Honestly with Bari Weiss

It's Christmas Eve. A holiday celebrated by 2.4 billion people around the world, which centers on a 2,000-year-old story about a Jewish man born in Bethlehem who became a rabbi, who the Romans would later execute in Jerusalem.  But what most people don’t know is that the first people who believed in Jesus did not think they were starting a new religion. They were a small group of Jews who thought of themselves as history's last generation, with Jesus as their Messiah. Of course, as we all know now, they were not history’s last generation. Instead, they became history's first Christians. How did that happen? When did Christ's followers begin to see themselves as distinct and separate from Judaism? Why did some Jews refuse to accept Christ as the Messiah? And how was that refusal, and the anti-Judaism of the early Christians, directly connected to the antisemitism burning across the globe today? These first few centuries are essential for understanding not just Christianity and Judaism, but the way ideas spread, and why many of the ideas of this period—good ones, and also some very bad ones—still persist in our world today. My guest today, Paula Fredriksen, has spent her career studying this period of history. She is one of the world’s leading scholars of early Christianity and the author of many books including: When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle, and Ancient Christianities: The First Five Hundred Years.  Paula was born in Rhode Island and now lives in Jerusalem, just 20 minutes from Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified.   This conversation is a Christmas special you won’t want to miss. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all  book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week, Bari sat down with Erika Kirk for an hour-long town hall in front of a live audience on CBS. It was an extremely powerful conversation. Erika and Bari spoke about a lot—rising political violence in this very divided country; the way some people justified or excused Charlie’s murder; what Erika thinks about some of the controversial things Charlie said in his lifetime; her response to Candace Owens and the conspiracy theories Owens and others are peddling; the growing antisemitism on the right; and her decision to forgive Charlie’s killer. They also talked about the posthumous release of Charlie’s last book, Stop, in the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life. This town hall was the first of many conversations and debates Bari will be bringing to CBS News about the things that matter most. Which, of course, are often the hardest to talk about. We really hope you will tune in.  In case you missed this first one with Erika Kirk, we’re thrilled to share the conversation here on Honestly. And we can’t wait for you to catch the next one on CBS News. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most complex medical, ethical, moral, and religious questions of our era is that of physician-assisted suicide—also known as Medical Aid in Dying, or MAID. Eleven U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have legalized some form of MAID for terminally ill patients. And New York might join them. Over the summer, a Medical Aid in Dying Act passed New York’s state legislature. It is now sitting on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk as she decides whether to sign it into law. Under the proposed New York bill, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live would be able to access a prescribed, self-administered life-ending medication. Supporters argue that this is a compassionate option—one that can relieve people of immense pain and suffering, allowing patients to choose when and where they die, and to do so surrounded by loved ones. Opponents see this as a violation of physicians’ fundamental oath to do no harm. They also worry that while access may begin narrowly, it could expand over time to include people seeking death for reasons other than terminal illness—such as mental suffering or simply a desire to stop living. Cases like this have already occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and Switzerland. Rafaela Siewert sat down with two experts who see this topic very differently for a heated debate. David Hoffman is a healthcare attorney, clinical ethicist, and professor of bioethics at Columbia University. He argues that hypothetical future abuses of MAID shouldn’t outweigh the needs of terminal patients who need this option now. Dr. Lydia Dugdale is a physician, medical ethicist, and professor of medicine at Columbia University. In her view, legalizing this practice of physician-assisted suicide risks undermining the responsibilities of governments, medical systems, and families to care for the mentally ill, the poor, and the physically disabled. And she fears that the potential for excessively expanded access over time is too great. We are among the many Americans who do not know what the right answer is. We see both sides—which is why grappling with the nuances of this subject is so important. This is a debate you won’t want to miss. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All parents know what goes into raising children: the time spent changing diapers in inopportune places; the hours of worrying—about what to feed them, how to educate them, how to protect them and keep them healthy; the countless hours devoted to dance classes, summer camps, pediatricians, and piano lessons—all investments meant to give them the best chance in life. Most of us would do anything to help our kids become the most successful and happiest versions of themselves. But what if we could start earlier? At the molecular level. What if we could ensure our babies were healthier, smarter, and stronger, before they even took their first breath? To make tweaks to our own embryos in order to “optimize” them. This isn’t something out of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. It’s the very real, and near, future. And it raises profound and critical questions. So we hosted a debate: Is it ethical to design our unborn children? And are we morally obligated to do so when the risks of abstaining include serious diseases? Or does designing babies cross a line? Is it wrong to play God and manipulate humanity’s genetic heritage? The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this debate. Head to TheFire.org to learn more about this indispensable organization Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few lines in the Constitution have provoked as much passion—or confusion—as this one: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What did the Founding Fathers mean by “well regulated”? What did they mean by “Militia”? And, do any of those definitions hold in 21st-century America? Guns are one of the most divisive symbols in the country. At the same time, the idea of surrendering weapons and trusting the state feels dangerous, and to many, guns are not symbols of violence, but symbols of freedom. Still, the question remains: freedom at what cost? With mass shootings now a fixture of American life, with countless families being wrecked by gun violence—what exactly are we protecting? This debate is about what the Second Amendment really means, what its limits should be, what the root causes of our gun violence are. And how, if at all, we can address them. We think about this subject a lot: Would America be safer without the Second Amendment? To debate this topic we brought together Dana Loesch and Alan Dershowitz recently in Chicago—a city that has had more than its fair share of gun violence. Alan argued yes, that America would be safer without the Second Amendment. Alan is a lawyer, a law professor for 50 years at Harvard, and the author of too many books to mention. He has litigated and won hundreds of cases in multiple countries, including his pro bono defense of dissidents such as Natan Sharansky, Václav Havel, and Julian Assange. And he is a fierce advocate for tighter gun control in the United States. Dana Loesch argued no, that America would not be safer without the Second Amendment. Dana is one of the country’s top nationally syndicated talk radio hosts with The Dana Show, a television commentator, preeminent Second Amendment advocate, and author of several books, including the best-selling Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America. She is also a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. It’s a critical debate you won’t want to miss. The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this debate. Head to thefire.org to learn more about this indispensable organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices