#anti-catholicism

[septemberadical]

I believe feminists should be more concerned about the rise of spiritualism and magical thinking the world over. I see many feminists uncritically regurgitating ideas about the divine feminine or the essential nature of women and men, and while its tempting to connect emotionally to a female deity in opposition to a man, the logic behind spiritualism is too dangerous. Your feminist god may say one thing, but if you concede there are otherworldly forces that can communicate with humans (somehow) than you are giving credence to everybody and his brother to justify their morals through those means. A feminist deity is just as valid as a misogynistic one because there is no way to prove the existence of either or to prove one god said it and one did not, or whatever. It's all nonsense.

Rationalism and secularism are the absolute most important things to the promotion of the equal rights of women. Any appeal to a supernatural power will inevitably be less persuasive and less conclusive, then the well-reasoned logical argument that women are equal intellectually, socially, and morally to men and are deserving of an equal say and position in society due to that fact. Evolution can get a bad rap because of evolutionary psychologists and their bad studies about the 'nature' of women and men based on evolutionary 'evidence' (this evidence is often correlational and they make huge assumptions based on it), but it is far easier to disprove bad science than bad religion.

[orderjackalope]

In August 1834 Boston teamsters burned down a convent full of nuns, thanks to religious prejudice and the suspicious testimony of Rebecca Reed, a lazy teenager with a grudge against the Mother Superior.

Transcript, sources, links and more at: https://order-of-the-jackalope.com/six-months-in-a-convent/

Key sources for this episode include Cassandra Yacovazzi's Escaped Nuns: True Womanhood and the Campaign against Convents in Antebellum America; James Phinney's "The Destruction of the Convent at Charlestown, Massachusetts, 1834"; Ray Allen Billington's The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860; and Rebecca Reed's Six Months in a Convent.

Part of the That's Not Canon Productions podcast network.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Mbap3UQyCB Twitter: https://twitter.com/orderjackalope Tumblr: https://orderjackalope.tumblr.com Email: jackalope@order-of-the-jackalope.com

[ironmandeficiency]

you know what? i’ll take it

curious about what's in store for you for 2023? :D

let AO3 decide!

(this is a random generator that will give you four (4) ao3 tags, so you know, warnings for what that usually entails)

[kermit-the-hag]

Israel just bombed next to a Catholic church. During Mass. On All Saints Day. This is not and never has been an issue regarding religion. This is a genocide of ALL Palestinians. They are bombing indiscriminately under the guise of fighting terrorism, when they are the real terrorists.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"MAN THOUGHT Y.M.C.A. ANTI-CATHOLIC AFFAIR," Toronto World. May 16, 1918. Page 7. --- Kingston, May 15 - In making a contribution of five hundred dollars to-day to the military Y. M. C. A. fund, C. Bermingham stated that hitherto he had regarded the Y. M. C. A. as an anti-Catholic propaganda, but the war had showed him otherwise in that the association had both Protestants and Catholics. Y. M. C. A. huts were given over to Catholic chaplains to carry on their administration and the work of the association had been shown to be Catholic in every sense of the word. and for this reason he was glad to be able to help on the campaign.

[immaculatasknight]

Not friendly to Catholics or Jews

[septemberadical]

Okay, OP, let's get crazy. I promise you at the end of all this I will not ask you if you hate homosexuals, I promise. I will ask you a couple other questions that I feel are more important, so stay with me as I stayed with you on your explanation.

You believe homosexuality is a sin because the bible tells you so, well in that case, I hope you are prepared to defend why the hell you as a woman are on tumblr at all! You should keep your mouth shut when men are around and comport yourself accordingly! As your bible says:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.1 Timothy 2:11-12

And don't think you're off the hook for preaching to the apostasy and the non-believers, because that's also a no-no. There could be a man among your followers or casual perusers of your blog and you could potentially teach them something:

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. "And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Also, where the hell is your husband in all this? Shouldn't you be in the kitchen preparing dinner for him, and doing all that he asks. As god says, he has authority over you and you should submit to him!

"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body. 24 And so wives must submit themselves completely to their husbands just as the church submits itself to Christ."

I hope you are also prepared to advocate the following for young girls and women: they must marry their rapist, polygyny should be standard practice and enshrined in law, and they must be prepared to to have your religious vows (and in this case legal vows as well, considering the institution) annulled if your dad just really hates your husband.

Don't believe this is all in your bible? How about this excerpt from The Marginalization of Women by Christopher Rollston that summarizes some of the worst of the misogyny inherent in the text: "An unmarried woman could be compelled to marry her rapist, as long as the rapist could pay the standard bride price and the woman’s father was comfortable with the marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28–29). Polygyny (a man having multiple wives at the same time) was not condemned, but was an accepted and legal custom (Deuteronomy 21:15–17; Genesis 4:19–24; and 2 Samuel 3:2–5). A woman’s religious vow could be nullified by her father or her husband (Numbers 30:3–15)."

That seems a little bit more complicated than the 'this woman is yours, this man is yours, go nuts' formula you used before. It's more like 'this man is like god, these women (and all women, whether they consent or not) belong to the man legally and socially, go nuts (but only the men)'. But that hardly matters, it was inevitable you would be wrong and sinful because you're a woman! For as we all know, the bible says:

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2, vv. 13–14). 

And the only cure for you is being pumped full of babies: as a woman "will be saved through childbirth, if she remains in faith and love and sanctification with modesty" (1 Timothy 2:15)

But perhaps you have accepted your sinful, weak nature and those admonitions to women don't do it for you. How about we take a look at the book of Leviticus, where you so helpfully get your prohibition against homosexuality ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus Ch. 18 verse 22. or if you prefer: "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus Ch. 20 verse 13). But Leviticus is a big book, let's see what else is forbidden:

Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9); Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13): Cross-breeding animals (19:19); Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20) (slavery is notably NOT forbidden in this book, a bit of an oversight by god); Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) Trimming your beard (19:27) Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) Getting tattoos (19:28) Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) (arguably this is a good law, but who the hell is Molek and where did he come from?) Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)  Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death, bit of an overreaction) (20:9) Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death, why so specific?) (24:14) Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42) ah, there we go, it does say something about slavery I apologize. Only foreigners can be slaves which is a but unlucky for all us gentiles.

Now I can't wait for your long-winded, incredibly stupid defence of your frankly immoral decision to reap to the edges of the field. I'll be here, waiting, until you're ready to defend yourself!

Or, you could just give it up and admit that you don't care what 99% of what the bible says. You have chosen to pick this one passage from this one book of the bible and use it as a way to call all those who are homosexual immoral and abominations in the eyes of god. You have not chosen to do the same with those who curse their father or cut their hair at the sides or get tattoos or sacrifice their children to Molek (a joke, stay with me). So don't tell me or anyone else that you got this knowledge from god. You chose this to be true because it aligns with your values just like how most of the laws above simply don't, so you choose not the follow them. Why should the prohibition against homosexuality still hold water outside of bronze age Palestine when the name of Molek has faded into obscurity? Where do you get the right to claim you are such a supporter of gay people that you drool at any Ian McKellen impression, but put his love for his husband on the same level as beastiality and incest for what appears to be an arbitrary reason?

Usually when I compare something to beastiality I don't mean it as a shining compliment, but you have already covered why you love gay people with all your heart so I won't rehash. Rather than whether you hate gay people, how would answer the questions posed above? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no one is free from criticism for that opinion. And just to pre-empt the whining, this is a public forum, you post at your own risk, if you don't care to debate, don't respond.

Do you just not like gay people? I'd rather you just say the quiet part out loud so I can block you

With all due respect, Anon, I fail to see what this has to do with Lord of the Rings. 

Oh, but you’ll probably want a serious answer, tho. Very well. I mean, I’d rather talk about any number of more interesting things than sex—like walnuts, or toenail clippings, or watching paint dry, or perhaps the consistency of squirrel droppings—but in the interest of making my own stance clear, and answering the questions that I’m sure have hovered unasked in the minds of many of my followers, I will provide the most kind and thorough answer that I can. 

But I’m still putting it under a read-more, because, as aforementioned, it has nothing to do with Lord of the Rings. 

The short answer is no. No, I don’t dislike gay people. I’m sure most of my follower count identifies as gay, or somewhere along that spectrum, and y’all have been lovely ever since I began this blog. To be fair, I know more than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve, but so long as you’re nice to me and leave fun interactions on my artwork, I like you plenty. If that’s satisfactory to you, good!

Because the long answer is more complicated. 

Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner

The first thing we must do is define the difference between “liking someone” and “approving of what they do”. If you’ve been anywhere near most Christian circles—or just listened to Hamilton—you’ve probably heard the phrase “hate the sin, love the sinner”. That phrase applies here. I have religious reasons for believing that the lifestyle of homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t harbor ill will towards the people who practice it. There’s a difference between disliking a person and disapproving of their actions. 

I don’t approve of smoking. I think it hurts people. That doesn’t mean I hate people who smoke. On the contrary, I care about them, and I would rather they don’t get lung cancer and breathing problems later in life, so I would urge them to quit smoking. 

I don’t approve of gambling. I think it hurts people. That doesn’t mean I hate people who gamble. On the contrary, I care about them, and I would rather not see them form an addiction that squanders away all their money to an uncaring corporation, leaving them poor and unhappy—or just as bad, winning the jackpot, and then being rich and unhappy—so I would urge them to quit gambling. 

I don’t approve of any and all forms of self-harm. It hurts my heart. I watched my best friend go through a long period of depression and self-harm, and it utterly broke me, that someone I loved would have to cause themselves external pain in order to get a reprieve from the pain they felt inside. I didn’t hate my friend. No, no, no, that couldn’t be further from the truth. I loved my friend more than my own life, ached for them, and wished more than anything they’d stop this thing that was hurting them, because I couldn’t stand watching a sickness slowly torture someone that I dearly, dearly loved (and still do). 

In the same way, I believe in a loving God who made us, knows us inside and out and front and back, loves us deeply, and wants what’s best for us. He once said, “The thief comes to steal and kill and destroy, but I have come that they may have life, and life abundantly”. I believe that, in His wisdom and kindness, He left us a Book of instructions on how to find that life. He laid out the road to that destination—the straight and narrow path—and He said, “Just follow Me, and I’ll get you there. I’ve put up guard rails along the way where there are pits by the side of the road.”

And I said, “What if I fall in?”

And He said, “Just turn around and take My hand. I’ll pull you out.”

If you’d known someone all your life, and they’d always proven themselves worthy of your trust, you’d believe them when they said “this is the right way that will lead you to safety, and that is the wrong way that will lead you into danger”. So it is here. He outlined, very clearly, in His Book, what is the sexual ethic for which He designed us. Contrary to popular belief, there’s actually a lot of freedom within that ethic; He basically said, “Lady, here’s your man, and mister, here’s your lady. Now you promise to be good and loyal to each other and take care of one another forever? Yes? Great, the rest is yours, have fun, kids.” The Bible actually has very little to say about sex as long as it’s in the right context. But anything outside of that context—including homosexuality, beastiality, incest, fornication, adultery, lust for someone other than your partner, etc.—is a pit by the side of the road, a bug and not a feature. 

So you see that I have religious reasons to disapprove of homosexuality. I have been told��by Someone I trust more than my own judgment—that it is outside His planned parameters for the world. But this does not mean I automatically dislike those who do not share my faith and convictions. I can believe they’re in the wrong without disliking them.

To put it simply, “I don’t like what you’re doing” DOES NOT EQUAL “I don’t like you”. I’d urge you to keep that in mind; it’s a good life lesson in general. 

So now that we’ve established that baseline, let’s look at how it applies to this blog. 

The Rep Sheet of Frodo-With-Glasses

Now, of course I’m a biased party, by nature of being the defendant in this trial (and my own lawyer LOL), but I think you’ll find that a fair and honest analysis of everything on this blog will reveal that I never even once expressed disdain for gay people. 

I’ve made it very clear where I stand on shipping through disclaimers on my art. I don’t ship Frodo and Sam, or Legolas and Gimli, etc. But to jump from that to “you must not like gay people” is like saying that because I don’t ship Romanogers in the MCU that I must hate Russians. 

I have repeatedly expressed that I see my own friendships reflected in the friendships in LotR. For that reason, they’re very important to me, and I feel no need to interpret them as anything else. To jump from that to “you must not like gay people” is like saying that because I am perfectly content with plain vanilla ice cream, I must have a personal vendetta against chocolate fudge. 

I have posted a disclaimer setting expectations for a passage I knew could be interpreted very differently. I expressed my own understanding of the nudity involved, and asked that my followers please have the decency to respect my interpretation of the story, with a few tongue-in-cheek jokes to lighten the mood. To jump from that to “you must not like gay people” is like your high school English Literature teacher giving an F on your perfectly formatted and well-argued paper just because your interpretation of the blue window curtains doesn’t match the one in the textbook. 

I have engaged in polite discussion with an anon who complimented my art. When the discussion came to “immoral relationships” between the characters, my response was to celebrate friendship. All I have ever done on this blog was celebrate friendship. I have never insulted gay people, I have never called them slurs or hateful names, I have never even confronted anyone who tags my art as ship art against my wishes. All I have ever done was try to be civil and polite and celebrate friendship.  

Have you ever considered, Anon, that I have been silent for a reason? That “the quiet part” has stayed quiet on purpose? That, perhaps, I did not come here to police my following and force my views upon them, but simply to celebrate a book that I love, and invite people of all stripes to come and celebrate it with me, if they so wish?

Have you considered that, if I disliked gay people, I could block every single one of my followers who express such views on their profiles? I didn’t get to over 800 followers on tumblr, of all websites, by policing those who are allowed to interact with my blog. I didn’t cultivate the community I did by shutting down people I disagree with. 

I am here to entertain myself. I have always been here to entertain myself. I was doing it before there were 800 of you, and I will be doing it long after this blog is gone. Whether or not you would like to join in with me is entirely your prerogative. 

You wanna see how much I hate gay people? You wanna see how far the vitriol goes? Watch this! Sir Ian McKellen is a fantastic actor and seems like a splendid person in real life. No one else could possibly be Gandalf the way he is. To see his face on the screen when I watch Peter Jackson’s trilogy makes me feel warm and fuzzy and happy inside, because I feel like I’m looking into the kindly eyes of an old friend. I enthuse over it every time Phil Dragash manages to perfectly replicate McKellen’s iconic cadence in his audiobook, because it’s like hearing the Gandalf I grew up with speaking the real words on the page. Sir Ian McKellen’s contribution to the fandom, and to the community surrounding Lord of the Rings, is invaluable and irreplaceable. Middle Earth would be a lesser thing without him in it. 

This is now a thing that is on my blog: enthusiastically singing the praises of the work of a gay man. His lifestyle choices, though I don’t agree with them, are separate from the mark he’s left on this fandom, and everything I could have to say about the latter category is positive. 

So, now. Would you like to ask me that question again?

The Dismount

Here’s the TL;DR, in case I rambled on too long:

I do not, and will never, approve of the act of homosexuality. I have religious reasons for doing so; much the same, actually, as I believe Tolkien himself held. 

I harbor no ill will towards gay people. No matter what you believe on this topic, you are welcome to continue interacting with this blog if you so wish. All I ask is what I ask of everyone who passes through here: Be kind and polite. 

Your response is your prerogative. I have expressed what I believe is right, and I will not budge or apologize for it, but I’m not demanding that you agree with me. Heck, I can’t tell you to do anything, and even if I could, I wouldn’t want to. I’m not your mom. I’m not God. You don’t have to answer to me any more than I have to answer to you. How you choose to respond is your choice. 

If that means you have to leave, that’s fine. I wish you all the best, and I hope you find what you’re looking for. 

If you ever want to come back, I’ll still be here, talking about Lord of the Rings. 

[jameslmartello]

[queerism1969]

[autisticrosewilson]

It's not that I hate fanon or that I think fanon is inherently less intelligent or morally wrong, but a LOT of fanon is based in racism, misogyny, and classism that I feel like a lot of you accept without question.

WHY is Duke (Daredevil, son of a god, has never once allowed himself to be defined by anyone's actions but his own) relegated to a background role, only characterized by reacting to the whims of other bats?

Why is Babs - Birds of Prey leader and backbone of the hero society, tells Bruce to fuck off and die 4 times a day and is constantly ruining her relationships by being biased and unhinged - Gotham bound, the mature responsible mom of the group who never argues with Bruce and never gets in trouble?

Why is Dick, both a tactical genius and master manipulator, a himbo only appreciated for his sex appeal? Especially when he is both Romani (group of people demonized and condemned as hypersexual by their nature alone) and an SA victim.

WHY is Damian "feral" and "uncivilized" despite being raised as a literal prince? Half of you treat him like a sociopath with no hope of redemption for an unfunny three second joke and the other half of you go full throttle into Bruce's white savior bullshit so that Damian can be "redeemed". Y'know when you're not villainizing Talia and acting like Dick is his other parent, actually.

WHY is Stephanie - extremely intelligent detective who can't stand Bruce and has a living mother she loves - lumped in as another member of the Batfam, a blonde ditz who only cares about prank wars and emotionally supporting Tim?

WHY is Cass - intelligent, a grown adult, suicidal perfectionist - emotionally intelligent, primarily existing to support the characters around her, immediately accepting of everyone she meets regardless of her own morals?

Why is Bruce the golden standard? Enough so that though everyone in the fandom could agree that he's an emotionally unstable wreck, being considered "the most like him" is seen as a compliment and not the HIGHEST insult? Everyone would agree if I said that Bruce purposely self sabotages his relationship half the time and the other half he simply does things without caring about the emotional impact it will have on people because he has to be the smartest in the room, but if I said that makes him a shit partner and emotionally abusive parent the fandom would bend over backwards to argue with me.

Why is Tim "the best Robin" when Dick Grayson invented the mantle, it is impossible for someone to embody the spirit of Robin better than him because he made it and he created what being Robin means. Maybe Tim is the best in Bruce's eyes, but what Robin means and who has the right to give it over was a significant thing they argued about. Tim the high school drop out, and yet also somehow the smartest? Tim "the most like Bruce" except no he's not, that's Cass. Poor neglected, abused, victimized little Timmy (the rich boy at the elite boarding school with loving albeit busy parents and almost every instance of him being victimized by another character has either been racist bullshit - The Al Ghuls and Rose Wilson- or a complete 180 for the character that made no sense when examined through the lens of prior characterization - Jason for instance.)

Almost every fanon trope that gets passed around like gospel seems to deliberately push POC characters and women into the background and strip them of interesting complex traits and stories, usually for the purpose of fitting them all into bite sized incorrect quote character types and uncomplicated narrative roles that are not only completely divergent from canon, but primarily exist to prop up the two rich white boys.

Also the insistence that Bruce, a 20 year old at the time, should actually be excused for how much he mentally and emotionally fucked Dick up because really they're more like siblings! While deciding that Dick at the same age was actually the perfect candidate to be Damian's new parent/guardian...have you lost the fucking plot you don't even make sense to yourselves.

Okay I lied at the beginning, I do hate fanon. You guys are so uncritical about the media you consume it is BEYOND just letting people enjoy things and have fun. I guess it's one thing if you KNOW this stuff isn't canon and UNDERSTAND why these tropes are problematic and you engage with it as such, it's fine read and write what you want, but just spreading the same nonsense around and parading it around as "better than canon" (version of the character so bland and boring you've somehow made the old white men at DC look like geniuses in the art of representation) is just infuriating.

[septemberadical]

The husband has the difficult task of earning the income for the family. The wife, to ease her husband's burden, ensures he is fed, cared for, and comes home to a clean, orderly home, and well-behaved, presentable children.

Why doesn't the woman earn the money and the man 'eases her burden' and makes 'well-presentable children'? Is there some innate quality in women that makes it so they must do this while men don't have to?

The man looks after his wife by taking care of finances. This includes bills and the household budget. The wife uses said household budget to buy groceries and necessaries for the household. Also some extra spending cash to ensure the house is nicely decorated, the whole family is presentable with nice clothing and good hygiene.

So, men earn all the money and control the money that the women can use. Decades of anti-domestic violence advocates have argued this is a terrible idea, it leaves women vulnerable to abuse, having no money, skills or exit route if your loving husband decides to be controlling or abusive.

Neither are "superior" to the other, both are loyal and obedient to each other. The husband leads by example, the wife follows her man...even if she may disagree with him.

If neither one is superior to the other, why does the man lead even if she disagrees? Wouldn't disagreement imply that the man is doing something unadvisable and the woman, who is at his total mercy, should presumably have a horse in this race and has an opinion that should be heard? I ask again, what innate quality in a man makes it so he leads and woman follows?

They each have duties to their children. The husband does so by being an example of masculinity for his children, and teaching them the practical aspects of adulthood. This may include working on projects with his family, playing sports, going hunting and fishing, working on cars and/or farm equipment, how to do taxes or balance a budget, etc. The wife leads her children by being a beacon of femininity and care. She also teaches them practical life skills for adulthood like how to cook and bake, how to clean, basic sewing skills, as well as social etiquette and dinner table manners. This further ensures her children will be productive adults as they go into careers and courtship.

This is just straight up misogyny, you do realize that right. And why would the man teach all of his children 'masculinity', surely by this scheme female children should be completely barred from this kind of education, after all, it is the man's domain? Also can you give me a run-down of what is femininity and masculinity? It seems like boys = cars and girls = dresses, but you correct me let's see what you have to say. Also, is posting on tumblr really a model of femininity? What if the commenter is a man, surely you are out of line telling a man who should be your leader that he's 'fucked in the head'?

Traditional gender roles have existed for centuries, across different religions. If you think that means that every single father has raped his children through all of time, you are fucked in the head.

The commenter was rude, but this is obviously not what they were arguing. Traditional marriage encourages women to be completely subservient to their husband and have no means to escape dominance and control, this has led, yes for centuries, to women being raped and abused by their husbands with no legal or social recourse. Marital rape was not made illegal until 1993 in the U.S. because women were considered men's property in marriage, with limited ability to get out of it, and this was based on a traditional marriage model. 1 in 3 women will be abused by men, and the vast majority of perpetrators are those they are in a relationship with. Don't you think it's a dangerous proposition to argue women are meant to stay in the home, isolated, with no money or any job at all, with the one man most likely to murder them? Shouldn't you, as someone who would presumably be raising daughters, encourage them to cultivate values of independence, self-sufficiency, and a wariness of men trying to control them and limit their options?

If you think that only protestant families are safe from being molested, you know nothing about the world. Did you know that your child is more likely to be molested by a teacher than by a priest? The priest thing only potentially affects Catholics.

I can't speak for the commenter, but I believe all religions put men in unearned positions of power, with limited oversight and lack appropriate means to investigate impropriety. The Catholic church has a huge, international reach and refuses, famously, to hold their members accountable, see here. I believe children are more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest, more children come into contact with teachers on a more regular basis. That doesn't mean your church shouldn't be held accountable for its actions, or that you should get defensive when someone points out the prevalence, and frequent denial, of sexual abuse in an institution you believe in.

So what about Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists (actually more likely to be molested in Satanism), or...idk Scientologists (also more likely to be molested)? If you think priests are the only ones to hide your children from, you're fucked in the head.

Again, I believe all religions will have issues with child abuse because child abusers look for and exploit positions of power. I would also like a source on Satanist priests (? I'm actually not sure what they have) being more likely to molest children than Catholic priests. You get offended that Catholics are accused of being child molesters and yet you are fine with accusing Satanists without any evidence? Surely they deserve as much respect as you do on the basis of their religion?

"Traditional gender roles", aka "gladly let my husband and our priest rape my kids"

If thats what you think traditional gender roles are, then I'll pray for you, because you obviously had a difficult life and are experiencing some degree of trauma from it.

Traditional gender roles are:

The husband has the difficult task of earning the income for the family.

The wife, to ease her husband's burden, ensures he is fed, cared for, and comes home to a clean, orderly home, and well-behaved, presentable children.

The man looks after his wife by taking care of finances. This includes bills and the household budget.

The wife uses said household budget to buy groceries and necessaries for the household. Also some extra spending cash to ensure the house is nicely decorated, the whole family is presentable with nice clothing and good hygiene.

Neither are "superior" to the other, both are loyal and obedient to each other.

The husband leads by example, the wife follows her man...even if she may disagree with him.

The husband and wife are not to disagree in front of their families, and certainly not in front of their children. To do so casts doubt on their marriage, even though disagreeing is perfectly normal in any relationship.

They each have duties to their children. The husband does so by being an example of masculinity for his children, and teaching them the practical aspects of adulthood. This may include working on projects with his family, playing sports, going hunting and fishing, working on cars and/or farm equipment, how to do taxes or balance a budget, etc.

The wife leads her children by being a beacon of femininity and care. She also teaches them practical life skills for adulthood like how to cook and bake, how to clean, basic sewing skills, as well as social etiquette and dinner table manners. This further ensures her children will be productive adults as they go into careers and courtship.

But where the husband and wife are really good to their children is by listening to their problems, offering advice and support, and sometimes tough lessons if they need to be learnt. Parents are to prepare their children for adulthood. It isn't an easy task, but it's an incredibly important one, one that shapes the future generations to come.

Traditional gender roles have existed for centuries, across different religions. If you think that means that every single father has raped his children through all of time, you are fucked in the head.

If you think that only protestant families are safe from being molested, you know nothing about the world. Did you know that your child is more likely to be molested by a teacher than by a priest? The priest thing only potentially affects Catholics. So what about Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists (actually more likely to be molested in Satanism), or...idk Scientologists (also more likely to be molested)? If you think priests are the only ones to hide your children from, you're fucked in the head.

Pull your head out of your ass, anon. Freak.

[the-muppet-joker]

could you elaborate on your choices for the 4 horsemen for the ponies? i’m deeply curious about your wisdom and insight

Very well.

Famine = Luna

Both are black horses

When Nightmare Moon takes over, there is no sun. Crops cannot grow under these conditions. Her reign is a reign of famine and no harvest.

Additionally, in the episode Cutie Re-Mark, it is shown that under Nightmare Moon's domain, Timberwolves roam free. While they are not directly tied to famine, they have symbolism regarding Harvest as they are known to howl at the first zap apple and attack those who try to harvest them if they are nearby, hindering people's ability to gather fruit.

War = Cadance

Naturally, a pony red with the blood of those slain in war is generally not marketable to little girls, who are unfamiliar with bloodlust and afraid of violence. They settled for a close second: pink.

She is the princess of love. Are you familiar with the phrase "all is fair in love and war?" Wars are acts of passion and bloodshed. Passion? Blood? Both symbolically related to the Heart. And what is her cutie mark as well as the sacred object that gives power to her kingdom? The Crystal Heart.

The Crystal Kingdom, Cadance's kingdom, is frequently under threat of was throughout the series. Queen Crysalis and the Changelings. Sombra. Again, in the episode Cutie Re-Mark, we see a timeline im which Sombra had won. And what is the state of Equestria? A mirror fucking image of how other countries in real life are affected by war. We literally have soldiers Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash and we see Apple Jack working tirelessly to ship out apple mush to feed soldiers for the war effort. This parallel is so clear and frankly I could go on.

Conquest = Celestia

Yes I know the image says strife. I wanted the pictures to be in a consistant style and they used the word strife but it says conquest in the Bible. Anyways, they are both white horses.

I mean. Do I need to spell it out? Celestia is an imperialist. She spreads her and her nation's influence and ideology as far as she is able. Cadance is installed as the leader of the Crystal Empire under her direction. They have conflict with the changelings, so they promote a leader more sympathetic to their nation. The school of friendship? Teaching other species the way to act and behave? Are non-ponies unfamiliar with friendship? Propoganda. And she is the Princess of the Sun. THE SUN. NEVER. SETS. ON. EQUESTRIA'S. EMPIRE. Sound familiar?

Do not make an enemy of Celestia or you will be punished and then brainwashed into submission. Luna? The moon. Discord? Stone. Sombra? Tirek? The list goes on. Again, I feel this is a clear parallel that needs little explanation.

Death = Twilight Sparkle

Indeed this is the most subtle connection. After all, she is not even close to the right color. She is purple! No relation to death whatsoever........ right? WRONG. In the Catholic faith, the calandar is divided into different seasons with associated colors. Purple is the color of death and mourning; priests will exclusively wear purple robes for mass during Lent to symbolize Christ's suffering and death on the cross.

Twilight has a very important role as she and her friends are the bearers of the elements of harmony, with Twilight in the lead. The power of this clearly escalates throughout the series, as the mane six progress from turning Discord to stone to completely destroying Sombra after he is initially resurrected. We watch them become a force that could take away anyone's life force, Twilight especially. And let's not forget the form the elements later take. The tree of harmony. Reminiscent of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, from which humanity committed its first sin and thus were kicked out of Eden, gaining the ability to die.

Twilight will outlive all of her friends. As an allicorn, she is immortal. We see in the last episode that she is in her prime while all of her friends are elderly. How can one be a Princess of Friendship if she sees all her friends to the ends of their lives like a benevolent Reaper? After so many years of standing at the deathbeds of loved ones, she will feel detatched from others. A Princess of Death.

And yes Flurryheart is the fifth Princess but she is a clear allagory for the Antichrist so I did not include her

[trying-to-be-catholic]

Question for Catholics: Abortion/Pro-choice vs Pro-life Edition.

Why is abortion and Pro-choice considered murder?

Why should a child conceived through coercion or rape be forced to be born?

Why should a child with a severe disability be forced to be born?

Why should a child who has little prospects in financial and emotional support be forced to be born?

Why should a child who will not be loved and conceived through a mistake, be forced to be born?

Why should a woman who has been coerced/raped, be forced to give birth?

Why should a woman who cannot financially or emotionally take care of herself be forced to give birth?

Why should a woman with a disability be forced to give birth?

Why should a woman who made a mistake on impulse be forced to give birth?

[septemberadical]

It is particularly ghoulish to emphasize the plight of Christ as 'in essence' and 'basically' a slave when the theology that built up around him was one used to justify centuries of slavery. Jesus had every opportunity to condemn slavery in a society literally built on the back of it and yet did not, what does that say about your god? Also, I'm not getting the symbolic argument? Is it that Christians are so self-pitying they are the only ones who could come up with a divine, all-powerful being capable of suffering or one so masochistic he didn't stop that suffering even though he could?

"Christianity is the only major world religion to have as its central focus the suffering and degradation of its God. The crucifixion is so familiar to us, and so moving, that it is hard to realize how unusual it is as an image of God." Churches sometimes offer Christian education classes under the title "Why Did Jesus Have to Die?" This is not really the right question. A better one is, "Why was Jesus crucified?" The emphasis needs to be, not just on the death, but on the manner of the death. To speak of a crucifixion is to speak of a slave's death. We might think of all the slaves in the American colonies who were killed at the whim of an overseer or owner, not to mention those who died on the infamous Middle Passage across the Atlantic. No one remembers their names or individual histories; their stories were thrown away with their bodies. This was the destiny chosen by the Creator and Lord of the universe: the death of a nobody. Thus the Son of God entered into solidarity with the lowest and least of all his creation, the nameless and forgotten, "the offscouring [dregs] of all things" (1 Cor. 4:13).

—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ (p.75)

[immaculatasknight]

Canada's enduring appetite for hate

[canisalbus]

Vachete Suomi AU. Vesuri ja Vaski asuvat suuressa kylässä jossain sisämaassa kaukana suurista kaupungeista kuten Turusta. Kirkonkylän pappi, Vesuri, yrittää parhaansa mukaan vakuuttaa kyläläisiä kasvattamaan perunaa, koska se on satoisa ja ravitseva kasvi mutta kyläläiset eivät tahdo luopua nauriista. Vaski on kartanonvoudin poika ja yrittää pitää suhteita yllä kyläläisiin, että he olisivat suostuvaisia maksamaan veroja kuninkaalle eivätkä hyökkäisi hänen isänsä kimppuun.

Loose translation:

Finnish Vaschete AU.

Vesuri (a type of pruning knife/billhook) and Vaski (brass/copper/bronze) live in a big village somewhere inland, far away from the country's populous cities like Turku (Finland's oldest city and former capital located in the southwestern coast). The village priest, Vesuri, is trying his best to persuade the villagers to start farming potato, a high-yielding and nourishing crop, but people are reluctant to give up their turnips (one of Finland's most important staple foods up until 1800's when potato finally took over). Vaski is the son of a local lord of the manor (or maybe you'd call it bailiff? Or even jarl?) and is doing his best to get along with the villagers so that they would continue paying their taxes to the king and wouldn't turn against his dad.