#christianity as an unquestioned status quo

[nellasbookplanet]

In other news, it’s spooky month and I accidentally watched a christian horror movie (yes, that is apparently a thing that exists) and didn’t fully realize until the demon started spouting anti-abortion rethoric, and this has once again made me think about how so many (western) supernatural horror movies are somehow simultaneously very secular and extremely christian to the point that it’s hard to even notice when they start to slide into propaganda because most of them present christianity as this natural and obvious status quo. You use a crucifix against vampires. Call a priest to deal with demons. No one in-narrative ever has any actual conversations about what this means, despite featuring largely secular characters who should by all rights be experiencing existenial crises at the face of all this proof of not just the supernatural but of god almighty himself. Christianity is just the Obvious Tool. Calling a priest is like calling a plumber and requires no reevaluation of one's world view. A crucifix is no different from a bag of garlic.

Despite being mostly an atheist myself, I strangely often find myself prefering stories that lean more into the christian aspect: angels show up, maybe god has a few lines, the devil personally makes an apperance at some point. You know, Supernatural and Good Omens and Constantine and Lucifer type christianity. At this point, it stops feeling like an assumption of One True Religion and starts feeling like any other mythology, not dissimilar to Rick Riordan writing greek gods. It’s just another fantasy element inspired by real beliefs. I really wish more supernatural horror leaned this way, or alternately in the complete opposite way where the monsters and demons are completely removed from christianity. Give me some pre-christian demons, get a bit creative with the concept instead of just copying the exorcist's homework, c'mon you can do it!

[uramitashi]

radfem got an hate i never fully understood, as an outsider. i was pretty much a libfem following the stream, so i just justified it with "oh, they are probably hostile towards trans people". still i was weirded out by the comparison to nazis, the kill threats and the desire to assault them.

i got into radical feminism for two reasons:

• the whole concept of women oppression was understimated in any other social group. growing up i independently realized that sexism and misogyny were pervasive AND the root of all human misery in a way or another. they shaped wars, greed, and ALL kind of crimes in a way or another. it weirded me out that no one mentioned it ever, nor did anyone notice how fucked up gender roles were; in fact, i was disappointed in liberal feminism for starting to justify them and even encourage them. women and girls around me were becoming more hyperfeminine than ever, with all the anxiety this kind of focus meant. i wanted to rip out my gender from my body and exist outside of it. a libfem friend of mine asked me "maybe you're non binary?"

i was disenchanted.

• the whole male sexuality expression was fucked up. first I thought I was angry at porn, but surprisingly I wasn't. the problem felt deeper. after some reasoning I realized - men felt sexually entitled and compulsively stimulated by women's body. It wasn't about porn per se. it was about the fact that a photo of me in a bikini could become a screenshot men could sexualise and masturbate to - something that wasn't porn but could be sexualised anyway. female sexual objectification, the hypersexualisation of women's body made me angry in a visceral, primitive way.

non-feminists could not even grasp the topic. liberal feminists were very supportive of the topic, considering it a sexually progressive stance and indirectly calling me a "conservative prude" (i am anti religion and very leftist and those friends knew). that made me angrier! because how can you suggest sex work is an ok thing to do, if it's not equal among the genders? why do women not buy sex? why don't men beautify themselves to be bought? all those questions could have been answered with gender essentialism and the reinforcement of toxic gender roles, so i never tried to argue with them again. It felt pointless; liberal feminism became empty in my eyes.

i noticed something, while becoming a radfem. i noticed it in the news, in my real life circles, while studying surveys and browsing socials - people despised radfems more than they despised nazis, or communists, or each other. it dawned on me that radical feminisms was in fact just Feminism with the capital F, like normal textbook Feminism, and that everything else (liberal feminism, proletariat feminism etc.) was its sibling or child. but radical feminism, from a historical point of view, was just the core ideals of feminism. and I realized people hate it so much even today because its opposition to the status quo rises uncomfortable questions, which in this day and age are too much of a taboo to even elaborate them properly. to put it bluntly, people hate radical feminism because misogyny is blatant, pervasive and unquestioned. women are properties - whether private or public. No one discusses it. men are entitled to sex - what, you want to ban porn? Christian prude bitch. oh you don't want an hourglass figure and an obsession with beauty that you need to constantly validate with male attention? then you are invisible in society.

Choice feminism is only popular because it allows women to choose the patriarchal option, therefore not representing a problem for the status quo. that's what it all boils to: women can choose to be whatever they want, as long as they are fuckable.

but those people aren't your friends. the male friends who call (all) feminists "annoying bitches who need to be fucked so hard they forget how to whine" don't see you as human. the girls in your class who strictly adhere to hyperfemininity are only going to be seen as fleshlights and trophies for men to collect and trashtalk about with other males - they gain no power from their gender role. The people who defend sex workers' existence don't give a fuck about those women as human beings but just as spank banks. In fact they hate them with every fiber of their being, and they can't even justify the reason.

all this to say that no political current has bought me so much sense of community and intellectual enrichment as radical feminism. realizing how unfairly hated it is, made it much clear to me why i need it.

it is a cruel world.

[drbased]

This is how conservatives percieve transgenderism, and I hope it's immediately obvious here what makes this conservative rhetoric rather than leftist feminist rhetoric.

The whole tone of this is off; the focus here is on the corruption of the individual - there is no commentary on the moral consequences of the trans person's behaviour; it is simply assumed that the mere presence of mental illness is in itself a corruption of the natural order and that bad moral consequences inherently follow.

The first warning sign is explicitly the word 'deviants' but implicitly the words 'mentally ill'. The word deviant in and of itself signals to some corruption of the natural, and the natural is good, therefore deviancy is itself a bad thing. The badness doesn't come from the act of rape, or of deception, or of invasion of privacy, or of control of others, but rather the lack of conformity to social norms. And this combines with 'mentally ill' to plant inside the reader's mind the concept of mental illness as an explicit, conscious choice to be evil - to be a 'mentally ill deviant' is to be an aberration of the natural and good. The conservative mindset is that there are simply good people and bad people - the belief is that goodness and badness as inherent, intrinsic and ontological, instead of being a complex web of circumstance (privilege included). They want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to believe some people are 'just' bad, but also that their badness is entirely their choice. This allows for rapid, easy and guiltless dehumanisation, which is useful for a society with a prison-industrial complex. Thus 'mentally ill deviants' takes on a meaning of intrinsic and unpreventable but ultimately purposeful badness purely by association.

This is how dogwhistles work; calling someone 'mentally ill' derogatarily isn't a particularly nice thing to say, but the context here means it signals to a core belief about what mental illness is - the 'illness' is being described not how we would describe it in a factual, neutral sense, but rather as a sickness of the soul, a corruption of the personhood. The crimes committed by the 'mentally ill deviant', then, are used as 'proof' as the inherent corrupted evilness of the person doing them - in essence, the actual harm they've caused and the person hurt by them are almost secondary to the real ideological point: that this person is a Bad, Corrupting, Evil force. The concept of why we have morality at all is ultimately irrelevant to 'the bigger picture'.

The second major warning sign of his use of '2 genders, male female'. Any radfem worth their salt doesn't care jack shit about gender; we address the material reality of biological sex. This man does not care about morality or about the oppression of women; this man only cares about conformity, about accepting the status quo. He is simply asserting the status quo because the conservative mind accepts the status quo as fact, purely on the evidence that it's the status quo, in a closed feedback loop. There are 2 genders because they are, some people are bad because they are bad. That's the underpinning ideology of conservativism: an unquestioning assumption of the self-evident nature of the goodness of things.

And then of course, the last line. The last line exists to sum up all this person has to really say on the subject. Not to be corny but the use of 'shrink' here really evokes an old-school mindset. This isn't about visiting a therapist to resolve trauma; this is about visiting a 'shrink' to fix you. I guess you can say that this is a kinder approach than simply categorising someone as 'bad' and 'evil' and locking them away, but that's all it is; the fundamental of the mindset is still there, only in this course the person is given grace by the belief that the corruption inside of them didn't come from their soul but rather from some metaphysical social evil (if you want to be explicitly christian about it, you'd call it the devil). Ultimately it betrays the same lack of curiosity about why people make choices - if you're mentally ill (indeterminate) you need to be 'fixed'. Right-wingers claim to be all about individual freedom but they show no interest in understanding people as individuals. You're either good or bad, and that's it.

A short quippy reply to a tumblr post doesn't really sum up someone's entire belief system, but I think the lack of empathy to anyone here really jumps out. Considering I saw this comment on a radfem post, I found it interesting how upon reading it I immediately thought 'oh that's a right-wing guy' and went to the blog and it's exactly the kind of alt-right conspiracy shit you expect. It's a fun and enlightening exercise to parse why I so quickly identified it as that.

[automatismoateo]

How Do Christians Not See It? via /r/atheism

How Do Christians Not See It? It's astonishing how many Christians fail to see that Christianity has historically been a tool for government control. The Bible contains numerous passages that encourage submission to authority, which seems more about “opiating the masses” than divine will. Titus 2:9-10: "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive." This is a clear directive for slaves to remain submissive, which serves to maintain the status quo rather than challenge oppression. Similarly, Titus 2:4-5: "Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." Here, women are explicitly told to be submissive to their husbands, promoting a patriarchal structure that benefits those in power. Another example is Romans 13:1-2: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." This passage encourages unquestioning obedience to government authorities, suggesting that all political power is divinely ordained. It is clear Christianity was founded not in truth, but rather a desire to control the general population. How do Christians not realize this? Submitted July 10, 2024 at 03:43PM by LongDuck1055 (From Reddit https://ift.tt/8q7AD30)

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Paul maddens me.

because as infuriating as his letters can be.....i cannot help but love him, sometimes. not always, but often enough that i cannot throw him away. and that? that drives me up a wall.  

when i am doing queer theology, reading Paul’s letters through a queer lens, and thinking of the devastating aftermath of some of the verses he thoughtlessly scribbled out that burn red and poisonous in my heart -- he wounds me, deeply. he has wounded and continues to wound my people, deeply. 

when he says things about the Torah that have been used to perpetuate anti-Semitism, i clench my fists. when it comes to some of his comments about women, about slaves, about all sorts of things, i grind my teeth and choke back a scream. i read Howard Thurman’s account of his grandmother, a once-enslaved woman who loved having scripture read to her -- but never the letters of Paul. Never ever the letters of Paul, because those had been used against her and her people: “Always the white minister used as his text something from Paul. At least three or four times a year he used as a text: ‘Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters..., as unto Christ.’ ...I promised my Maker that if I ever learned to read and if freedom ever came, I would not read that part of the Bible.”

when i hear that, i want to yell and shout at Paul, to tell him that his privilege as a Roman citizen made him ignorant and thoughtless and cruel about some things! -- that despite his recognition (Galatians 3:28, Romans 12:2) that Jesus Christ came to upturn the status quo, Paul himself let too many social norms go unquestioned. and the Church weaponizes his words because of that. 

Paul, you say that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, no longer slave or free, no longer male and female” -- no longer these hierarchies that pit one group over another. except there are still such binaries in our world, in our churches, Paul -- and your instructions to keep women from speaking in church, your comments about the law that go against Jewish people’s understandings of the law, your horrible instructions to slaves to obey their masters....have been used to uphold and justify those hierarchies that you yourself acknowledge have no place in the Body of Christ. look what you have done, Paul, and grieve.

i am so hurt and angry, i want to be able to throw Paul’s letters away, to pretend i never heard of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, that i didn’t receive monthly anonymous asks that say nothing but “Romans 1:26-27″, that i didn’t have to spend so much of my time and energy studying and explaining and defending my people against all these verses. 

...but, when i’m doing disability theology, i cannot help but love Paul. and that’s what annoys me so damn much.

i cannot throw Paul away, because apart from Jesus himself -- Jesus who is Divinity self-limited, Jesus who told a story of the Kin(g)dom of God’s banquet being attended by disabled persons who do not need their disabilities to be removed in order to have a seat, Jesus who was impaired by his crucifixion and chose to rise with his wounds retained so that he is, really and truly, the Disabled God -- Paul’s letters are the foundation of my disability theology as a Christian desperately seeking God’s good news for disabled persons. 

Paul himself was likely disabled -- and not just for those few days that he was blind. He speaks of a “thorn in the flesh” that some interpret to be chronic pain or illness. And because of that experience Paul was able to grasp at least a little the advice he gives in Romans 12 to avoid conforming ourselves to the world -- he recognizes that what the world calls weakness, God calls strength:

“Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that [the thorn] would leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). 

society perceives impairment as brokenness, disability as weakness, and disabled persons as lesser in some way -- but God does not see as human beings see. when i wrote a paper on disability theology this past summer, Paul’s letters had a prime place in it; the following is an excerpt from my paper:

Rethinking of disability comes in recognizing that our current notions of impairment as brokenness, disability as weakness, will not endure once God’s Kin(g)dom is fully upon us. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, theologian Amos Yong finds a new hermeneutic of disability. 

In Corinth Paul finds a faith community that values the rich at the expense of the needy, and sets about to show them that “the most disregarded, despised, and denigrated individuals associated with the Corinthian congregation are as important if not more important than the power brokers.” After all, God has chosen not the world’s wise but the world’s foolish (mōra), not those the world calls strong but rather the world’s weak (asthenē) (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). This is why, Yong says, a serious reading of 1 Corinthians will transform “our understandings of strong and weak – and ability and disability –” themselves. 

I think also of the exhortation of Romans 12:2 to conform ourselves not to the world but to be “transformed by the renewing of [our] minds.” The world has saturated us with ableist notions of disability as weakness and wrongness, any deviation from the norm to be fixed or shunned; God calls us not to conform ourselves to this worldview but to find new ways of conceptualizing strength that make room for or even center people with disabilities. 

Eiesland does much of this work of rethinking strength in The Disabled God, explaining how the resurrected Savior’s wounds urge us to recognize “that full personhood is fully compatible with the experience of disability,” that interdependence and vulnerability are not our weakness but our strength. The value of interdependence shines through as one reads further down Romans 12, where the writer reminds us that just as one body has many members with unique functions, “so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and…have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us” (4-6). This body metaphor is expanded in 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul reflects on how a body where all members were the same would not be much of a body at all (v. 19). For this reason “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable” (20-22). No longer can we say that we have no need of disabled persons in our communities, for they possess gifts and functions that we cannot be whole without.

...and that is why i love Paul in a way that outshines my hatred and aggravation; i have a tenderness for him despite the way he makes me grind my teeth and shake my fist. 

because every now and then Paul was able to see past his own flaws and biases and privilege, his unthinking acceptance of much of his day’s status quo, and truly glimpse a little bit of the liberation and equity and justice that the Kin(g)dom of God brings. 

i understand 100% when people who belong to one of the communities that Paul’s letters harm cannot bear to read him anymore. i stand with them in their decision to avoid him -- that’s valid. but personally, i cannot do it. he is too important to my disability theology and my overall theology of a Body of Christ that centers the ones our world tries to push to the margins. 

i hate the man. i love the man. i wrestle with the man. i pray to him (as i do to many Saints) daily. i hope he has some remorse for how his writings have been used to oppress. and i accept that somewhere in the Body of Christ, he is present -- regardless of my feelings for him, in this Body i am joined to him. 

[benchgenderstudies]

Now the wealthy’s blood must flow as a consequence of their drinking leaded wine. Las Vegas

The broken  trust between the wealthy and  common American has now spread to a gap that no amount of apology or charity can forgive. The Conservative News Monitor ; aka fox news, called for delay in reaction to their own homicidal failing. Bumpstocks were a protected loophole to get automatic weapons into the hands of the wealthy thrill killer. Need they not ask for a peace for the peace was broken and now evidently and insincerely.  Casinos, weapons lobby, racists , and sexists all bonded by one party and one common outlook .. backwards. Other injuries as fossil fuels and planned parenthood terrorism simply didn’t muster victim sympathy among the elephants isle.

Fox noise, you know what the news is. Whether you see it as a task of journalism too inconvenient must apparently be your prolife christianity talking.This isn't the first time weaponry, racism, and sexism held hands together. The Charlottesville protest was like a German reawakening on the wrong continent. Was Robert E Lee even given a positive spin or recount of his life? Mentioned at all?  The militia walking through the streets yelling Blood and Soil forget the labor hours of actual labor put in by nonwhites. Management positions noted.  So who really did build the country?

The insecure tea party republicans made use of open carry to suggest their freedom of speech was compromised. Its their perspective that's compromised. A primary season of very unchristian remarks and slights to get ahead to the business of antigovernment.  A status quo of disfigured legislation created a field of deadbodies as ‘ a consequence of dissenting to race supremacy as nationalism”. Pat Robertson is far too soon. Robertson didn't care whether people died or not or that to call on a correction to the gun legislation. He's in the camp and pointed away from the problem. The country before 1921 is gone. Our anthem should reflect that. 

The wealthy have influenced law, have enabled the loophole for bumpstocks and have personally exploited that loophole to murder 59 concert goers as sacrificial lambs. Sacrificial lambs for Pat Robertson and Bill Oreilly to immediately chime in ' Thats the price of freedom”. Automatic weapons are still illegal, asshole. Theres no freedom being talked about. Did you notice that?

I don't trust FBI to give me a real story about Paddock because they're a republican city of moles. Mueller is a republican. If a democrat can call for impeachment on obstruction of justice , why keep the scumbag in office longer than necessary? Apparently Mueller has another definition of obstruction of justice or another set of definitions for republicans in general. They are all like that ; living as if exempt to reality. So without further ado , the top 60 wealthiest legislator NRA members should be culled as accessory to this mass homicide. 

I’m rejecting the status quo they are leaders before representatives. I rejecting the two party system. I’ m especially rejecting Donald Trump whose nomination is a result of views only given credit through redrawn districts and voter roll tampering. Necessity of trial and capitol punishment therefrom congressional negligence. is demanded to remind them to stand on the peoples ground. An understanding the effect of the wealthy when leading to blood must be paid in blood. Wealthy blood now must flow as a result; officially, because of one of their own being a thrillkiller.  If they believe automatic weapons to be a right , to support it boldly and then carry the result of that plank openly.  The gun lobby as an American sector has entwined its politics with forcing a cultural norm in dead bodies. Its the straw too far. Many too many families were injured in that stunt.

If the Las Vegas killings will be politicized for unquestioned respect of the Trump administration, the republicans expect far too cheap and shallow loyalism for themselves. By that same meter christians have far too shallow a faith for absentee apparitions. Way to warn people about the shooter , god. You suck as a wing man. Make that 61 prosecutions starting at the top with the republican’s god himself : deadbeat uninformed selfabsorbed sexist himself.  In whose image the republicans probably were created. These are the deaths you can’t spare for a better nation amongst the bloodshed they enable. Congress on trial.

Michael Bench, Exercise Physiologist.

[loislaneinvestigatesauthors]

An early woman bishop? Diane Cummings and John Rigoli’s The Mystery of Julia Episcopa

How much of the story of Julia Episcopa is based on real history? How did you research this?

John: Based on archeological discoveries and the works of historical scholars, it is widely accepted that women held leadership positions in the early Church. We have evidence of female ordination throughout the Roman Empire from tombstones, frescoes, mosaics, and manuscripts.

Reference: Women Officeholders in Early Christianity by Ute Eisen and Dorothy Irvin.

In the letters of Paul dated to the middle of the first century CE: He greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers. He tells us that Prisca and her husband risked their lives to save his. He praises Junia as a prominent apostle, clear evidence of women apostles active in spreading the Christian message. Paul's letters refer to house churches where women led the meetings, teaching Jesus’s message.

Reference: Karen L. King Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity at Harvard University in the Divinity School.

Though the subject is still controversial, many scholars believe that Paul’s contradictory instructions that women ‘are to remain silent’ was a much later addition to 1st Corinthians, an addition added by a scribe in the 4th century.

 I traveled to Italy and Israel several times, have researched the stories of the Roman Empire and early Christian history over 30 years. They call me an archaeology sleuth.

Diane: Julia is a fictional character based loosely on the biblical character Junia. That Paul considered Junia an apostle is where the similarity to Julia begins and ends, though Junia’s life might have played out exactly as we constructed Julia’s. We placed our protagonist in historically accurate settings and gave her life as it was lived then. We sent our publicist, who lives in Florence, Italy, to Herculaneum so that we could accurately construct her life there.

 A previous title more explicitly stated the women's history and struggle aspect of this book. Why did you decide to change it to the more enigmatic title it has now? 

John: We did not want to confuse readers from ordering the earlier version and felt that the word mystery might rouse readers’ curiosity.

Diane: “A Woman’s Struggle…”didn’t gain much interest when we published it. John and I realized that we could add to the story and improve it. We changed it so much that “Struggle…” diminished in comparison to “Mystery…” We tried to retire the first book so as not to confuse readers with two books of the same name, but as you know, once online, it’s there forever. Therefore, we changed the title.

 What was a woman's life, and a woman's role, like in Roman Empire times? How (or did) Christianity affect society's view of women? 

John: Women were considered full citizens under Roman law, though they could not vote or stand for office and had no formal role in public life outside of certain religious offices, such as the Vestals. However, many wives, widows, or close relatives of prominent men often wielded great political influence behind the scenes. In public, women were expected to play their traditional role in the household. They were responsible for making clothes, running the household. They were expected to be the dignified wife and good mother and not break from this tradition. 

Diane: We’re speaking of the upper classes now. Children were adored in Roman households, especially the girls. They were educated and many could speak several languages by the time they were of marriageable age, at around 14-16. As they reached the age to marry, they could depend on their fathers to find them a suitable husband. Adoring fathers wanted their daughters happily settled in marriage, but at the same time, the match must be financially advantageous to both families. Daughters never decided whom they would marry. Love did not enter into it.

When a girl married, her relationship to her father remained unchanged, and she was legally still a member of her father’s family, with equal inheritance rights to her brothers. This led to a relative level of independence under Roman law, in comparison to other cultures of this age. She will have been trained by her mother in all aspects of running a household. Supervising slaves/servants, organizing and hosting lavish parties, maintaining her family’s status would be done with ease. If she were savvy enough, politically astute, she could speak her mind to her husband, guiding and advancing his career.

 In the earliest days of Yeshua’s preaching, the Romans largely paid little attention to the religious lives of their Israeli lands provided Rome received the taxes they were due. The diaspora Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire were allowed to practice their religion relatively freely.

 Rome viewed the earliest Christian communities as simply another Jewish cult, and did not differentiate them legally from any other group of Jewish settlers. Though there were some persecutions under Emperor Nero, there was little legal difference under Roman law until the Jewish Rebellion in the latter half of the first century, at which point, the Christian movement sought to distance themselves from the Jewish communities.

 While we do not know precisely when the role of women in the early church started to be curtailed, we do know that women were a dominant force in the early church. We also know that when the fledgling movement was moved to distance itself from Jewish communities in the Empire, the Jews began to be less separatist and conform more closely to mores of the larger Roman society. They wished to blend in in order to avoid the persecution that they were subjected to after the rebellion in Jerusalem and the fall of the Temple in 70 CE.

  How did Julia's social standing impact her life as a woman? How would the story have been different if she had not been noble, if she'd been, say, a farmer's daughter? 

John: Because of her formal education and family status and wealth, Julia was able to sponsor and provide early Christian meetings at her home and recruit other wealthy and high-ranking Romans.

Diane: As a Roman noblewoman, Julia had the best of everything: a fine education, a beautiful home, all the clothes and jewelry one could imagine and a husband who, even if he did not love her, respected and honored her. Julia organized the household, raised children, and mixed with other women of her station, for her a tedious pursuit. Her husband ruled, and what she wanted was subject to his approval. She came to know that what she lacked in her life was personal freedom.

 It would have been difficult for Julia to imagine the life of a farmer’s daughter. Class differences were an unquestioned fact. However, she had the opportunity to travel, to mix with people of many different stations. Her eyes opened, and she developed empathy for the many who suffered. During her lifetime, though, she never quite shed the image of herself as the sophisticated noblewoman, which made her the force she was.  

  What reactions has this book gotten from religious people? Nonreligious people? 

John: Based on the majority of Amazon reviews, most readers have embraced this book - both religious and non-religious. We have presented a plausible story that challenges the status quo, and so far, most people have really loved it.  

 Diane: We were worried, of course. A couple of readers have accused us of “heresy,” but I have to say, our Facebook page is full of lively discussion. Men seem more troubled by the notion of a woman bishop than women do.

 What was your process like working with a coauthor? How did you two collaborate?  

John: We communicate by email and phone as I live in San Francisco and Diane lives in Atlanta. The process works for us because of our different contributions to the writing. My historical research and Diane’s writing expertise.

Diane: Once we decided to work together, our division of labor was obvious. John would be responsible for research and putting into context what he found, and mine would be writing the book. We did no outline. We had a general idea about where to start and no idea where it would end. We made it up as we went along by spending hours on the phone creating scenes and characters. One of John’s creations was Giuseppe. He wanted to add a character with slight limitations—and this idea came well into writing the first draft. I really liked this character after we rounded him out, but we had no idea what to do with him. We talked and talked creating scene after scene, and just when we thought to scrap him, one of us said, “Got it.” And Giuseppe became our caretaker.   

The Mystery of Julia Episcopa is available here. 

[bountyofbeads]

Is Trump Destroying Bipartisan Consensus on Israel?

Two weeks of outrage and head-spinning news show that institutional unification on Israel has gotten much weaker under President Trump.

Emma Green | Published August 25, 2019 10:44 AM ET | The Atlantic | Posted August 25, 2019 7:02 PM ET |

Updated on August 25, 2019 at 12:19 p.m. ET

For a long time, elected officials in Washington maintained a rough consensus on Israel. The United States and Israel were unquestioned allies. Military and aid packages were guaranteed winners in Congress. And support for Israel was bipartisan. Following the Six-Day War in 1967, when the country’s survival seemed imminently threatened, Jewish organizations helped build this American consensus, and helped sustain it: Lawmakers and other political leaders were entitled to their own opinions, but at a basic level, being anything other than pro-Israel was unacceptable.

As the past two weeks of head-spinning news about Israel have demonstrated, some aspects of Washington’s long-standing consensus on the country are changing. Donald Trump has upended normal channels of advocacy, leaving large, traditional institutions constantly scrambling to catch up with his latest tweet or off-the-cuff remark. He constantly amplifies far-right and far-left voices on subjects relating to Israel, fueling a narrative of fracture and polarization. And while Republicans have long worked to portray themselves as the only true friends of Israel, Trump has made this a priority, last week going so far as to say that Jews who vote for Democrats show “a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” later clarifying that he meant disloyalty to Israel. The past three years have exacerbated existing fissures among American Jews, with activists on the left loudly questioning the old consensus and political leaders on the right going along with Trump’s tactics.

Trump’s behavior is “very dangerous,” Abe Foxman, the former longtime head of the Anti-Defamation League, told me. “He’s trying to use us: in his efforts, his campaign, whatever his needs are.”

The upshot is that Jewish organizations have lost control of the narrative on Israel. Trump’s actions and statements about Jews and Israel have little to do with the Jewish people—they reflect the mode and priorities of his largely Christian, right-wing base. In practice, Washington’s bipartisan consensus on Israel mostly remains intact, but the story about Israel has changed radically. Jews have become characters in a larger political drama over Israel and anti-Semitism, two of the issues they have historically cared about most. The endless cycles of outrage are not meant to benefit Jews, and they’re not really about Jews. 

The watchword of pro-Israel groups in Washington has always been bipartisanship. This generally lines up with Americans’ views: Since at least 2001, according to Gallup, people from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans have consistently held favorable opinions of Israel, and their views have largely improved over the past two decades. Alan Solow, a former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who helped lead fundraising for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, told me that he came up in an era when members of the two political parties basically agreed that they should work together to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship. Now “the whole world is becoming more partisan,” he said.

Trump, in particular, has changed the bipartisan playbook on Israel. The president repeatedly singles out Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who have been critical of Israel and were recently barred from entering the country at Trump’s urging. When Trump says these women hate Israel, hate Jews, and are anti-Semites, that gives permission to “the president’s people to say, ‘We don’t care about traditional ways of approaching the U.S.-Israel relationship,’” Solow said. “It also frees up all the president’s opponents in the Jewish community to say, ‘You know what? All the rules have changed.’” As a result, politically conservative and progressive Jews, who might have once found common ground on the Israel issue, are constantly at one another’s throats.

For Jewish leaders who want the old bipartisan consensus to remain in place, this dynamic has been highly frustrating. “I’ve been struggling with the impact this has had on the [Jewish] community,” Democratic Representative Ted Deutch of Florida told me. Groups including the Republican Jewish Coalition have defended Trump no matter what, even when he seems to invoke classic anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish dual loyalty. “We are going to support Trump because President Trump has been a great friend to the Jewish community and a great friend to our organization, and he’s been the most pro-Israel president in history,” Neil Strauss, the national spokesman for the Republican Jewish Coalition, told me. “What President Trump said wasn’t anti-Semitic ... The idea that President Trump doesn’t like Jewish people is outlandish.”

Democrats such as Deutch, however, see this as divisive. “There was a decision made that somehow it’s in the best interests of the president’s reelection campaign to try and drive a wedge in the middle of the community,” Deutch said. As a result, a week’s worth of news cycles have been dedicated to Trump’s comments and the reactions of far-left Democrats such as Tlaib and Omar, who recently held a press conference that was “essentially the voice of the BDS movement,” Deutch said, referring to the effort to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel. While Congress recently voted 398–17 to condemn the BDS movement, with nearly every Democrat supporting the resolution, that majority gets little voice—the dozens of pro-Israel Democrats who recently visited Israel together could hold a press conference on the steps of the Capitol and “there wouldn’t be a single reporter there to cover it,” Deutch said. Trump “winds up giving attention to anyone he’s criticizing, and it elevates the rhetoric and temperature.”

Under Trump, all the typical rules of political advocacy have been destroyed, leaving pro-Israel groups flat-footed following every new Trump tweet. “It used to be, you take a certain position, there are two or three responses,” Foxman said. But Trump is totally unpredictable. On August 15, after Trump tweeted that Israel should bar Tlaib and Omar from entering the country on a planned visit and the Israeli government announced that it would do so, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel organization, criticized the decision—an exceedingly rare move for the staunchly bipartisan group that showed how little power it had in the situation. “All the institutions are in disarray. Lobbying isn’t what lobbying used to be,” Foxman said. Trump “didn’t clean the swamp. He just confused the swamp.” Large, traditional membership organizations are particularly ill-suited to navigate this political environment. “The Jewish organizational world, for better or worse, [is] the most status-quo, establishment thing you can possibly imagine,” Solow said. “It’s always trying to find a happy spot and stay out of trouble. And you’ve got a president who—that’s the last thing he wants to do.”

When it comes down to it, Trump may not care so much about making Jewish pro-Israel organizations happy. “A lot of this has nothing to do with the Jews,” Yehuda Kurtzer, the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, told me. “I think most of the president’s policy over the last two years as it relates to Israel has been about evangelicals.”

The Israeli government long ago decided to accept and court the help of conservative American Christians, who widely support pro-Israel policies, in part for theological reasons. Republican politicians in the United States play up their pro-Israel credentials to satisfy their voter base, trying to spin their Democratic opponents as anti-Israel. All of this has undermined the bipartisan consensus that large Jewish institutions have traditionally pursued, turning Israel into another right-wing rallying cry. Among Christians, “it’s much more of a culture-wars mentality,” says Dan Hummel, a historian at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who studies Christian Zionism. “It’s about winning and maintaining power.” Insofar as Trump cares about getting more Jewish voters—an unlikely outcome, given that Jews voted against him more than any other religious group in 2016—it’s not for their numbers, but for the credibility they afford.

Evangelical-led pro-Israel organizations have clear sway in the Trump administration. The leaders of Christians United for Israel, an American group that claims to represent 7 million members, won top speaking slots at the opening ceremony for the new American embassy in Jerusalem last year. Trump regularly gives interviews to the evangelical Christian Broadcasting Network, and his evangelical advisers cheer him on as he criticizes Jews for voting for Democrats.

The most bizarre example of the Christian influence on Trump’s views of Jews and Israel came last week, following Trump’s comments about Jewish disloyalty. The president tweeted praise given to him by Wayne Allyn Root, a Christian conspiracy theorist who says he has Jewish heritage and regularly claims, dubiously, to speak for American Jews. Trump credulously crooned about how much Jews love him using the words of an evangelical Christian, even as Root invoked the imagery of Jesus: Jews love Trump “like he is the second coming of God,” Root allegedly said, reflecting neither mainstream Jewish political views nor mainstream Jewish theology. “If the president believes that somehow it helps him among evangelicals to claim that there is only one way [to support Israel], and he is going to tell the Jews what that way is, it may make some members of his base feel good,” Deutch said. “But it’s caused enormous discomfort in the Jewish community.”

Beyond the cozy halls of Washington, American Jews have a wide range of views on Israel, and they always have. Young, progressive Jewish activists today are trying to raise greater awareness of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. A decade ago, years before Trump, the organization J Street tried to disrupt the stalwart pro-Israel consensus in Washington to create more space for criticism. What’s changed the most in recent years is not the diversity of Jewish views on this issue, but the tools Jewish groups have to make their voices heard on an issue they care about deeply. Every other week, some explosive new fight over Israel or anti-Semitism seems to break out, but very little of it has to do with protecting Israel or defending Jews.

America is living through a never-ending nightmare of partisan warfare. Israel and Jewish historical trauma are but the stage, Jews the bit players. And that’s never been good for Jews before. “We’re basically being swept along as pieces of a human drama that is not really about us,” Kurtzer said. “No version of a story in which Jews are objects in their own history ends well.”

[viralhottopics]

Premier League: 10 things to look out for this weekend

Manchester United may go for jugular against Liverpool, Morgan Schneiderlin must settle quickly at Everton and Ahmed Musa has chance to shine for Leicester

1) Will United go for the jugular against Liverpool?

Manchester United were on the receiving end of heavy criticism when they shut up shop and successfully played for a 0-0 draw when they visited Liverpool in October. It was a classic exercise in parking the bus from an unapologetic Jos Mourinho, who reasoned that a cautious approach was necessary against a team who regularly overwhelm their opponents with blistering attacking play. But while it was possible to grudgingly respect Mourinhos plan, there is no need for the United manager to play it safe at Old Trafford on Sunday. Although United are unlikely to veer too far away from pragmatism this is a Mourinho side, after all it is reasonable to expect them to play with enhanced adventure, given that they are riding high after nine successive wins in all competitions, with Zlatan Ibrahimovic scoring consistently, Paul Pogba beginning to excel in midfield, Marcus Rashford spreading panic in opposition defences, Henrikh Mkhitaryan creating and Juan Mata continuing to chip in with important goals. Victory would lift them two points behind Jrgen Klopps side, so this is no time for timidity. JS

2) Who will be hit hardest by absences through Africa Cup of Nations?

No other Premier League team has lost more players to the Africa Cup of Nations than Sunderland or Stoke City. For David Moyess side, Lamine Kon, Didier Ndong and Wahbi Khazri have departed to join Ivory Coast, Gabon and Tunisia respectively, while Wilfried Bony, Mame Biram Diouf and Ramadan Sobhi have also flown the coop. Who will feel the absences harder? Kon remains Sunderlands best defender, despite their encouraging displays without him in the past two matches, and he will be sorely missed against a physical strike force likely to consist of Peter Crouch and Jonathan Walters. Should these two be repelled, Sunderland will fancy their chances at home against a Stoke side lacking in other attacking options with Bojan reportedly the subject of a bid from Middlesbrough and a defence who have shipped 11 goals in the last three games on the road. MB

Sunderlands David Moyes will be without key players against another side his by absences because of Africa Cup of Nations duty, Stoke City. Photograph: Ian MacNicol/Getty Images

3) Can West Brom finally beat one of their betters?

West Bromwich Albion are perhaps the quietest success story in the Premier League this season. Six wins in their last 10 games have taken them from towards the iffy end of the table at the end of October, to eighth and sitting relatively pretty now. But theyre still 10 points behind Manchester United in sixth and 12 back from Arsenal in fifth, so a run at the European places seems rather unlikely, and thats at least partly down to their record against the better teams in the division. The draw against Tottenham Hotspur earlier in the season is the only time theyve taken a point from anyone currently above them in the table, which, given their relative resources, is not a huge surprise. But this season Bournemouth have beaten Liverpool, as have Burnley. Leicester have beaten Manchester City. Watford have beaten Manchester United. It doesnt necessarily have to be the unquestioning status quo that the biggest clubs just win games and those beneath them should just chalk them off as lost causes. Given their decent record against Tottenham (Spurs have only beaten them once in the past three years), if they are to progress beyond where they currently are, they could do with adding a few scalps to go with victories against those in the bottom half of the table. NM

4) Southampton need to find some consistency in the league

Southampton are a curious side this season. Their run to the EFL Cup semi-final, possibly the final should they hold on to their lead over Liverpool, has been achieved at least in part because they have a pretty even level of quality in their squad. Their second string isnt a massive step down from their first-choice XI, so when teams ring the changes for the games deemed less important, Claude Puels side is less affected. The question then becomes whether that level of quality is quite good enough in the league because on the basis of their recent games it hasnt been. Before the cup interval they had lost three games in a row, including a strange performance against Tottenham in which they were excellent for 20 minutes but departed the field in mind and spirit, if not body, after that. Their consistency in talent seems to be their strength but their inconsistency in performances their weakness. Now its important to show this level in all of our games in the Premier League, Puel said after the victory over Liverpool. At least hes aware of the problem and the bubbling frustration within their support. NM

5) Will Schneiderlin start for Everton?

There was no harm in finding out whether Morgan Schneiderlin was capable of succeeding at the highest level and no reason for him to be ashamed that he fell short of the standards of excellence demanded by Manchester United. Schneiderlin was one of the leagues outstanding midfielders during his time at Southampton, impressing with his interceptions, energy and ability to drive from box to box, and United could not be accused of acting foolishly when they signed him in the summer of 2015. Although he did not impress during his 18 months at Old Trafford, he remains a fine player and Ronald Koeman, who managed him for a season at Southampton, jumped at the chance of a reunion at Everton, whose rivals can only look on enviously at a smart piece of business. Schneiderlin will need to settle quickly if he makes his debut this weekend though. Manchester City visit Goodison Park on Sunday afternoon and someone needs to keep David Silva quiet. Koeman will trust that Schneiderlin is up to the task. JS

6) How Ibe copes with his latest setback could define his career

When is it going to happen for Jordon Ibe? The 15m summer signing from Liverpool had not started a game for Bournemouth since 5 November (he was withdrawn at half-time at home to Sunderland) and put in a turgid display last week as the Cherries crashed out of the FA Cup, 3-0 to League One Millwall. Afterwards, Eddie Howe labelled Ibes form a disappointment and with so many other players impressing, notably Ryan Fraser, Junior Stanislas and Josh King, it may be some time until Bournemouths most expensive ever player gets another chance. With technical ability and physical attributes to terrify defenders, too often it is Ibes decision-making and final ball that is left wanting. How he must crave a starting place against bottom-placed Hull City, who are still finding their feet under the new manager, Marco Silva. What is much more likely is another Saturday spent on the bench and another few weeks of frustration. At only 21, Ibe still has time to improve but how he mentally copes with this latest setback could define his career. He needs something to happen for him, sharpish. MB

With technical ability and physical attributes to terrify defenders, too often it is Jordon Ibes decision making and final ball that is left wanting Photograph: John Walton/PA

7) Allardyce seeks revenge on his former employers

When it comes to showing Sam Allardyce what he could have had, it is safe to say that the London Stadium comes a distinct second best to the England job. But as he prepares to visit his old clubs new ground for the first time on Saturday afternoon, there can be no doubt that Allardyce would like nothing more than to get one over on West Ham United, who hardly need reminding that Crystal Palaces new manager is a survival expert. Allardyce never seemed likely to join West Ham on their adventure to Stratford and it is almost two years since he left by mutual consent, but he might fancy his chances of earning his first victory with his struggling Palace side, who are sitting a point above the bottom three and need Christian Benteke to rediscover his poise in front of goal. West Ham are still adapting to their new surroundings and while they picked up unconvincing home wins over Burnley and Hull last month, their mood has been punctured by their FA Cup shellacking by Manchester City and news of Dimitri Payets determination to leave this month. This is an excellent opportunity for Palace to inch clear of the bottom three and pull their London rivals back into trouble in the process. JS

8) Arsenal must avoid another slow start

Having finished the festive period eight points behind Chelsea and a place outside the top four, the pressure on Arsenal has gone up a notch or two. Their title challenge is in need of an injection of energy and while they have always found a way to qualify for the Champions League in the past, the competition is tougher this season and there is no room for complacency. Although Arsne Wengers side demonstrated their resolve by recovering from dismal starts against Bournemouth and Preston North End, their initial slackness in both of those games suggests that there needs to be a sharp improvement in their focus when they visit Swansea City, whose players will surely be eager to impress their new manager, Paul Clement, despite their perilous position. JS

9) Musas chance to shine for Leicester City

The Africa Cup of Nations means that Leicester will be without two of their most dangerous attacking players for the next month now that Islam Slimani and Riyad Mahrez have joined up with Algeria. But Nigerias failure to qualify for the tournament could leave a space open for the speedy Ahmed Musa, who has performed patchily since his move from CSKA Moscow in the summer, to establish himself in Claudio Ranieris attack. Musa scored twice as the champions fought back to beat Everton in the FA Cup last weekend and his pace and directness could cause problems for Chelseas back three at the King Power Stadium on Saturday evening. JS

Ahmed Musas pace can pose a threat to Chelsea. Photograph: Media Image – MI News & Sport/PA

10) Middlesbrough must show more ambition

Middlesbrough are the divisions joint lowest goalscorers, their lack of punch in the final third continuing to undermine their commendable defensive organisation and their efforts to avoid an instant return to the Championship. They have not won away from home since beating Sunderland in August and it might be time to worry if they provide a cure for any insomniacs at Vicarage Road on Saturday afternoon. Aitor Karankas men have managed eight goals on their travels this season but they face a Watford side who have picked up one point from their last five games, with Walter Mazzarri fretting about the injury crisis that has thrown his plans into disarray in recent weeks, and the stage is surely set for Middlesbrough to secure a precious win. Another listless away performance would heighten suspicions that Karanka is too negative. JS

Read more: http://bit.ly/2inzlu8

from Premier League: 10 things to look out for this weekend