#i want their jewishness to be more present.. that and their culture... judaism in this world where there r dragons...

[writingwithcolor]

How can non-Jewish writers include Jewish characters in supernatural stories without erasing their religion in the process?

Anonymous asked:

I have a short story planned revolving around the supernatural with a Jewish character named Danielle (who uses they/them pronouns). Danielle will be one of a trio who will be solving the mystery of two brides' deaths on the day of their wedding. My concern with this is the possibility of accidentally invalidating Danielle's religion by focusing on a secular view of the afterlife. At the same time, I don't want to assume that Jewish people can't exist in paranormal stories, nor do I want to use cultural elements that don't belong to me. So, how do I make sure that Danielle is included in the plot without erasing their Jewishness?

Okay so to start with I think we need to ask a question about the premise: what is a secular afterlife? I’m not asking this to nitpick or be petty, but to offer you expanded ways of thinking through this issue and maybe others as well.

A Secular Afterlife

What is a secular afterlife? To begin with, I get what you mean. The idea of an afterlife we see in pop culture entities like ghost media owes more to a mixture of 19th-century spiritualist tropes drawn from titillating gothic novels than to anything preached from the pulpit of an organized house of worship. Yet those tropes--the ominous knocking noises from beyond, the spectral presences on daguerrotype prints, the sudden chill and the eerie glow, all of those rely on the idea of there being something beyond this life, some continuation of the spirit when the body has ceased to breathe. For that, you need to discount the ideas that the consciousness has moved on to another physical body and is currently living elsewhere, and that it was never separate from the body and has now ceased to exist. Can we say that this is secular?

More so: Gothic literature, as the name suggests, draws heavily on Catholic imagery, even when it avoids explicit references to Catholicism. Aside from the architectural imagery, Catholic religious symbols permeate the genre, as well as the larger horror and supernatural media genres that grew from it: Dracula flinches from a crucifix, priests expel demons from human bodies, Marley’s Ghost haunts Ebenezer Scrooge in chains. The concepts of heaven and hell, and nonhuman beings who dwell in those places, are critical to making the narratives work. 

The basis also draws from a biblical story, that of the Witch of Endor. The main tropes of Victorian spiritualism are present: Saul never sees the ghost of Samuel, only the Witch of Endor is able to see “A divine being rising” from wherever he rises from, and her vague description, “I see an old man rising, wearing a robe,” evokes the cold readings of charlatan mediums into the present (Indeed, some rabbinic sources commenting on this assert that this is exactly what was going on).

While neither of these views of its origin define the genre as the sole property of Catholicism--or of Judaism for that matter--it would be hard exactly to categorize them as secular.

A Jewish Perspective on ghosts

However, it’s not the case that ghost media is incompatible with Jewishness, assuming that it doesn’t commit to a view of heaven and hell duality that specifically embraces a Christian spiritual framework. 

Jewish theology is noncommittal on the subject of the afterlife. The idea of a division between body and soul in the first place is found in ancient Egypt, for instance, earlier than the earliest Jewish texts. In Jewish text it’s present in narratives like the creation story, in which God crafts a human body out of earth and then breathes life into it once it’s complete. It also appears in our liturgy: the blessings prescribed to be recited at the beginning of the day juxtapose Elohai Neshama, a blessing for the soul, with Asher Yatzar, expressing gratitude for the body, recited by many after successfully using the bathroom. 

Yet it’s not clear that this life-force is something separate than the body that lives beyond it, until the apparition of the Witch of Endor. The words we use to describe it, whatever it is, evoke the process of breathing rather than that of eternal life: either ruach (spirit, or wind) or neshama (soul, or breath): neither is a commitment to the idea that it does--or that it doesn’t--go somewhere else when the body returns to the earth. 

Jewish folklore, however, leans into the idea of ghosts and other spiritual beings inhabiting the earthly plane (and others). Perhaps most famous is the 1937 movie The Dybbuk, in which a young scholar engaging in kabbalistic practices calls upon dark forces to unite him and his fated love, only to find himself possessing her body as a dybbuk. It appears that he is about to be successfully exorcized, but ultimately when his soul leaves her body, hers does as well. 

More relevantly to your story, a Jewish folktale inspired the movie The Corpse Bride. In the folktale version, a newly-engaged man jokingly recites the legal formula he will soon recite at his wedding, and places his ring on the finger of a nearby corpse--a reference to a time when antisemitic violence is said to have gotten worse not only at Jewish and Christian holidays as it does still to this day, but around Jewish weddings as well. The murdered bride stands up, a corpse reanimated complete with consciousness, and demands that the bridegroom honor his legal obligation. 

In the movie, the bride gives up her demand willingly: her claim on him is emotional rather than legal, and she finally accepts that he has an emotional connection with another person, that he doesn’t love her. In the folk tale, the dead woman takes him to court to decide whether their marriage is legal, since he spoke the legal words to her in front of witnesses as is required, and the court rules that the dead do not have the right to make legal demands on the living. In this version, the moral of the story is that a legal formula is an obligation; that when he jokingly bound himself to the corpse, he not only disrespected the dead but also the legal framework that structures society, and by so doing risked being obligated to keep his side of a contract he never intended to enact. 

This speaks to the ways that a Jewish outlook can differ from a Christian-influenced “secular” one. Christian-influenced cultural ideas can often focus around feeling the right thing, while Jewish stories will often center on doing the right thing. Does the Corpse Bride leave because she realizes she is not the one he loves? Because she--or he--learned a valuable lesson? Or because she loses her court case? It’s not that the boy’s emotions are irrelevant to the story--the tension, the suspense, the horror of the story takes place primarily within the boy’s emotional landscape--but emotions on their own are not a solution. The question “should he marry her” can be answered emotionally, but “has he married her” can only be answered by a legal expert, and once it has been the deceased bride may not have changed her emotional attachment to him, but she no longer has legal standing to pursue her claim. 

Centering legal rectitude over emotional catharsis isn’t a requirement for having Jewish characters in your story, but it’s worth thinking about what is and isn’t universal, what is and isn’t actually all that secular. 

Meanwhile, back at the topic:

Where does any of this place Danielle?

Well, unless you’re positing a universe in which Christian or other deities or cosmologies are confirmed to exist (See Jewish characters in a universe with author-created fictional pantheons for more on that topic), there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be perfectly fine interacting with whatever the setting you’re building throws at them. 

My wishlist for this character and setting runs more to the general things to consider when writing fantasy settings with Jewish characters: 

Don’t confirm or imply that Jesus is a divine being. That means no supernatural items like splinters of the cross, grails, nails, veils, etc. There’s nothing particularly powerful or empowering about this one guy who lived and died like so many others.

Don’t show God’s body and especially not God’s face, or confirm that any other gods or deities exist, whether that’s Jesus, Aphrodite, or Anubis, or someone you made up for the context. 

Don’t put Danielle in a position where they’re going to play into an antisemitic trope like child murder, blood drinking, world domination, or financial greed. If you have to, name it and let Danielle express discomfort with or distaste for those actions both because Jewish values explicitly oppose all of those things but also because Danielle as a Jewish character would be painfully aware of these stereotypes as present and historical excuses for antisemitic violence. 

Do consider what Danielle’s personal practice might look like. What does Danielle do on Shabbat? What do they eat or refrain from eating? What are their memories of Jewish holidays and how is their current holiday observance different than their childhood? I know I say “Jewishness is diverse” on every ask, but it is, and these questions--which also underscore how very much Judaism is rooted in one’s actions during this life--will help you develop how Judaism actually functions to inform Danielle’s character, even if you don’t spell out the answers to each of these questions in text. 

Do let Danielle find joy, comfort, and identity in their Jewishness not just in contrast with Christianity but simply because it’s part of the wholeness of their character. I know the primary representation of Jewishness is a snappy one-liner in a Christmas episode followed by the Jewish character joining in the Christmas spirit, blue edition, but make room for Jewishness to inform how Danielle approaches the events of your story, or why they decide to get or stay involved.  

-Meir

Hi it’s Shira with some Jewish ghost story recs written from inside–

When The Angels Left the Old Country by Sacha Lamb (deliriously good queer YA Jewish paranormal, mainstream enough that it’s got a good chance of being at your local library and won all kinds of awards)

The Dyke and the Dybbuk by Ellen Galford (sorry for the slur, warning for a paragraph of biphobia in the book but it’s an older book. I read this right before my divorce so my memories are super fuzzy but it’s about this modern day lesbian who gets possessed by the ghost of a different lesbian from hundreds of years earlier in Jewish history.) Nine of Swords Reversed by Xan West z’L of blessed memory - another queer Jewish paranormal.

The general plot is that two partners are struggling with how to be honest with each other about the effect disability is having on them. It’s got a very warm and fuzzy cozy vibe but kink culture is central to the worldbuilding so if that isn’t your vibe I didn’t want you to go in unaware.

The Dybbuk in Love by Sonya Taaffe. I don’t remember the details but I remember loving it, it’s m/f and romance between possessor and possessed.

I wrote a really short one called A Man of Taste where a gentile vampire woman and a Jewish ghost/dybbuk get together.

~S

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

In Judaism, one alternative way of referring to converts is "Jews by Choice."

If a parallel term exists in Xtianity I am not aware of it, but I would like to propose that it really should exist, albeit not just in reference to converts but to all Xtians. Every Xtian should get the opportunity to fully understand their faith in context and to make an informed decision to choose it for themselves. As it stands, many Xtians are deeply ignorant about Jewish history (before and after the formation of Xtianity), the original cultural context for the stories in the Old Testament, the cultural Jewish context that Jesus existed and taught in, the critical historical (scholarly) read of these texts, what they probably meant to the Israelites who produced them, and what they mean to Jews today and how we read these same texts differently in our religious context.

This creates a problem, where Xtians are taught only the narrow band of context that their church deems it important for them to know, and even that is frequently inaccurate or so limited in scope as to make it inaccurate by omission.

And this is because the reality is that the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures that the Old Testament is based on) does not naturally or inevitably lead to the Jesus narrative. If you are starting from a Xtian perspective, and especially if you read the New Testament first and then and only then dive into the Old Testament, the Jesus narrative is obvious to you because you are looking for it, expect to see it there, and are coming at these texts with that reading lens in mind. And it's not that you or anyone else is nuts to see that narrative there - there are plenty of solid Xtian reads of these texts that make sense if you already believe in Jesus as presented by the New Testament.

But what the vast majority of Xtians aren't taught is how to approach the Tanakh from a Jesus-neutral perspective, which would yield very different results.

Now you might fairly ask, why would they *need* to approach the Tanakh with a Jesus-neutral perspective? They're Xtians! Xtians believe in Jesus, that's what makes them Xtians!

My answer is multi-pronged: First, I believe that G-d wants a relationship with all people, and speaks to us in the voice we are most likely to hear. That's inherently going to look different for everyone. And that's okay! G-d is infinite, and each of our relationships with G-d are going to only capture the tiniest glimpse into that infinite Divine. Therefore, second, when approaching religion, everyone sees what they want to see. If you nothing religion but find your spirituality in nature, you're going to come at these biblical texts with that lens and take away from them similar things that one might take away from other cultural mythologies. If you, like me, are coming at these texts with a Jewish mindset, you are going to come away with a portrait of Hashem and our covenantal relationship as Am Yisrael. And, of course, if you read with a Xtian lens, you're going to see the precursor narratives leading up to Jesus. That reading bias is not only understandable but good or at least deeply human. Everyone sees what they want to see in these texts. There is no objective or flawless way to read them, and to claim that there is, is to claim that not only is there only one answer, but only one kind of relationship that G-d wants to have with people, that you personally happen to know what that is, and that everyone else is wrong. I am sorry, but if you believe that - if you truly think that you in particular (and/or the people you happen to agree with) know the mind of G-d, then you do not worship G-d. You worship yourselves, because to know the entirety of G-d would require you to be G-d. There's a term for that. That doesn't mean there aren't wrong answers too. But it does mean that there is no singular unimpeachable reading of the texts. What you see in these texts then, says far more about you than it does about the texts themselves or G-d.

So the question then becomes: Why do you want to see this? (Whatever your "this" is.) If your read of these texts is something you choose, why do you choose to see what you see? And is it a meaningful choice if you are not taught other ways of knowing, other perspectives on these texts, and to think critically while exploring them?

Judaism inherently teaches a multiplicity of opinions on the texts, and maintains that they can be read to mean different things, even at the same time by the same person. Deep textual knowledge and methods for learning more, asking questions, challenging accepted answers as a way to discover new meaning, and respectful disagreement are baked into our culture and methods. Some Xtians of some denominations have analogous processes, although on the whole still emphasize correct unified belief over correct action with a multiplicity of belief. I am not suggesting here that Xtians stop approaching their own scriptures as Xtians or adopt Jewish methods instead. What I am suggesting is that Xtians should be taught a fuller picture of these texts and learn other perspectives so that they (1) understand their own beliefs and why they believe them (or after further inquiry if they believe them), and (2) understand and respect that this is what they are choosing to believe and that it is not the only thing one could reasonably believe. Because (3) if not, they are more susceptible to having their faith shattered at random by something unexpected, and will connect less to their faith as a relationship with G-d and more as an obligation based on an unchallenged world view.

And, frankly? (4) It will help them to be better neighbors, to love their neighbor as themselves, and to give to others the respect that they would like to receive.

Being taught the historical context, Jewish history before and after Jesus, the differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, the timeline of the development of Xtianity in relationship to rabbinic Judaism in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, the development of church doctrine and the various splits amongst the denominations, and Jewish readings of the Tanakh would give clarity and desperately needed context to Xtians about their religion. Is there some risk that some people, upon understanding these things would drop out of faith entirely or, like me, discover that they are actually meant to be Jews? Yes, definitely.

But let me let you in on a little secret: you don't want those people to begin with. You really don't. Because the reality is that if a person is not called to relate to G-d through Jesus, eventually that person will learn this about themselves one way or another. If they are given the information and tools to make a meaningful choice, they will part company on good terms. If not, they will likely become disillusioned and leave the church in pain, anger, and even trauma. They will bring that out into the world with them, and spread the bad news about the Good News making it even more likely that other people who were already on the fence will jump ship on bad terms. You cannot trick people into a meaningful relationship with G-d. You can only give them the tools they need in order to explore on their own and the rest is between them and G-d.

And the bottom line is that you don't need to and should not be afraid of knowledge. If your faith cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it deserves that scrutiny tenfold. The people you lose from the flock? You would have lost them anyway, because we aren't in the driver's seat here. G-d is. Hashem called me to be a Jew with just as much love and desire to connect as G-d calls Xtians to the church and to Jesus. A faith examined is a faith deepened or exposed in its weakness. And if it is the latter, don't you want people to know this sooner rather than later in order to fix it?

So my proposition and wish for Xtians is that they become Xtians by Choice. That they delve deeply into the origins and context of their faith so that they can be 100% certain that they understand their Xtian faith and why they choose to relate to G-d through that lens.

[dawsonscreekwasalwaysbad]

one thing about cultural christianity that i don't see talked about enough is that i think it's something a lot of jews can also fall victim to. especially if you live in an area where there aren't a lot of other jews and so you don't have easy access to resources like hebrew school and synagogue and jewish centers. but also even if you do. i'm jewish, i grew up jewish, both my parents are jewish and so are their parents and so were their parents, plus i grew up and still live in a highly jewish area, where schools took off for the high holidays. most of my peers went to hebrew school, and seventh grade was universally considered bar mitzvah season. and i took those things for granted. as a kid i chose not to go to hebrew school, not to get bat mitzvahed, and so much of what i know now about judaism—about jewish culture, jewish traditions, jewish holidays, jewish values, jewish beliefs—i only learned from being on tumblr.

when i was younger, like five or six, i asked my mom what happens after you die, and she said that your soul goes to heaven. and so for years i thought heaven and hell were universal beliefs. i didn't learn that jews don't believe in heaven or hell until my late teens. and in hindsight i can see why my mom told me that—you don't really want to scare a little kid by telling them that when you die you're just dead. but still.

and i grew up celebrating christmas. not in the sense that my family would go to chinese restaurants and see a movie in theaters, but in the sense that we put up a tree and raced downstairs first thing in the morning to open presents under the tree and gather with our extended family and eat christmas ham. still, there are a lot of christmas traditions we don't partake in, like stockings and caroling and elf on the shelf. the other day i had a friend come over and i showed her how many jewish ornaments were on my christmas tree—we have a star of david, a rabbi bear, and our tree topper is a dreidel—and she said something about it being a nice intersection of cultures. and it felt weird to hear her say that. i don't blame her for it, i know she meant well, but it would make more sense for someone to say that about someone with one jewish parent and one christian parent. and like i said, both my parents are jews. christianity doesn't intersect with my jewish culture, it invades it. maybe it was sort of a wake up call for me: you can decorate a christmas tree as jewishly as you like, but at the end of the day it's still a christmas tree. and so whenever i explain to people that i didn't have a bat mitzvah or that i celebrate christmas, it makes me feel like a bad jew.

i don't mean to imply that celebrating christmas makes you less jewish, or that you should be ashamed of yourself if you do. i just feel that way about myself. it's sort of that mentality of "everyone's valid except me," how there are things you say about yourself that you would never ever say about a friend. personally i would love to stop celebrating christmas, but i don't think i'll ever be able to, because even if/when i move out, my family will keep inviting me home for the holidays. and they have every right to. my family loves christmas, they love celebrating it, and i can't force them to stop. that's their choice. this holiday sparks joy for them, but for me it just sparks frustration and fatigue. and i don't want to ruin it for them, but i do want them to understand why i'm tired of celebrating an extremely hegemonic holiday.

idk if i'm articulating this well. i'm not really involved in the "discourse" around cultural christianity to begin with, but whenever i see it talked about it's usually in reference to atheists who used to be christian. but it's a lot more pervasive than that and i don't see that acknowledged very often.

[fish-in-need-of-a-bicycle]

I’m gonna repost this because I want more people to check my work. This is my racial development model for Ashkenazim, which I made for my child development class after learning about racial identity models that psychologists have made to show stages that people tend to pass through as they learn about their racial and ethnic background.

So, Jumblr, tell me what you think!

[ID: Infographic titled, “Ashkenazi Jewish Identity Model”. A bubble says, “White Identification”, with a paragraph saying, “Starting in childhood, the individual begins to notice racial features and identify themselves as white. Even when not necessarily passing as white, the individual sees that other community members who they identify with do pass as white and that they themselves don’t easily fall into other categories”. An arrow points down to the next bubble that says, “Exclusion Realization” with the paragraph, “The individual starts to see that white groups reject either their culture or ethnicity as not white. This can occur a number of ways, including exposure to hate crimes or through noticing how intertwined whiteness and Christianity are.” An arrow points down to the next bubble that says, “Racial Framework Conflict” with the paragraph, “Usually beginning in adolescence, the individual realizes they do not benefit from the full privileges of whiteness but are instructed by society to identify as white. They have similar experiences to other marginalized groups but are rejected by them as a privileged class. They want to learn about social justice and white privilege, but struggle to reconcile how their experience does not align with whiteness. The individual seeks to move into one of the next phases to resolve feelings of isolation, mis-fitting, and cognitive dissonance.” An arrow points to a triangle where the corners are labeled “Identification”, “Assimilation”, and “Insulation”. Next to Identification is a paragraph that says, “The individual embraces and takes pride in Jewish culture and resilience, possibly becoming more observant. They see themselves as being in a unique position to add nuance to discussions of identity. They feel assured in their values, even if those values are shared by people who reject them. They are conscious of the present dangers of antisemitism but remain confident in the continuation of their people”. Next to Assimilation, it says, “The individual rejects aspects of their Jewish identity to find belonging in a part of mainstream society, such as a political group. Their acceptance by the group is precarious and may be contingent on denouncing Judaism or maintaining the label so they can be tokenized”. Next to Insulation, it says, “The individual concludes that the Racial Framework Conflict is a consequence of there being no place in mainstream society for them. They take comfort in their Jewish community and may become more observant. They may catastrophize as a way to mentally prepare for rising antisemitism. They disengage from any political or activist spaces that discuss racial or ethnic identity”.

Extra visual details, feel free to skip: The “White Identification”, “Exclusion Realization”, and “Racial Framework Conflict” are light gray. The triangle has a horizontal color gradation from purple to blue to green. The corner labels are in bubbles that are the same color as the corner. “Assimilation” is purple, “Insulation” is green, and “Identification” is blue. There is a light blue-gray diagonal watermark saying, “fish-in-need-of-a-bicycle”.]

[eretzyisrael]

by Mark Oppenheimer

Black Classic also offers numerous books by the late Hunter College historian John Henrik Clarke (1915-1998), who shared Welsing’s homophobia. Clarke’s detractors often mention his antisemitism, but his homophobia is sometimes overlooked. On YouTube, you can see him cheered on as he tells an audience that Africans “had a healthy attitude toward things other people made unhealthy and made filthy and dirty.” Scornfully, he denies the possibility of gay Africans in antiquity. “Show me one case of sexual deviation before the coming of foreigners!” Elsewhere, Clarke, who blamed the “Jewish educational mafia” for multiculturalism, wrote an introduction to an edition of Michael Bradley’s 1978 book The Iceman Inheritance, which argues that white people are genetically predisposed to higher levels of racism and aggression than other groups, and speculates that Jews might be the ultimate “Neanderthal-Caucasoids.” 

He also wrote the foreword to Bradley’s 1992 work Chosen People from the Caucasus: Jewish Origins, Delusions, Deceptions and Historical Role in the Slave Trade, Genocide and Cultural Colonization. This last work argues that the people known as Jews today are descended from eighth-century converts to Judaism, having usurped the tradition from a group that had been practicing Judaism for more than two millennia; these late-arriving Jews, including today’s Ashkenazi Jews, have uniquely high levels of Neanderthal aggression, which has helped them dominate other groups.

In 2001, Clarke told an interviewer that “the European uses this religion”—Judaism—“as the handmaiden of his imperial desires. I strictly mean the Europeans who answer to the word Jew. He reads the word Jew into ancient history, where the word didn’t exist. When the European Jew didn’t exist.” In an interview you can find online, Clarke told an audience, “If Jews want to dominate something, it’s very easy to dominate us. So that’s what they do.”

The idea that “white” Jews, whether Ashkenazi, Sephardi (Iberian), or Mizrahi (Middle Eastern and North African), are somehow impostors or usurpers—with the “real” Jews coming from the Nile River Valley or other parts of Africa—is a poisonous myth deployed to subvert the ancient connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. It’s a lie presented as a given within a certain strain of Afrocentric thought, and embraced not only by Clarke but by the aforementioned “Dr. Ben”—Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan—who, like Clarke, is well-represented in the offerings of Black Classic Press, which publishes 12 ben-Jochannan titles. These include We the Black Jews: Witness to the “White Jewish Race” Myth and African Origins of the Major “Western Religions.”

In 2015, shortly after ben-Jochannan’s death at 96, The New York Times reported that for decades he had deceived employers about his credentials, telling Cornell and other institutions that he had degrees from Cambridge, in England, and the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez. Neither school had a record of his enrollment. “ ‘People condemn me for not being an intellectual of the Ph.D. type,’ Mr. Ben-Jochannan once said, reacting to questions later raised about his résumé,” the Times wrote. “While he used the ‘white man’s credential’ to go ‘certain places,’ Mr. Ben-Jochannan said, he refused to ‘let the white man certify’ his work.”

As far as I can tell, Coates has nowhere discussed the allegations against ben-Jochannan, his longtime intellectual partner—and a writer who remains a source of revenue for the press. To the contrary, Coates has always spoken of ben-Jochannan with reverence. “In 1978, when we started publishing, three elders were inspirations and gave their support—John G. Jackson, John Henrik Clarke, and Yosef ben-Jochannan,” writes Coates on the Black Classic website. “His books have revolutionized the way Black people relate to Africa and the Nile Valley.” After ben-Jochannan’s death, Coates told the Times, “I consider Dr. Ben the greatest of the self-trained historians.” Ta-Nehisi told the Times that ben-Jochannan’s example “runs through everything I do.”

Along with Clarke and ben-Jochannan, one of the authors best represented in Black Classic’s offerings remains Tony Martin. The Jewish Onslaught may be gone from the website, but several of his other books are still there, including a pamphlet, published in 1998, containing the text of a lecture given in Trinidad called The Progress of the African Race Since Emancipation and Prospects for the Future. Although largely about the Afro-Caribbean experience, Martin takes time to explain that “[p]seudo-scientific racism had been around since at least the 4th or 5th century AD when the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, pioneered the notion that Africans were recipients of the curse of Ham.” The Talmud makes no connection between Noah’s son Ham and Africa—that is a later, mainly Christian tradition, seen in early church theologians like Eusebius of Caesarea (CE 260-340) and Bede (CE 673-735). 

But Martin, though a professor at Wellesley for many years, isn’t making a scholarly argument. He is making an indictment. This is also what he is doing when he writes:

“When President Clinton becomes president, he goes to Geneva and he bows down before the World Jewish Congress. When the African American woman Myrlie Evers-Williams became head of the NAACP the other day, she went straight to Geneva and bowed down before the World Jewish Congress.” This is fiction, of course—neither of them went to Geneva to genuflect before Jews—but hardly surprising coming from Martin, who elsewhere in his pamphlet calls the World Jewish Congress “a body organized on a racial or religious or whatever-the-Jews-are basis.”

One has to ask: Why is Coates selling this? 

[sag-dab-sar]

The Need to Recognize Christmas' Preferential Treatment 🎄

Christmas is seen as "stolen" from pre-Christian traditions or described as "not really Christian". Some of it is legitimate (e.g with specific local or national folk traditions), a lot of it is pseudo-history (e.g Mithras birthday, an entire Christmas tree, lights) but frankly neither actually matter. Because, in our modern world, Christmas holds a prestigious place due to Christianity.

.🔹.

Here are examples that showcase Christmas' ubiquitous, unquestioned place in many Culturally Christian nations and why we need to recognized its ubiquity:

Appropriation of Judaism, re-imagined for Christmas exists like this. @/koshercosplay has basically an infinite amount of examples to use for these posts and even gets sent asks of more examples.

There is no Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or other religions' holidays reserved as an official federal holiday in the US. So all non-Christian religious holidays are labeled as "accommodations" while Christmas is a given.

While my post targets the US because thats were I am from, this isn't US only. Christmas is a public holiday in a large protion of countries around the world (see map).

Hallmark Christmas movies, that are made by the dozens at this point and are a US Christmas staple, are propaganda longing for a better ""family friendly"" white washed Christian version of America that never existed.

Hallmark has added anti-semitism into it's Christmas movies.

A Hanukkah presentation was banned in a Florida school meanwhile the same school was celebrating Christmas activities and decorations. Justified by Florida's Parental Rights Bill ("Don't say gay" bill) "obligating us to follow the 5th grade standards [...] At this time, a Chanukah presentation is not in our standards." It was only reversed to to social media outcry.

Something similar also happened in a Vancouver school where Christmas decorations were allowed because they "aren't religious" while Hanukkah ones were explicitly denied.

Fasting and breaking for prayer during Ramadan is seen as an inconvenience to employers, who need "guidance" on how to "accommodate" their Muslim employees. And has led to Muslims being straight up fired. Whereas Christmas decorations, events, or music in a work setting is fine.

Universities won't hold classes on Christmas but will reverse their practice of not holding classes on Yom Kippur & Rosh Hashanah because not holding classes on those holidays is "intended to insure greater continuity in the academic schedule and minimize course disruption for students." Those two holidays are a debate at the university— Christmas is never a debate.

Not holding classes on Eid al-Adha is also controversial! This also included reversing the decision to not have classes. The decisions to not hold classes on the holiday is a debate at the school board— Christmas is never a debate.

To make it all worse in the US: Christian Nationalism is dramaticlly increasing x x x

.🔹.

No matter what pagan-ness or secular aspects can be found in Christmas it has a privileged special place in our culture— that is afforded to no other religion— specifically because it is Christian. There are a few examples where this isn't the case (e.g Japan) but those are very few and far between

In my strong opinion: if you choose to celebrate the holiday, as a Christian or non-Christian, you should recognize the special spot & privilege it has.

You shouldn't dismiss that fact and the above examples because "pagan origins" or "celebrating it in a secular way"

Maybe next time when your classmate, your child's classmates, or you sibling's friend want to put up Hanukkah decorations in school next to the Christmas ones you can speak against the school administration that bans it, or against the teacher who gets upset at the idea.

Or perhaps you can be the person at the school board meeting who points out that Christmas isn't any more special than Yom Kippur or Eid al-Adha so why are those debatable when Christmas isn't.

Recognizing these things is not raining on Christmas' parade nor does it mean you should feel guilty for celebrating, its simply a matter of expanding you view of the world and learning the obstacles other people face.

.🔹.

P.S

Recognizing its preferential spot is paramount imo but if you'd also like to touch on the history of the matter:

Here is some info on the "Christmas is stolen" argument, as well as tracing secular and religious history of the holiday.

The origins of Christmas and its traditions are marred with psudeo-history plastered all over news websites, blogs, and supposedly reputable sources. But many of this comes down to secondary sources citing each other in a loop without primary sourcing. Here is an example of how that can happen (not xmas related).

-

-Dyslexic, not audio proof read- | -repost-

[noctivagant-corvid]

Can I hear the unskippable 2 hour dialogue rant about gentrification and westernization of judaism and how zionism reflects that? It sounds interesting.

OHHH BOYYY OH BOY YES YOU CAN. this will be very tangenty tho

so starting off with the gentrification of judaism. i’m going to b e talking about the us, cause that’s where i’m from.

if you don’t live in a primarily jewish area, chances are you’re the only jew in your town, and your teachers say hannukah like chah-nah-kah. it’s not a coincidence that half of the jews i know (esp younger ones) call hashbrowns “gentrified latkes”.

in non-jewish areas, we’ve been bending our traditions to fit in with the christian crowd. i know many kids who are jewish by blood, but the only difference between them and their relaxed christian neighbors is that they celebrate hannukah during the winter instead of christmas. hell, i know jewish kids who only know what hannukah is! not to say there’s anything wrong with being reform- i am reform- but these kids are being deprived of their culture and given a bleached, christian-comfy version of it. even in my own household, i used to be told my presents came from a “mystery maccabee” in order to give me a sort of santa claus like all my friends had. (it didn’t work- i just boasted that santa wasn’t real).

now, people who live in primarily jewish areas might not run into these problems, but problem is these areas are few and far between. i live only an hour away from a “major jew area”, but my temple is the only one for over ten different towns. even then, we’re a pretty small congregation. the lack of jewish prevalence is letting our culture fall to the side, especially for kids (rightfully) who don’t want to sit in services every weekend for God-knows-how-long.

i’ve been to fun services. it is very possible to make fun services! even just making more of the services group singing makes it like, 10x more fun. tell more stories. create an atmosphere. teach the kids what the hell the hebrew means. have breaks in services so you aren’t sitting on your ass the whole time. sing. sing. sing. sing!!!!!!! kids can like services!!! we can keep our culture alive without remolding it to look like christianity!!!!

zionism is literally just the bleed through of western values (like manifest destiny) into a religious ethno-state comprised of a notoriously prosecuted and scared group. the us gave them land that wasn’t their’s to have and told them to protect it. the citizens are more american than we are. i mean that in a bad way. fear mongering rules that land and now they’ve done the very thing that got them all scared in the first place.

[jubjubbird]

Recently, we made a condensed presentation about the presence of Jewish symbolism in Homestuck! If you want to check it out, here is the link to the presentation. The plain text version is below the cut.

:: advancedConversationalist ::

-- advancedConversationalist [AC] began pestering contemporaryApprentice [CA] --

AC: this presentation will discuss the following topics:

AC: manifestations of antisemitism and descriptions of the inquisition

AC: if any of these topics are upsetting or triggering to you, please take any precautions necessary in order to ensure your health and happiness

CA: Got it.

AC: good :]

AC: now, we will discuss the long awaited topic of today

AC: the way in which topics of judaism and antisemitism appear in the infamous webcomic homestuck, mostly unintentionally, and why i think that’s awesome

CA: Oookay... Let’s get started.

==> Rook: Begin explaining the BASICS

AC: the text color you see me using right now is the way limebloods in homestuck used to identify themselves

AC: since none of you wanted to hear about all that grubgrinding hemospectrum nonsense though, i’ll keep this bit short

AC: if you’ll excuse the dramatics...

AC: ...

AC: they’re all dead now

AC: the imperial hivedrones came in and hunted them down because they posed a threat to the status quo and disrupted the order of things

AC: i doubt i have to spell this out for you

AC: but that reminds me of something

AC: though... i don’t think you know exactly what i’m talking about

==> Rook: Describe the NUANCE

AC: you might be thinking of the holocaust here, but there is actually a much more applicable moment in jewish history that we could use to compare this to

AC: the spanish inquisition

AC: i know, i know, you never would have expected it, but the similarities are uncanny

AC: take the limpieza de sangre, for example

AC: this train of thinking justified the idea that jews passed down their unclean blood even if they were fully assimilated, a trait shared by the limebloods of homestuck canon

AC: plus... there’s the whole argument of appearances

AC: can you really see the blood of someone’s ancestry from appearance alone?

==> Rook: Elaborate on this NONSENSE

AC: judaism has always toed the line between visible and not

AC: i mean, there’s always your blood, but can you really tell based on appearance?

AC: and the same goes for the limebloods

AC: they quite literally possess a trait only visible through their blood, with qualities of behavior that others use to identify them, often incorrectly, otherwise

AC: the entire anti-jewish side of the inquisition was about trying to figure out who was secretly judaizing based on their appearance and actions

AC: all to justify killing them

CA: Okay, but do you have any other evidence?

AC: you betcha

==> Rook: Talk about ASSIMILATION

AC: hiding in plain sight isn’t easy when you outwardly profess yourself to go against the grain

AC: which brings us to the topic of assimilation

AC: jews have an affinity for assimilating themselves into the host culture whilst maintaining their practices, adopting new traditions and behaviors in response to the world around them

AC: similarly, limebloods were tasked to hide themselves within the world around them by pretending to be nearby goldbloods or olivebloods

AC: or perhaps avoiding the question at all

AC: maybe this assumption relies on too much experience, but you’ve probably heard the name karkat before

AC: he, like other trolls of his sign, prefers to use gray text to avoid sharing his blood color to other trolls

==> Rook: Discuss the CHARTER SYSTEM

AC: additionally, we see the safety of hiding these differences changes under different rulers

AC: on beforus, limeblooded trolls were coddled and chastised rather than killed

AC: seen as too weak to stand up for themselves

AC: but on alternia, this fate took a turn as their new ruler sought a more violent form of control

AC: this resembles the charter system pushed onto jews living in christian europe

AC: their status in christian society was largely dependent on who was in power, held up by charters that could be torn in half at the turn of the crown

AC: expelling all of the kingdom’s jews from the nation

==> Rook: Now, talk about INHERITANCE

AC: the other part of this that comes into alignment is the ability to, in a way, convert

AC: while it is not exactly the same, the ability of trolls to inherit limeblood genetics without having a direct limeblood parent resembles that of jewish conversion

AC: which allows a person to become jewish without having jewish ancestry

AC: of course, in many cases, it is a matter of returning to a culture lost generations back

AC: that resurfaces itself when times allow jews to open up about their culture once again

AC: just as a latent gene allows limebloods to be born generations down when it is safe enough for them to emerge from the brood caverns

==> Rook: Sigh... it’s time...

AC: but... there is one more big point i have to make

CA: Why do you sound so hesitant?

CA: Is something wrong?

AC: not necessarily, i just find this point to be a bit odd

CA: Why is that?

AC: because, technically, it all started with a single typo

AC: dave strider, one of the two canonically jewish characters in homestuck, misspells the word “jesus”

AC: and thus, we have the phrase “troll jegus”

AC: a running joke throughout the rest of the webcomic that becomes incredibly reminiscent of its real world counterpart

AC: who is this troll jegus, you may ask?

AC: the very karkat vantas mentioned prior

==> Rook: Explain yourself

AC: karkat vantas is a mutated limeblood troll who emerged with bright red blood instead

AC: after prophets and followers had predicted his arrival for centuries, if not millennia, his coming signified the birth of a troll messiah of sorts

AC: and he was worshipped for these traits not long after, with multiple characters wearing insignia that identified them as followers

AC: now, i could go on about the parallels between a jew born as a messiah and becoming a widespread phenomenon, but that feels like low hanging fruit

AC: so instead, i will talk about the rise of jewish messianism that led up to the real world birth of christianity, and how that parallels with our story here

==> Rook: Go on...

AC: in times of extreme jewish suffering and struggle, messianism begins to grow in popularity

CA: What does that mean? Messianism? I thought Jews didn’t believe in a messiah.

AC: well, you’re right

AC: but that doesn’t mean that the idea of one emerging was never comforting to us

AC: when things would become especially difficult, people began to believe in a saving force that would either take away their struggles or allow their passage into the next world to be peaceful

AC: either way, a good way out

AC: and it was these exact beliefs that spurred the creation of early christianity

==> Rook: Wrap this NONSENSE up

AC: on alternia, things were getting tense

AC: a caste war was going on, and innocent people were dying

AC: they were looking for a good way out

AC: just like the early christians of late antiquity, they turned to a newfound messiah in order to seek solace in their severe situation

CA: Huh. I guess that is a lot of evidence.

AC: i gotta agree

AC: but it’s important to acknowledge that a writer’s ability to analyze and represent themes throughout history in their writing is not the same thing as intentional symbolism

AC: in fact, most of this shit was probably coincidence

AC: but honestly, being able to see characters like me in a caste under my own sign... even unintentional representation means a lot

==> Rook: Conclude the PRESENTATION

[nochd]

I would absolutely want to read a post by you about Evangelicism and Israel.

I'll try. (This is a response to this post of mine, I assume, where I promised to write one if anyone asked.)

At the surface level, the situation isn't too hard to summarize. Evangelicals believe in the Bible; the Bible says Israel belongs to God. Anyone invading Israel, in the Bible, is one of the bad guys and liable to have entertainingly horrible things happen to them.

I'm not going to get into geopolitics-level stuff, because I don't know much about it, and because most Evangelicals don't know much about it. I'm talking about how the average praying, churchgoing, Bible-verse-memorizing, guilty-about-sex-feeling Evangelical looks at the issue, because no matter what sophistication might be brought to the table by an expert, it's the population average that swings elections and enforces social norms.

The trouble with the surface level reading is that it all it does is pass the explanatory buck. The Bible occupies a higher place in the hierarchy of sacred things for Evangelicals than for other Christians, but Evangelicals (for all they would insist the contrary) interpret it through a cultural-political schema and filter out the parts that don't fit just like everyone else. The question simply becomes: why do Evangelicals read the Bible like that?

So, why Israel? Well, I'll tell you up front, it's not out of concern for Jewish people. All Christian groups have a tendency to talk about Judaism in the past tense, because in Christian mythology Christ is the completion and perfection of God's plan for the Jews; but Evangelicals take the mythology more seriously than most.

This goes right to the heart of the Christian faith, to the central doctrine of salvation in Christ. Christians are saved by Christ's death on the Cross from the penalty of sin under the Old Law. What's the "Old Law"? Neither more nor less nor other than Judaism -- as interpreted by people who've never read any Jewish scripture except the Tanakh (which of course Christians, tellingly, call the "Old Testament"), and who think the only honest reading of that is their own.

At this point I need to reiterate the thing I kept saying over and over in the previous thread. It is generally agreed nowadays that religion doesn't live in the realm of facts, of statements that can be true or false. Rather, every religious belief is a matter of one's private personal experience. To people who haven't lived in very religious communities this seems like common sense; that's just what religion is.

Well, it's not. It's a cultural consensus, barely a century old, constructed for the purpose of preventing religious conflict. And the key thing you must always remember if you're trying to understand the Evangelical stance on anything, is that Evangelicals never signed up to that consensus. To Evangelicals, God is an actual person who exists in factual reality, and Israel belongs to him and whoever he chooses to rent it to.

There is no general agreement among Evangelicals as to how present-day Jews stand before God. At my church we tended to think of them kind of like Elves in Middle-Earth -- the first children of God, whose time has been and gone, but some linger still. I have a distinct memory of an Easter service where we had a Jewish man visit us to explain what Jesus would have eaten for the Last Supper; and I don't think it's a false memory, because I remember he told us about unleavened bread and bitter herbs and an egg, and I gather those are a real Passover thing.

But I have also seen much more negative attitudes; at the extreme, I have read an Evangelical book about the Rapture and how it would probably come in 1988, which included pages and pages of excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and asserted that the Diary of Anne Frank was a fake.

Speaking of the Rapture, a confession: when I was an Evangelical teenager, End Times prophecy was one of my autistic special interests. But the End Times prophecy hacks who I thought of as experts didn't have a clear answer for what was to become of the Jews. God made a covenant with Abraham that his descendants would always be the chosen people, and though Christ was the true fulfillment of that covenant (in Christian doctrine generally, not just Evangelicalism), God wouldn't break his promises, would he?

I remember getting the vague impression that, at the Last Judgement after the Rapture, the Jews would rise from the grave with the rest of humanity and spontaneously recognise that Jesus had been their Messiah all along, whereupon those who accepted him would be welcomed with the Christians into the Kingdom of Heaven and those who did not would be consigned to the Lake of Fire with the rest of the unrepentant. But I stress that this was not an agreed-upon Evangelical doctrine.

Like the Bible itself, End Times prophecy (or "eschatology") is found in other branches of Christianity as well, but Evangelicalism makes more of it than others. Indeed to many Evangelicals the Bible is primarily a book about the End Times, and the End Times are (as they have been for centuries) even now upon us. Every war involving Russia or a Middle Eastern country is Gog and Magog. Every natural disaster is the beginning of the seven seals of Revelation.

The End Times are critical to the Evangelical worldview; they are the culmination of God's plan to clean up sin from the world and return it to the perfect state in which he created it. Evangelicals think of history in terms of what God was doing at any given time, and that means mostly the chronology that can be reconstructed from the Tanakh, then the events of the New Testament, then nothing important happened until the Protestant Reformation, then the Gospel was preached across the world and the state of Israel was re-established, and then some day soon, probably tomorrow, Jesus will take up his faithful to Heaven, then there will be seven years of suffering on Earth and then Jesus will come back and rule for a thousand years, after which Satan will try and break out of Hell one last time and Jesus will beat him and rule forever afterwards.

(The Crusades? The Inquisition? Persecution of Jews? Those were people doing bad things to other people and therefore, by definition, Not Real Christians and nothing to do with God and how dare you even think of such a connection. Man, the parallels to internet leftism just pile up.)

Now the Tanakh is the story of Israel, the Gospels take place entirely in what is today Israel, and many of the texts that Evangelicals read as End Times prophecies focus on Israel. Clearly Israel is important to God. Therefore, it has to be important to everyone who follows God.

The 24th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew is a key text here. Matthew 24 is a description of Titus's sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE, written during that event (as we know because the author thought the world was about to end), and backdated to put in Jesus' mouth as a prophecy. And to highlight the timing, the writer has Jesus say Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (verse 34).

Now quite a lot of generations have in fact passed since that time, and so some other writer came along in the following century or two and added But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only (verse 36), to explain how Jesus came to get it wrong.

But Evangelicals are always on the lookout for signs that prove the End really is going to happen in our lifetimes, no really this time, this scripture here that no-one ever read this meaning into before proves it. And they've seized on Matthew 24:34 and taken it to mean "The whole fulfillment of End Times prophecy will happen in one generation's lifetime." And of course that has to mean our lifetime, because the process has already started.

Now there are Tanakh verses where God promises to return his people to their land and never scatter them again. Past generations of Christians have appropriated these passages to themselves as they do with so many others. Back during the British Mandate they were used by British-Israelites to bolster their claim to be descended from the Lost Tribes (since obviously God was on Britain's side in everything, and if he wasn't then even he couldn't oust the British Army).

But in 1948 suddenly the people of Israel really did return to the land of Israel. Since Israel is God's country, only God could have done this. It has to be a fulfillment of prophecy; the End Times have begun.

Presumably, when the very last person who was alive in 1948 dies in a few decades' time, Evangelicals will find another piece of scriptural evidence to show that no actually now Jesus is going to come back in our lifetime, and on it will go.

In summary: the modern state of Israel must be God's will because that's the best proof Evangelicals have that they will see the return of Jesus.

[idonthavealabel]

Before the british, the ottomans, who were Turkish, colonised, they’re not indigenous to the Levant so i don’t personally understand the overarching pro Palestine narrative that only wants to acknowledge everything after the Brits.

Jews are indigenous to the land, history and archaeology has proved this.

They returned back to the land they’re indigenous to when given an opportunity by the British. There shouldn’t be an issue with that, the only thing that should be up for debate is the way they handle things.

Palestinians are Arabs, Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant. They’re indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. Really think about how groups outside of the Arabian peninsula came to be recognised as Arab, present-day.

North Africans and levantines are “Arabised”, not Arab. During the Islamic conquests they were forced, by the sword,to convert to Islam and to forsake their ethnicity and culture and to adopt the Arab culture.

Every inch of the Middle East is unified by the Arab identity and Islam, because of Arab Islamic, colonisation. Arabs/muslims colonised the holy land from previous colonisers, they’re not an “indigenous” population.

Arabs, Arabic, nor Islam are native to any inch of the Levant.

This war is overwhelmingly religious.

Islam’s main objective is to proselytise and gain believers, a massive part of that is establishing land. Which they have done in many parts of the world, including the regions I’ve recently mentioned. Their intolerant attitudes towards those outside Islam are flagrant, throughout history and present. So, obviously when they colonised the land, they didn’t feel like sharing.

There’s a pro Palestine narrative that before the British, under Ottoman rule was peak, “Jews and Arabs are besties now”. This is a lie. They lived in a state of dhimmitude. Search “Maimonides dhimmi” “Jews dhimmi” and you’ll find more info.

There were hundreds of thousands of Jews scattered across the Middle East, If the attitudes towards Jews or any other ethnicity or religion were relatively peaceful, where are the thriving communities of non Arab Muslims, in the Middle East? Nowhere. Because Muslims are violent and intolerant and they believe they should be the only relevant ones.

I’m going to be very honest with you right now, aside from horrific deaths and the ways in which Israel stokes the war, this issues root is religion.

Muslims are pissed because they colonised the Middle East and North Africa, establishing their religion and unifying under the Arab culture, and this one piece of land that holds recent significance to them, is something they lost.

Israel speaks Hebrew, not Arabic. Israelis are overwhelmingly Jewish, not Arab. And Judaism is upheld, not Islam.

Due to their intolerance, they cannot digest the fact that Jews authored the bible, they’re the main characters in their book and all of the scriptures and prophets and the God of the bible has been made apparent to them *through* Jews. They are the beginning and end of the scriptures their Jewish forefathers wrote and that intrinsic part of history makes the entire Islamic existence look puny.

It’s kind of difficult to spread the narrative that Islam is the one true religion, that never needed any other legs to stand on when you’re staring a Jew in the face and the historical reality is staring right back at you, confidently.

[mariacallous]

This article initially appeared in My Jewish Learning’s Shabbat newsletter Recharge. To sign up to receive Recharge each week in your inbox, click here.

As the only child of a Jewish father and mother who had converted to Judaism before I was born, our annual family trips to visit my Italian and Irish Catholic relatives for Christmas were among the highlights of my year.

Every December, my aunt and uncle’s modest home just off the New Jersey Turnpike would fill to bursting with aunts, uncles and cousins. I remember the warmth in the house, the chatter of the grown ups discussing politics and books they had recently read, or more often simply enjoying one another’s company while they drank beer and watched football. These Christmas celebrations were a staple of my childhood and shaped my Jewish identity in ways I didn’t fully understand at the time.

From the moment we arrived, I couldn’t wait to dive in and help create the Christmas magic. Even before I was old enough to handle the oven on my own, I would tie on an apron and join my mom and aunt in rolling out cookie dough while my uncle prepared the cornish hens and a robust pasta sauce.

Meanwhile, my older cousins would fry smelts and all kinds of other fish in preparation for the Christmas Eve meal. As the food simmered, I would begin my special assignment: decorating the Christmas tree. Retrieving the ornaments collected over many years and several generations from their dusty attic boxes, I carefully hung each one, arranging twinkly lights until they looked just right.

I relished these rituals and took them on with pride. Rather than religious acts in service of a different deity, these Christmas preparations were acts of love done in service of my family.

As I got older, I became more dedicated to Jewish ritual observance. One winter when Christmas and Hanukkah overlapped, as it does this year, my extended family had the opportunity to offer a similar love back to me. When the time came for candle lighting, I got out the Hanukkah menorah we had brought from home intending to light it just with my parents. But when the rest of the family heard what was happening, they all wanted to join. As I kindled the flames and recited the blessings, I got to explain what this ritual was and what it meant to me.

Being witnessed by my non-Jewish family made me feel strong and confident in my tradition, excited for a chance to share what mattered to me with those I love. I’ll never forget the image of the candles aglow on their dining room table beneath a picture of the pope, the Christmas lights twinkling in the background. While this could have been an experience of dissonance or confusion, instead it was one of clarity and connection — one that made me feel confirmed in my Judaism and grateful for the way these traditions could live side by side.

Growing up in a predominantly non-Jewish community, I felt a tension between my Jewish upbringing and the overwhelming presence of Christmas in the world around me. The ubiquity of Christmas-themed activities at school, the red and green decorations everywhere, the carols that filled shopping malls and were the core of our elementary school holiday music concert — these cultural markers of a Christian-majority society were ever present.

But when I stepped into my aunt and uncle’s home during the holiday season, something profound happened. I felt the value of being in community with people who were different from me — people who didn’t share my faith or traditions, but whose warmth, generosity, and celebration of life created an environment where differences didn’t divide us — they enriched us.

Sharing our traditions with those we love, and experiencing theirs, is a powerful way of fostering appreciation, empathy and respect and of deepening connection across difference. Whether it’s Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Diwali, Solstice, the Feast of Saint Lucia or Las Posadas, the winter holidays offer us an opportunity to come together with friends and family of different faiths and share in the collective experience of celebration, marking time and creating warmth at the coldest time of year when pulling inward to our own groups might feel more intuitive.

My trips to New Jersey were about more than just a holiday tradition. They were about feeling close to those I love across cultural and religious divides, about celebrating holidays together as a way to celebrate our differences, and about learning that these differences need not diminish us. Instead, like the glow of the Hanukkah candles and the twinkling Christmas tree, they bring more light into the world.

[gladiusveritatis]

I was raised by an orthodox dad and a jewish mom so I do know a fair bit about this matter, actually 👀 and jesus-ified is not the right word, what i meant is that he's treated as a bit of a messianic figure by albert in part 1, and the main messianic figure in christianity is obviously none other than jesus, who was jewish! And william's "plan" to create a "better world" did sound like tikkun olam taken to extremes. As i said it's just a theory in reference to the post you made because I liked some of the points you made and wanted to engage in conversation with you. Don't take it too seriously :)

I see… It’s probably because of the moments where I spoke about Albert and William and how the two of them perceive faith. This is a very intriguing topic for me, and I plan to write about it in detail.

To begin, I want to say that I draw a clear distinction between Faith and Religion because I disagree with many teachings in religious texts. To me, these texts represent a deliberate lie, created to control the masses. For me, God is the Absolute, present everywhere. God has no gender, no name, and no religion—because humans are incapable of adequately describing the Absolute. Each person, including yourself, should adhere to the golden rule of sola scriptura—only you can interpret the Bible and the divine for yourself, not someone else.

So why did I say that William carries within him a faith in the human mind? Because through his actions, he forces people around him to reflect on what’s happening. To think about their lives, their deeds, and their decisions.

Jesus, to me, is the Perfect Man—a representation of what the Son of God should be. Therefore, William cannot, by default, fully embody his symbolism. The words Albert described, "He did not fear his words before the eyes of God," reflect the power of William's speech and Albert's faith. Jesus never stayed in a temple and condemned such practices; there is no divine presence in any house built by man—God resides solely in the soul. William understood that people always need something to follow. For William, it was about igniting awareness in their minds first, and only then purifying their hearts. At first, they reject absurdity, but later, they’re willing to follow someone whose words carry the same absurdity. William understood this perfectly—how easily human consciousness can be overturned.

He was a man respected since childhood, yet he turned to crime to demonstrate how quickly the image of someone people deeply believe in can be destroyed before their eyes: a professor, a young genius, a kind, responsive, and charming young man, proclaimed a murderer. Before embodying something divine, he represents humanity’s need to label everything as something extraordinary. It’s no coincidence that William is branded a "genius!" from the very beginning of the story, even though he himself understood that he was merely a well-read and thoughtful person. People constantly seek confirmation that the exceptional figure before them is not an ordinary human like themselves.

As for Albert, at that moment, all his thoughts about William aligned. In William, he found his own courage because Albert reflected his fear of action. Even the mere thought of such things consumed him from within—until William freed him from those shackles.

Regarding Judaism, it is more than just a religion; it represents the root of all European culture. Without Kabbalah, there would have been no medieval witchcraft, as pagan sorcery was somewhat different.

To begin with, let’s discuss Yahweh – an ancient Hebrew term meaning "Lord" or "Eternity." As Jews are forbidden to pronounce the name of God, they replaced it in their texts with the word "Adonai," which now means "Lord." Now regarding the name of Jesus – his actual name was "Yeshua," meaning "Yahweh speaks." The term "Christ" is a Greek word meaning "Messiah," which was added to his name after his death. The real name of Mary was "Miryam," though in the region where they lived, it was pronounced as "Mariam." The popular word "Hallelujah" means "Praise Yahweh," as "Halle" means to exalt, and "Yah" refers to Yahweh.

The name Yahweh originates from the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Old Testament. In our traditional translation, we find the part where Moses says, "I will go to the children of Israel and tell them that the God of your fathers has sent me, and they will ask me, ‘What is his name?’" But is this logical, given that we are not permitted to utter his name? And why give a name to God, if the world is ruled by one single, nameless God? Later in the book, God replies to Moses, "I am who I am," though in ancient Hebrew, it translates to "I will be who I will be." Translations differ from this point, but it marks the birth of the word "Yahweh." Some continued to call him Elohim, others El. I should add that the word "Elohim" means "mighty ones" – it is plural! "El," meaning "we," leads to Yahweh speaking of himself in the plural form numerous times. This suggests that Yahweh is not a god but a multitude, while God is singular and unique. The only figure who consistently speaks of himself in the plural is Satan. In ancient times, Yahweh was depicted as a bull. This leads to a contradiction – Yahweh himself created the Devil. There are four female demonic figures, one of whom is Lilith. At this point, two demonic figures are mentioned, who imparted their knowledge to Solomon. According to Ugaritic legends of Yama, Yahweh had a brother named Baal. Both were sons of El, and Baal later became a common noun denoting entities.

That’s precisely why, based on all of this, it’s easy to conclude that people often struggle to accept the humanity within another human being. Thus, William, who didn’t truly die but simply continued to live while enduring the torment of his soul, embodies the duality of human nature. He represents both an attempt by people to justify their fear of taking action and an excuse for their inaction.

[tiktoks-for-tired-tots]

Hi I saw your post about Jewish and to answer your question, I think the way you have it is totally fine, but I wanted to give you some more information so that you can make a more informed decision I guess. A kippah is simply something that fulfills a Jewish law to cover ones head (specifically when praying but some Jews wear them all the time for other reasons I won't get into) so technically a halo would technically not work as a kippah because of the hole in the middle and also the floating/not technically being on the head. So I think the halo works really well as a nod to a kippah, but trying to claim it is a kippah (which you didn't so) wouldn't work. If you did want it to be a real kippah here's an idea (though I'm not sure how it would work artistically): the work halo comes from the Hebrew word "hila” which can be translated as an emanation of light, so if you want to have like a light kippah that sort of projects a halo (like a circle with a ring around it) I think that would also be cool because halos are also often depicted this way. Also I looked at some of the replies to see what others are saying and one of them was from someone trying to be woke telling you that you are depicting a Jewish character as a Christian angel which is not true. While it is true that the most common/famous Jewish angels are not depicted this way, in Judaism there are 10 different ranks/types of angels. I believe (though I can't say for sure about all of them) Cherubs, Hashmallim, Bene Elohim, Ishim, and Malakim are often depicted in a humanoid form (though some like the Malakim can have many different forms of shapes). Sorry for the info dump, but I hope this helps and to reiterate I think the way you have it is fine.

omg thank u so much for the info!!! thats rlly good information, and thank you for presenting it in such a clear way. And also for clarifying the angel point, as I wasn't certain on that after it was pointed out. As you said I don't intend the halo to be a 'real' kippah at all, and thank you for your support! This is the kind of cultural info dump that i adore, feel free to message me with more info if youd like!

[thegreatdeprussian]

what's philippines' relationship with faith?

Yup, I have hwspirilovebot for seatalia but that's alright! I can answer asks here too

And this news right here sums up Filipino faith:

Okay but jokes aside, Piri is definitely religious and superstitious. Spiritual? Hmmm. He will get there one day. Besides, how Piri's relationship with faith is viewed depends on his age. Here's an oversimplified timeline of what religions dominated the PH archipelago through the centuries:

Ancient: Animism

800s: Buddhism and Hinduism

1300s: Islam

1500s: Christianity

Modern: Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism from Chinese and Indian immigrants, Judaism from Jewish refugees, more Christian denominations, etc.

Some headcanon that Piri is a representation of a precolonial chiefdom, for example, if he was Sugbu (modern day Cebu), he would be practicing a combination of Animism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, before being baptised as a Roman Catholic in the 1500s. If he was Maynila, then it would be the aforementioned 3 with Islam (but he still ate pork in that era, lmao). Some also headcanon that Piri was born in 1521 when Magellan gifted Rajah Humabon with the Santo Niño upon the latter's baptism, and in that case, his relationship with faith will also be different (@sweaty-clouds can expound on this better than I do 🤧)

I view that Piri was born due to the intramarriages and intramigration within the archipelago that came to be known as the Philippines. I have no specific date yet, but it's sometime in the 1300s or earlier.

There are tons of belief systems in the country, different set of Deities and Anitos for every ethnolinguistic group and indigenous group. Some are remembered, many are forgotten. Not all are worshipped as the dominant religions are monotheistic.

The Philippines is a Roman Catholic-dominant (but under the constitution, the church and the state are separate, and you are free to practice your religion), and my Piri practiced it under Spanish colonization until today. Discrimination against indigenous people and Muslims are rampant, and Christian denominations fight each other on who worships God better and who goes to Heaven (spoilers: none of you)

Now, faith.

Faith in Tagalog has many words but the one I hear the most in churches is "sampalataya" which came from the Sanskrit word, sampratyaya (सम्प्रत्यय). We often use Diyos but when reading folklores, you will regularly come across the word Bathala which also came from Sanskrit: Batthara (भट्टार). Our fairies, Diwata, came from Sanskrit as well: Devata (देवता). Despite the dominance of Catholic faith, the Hindu-Buddhist roots are still present. Other precolonial anitist beliefs such as dancing the Obando Fertility Rites are also still practiced. We politely say excuse me (tabi-tabi po) when hiking in forests in the belief that it is the realm of spiritual entities or that the environment itself has spirits.

My version of Piri grew up practicing many belief systems, depending on which personification was his assigned guardian, but if you want to survive, you have to assimilate to the dominant culture. He was definitely a sacristan, until he became a revolutionary. He still prays, attends the mass, volunteers in the church, and participates in holy days and feasts for almost every saint today.

He doesn't sweep the floor at night as it sweeps away luck, and maybe it's just a coincidence that the Goddess Lakshmi will walk out of your house if you sweep your place after sunset. He wears an agimat or anting-anting (amulet) and despite having a medical degree, he still carries a lana (a concoction of oil and herbs to ward off evil entities). He can exorcise demons and drive away tiktik (that baby-eating monster targetting pregnant women) too. Perhaps he has an altar in his house that has both the crucifix and a Buddha statue. Oh, and he still gives babies that red and black beaded bracelet and the red pouch for protection. Pwera Usog or Pwera Buyag! (Fuera Curse, to repel a hex)

Piri's not agnostic, but he sure rolls his eyes during homilies when the priests shuns people who believes in precolonial or pagan beliefs, and he definitely cringes at fuccboys who have John 3:16 in their bio.

What else did I miss? Piri's Catholic guilt? The way my dad did the sign of the cross in front of a giant Buddha statue when we went to Thailand? or one of my friends visiting my other friend's condo and saying "Yup. This is bad Fung Shui", but there's a rosary on his doorknob so it balances out

There are tons of mythological creatures too, and the babaylan who was demonized and now referred to as a mangkukulam, but my brain is just not braining at the moment and I feel like I answered more about religion rather than faith but I still hope this still answers your question, anon.

TLDR: Folk Christianity, but this needs more thoughts from Filipinos of other religions

[female-malice]

Curious about your opinion on if Israel's actions throughout its history with Palestine and its current trajectory are a net positive for Jewish people? I'm concerned about rising anti-semitism and especially growing holocaust denial– but am also extremely disturbed by the Israeli's ethno-nationalist and genocidal rhetoric, like dehumanization of Palestinians, from both the Israeli state and regular Israelis. Ex, the Israeli real estate company posting about new beach houses in Gaza. I feel my generation (early z late millenial) does not support Israel, and this is related to the decreasing sympathy for Jews' grievances because Israel (and many Jews) conflate Israel and Judaism in every way.

I'm wondering about the long-term utility of that conflation for Jewish people in general. Everything about justice for Palestinians aside for a moment. I worry that Israel's actions are inciting hatred against Jews–Jewish people who might not support Israel, who might be anti-Zionist– and that this is leading towards increased hatred for Jews everywhere, only entrenching Israel as the only safe haven and entrenching the anti-semitic rhetoric that Jewish people "don't belong here" if there is a Jewish state.

What are Jewish people's opinions on Israel as it loses international support, and the consequences for Jewish people who are non-Israeli and non-Zionist? I respect your opinion on gender politics and have valued your perspectives on the Israel-Hamas conflict so far. I apologize if any of this is offensive - genuinely trying to understand Israel from the Jewish and Zionist perspectives and see if this train of thought holds any water.

I'm not Jewish.

Women are not responsible for male expressions of misogyny. Gays are not responsible for the homophobia exhibited by straight people. Jews, regardless of their political beliefs, are not responsible for the antisemitism gentiles carry with them. Not one Jew in history has ever created antisemitism in one gentile. The antisemitism is already there to begin with. Gentiles just look for socially acceptable ways to express it.

So where does all this antisemitism come from and why does each generation revive it? Antisemitism is baked into the foundation of Christian cultures and Muslim cultures. There can be no Christianity or Islam without supersession. And that supersession is incomplete as long as the Jewish tribe remains connected to their history and culture.

But Gen Z isn't very religious. So how is all this supersession stuff relevant? Well, it really doesn't matter if you identify as religious or not. Culture is culture. If you're secular with cultural ties to Christianity or Islam, you know less about supersession than a religious person. So you are more likely to pass along antisemitism without even realizing it.

Supersession isn't taught in schools unless you're taking advanced religious studies courses. I took a global religion course in college and it didn't teach us anything about Abrahamic supersession. It presented the three Abrahamic religions as the "people of the book." But it didn't go into detail about how exactly all three of them could possibly be of the same book. Now I know that's a glaring omission. But back then, I didn't realize what was missing from the course.

Religious people might be more aware of the history of supersession. Some people learn that supersession is a foundation of their religion and want to continue the project. For them, antisemitism is logical. But other people learn that supersession is a foundation of their religion and want to close that chapter in history. They want to cultivate a new relationship with the Jewish people based on recognition, respect, and reconciliation. This path raises a lot of difficult questions about Christian and Muslim identity. But some religious people are interested in taking on those difficult questions. This is why some studious Christians and Muslims are better Jewish allies than secular Western college students.

I'm one of those secular Westerners born in a Christian culture with Christian grandparents. But the supersession project is part of my family history. My surname is a string of letters invented by a Jewish family while migrating 200 years ago. When they arrived at their Western European destination, they changed their surname to sound less Jewish. And then they converted to Christianity.

[sissa-arrows]

While you are of course correct that the "Jewish Golden Age of Spain" was under Muslim rule, that isn't to say that all of Muslim rule in spain *was* the Golden Age.

In fact, most people give it as 910-1060 (+/- 50 years) when Muslim rule began in 700 (ish) and ended in 13-1400 (ish).

During those years was the Granada massacre, and Maimondes (probably one of the greatest Jewish scholars) was forced to flee the area lest he be forced to convert.

I didn’t say it was during all the period? When the regime change happened Jews were targeted and it’s fucked up but once the new regime settled they went back to having freedom of religion and could get back to Judaism.

They weren’t flourishing as much (neither were the Muslims albeit on a smaller scale) but Al Andalus was still a major pole of Jewish culture even after the Golden Age. North Africa was ruled by the same dynasty and that’s still where a lot of Jewish people chose to flee when Christian Europe was also an option showing that it wasn’t a generalized persecution but only during the Dynasty change in a specific area which was filled with internal fighting.

Again it doesn’t justify what happened in Granada at all but if one want to be historically accurate presenting all of Al Andalus as oppressive and horrible and presenting the Reconquista as some sort of rightful amazing thing all while pretending to care about Jews is fucked up. It’s not only fucked up it’s actually Islamophobic and just plainly racist as fuck because it paints Arabs as savages and whitewashes the Reconquista. Saying “while the Golden Age was during Al Andalus, some parts of it were not good at all and Jews were persecuted and the Reconquista didn’t help they just persecuted Jews even more” is accurate. Saying “Al Andalus was horrible Arab terrorism persecuting Jews and the Reconquista was good” is not only inaccurate it fits the Zionist tendency to whitewash European antisemitism and put the blame on Muslims or more precisely on Arabs. They even do it with the holocaust.

The point of my post was to show that tendency. Zionists prefer for Jewish people to be persecuted by white Christians than living in relative peace with Arabs or Muslims. Denying that it’s how Zionists see it shows a huge racist bias against Arabs and Muslims.