटा देना चाहिए था मगर कुछ कारणों से नहीं हटाया। आज हम बात करेंगे IPC की धारा 124A यानी कि Sedition law की - बोले तो राजद्रोह कानून। अब इसी कानून में SC ने बदलाव करने को कहा है और आपको बताती चलूँ कि जो BJP सरकार इस कानून की सरपरस्त हुआ करती थी और इसी कानून के तहत कई लोगों को जेल में भी डाला, उसी कानून पर कोर्ट की फटकार के बाद कहा है कि वो इसमें बदलाव सुझाएंगे , मगर कुछ दिनों में।   मगर सबसे पहले आ जाते हैं कि ये Sedition Law होता क्या है? IPC की धारा 124A कहती है कि - “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law shall be punished with im­prisonment for life, to which fine may be added…” हिंदी में समझेंगे अब -  "जो कोई भी, शब्दों द्वारा, या तो बोले गए या लिखित, या संकेतों द्वारा, या साक्षात दिख रहे प्रतिनिधित्व द्वारा, घृणा यी कि नफ़रतें फैलाने का या अवमानना माने बात न सुनन, ये काम करता है, या सामने वाले को provoke यानी कि उत्तेजित करता है या कानून द्वारा स्थापित सरकार के प्रति लोगों में असंतोष पैदा करने की कोशिश करता है, उसे दंडित किया जाएगा। आजीवन कारावास से, जिसमें जुर्माना जोड़ा जा सकता है…”   तो ये हैं देशद्रोह कानून के शब्द, संविधान के अनुसार। इस प्रावधान में 3 और explanations जोड़े गए हैं: Disaffection शब्द जो असल कानून में इस्तेमाल किया गया है उसमें disloyalty यानी कि गद्दारी और दुश्मनी में शामिल होगा दूसरा, गर किसी ने कुछ ऐसा कहा है जो सरकार की नीतियों या उनके प्रयासों की निंदा करता है, इस उद्देश्य से कि वो कानून या फिर वो नीति दूसरों के हित के लिए कानून के दायरे में रहकर बदली जा सके, बगैर नफरत या असंतोष फैलाये, तो वो भी इस कानून की श्रेणी में नहीं आएगा। और तीसरा और आखिरी विवरण है कि अगर किसी ने सरकार के खिलाफ अपना रोष जताया या असंतोष जताया, नफरत फैलाये बिना या फिर किसी को उत्तेजित किये बिना, तो उसे भी इस कानून से बाहर रखा जाएगा।  मगर ये कानून आखिर आया कहां से? चलिए इसके इतिहास में थोड़े गोते लगाते हैं  ये कानून Thomas Macaulay नाम के अंग्रेज़ के दिमाग की उपज था। उसी ने Indian Penal Code भी बनाया था जिसके अंदर ये धारा आती है। 1860 जब ये IPC लगाया गया, तब किसी भूल-चूंक से देशद्रोह वाली धारा उसमें लगाना भूल गए। मगर 1890 में Special Act XVII (17) लगा कर इसे IPC की धारा 124A के तहत add कर दिया गया।  इसमें आपको उम्र क़ैद की सज़ा हो सकती थी इसे अंग्रेज़ों ने लगाया था ताकि उनके खिलाफ जो बग़ावत हो रही है उस पर काबू पाया जा सके। आपको शायद जानकर ताज्जुब होगा कि हमारे सबसे बेहतरीन freedom fighters जैसे Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad और Mahatma Gandhi, इन सभी को देशद्रोह कानून के तहत सज़ा सुनाई गई थी।  1898 में Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak के केस की सुनवाई हुई थी जो काफी मशहूर रही और इतिहास के पन्नों में जिसका नाम दर्ज कराया गया।    उसके बाद आज़ाद भारत में भी ये कानून रहा और कई बार सरकारों ने इस क़ानून का गलत इस्तेमाल किया उन लोगों को जेल में पहुंचाने के लिए जो सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करते थे। कई बार अदालतों ने इस कानून के तहत बदलाव लाने की बातें कहीं और ये भी कई बार अपने बयानों में बोला कि केवल सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करना इस कानून के तहत नहीं आता। कभी Supreme Court ने Romesh Thapar v State of Madras में यही बात कही तो कहीं Punjab and Haryana High Court ने Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) में यही दोहराया। यहाँ तक कि Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) के केस में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने ये तक कह दिया कि आईपीसी की धारा 124ए मुख्य रूप से अंग्रेज़ों के लिए देश में असंतोष और dissent यानी कि असहमति को दबाने का एक उपकरण एक टूल थी, और फिर अदालत ने इस प्रावधान को असंवैधानिक घोषित किया। हालांकि 1962 में Supreme Court ने Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar के केस में इस धारा के तहत सजा सुनाई मगर साथ ही साथ सरकारों को ये भी कहा कि वो इसका दुरुपयोग करने से बचें। अदालत ने ज़ोर दिया कि हर भाषण या comment जो सरकार की निंदा करता हो या फिर अपना असंतोष बयान करता हो वो देशद्रोह नहीं हो सकता जब तक उस बयान ने अफरा-तफरी न मच रही हो या फिर कानून व्यवस्था में कोई दिक्कत ना आ रही हो। मतलब Public law and order maintain रहे बस। आपको बताती चलूँ कि ये public order की बात कानून में कहीं लिखी नहीं गई है मगर कई बार अदालतों ने ये कहा है इसलिए अब ये एक norm बन गया है कि अगर ऐसा हो रहा हो तब ही आप किसी बयान को देशद्रोह में count करें। और इसी केस के बाद से public order एक बहुत बड़ा शब्द बन गया आगे इस कानून के तहत आने वाले cases में। Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) के केस में कहा गया कि किसी भी बयान को sedition या देशद्रोह मान लेने से पहले सही से आंकना चाहिए कि लोग ये क्यों कह रहे हैं।    Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) के फैसले में ये कहा गया कि भले ही आपने वो स्पीच या वो बयान नहीं लिखा हो मगर अगर आप उस बयान को circulate करते पकड़े जाते हैं  देशद्रोह का मुक़दमा लगेगा।    भारत के law commission और यहां तक ​​कि Supreme Court  की लगातार रिपोर्टों ने राजद्रोह कानून के बड़े पैमाने पर दुरुपयोग पर ज़ोर दिया है।Kedar Nath वाले मामले में  तो पुलिस पर आरोप लगा कि वो पहले देखें कि जिस बयान की वजह से वो IPC की धारा 124A लगा रहे हैं वो सही में इसके अंतर्गत आता भी है या नहीं।  पिछले साल की ही बात है - Vinod Dua v Union of India का केस देख लें। दिवंगत पत्रकार Vinod Dua पर देशद्रोह कानून के अंतर्गत आरोप लगा कि उन्होंने आख़िर कैसे प्रधानमंत्री Narendra Modi के खिलाफ ये बोला कि उन्होंने Covid-19 महामारी को भारत में सही से नहीं संभाला। हालांकि अदालत ने उनके खिलाफ सभी FIR रद्द कर दी थीं और कहा था कि ऐसा कोई भी केस उनके खिलाफ नहीं बनता।     तो इस कानून की अब क्या स्थिति है ?   Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha, Kanhaiya Lal Shukla जैसे कई और पत्रकारों ने और Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra ने इस कानून के खिलाफ याचिकाएं दायर की इसमें 7 -judge बेंच ये फैसला लेगी कि क्या Kedar Nath केस में जो observations किये गए थे वो सही थे या नहीं, क्या उस केस में सही तरीके से सुनवाई ली गई थी, फैसला हुआ था या नहीं।  हालांकि सरकार ने पहले तो कहा कि कुछ cases में इस कानून का दुरुपयोग का मतलब ये नहीं कि इस कानून को ही हटा दिया जाये। मगर फिर केंद्र भी इस पर राज़ी हो गया कि colonial क़ानून पर सलाह-मश्वरा उन्हें मंज़ूर है।    Conclusion: अदालत का हस्तक्षेप इस केस में बहुत ज़रूरी इसलिए है क्योंकि अगर अदालत इस प्रावधान को रद्द करता है, तो उसे Kedar Nath वाले फैसले को रद्द करना होगा और पहले के फैसलों को बरकरार रखना होगा जहाँ freedom of speech को तवज्जो दी गई थी हालाँकि, अगर सरकार कानून पर सोच-विचार करने का निर्णय लेती है, तो होगा ये कि या तो भाषा को तोड़-मरोड़ कर बात वही हो जाएगी और प्रावधान को दोबारा नए सिरे से सोचने का पॉइन्ट ही नहीं रहेगा। अब देखना ये होगा कि ये सोच-विचार, परामर्श इस कानून को कहाँ तक लेकर जाती हैं।  क्या अदालत कानून ही रद्द कर देगी या फिर सरकार को मौक़ा देगी इसे दोबारा बेहतर तरीके से फ्रेम करने का। हम आपको बताते रहेंगे। हमें बताएं कि आपको क्या लगता है - आज़ाद भारत में कितना ज़रूरी है ऐसा अंग्रेज़ों द्वारा बनाया गया कानून। हमें बताएं ABP Live Podcasts के twitter handle पर। फिलहाल मैं चलती हूँ। मैं हूँ Sahiba Khan, podcast की sound-designing की है ललित ने और आप सुन रहे हैं ABP Live Podcasts की पेशकश FYI. 

Today we are joined by Steve Densley. In this interview, we discuss a talk he gave at the FAIR Conference in 2018 titled "Barriers to Belief: Mental Distress and Disaffection from the Church." There are many different things that may factor into why people may struggle with the church and eventually leave, but one reason that isn't often talked about is how mental health factors may play a role in all this. I hope that this interview can be helpful to church leaders, friends, and family of those with mental health issues, as well as individuals dealing with these kinds of issues. The below links are the video and text of Steve's talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3irFCZPfCnc https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/barriers-to-belief-mental-distress-and-disaffection-from-the-church/

The classroom can be a space for us to engage in deep learning, rigorous debate, collaboration and critical thinking. It's a space where our senses can be active and nourished. However, entry into the classroom has been historically limited to upper-caste cis men. What happens when these exclusions are challenged? This is a bonus episode of Research Radio, where P Thirumal and Carmel Christy join us to discuss their EPW article on higher education in India and their scholarship on media studies. Dr P Thirumal teaches at the Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad. He teaches courses related to theory, history and media Science with reference to modernity and deep time. His scholarship has focused on the cultural histories of North East India including embodiment studies focussing on discriminatory practices of Dalit Bahujans in higher education institutions in India. Dr Carmel Christy K J is currently an International Fellow of the Urban Studies Foundation, Glasgow, which is affiliated to the International Institute for Asian Studies, Leiden. She teaches journalism at Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi. Her research on the politics of gender, sexuality, caste, religion, media and urban space broadly focuses on spatial production of marginality and responses to it in India. We will be discussing their co-authored piece “Why Indian Universities Are Places Where Savarnas Get Affection and Dalit-Bahujans Experience Distance.” We will also discuss Christy's book “Sexuality and Public Space in India: Reading the Visible” and her article “Universities as Spaces of Disaffection” and Thirumal's recent article “Regurgitative Violence: The Sacred and the Profane in Higher Education Institutions in India” and “Dominant Bodies and Their Ethical Performances: Violence of Caste Embodiment in Higher Educational Institutions.” Audio courtesy: Summertime by Tokyo Music Walker https://soundcloud.com/user-356546060 [CC BY 3.0]

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/07/white-lotus-rich-people-vacation-privilege/619450/

“Birini Kendimize Nasıl Aşık Ederiz?” başlıklı bugünkü bölümde Yasemin Abayhan ve Betül Yurtseven ilk defa Psikocast'e bir konuk aldılar. ODTÜ Sosyal Psikoloji Yüksek Lisans Öğrencisi Emine Bilgen ile beraber aşağıdaki şu sorulara cevap aradılar:Kendimizi maruz bıraktığımız kişi bize aşık olur mu?Biri kendini bize nasıl denk bulur?Romeo & Juliet gerçek midir?Partnerimizi hizaya getirebilir miyiz?Keyifli Dinlemeler!Kaynaklar:Kaynaklar:Maruz Kalma Etkisi:https://dictionary.apa.org/mere-exposure-effect Psikolojik Tepkisellik Kuramı:https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaktans_(psikoloji)#:~:text=Reaktans%2C%20Psikolojik%20Tepkisellik%20Kuram%C4%B1%20veya,durumunda%20ortaya%20%C3%A7%C4%B1kan%20motivasyonel%20uyar%C4%B1lmad%C4%B1r Self expension:https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-04062-001 Pozitif İllüzyon:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232448372_The_Benefits_of_Positive_Illusions_Idealization_and_the_Construction_of_Satisfaction_in_Close_Relationships Ödül-Bedel Dengesi:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317730132_Social_Exchange_Theory Kişilerarası Çekicilik:https://books.google.com.tr/books/about/Interpersonal_Attraction.html?id=YRHvAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y Ölümcül Çekim:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240707044_Fatal_Attractions_Affection_and_Disaffection_in_Intimate_Relationships Revolutionary Road (2008):https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0959337/ Romeo & Juliet Etkisi:https://dictionary.apa.org/romeo-and-juliet-effect “Ben Senin Yalnız Resmine Aşığım” - Sevmek Zamanı (1965):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpNRfBHykxk Tinder'da sahte hesap açarak başlayan flört macerası:https://onedio.com/haber/beyin-yakan-flort-taktiklerini-flood-olarak-paylasan-kadin-ve-gelen-tepkiler-944618 Sliding Doors (1998):https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120148/

Boulder, Colorado Killer Identified as 21-Year-Old Ahmad Al-Issa — A TRUMP-HATER – Charged with 10 Counts of First Degree Murder The Boulder, Colorado killer was identified on Monday after his supermarket killing spree. 21-Year-Old Ahmad Al-Issa was charged with 10 Counts of First Degree Murder https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/breaking-boulder-colorado-killer-jihadist-21-year-old-ahmed-al-issa-charged-10-counts-first-degree-murder/ Barack Obama Blames Boulder Shooting on “Disaffection, Racism and Misogyny” – Calls For Gun Control Barack Obama blamed the ISIS-inspired Boulder shooting on “disaffection, racism and misogyny,” and called for more gun control. “It is long past time for those with the power to fight this epidemic of gun violence to do so,” Obama... View Article

This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.India Policy Watch #1: Sedition, Blasphemy, DefamationInsights on burning policy issues in India- Pranay KotasthaneA Delhi Court Session Judge’s admirable order granting bail to activist Disha Ravi in the #ToolKit case made me reflect on sedition as a concept. Here are a few initial thoughts emanating from that exercise. Fair warning: this is a conceptual discussion and not a legal one. If detailed legal critique interests you, head over to these two articles by Gautam Bhatia (1 & 2). The “crimes” of sedition, blasphemy, and defamation lie along a continuum. They are categorically similar in that they punish the written or spoken word directed at some other entity. Where they differ is the targeted object. Defamation laws punish verbal or written attacks against a person or a group of people. Blasphemy laws punish utterances against something considered sacred by a group of people whereas sedition laws punish utterances that can threaten the State. A Few DefinitionsBefore wading in any further, understanding three political science terms — nation, state, and government — is important. State is a political construct, an abstract political institution. Max Weber’s instrumental definition of the State as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” is especially relevant here. To ensure that all its individuals’ liberties are protected, a State is invested with the powers to use violence or force to prevent other belligerent groups from terrorising individuals. It is for this reason that a State maintains armed institutions like the police and the army. Going by this definition, an anti-State act would be the one that challenges the State's monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force. In other words, an act of violence or the use of force by anyone other than the State becomes anti-State. Government is a temporary governing body of the State. If the State is like a corporation, the government is like its management. State is semi-permanent. It will live on until it is overthrown or replaced and a new social contract is established. Unlike the State, the government is composed of a set of people organised into a hierarchy. When the electorate vote, they choose their government and not the State. By this definition, an anti-government act would be the one that criticises the policies, strategies, and directives of the governing body in power.Nation, on the other hand, is a mental construct. Ernest Gellner defines this concept precisely yet comprehensively thus:“Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artefacts of men's convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non-members.”In other words, nations are imagined. People belong to the same nation only if they consider themselves to be so. An anti-national act thus could be of two types. One that denies the existence of such an imagined community. For example, libertarians could argue that only individuals matter and not the groups these individuals are a part of. And the other view imagining a nation along lines different from the dominant belief. For example, communism sees workers across the world as one “nation”.What is Sedition then?With these key differences out of the way, we are now in a position to understand sedition and blasphemy laws. Sedition laws can lie on a continuum. In dictatorships and party-states, sedition laws are applied wantonly to criticisms of the government. That is, being anti-government itself is being seditious. In most modern democracies, however, sedition laws punish only those anti-State actions which have the capability to directly challenge the State’s authority. Thus, criticism of the Republic of India would not count as sedition but inciting violence against the police would count as sedition. Crucially, being anti-national is not the same as being seditious. On the other hand, blasphemy laws penalise a subset of anti-national actions, the ones that call into question something held sacred. As the idea of individual freedom has gained prominence, blasphemy laws have been repealed in many places. Not in India though.The Indian Sedition LawNow we are in a position to understand sedition in India. India’s sedition law i.e. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has colonial origins. Unsurprisingly then, being anti-government was reason enough to be labelled seditious. Tilak, Gandhi and scores of other leaders were tried for sedition.After independence, the stated aim was to get rid of sedition laws altogether. That never happened. Sedition law continued in its colonial avatar. What did happen is that the application of such laws reverted to a stricter interpretation. Anti-State acts were penalised and not anti-government ones as a result of a right to freedom of speech and expression. In subsequent court rulings, the scope of sedition was further truncated. Only those anti-State acts that had the tendency to incite violence or disturb law and order were deemed to be seditious. This dissonance between the original definition and application continues to this day. See for yourself. The sedition law says: “Whoever,   by   words,   either   spoken   or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.Explanation 1.-- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.Explanation 2.--Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.Explanation 3.--Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.Note how wide-ranging this law is. Even disloyalty and all feelings of enmity count as sedition. Now read the qualifier that the Supreme Court added in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar 1962.“..the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.”In non-legalese, for an action to count as seditious, its connection with violence is necessary according to the Supreme Court but not so according to the original framing in the penal code. This dissonance is a problem. To such an extent that the same judge presiding in two similar cases (Disha Ravi’s and Safoora Zargar’s), referring to the same 1962 judgment, reached two diametrically opposite conclusions! In Safoora Zargar’s case, bail was denied on the grounds that the connection of an act with violence is not necessary. In the Disha Ravi case, bail was granted on the grounds that the connection of an act with violence is necessary. The other problem is the political economy of India’s sedition law. Because it is construed as a grave anti-State offence, it is cognisable i.e. investigation and arrest can happen based on just an FIR, and non-bailable i.e. bail is subject to the decision of a sessions judge. Such strict provisions mean that the police slap sedition charges indiscriminately and by the time charges are cleared, many years pass by. The process becomes the punishment.Clearly, this needs fixing. The Way ForwardBroadly, there are three ways out. The first method would be to revise the sedition law to end the dissonance between the text and its subsequent interpretation. Make the link with violence a necessary condition for the application of sedition. A second way is to scrap the law altogether. If the tendency to cause violence is what triggers sedition, there are enough and more laws in place to address such actions. Even if this law were to be struck down, provisions to punish acts inciting violence against State, government, or other people will still be applicable.A third way out is to address the political economy question by making sedition a bailable and non-cognisable offence. With nothing to gain by slapping the additional charge of sedition, its usage is likely to decline. A solution with a similar effect is to make police personnel comply with additional requirements before arresting a person for sedition. The Bombay High Court tried to do this in the Asim Trivedi case by issuing guidelines to police personnel listing specific preconditions. A failure to adhere to these guidelines made the police officer liable to dereliction of duty. To what extent these guidelines been adopted since then, I do not know. Given my biases, the second solution is the ideal one. But it’s also the most unlikely one in the current situation. We in fact run a real risk of going the other way — sedition laws might well revert to punishing anti-government utterances and blasphemy laws might be used more frequently. Given this reality, focusing on changing the incentives of police might be more practical.For now, I’ll leave with these lines in Disha Ravi’s bail order that need to reach far and wide:“Citizens are conscience keepers of government in any democratic Nation. They cannot be put behind the bars simply because they choose to disagreewith the State policies. The offence of sedition cannot be invoked tominister to the wounded vanity of the governments. Difference of opinion,disagreement, divergence, dissent, or for that matter, even disapprobation, are recognised legitimate tools to infuse objectivity in state policies. An aware and assertive citizenry, in contradistinction with an indifferent or docile citizenry, is indisputably a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy.”India Policy Watch #2: The Coming InflationInsights on burning policy issues in India- RSJLast week Pranay wrote about the Domar rule and how to think about public debt sustainability. Pranay and I have long held economic growth is a moral imperative for India now. Domar’s paper, like Pranay wrote, makes it clear that growth is necessary even if you favour a big government. The argument is simple. Governments are free to borrow and spend on their favoured programmes. They can run deficits without worrying about today’s deficits turning into tomorrow’s higher taxes or higher inflation only if the national income (r) grows at a rate faster than the interest rate (i). That is if “r” > “i”, we are fine with deficit spending. The logic is simple. If you grow faster than the interest rate, you can keep your debt to GDP ratio at a constant level. So, please go ahead and spendbut choose wisely. Spend in areas that will yield higher growth rates in future. Growth will take care of your debt burden.Since we are in the territory of public debt sustainability and role of government spends, I thought it would be useful to bring the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level (FTPL from here on) into this discussion. So, consider this an addendum to Pranay’s piece. Price stability or inflation control is a key goal for all governments in a democracy. Why? Because they want to win elections and nothing irks public than price rise. So, there are two questions in public policy on this issue - a) how do we tame inflation and b) is there an optimal level of controlling it?Now, the usual macroeconomic explanation offered to the first question was simple. Inflation is managed by the monetary policy of the central bank. An independent central bank focused on price stability will manage it by controlling the supply of money. If the total output grows at x per year and the money supply grows at y, then over a period of time the prices will grow at (y-x) per year. That’s your inflation rate. Simple. There’s a problem though. It assumes the demand for money among people today is uniform across. This isn’t true. Because all of us have different beliefs about the future. If our view of future inflation is different, our need to hold money today will be different. This means there could be many paths to price stability other than just the monetary approach. These paths are varied depending on households’ views about the economy’s future state. And that’s influenced by fiscal policy. So, according to FTPL, a tough and independent central bank is good to have but it alone cannot guarantee price stability. Fiscal policy will have to work in tandem. Government’s choice of how it finances its debt has a key role in how inflation plays out in future. The central banker must continue to convince the government to adopt the right stance on fiscal policy.On the second question - how much inflation control is optimal - FTPL suggests allowing price levels to swing to any wild variations to the government’s budget. This gets a bit complicated but a simple summary is that in times of economic shocks like a pandemic it is efficient to allow prices to go up. That done, let me move to add my nuance to Pranay’s explanation of Domar’s rule. No one can argue about “r” > “i” logic. The key questions about the deficit, however, are for how long and how much? If you have a fiscal deficit of one per cent for one year and you take the next five to grow higher than the interest rate to offset it, you’re fine. But what if you keep adding a five or six per cent deficit every year for a decade and more? As a somewhat laidback, retiring fiscal hawk, this is what worries me when I see unlimited deficit spending all around. A trillion here in stimulus and another trillion there and soon we are talking about some real money here. My worry is we have reached a stage where “r” > “i” cannot support the deficit spending. So inflation will come in. That’s my view. A high inflation future is inevitable. Addendum squaredRSJ makes an important point. “r” > “i” is a necessary but insufficient condition. The reality is that “r” needs to be sufficiently greater than “i”. That’s because the “r” > “i” condition rests on the assumption that the primary deficit is zero i.e. the government is only borrowing to pay interest on debts accumulated in the past. That’s not the case in India. The primary deficit in 2019-20 was 1.6 per cent of GDP while it is estimated to be 3.1 per cent in the next financial year. This means a lot of borrowing is being deployed not just for capital investment but also for the day to day running of the government. With higher primary deficits comes higher responsibility to restart economic growth. Not(PolicyWTF): Delhi Government’s Singapore AmbitionsThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay KotasthaneGiven how we keep going on and on about the urgency of economic growth, this line in the Delhi government’s budget came as a pleasant surprise:“Our goal is that the per capita income of Delhi by the year 2047 is equal to the income of a Singapore citizen. To make this possible, we have to increase the income of our citizens by about 16 times which is a difficult target, but not impossible.”It’s not new for Indian governments to aspire to be like someplace else. Isomorphic mimicry is in fact quite common. Vilas Rao Deshmukh wanted to transform Mumbai into Shanghai more than a decade ago. What’s different this time is the Delhi government has set itself a measurable output target with a defined end date, something most governments refuse to commit to. The Delhi Finance Minister even had a well-thought-out response to the question “Why Singapore?”. He said:“Singapore has one of the most stable economies in the world, with high government revenue and a consistently positive surplus. As a result of its strategic geographical positioning in Asia, the socio-economic context of Singapore is relatable to that of India. In addition to this, Singapore is also a city state which has achieved substantial growth in the past 25 years. So, when we think of Delhi 25 years from now, we envision a Delhi which can stand at par with one of the fastest growing and developed economies in the world.”Setting a clear, measurable income target against which performance can be measured is a welcome change. Hopefully, the other governments are watching. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] John Cochrane on fiscal roots of inflation. A great paper.[Article] ‘Disaffection’ and the Law: The Chilling Effect of Sedition Laws in India by Siddharth Narrain is a good overview of the history of sedition in India.[Podcast] Pranay and Saurabh discuss the impossibility theorem of affirmative action on Puliyabaazi. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

NBC News White House correspondent Geoff Bennett on the scene six weeks before Election 2020, from the battle to fill the Supreme Court's vacancy to President Trump tripling down on his base to what the parties will look like coming out of the election -- whenever it's decided.

An Uneasy Morsel Scripture: John 13 (Read from ESV) Preacher: Rev. David Inks Sermon Outline: Introduction I. Disaffection 21-30 II. Devotion 31-35 III. Disillusionment 36-38 Conclusion Sermon Video: https://youtu.be/V310HRzoc_8 Scripture Reading: John 13 King James Version (KJV) 1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he […] The post An Uneasy Morsel appeared first on Covenant United Reformed Church.

An Uneasy Morsel Scripture: John 13 (Read from ESV) Preacher: Rev. David Inks Sermon Outline: Introduction I. Disaffection 21-30 II. Devotion 31-35 III. Disillusionment 36-38 Conclusion Sermon Video: https://youtu.be/V310HRzoc_8 Scripture Reading: John 13 King James Version (KJV) 1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he […] The post An Uneasy Morsel appeared first on Covenant United Reformed Church.

Dr. Josh Urich

Pastor Chuck continues his relationship series this week teaching us about the: Power of perception Disease of unresolved anger Progressive steps to ruin a relationship Cycle of Disaffection

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. Please join us for the 2019 FairMormon Conference coming up August 7-9! You can attend in person or purchase the video streaming. Steve Densley and Geret Giles, Barriers to Belief: Mental Distress and Disaffection from the Church Transcript available here. Steve Densley, Jr. is a Utah attorney […] The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #29 – Steve Densley and Geret Giles, “Barriers to Belief: Mental Distress and Disaffection from the Church” appeared first on FairMormon.

In this Bible study podcast episode Andy Davis goes line by line through Hebrews 11:13-16. This passage shows that a deep and constant longing for heaven and a disaffection with earth is at the core of true faith, causing us to look on our lives here...

Marco Meiling, active and believing LDS church member in the Netherlands, reports on the beginning of a major contraction of the LDS Church in Europe. From Marco's original message to me: Have you heard yet about a big push to consolidate the units in Europe. We are having closing after closing being announced. Yesterday a closing was announced, and the Stake President stated there are 800 units in Europe which are considered too weak and would need to merge.  We have 1163 units in Western Europe acc to Cumorah.com. Holland with 34 wards will close 5 at least this year.  In Holland the Church is phasing out all wards which don´t have a purpose-built Chapel. Temple-attendance here is down 60% compared to 2000.  However the amount of recommendholders went up 200%. So what do we make of this: A Temple is a way for the Church to increase revenue. So even with less people, the Church can make a higher turnover.  The main reason given is that these units are too weak to run programmes aimed at the youth. and small units demand too much from the few members.  Research has shown that people and families benefit form larger wards, and families are less burdened. That why the policy direction. Of course the longer travel will cause problems for some menbers. Assistance will be needed.

Voter disaffection with U.S. party elites is as old as the two-party system, says Reeve Huston. Huston is an associate professor of history at Duke University. He is at work on a book entitled "Reforging American Democracy."

In 2003, Matt Elggren and I met while working at Microsoft.  Together, along with others, we discovered troubling things about LDS Church history. For most of the past thirteen years, Matt has not attended church and has more or less quietly supported his believing wife and children. For fear of losing his family, Matt chose silence....as did his extended family. It was basically thirteen years of "don't ask don't tell" with no hope of resolution for Matt. This changed in October of 2015 when Matt's brother-in-law, Clay Christensen, began a 6-week slide into total disbelief after 51 years of devout membership, which included 7 years as a high-level LDS Church employee. After losing his faith, Clay didn't choose silence. This is Matt and Clay's story.

In November, 2005 Mormon Stories interviewed Jason Nelson-Seawright (known online as "Roasted Tomatoes") and Taryn Nelson-Seawright ("Serenity Valley"). In this touching, 2-part series Taryn discussed how she resigned from the church as a teenager, but ultimately felt called by God to become re-baptized into the LDS church -- ultimately becoming sealed in the temple. In this episode, nine years later, Jason and Taryn discuss their decision to leave the church completely. They also discuss how their experiences with Autism Spectrum Disorder affected this decision.

In November, 2005 Mormon Stories interviewed Jason Nelson-Seawright (known online as "Roasted Tomatoes") and Taryn Nelson-Seawright ("Serenity Valley"). In this touching, 2-part series Taryn discussed how she resigned from the church as a teenager, but ultimately felt called by God to become re-baptized into the LDS church -- ultimately becoming sealed in the temple. In this episode, nine years later, Jason and Taryn discuss their decision to leave the church completely. They also discuss how their experiences with Autism Spectrum Disorder affected this decision.

As part of the March 2012"Mormonism and the Internet" conference held at Utah Valley University, John Dehlin, Scott Gordon (of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research or FAIR) and Rosemary Avance discuss LDS disaffection and apologetics.

As part of the March 2012"Mormonism and the Internet" conference held at Utah Valley University, John Dehlin, Scott Gordon (of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research or FAIR) and Rosemary Avance discuss LDS disaffection and apologetics.

This episode was recorded as part of the January 2012 Mormon Stories regional conference held in Houston, Texas dedicated to the topic of"Maintaining Positive Relationships Through Empathy and Dialogue." Interview participants include Bill Prince, Julie Prince, Tina Prince and Lee Prince.

This episode is an attempt to aid in processing the current moment in which various Mormon-watching communities are beginning to digest the preliminary results that have recently been released from the Open Stories Foundation survey about why Mormons leave the church, which comes on the heels of remarks made in December at Utah State University by LDS Church Historian Elder Marlin Jensen and reported on in numerous recent news stories in which he reflects on the current disaffection crisis and the Church’s plans to help address it. What does the survey suggest? How might the LDS Church move ahead more effectively--and how might we as members of these online communities assist in claiming a greater space within Mormonism for a more accurate telling of its history and an acceptance of a wider variety of ways of orienting toward Mormonism’s scriptures and shaping narratives? What are some tools or framings that might be helpful to those who through these news stories (and others yet to come as more results are released) might be hearing about are deciding to truly examine many of the complexities of church history and doctrine for the first time? Joining Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon in reflecting on this current moment are podcast veterans, professor, blogger, and LDS commentator Joanna Brooks, professor and holder of the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University Philip Barlow, and first-time podcast guest and financial strategist Scott Holley, who served as a key analyst for the survey.

In this episode we interview John and Brooke McLay. John served for 14 years as an employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). In this capacity he served as: a seminary teacher and principal, an institute teacher and director, a BYU Education Week speaker and an EFY Director. John also served as a member of a stake high counsel, and was serving in a bishopric during the months leading up to his decision to leave the LDS Church. John and Brooke resigned their membership of the LDS Church in August of 2011. This is their story.

In this episode we interview John and Brooke McLay. John served for 14 years as an employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). In this capacity he served as: a seminary teacher and principal, an institute teacher and director, a BYU Education Week speaker and an EFY Director. John also served as a member of a stake high counsel, and was serving in a bishopric during the months leading up to his decision to leave the LDS Church. John and Brooke resigned their membership of the LDS Church in August of 2011. This is their story.

In this episode we interview John and Brooke McLay. John served for 14 years as an employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). In this capacity he served as: a seminary teacher and principal, an institute teacher and director, a BYU Education Week speaker and an EFY Director. John also served as a member of a stake high counsel, and was serving in a bishopric during the months leading up to his decision to leave the LDS Church. John and Brooke resigned their membership of the LDS Church in August of 2011. This is their story.

In this episode we interview John and Brooke McLay. John served for 14 years as an employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). In this capacity he served as: a seminary teacher and principal, an institute teacher and director, a BYU Education Week speaker and an EFY Director. John also served as a member of a stake high counsel, and was serving in a bishopric during the months leading up to his decision to leave the LDS Church. John and Brooke resigned their membership of the LDS Church in August of 2011. This is their story.

On March 26, 2011 we held our first Mormon Stories regional retreat/conference in New York City. In this presentation Greg Prince discusses 21st century lessons from the lives of David O. McKay, Leonard Arrington and Paul H. Dunn.

On March 26, 2011 we held our first Mormon Stories regional retreat/conference in New York City. This presentation exploring the future for uncorrelated or non-traditional Mormons was given by John Dehlin.

In this 2-part series Natasha Helfer Parker, LCMFT (The Mormon Therapist and MormonMatters.org), interviews a faithful, believing LDS church member, Janelle, whose husband became disaffected with the church about 5 years ago. Part 2: Janelle discusses her own coping strategies, how she currently manages the LDS lifestyle within the context of her marriage, and advice/thoughts for others.

In this 2-part series Natasha Helfer Parker, LCMFT (The Mormon Therapist and MormonMatters.org), interviews a faithful, believing LDS church member, Janelle, whose husband became disaffected with the church about 5 years ago. Part 1: Janelle discusses hers and her husbands upbringings in the church, their courtship and the process of finding out about her husband's disaffection.