James Carse’s The Religious Case Against Belief might seem unrelated to parenting. But its exploration of belief systems, higher ignorance, and connection offers powerful insights for understanding Hand in Hand Parenting. This approach to raising children emphasizes emotional connection, listening, and working through difficult feelings together rather than imposing rigid rules or control.
Carse offers a detailed analysis of belief systems. These systems resist change and thrive on opposition. Similarly, parenting approaches that rely on unchangeable rules and punishments create boundaries that limit connection. When parents cling to inflexible ideas about how children should behave, they risk turning the parent-child relationship in a battleground.
James Carse’s The Religious Case Against Belief provides a fascinating framework for analyzing political rhetoric, particularly that of Donald Trump’s recent address to Congress. While Carse focuses on religious contexts, his insights about belief systems, boundaries, and poetic authority offer valuable tools for understanding Trump’s speech and the political moment it represents.
Trump’s address exemplifies what Carse would recognize as a mature belief system. It creates clear boundaries between supporters and opponents, establishes Trump as the ultimate authority, and provides a comprehensive explanation of America’s problems and their solutions.
On a rainy Tuesday afternoon in early March, I found myself hunched over not one but two versions of James P. Carse’s philosophical masterpiece, The Religious Case Against Belief. The first—dog-eared and coffee-stained—was Carse’s original 2008 publication. The second—pristine and unauthorized—was a dramatically condensed edition that has been stirring controversy in religious and publishing circles alike.
The unauthorized second edition, prepared by software engineer and religious studies enthusiast Joshua Pritikin, has been described as both “literary vandalism” and “an act of spiritual generosity,” depending on whom you ask. Released without Penguin Random House’s permission, it reduces Carse’s dense philosophical prose by nearly half. Entire chapters have vanished. Technical passages have been recast in simpler language.
I am writing to express my concerns about current copyright policies.
The landscape of academic publishing and information access has transformed with the
advent of artificial intelligence. Institutional policies remain rooted in an outdated
paradigm. Recent developments highlight this disconnect: major AI companies are
training language models on vast collections of academic literature and books.
Since at least January 2025, both American and foreign companies are using bulk text collections.
This technological revolution in how knowledge is processed and utilized demands a fresh
examination of our approach to academic access. While I fully support protecting
intellectual property rights and compensating creators fairly, the current system
creates barriers to legitimate academic inquiry and learning.
We don’t make lettuce illegal because it might be contaminated
with salmonella. We regulate it. We should be doing the same
for Federally legal hemp-derived cannabinoids. The state can
mandate independent lab testing for contaminants.
The PATH Caucus was created to raise awareness about the therapeutic potential of psychedelic and entactogenic drugs for mental health conditions.
The Caucus is seeking input on implementing programs and policies for novel therapies using these substances.
The Caucus aims to gather input from the public, those who have received psychedelic-assisted therapies, and stakeholders in the behavioral health ecosystem.
The Caucus acknowledges the cultural significance of certain psychedelic substances and seeks input from indigenous communities.
The Caucus is interested in input on risk mitigation frameworks, including public education, substance misuse prevention, and safety monitoring strategies.
The Caucus is seeking input on how to support states in developing infrastructures and service delivery systems for these therapies.
The Caucus is interested in input on how to ensure equitable access to these therapies.
The Caucus is seeking input on data standards and repositories for collecting data on the use of these substances.
The Caucus is seeking input on how to protect public health and safety when implementing these novel therapies.
2025 Jan 08 UPDATE: OLCC clarified that Oregon prohibits the sale of artificially derived cannabinoids. There is no prohibition against possession. You can verify this by visiting Chapter 845 and searching for “penalty.”
Oregon’s approach to regulating synthetically derived cannabinoids has evolved significantly in recent years. Initially, the focus was primarily on controlling their sale and distribution, while possession was treated as a minor infraction under Measure 110, which broadly decriminalized drug possession.
Suppose your relationship with your dad is loving but falls short of idyllic expectations.
This isn’t attributable to paternity uncertainty; he is your biological dad, sharing 50% of his DNA.1
So what do you do? You obviously have only two options:
Work through existing conflicts with your dad to improve your relationship.
Abandon the pursuit of expansive satisfaction and contentment with one dad figure, instead seeking to fill the void with multiple dad figures.
Note that the belief that a single dad can never suffice is potentially self-fulfilling. The more firmly you hold this belief, the more likely you normalize and accept a mediocre relationship, allowing it to remain unimproved.
March 11, 2025
